Talk:UEFA Euro 2008

UEFA Euro 2008

Fußball-Europameisterschaft 2008 Template:De icon Championnat d'Europe de football 2008 Template:Fr icon Campionato europeo di calcio 2008 Template:It icon Campiunadi d'Europa da ballape 2008 Template:Rm icon'
File:UEFA EURO 2008 New Logo.svg UEFA Euro 2008 official logo
Tournament details
Host countries	Austria Switzerland
Dates	7 June – 29 June
Teams	16
Venue(s)	8 (in 8 host cities)
Final positions
Champions	Spain (2nd title)
Runners-up	Germany
Third place	Russia Turkey
Tournament statistics
Matches played	31
Goals scored	77 (2.48 per match)
Attendance	1,140,902 (36,803 per match)
Top scorer(s)	David Villa (4 goals)
Best player(s)	Xavi

Third Place

After the European Championship in 1980 Italy, UEFA decided that BOTH semi-finalists will be given Bronze medals without any match for thirdship place. In this context, UEFA gave Euro 2008 Championship Bronze medal to Russia and Turkey. Those who say that Russia and Turkey shouldnot be listed are missing the fact that UEFA gave Euro 2008 Championship Bronze medal to Russia and Turkey. 78.168.75.158 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

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)

Which song is played after each scored goal? Libido (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like a song called "Samba e Gol", but I could be wrong. – PeeJay 21:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Bellini - Samba De Janeiro Youtube of it ← chandler 05:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Though in this video it's called Gol instead MySpace, and they sing Gol instead of Janeiro... don't know which one is the original or so... Just think it was created for the World Cup in france 98 ← chandler 05:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please add this to the "Music" section? --141.3.48.218 (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What for? It's just incidental music. Unlike the songs recorded by Shaggy and Enrique Iglesias, "Samba De Janeiro" and "Seven Nation Army" were not recorded specifically for the tournament and hence they have no special significance to the tournament. – PeeJay 08:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

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." Ashleyriot uk (talk) 07:05, 18 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)

Who scored?

I think you should remake this article to look just like the others Euro articles. It has no sense to make different articles for each Group. Think about it! Hadrianos1990 (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we should remake the other Euro articles to look like this one. What's the point in having just one article covering four groups? – PeeJay 07:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, the goal should be to expand all European Championship (and World Cup) articles rather than contract them — chandler — 07:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, articles should not be split without a good reason. user:Dorftrottel  10:49, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The reason being that, to give each European Championship article the same level of detail, there would be too much content to include in just one article, hence the split. – PeeJay 10:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding potential penalty shootout to separate Italy and France

I read that it might be possible for both sides to have to go through penalty shootout just to determine the 3rd and 4th placing, assuming Romania wins or draws, since Italy's and France's goal difference are also the same. Anyone read the same thing? Kiwi8 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

According to a UEFA statement on goal.com, there will not be a penalty shootout between Italy and France. --Scottmsg (talk) 17:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I also read that here. No penalties. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 17:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Well it's very poorly stated "There is no way that France and Italy can go to a penalty shoot-out," a spokesman told BBC Sport." The fact that a draw + Romania draw/win WOULD take France Italy to pens... Now if UEFA decides that you don't shoot pens for third place, that's one thing... but the statement is just wrong and, I feel that it indicates that if Romania had been certain in 4th place and this match was for 2nd place instead of 3rd, no pen. would have been shot... Anyone get the same feel for that statement? — chandler — 17:45, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Tie braking criteria

5 In cases where exactly two teams are equal in all previously listed critera and play one another to a draw in their final group match, and one or both teams could qualify for the next round,[14] kicks from the penalty mark will be conducted in lieu of the remaining criteria; --This criterion for penalty kicks is not met, so continue with next --

6 Coefficient from the qualifying competitions for the 2006 FIFA World Cup and 2006/08 UEFA European Football Championship (points obtained divided by the number of matches played);

7 Fair play conduct of the teams in the group stage;

8 Drawing of lots. Arnoutf (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what the pdf says. Quoted from the pdf.

7.08 If two teams which have the same number of points, the same number of

goals scored and conceded play their last group match against each other

and are still equal at the end of that match, the ranking of the two teams in

question will be determined by kicks from the penalty mark, provided no

other teams within the group have the same number of points on completion

of all group matches. Should more than two teams have the same number of

points, the criteria listed under paragraph 7.07 a) to h) will apply.

And nowhere does it specify "if one or both teams could qualify... — chandler — 18:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite frankly, who cares at this point!!! The matches are just about to start, let's just see what happens :) Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 18:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Why has the information (and source) about penalty kicks only if the rankings have an effect (i.e. are for 1/2nd or 2/3rd) been removed? Although it's not clear in the rules, UEFA have officially clarified this to be the case, and anyway it's intuitive: since a knockout game "won" on penalties is treated as a draw, with the penalties to decide who plays next round, they're not appropriate for when neither team qualifies for the next round. I think a paragraph below the rules mentioning the late clarification is needed? 91.110.96.117 (talk) 01:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

The UEFA statement was simply that "there is no way that France and Italy can go to a penalty shoot-out". However, their regulations explicitly stated that "a penalty shoot-out would only be used to determine which team qualifies when two sides finish level on points and cannot be separated by goals scored". The official regulation reads: "If two teams which have the same number of points, the same number of goals scored and conceded, play their last group match against each other and are still equal at the end of that match, the ranking of the two teams in question will be determined by kicks from the penalty mark, provided no other teams within the group have the same number of points on completion of all group matches". Therefore, if Romania had avoided defeat to the Netherlands and France and Italy had played to a draw, France and Italy should have played a penalty shootout. Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2008/italy/7457863.stm – PeeJay 08:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse

The page was replaced with a page with the words "HAGGER? " repeated. I undid it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.160.17 (talk) 21:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you want a medal or something? Some of us revert vandalism all day every day (not me, but some do), so I'll say well done to you this once, but if you're looking for praise, go write a novel. – PeeJay 21:24, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, what the fuck is going on with the article's semi-protection? Has it expired? – PeeJay 21:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it has expired. I have semi-protected the article for one month now, it should be fine. --Tone 21:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff, I was to return to RFPP but thought it was too soon after the last sprot. user:Dorftrottel  08:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

flagicon overkill

I'd like to turn the flagicon overkill down just a notch, e.g. by reformatting at least the group match tables:

7 June 2008
Switzerland	0 – 1	Czech Republic	St. Jakob-Park, Basel
Portugal	2 – 0	Turkey	Stade de Genève, Geneva
11 June 2008
Czech Republic	1 – 3	Portugal	Stade de Genève, Geneva
Switzerland	1 – 2	Turkey	St. Jakob-Park, Basel
15 June 2008
Switzerland	2 – 0	Portugal	St. Jakob-Park, Basel
Turkey	3 – 2	Czech Republic	Stade de Genève, Geneva

Yes, (no,) comments? user:Dorftrottel  21:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In theory, per WP:FLAG, you're probably right, but it makes the info look terribly drab. – PeeJay 21:13, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a good idea. Imagine 2-3 screens of white and black..it really loses "attraction" and interest by the reader. And plus with flag one can immediately "capture" the situation better...if that makes any sense. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe see both your point, but I've thought about that aspect before and imho there is so much color, it actually starts to distract from the very facts the page should present. Just my opinion though, that's why I asked for input. user:Dorftrottel  08:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, I wouldn't e.g. argue for removing the icons in the goalscorers list, because there they actually serve a purpose. But it's getting too much, and a flagicon right next to the name of the country is redundant and dumbs down the article. user:Dorftrottel  22:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I see no problem with having flags next to the countries. I think a flag goes well with a country name, and reinforces the idea of the country in the reader's mind. Plus, as stated, too much black-and-white is too plain. I like to be able to find Switzerland's results by looking for their red flag with a white cross.  PN57  22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Exactly my point. This is a place for people to read about stuff, not look at a sea of colorful, eye-cancer inducing flagicons. user:Dorftrottel  23:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. The point of WP is for people to be able to find information and the flagicons allow instant recognition of teams and the information about them, thus serving the purpose of the project in a far better way than an article devoid of flagicons. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. user:Dorftrottel  18:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Dorftrottel on this one. We don't use flags to decorate our articles. --John (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not about decoration. It is about the ease of finding/recognizing/obtaining information. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

For that, we are better to use words. --John (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ever hear of the expression "A picture is worth a thousand words?" There's no reason we cannot use both to convey information in the most effective manner possible. In fact, we're compelled to. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

A flag is not a picture but a symbol. We are most definitely not compelled to use a flag every time we mention a country. See WP:MOSFLAG for more info. --John (talk) 20:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Who ever said anything about "every time"? We're only talking about when the country is shown in a match or in list form. In the case of the list of goalscorers, it would be inappropriate (in my opinion) to put the country's name next to the player's name, when a flagicon serves the same job but in less space and with a little more colour. Now, I'm not saying that decoration is the primary reason for putting the flagicons in, but it's definitely an added bonus. – PeeJay 20:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I think you've "missed the forrest for the trees." -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• To summarise this thread: No arguments for flagicons next to the countries' names, instead we have WP:MOSFLAG#Help the reader rather than decorate. Can we just do this then? Pretty please? user:Dorftrottel  11:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

One easy reason why we should use flags might be its easier for ppl who come here to read but dont know english... For example, Im able to go to it:Campionato europeo di calcio 2008 and see just be looking at the flags which teams there are, even if I dont understand italian. — chandler — 11:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that does not qualify as an argument at all. This is the English language Wikipedia. user:Dorftrottel  12:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, ofc it qualifies as an argument... This is the biggest WP, and its not only ppl from English speaking countries who read or contribute here. And there's no consensus for removing these flags that I've seen, they are on ALL football articles more or less, The European championships the world cups the copa americas etc... what would {{fb}} and {{fb-rt}} be for if not to use in situations like these. — chandler — 12:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha, of course it is not an argument at all, please stop talking rubbish. user:Dorftrottel  17:04, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of WP is to effectively communicate accurate, verifiable information. If flagicons do this, then we should use them. I also agree that it helps communicate to the countless individuals who inevitably end up on this page given the fact that this is the largest, best version of WP and none of the competitors speak English as a first language. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:32, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Trivia section?

Are trivia sections added after the tournament is over or could we build one up now? The first trivia I could think of is Its the first second round Russia has reached (excluding USSR records). Which goes hand in hand with Sweden being eliminated from the Group stage for the first time since Euro 2000, though this Sweden trivia might not be as notable as the Russian one. — chandler — 05:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer it if we didn't have a trivia section at all. If we can work any trivia into the prose of the article, that's fine, but Wikipedia frowns on Trivia sections. – PeeJay 07:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Echo that. Trivia sections are horrible to maintain, attracting original research and other substandard editorial behaviour. user:Dorftrottel  08:09, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yellow cards

Does someone know, after what stage of the tournament the yellow cards of the players are erased? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.121.99.180 (talk • contribs)

After the quarter-finals. From UEFA.com, Yellow card directives (pdf). --Scottmsg (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

