Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:09, 1 January 2007

Football Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Reaction to the draw

On the day of the draw, many people thought that Group E was favourable to England's qualification chances, and that Group B was decidedly unfavourable to Scotland's qualifying chances. [6] This group was given added spice when two of its members, Italy and France, reached the 2006 FIFA World Cup final. Seems to me like that statement is a bit anglo-centric. I don't really think most people around Europe are interested only in what England and Scotland's qualifying chances are. Besides, isn't the use of the words "most people" adding in so-called weasel words? Salmon 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Besides England was in Pot 1 due to its rating (based on previous results) while Scotland was in Pot 4. Thus it was entirely expected England would end up with overaly weaker opponents (as it was certain to avoid all the top teams in the Pot 1).

What is the point in the above comment in relation to the draw favouring England and not Scotland? As mentioned above, England were a top seed and Scotland were not. Is England's group any tougher than, say, the Netherlands group?

Fixtures & Groups

There's no ideal way of displaying them all, especially here - with 7 or 8 in a group and 42 or 56 fixtures, but maybe something like the UEFA U-21 Championship 2006 format could be done. We may have to wait until all fixtures have been sorted out first...
Slumgum 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've adopted a 3-column, no flag icon, bullets only for dates approach. This way each group's fixtures can be displayed on one screen (768x1024 res). It's less colourful, but more practical. Apologies to those who worked hard including all the {{XYZf}} templates.
Slumgum 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on old news items here and found out that Group A fixtures were negotiated on that date. I wasn't able to find where that meeting took place. BleuDXXXIV 14:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Green highlighting"

Have the qualifiers been played already? The empty tables don't show it, so why are there two teams in green at the top of each table? Remember: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. - THE GREAT GAVINI {T-C} 18:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... in order to show that two teams get directly promoted ...--Panairjdde 00:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The teams are currently ranked by seeding, so teams in green are the top two seeds, except for group C, where User:MrGreek has vandalised it so that Turkey are bottom of the group. The same user removed The fixtures for group C were settled at a meeting between the participants in Istanbul, Turkey. SLUMGUM yap stalk 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the green highligthing, the matches have not yet been played.

1) I took care of Group C.

2) Top 2 seeds would qualify if no matches were played, so it's technically correct. It's really not that hard to realize that the qualification hasn't been finished. MonsterOfTheLake 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The highlighting ought to be removed until time for qualification to finals. It is meaningless during the early stages of the qualifying tournament. 66.162.99.17 17:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it per Panairjdde. Archibald99 17:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I see the colours have been changed. How about putting above/below the table: Green = Automatic qualifying position, yellow = Play off position and~~ use a Q to signify when a team has qualified? Archibald99 17:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow isn't a play-off position; both the top two teams go through. Agreed with the sentiments, tho. Oh, and please remove the red - there's no need to have everything coloured. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need more then 1 colour since we know that 2 teams are going in and the rest aren't from each group. Kingjeff 18:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Later on in the tournament there should be green white and pink. Green for 'currently in a position to qualify' white for 'able to qualify but not currently ranked high enough' and red for 'unable to qualify' (guest)

I have an idea for a summary of all the groups, we have a table with 8 columns (1 for each group and 1 for explanations) The rows would be Qualified (green background), Able to qualify (white background) and unable to qualify (red/pink background) 80.2.91.233 06:51, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did the above comment, I forgot to sign in, sorry Funkyduncan 06:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, also an example can be seen here: 2007 AFC Asian Cup qualification#Group summary - MTC 08:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I first found it. Funkyduncan 18:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've added it now. The idea is IMO fine but it's also way too early for the qualification summary to be the least bit useful. No country can secure qualification or lose their theoretical chances to qualify before June 2007 which is more than half a year away. It could be useful if the "still in contention" category would be divided in two: in countries that certainly qualify by winning all their remaining games AND in countries needing "assistance", that is, countries that might win all their remaining fixtures and still be left out because they have already lost too many points. It's somewhat laborous to check though and I don't know good short labels for such categories. Anyway, I don't see the point of keeping the qualification summary in the article in its current form. Sue-Tomi 14:28, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TV

Will the qualifying be shown on TV?

