Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying

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?

Plus you could say 'the draw wasn't favourable to San Marino' using the same justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.172.245 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Boobie278: Hi... FRANCE should already be colored as green... since no matter the result of Scotland and Italy.. France has already been qualified.

Not if Scotland draws Italy and Italy defeat Faroe Islands, while France lose to Ukraine. Italy will then have 27 points, and Scotland and France will both have 25, but Scotland will go through because they have a better head-to-head record with France (2 wins). Artyom (talk • contribs) 07:06, 22 October 2007 (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]

Yes, well unfortunately we were subjected to ALL of the England home games on the BBC, which is pretty disgusting, except for the England-Croatia game! So stop complaining. 86.132.166.22 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2007 (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]

Its Real Name is The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Chaza93 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, the official name is simply Republic of Macedonia, so that's what should be used. - MTC 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. The article follows the official designation used by UEFA. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:27, 5 June 2007 (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: (link deleted) 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]

Like this?

	ARM	AZE	BEL	FIN	KAZ	POL	POR	SRB
Armenia	XXX	12 Sep	0–1	0–0	21 Nov	6 Jun	22 Aug	13 Oct
Azerbaijan	8 Sep	XXX	21 Nov	28 Mar	1–1	2 Jun	13 Oct	17 Oct
Belgium	17 Oct	3–0	XXX	13 Oct	0–0	0–1	2 Jun	22 Aug
Finland	1–0	17 Nov	6 Jun	XXX	22 Aug	12 Sep	1–1	2 Jun
Kazakhstan	2 Jun	6 Jun	12 Sep	0–2	XXX	0–1	17 Oct	24 Mar
Poland	28 Mar	24 Mar	17 Nov	1–3	13 Oct	XXX	2–1	1–1
Portugal	17 Nov	3–0	24 Mar	21 Nov	3–0	8 Sep	XXX	12 Sep
Serbia	3–0	1–0	1–0	8 Sep	17 Nov	21 Nov	28 Mar	XXX

Don't know if it's feasible to do so for all groups, but would like to see if anyone else likes it. Personally I like it because it cuts down on length a bit, and conveys pretty much the same information as the results below. It can also be placed beside the table. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very good idea, but you should make sure to use the correct 3 letter codes along the top, Serbia is SRB. - MTC 19:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Sam Vimes | Address me 21:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly what I meant, thank you Funkyduncan 20:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a suggestion to change the table a little bit, like this:


Andorra	XXX	12 Sep	0–3	17 Nov	0–3	0–2	21 Nov
Croatia	7–0	XXX	2–0	2–0	2–1	17 Oct	0–0
England	5–0	21 Nov	XXX	13 Oct	0–0	3–0	12 Sep
Estonia	2–1	0–1	0–3	XXX	0–1	0–1	0–2
Macedonia	17 Oct	17 Nov	0–1	12 Sep	XXX	1–2	0–2
Israel	4–1	3–4	0–0	4–0	21 Nov	XXX	17 Nov
Russia	4–0	0–0	17 Oct	2–0	3–0	1–1	XXX

Maybe the XXX places could be shaded gray, because they draw more attention than the scores do :-) --Artyx 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

qualification length

how long does it take for teams to qualify. I mean how much more points will say e.g. Finland need.

The number of points needed depends on how well the rest of the teams in the group do. The minimum number of points with which it is mathmatically possible to go through in a 7-team group is 10. This can happen in the highly unlikely event that one team wins all their matches, every other game is drawn, and all teams but 1 end up on 10pts and having a mass tiebreaker session. (see 'tiebreaker' section above)
Im sure there must be a definate figure somewhere around 33pts which mathmatically guarantees being in the top 2, but i can't be bothered enough to work it out right now. lol
In summary, you need to do better than the third placed team does. It might sound a bit obvious, but that really is all it depends on: how good the third best team is. -aheyfromhome 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Goal difference is the same as aggregated scores. And if you mean aggregated scores between the tied teams, then this is already what happens. Please see if the article has the information before asking questions on here. - aheyfromhome 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who Keeps Changing it

What was wrong with the tables...who keeps changing this ???

