Talk:UEFA Euro 2012

Spelling error

In the Suspension of PZPN section, "Polish Minster for Sport" should be "Polish Minister for Sport" (with the extra 'i').

•  Done -- Alexf^(talk) 13:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies section splitting

"Concerns and controversies" section grew up and now lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. I think, this section must be split into a new article. MAXXX-309 (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And now that the tournament is about to start it will become a lot less of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored. The only way it would be acceptable to remove it again would be to create a new article with the existing content and summarize the controversies and point to the new article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Most of the stuff in the old section was rewritten, merged with other subsection or move to other parts of the article. A lot of double references where erased, but I am sure that we dont need 3 or 4 references to the same sentence. A thinning is necesary when events progress and there is also Wikipedias notability policy to take into account. If you think a certain point (like the Holocaust section I made a section on below) should be restored you are free to put it in the talkpage and all editors can contribute to if it is notable or not. But general rewritting and thinning (like have been done with infastructure, now a part of the top section) is normal and good. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thin it, but don't remove it as the WP:AXE-grinders have done. Next total removal will result in a new article on the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thin it much. This section has enormous undue weight. No need for new article, but thinning incl. removal some old stuff and reduction other to the essential info only is absolutely necessary. NeonFor (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are free to make any article on any subject you like and I wish you good luck in not getting it spedy deleted. I am sure you can make a fine article, I dont know if it would be notably, but that is not up to me. But stop destroying other editors work in adding, thinning and rewritting this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jack Bornholm Are You talking about me or Walter Görlitz? NeonFor (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As per your combined abilities in English, my point remains. This is censorship by a few nationalists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Next total removal will result in a new article on the subject." There was no total removal - this just thinning an it is in progress now. Once again you can only destroy somone work. You have no right to create new article (will be deleted)NeonFor (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was talking to Walter, but everyone is free to make articles if they believe there is a notable need in Wikipedia. Of course the need may only excist in the editors mind. My abilities at english have been trashed before, but I have never been accused of being a part of a non english conspiracy. LOL. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing the link to the main article on the subject is simply self-serving censorship. The new article will not be deleted, but you can try. In short, there is no valid reason to delete the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no valid reason for the existence of this article. Otherwise all information about concerns & controversies should be moved there. So let's choose: moving all this text to new article (like in case of 'squads' section) or removing this article and thin this section...91.218.156.247 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems thinning and moving. It's nationalists who want both the material completely removed. They assume we're fooled by their "nothing to see here" efforts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see anyone wants to delete both material. How can you judge the situation? how can you know is there something to see? It seems you're fooled by comerical media information so your opinion is nothing more than the internet-based stories (sic!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.156.247 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nationalists??? How would me being a danish nationalist have anything to do with this article? (I dont consider myself to be that, but even if I was I dont see the connection) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jack. I didn't mean to lump you in with the nationalists.

As for deleting material, in the two weeks that I've been gone massive sections have been removed. Just this morning another section was removed without discussion. There's not much we can do now that the article is locked, but at least the article won't be censored for a while. Perhaps we can request that the article will be unlocked if the nationalists agree not to remove any more material.

Since the new article exists, how should we prune what's left and summarize the controversies? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Who are those Nationalists you keep talking about? Are you yourself from Poland or Ukraine and is this a local political thing? I fully agree with the ones that are thinning out the section, it had undue weight.

• I think the way it was with 3 parts is good.
  • The historical UEFA concerns dating from yesteryear
  • The political boycott since it is a large thing in Europe on govermental level
  • The Hooligans/Racism since it directly concern the tournament.

But many different organisations or causes that try to tag themselve onto the EURO 2012 to get attention does not have to be a part of this article. The pestcontrol killing stray dogs and cats is a good example. Even though we in many countries does not see stray cats and dogs as pests they can be. I am sure many readers from middleeastern countries would agree. And historical these animals have been a pest at least in Ukraine. So that the general pestcontrol takes action to secure health and good conducts in the streets is a normal thing for them, just as killing rats. But some animal protection organisations does not agree. Killing stray dogs is normal, and having a discussion about it have nothing to do with the football championship. The people debating this topic simply would like to get more attention. And it is the same with more seriouse matters as democracy in the countries. It is seriouse discussions that have been going on for years, but they are not directly attached to the football. I only believes that subjects that are natural attached to the games (as hooliganism and the state of the stations and other UEFA concerns) or matters that Goverments have attached (like the boycott) should be a part of the article. Anyone else, noble or not, that want to advance their cause by attaching it to the EURO 2012 shouldnt be a part of this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So why do we need new article? If we already has it, than almost all material should be placed there. In main article about Euro 2012 only just few major sentences should be placed, like in case of "Broadcasting" section. @ Walter Görlitz why do you call me and other users a Nationalists? I'm from Poland and most of these concerns are releated with Ukraine. I do not want to delete whole article as You've imagined yourself.NeonFor (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Stadium Capacity

