![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Since the host has been decided, maybe there can be a Euro 2016 bids page? Kingjeff ( talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
![]() |
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
|
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) |
![]() |
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
|
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) |
![]() |
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
|
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Pulled out for financial reasons: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrcolyer ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
Why
France Coefficient 46,416 because they have 33,599 Coefficient?
37.122.117.125 ( talk) 13:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The article has been made completely blank by someone and has still not been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewebaholic ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose to merge Super Victor (article about the mascot of the tournament) into this article. The reason is that I feel not enough material can be gathered about the mascot of a soccer tournament to establish enough relevance for its own article. 100 percent of the content found in Super Victor can also be found in the UEFA Euro 2016 article. -- rayukk | talk 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
145.235.0.28 ( talk) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I observe that the table listing the qualified teams at the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying article is transcluded into this article as well. In that table, the teams are ordered by date (and then, presumably, by time) of securing qualification. While this chronological order is of some relevance for the qualifying tournament article, I think that for the Euro finals article an alphabetical list of the finalists would make more sense. What is most important here is who will appear in the finals, not when or how they got there (that's already duly covered by the qualifying tournament article). Therefore, I suggest a new, alphabetical table be placed here, which will otherwise be the same as the present one, and which will still be sortable, so readers who wish to sort the teams by qualifying date can do so. -- Theurgist ( talk) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Should Germany be listed as "[previously] competed as West Germany"? Today's Germany is the same Federal Republic of Germany that competed in the 1960s, 70s and 80s (it may be bigger now since the unification with East Germany but it's not legally a new country, unlike Croatia or the Czech Rep). Herky bird ( talk) 21:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The tiebrakers section reads at point 4: "If, after having applied criteria 1 to 3, teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1 to 3 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the teams in question to determine their final rankings. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 5 to 9 apply". Does someone understand what that actually means? I'm not a native speaker, so that might be my problem, but to me this sounds exactly the same as criteria 1 to 3: Comparing the matches played between the teams in question. However, this obviously wouldn't make any sense, so could someone point out what "reapplied exclusively" means? Thank you! -- Christallkeks ( talk) 22:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
¨The map over the qualified teams splits Russia in two totally random making the whole section really confusing. Please somebody fix it, just paint all of Russia blue. It should take a normal person 2 seconds to do. I would do it but the page is locked. It really is disturbing my map-autism, so please I would really appreciate the help.
/info/en/?search=UEFA_Euro_2016#/media/File:UEFA_Euro_2016_qualifying_map.svg
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.222.148 ( talk) 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the test : "The UEFA General Secretary Gianni Infantino". However, Gianni Infantino is the former UEFA General secretary and current FIFA president.
Piumabianca84 ( talk) 04:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, what way are the teams ordered in the group section? It's not alphabetical and not by their date of qualification. 86.185.196.193 ( talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay but even if there is a nominal ordering assigned within each group before any matches are played, the cell background colours and "qualifications" column in these tables make no sense until enough matches have been played to determine the outcome. We need to get rid of these until then. -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 21:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
But taking Group A as an example, France are no longer on "played 0", having played one match and won it. However, clearly neither are they yet in a position of being guaranteed to advance to the knockout phase, although that's what the label would appear to indicate. At some point in each group, depending on all the results, some teams become certain to qualify for the knockouts. What I am saying is that the "qualify" column, and the highlighting that goes with it (cell background colour), should be empty to start with (or maybe set to "possible knockout phase"), and the label "advance to knockout phase" should only be applied to teams once they reach the point where this is guaranteed -- even though teams can be listed in some kind of group order before this point is reached. I would also argue that when a team reaches a stage where it is impossible for them to qualify, this should be indicated in the "qualify" column with the words "cannot qualify", probably with an accompanying red (or pink) background for the row. The only thing in favour of the present format is that it is less effort, not that it is actually better. Given the likely level of reader interest in this article during the course of the championship, I'd have thought that it is worth the effort. -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 00:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Now that Kosovo has gained full UEFA membership, it should be separated from Serbia in the map, and coloured grey (because it was still not a member at the time of the qualifiers). -- Theurgist ( talk) 09:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
More information to be added into the hooliganism subsection of controversies. I would add a sentence saying:
Fighting continued on the day of the tournament, this time predominantly between Russian and England fans. It also spilled into the stadium, with English fans having to flee from Russian fans after the full time whistle.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36506917 |title=Euro 2016: Violence mars England-Russia match |source=BBC Sport |date=11 June 2016 |accessdate=11 June 2016}}</ref>
Or something along those lines, to make clear that the fighting has not just been English fans in the streets, but also what has been reported to be more organised Russian fans causing trouble actually at the matches.