I can't see anything wrong with the tables as they are now. Teams are separated first by results against each other, if that's what you mean. But then there's a section about that in the article and a big section on the discussion so I can't imagine you'd have missed that. - aheyfromhome 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what he's talking about. Some IP keeps changing the points and rankings. Compare the tables on this page with the ones on the individual Group pages. 89.120.193.125 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorers

Please keep in mind the goalscorers list and when its updated. Sometimes its possible to add goals on top of the goal(s) that have been added. Ronaldo has 5 goals so far and Boyd has 3. Misimovic should also have 4. I've changed it so far. Its important that you double-check the number of goals a player has scored, before you change it. Thanks. Gaijin84 21:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now trimmed it on the main-page. Its a bit too big, plus we need to narrow them down when the latter rounds crop up. Gaijin84 21:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the table should be removed and made as it was done here 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Scorers

Tiebreakers (2)

These tiebreakers only make sense once all the matches have been played. Otherwise a team may not have played any others in the tied group, for example. In any case, what seems most important is to rank teams with the same number of points by matches played first. This could never have been an "official" tiebreak rule because the official rules only have to do with the final standings, and at that point everybody has played the same number of matches, so such a rule would be irrelevant. But after points it is the most relevant thing for us. Joeldl 05:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup UEFA have an odd-ish way of working with that but the standings can be found on their website

My revert

I just reverted a group of edits as I believe that they do not match the data at http://www.uefa.com/competitions/euro/standings/index.html. If I am in error, please comment here with a better source and undo my revert. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey vs Norway Group C

Can you please not change the format of the scorer of the two goals for Turkey in that match. I am well aware that the scorer was Hamit Altıntop and the convention needs to reflect that. However his full name is listed rather than this surname so that there one can differentiate between him and his brother Halil Altıntop who also happens to play for the Turkish national team. I understand if someone clicks on the link, they will be taken to Hamit's page, but I believe that its deemed proper to list the scorer on the page by his full name - especially if there is more than one H.Altintop. Gaijin84 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates

I would like to suggest turning the tables into templates, so that it saves time for editors, so the table only needs editing in one place and it changes everywhere Chaza93 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's dreadful to change all instances. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark vs Sweden

What is written in note 1 right now, "Denmark-Sweden match abandoned at 3-3 due to a fan attacking the referee. Although not yet confirmed by UEFA, the the referee's decision to award a 0-3 walkover to Sweden will most likely stand. This has been included in the table." is simply not factual. The referee has no power to decide on the score of the match. He has the power to abandon the match given the circumstances, but what to do with the match (replay, continue from that point, score stands, 3-0 walkover) is decided by the higher authority, i.e. UEFA. Chanheigeorge 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it kept getting changed. I was more than happy with what it initially said when I left it last night. At the time however it was being confirmed that Sweden had won 3-0. I've changed it 'again' and implore anyone to please not change the info or actual format until things have been decided. As it stands the match was abandoned with no formal result. God made footnotes for a reason, I don't think the event needs to be plastered within the main score headline. Gaijin84 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision is due on Friday. Gaijin84 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying → UEFA Euro 2008 Qualifying — The Page for the final tournament has been moved, would it not make more sense to move this aswell? —Chaza93 17:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

Support It would make sense for all articles under this competition be changed to UEFA Euro ....... Chaza93 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Isn't it possible to tag for mass-move for all Euro articles? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all should be moved. MTC 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support for move to UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying. --Howard the Duck 15:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

In response to second answer, i will be working on that as soon as this one goes through Chaza93 17:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said in the previous move request, all of the articles in these 3 templates should be moved to "UEFA Euro …": {{European Football Championship}}, {{European Football Championship qualifying}} and {{European Football Championship squads}} - MTC 18:25, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Green highlighting revisited

Regardless of what is written above, I think that as teams secure their qualifying spots, the current procedure of automatically green highlighting the top two spots is misleading. There is no way to distinguish a qualified team from a "if the qualifying ended today, top two" team. Since the qualification of the top two teams is not such a mystery, I question why it needs to be highlighted before a team has actually qualified. Neier 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right. I've actually had to explain my 8 year-old nephew that the "two highlighted countries are not yet qualified", so I guess this could be fixed. Nonetheless, I don't think there's a problem with the red highlight, huh? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a good compromise. And before anyone asks, the lighter shade of green does not show up well as just a line; thus, the darker green. Neier 05:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way it looks now, with the green line, is good... But later when the qualifiers draw to an end will all the teams have green or red highlighting? I think ok if the teams who qualify have green, but all other teams with red? nah... wouldnt like that. ^CHANDLER 07:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that once both qualifiers from a group are determined, the red shading should be eliminated. Other tournaments in the past are consistent with that. Probably, the green line should be deleted at that point too. Neier 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's perfectly obvious that once two teams qualify and get the green highlight, the remaining are all eliminated thus it's unnecessary to shade them red. I approve the current situation. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, now, someone has added yellow to what appears to be "almost out" teams. If so, then that is WP:CRYSTAL, and ought to be reverted out. I've left a note at the anon's talk page, in case there is another explanation that I'm missing. Neier 10:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that yellow is definately someone's random notion. Now we'll have to go revert it all back. :( Aheyfromhome 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia vs Azerbaijan - group A