{{UEFA Euro 2008 finalists}}

Is it suppose to have the same looks {{2006 FIFA World Cup finalists}}? — chandler — 21:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, eventually. I was going to change it today, but I thought it looked pretty good with the way it showed which teams were in each group. However, I would like it to look like {{2006 FIFA World Cup finalists}} at the end of the tournament. – PeeJay 21:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want the groups intact you could do something like this... maybe with scores. (Results now are fictional.. but we all know its whats going to happen, hehe)

Template:Fb start |-

!style="background:#BFD7FF;"|

UEFA Euro 2008 finalists

Template:Fb inner start |- style="text-align:center;" | colspan=4 |Netherlands (2nd Title) |- style="text-align:center;" | colspan=4 |Croatia – Netherlands |- style="text-align:center;" | colspan=2 width="50%"|Germany – Croatia | colspan=2 width="50%"|Netherlands – Italy |- style="text-align:center;" |width="25%"|Portugal – Germany |width="25%"|Croatia – Turkey |width="25%"|Netherlands – Russia |width="25%"|Spain – Italy |- | colspan=4 |

---

|- style="text-align:center;" |width="25%"|Group A |width="25%"|Group B |width="25%"|Group C |width="25%"|Group D |- style="text-align:center;font-size:90%" |Czech Republic |Austria |France |Greece |- style="text-align:center;font-size:90%" |Portugal |Croatia |Italy |Russia |- style="text-align:center;font-size:90%" |Switzerland |Germany |Netherlands |Spain |- style="text-align:center;font-size:90%" |Turkey |Poland |Romania |Sweden Template:Fb inner end Template:Fb end

— chandler — 22:08, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• Would you mind discussing this here? user:Dorftrottel  22:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Well there are more ppl here do discuss with if I'm not mistaken? — chandler — 22:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem. The template should be discussed at the template talk page. But you're right, more people will be watching this page, so I've copied the discussion to the template talk. Now that people know, please resume discussion there. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Redundancy

The bracket under the "Knockout stage" section shows the exact same information as the subsections immediately below it (Quarter-finals, Semi-finals, Finals). Unless there are plans to add some prose to each of those subsections, they should be removed. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 15:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed the same and agree that either the 'tree' diagram or the QF/SF/F match entries below should be removed to reduce redundancy. user:Dorftrottel  15:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Neither of them are reduntant. The tree diagram shows a quick visual summary of the knockout stages and match entries show details such as scorers, locations and dates. This is standard format as done in just about all tournament pages. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:11, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Have to agree, there is nothing out of the ordinary here and each section provides specialized information, as said above. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

So do you guys think we should keep the scorers listed in the {{footballbox}}es in the knockout stage section? – PeeJay 16:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I do, yes. -- Grant.Alpaugh 16:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of interest, why? We don't include them for the group stage. – PeeJay 16:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I think they should be in both to be honest, as well as red and yellow cards. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

If we did include them for the group stage it would be ridiculously long, but I would support the principle if that weren't the case. The few extra details gives the reader basic info that they might well have come to the page to find in the first place, whereas the even more indepth detail is available in the specific knockout-round page if they want it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:12, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Can't say my heart wasn't in the right place though =D – PeeJay 19:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

To summarise, no 'actual arguments' have been brought to refute the simple truth that the tree diagram and the match entries contain identical information. Please argue which one you prefer, because one is going to removed. user:Dorftrottel  19:13, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, says who? If the community decides that both should stay, then both should stay. Anyway, now that the goalscorers, referees, attendances and match times are listed, the data in the bracket and the {{footballbox}}es are no longer identical. – PeeJay 19:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Haha. The bunch of more or less single-minded football fans here are hardly 'the community'. File an RfC and see for yourself. user:Dorftrottel  19:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Who do you think is more qualified to decide what goes into a football-related article? Members of WikiProject Football or the guys who monitor the RfC boards who think they know a lot about everything but actually don't? The WP:FOOTBALL members, obviously. – PeeJay 19:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL. The guys who monitor the RfC boards, of course. No offence, but the average editor here is a mouth-breathing idiot and I for one do not trust their judgement at all. People who slap flagicons wherever they can, embrace ridiculous redundancy, and update the live score of matches? A bunch of idiots, who should have exactly no say in anything related to editorial discretion. Damn Dunning-Kruger effect. user:Dorftrottel  19:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

At least we can read. "Nobody's disputed that they display identical information"? Try my first reply. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. user:Dorftrottel  19:49, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that over being an elitist, beaurocratic fuckwad any day. No offence, "of course," you douchebag. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:57, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What I think is even more hillarious is that you refer to a theory that more or less proves that the fact you think you are well equipped to handle this issue means nothing, other than, of course, that you don't know what you're talking about. The fact that you think you're superior to the "mouth-breathing [idiots]" who populate this project means that more likely than not, you, in fact, are one. The simple fact that you've twice replied to reasonable criticism with some form of "That's what I'm talking about," IMHO proves that you're not well enough equipped to even engage in this discussion in the first place. Kindly keep your opinions of yourself and your peers private, and stop trying to fix what is not broken. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Grant. Took the words right out of my mouth (which I sometimes use to breathe =P ). – PeeJay 20:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that the goal scorers and other information has been reinstated, the sections are not redundant. At the time I made the request, however, the only information provided in both the tree and the sections was the date of the match, the team names, and the score. As long as the extra information remains, I recant the request to remove the sections. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's my issue. If we're going to include goals (times and scorers), why can't we include cards (red and yellow)? Also, if we're going to include that info on the knockout rounds, why not in the group stage. My personal opinion is that if we're going to include any of that extra information we should include it for both the knockout rounds and the group stage, but I would understand if that made the article unreasonably long, and we relegated that information to the appropriate group or knockout round articles. But whatever the decision these inconsistencies need to be ironed out IMHO. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, my reasoning regarding the situation is that the knockout stage is usually far and away more notable than the group stage, hence why more information is included in the main article about the knockout stage than the group stage. As for including info on red and yellow cards, they don't really have that much impact on the final score (unless the red card was given early on in the game). I wouldn't be opposed to a big table of all the yellow and red cards awarded so far, but to include that info in the footballbox templates is a bit much IMO. – PeeJay 22:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, but the fact that Turkey got through with 3 more players missing out on the semis with yellow card accumulation means it will have a significant effect on the tournament, which is what this article is about. Either way, though, as I've said before, in the group stage/knockout round articles all of that information should be included no matter what as space isn't as much of an issue. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, the way the information is listed in the more specific articles, I think it is best to leave it out of the tournament article. Although I stick by my suggestion of a discipline section of the article, just like the scoring section. Maybe just a link to a newly created discipline article should be included in this one, though. I dunno. Maybe a good compromise would be including only players who have missed matches due to cards (yellow or red) on the main article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