Eng736 ( talk) 22:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S
02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)The group stage is now under way, and no doubt the instant group A completes there 2nd set of games, there will be hundreds of people working out 100s of scenarios across the various groups depending on what happens if they finish 3rd if W beets X, or Y draws with Z, or what happens with such and such a goal swing and so on, and so on. There are only 3 to 4 days between a teams 2nd match and it's 3rd - and given that other groups will play those days, the result of a team finishing third will probably change each day. So what's the point in going into this sort of crystal balling OR when it's going to be on the page for so little time? put it in a blog where it belongs, not wiki. And this includes the silly status letters which will probably be edit warred over several times with one person insiting that one letter is correct because x and y can still draw, and another person reverting claiming that this will mean zz can't pass them, and so on, and so on....
So please can we be sensible and just wait 3 to 4 days for information to become FACT and final? 90.219.175.78 ( talk) 09:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the England/Russia hooliganism story, French prosecutors said today that the violence was largely caused by 150 Russian fans, who were 'well prepared' and 'well-trained' for 'ultra-rapid, ultra-violent action.' I suggest this development is clearly extremely important and fundamental to this story, and I think this article should duly include it. The following are my sources (I quoted above from the BBC article):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36515213 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-2016-violence-russian-england-fans-marseille-violent-clashes-football-a7079246.html http://www.worldsoccer.com/euro-2016/england/french-prosecutors-150-russians-behind-violence-376374 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.34 ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the England/Russia hooliganism story, French prosecutors said today that the violence was largely caused by 150 Russian fans, who were 'well prepared' and 'well-trained' for 'ultra-rapid, ultra-violent action.' I suggest this development is clearly extremely important and fundamental to this story, and I think this article should duly include it. The following are my sources (I quoted above from the BBC article):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36515213 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-2016-violence-russian-england-fans-marseille-violent-clashes-football-a7079246.html http://www.worldsoccer.com/euro-2016/england/french-prosecutors-150-russians-behind-violence-376374 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.34 ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear (in the article or the cited UEFA regulations) regarding the ranking tiebreaker "Position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system" whether higher coefficient confers a better or worse group ranking. I guess higher coefficient = higher ranking is a more natural interpretation of the text; then again given how neutrals tend to favour the underdogs UEFA might take an opportunity to give them a slight advantage. OTOH maybe UEFA prefer to favour the more lucrative TV markets. jnestorius( talk) 11:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is Portugal number 2 and Iceland number 3 if they both have 1 point. Please fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:2E34:F198:FCE4:73D:7A58:D83 ( talk) 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are Czechoslovakia's past tournaments counted for Czech Republic but not for Slovakia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.5.232 ( talk) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR: FIFA recognises the Czech Republic as the same team as Czechoslovakia and even Bohemia. Full stop. Plaintiff has pushed his own nationalistic fringe theories in the article despite not gaining consensus. Attributing to newly independent states the records of their former occupiers: [3] Stripping the Czech Republic of the history FIFA recognises them with: [4] General WP:NOTHERE |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think both Slovakia and Czech Republic are successors to former Czechoslovakia. Or none of them. Both countries were equal parts of Czechoslovakia. The name of the former country tells for itself. And by the way, 8 of 11 players in the lineup for the final match in 1976, when Czechoslovakia won its only European Championship, were from the Slovak part of the former country. So, how can you count the victory for Czech Republic? Both current countries own it - or none of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N3V4D1 ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You're ranting and not making any sense, especially when you say that the Czech Republic beating Slovakia would be it beating itself under this logic, among your other straw men. The same organisation administered football in Bohemia, Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic. We would not, for example, include Germany's results after the Anschluss to Austria's record '''tAD''' ( talk) 09:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
![]()