Why the capacity of stadiums, which are stated in the article, are less than attendance at the match, stated in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.65.206 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Because UEFA are absolutely incompetent. In their official documentation, they said that the capacity of the Warsaw stadium was 55,000, but the attendance at the POL v GRE game yesterday was at least 56,000. Fucking ridiculous. – PeeJay 21:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the UEFA stadium info articles they updated the max capcity of the stadiums, so I have updated it here.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Mandžukić

Conflicting sources: UEFA say he scored twice, BBC say he scored once and that the second goal was an own goal by Shay Given (it was definitely a borderline case). I suppose UEFA's record is the most reliable source here since the stats will be based on this? - filelakeshoe 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what anyone other than UEFA says. UEFA keep the records on their own tournaments, and they recorded the third goal as belonging to Mandzukic. Given did not score an own goal. – PeeJay 12:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ball micro chip and goal cameras

1) Does anyone know if a micro chip is used in the ball for sensoring goals?

2) Does anyone know how many cameras there are on each stadium and how they are arranged?

- Soerfm (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no form of goal-line technology being used at this tournament. And no, I have no idea how many cameras each stadium would have. – PeeJay 18:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

46.99.251.6 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC) GICMANI KARIN

•  Not done Empty request. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If Greece wins the game vs. Russia, they will qualify.

The actual standings of the A group of the UEFA Euro 2012 Final Tournament is the following, after 2 matches played: RUSSIA 4 +3 CZECH REP. 3 -2 POLAND 2 0 GREECE 1 -1

Let’s investigate the cases for a greek win in the third game, facing Russia: Greece will have 4 points, with a goal difference ≥0 and Russia will also have 4 points with a goal difference of ≤+2. - If Czech Republic wins the table of standings will be as shown below: CZECH REP. 6 ≥+1 GREECE 4 ≥0 GR vs RU RUSSIA 4 ≥+2 GR vs RU POLAND 2 ≤-1

In this case Greece qualifies because the first criterion is the game between the two teams (or, for being just, the goal difference in the games between the teams with equal points). So Czech Republic qualifies first and Greece second from the Group. - If Poland wins, the standings will be: POLAND 5 ≥+1 GREECE 4 ≥0 GR vs RU RUSSIA 4 ≤+2 GR vs RU CZECH REP. 3 ≤-3

For the reason explained above. - If Poland and Czech Republic have a draw in their game, the table will be: RUSSIA 4 ≥+2 ≥+2 GREECE 4 ≤0 ≤+1 CZECH REP. 4 -2 -2 POLAND 3 (0)

In this case there are 3 teams with equal points gained and the goal difference of the matches played between them will count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciberche (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think such interesting calculation really would get more attention on the groups main articles talkpages. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely any notes of explaination explaining possible scenarios on Matchday 3 in Group A has to include EVERY possible scenario (however unlikely) for it to be of any use. The actual scerario described isn't actually that unlikely to happen, its very possible. And the explaination added earlier is very confusing, with the explaination that if the two results described happened it says that the wrong team will go through.

If Greece win against Russia, and Czech Republic draw against Poland, then Russia, Czech Republic, and Greece would all be on 4 points, with Poland automatically being out on 3. The group would then be decided by a head to head to head record between Greece, Russia and Czech Republic, in effect a mini league table between them 3 nations, with the Poland results for each nation being dropped. Russia, Greece and Czech Republic in that situation would ALL be on 3 points, and so it would come down to goal difference between those 3 countries, in the matches against each other. Greece would automatically get through if they win, so it comes down to the goal difference between Czech Republic and Russia, meaning Russia could lose by 4 goals to still have a better goal difference, and if they lost by 5 goals it would depend on goals scored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.108.243 (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Base camps notability