One reason I've thought of about not having cards is just because it would be inconsistent with all the old articles if some articles include cards, but some don't when will you know if you stumble across a card-less match etc... Plus even if there'd be a change to include cards in all matches, I'm not sure you can find that information as easily as the goals. (for old matches escpecially) — chandler — 10:52, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Discipline

I think this might have been brought up before, but even so this seems an important omission: where is the record of discipline in the article? I mean especially the impact it has had/will have on Turkey's progress through the tournament. I see no explanation of when yellow card accumulation begins and ends, and what happens when you get red carded (1 or 2 match ban), etc. I think there was talk of adding it after the tournament, but surely we can get this done relatively quickly. Thoughts? -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean this? − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm thinking a link from the main article wouldn't be a bad idea, and including the list of players who missed matches due to accumulation wouldn't be a bad idea as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I've added a discipline section, and included a paragraph on disciplinary procedure (plus a ref). – PeeJay 22:42, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure about the two game suspension. Schweinsteiger (sp?) was only suspended for one game AFAIK. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah yeah, that's a good point. I couldn't remember any red cards other than Volkan's so it's a good thing you reminded me of Schweinsteiger's. – PeeJay 22:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Final Error

Why does the final say Angola vs Morocco? 86.45.94.227 (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL, welcome to wikipedia. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

InterWiki problem

Why does this article has double language links? like 2 French links, 2 Arabic, so are other languages. Is this a matter of a template that added them links? Mohamed Magdy (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a problem with how the table for Group A was added. The interwiki links from the Group A article were outside the noinclude range, so they were added to the main article along with the table. It should be fixed now. --Scottmsg (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

look in the article semi finals june 26 is misleading

how russia will play spain in semi finals?as far i know Italy is not yet eliminated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felisberto (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at an old version of the article. The vandalism has now been reverted. – PeeJay 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

re WP:NOT#NEWS and "live score updates"

I have clarified the section to emphasise that edits are supposed to be for future reference, i.e. that they stand the text of time. Updates do not qualify (what the score was at 23 minutes before half time is of no consequence to the final result, since it is only the score after full time - plus extra time and penalties if required - that determines the points value and goals for/against, etc.) Even where it is the 22nd minute goal of the game that decides it, this is only important at the end of the match. When reverting any such incorrect edits, please point the editor to this section and this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add this banner:

to the top of the page, as it has helped us with 2008 Major League Soccer season. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The prose of that template makes no sense in this situation and only confuses prospective editors. Removed. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very useful and should immediately be reinstated. 78.34.143.49 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be applicable in many situations, and until the knockout rounds started there were multiple games each day. This banner is applicable for leagues and tournaments, and if anyone is confused by the wording in the banner, then they probably shouldn't be editing this article in the first place, no? -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be applicable in many situations, but that does not mean that they are. This one, in particular, is not highly applicable to the Euro 2008 knockout stage, since there is only one match per game day now (and so editors can only really edit the results of one game). It also asks editors to update the whole page! Crazy. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The tournament had multiple games per day until the knockout rounds started, and if people were confused by that then they probably can't put their pants on in the morning, let alone access the internet. Updating the whole page means update the scorers and whatnot as well so that the page is as accurate as possible. The whole point is that people shouldn't feel like they have to rush to add inaccurate or misleading information that might not be verifiable. Goals are often reassigned or called back, and we don't need sixteen edits to the article per match adding inaccurate info, when one edit at the end of the last match will do just fine. We have enough problems reverting vandalism that we don't need a million good faith but inaccurate edits as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Although it is correct to say "The tournament had multiple games per day until the knockout rounds started", this template was not added until after the knockout rounds had started, so as a justification for the template, it is fundamentally flawed. I would prefer not to have in-match updates, but I gave in trying to revert them during the last World Cup. They are only really a problem when people update things like scorers' lists during the match, as this leads to a danger of counting their stats twice. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a crap? So what if someone wants to update the score of a football match. People do it for tennis during the grand slams, and they did it for basketball during the NCAA tournament. They will do it again for the Olympics. What possible problems could it cause Wikipedia? What damage does it do? If you really want to help Wikipedia, which you must think stopping this does, then fight vandalism or improve an article or help out a new person. This does nothing but cause headaches and arguments. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally...someone hits the nail on the head. Honestly, this ugly orange box gives the article a massive eyesore. Sure, Wikipedia may not be a news site, but who cares. Be bold and ignore it. I think it's great that I can come here and see the score as the match progresses. Honestly, it's a football match with what...maybe four yellow cards and five goals if we're lucky??? This isn't a basketball game where the page will be updated every two seconds. It's a football game with updates needed MAYBE every ten minutes. Give me a break, this is causing more problems then solving them. – Nurmsook! (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I kinda like the way it was updated so quickly. --Illythr (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CWY2190, so what if it is updated every 10 minutes?