Czechoslovakia team should be neither counted for Czech republic nor Slovakia. That is how it appears in UEFA and FIFA pages. Wikipedia article should adher! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisoslonik ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
I propose that for this tournament we only use "A" (advance to next round) or "E" (eliminated) to avoid a lot of edit warring as well as long statustext below the table for this short group stage. Any opinions? Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There has been proposal above to make the statusletters shorter; X – Assured of top three finish, Y – Cannot finish in top two. Or something similar. What do you think? Qed237 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Despite numerous articles in reliable sources about vandalism and violence by both English and Russian fans, the section on hooliganism completely ignores the English fans and use English sources to blame the Russians. This is a rather strong POV-pushing, so tagging the article until this has been sorted. The fact that this is English Wikipedia means we use the English language, not that we write article from an English point of view. Jeppiz ( talk) 13:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Having read through the sources a bit more I feel that it is our section which isn't neutral at all. Even British sources have reported that Both Russia and England have been warned that they could be thrown out of the tournament if their fan's violence continues and that the here have been new riots today, this time between English, French and Welsh fans (no Russians involved at all), yet nothing of that is mentioned in this article. Only the Russian are discussed for some reason. T v x1 21:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I see absolutely no neutrality in this section. Even if I were somehow related to England, I would not write so one-sidedly. Guys, English fans in Lille were provocating Russians, that's absolutely clear. What else could they do there? Their match in the other city. And blaming ONLY Russians for bullying is no fair, at the very least. But reading this section, it seems that English fans are just so innocent, so that evil Russians came and gave fight to peaceful guys for nothing. Yes, UEFA has given officially a suspended disqualification and fined the Russian team, but there were also official warnings to English as well. It's only one sentence about this fact now. I understand that you are following the Wikipedia guidelines, but this is clearly not fair. Kind regards, Waylesange ( talk) 06:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Waylesange and Tvx1 and think they have made the case quite clearly and convincingly. The fact that one loud user objects over and over again should not really influence things. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean total unanimity. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And now we had Croatian fan violence inside a stadium. T v x1 19:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. This time there is a particularly high probability that yellow and red cards will have to be counted in order to determine the ranking (see SUI/ROM, ENG/RUS, GER/POL). The current wording of the article mentions "3 points for a red card as a consequence of two yellow cards". This formulation leaves it unclear whether the first (and indeed the second) yellow card still counts as 1 point alongside the 3 points for the red card. The official text of the Regulations is clearer on this, but uses too many words. Probably it would be wise to change the wording in the article. Something like "2 points for a second yellow card followed by a red card", or "3 points for two yellow cards in one match followed by a red card"? Ivan Volodin ( talk) 15:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Can't see where it says anywhere how many games in the group stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdgillen ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently reflects a 5-0 France win. This match has not yet occurred. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
158.229.248.14 (
talk)
18:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
In section 8.2 /info/en/?search=UEFA_Euro_2016#Qualified_teams_2 Italy is already shown (as of Sat 18th @ 17:20 hrs French time) as having won group E, which isn't true (or at least is premature): if Italy loses their final match against ROI, and Belgium beats Sweden, both Italy and Belgium will be on 6 points, in which case Belgium could be the group winner with goal difference. Whoever ends up winning the group - could well turn out to be Italy - my point is it hasn't been decided yet. Or have I missed something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.131.57 ( talk) 15:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Italy is said to have it's game on match 43, however if Belgium win and Italy loses Italy will be in second place so their game would be match 42. http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/season=2016/matches/round=2000744/match=2018002/index.html Here is the official website stating that Italy is not confirmed for this game.
Knight Of Shame ( talk) 19:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current list of top scorers are as of 'Matchday 2 of 3', not 'Match 2 of 3'.
