Talk:UEFA Euro 2016

Football C‑class High‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:France

Deletion of Denmark/Sweden bid

To it/the ones that continue to delete the Danish-Swedish bid: Why?? It is the thinnest reason not to be able to understand the Danish source - well, it's a shame that the Danish media do not write their articles in English!!11!!1 But that is how it is... I have a reliable source, but still it's deleted. That is too bad... ka la ha 12:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No no no... NOT AGAIN! ka la ha 20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requirements

The article claims that 3 stadia must have above 40,000 seats. But this is not fulfilled for the Euro 2008 in Austria+Switzerland, there are only two stadia above 40,000 seats. (Also, there are only 5 stadia above 30,000 seats, since the other 3 of the 8 stadia have exactly 30,000 seats). Can someone correct this?--129.70.15.202 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New demands from 2012. See this pdf page 21 under "Stadium Capacity".--Kjello0 (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why the big word?

Why say will be the 15th quadrennial top-level European football event.

When it could just be "will be the 15th top level european football event" 77.99.186.110 (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because that doesnt let you know it's every 4 years. — chan dler — 14:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. If you don't want to have to deal with big words, I suggest that you stick to the Simple English Wikipedia. – Pee Jay 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is an old comment, but that's precisely the attitude that leads to unreadable articles. Needlessly complicated phrasing/words should be stamped out where possible. This "if you can't understand it then it's your problem" thing is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia should be about. Bandanamerchant (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is it complicated? Quadrennial means "every four years". If you see a word you don't recognise in any work, not just an encyclopaedia, you should look it up. – Pee Jay 09:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no advantage to using a word/term fewer people understand when there's a simpler term available. It's the classic flawed reasoning that plagues countless articles on Wikipedia - using overly technical language on the grounds that it makes the contributor feel smart, when the goal is actually to communicate to as wide an audience as possible. In this case it's already been fixed and the article is much better for it in my opinion. Bandanamerchant (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why you're making a big deal about this. If even one person picks up a dictionary because they didn't know what it meant, we've done a good job. We're here to educate, not pander to people who don't value their educations. – Pee Jay 21:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right, we're here to educate, and as someone who teaches students every day in a university, my opinion is that needlessly using complex terms when there's a simpler alternative available is a spectacularly poor way to educate people. The point in the article is to inform readers about its subject, not to give them a crash course in the English language. Now there's no point in going back and forward countless times over it, I'll simply state that in my opinion the original comment was correct and I'm glad it's been changed in the text. Bandanamerchant (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Galatasaray new stadium 1.jpg

The image Image:Galatasaray new stadium 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

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

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland and the GAA

The Scotland-Republic of Ireland potential bid section lists a number of GAA grounds as potential venues. However the GAA has in the past banned 'British sports' from being played at GAA grounds. Only giving special dispensation to Rugby and Football, at Croke Park, while Lansdowne Road is being renovated; see Rule 41. I don't know a lot about the GAA or Rule 42, but I would assume that the GAA would be against using these grounds for a UEFA tournament. Or did the GAA give their approval for use previously in the 2008 bid? In either case shouldn't this be explained in the article? JonBradbury (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5-Star Stadiums don't exist any more

The article mentions that 4 and 5-Star stadiums are a requirement to host the tournament. The UEFA does not use these categories any more, though. See Talk:UEFA elite stadium. OdinFK (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speculation

At least 50% of this article appears to be speculation without any backing from good cites. Discussion of what stadiums may be used, and what countries may bid to host does not belong in the article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've clear a large part of the uncited stuff out now. While articles on future events can contain speculation, it has to be speculation from a reliable source. A great deal of the material here was completely unsupported by any cites to make it possible to determine just how informed, or widely inaccurate, the speculation was. The section on the Scotland - Ireland bid appeared to be a fanciful retread of 2008 bid, without any evidence that anyone of any note was even remotely considering a 2016 bid. The Greece section was equally uncited and didn't even venture to suggest that a bid might be forthcoming. It just launched into a discourse of what stadiums may be used.