The proposed template is ugly and does not really tell us anything. If someone wants to add it again please lets discuss it here first, it really does not help the article. I would rather see some updated live score rather than an eyesore at the top of the article for 90 minutes.

There are a lot of things to worry about, live football score is not one of them. FFMG (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side, I changed that bright orange template to something more subdued. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The template is used on a bunch of other articles, please don't change the color because it bothers you on this article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It bothers me on every article. Changing the colour of a template is not vandalism. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Goal music

What's the music that plays every time a goal is scored (even during penalty shootouts)? Could this be added to the article? Neıl 龱 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Samba? --Illythr (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's called "Samba de Janeiro", IIRC. However, I don't really think it's worth mentioning in the article. If it had been specifically recorded for the tournament, like the songs by Shaggy and Enrique Iglesias were, then maybe it should be mentioned, but it's really just an incidental piece, much like "Seven Nation Army" being used when the players walk out. – PeeJay 10:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was made for the 98 World Cup, though I'm not sure... just remember it from there at least — chandler — 10:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a song called "Samba E Gol" on the 1998 World Cup soundtrack album (Music Of The World Cup: Allez! Ola! Ole!), which used the same tune. – PeeJay 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that's the one they use now then? — chandler — 11:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Could be the same one, but I'm not sure. – PeeJay 11:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all - I don't see why this couldn't go in the article, though (ditto "Seven Nation Army") ... is it just PeeJay opposed to this? Neıl 龱 11:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand my position on the matter, these pieces of music are purely incidental to the tournament. Their use is just as background music, which is entirely irrelevant to an encyclopaedic article. – PeeJay 12:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One sentence would be relevant in the Music section, no? Neıl 龱 12:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's indeed Samba de Janeiro, and it's relevant information. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, you can't just wait for one person to come along who supports your argument and say "Oh yeah, that's a consensus, let's add the info to the article" and leave it at that! Furthermore, "Samba E Gol" is by Bellini, not "Samba de Janeiro". Finally, I fail to see how WP:DUE supports the inclusion of this info. Please explain. – PeeJay 11:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Samba e Gol!" was indeed written by Bellini. As was the 2008 remix, entitled "Samba de Janeiro". Your ownership of football articles has been noticed before, PeeJay. At present, you're the only editor who believes the information shouldn't be there. If anyone else is reading this, please chip in - should one line about the music used every time a goal is scored be in the article? I feel it should (after all, I came to this article to find that out in the first place). WP:DUE relates to ensuring an article correctly reflects a neutral point of view, and is irrelevant here. Neıl 龱 11:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you only came to this article to find out the name of the song; but in five, ten, twenty years, will anyone still care what music was played when a goal was scored? In the grand scheme of things, it's hardly relevant. – PeeJay 11:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neil. I don't see why goal music shouldn't be included. I consider myself a new Wikipedian and as such I haven't yet read all the manuals, but I can't see why information that could be useful for future readers shouldn't be included in the article - especially if it's something that only takes a referenced sentence or two to be mentioned. As for PeeJay's ownership of the article - he deleted my list of football boots manufacturers represented at the tournament saying it's nonsense, but at the same time he deleted the list of kit manufacturers which was also submitted a few days earlier by me and which nobody complained about. Granted - maybe the boots list was too trivial (even though it seemed interesting enough for a few sports newspapers to report), but honestly - I can't see why the tournament ball deserves mentioning, while kits don't. The same could be said for goal music. I'm not into edit wars that much, and if PeeJay thinks he's the authority on notability and encylopedic value of everything - then good for him, but IMO if a piece of information related to an existing article could be useful to the reader and if it's hard to find elsewhere, it shouldn't hurt to mention. And btw yeah - precisely because it may become relevant in the grand scheme of things 20 years from now, bits like that deserve to be included in the article. Perhaps in 100 years the goal music will be a major part of every tournament, performed and composed by 22th century Mozarts and Pavarottis. Perhaps somebody will want to look up Euro 2008 and see what was it like back then, and perhaps I'd like to find out who manufactured kits for the Euro 1988 Dutch team because I want to make my own replica kit. You get the picture. Timbouctou (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 remix? Video on YouTube — chandler — 11:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a link to a copyright violation and cannot be used as source. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

......... What it proves is that the remix is not from 2008 as it's been posted 2006 — chandler — 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

True, Bellini's "Samba De Janeiro" is from 1997. First, I thought this is the song that's played after the goals. I have never heard (about) "Samba E Gol". If the music is the same in both songs and the difference is only that they "sing" "Samba E Gol" instead of "Samba De Janeiro", then how do we decide which of the two is played? I personally can't make out the words in the song when they play it in the stadium. But if "Samba E Gol" has a different tune, then the song in question is certainly "Samba De Janeiro". Can anyone approve? --Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Samba e gol Ive heard is just the same but with gol instead of janerio.... Now which song they play I have no idea, is it even with words and not a just instrumental version?. Samba e gol — chandler — 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was just guessing it's with words, on TV I can only hear the music in the background, but that's too quiet to decide whether it's just an instrumental version or not. If it is, then it doesn't really matter which of two is played. Thank you for the link! Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the goal song have an article? If not, why not?--Les boys (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tie breaking criteria section

I think that the tie breaking criteria section should be hidden in show hide box or should be moved down because its taking too much space above in group stage section. I think it would be better that when a user clicks the group stage section in contents(TOC) it will go straight to the points table other than tie breaking criteria and thats what a reader wants to know (not the editors). For users , the criteria is written in notes under each table that how the points tie has been broken. Harryroger (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP

The section UEFA_Euro_2008#Discipline contains a list of offences. Presumably this is negative information, and all those mentioned are still alive. The fact that it doesn't have any inline citations makes it a possible WP:BLP violation.