122.171.99.31 ( talk) 20:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed in the section "Bracket" that England is already added in the final. Is it a mistake/vandalism? could someone restore the previous version? I'm not a football expert ;). Wjkxy ( talk) 16:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm posting this in the wrong spot, so sorry.
But England is in. Any team with 4 points *will* advance, even if they get releated to the 3rd position. As there are already sufficient teams with 0 or 1 point after 2 completed games. As a result, there will be at least 8 teams with 3 poitns or less after all teams have played 3 games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.62.169 ( talk) 19:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a minimum of 1 team in each of groups A-D which can have no more than 3 points apiece. If Wales beats or draws Russia, England will automatically finish 2nd place or better, regardless of the outcome of their match against Slovakia. If England loses to Slovakia, and Russia beats Wales, then England still finishes ahead of Wales on head-to-head. Thus there is only 1 scenario in which England is 3rd at all.
(I won't try to include the fact that Turkey *will* lose to Spain)
Finally, of groups E and F ugh...forget it. I can't handle the permutations right now. I don't agree with you, but my neckbearded indignation is proving to be nothing more than impotent rage. You win, for now, Darkwind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.62.169 ( talk) 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Winner of the group E is not Italy as stated in the article as Belgium can Win its match against Sweden with good goal difference and in the other match Italy could lose against ireland making their goal difference(GD) less than that of Belgium and hence not a group winner. Rishab.gupta33 ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In ties there's no rule for penalty shootout anymore (check UEFA source link). You have to remove point 7 from Tiebreakers section.
Are all the games counted as 0-3 losses? Including the previous ones? How would they count for the 3rd place team rankings? Nergaal ( talk) 17:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's an IF and only IF. I doubt UEFA would expel them without informing the public what would happen to the other three teams' results. We're here to report facts from sources, not speculate in a big WP:CRYSTALBALL '''tAD''' ( talk) 22:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Since the host has been decided, maybe there can be a Euro 2016 bids page? Kingjeff ( talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
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)
![]() |
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
|
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) |
![]() |
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
|
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) |
![]() |
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
|
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) |
![]() |
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
|
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) |
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)
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)
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)
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)
Pulled out for financial reasons: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrcolyer ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...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)
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)
Why
France Coefficient 46,416 because they have 33,599 Coefficient?
37.122.117.125 ( talk) 13:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The article has been made completely blank by someone and has still not been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewebaholic ( talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
I propose to merge Super Victor (article about the mascot of the tournament) into this article. The reason is that I feel not enough material can be gathered about the mascot of a soccer tournament to establish enough relevance for its own article. 100 percent of the content found in Super Victor can also be found in the UEFA Euro 2016 article. -- rayukk | talk 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
145.235.0.28 ( talk) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I observe that the table listing the qualified teams at the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying article is transcluded into this article as well. In that table, the teams are ordered by date (and then, presumably, by time) of securing qualification. While this chronological order is of some relevance for the qualifying tournament article, I think that for the Euro finals article an alphabetical list of the finalists would make more sense. What is most important here is who will appear in the finals, not when or how they got there (that's already duly covered by the qualifying tournament article). Therefore, I suggest a new, alphabetical table be placed here, which will otherwise be the same as the present one, and which will still be sortable, so readers who wish to sort the teams by qualifying date can do so. -- Theurgist ( talk) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Should Germany be listed as "[previously] competed as West Germany"? Today's Germany is the same Federal Republic of Germany that competed in the 1960s, 70s and 80s (it may be bigger now since the unification with East Germany but it's not legally a new country, unlike Croatia or the Czech Rep). Herky bird ( talk) 21:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The tiebrakers section reads at point 4: "If, after having applied criteria 1 to 3, teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1 to 3 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the teams in question to determine their final rankings. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 5 to 9 apply". Does someone understand what that actually means? I'm not a native speaker, so that might be my problem, but to me this sounds exactly the same as criteria 1 to 3: Comparing the matches played between the teams in question. However, this obviously wouldn't make any sense, so could someone point out what "reapplied exclusively" means? Thank you! -- Christallkeks ( talk) 22:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
¨The map over the qualified teams splits Russia in two totally random making the whole section really confusing. Please somebody fix it, just paint all of Russia blue. It should take a normal person 2 seconds to do. I would do it but the page is locked. It really is disturbing my map-autism, so please I would really appreciate the help.
