Jump to content

Talk:UEFA Euro 2012/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

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)

 The edit was done. Dar5995 (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Host countries advancement

Content (in the lead section):

"Neither Poland nor Ukraine, the two host countries, made it through the group stage. Thus Euro 2012 becomes the second European Championship so far (after UEFA Euro 2008 held in Austria and Switzerland) to have none of the hosts emerge from the first round, as well as the third big football tournament in a row to do so (after UEFA Euro 2008 and 2010 FIFA World Cup held in South Africa)."

Questions:

--Theurgist (talk) 08:28, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The 2011 AFC Asian Cup I forgot to mention. --Theurgist (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I see the second part has been removed while I was typing the above, but the Euro 1980 question remains open. --Theurgist (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

In Europe, the two major tournaments for international teams are the Euro and the World Cup. If you watch the Euro games, you will hear the announcers referring to accomplishments/goals/appearances in terms of major tournament games and non-major tournament games (everything else). By saying "major tournament," it is clear (when discussing a European team) that it is a reference to the Euro or World Cup. In this case, however, it is pointless to put in because the article is not discussing the World Cup, but I that is the answer to your question. Instead of first round, it should say group stage, since "first round" is a bit ambiguous. Even though Italy were not in contention for the championship, they still emerged out of that round into another round. The fact is correct. Dar5995 (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

See WP:WORLDVIEW. It's no surprise that the announcers only refer to Euro Cups and World Cups since all players participating in the Euro Cup competition are Europeans by nationality and are therefore ineligible to take part in the competitions of other continents. The "everything else" are just the friendly matches (and sometimes friendly tournaments). A North American championship article won't be referring to the World Cup and the North American championship itself as the "major tournaments" and to the European championship as a "minor tournament", will it. As for Italy, I personally still remain unconvinced, as the third place playoff is a "consolation game" that plays no role in determining who the champion will be. With a format on a slightly different basis, Poland could now be competing for a 13th-16th place classification, but would you then say that they aren't yet eliminated? --Theurgist (talk) 09:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
In worldwide wiev the third major tournemant is the south american championship. The fourth, way behind, being the African championship. I know that American like to see themselve as important worldwide persons, but it is quit correctly to say that the North American championshio is not a major tournament from any wievpoint. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Poland do not play in any more games in the tournament, and their "competition" for 13th-16th place is purely statistical. In the 1980 tournament, there were eight teams competing, and Italy finished second in their group to advance to the third place game. While it was a consolation game, they still competed for a higher place in a competitive fixture. Poland or any of the other seven eliminated teams from the group stage will not compete in any competitive fixtures in Euro 2012. Dar5995 (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The public generally regards the Asian, African, North American and Oceanian tournaments as "less major" than the European and the South American ones because they tend to get less public attention and media coverage, the teams participating tend to be weaker and the players participating tend to be less well-known, but - at least - in terms of calculating points for the FIFA World Rankings, FIFA treats all continental finals equally, and champions of all continents get entries to the FIFA Confederations Cup. Calling some continental finals "major" and others "minor" would be a non-neutral point of view.
I know Poland do not compete any longer, but if there were play-offs involving all fourth-placed teams in the groups to determine the positions from 13th to 16th (like there are in many volleyball tournaments for example), would you then say that fourth-placed Poland has advanced from the group stage? As the 1980 Italy issue is controversial and its interpretation is a matter of opinion, I just replaced "second" with "second consecutive". I hope this is acceptable. --Theurgist (talk) 06:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy in concerns and controversies section

There is a separate article for Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012 and this seems completely redundant. Either the section in the main article should be substantially shortened and made into a summary (like many sections in the article), or the offshoot article should be merged into the main article. Since there is not much difference between the section in the main article and the offshoot article, I propose that the two be merged. It is pointless to keep making new articles for subtopics of a very related topic. Only in cases where there are long lists (such as statistics, disciplinary record, broadcasting) or a very large amount of information (such as qualifying), should a new article be made. Otherwise, the articles should be merged. Please discuss and list reasons for support or opposition. Thanks. Dar5995 (talk) 09:30, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I support making keeping the article and making the section much smaller. Right now it seems like it is edited with less than perfect NPOV from both sides of the the discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
The separate article is not very long, and easily integrated. It would make the main article longer, but seeing as there are so many other (and some necessary) offshoot pages that are being considered for merging, I think there should be a merge proposal and a discussion. Dar5995 (talk) 20:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Have a look in the archive seeing the many discussions about the topic of that article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Definitely NO to merge. We had been working on thinning this article during couple of weeks. Please respect our work and do not start another pointless discussion about this section. Everything was discussed before. Thanks NeonFor (talk) 11:55, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ranking of teams in the UEFA Euro 2012 group stage