Of course it will, but not on worldwide. I actually don't know about EuroSport will broadcast some games, but national TV stations will. ka la ha 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was thoroughly expecting to see the Croatia-England match on Wednesday, but the BBC subjected all of the UK to the Scotland match instead grrrr Funkyduncan 18:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYR MACEDONIA

Why is it called Republic of Macedonia when FIFA, UEFA and the EU Recognize is as FYR Macedonia???

Yeah, we should use the name that UEFA go by (hence Ireland are Republic of Ireland). --Robdurbar 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got moaned at when I first used FYR Macedonia on Wikipedia, so I now use Republic of Macedonia, as the country's article is titled. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreakers

Tiebreaker 3 seems a bit redundant. If two teams have equal goal difference in their head-to-head games, they're obviously going to have equal goals scored in those games as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.173.59 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 September, 2006 (UTC).

If you look at the first sentence, this concerns two or more teams. If three (or more) sides were level, this could be a decider. --Robdurbar 17:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, for instance, imagine the extreme case in which all matches in a group end 0-0 except for one match which ends 1-1. All teams are equal on points and have the same goal difference (zero), but the two teams that played 1-1 have scored one more goal than the others. If you then look further into the tiebreakers, the visiting team playing in the 1-1 game would win since they scored more goals away from home. This scenario is ofcourse very unlikely, but still it happens sometimes that teams have the same goal difference but a different number of goals scored. --Pelotas^talk 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the goalscorers in that example have got to get bonuses from their national football association ;) --Robdurbar 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yeh it also came to me that in this example it would probably be useless who was first and second since they both go through. All the other places would be 'drawn by lots' but also be irrelevant since they are all not qualified. Atleast the goalkeepers have a nice record! --Pelotas^talk 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain why England is placed over Croatia although Croatia has a much higher goal difference? England has also played more matches and therefor has a lower average score. 213.64.150.45 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's explained in article 2008_UEFA_European_Football_Championship_qualifying_Group_E Sue-Tomi 05:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wrong location for a match

Italy-Lithuania is being played at Stadio San Paolo in Naples, not in Milan as stated in the article.

FixedArchibald99 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Times

According to the article all the times of the matches are Greenwich Mean Time, but I'm pretty sure they are actually British Summer Time. Today's England match kicked off at 5pm local time which at this time of year is BST. Warpfactor 20:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. Do we change the actual times by an hour, or change GMT to BST?Archibald99 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, considering almost every country in europe uses british summer time as a reference, eg. France is one hour ahead of BST not GMT at this time of year, we should change GMT to BST. I will make the changes sometime tomorrow if no one has any objections. Warpfactor 22:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but would that complicate things when the clocks change, what with the qualifying competition running for so long? Archibald99 22:54, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say use BST for matches until the clocks change and then GMT after. As all of europe changes time at the same time that would seem to confuse the least people. Best to use what people will be using at the time i think. Warpfactor 23:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, would UTC not make things a whole lot easier for everyone? We don't need to worry about GMT, BST ot switching between them then. --Pelotas^talk 14:51, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is, keep them all consistent e.g. all BST, all GMT or all UTC. Archibald99 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, so looking at the changing from BST to GMT and vice-versa which will happen a few times through this qualifying tournament. I would like to nominate UTC. --Pelotas^talk 15:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GMT = UTC.

I actually think BST is better - it gives more of an indication of when the games were actually played. Since nearly all countries in the qualifying use daylight savings time (only Iceland doesn't), people can easily convert knowing how many hours they're away from Britain. As Warpfactor said, really.