Please give the citations as soon as possible. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, you would be right. In actual fact, you're wrong. Yellow and red cards are just part of the game, and hardly "negative information". No need for citations here. – PeeJay 21:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Even if the material isn't negative, it still needs a source. "No need for citations here" is accepted nowhere on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So you draw attention to an issue based on the fact that it may be "negative information" then state that that fact is irrelevant anyway. Smooth move. Anyway, surely the match reports from each match are citation enough? – PeeJay 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For basic information that is freely available from numerous sources (goals, cards, etc.), citations are not always necessary. However, if we were to say "Player Z elbowed the opponent's goaltender in the 78th minute but, because no officials saw the incident, Player Z was not carded", then we would be required to have a citation. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

BBc have confirmed a mojor powercut in Vienna as the cause for the 15 min blackout, i would change this but cant as its locked so... someone who can do it please do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.146.87 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Coverage Failure

The BBC went over to their radio commentary for most of this time; does anybody know if this was followed worldwide, or whether it was a pre-conceived contingency plan? And, surely there are questions to be answered as to why TV coverage is directed through a single site (Vienna)?--MartinUK (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, it was worldwide, just read the article. And for "why TV coverage is directed through a single site (Vienna)", have you seen the size and altitude of the the host nations? It's probable that Vienna is the only place that has the ability and "network" to redirect coverage worldwide (I'm not sure of that though). Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Read my comment again, I was asking whether going to radio commentary when the TV signal went was a unique spur-of-the-moment thing, or something the entire world had planned. Fair point that it might not be possible to route a worldwide signal from any other location; obviously we'd have to check into what the arrangements were for World Cup 2006 in Germany for example--MartinUK (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't worldwide. Apparently Swiss and Turkish TV had their own signals that weren't directed through Vienna, so the viewers in those countries saw the entire game. German TV used the Swiss signal after a couple of minutes, so Germany did get to see Klose's goal even though the feed from Vienna was out. Fckgo (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Well, the option to go on to radio commentary is possible only for televisions that have permission to reproduce radio frequencies, or that own a radio station that was at the time (possible for public national TVs like BBC, RAI or France 2) but practically impossible for all of the private televisions that where broadcasting this (like TSN). So I guess it simply depends by each of the broadcasters' access to other media and planning for "extreme occasions". Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• In Sweden the picture was lost and we had no commentary. After some minutes, we were taken over to the TV studio - but only to talk about what was happening. No radio commentary. (We lost the 2nd German goal, saw the 2nd Turkish goal from a securty camera (!) and then lost the picture for all of injury time). A shambles really. Setwisohi (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I hear from a friend that, in Hong Kong, it was much the same as in Sweden. TV studio and not much more. Setwisohi (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Maybe the BBC were simply lucky or inventive.--MartinUK (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what happened in Sweden, ca. 22:02:00 local time it went down. ca. 22:05:30 the audio came back. ca. 22:08:30 the video came back. At this point the the commentators audio stream (not the sound from the pitch) was out of sync, audio about 1-2 seconds before the video. ca. 22:21:20 it went down. ca. 22:28:20 video came back (from a strange angle in one of the corners, can't remember if the audio and video came back at the same time.). ca. 22:35:10 it went down, this was at injury time and it never came back until after the match. (The time codes are from instant-whine @ IRC) — chandler — 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

TV4 couldn't go over to radio, as they don't have radio channels — chandler — 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ESPN also said a power failure led to the blackout. Commentators Derek Rae and Andy Gray talked about some of the chances each side had before going back to the studio. No radio coverage was available either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.107.188 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

During the post-match press conference a EUFA official said that the signal loss was due to thunderstorms in Vienna, and that a statement will be released regarding the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.149.157 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why the Swiss might have had a separate feed not going through Vienna, but Turkey? And also, the BBC stated that the screens in the fan areas (vienna?) went off at 1-1 and never came back on. The BBC have public radio, which they switched to, and for a time the picture returned but they stayed with the radio commentators. MickMacNee (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Tonight the television signal in the International Broadcast Centre was interrupted several times in the second half due to technical reasons which are currently being investigated, in particular to evaluate the impact of the violent electrical storm over Vienna at that time. The second half is being refed to the broadcasters. UEFA will communicate more information when the investigations are completed. – [1] What they've released so far, I guess — chandler — 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

According to [2] it was Swiss TV and Al-Jazeera (not necessarily the Turkish broadcaster - can someone confirm?) who kept their pictures, and the fan zone was evacuated for safety reasons, rather than simply due to loss of pictures.--MartinUK (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can watch Al-Jazeera (Qatar) on my TV and they couldn't practically show the whole second half. Since the failure took place, they weren't able to reconnect again with the game. I hope it helps.--ECanalla (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Polsat in Poland change to Swiss signal? Anyone knows? Because there where some problems, but all goals where shown, though the third one for Germany with commentary done from the studio in Warsaw, so audio was lost... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.87.218 (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In Portugal also the signal failed but not during the goals... Aritajustino (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Some explanations from Vienna:

• Yes, there was a horrible thunderstorm with heavy lightnings during this match in Vienna, but under normal circumstances this wouldn't be a problem for any professional broadcasting corporation.
• The problem seems to be, that for the EURO 2008, the UEFA has for the first time ever "monopolized" the entire TV-signal, which is produced by UEFA itself (respectively its 100% doughter UEFA Media Technologies SA) in the "International Broadcast Centre (IBC)" in Vienna (see [3], IBC). During the last weeks, already a lot of criticism was coming from the national broadcasting corporations, especially about "censorship" by UEFA (who didn't show some critical stuff - see [4], [5], [6]). Due to their contracts, all broadcasters all over the world HAVE to use this UEFA-standardized-signal during the match (they can show their own material in the break or after the game).
• And the IBC in Vienna (which is operated by the UEFA itself) seems to be not as prepared for bad weather as normal broadcasters (so maybe they didn't have a sufficient emergency power?!). We will see, what UEFA will tell us the next days ...
• The Swiss State Television SF was (as far as I know) the only broadcaster who had enough own cameras in the Basel-stadium to transmit independetly from the UEFA-cameras, as Basel is in Switzerland ... and I am quite sure that the Austrian State Television ORF will be prepared for doing the same during the last two EURO-2008-matches in Vienna, at the latest since this massive failure of IBC ;-)
• So I think, the criticism from the national broacasters (and the European Broadcasting Union) about this TV-signal-monopolization and overregulation by UEFA-control-freaks will rise, due to this unbelievable failure and lack of professionalism in the IBC (so maybe in the long run this thunderstorm made sense). By the way: Like the German TV-channel ZDF, even the Austrian State Television (ORF) used the signal from his neighbour, the Swiss-TV SF, when the UEFA-signal faded out (which was officially a breach of contract with the UEFA, but who cares when everybody wants to see the match). -- Rfortner (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the ins and outs of the thing - it was a shambles. The third biggest sporting event on the planet, the key moments of the semi-final, a global audience and then? Black out. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, there was another brief crowd invasion during the Germany-Turkey semi (presumably just one person, judging by the BBC commentary. TV shouldn't be used for political censorship and internal ego boosting. The whole thing's a disgrace and heads must roll. --90.212.117.21 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's better not to show the idiots who run onto the pitch — chandler — 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe - but also maybe not. Anyway, this should be a decission taken by the free media and not by UEFA itself!

By the way: Today the UEFA had a press conference in Vienna and confirmed, that the problem was in THEIR international media center IBC, due to three "micro"-failures in the electricity which leaded in each case to a shut-down of all their image processing servers (and rebooting took some time). The press conference was held by Alexandre Fourtoy, chief of UEFA Media Technology SA. ... When UEFA trys to play broadcaster by itself, maybe UEFA should also invest some money in an Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) ;-) -- Rfortner (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The semi-final protestor was complaining at China's treatment of Tibet - which includes censorship of pro-Tibetan voices....--MartinUK (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

8 minutes seems like a long time for it to take to restart - longer than it takes a 25-year-old ZX Spectrum to load a 48K game from cassstte.....--MartinUK (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Per my recent revert, not showing protestors/disruptions/pitch invasions has been a long standing practice for a while now, in football and other sports, so any suggestion that UEFA have suddenly introduced a form of censorship in this tournament is not going to fly to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What surprises me, is that they i. took an age to reboot the thing and ii. had no back-up to switch to. I'm left with impression that the technical staff consists of one man and an 'Idiots Guide' - whilst there are clearly more highly-paid administrators than you can shake a stick at.... 90.231.2.252 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But if you think about it, the backup may have had to have reset aswell, fanzone all evacuated of 25,000~ fans. UEFA said they are taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again // Finns 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding, but the evacuation of the Fanzone (which is located in front of the Vienna city hall) due to a heavy storm has nothing to do with the power problems in the International Broadcast Centre (IBC), which is located far away in the Vienna Congress Center ("Wiener Messe" [7]). Ok, the weather was bad, but the IBC (and its master control room) is located absolutely "inside" and housed by a massive building, so it was not disturbed by the storm itself. Only the lightnings caused some very short failures (milli-seconds) in the Vienna power supply - and the IBC coudn't handle this, due to technical problems with their own Uninterruptible power supply (UPS). Every professional server administrator has to be aware about such short power failures during heavy lightnings, and has to take measures against it (like UPS). -- Rfortner (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Watching the live feed on Wowow in Japan, it lost about five minutes early in the second half (between the 60-65 minute mark). But, all of the goals were seen, and after the 65 minute mark, I don't recall any outage at all. AFAIK, Wowow did not have an independent feed; and, the English commentator (global?) seemed quite in sync with the video feed throughout the game (and tournament). There was occasionally a caption about the Japanese audio going out (there were some Japanese announcers on site for the semifinals), but, I was listening to the English, so, I don't know how long they were gone. Neier (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Centre or Left

This discussion I'm about to open really doesn't regard this specific article, but it does affect all of the other one's that have a match summary:

• UEFA Euro 2008 Group A
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group B
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group C
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group D
• UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage
• UEFA Euro 2008 Final in the near future as well.