/info/en/?search=UEFA_Euro_2016#/media/File:UEFA_Euro_2016_qualifying_map.svg
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.222.148 ( talk) 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the test : "The UEFA General Secretary Gianni Infantino". However, Gianni Infantino is the former UEFA General secretary and current FIFA president.
Piumabianca84 ( talk) 04:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, what way are the teams ordered in the group section? It's not alphabetical and not by their date of qualification. 86.185.196.193 ( talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay but even if there is a nominal ordering assigned within each group before any matches are played, the cell background colours and "qualifications" column in these tables make no sense until enough matches have been played to determine the outcome. We need to get rid of these until then. -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 21:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
But taking Group A as an example, France are no longer on "played 0", having played one match and won it. However, clearly neither are they yet in a position of being guaranteed to advance to the knockout phase, although that's what the label would appear to indicate. At some point in each group, depending on all the results, some teams become certain to qualify for the knockouts. What I am saying is that the "qualify" column, and the highlighting that goes with it (cell background colour), should be empty to start with (or maybe set to "possible knockout phase"), and the label "advance to knockout phase" should only be applied to teams once they reach the point where this is guaranteed -- even though teams can be listed in some kind of group order before this point is reached. I would also argue that when a team reaches a stage where it is impossible for them to qualify, this should be indicated in the "qualify" column with the words "cannot qualify", probably with an accompanying red (or pink) background for the row. The only thing in favour of the present format is that it is less effort, not that it is actually better. Given the likely level of reader interest in this article during the course of the championship, I'd have thought that it is worth the effort. -- Money money tickle parsnip ( talk) 00:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Now that Kosovo has gained full UEFA membership, it should be separated from Serbia in the map, and coloured grey (because it was still not a member at the time of the qualifiers). -- Theurgist ( talk) 09:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
More information to be added into the hooliganism subsection of controversies. I would add a sentence saying:
Fighting continued on the day of the tournament, this time predominantly between Russian and England fans. It also spilled into the stadium, with English fans having to flee from Russian fans after the full time whistle.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36506917 |title=Euro 2016: Violence mars England-Russia match |source=BBC Sport |date=11 June 2016 |accessdate=11 June 2016}}</ref>
Or something along those lines, to make clear that the fighting has not just been English fans in the streets, but also what has been reported to be more organised Russian fans causing trouble actually at the matches.
Eng736 ( talk) 22:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S
02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)The group stage is now under way, and no doubt the instant group A completes there 2nd set of games, there will be hundreds of people working out 100s of scenarios across the various groups depending on what happens if they finish 3rd if W beets X, or Y draws with Z, or what happens with such and such a goal swing and so on, and so on. There are only 3 to 4 days between a teams 2nd match and it's 3rd - and given that other groups will play those days, the result of a team finishing third will probably change each day. So what's the point in going into this sort of crystal balling OR when it's going to be on the page for so little time? put it in a blog where it belongs, not wiki. And this includes the silly status letters which will probably be edit warred over several times with one person insiting that one letter is correct because x and y can still draw, and another person reverting claiming that this will mean zz can't pass them, and so on, and so on....