Similarly, all the stuff discussing what stadiums would be suitable, and which stadiums could be improved, and what infrastructure would be adequate or improved, etce, etc, appeared to be entirely speculative original research and opinion. The cites that are provided all suggest that no decisions have been finalised in this regard by any of the confirmed applicants. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decided not to bid

While there might have been some point in this section immediately after 9 March, I would suggest that detail of who did not bid is meaningless. That serious consideration to entering a bid might be worthy of a sentence in the article of the relevant FA, or all three might bear mention in a brief sentence here, but a subsection for each of them already feels more like old newspapers, not a timeless encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norway-Sweden Out of the Race.

Its has been said as of today - 9/12-09 that the Norway-Sweden joint bid to host the UEFA Euro 2016 after the goverment of the two countries, will deny the monetary guarantee to pay for the cost assosiated with the games.

source (in Norvegian ) : http://www.vg.no/sport/fotball/norsk/artikkel.php?artid=596422 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.228.18 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italian 12° city

you forgot to put into the italian bid's section the twelth city that has been decided: Parma. Its stadium is Stadio Ennio Tardini --Thomas romano (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

The second and third references return errors even though the addresses seem to be fine, in trying to correct them reference 5 goes wrong. Please could somebody better than be with references have a look? Bevo74 (talk) 07:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paring down the Turkey / Italy sections

Now that the bidding process is over, we should probably think about paring down the sections on Turkey and Italy (don't eliminate them completely, but they don't need this degree of mention, with all the proposed stadiums and such). 68.62.16.149 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. – Pee Jay 17:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since the host has been decided, maybe there can be a Euro 2016 bids page? Kingjeff (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should have a common UEFA Euro hosts page similar to the World Cup.-NineInchRuiner (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Euro 2016 Bidding Controversy

It is interesting that there is no mention of the highly controversial Euro 2016 bidding process in the article.

Turkey accuse UEFA of bias as France is picked to host Euro 2016

scandal: france 2016... boycott Euro 2016

Guus Hiddink slams UEFA decision to grant France Euro 2016 ahead of Turkey

[1] “The presence of Nicolas Sarkozy tipped the balance. In the end it was 7-6. So I think it was good he decided to come. If he hadn’t come, Turkey would almost certainly have won.” “I’m happy because France has won, and I’m French — let’s not forget it,” Platini said after the vote. Tmhm (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand, why is this controversial? Sure, Platini is French, but he's the UEFA president too. Turkey are just being sore losers. – Pee Jay 13:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is always mention that Platini is the UEFA president and french and France won the bid. But nowhere does it say that the vice -president is turkish. The controversy is taking over the whole article. Maybe just a mention and a link to another article with full reference and facts. To mention as well that only the english version of the article reports it, not even the turkish seems to mention anything(I don't speak turkish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.219.15 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's not mentioned in the article is that it has never come up in the media, as far as we know. If you can find a rebuttal article to support your statement, feel free to add it to the article. – Pee Jay 10:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just be happy we don't have to go to eastern Europe, again. 83.86.4.72 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to know if there has ever been a bid for a major sporting event which didn't end up with the losers claiming it was all a fix. Bandanamerchant (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Venues

I suggest that the venues section has the map/photos only showing the 9 venues that have actually been selected, with the text explaining that 3 other stadiums were originally in the bid as well. At the moment the main part of the venues section is giving the same prominence to the stadiums that will not be hosting football.Eldumpo (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stade de France 2005.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Stade de France 2005.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stade Felix-Bollaert.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Stade Felix-Bollaert.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paris-Parc-des-Princes.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Paris-Parc-des-Princes.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:StadiumToulouse1b.JPG Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:StadiumToulouse1b.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

trolling, Guus Hiddink on Oprah

you have trollers. Some wrote that Hiddink said he would kill 24 cats if France won, and that he made the remarks on Oprah....yeah, right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.7.186.2 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sounds very unlikely. The provided reference doesn't has nothing to do with it anyway. Maimai009 16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy no longer host

Pulled out for financial reasons: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrcolyer (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

24 teams

Will the expanded tornament have 6 groups of 4, and will it be a last 16 or still a last 8? It does not add up to me. Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Last 16. Explained under extended format. -Koppapa (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of unnecessary maps

