Talk:UEFA Euro 2012

Tie-breaking criteria given in current version not correct

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tie-breaking criteria

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concerns and controversies section

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

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

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

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

Holocaust Memorial and Chernobyl

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yulia Tymoshenko (Political Boycots)

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

The killing stray cats and dogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time to thin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For early concerns:

After Poland and Ukraine were chosen by a vote of the UEFA Executive Committee as host countries for Euro 2012, several issues arose that jeopardized the Polish/Ukrainian host status. In Ukraine there were financial difficulties related to stadium and infrastructure renovation related to the 2008 financial crisis. In Poland, issues arose related to corruption within the Polish Football Association. In April 2009 however, the president of UEFA, Michel Platini announced that all was on track and that he saw no major problems. After a UEFA delegation visited Ukraine in September 2011, he stated the country was "virtually ready for Euro 2012".

The 'racism & hooliganism' part is the tricky one so I'll leave it alone for now.VolunteerMarek 14:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The stuff on FEMEN, hotel prices and stray dogs, has been moved to the "Concerns and controversies" article and should just stay there. Here it would be sufficient to include a "Main:Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012" link.VolunteerMarek 14:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Germany already through

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 16 June 2012: France already qualified

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

So eather way, France is already qualified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tie Breaking Criterion with 2 teams

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

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

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

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

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

8.08 --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

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

If you read the article you'll see that the second tie-breaking criteria (after points) is points in head-to-head matches between the tied teams. Greece and Russia are on 4 points, but Greece beat Russia, so Greece go through. DragonQ (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criterias 2-4 does not apply. Here's the reason for number 2: "(if more than two teams finish equal on points)". According to these criteria Greece would not advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.117.214 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Criteria 1 applies, Greece beat Russia.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Groups Shading

In Group A surely the Russia and Poland columns in the table should be shaded in red to identify that they are eliminated? Not a major thing but should be looked at. Jas39 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This should be gone though once all group matches are done, heck this should've not been done for this examples as all group matches were done for that group. –HTD 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it on the main page for 'Uefa Euro 2012' hope that was okay? Jas39 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think that we should keep the red shading until the all groups have finished their matches. I find that it gives a better view. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why change the shading after all the groups have played all their games, it looks better so why not keep the red shading in? Jas39 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It would not be consistent with the articles on earlier championships. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Change the red shading on the previous championships then, the red shading in the table looks a lot better. 87.127.32.60 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The red shading isn't needed once the group matches are done. It'll be redundant to the green shades for the advancing teams. –HTD 08:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No reason to change all this articles, easier simply to change this one. And after looking at the old articles I agree with HD, the red shading is redundant and it looks a lot better without the red shading. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Quarter Finals

Which silly little boy has put Spain vs France and Croatia vs England in?? Neither are decided yet. Change it immediately.--86.46.171.144 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be mentioned that Germany and Portugal will be playing their quarters in stadia they helped open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.18.73 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Results map

We should replace the qualification map with a results map, similar to the ones in all the other Euro entries, such as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieftastic (talk • contribs) 03:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have made this (normally they are only made after the tournament):

Score 18 June.   : undecided

- Soerfm (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not have both maps? This one could be put into the groupstage. I will be bold at do so and lets see if it catches on. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Local prices in Kyiv

Enjoy EURO 2012 to the fullest, taste the local cuisine and culture. Local prices will surely help any visitor.

Food If you want to get the real feeling of Ukraine and save some money at the same time then you should avoid eating out at busy streets and tourist places. The best advice is to eat at places where the locals go.

There are 2 McDonalds in Kyiv with the following prices in dollars: Double Cheeseburger – 1, 8 $, Big Tasty – 3, 7 $, Hamburger – 0, 8 $, Big Mac – 2, 25 $, Fried Potato – 1, 2 $, Village Potato – 1, 5 $, Chicken nuggets – 2 $, Fish Fresh Roll – 2, 9 $.

However, if you would like to try the local cuisine and dishes such as Ukrainian borsch or varenyky, you will not pay more than 1, 5 $. Here are some recommended places where you can eat local food:

■Puzata Khata
■Dva Gusia

Note: McDonalds, Puzata Khata & Dva Gusia have free WC.

Beer

If you would like to enjoy your pint of beer in Ukraine you should bear in mind that drinking alcohol in public places and streets is strictly prohibited! The fine for breaking the law is 6, 75$.