The map for base camps locations has grown pretty ugly, but before I'd invest any time to replace it by locator maps there is a question to be asked: is this stuff even notable? Such information is missing for the previous EURO and the last World Cup, so maybe scrap it here as well? — ⟨✆∣µzdzisław∣⚒⟩ 22:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be notable because of the great distances betwin the base camps and the places where the matches are played. It would almost be the same distance for Denmark to stay home at their normal base camp and fly to Kharkov compared to what they "have to" do now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Isent it more normal to stay in the same city as once matches are played and then relocated when or if the team reached the quarterfinals? Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This fact sure is notable itself, but currently a reader needs to infer it by themselves, especially if they are not familiar with geography and distances in Poland and Ukraine... Regards — ⟨✆∣µzdzisław∣⚒⟩ 23:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to simply plot the basecamps into the stadium map? right now we have right next to each other with almost the same info. Then the table with the basecamps could be moved down under the stadium table. Maybe remaking the basecamp table so it shows both where the teams stay and where their matches are. Then the reader that want to learn about the geografic would have a easy time seeing for example the info on his countries team. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Logo, slogan and theme songs

"The slogan reflects the fact that Poland and Ukraine were united in the past as one country and are now two nations in central and eastern Europe with ambitions to stage the best tournament in the history of the European Championship."

Poland and Ukraine were never united as a one country, someone mistook Poland for Russia or Ukraine for Lithuania. I believe this is quite a mistake and should be corrected as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.24.222 (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if it is true that the the slogan is suppose to tell that, but Ukraine and Poland actually have been united many times depending on what you mean by Ukraine and Poland. True the two countries with the excact borders of the present have never been a single state (like Czech and Slovaks) but they have been a part of the same cultural and political area many times. As late as before the second world war when the western (to some most ukranian) parts of Ukraine was a part of Poland. And of course they where united under Russian rule for many years before the first world war. And then there is of course the great Lithuanian-Polish empire that had most part of western Ukraine in it too. I am sure I have forgotton something betwin the present and the foundation of the first russian states by the wikings in Ukraine. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In that sense Poland and Germany were also 'united' as a one country, but I'm sure that's not really what the author meant. In deed, Ukraine was under Polish rule from time to time, or we were together a part of Russian Empire, but that shouldn't be called 'united'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.24.222 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Parts of Poland were part of the German federation, and Silesia encompassed part of what is both, but Germany is not presently part of the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Denmark vs Portugal

Please change the score to 1-2 (1 to Denmark, 2 to Portugal)86.44.213.142 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Final score: Denmark 2 - 3 Portugal. Treyvo (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw what is the point of adding protection for a week in a middle of a major tournament? Nightfall87 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done Please use Template:Edit protected next time. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ADMIN!!! PLEASE UPDATE, og break the protection. --Pixi Uno (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria

No reference to rules (for tie-breaking criteria).

This section is not very clear. For example what is the difference between 2 and 4 and 3 and 5. That is, I'm not sure what "in the matches among the teams in question" means.

For example (at the moment) Portugal and Denmark have the same points (3) and same Goal Difference (0) but Portugal is listed above Denmark in the table, why?

-122.150.200.116 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

See the following link; it has the official tie breaking criteria (the amended version on page 66)

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/91/48/36/914836_DOWNLOAD.pdf (Page 66) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedraif (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article full protected

With the current protection only Administrators can edit this article. I have asked the administrator Rjd0060 that have done this the following on his talkpage:

I see that you have made a full protection of this article. Even though I understand the background of this, with the many editing conflicts, I am worried that it will not be updates as well as before. Right now I see that the subarticle are already updated with the info on the Netherland versus Germany match. But since the article is now protected the editors normally doing this work can not do so. Have you considered how this article will be updated after every match? Are you going to do that twice a day, or have you asked other adminstrators for help. This article depend on fast updates for internet trafic, if it are not updated the trafic will stop. And I am sure we all agree that Wikipedia being popular is a good thing.Before the full protection it was updated during the games, that I guess is not necesary. But it should be updated straight after each match, and preferly at halftime too.

Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is a major current event, we should not be protecting this page. I strongly recommend unprotection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a major current event, but match results can go into the appropriate location. Until we have assurances from the nationalists that they aren't going to remove entire sections because they feel it's again WP:UNDUE, we can't leave the article. I suppose if others are willing to watch the article to revert such wholesale censorship or block those disruptive editors, this is the best choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Until we have assurances from editors who seem unable to comprehend the simple rule of "discuss content, not editors" and insist on repeatedly engaging in personal attacks, such as our friend Walter here, there's no point to the discussion. And apparently you're not too clear on the meaning of the word "censorship" either (hint: it's not the same thing as editorial judgment). If anything the section needs to be further paired down.VolunteerMarek 22:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

By reading the comments of the two honored editors above this comment I think it is clear why the article have been fully protected. But it still doesnt solve the problem about the update of the article. It is a lot of update we are talking about. Not just the result of the game, but also all the info in the infobox, the penality section, the goal score section and proberly more I have forgotten right now. This have all to be updates twice every day. Who are doing that now? Right now the infobox have still not been updated. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If the problem comes from one or few editors, they should be temporarily topic banned or 1RR restricted by the admin, instead of all of us having to suffer from their edit warring (please note that I am not aware of who is edit warring here, and I am not concerned of who has been edit warring more or less; my comment here is just an argument for unprotection). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I will gladly submit myself to only monitoring of vandalism if the Early EUFA concerns section is restored, and edited if required. The rest of the controversies have been moved to their own article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page, as editors are correct that full protection is not appropriate. However I shall not hesitate to immediately block any editor who attempts to edit war over content without prior discussion, of which I see none on the page. Consider it under a 1 revert restriction--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the 1 revert restriction here. Can we add something to the edit notice? Something like {{community article probation}}? - filelakeshoe 14:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria given in current version not correct

See this piece of news: [1]; or the regulations (scroll down to the last few pages for the amendment): [2]. I put the amended correct version a while ago: [3], not sure who re-edited it. This is significnat if Denmark and Portugal both lose 0-1 in the final match. Without the new criteria d, Denmark beat Portugal by UEFA coefficient; with the new criteria d, Portugal beat Denmark on the head-to-head between the two teams. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

An edit trying to correct references busted the tie-breaker list earlier today, the editor restoring it later apparently failed to notice the amendment and only added the original 8.07 from the competition regulations. Agreed that it needs to be re-added. Zeyes (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In current verion: PSO shootout, someone drunk? Matthew_hk tc 22:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That was the criteria for 2008, which was almost applied had Turkey not scored that late goal against the Czechs. I guess somebody just thought it would still be in effect for 2012. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It still is, actually, check section 8.08 of the regulations /AB-me (chit-chat) 22:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Took the liberty of re-adding this into the edit request /AB-me (chit-chat) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the PK criteria to within the list. I hope it is correct! Chanheigeorge (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The following taken from an earlier version should be good. Somebody please make an edit request. I will also copy and paste to the group subpages. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria

If two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the following criteria are applied to determine the rankings (according to paragraphs 8.07 and 8.08 of the regulations, and amendment to 8.07 adopted by the UEFA Executive Committee):

1. Higher number of points obtained in the matches played between the teams in question;
2. Superior goal difference resulting from the matches played between the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points);
3. Higher number of goals scored in the matches played between the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points);
4. If, after having applied criteria 1 to 3 to more than two teams, two teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1 to 3 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the two teams in question to determine the final rankings of the two teams. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 5 to 10 apply in the order given;
5. Superior goal difference in all group matches;
6. Higher number of goals scored in all group matches;
7. If two teams which are tied in all criteria 1 to 6 play their last group match against each other (i.e., the result is a draw and the two teams have the same number of points, goal difference and goals scored), and provided no other teams within the group have the same number of points, the ranking of the two teams in question is determined by penalty shoot-out. Otherwise, criteria 8 to 10 apply in the order given;
8. Position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system;
9. Fair play conduct of the teams (final tournament);
10. Drawing of lots.

Note: As all teams have different UEFA national team coefficient, the last two tie-breakers (fair play conduct and drawing of lots) will never be applied in this tournament.