So please can we be sensible and just wait 3 to 4 days for information to become FACT and final? 90.219.175.78 ( talk) 09:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the England/Russia hooliganism story, French prosecutors said today that the violence was largely caused by 150 Russian fans, who were 'well prepared' and 'well-trained' for 'ultra-rapid, ultra-violent action.' I suggest this development is clearly extremely important and fundamental to this story, and I think this article should duly include it. The following are my sources (I quoted above from the BBC article):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36515213 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-2016-violence-russian-england-fans-marseille-violent-clashes-football-a7079246.html http://www.worldsoccer.com/euro-2016/england/french-prosecutors-150-russians-behind-violence-376374 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.34 ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello. Regarding the England/Russia hooliganism story, French prosecutors said today that the violence was largely caused by 150 Russian fans, who were 'well prepared' and 'well-trained' for 'ultra-rapid, ultra-violent action.' I suggest this development is clearly extremely important and fundamental to this story, and I think this article should duly include it. The following are my sources (I quoted above from the BBC article):
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36515213 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-2016-violence-russian-england-fans-marseille-violent-clashes-football-a7079246.html http://www.worldsoccer.com/euro-2016/england/french-prosecutors-150-russians-behind-violence-376374 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.34 ( talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It's not clear (in the article or the cited UEFA regulations) regarding the ranking tiebreaker "Position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system" whether higher coefficient confers a better or worse group ranking. I guess higher coefficient = higher ranking is a more natural interpretation of the text; then again given how neutrals tend to favour the underdogs UEFA might take an opportunity to give them a slight advantage. OTOH maybe UEFA prefer to favour the more lucrative TV markets. jnestorius( talk) 11:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Why is Portugal number 2 and Iceland number 3 if they both have 1 point. Please fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:2E34:F198:FCE4:73D:7A58:D83 ( talk) 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Why are Czechoslovakia's past tournaments counted for Czech Republic but not for Slovakia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.5.232 ( talk) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
TL;DR: FIFA recognises the Czech Republic as the same team as Czechoslovakia and even Bohemia. Full stop. Plaintiff has pushed his own nationalistic fringe theories in the article despite not gaining consensus. Attributing to newly independent states the records of their former occupiers: [3] Stripping the Czech Republic of the history FIFA recognises them with: [4] General WP:NOTHERE |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I think both Slovakia and Czech Republic are successors to former Czechoslovakia. Or none of them. Both countries were equal parts of Czechoslovakia. The name of the former country tells for itself. And by the way, 8 of 11 players in the lineup for the final match in 1976, when Czechoslovakia won its only European Championship, were from the Slovak part of the former country. So, how can you count the victory for Czech Republic? Both current countries own it - or none of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N3V4D1 ( talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
You're ranting and not making any sense, especially when you say that the Czech Republic beating Slovakia would be it beating itself under this logic, among your other straw men. The same organisation administered football in Bohemia, Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic. We would not, for example, include Germany's results after the Anschluss to Austria's record '''tAD''' ( talk) 09:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
![]()
Czechoslovakia team should be neither counted for Czech republic nor Slovakia. That is how it appears in UEFA and FIFA pages. Wikipedia article should adher! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisoslonik ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
I propose that for this tournament we only use "A" (advance to next round) or "E" (eliminated) to avoid a lot of edit warring as well as long statustext below the table for this short group stage. Any opinions? Qed237 (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There has been proposal above to make the statusletters shorter; X – Assured of top three finish, Y – Cannot finish in top two. Or something similar. What do you think? Qed237 (talk) 20:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Despite numerous articles in reliable sources about vandalism and violence by both English and Russian fans, the section on hooliganism completely ignores the English fans and use English sources to blame the Russians. This is a rather strong POV-pushing, so tagging the article until this has been sorted. The fact that this is English Wikipedia means we use the English language, not that we write article from an English point of view. Jeppiz ( talk) 13:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Having read through the sources a bit more I feel that it is our section which isn't neutral at all. Even British sources have reported that Both Russia and England have been warned that they could be thrown out of the tournament if their fan's violence continues and that the here have been new riots today, this time between English, French and Welsh fans (no Russians involved at all), yet nothing of that is mentioned in this article. Only the Russian are discussed for some reason. T v x1 21:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I see absolutely no neutrality