As for the prices, you can get your beer at a supermarket from 0, 6$ to 2, 5 $ or at a bar where the average price is around 1, 5 – 2 $.

Nightlife Those who would like to enjoy the nightlife in Ukraine there are many great clubs, discos and pubs. The average entrance fees are from 12, 5 $ – 25 $, depending on the club.

Public Transport The best way to save money on transportation is to take a walk and avoid taxis. The following charges apply for the public transportation:

Bus, trolleybus, tram – 0, 2 $

Local Marshrutka (mini bus) – 0, 3 – 0, 4 $
The tube – 0, 25 $

Source: Andrewfighter (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though these info would be interesting for a person traveling to a fan traveling to the games, the wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a news or a tourist page. |What Wikipedia is not article clearly states that and I am sure you would enjoy readint the whole article. But just to qoute a line:

• '"Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead."

And this is not even an article on any of the cities hosting the matches but simply and article on about the European championship finals. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Prize money

Do we need a section on prize money for this championship? Has it been announced? -- Y not? 21:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been. First is 23.5 million € i think. Feel free to add if sourced. -Koppapa (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Source choices

I made a few edits to the "discipline" section of the page and added two citations. I made the citation from UEFA as opposed to a news source like The Telegraph or BBC. I looked that the Wikipedia page discussing reliability of sources, and it said that wikipedia authors should rely on "third-party" sources. So which source should I choose: UEFA (not third-party) or reputable news sources, like The Telegraph or BBC (third-party)? Thanks. Dar5995 (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Discipline isn't a particularly controversial subject with UEFA so I think they can be assumed to be neutral and reliable on it. Adam4267 (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, though, when I edit pages about UEFA competitions, I usually pick the uefa.com sources as opposed to other sources, such as The Telegraph or BBC. What do you think is better (in general)? Dar5995 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Since this is an UEFA competition the UEFA.com sources should be used. Kante4 (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims of Dutch hooliganism

On 18 June, User:Mvg040 added the following claims to this article:

A clash involving Dutch and Russian, Ukrainian football supporters took place in Kharkiv. 17 People were arrested - 10 Dutch and 7 Russians, 7 people hospitalised - 3 Ukrainians and 4 Russians. The clash started when Russian and Ukrainian fans provoked the Dutch by burning the flag of The Netherlands and the Dutch retaliated by attacking the Russians & Ukrainians.

On 13 June 2012, after the Euro 2012 match between Netherlands and Germany, Dutch fans attacked German fans and set fire to cars with German license plates.

17 June 2012, after the Euro 2012 match between Portugal and Netherlands, a group of according to eyewitnesses, 250 Dutch fans attacked the Portuguese fans that were chanting victory songs at the Dutch. 27 Portuguese and 2 Dutch were hospitalised, 5 Portuguese seriously injured.

All this seems highly unlikely to me, as there have been no news reports about these incidents that I'm aware of. Setting cars on fire, flag-burning, and hospitalizing people is quite serious, so there should be some news sources if this were all true.

As there is no proof whatsoever that any of these things happened, I removed these claims. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

the ranking in Group A is listed incorrectly - Poland has two ties and a loss, putting them in the last place. Russia is in the third place with 4 points.

173.3.202.88 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. El0i (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

In the discipline section it is mentioned Portugal was fined due to spectator incidents when in fact, if you read the source, it was actually fined due to being late for the 2nd half of the game against Germany.

It should be changed from:

Apart from discipline measures following violation of football rules, UEFA fined the German Football Association €10,000, the Portuguese Football Federation €5,000, the Croatian Football Federation €25,000, and the Football Union of Russia €30,000 for spectator incidents.

To:

Apart from discipline measures following violation of football rules, UEFA fined the German Football Association €10,000, the Croatian Football Federation €25,000, and the Football Union of Russia €30,000 for spectator incidents. The Portuguese Football Federation was fined €5,000 for delaying the start of the second half of the game against Germany.

 Done - I have added that note, as the source says so.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Add seeding to group tables

I suggest adding the initial seeding next to the teams into Groups tables, to make it more informative. For e.g. In Group A, it communicates value when you say 13th seeded Czech topped the group. Yes, this is trivial for die-hard soccer fans, or europians, but an encyclopedia target all other audience as well. Also, such information can be deduced from other sections of this page or ranking page, but difficult as a reading.