Support: Criteria No. 4 is important. For example, Group B last round, Germany 2-3 loses, Portugal wins, this criteria would apply. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Semi-protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I think I must withdraw my support. After carefully reading the regulations, I find no. 4 and no. 7 are only for the qualifying competition but not for the final tournament. I don't know why its like that, it can cause a serious problem if Germany really loses with 2-3 while Portugal wins with a good result, but the rule is the rule. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Forget about it, I didn't see this. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the following line in the infobox:

| matches = 10 | goals = 25 | top_scorer = {{nowrap|{{flagicon|GER}} [[Mario Gómez]], {{flagicon|RUS}} [[Alan Dzagoev]] <small>(3 goals)</small>}}

for:

| matches = 12 | goals = 33 | top_scorer = {{nowrap|{{flagicon|GER}} [[Mario Gómez]],<br>{{flagicon|RUS}} [[Alan Dzagoev]] <small>(3 goals)</small>}}

It adds a <br> between the players' names so that the infobox is not as wide. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Semi-protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken wikitable

Someone should remove the broken wikitable under the group A section. Firstly because it is broken, secondly because it is supposed to cover all scenarii regarding qualification for quarter finals, and such a table belongs in the main article for group A (it already exists actually). Maimai009 07:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

 Already done - it's on a sub-page, and was fixed with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dash format

From "Host selection": "In 2005 these were narrowed down by UEFA to three candidates: Croatia–Hungary, Poland-Ukraine and Italy." The dash in Poland–Ukraine should be an ndash. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed it myself now. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Boateng ban

He's picked up 2 yellow cards in his first 2 games. This seems to have been missed. * mgSH 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to add the following row to the table

Jerome Boateng

in Group B v Portugal in Group B v Holland

Group B v Denmark

ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Semi-protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Germany v Netherlands

The hyphen between the scores in Group B should be an ndash. (This page protection is ridiculous...) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Semi-protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies section

See also: Talk:Concerns and controversies related to Euro 2012

I am sure whatever wiev we all have on this section we can agree that not all people making concerns or attaching their own causes to the championship should be covered in the section. On the other hand I dont think we should simply ignore past or present notable problems the hosts or the championship have had to overcome just because this is a sports article. Of course the main focus of the article should be on the matches, but there should also be room for the problems the once taking care of the EURO 2012 faces.

• Would these 3 parts be good.
  • The historical UEFA concerns dating from yesteryear. Is is of course historical info on the championship, but it is an encyclopedie. Since it is UEFA concerns it must be notable and relevant to the UEFA EURO 2012.
  • The political boycott since it is a large thing in Europe on govermental level and ministers have public stated that they boycott.
  • The Hooligans/Racism since it directly concern the tournament being the fans.

I have put these 3 parts in the article and I am looking forward to hearing opionons about this subjcet. I have also put all the different discussion on different subsections in this section. Before they where all over this talkpage but now they are gathered in the same place since they are all about the same thing. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial and Chernobyl

Delegations including the German, the Italian, the Dutch and the English, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp, before the start of the tournament, to pay tribute to the 1.1 million people who died there.

UEFA confirmed to CNN that it had no plans to make a donation to victims of the Chernobyl disaster but would invite 125 children to a match in Kiev on June 19. The chairman of the Chernobyl Children's Trust described it as "lip-service" and a missed opportunity to raise awareness about the ongoing consequences of the disaster.

This section was in the article. Is it important enough to be in the article or is it simply two very seriouse and noble charities that are getting a little attention. I have parked it here to hear your opinons Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Does not belong in the article. it is unrelated to the sport and the tournament. May belong in the articles for the places (though I doubt it) but that would have to be discussed there. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, does not belong here. Pretty irrelevant to the tournament. Hopefully now the tournament's started we can prune down on the trivial activism and controversy cruft in this article. People use these sporting events as an excuse to start shouting about whatever issues the host countries are involved with and I don't think this should be given too much weight. - filelakeshoe 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Politic, advertisment and activism is a part of football and have been for a long time. A issue as the lady in prison have made a lot of noise all over europe and are involving many goverments. I think such things should have a small section as it have now. But I agree there must be limits. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be in the article. Flags-Chaser (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be restored to the article as it relates to several teams. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko (Political Boycots)

Since it has been in the media all over Europe and has been considered on goverment level in most countries I guess that the boycot section have its place in the article. I belive that it would be good to put a picture of the person in question in this section. It will be the only photo in the section so it would not crowed it. Even though many dont recognize the name they will the photo of her. Maybe it should be another photo of her, but this one relates to the section by shoving the two politicians (from the same euro party) as mentioned in the section. It is alway a good question how much mention of the politics that sports also is full of that have to be in a article like this, but this section is here and I believe that a photo is good to quickly show the problem and then we can go on with the matches. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The killing stray cats and dogs

I was wondering why the killing of animals in preparation for the EM has been remove from the page?