in this section. Even if I were somehow related to England, I would not write so one-sidedly. Guys, English fans in Lille were provocating Russians, that's absolutely clear. What else could they do there? Their match in the other city. And blaming ONLY Russians for bullying is no fair, at the very least. But reading this section, it seems that English fans are just so innocent, so that evil Russians came and gave fight to peaceful guys for nothing. Yes, UEFA has given officially a suspended disqualification and fined the Russian team, but there were also official warnings to English as well. It's only one sentence about this fact now. I understand that you are following the Wikipedia guidelines, but this is clearly not fair. Kind regards, Waylesange ( talk) 06:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Waylesange and Tvx1 and think they have made the case quite clearly and convincingly. The fact that one loud user objects over and over again should not really influence things. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean total unanimity. Jeppiz ( talk) 11:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And now we had Croatian fan violence inside a stadium. T v x1 19:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. This time there is a particularly high probability that yellow and red cards will have to be counted in order to determine the ranking (see SUI/ROM, ENG/RUS, GER/POL). The current wording of the article mentions "3 points for a red card as a consequence of two yellow cards". This formulation leaves it unclear whether the first (and indeed the second) yellow card still counts as 1 point alongside the 3 points for the red card. The official text of the Regulations is clearer on this, but uses too many words. Probably it would be wise to change the wording in the article. Something like "2 points for a second yellow card followed by a red card", or "3 points for two yellow cards in one match followed by a red card"? Ivan Volodin ( talk) 15:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Can't see where it says anywhere how many games in the group stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdgillen ( talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Currently reflects a 5-0 France win. This match has not yet occurred. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
158.229.248.14 (
talk)
18:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
In section 8.2 /info/en/?search=UEFA_Euro_2016#Qualified_teams_2 Italy is already shown (as of Sat 18th @ 17:20 hrs French time) as having won group E, which isn't true (or at least is premature): if Italy loses their final match against ROI, and Belgium beats Sweden, both Italy and Belgium will be on 6 points, in which case Belgium could be the group winner with goal difference. Whoever ends up winning the group - could well turn out to be Italy - my point is it hasn't been decided yet. Or have I missed something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.131.57 ( talk) 15:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Italy is said to have it's game on match 43, however if Belgium win and Italy loses Italy will be in second place so their game would be match 42. http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/season=2016/matches/round=2000744/match=2018002/index.html Here is the official website stating that Italy is not confirmed for this game.
Knight Of Shame ( talk) 19:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current list of top scorers are as of 'Matchday 2 of 3', not 'Match 2 of 3'.
122.171.99.31 ( talk) 20:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I've noticed in the section "Bracket" that England is already added in the final. Is it a mistake/vandalism? could someone restore the previous version? I'm not a football expert ;). Wjkxy ( talk) 16:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm posting this in the wrong spot, so sorry.
But England is in. Any team with 4 points *will* advance, even if they get releated to the 3rd position. As there are already sufficient teams with 0 or 1 point after 2 completed games. As a result, there will be at least 8 teams with 3 poitns or less after all teams have played 3 games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.62.169 ( talk) 19:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I have a minimum of 1 team in each of groups A-D which can have no more than 3 points apiece. If Wales beats or draws Russia, England will automatically finish 2nd place or better, regardless of the outcome of their match against Slovakia. If England loses to Slovakia, and Russia beats Wales, then England still finishes ahead of Wales on head-to-head. Thus there is only 1 scenario in which England is 3rd at all.
(I won't try to include the fact that Turkey *will* lose to Spain)
Finally, of groups E and F ugh...forget it. I can't handle the permutations right now. I don't agree with you, but my neckbearded indignation is proving to be nothing more than impotent rage. You win, for now, Darkwind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.62.169 ( talk) 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
UEFA Euro 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Winner of the group E is not Italy as stated in the article as Belgium can Win its match against Sweden with good goal difference and in the other match Italy could lose against ireland making their goal difference(GD) less than that of Belgium and hence not a group winner. Rishab.gupta33 ( talk) 14:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In ties there's no rule for penalty shootout anymore (check UEFA source link). You have to remove point 7 from Tiebreakers section.
Are all the games counted as 0-3 losses? Including the previous ones? How would they count for the 3rd place team rankings? Nergaal ( talk) 17:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
It's an IF and only IF. I doubt UEFA would expel them without informing the public what would happen to the other three teams' results. We're here to report facts from sources, not speculate in a big WP:CRYSTALBALL '''tAD''' ( talk) 22:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)