User:Twas Now recently centralized the "Man of the Match" and "Referees" fields to keep them from appearing to be on the left team. After, User:PeeJay2K3 restored the older version "to the left" because centralising looks odd, and anyone who confuses the man of the match and the match officials as being members of the left team probably should check into the nearest pre-school. I guess this ultimately comes down to a personal taste since we're dealing on how things should "appear". I personally prefer moving this to the centre, however I see the "writing" logic behind keeping them on the felt side, so I really ouldn't mind either. Opinions? Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Centralised as above looks odd because they are not left justified as if they were in a middle column. If that was done, that would be fine in my opinion. Separately, I don't see the logic in separating the referee from the assistants or 4th official, either they should all be at the top, or put below. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep them left... in the center it looks, to say the least odd... It should also be noted that it is a universal format for football matches used here, which has been used at least since the last world cup when I joined wikipedia. — chandler — 07:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For some games, such as Croatia vs Turkey, there is sufficient space between the left team and these people to suggest they are separate—at least on my monitor & resolution. However, for Netherlands vs Russia and most other games, the separation between the left manager and the Man of the Match is smaller than the space between the MotM and the officials.

I did not say that anyone would confuse those people as members of the left team, but that the visual continuity suggests they are. I think we need to take into account graphic design, rather than accept tradition without reason. There are only two columns: left and right. This creates the impression that there are two groups of men, and that those on the left are together, and those on the right are together. By placing the MotM and the officials in the middle, between both sides, the visual cue is that these titles are independent of either side. But if you decide to keep the old way, simply for the sake of tradition, that is fine, too. I have accepted folly on Wikipedia before, and I can do it again. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Soccerball shade.svg

Is the image of the soccer ball that important when the bookings aren't listed? --Howard the Duck 03:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think that, you shouldnt talk about it here, as its not a topic that concerns this article alone, but all football articles with matches in them. Its is a set of templates which are used, with pictures, and I think the ball should be kept because it clarifies that it IS a goal and nothing else. — chandler — 08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Template:Football match report templates

Match report templates

{{try}}

{{kick}}

{{Penalty miss}}

{{sin bin}}

{{blood bin}}

{{2min}}

Is the Golden Goal really necessary seeing as it doesn't happen anywhere anymore? // Finns 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is we still have the this template on articles from the golden goal era. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there not a way a template can be like "retired" but kept, so it doesn't get added anymore? // Finns 18:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we need to add it to match summaries from the golden goal era? Silly suggestion, IMO. – PeeJay 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If anything we should add a silver goal template for that era. — chandler — 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between the image for a goal scored from open play and the one for a penalty? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

{{goal}} is used for goals scored during the match. {{pengoal}} is used for goals scored in a penalty shootout. If a penalty is scored in normal time, we use {{goal}} thus: {{goal|25|pen.}}, which produces 25' (pen.). – PeeJay 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Spain won every game played?

"This was only the second time in the history of the tournament that the winning team won every game played in the tournament"

In fact, Spain tied 0-0 with Italy in the quarters and advanced by penalties. My understanding is that by custom advancing by penalties has been treated as a tie (draw), not a win. I'll go look for authoritative sources (e.g. UEFA sites). - PhilipR (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded it: "that the winning team won every game in the Group Stage". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded it again to say that "the winning team went through the entire tournament without losing a match". – PeeJay 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

They all call it on TV as the first team since france 84 to win all matches... they count a pen or ot win as a win. — chandler — 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

shoot-out wins are considered draws. 76.69.121.6 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"This was only the second time in the history of the tournament that the winning team went through the entire tournament without losing a match; the other team to do so was France in 1984."

This is incorrect. Germany didn't lose a game at Euro 96. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.72.68 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, true enough. Oversight on my part. Sorry. – PeeJay 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bronze medal

The third place is shared by both Turkey and Russia, so the bronze medal section should contain both nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.57.101 (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "third place" at the European Championships. – PeeJay 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think 91.76.57.101 is confusing third-place with semi-finalist. Kingjeff (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If the two teams actually are given physical bronze medals by UEFA, then maybe we should list both teams as coming in third place. However, as far as I am aware, only first and second place are officially recognised. – PeeJay 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so Russia and Turkey would be called semi-finalist as opposed to third or fourth place. Kingjeff (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the following article from the uefa.com: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19079.pdf The section on the medals on page 3, specifies quote: "34 bronze medals will be awarded to each defeated semi-finalist team." end quote. Thank you.

Alright, smartass. Cheers for the link, but try not to get on your high horse about it. – PeeJay 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, just could not bear to see turkey alone there, that is all. In all news they were calling the bronze for both teams. Thanks for the justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.57.101 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New table style for main UEFA Euro 2008 page

I saw this on the French WP and thought it looked great and much more appetizing. Do you think we should change the tables? If yes, should we do it on the World Cup article(s)?

Group A   Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts 1 Portugal 3 2 0 1 5 3 2 6 2 Turkey 3 2 0 1 5 5 0 6 3 Czech Republic 3 1 0 2 4 6 -2 3 4 Switzerland 3 1 0 2 3 3 0 3

7 June, Basel Switzerland 0 1 Czech Republic 7 June, Geneva Portugal 2 0 Turkey 11 June, Geneva Czech Republic 1 3 Portugal 11 June, Basel Switzerland 1 2 Turkey 15 June, Basel Switzerland 2 0 Portugal 15 June, Geneva Turkey 3 2 Czech Republic

I think it looks much better. What do you guys think? -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Definetly looks so much bettter, I say go for it. Although I don't have the pull to change a major site like that.... - Birdy (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (contributions)

I disagree. The text is too small, and I don't like the lack of lines in the table. The only thing I would implement is moving the results to the right of the tables. Other than that, I can't see it catching on. – PeeJay 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the results and table on the same row would look good, and save space. The World Cup and Euro qualifiers have something similar which could probably easily be modified to write tough the matches in this fashion — chandler — 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think wikitable looks better — chandler — 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Medal Images

I think that the mdeals should be replaced with a better suiting image, as they now have the olympics logo on them! 99.240.227.140 (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (aka Rich Guy)