This almost seems like a form of censorship, which is a really big disappointment.

Szklany (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though we in many countries does not see stray cats and dogs as pests they can be. I am sure many readers from middleeastern countries would agree. And historical these animals have been a pest at least in Ukraine. So that the general pestcontrol takes action to secure health and good conducts in the streets before a major event is a normal thing for them, just as killing rats. But some animal protection organisations does not agree. Killing stray dogs is normal where they are a pest, and having a discussion about it have nothing to do with the football championship. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Doing that as regular policy is not unusual. Do so to make way for the games is noteworthy. The claim was made and sustained that it was for the games. Agree with Szklany that it's a form of censorship. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it has something to do with the football championship, these dogs where killed in order to prepare for the championship. Even if they are seen as pests in that country, there has been outrage and protests in other countries about it, and not even mentioning it is just plain wrong.

Oh and btw wiki sites in other languages mention it at least in passing. Szklany (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So if the cities in mentioning have had a rat problem and they took action to take care of this problem before the EURO 2012 you still think it should be mentioned in the article? I would think they have swept the street and maybe also cut the trees so they look good, maybe they have also painted some of the official buildings . I dont know but it would be normal to clean and refreshing the city before the arrival of important guests. Just as any of us would do if we got important and dear visitors to our home, and kill the stray rat we might have luring around. Isent that just normal behavior? Is the problem not that in some cultures cats and dogs are showed greater love than in other cultures, and that is why the action can not be seen as normal preparetions to a event. That sounds very much as cultural imperialism to me. Do you have any references on uproar in Poland and Ukraine about it or is it simply foreigners trying to advance animal right by using the EURO 2012? If homeless people was bussed out of the cities it would be something to write about. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes i think that would be fair to put in the article, if there were protests in other countries and the country itself against killing the rats. And since big news corporations and other media outlets have talked about it, I think that it at least deserves a mention. To me it just seems like people are trying to protect the image of the games. And btw here is a link about the protests in the Ukraine Protests over stray dog killings in Ukraine. 89.244.72.164 (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And a killing of alligators on the loose, and the pythons that escaped the zoo, and the primates exhibit that was infiltrated, and the minx farm that was attacked by soccer hooligans from Lichtenstein. Why can't you grasp the concept that anything that is done to accommodate the games or results from the staging of the games is fair to discuss and is not undue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Time to thin

Now that the section has been restored, we should give a brief summary of all controversies and move the details to the main article. If we can condense each of the controversies to one or two sentences that would be ideal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then please do that - once it's done then these disagreements will become less pertinent. Please be careful however not to create any WP:POVFORKs.VolunteerMarek 15:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that there should still be 3 subsections to this section with the major theemes. But maybe before that a kind of start paragraf would be good. The kind that is in the start of articles. If all the many problems simply is mentioned in a long list it would saying that the German Chancellor boycotting Euro 2012 is of the same importance as the leader of the Tjernobyl relief organisation being angry that not enough attention have been giving to his organisation. Do you think that all the problems have the excact same weight? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An Idea:What about adding the Early UEFA concerns (in a shorten version of course) to the host selection section. That way it will thin this section (it could still be mentioned with a single sentence in the lead) and still be mentioned as a historical fact. Much about this contreversy was about UEFA sports politic anyway and a part of a bit unjusted prolonged selection process. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "Host selection" section is a better place for some of the "Early concerns" stuff, though the extent of the material moved should be trimmed. In particular the stuff about the 2010 interview is a bit anachronistic and not very significant (nothing happened).VolunteerMarek 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I agree with Walter Görlitz - "If we can condense each of the controversies to one or two sentences that would be ideal" - that's the point! Offcourse, like Jack Bornholm said not all problems have the excact same weight but not all problems should be mentioned in these few sentences. All problems will be detailed in the new artcle. Now we should condense 3 major controversies into one or two sentences and mark that the others problems also exist in another 1-2 sentences. Everything else should be placed and detailed in new article.NeonFor (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the controversies in the spin-off article should be mentioned, although I agree that not all deserve the same weight. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And by "weight" I mean number of sentences. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've prepared a brief summary of most controversies releated to the tournament. One or two sentences for most of them should be enough. So this is it:

In response to Yulia Tymoshenko's hunger strike and her mistreatment in a Ukrainian prison some European politicians and governments have announced they will boycott the tournament in Ukraine.