I'm slightly not happy about this. Both teams will not play any games, so therefore its only fair that the tables don't represent this. How can Azerbaijan play 10 games, if they've only played 8 and will only play 12? I believe it should be changed to reflect the ACTUAL state of play. Gaijin84 12:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. I've changed the template to the lower number with an asterisk and a note at the bottom. Its a bit unsatisfactory at the moment but I'm sure someone will improve on my edit. Aheyfromhome 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move to UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying

The "Q" in "Qualifying" should not be in capital letters. --Howard the Duck 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it, a simple change like this shouldn't need a requested move. - MTC 07:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a redirect so I thought a can't move it. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 00:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that only applies if the target isn't a redirect, I was able to move it with no problems (aside from the task of fixing all the double-redirects) and I'm just a normal user. - MTC 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You gotta blame me on this since I didn't even try hehehe. Also, the naming of this article (see a couple of sections above) is contentious so I just let others do the move. --Howard the Duck 09:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red highlighting

Well, now at the next match day we'll probably get half the teams unable to qualify... and I think it will be unnecessary See here I think it looks pretty sloppy. This and this looks better. Chandler talk 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose keeping the red until after the qualifying, then turning it grey El-Nin 09 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also think the highlighting for eliminated teams (red? it looks pink to me) should be kept until the qualifying is over, it would be confusing otherwise. - MTC 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group A

I think they should be moved from 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group A to UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying Group A To go with the other articles. Chandler talk 02:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well a move needs to be requested 1st im afraid El-Nin 09 19:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there's no need for a request, because I don't think it'll be disputed. Chanheigeorge 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move Azerbaijan vs. Armenia section

I think that Azerbaijan vs. Armenia section should be moved from this article to the Group A's article with a link from this article. If it stays here, by the same logic a section about abandoned Denmark-Sweden match should be added, but that will bloat the article probably. --Artyx 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed altogether that section. That info is mentioned on a footnote at the article's Group A section, as well as in the Group A sub-article. No need to give it a special emphasis on the main qualifying article. Parutakupiu 16:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus Elimanited?

How are they elimanaited?Tell me how?--Someguyudontknow 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus is still alive. I've reverted the mistake. Also, Israel is out, because they lose to England in the tiebreak if both have 23 pts, and Russia has to finish with either more than 23 or less than 23 (due to the fact they have to beat England and lose to Israel). Chanheigeorge 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with templates

Something has to be done to the templates. The fixture tables of groups D and F are messed up (results of Spain and San-Marino away matches get divided into two lines, thus making the tables awful). This happens if viewed with Internet Explorer, at medium-sized font (default setting). I didn't try it with other browsers though. Artyom (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

Scotland's win over France is not the first French international competitive football defeat. That is really badly worded, though I think I now understand what the writer meant. First competitive loss since 2004, since the 2006 WC Final counts as a draw. Correct? I'm not sure that that is exactly trivia worthy. If it was the first loss in 5+ years, then maybe I'd agree.

I'm not sure, but I think the author meant France's first home defeat after Russia defeated them 3-2 in 1999. Because, France didn't win a single game at 2002 FIFA World Cup, for example. Artyom (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the section changed since I looked at it earlier today. But I guess you're right, France didn't lose a single game at 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) either. Not sure about their friendlies after 2004 though Artyom (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the section to first qualifying defeat, this is more significant, seeing as that record stretches back to 1999. F 9 T 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about Germany's first defeat in qualifiers since 98 was it? Loss to Czech 3-0 probably more known then a lucky win for the Scots.

Euro 2008 will be the first European Championships or FIFA World Cup since the 1994 FIFA World Cup not to feature any of the four Home Nations (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), and the first since Euro 84 not to feature any teams from the British Isles (United Kingdom and Ireland). Is this really noteworthy to people outside GB & Ireland? That England were the only seeded team not to qualify should be reflected somewhere, though. Dancarney (talk) 13:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right. The paragraph should be removed, in my opinion. And the fact that Russia became the only team not seeded in top two pots to qualify should also be mentioned. Artyom (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assumed future result of Italy vs Faroe Islands?

The article states Italy has qualified. However, this assumes they beat the Faroe Islands - whilst we may think that a foregone conclusion, surely it is only proper to reflect the fact that its not decided for certain? § LilRedCasanova (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They have qualified, Scotland have no matches left and there are no others within 3 points. - MTC (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the qualifier is over

... Is it time to start removing the red shading of the eliminated teams?(I know there's one game left but it does not have any effect on teams advancing) Chandler talk 22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay for a little longer - a couple of weeks. At least until the draw for Euro 2008 group stage on December 2. Artyom (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]