Alternatively, we could use local time. Sam Vimes | Address me 15:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UTC is indeed like GMT but I thought it was introduced just to make it easier to refer to other timezones. I don't know if people can 'easily convert how many hours they're away from Britain'. On your alternative suggestion I would like to react by saying I agree with Archibald99 that we better use one system for all matches. Although another alternative might be using the local time in UTC+x everywhere? --Pelotas^talk 17:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm strongly against the use of local time. Far too much trouble. Archibald99 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Match Attendances

Match attendances can be found use national FA websites (where reliable) or Sky Sports Live Score Centre. Archibald99 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found that ESPNsoccernet has game attendences available as well. [1] // Laughing Man 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Top Goalscorers

In a few rounds of matches, it'll probably be better to have a top 10 or top 25. Kingjeff 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, unless we make a seperate article: 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying goalscorers --Pelotas^talk 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think an article just for goalscorers is a good thing. Kingjeff 17:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like someone else made the article already. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you think it's useless. However in the mean time i've added and corrected the info on this article relating to the goalscorers. Also I renamed the 'Goalscorers' paragraph to 'Top Goalscorers' and removed all players with just 1 goal, list would otherwise become very long soon. --Pelotas^talk 15:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd wait until two or three matchdays in and use a top 25. Archibald99 20:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

What if someone were to make a page with euro2008 qualifying statistics ie goals cards goalies and such

I'd say it's fine on this page. Archibald99 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frances third goal against Georgia

For whoever edits the goal scorers, Thierry Henry has been credited with scoring France's third goal against Georgia, not an own goal by Malkhaz Asatiani, as shown on the official UEFA match report. Ross1 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The UEFA report is wrong, as they so often are. Watch the video, [2], Henry is not within five yards of touching the ball. There is a cross to him intercepted by Asatiani which loops over his goalkeeper and into the net. It is no more Henry's goal than it is Coupet's. Mjefm 13:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think video is a suitable reference. Is there anything in a news report that backs up your claim? Kingjeff 14:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, surely it is obvious evidence that it was an own goal. :) But the question is whether the official sources like Uefa.com for instance will change their report and 'award' it to Asatiani. If not, I believe Henry will get credited for it. I believe however that should Henry get credited, the video could be a useful 'extra' and valid reference to use in a 'note'. --Pelotas^talk 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Georgian Football Federation website says it was an own goal [3], and their article is apparently from uefa.com. Archibald99 14:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think "official" is a thing to be used cautiously. If, say, the North Korean government issued a statement today that they had annexed Seoul, would we believe them, despite the fact that it was "official"? So really, what we should use in this case is news reports, which are readily available: Henry was credited (Yahoo), Asatiani og (BBC), Asatiani og (AP), Asatiani (goal.com), Asatiani although Henry was credited (SportingLife.com). So here's what I suggest: write Henry (since that's reported as "official") but with a note that Asatiani actually scored the goal (cite the sportinglife report which describes it pretty accurately.) Sam Vimes | Address me 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very true about the 'official' thinghy and a good suggestion. Only, I would write it being an own goal with the note. Because we are sure it was an own goal. (See video). --Pelotas^talk 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

Yeah, video's good enough evidence. Plus my kicker today which said own goal and didn't even mention Henry. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lithuania's game, September 6

Is this game really being played in Minsk? Seems to me it should be played somewhere in Lithuania, not Belarus. AEJ 18:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was in Kaunas. [4] sʟυмɢυм • т • c 19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to type that. Sorry. Archibald99 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino - Germany

Just like the Henry/Own goal discussion earlier there is a mistake here. Bastian Schweinsteiger scored the second goal after 29 minutes, not Lukas Podolski like most sources say (e.g. UEFA.com and goalzz.com). Saw it happen on ZDF live. Please confirm to be sure. --Pelotas^talk 19:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Sky Sports and UEFA all say Podolski. I say we should leave it as Podolski and discuss after the match. Archibald99 20:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me, as long as it's looked into :) --Pelotas^talk 20:13, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. So someone is stupid somewhere for not crediting own goals. Unless we have something to back it up, we should stick with what the match report. Kingjeff 20:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way, for instance, UEFA.com is plain stupid. They completely missed a goal in the 73rd minute and noted other goals later in the match but always were one behind. Just before the end they realise they're wrong and just magically add a goal somewhere. A minute later it's suddenly 0-14 according to them. Luckily because of the number of goals this match will surely feature on numerous sports channels and news flashes and so the goals will be credited properly. Rather common sence than stupid match reports for me! As long as we're not just making things up. --Pelotas^talk 20:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As stupid as they may be, this is the most credible source i think we have as far as goals scored. Unless someone else can find a credible source. Kingjeff 20:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current version:

Podolski 11', 28', 43', 64', 73' Schweinsteiger, 47' Klose 30', 45+1' Ballack 35' Hitzlsperger 66', 72' Friedrich 87' Schneider 90' (pen)

Any changes to be made? Archibald99 20:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kicker says:

Podolski 12', 43', 64', 71'

Schweinsteiger 29', 47'

Ballack 35'

Klose 30', 45'

Hitzlsperger 66', 73'

M Friedrich 87'

B Schneider 90'

[5]. I'd trust their journalist to watch the game, so I think we should change Schweinsteiger to the second goal, and swap the times of Podolski's fourth and Hitzlsperger's second. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sky Sports has now credited Scweinsteiger with the goal on 30mins, previously Klose's. Archibald99 21:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is just getting better and better, isn't it? :D Sam Vimes | Address me 21:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: wait a few days until everything is sorted out officially and use what is on uefa.com. Archibald99 21:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now UEFA says the same as kicker (with some times off by a minute, but I'm happy enough to trust UEFA there since the definition of what belongs to which minute is fuzzy anyway) so I'll edit. Sam Vimes | Address me 06:51, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, fixed overnight by an IP editor. :) Sam Vimes | Address me 06:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article size

This article is now over 51kb, it could be load too much if a group fixtures didn't split to group article respectively. Thinking about it. --Aleen f1 09:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Group A etc. Archibald99 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the idea was to split the fixtures into group articles, not the tables. --217.248.51.15 17:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archibald99, please keep tables in the this article, just like 2006 FIFA World Cup --Aleen f1 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done... --217.248.51.205 07:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixtures to group articles? In this only table and plain results. Kahkonen 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Referee links

When reporting what country a referee is from, shouldn't it be the link to that country's soccer association and not to that country itself? Kingjeff 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POINTS COLUMN

shouldnt the points column be at the end like at the UEFA site..its a bit confusing to read like this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.227.95 (talk) .

I like it like it is now. Kingjeff 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think it makes sense first, as this is the most important item to determine group rankings. Laughing Man 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it is nearly universally orthodox, conventional and traditional to place the points in the rightmost table column. Points may, indeed, be the first determinant of table rank, however they are normally to the right. That is where most people would expect to find them. Therefore, it would be more ergonomic to adhere to convention, inasmuch as the reader's eye would find this datum at first glance, if this page conformed to the standard. A Stand-Up Guy 21:26, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be too hard for someone to lean to read it this way. We're only talking about one column. Kingjeff 21:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the first time I've seen the points column on the left instead of on the right (which is indeed more common). However, I have no problem with this structure and I believe that the fact that the points column is represented in bold should make it clear for everyone. Personally I would say leave it as it is, but ofcourse a poll can always be held. --Pelotas^talk 22:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I maintain that points on the right, bolded if you like, is the standard way of displaying tables. That's where people expect to see the figure, and I think Wikipedia should follow the convention, unless there's some definite improvement in changing the order of the columns, and I can see none. Change to the traditional format! - fchd 22:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, points on the right is the traditional and standard method most people are used to. Change JieBie 10:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proper standings sequence and head-to-head rules application

People editing standings tables here should learn the UEFA competition rules because errors have been added to this page. As of 6 September 2006, four Group C teams shared 3 points each and were listed here incorrectly in the following sequence:

Team    Pts Pld  W   D   L  GF  GA  GD
Turkey   3   1   1   0   0   2   0  +2 
Greece   3   1   1   0   0   1   0  +1
Bosnia   3   2   1   0   1   6   5  +1 
Hungary  3   2   1   0   1   4   5  -1

This should have been:

Team    Pts Pld  W   D   L  GF  GA  GD
Hungary  3   2   1   0   1   4   5  -1
Turkey   3   1   1   0   0   2   0  +2
Greece   3   1   1   0   0   1   0  +1
Bosnia   3   2   1   0   1   6   5  +1

...despite the fact that Hungary has a negative goal difference. This unusual ranking sequence is due to the way the competition head-to-head rules operate: it is not simply a case of comparing points, goal difference, and goals scored. The latter corrected sequence agrees with that displayed at UEFA.com, at least until the next set of matches is played in October 2006. A Stand-Up Guy 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That explains why Hungary is above Bosnia Herzegovina, but shouldn't Turkey and Greece be above Hungary?

On the same note in Group B the standings were:

Team    Pts Pld W   D   L  GF  GA   GD
Georgia 3   3   1   0   2   8   6   +2 
Ukraine 3   1   1   0   0   3   2   +1

However, because Ukraine had beaten Georgia it is now:

Team    Pts Pld W   D   L  GF  GA   GD
Ukraine 3   1   1   0   0   3   2   +1 
Georgia 3   3   1   0   2   8   6   +2

UEFA don't seem to be following their own rules unless they've changed them. Croatia should be top as they beat England. UEFA.org Group E Standings

  Group E	Pld	Pts
  England	4	7
  Croatia	3	7
  FYROM	        4	7
  Israel	3	7
  Russia	3	5
  Estonia	3	0
  Andorra	4	0

Anon user 23:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, because we are not ranking only England and Croatia, but all four teams that have seven points. If they're in a mini-group their records are now:

England - 4 pts
Croatia - 3 pts
FYROM - 1 pt
Israel - 0 pt

So UEFA is correct. Chanheigeorge 00:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand this now..has it always been this way? Considering Croatia have yet to play either Macedonia or Israel i think its unfair they are behind England despite beating them. Of the four teams on equal points Croatia has recieved 3 out of 3 possible points, whereas England have only recieved 4 out of a possible 9 points (as they have played FYROM twice and Cro once) In my opinion teams should be scored by how many points they have dropped against opposition on equal placing.. e.g - Croatia has dropped 0 points from their match ups with the other nations they are on equal points with so should be first in the group. - England have dropped 5 points from their 3 matches against other nations on the same points so should be lower than Croatia, and if for example Israel are on equal points but have not played against anyone they are equal on points with them goal difference comes into it.

Well, the head-to-head standings is just like the regular standings: a team who's played 3 matches and got 4 points is ranked ahead of a team who's played 1 match and got 3 points, even though the second team got maximum points and may even beat the first team. It's just how teams are ranked during group play, and it's a temporary thing which we don't have to worry about at the end. Chanheigeorge 01:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slovakia - Cyprus

I've noticed that Cyprus has two strikers named Yiasoumi. There's both Yasemakis Yiasoumi and Yiasoumis Yiasoumi, seems like Yiasoumi is a popular name there. UEFA mentions Yiasoumis Yiasoumi as the scorer in the match report of the Slovakia versus Cyprus match (6-1), however on wikipedia Yasemakis Yiasoumi is said to be the scorer for Cyprus. There's no article or information to be found on wikipedia about one of Yiasoumi guys (brothers?), although Yiasoumis Yiasoumi is mentioned as a member of PAOK FC. Anyway, is there anyone who is sure which player scored the goal, all too confusing for me. :) --Pelotas^talk 12:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was me who put it as Yasemakis, so every chance I was wrong. Archibald99 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I've been looking for more sources and I have yet to find the first one saying it was Yasemakis, they all mention Yiasoumis. However if I don't mention Slovakia in the query then it's hard to keep them both apart. Anyway, I'll change the name for now to Yiasoumis Yiasoumi and then later today or this week create the article also. --Pelotas^talk 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make a Template?