Ukraine has come under criticism from animal welfare organizations for killing stray cats and dogs in order to prepare for Euro 2012. Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources and Minister Of The Environment takes some actions to prevent killing animals but it is still remains unclear how this measures will be enforced.

Bombs explosions took place in Dnipropetrovsk on 27 April 2012 and were described as a terrorist attack that may jeopardize the organization of the tournament in Ukraine.

Another minor important issues were associated with FEMEN’s group protests against prostitution and sex tourism in Ukraine, and enormous raising hotel prices by many hoteliers in this country.

Please, lets someone write another 2-3 sentences about 'racism & hooliganism' and additional couple of words which will serve as a introduction (short version of ‘Early UEFA concerns’ subsection). After that, we could be able to put this text to the main article. NeonFor (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. Any other responses/comments?VolunteerMarek 16:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a few Wikicaps issues and it could be combined into a single paragraph, otherwise a good start. Missing information. The following have not yet been addressed: Criticism of preparations, Suspension of PZPN and hotels overcharging. Another paragraph for racism, antisemitism and hooliganism issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk)

Reference list

Any idea why only 70 of the 96+ references are actually showing up in the reference section and why some are unlisted?VolunteerMarek 19:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The 70th reference is actually the last one in the article, even though in the article it is 96th. No idea why. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be references 68 through 93 that are not working.VolunteerMarek 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your excellent detective work made it easy to find and fix. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice, thank you.VolunteerMarek 20:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Germany already through

As Germany beat Portugal, Portugal cannot finish above Germany. So, no matter what happens in the Denmark v Germany game, the Germans are already through. Shouldn't they be coloured in differently? OldSquiffyBat (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If both Denmark (vs Germany) and Portugal (vs Netherlands) win thier next game (three teams with 6 points) than Germany may still finish 3rd. The tie-breaking will be decided by goal difference.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily goal difference, maybe goals scored in head-to-head-matches or other criterias.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Portugal can finish above Germany, for instance Portugal wins and Germany loses 0-1 -> Germany is eliminated.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012: France already qualified

France is already qualified for the next round. If England wins against Sweden, Sweden has less points than France and France is qualified. If England draws to Sweden, France has a better Goal Differance than Sweden and is qualified. If England loses to Sweden, France has a better Goal Differance than England and is qualified.

So eather way, France is already qualified.

Gordijnhoofd (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: I'm not messing with the template!!!!! Mdann52 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As you can read on the main article on group D there is a very very small change that France will not qualified. It is a very little risk but in football one shall neve say never. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That chance is not that small, France just has to lose by 1 goal more than England lose.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Stray comment (moved to bottom of talk page 6/16/2012)

I think there are some confusions between the group state of the finals and the group stage of the qualifying competition:

The tie breaking conditions are, I think, as follows:

Equality of points after the group matches 8.07 If two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the following criteria are applied, in the order given; to determine the rankings: a) highernumberofpointsobtainedinthematchesamongtheteamsinquestion; b) superior goal difference in the matches among the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points); c) higher number of goals scored in the matches among the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points); d) superiorgoaldifferenceinallthegroupmatches; e) highernumberofgoalsscoredinallthegroupmatches; f) position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system (see Annex I, paragraph 1.2.2); g) fairplayconductoftheteams(finaltournament); h) drawingoflots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.83.177 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie Breaking Criterion with 2 teams

There's an error in the group stage part where it says "if more than two teams finish equal on points" twice. However the requirement is two teams or more, not more than two. See http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/91/48/36/914836_DOWNLOAD.pdf point 7.04. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash2in1 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any error in the text.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

7.04 describes the qualification, final tournament rules are in 8.07.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I stand corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash2in1 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say in the UEFA document that a penalty shootout is conducted in case of a tie between group matches? 72.53.153.82 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Sorry if my question is stupid, but why did Greece advance? They have equal points with Russia, and then the next criteria is the goal difference, right? That's higher for the Russians. Help me understand. - Dubfire (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)