I have reverted a couple of changes that have been made by a particular editor over the last few days - namely, a couple of maps that he/she has added. While these maps look good, and a lot of effort has obviously gone in to them, they seem to be unnecessary. The first one was a map of the stadium locations, of which a map is already included. The other was a map of UEFA members, which has little relevance to this article. This, along with the fact that no such maps are included in previous UEFA Euro articles, is why I have reverted the edits. If anyone disagrees (or agrees!) with my decision, then feel free to discuss it here and make a decision. Zestos (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Villeneuve d'Ascq instead of Lille

Should the map list "Villeneuve-d'Ascq" as a site instead of Lille? It is correct that the Grand Stade Lille Métropole is located there, but it's part of the Lille metropolitan area and most people will be more familiar with the name of Lille.

If we're going to stick with Villeneuve-d'Ascq, then should we not also list Décines-Charpieu instead of Lyon, since the Stade des Lumières will be located there? Funnyhat (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both comments, there's definitely an issue of consistency here. The obvious choice would be to use the Lille and Lyon since they're the residing clubs in these two stadiums (Pierre-Mauroy and Stades des Lumières) 5moufl (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decision controversy

I have some reservations about this section. It's not very well balanced and uses a number of Platini's quotes out of context to try and make it appear more controversial than it was. For instance, the first quote where Platini says Turkey can host a tournament when they have a Turkish President was clearly a joke; yet it's written here as if he was deadly serious. Newspapers might have thought it acceptable to take that quote and spin it into a controversy, but that doesn't mean we should repeat it on Wikipedia without some qualifying statement. Bandanamerchant (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifying Format

"In May 2013, Platini confirmed a similar qualifying format will be again discussed during the September 2013 UEFA executive committee meeting, set to take place in Dubrovnik."

Well Dubrovnik has come and gone and as far as I can tell there's no media coverage mentioning the qualifying format. Anyone know how this is actually going to work? Bandanamerchant (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Group B fiasco

I just had to delete a fictional account of Group B's competition. Someone "recorded" Ireland and Italy advancing with Sweden in third and Portugal last. This tournament hasn't happened yet, and I had to remove it. I hope no one else decides to say that Switzerland wins Group C or something crazy like that. VampyIceMan 10:17 13 August 2014 (Central Time, US) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VampyIceMan (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updates

Am I wrong or does this page need serious updating now that the draw have been made (months ago) and the early matche have already been played? I'm happy to do it, but is somebody already tasked with it? Ohuanam (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The matches that have already been played are just qualifying matches, for which we have a separate page at UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying. – Pee Jay 22:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the event of a Germany-Russia final...

...who will go to the Confederations Cup in representation of Europe, especially as these tournaments usually don't have a third-place game. This needs to be spelt out in the lead, or simply remove all mentions of the Confederations Cup until we know enough not to include the regulations on who will go. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this case is clearly described in regulations. My guess - if Russia-Germany meet in Euro final, then FIFA will invite Argentina (WC runner-up) or Copa America '15 runner-up (if Argentina wins). Or maybe even Copa'16 winners, but not a 3rd wild card European team -BlameRuiner (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fans not being considered

As with many 'factual' articles on Wikipedia this one reads like an advertisement. I appreciate that the facts such as stadia, teams, leagues etc.. must be reported - and they have been. But there are other 'facts' too: less apparent but still out there. For instance, in the eyes of many fans, Platini has ruined this tournament by allowing so many teams to qualify. Why turn a tournament of 16 (which worked) into a tournament of 24 (which means that countless games are being played with no real effect on the outcome). Why arent traditions or the opinions of fans ever taken into account? 213.114.44.178 (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because what you call 'facts' are actually just opinions. Find us some sources for the criticism of the new format and there'll probably be some way of working it into the article, but all you've got at the minute is your own opinion. – Pee Jay 10:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final Draw

Why France Coefficient 46,416 because they have 33,599 Coefficient?

37.122.117.125 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been corrected, UEFA had 46,416 in their article first, probably typo. Qed237 (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently blank

The article has been made completely blank by someone and has still not been fixed.