I was wondering, should not all pages with the individual results contain this paragraph at the end:

==See Also==

But then, that's a lot of links that need to be copied. Maybe better to make a template for it? --Pelotas^talk 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But I have no idea how to make a template. :) Archibald99 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, lol yeah ditto ;) But can't be that difficult, I'll have a look and try to create the template. If people disagree it can always be removed so more reactions always welcome. --Pelotas^talk 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might help. Archibald99 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, found it too, it did help. I've made this:

Feel free to improve. --Pelotas^talk 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Standings as of 8 October 2006

The current tables don't reflect the correct methods of separating teams in Euro 2008 Qualifiers - for example, Greece currently top Group C, they are not 3rd.

If I get time later I'll correct this, but if one of the article's custodians wants to sort it first, that's great. :-) --DaveG12345 09:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

UK-centric

It seems that part Reaction to the draw is some UK-centric. Or I am the only one who thinks so? --Сергій ^bbhhh 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This point was brought up at the start of this talk page: #Reaction to the draw, then it seemed to be forgotten. - MTC 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have it seems to violate how Wikipedia isn't a news agency. Kingjeff 13:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scores are not unneeded

"Scores are unneeded. They're already in the group psge." Really? I think fixtures can be in groups articles but scores can also be in this article (of course in short style). Kahkonen 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scores should be also in this page, because standings depends highly on them... I think short style scores would be best as in version 16:13, 11 October 2006. But because there are 50 games, scores should be bottom of tables, not to right of them. Kahkonen 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really didn't like the scores at the side of the page more then anything. Kingjeff 00:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's this way easier to edit points table and... I think scores are the most important things in qualifications :D. Kahkonen 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are tables for the first few groups and no tables for the last few groups. It should be one or the other. Although I'm bias for the tables. Kingjeff 00:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there should be some kind of colums in scores, because there are so many games (56 in A and 42 in others). I chose 4 columns (11 games for every column). (class="wikitable" is ugly for scores, removed it) Kahkonen 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would the easiest way not be to change the fixtures to scores once the matches are over, instead of deleting the fixtures? Archibald99 10:04, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would be easiest. (I'm not sure if dates are needed.) Kahkonen 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This way? [6] Kahkonen 11:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. :) Archibald99 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should dates be removed when games are played? Tkrldi 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's clearer, better looking and more informative to leave them on. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Kahkonen 08:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page format

I think someone should change the format and keep it that way....everytime i come here its changed....scores are posted then taken off ..now country flags....KEEP IT ONE WAY!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.227.95 (talk • contribs)

The flags were a little too much so I removed them. I know it was a lot of work to add them in, but it really detracts from the readability. // Laughing Man 05:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

qualification summary

I commented out the "Qualifcation Summary" section, let's enable it when it can show some relevant information. // Laughing Man 05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Who will qualify

I hope the following TEAMS JOIN Austria/Switzerland

SERBIA FINLAND UKRAINE FRANCE TURKEY NORWAY GERMANY CZECH REPUBLIC RUSSIA ENGLAND SWEDEN DENMARK NETHERLANDS BULGARIA

so what teams will make it?

This page is for discussing the Wikipedia article, not the competition. -- Arwel (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, go onto a football fan forum.

Such as this one: http://z11.invisionfree.com/Internationalsoccer/index.php Funkyduncan 14:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: Final table of results

I suggest a table of results like that for the FA premier league rather like FA_Premier_League_2006-07#Results. I would suggest we do one of these types of tables for each group, for clarity. (sorry, but I'm not good at links as I'm quite new to editting articles). Funkyduncan 22:15, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

qualification length

how long does it take for teams to qualify.

New Idea

Insted of using goal difference why not use aggetated scores as ties. I mean look at england and FYR macedonia england got a tie at home and a win away so there.