Team            	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Czech Republic (13)	3	2	0	1	4	5	−1	6
Greece (8)       	3	1	1	1	3	3	0	4
Russia	(6)     	3	1	1	1	5	3	+2	4
Poland	(16)    	3	0	2	1	2	3	−1	2

Atif.hussain (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am against this change for the very reasons you suggest: the information is already present elsewhere in the article. It doesn't need repeating just to indicate giant-killings or upsets. After all, in the example you've used, although Poland has seed #16, they were included in Pot 1 for the draw, making the seeds misleading. – PeeJay 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No, as PeeJay said and it just looks silly. Kante4 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Italy's base camp

The base camp of the Italian team is located in Wieliczka near Kraków, not in Kraków itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.177.89 (talk) 07:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia Wieliczka is a part of the Krakow metropolitan area. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Large gap between text and column table in Qualification section

There is a large gap between the introductory text and list of qualified teams in the Qualification section. I don't know how to format it so that the columns can be next to the picture. Can someone fix this? Dar5995 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there really any reason to have this list? The name of the teams are above and below this section. The metodh the teams have secured their participation, either by winning a group or playoff, have no bearing on their seeding and others in this final. And of course there is a very nice main article. I am being bold and are removing the list. If you disagree please reinstated it AND state the arguments here so we can talk about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The analogous list appears in each of the last three UEFA Euro pages (2008, 2004, and 2000). There is a slightly different format in each page, but to me the format on the 2008 and 2004 pages is the best. I am going to add the table and it should remain because it will mirror the other pages. Dar5995 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

section: Match officials

With a subpage/main article with all names of the officials couldnt we remove the list from the main article. We dont have any of the names of the squads (like the team captains) and I think it would be good have the same style in this section. It is kind of the idea with a subarticle that all the info does not need to be in all the article. Otherwise there is not really any reasons for making subarticles. I am being bold and are removing the list. If you disagree please reinstated it AND state the arguments here so we can talk about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. I added a similar section to the Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 match officials. Just like with seeding and venues, an additional article is superfluous and unlikely to be edited in the future. Dar5995 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

edit request: Anatoliy Tymoshchuk

The Ukrainian midfielder was cautioned in the match vs. England, which was his second one for the tournament, so given Ukraine's elimination, will miss one 2014 World Cup qualification match. Please add to suspension section. Btw, Tymoshchuk received his yellow card (for committing a foul to prevent an England breakthrough) in the immediate aftermath of Devic's disallowed goal (which was an incorrect decision, as admitted by tournament officials), so there is the chance that UEFA may decide against suspending him, but it seems as if they rarely erase cards. Oleg Morgan (talk) 01:10 am, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.114.150 (talk)

Second yellow card accumulations and single yellow cards are erased upon completion of the tournament and do NOT carry over to the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification tournament (see 21.05 on p. 27 of UEFA Euro 2012 Rules and Regulations). Only red cards carry over, as in the case of Wayne Rooney (from Euro 2012 qualifying tournament) and Keith Andrews (who will miss one World Cup qualifying match after receiving two cautions in the game against Italy). Therefore, there is no need to add anything to the suspension section. Dar5995 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

  :Cheers, my mistake, I wasn't completely sure about that, thanks for clarifying! :) Oleg Morgan (talk) 21:51pm, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Man of the match

What about a section about "man of the match". That could be done in a table with:
Type of game (group/QF/SF/F) with wikilinks to each of the group/final stages;
Game itself with wikilinks to each of the games;
Man of the match with wikilinks to the plyer;
Chosen by (UEFA legend) with wikilinks to the plyer and;
public's choice with wikilinks to the plyer.
All the info is here!
46.189.177.40 (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Outline of article

Please, can someone with write rights move the semifinals and finals to the top of the article? Now as the group phase is over, the order shoukld be reversed to avoid scrolling. after the tournament it can be arranged in temporal order again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.149.55 (talk) 20:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Response to the above entry and grammar correction

I believe that the group stages should be kept higher than the knockout stages in order to preserve chronological order. Also, technically the sentence "Ukraine was placed above Sweden" should be "Ukraine were placed above Sweden", as in English a football team is referred to in the plural. 78.149.66.254 (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)