I have created this small article which you may like to improve. I know it comes late but there are probably still some who don't understand the criteria. Soerfm (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Is this really needed years from now? To me it doesnt seem to be notable enough to make a wiki article on. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Really no need for an extra article. Kante4 (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
As many other offshoot pages from the main article, this should be merged, seeing as there is a comprehensive section in the main article about tie-breaking criteria. This contains a lot of speculative and hypothetical material, and the actual applications of the tie-breaking criteria are discussed in the main article. Therefore, this should be merged (and honestly deleted, seeing as there is not new material here). Dar5995 (talk) 20:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I think that in this case a deletion would be more better, since a merge would mean that a these hypothetical material would be included in the article and would just confuse everyone, since the groups have finished. I think the small notes explaning the more difficult criteria situation under the individual group is very nice. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I have tagged this article for deletion, please dont be offended but go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ranking of teams in the UEFA Euro 2012 group stage to take part in the discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 schedule

The section "Results" is pretty thorough in its description of the matches and their results. The page UEFA Euro 2012 schedule is completely redundant and should be merged with the other article (there needs to be mention of the opening and closing ceremonies). Dar5995 (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There has already been a deletion discussion about that page, but feel free to make a merge proporsal since it is an uneccesary article at best and at worst simple news Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Schedule clarification

Knockout stage section lacks a label for the Third Place game. It only shows quarter final, semi-final and final.--24.91.95.230 (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. I thought Game 30 was a Third Place game because of the divider lines. Their locations confused me.--24.91.95.230 (talk) 20:48, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 final draw

I edited the final draw table to remove Poland and Ukraine from pot 1, since they were technically not in the draw, as they were automatically assigned to A1 and D1. This is correct per the UEFA website. Please do not change. Thanks. Dar5995 (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Miscellaneous section

While I agree that UEFA Euro 2012#Miscellaneous has miscellaneous parts, I think either a better name should be applied (since the word miscellaneous gives no indication to the organization of the article, only that the parts of the section are not related) or the sections within UEFA Euro 2012#Miscellaneous should be split up into different sections. Dar5995 (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

agreed a better name would be good. Any suggestions? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
Since the sections are pretty unrelated, I think maybe "Tournament details" might be a good name, since all of the sections in some way describe different aspects of the tournament. Dar5995 (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Teams arrangements

I don't get why in the team table there is a "Final venue" column, in my opinion it's clearly pointless, because anyone who gets into the final will head into Kiev anyway, where the final is meant to be played HighFlyerPL185 (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

This part of the table serves only to indicate where the team played the final. Since there is a section of the team table for the group stage, quarter-finals, and semi-finals, it would be incomplete not to have that section. For someone who doesn't know the final is going to be played in Kiev, it helps by indicating where the final is to be held. Dar5995 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

England v Italy penalty-shootout penalties

The results of these penalty kicks should NOT be included in the penalty kicks section because they are not regulation goals and thus are not in the same category as the other penalty shots, which were scored in regulation. They are part of a separate penalty-shootout, which should be treated differently. Dar5995 (talk) 00:05, 25 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)

I think it is a good idea, but shouldnt it be where the info on the matches is, that being in the articles on each group and the knockoutphase. That is where the extensive info is match by match. Do you already have a account, otherwise you can not edit this article right now at all. Also remember to sign your comments with 4 times ~ that will automatic sign yourself and a timestamp. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Knockout stage

the knockout stage needs to be edited to make sure the bracket is right, its just wikipedia speak at the moment. 87.127.32.60 (talk) 21:33, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Good page, but formatting needs some flattening.

For example, the table under "Stadiums" can simply be flattened by putting the Poland stadiums down the lefthand side and the Ukraine ones down the righthand side. There are several other places for similar thinning improvement without removing any actual data. Jimthing (talk) 22:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to work on that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Editing map

If anyone wants to edit the results map [File:Euro 2012 results map.png]

for adding color to a country it can be done in Microsoft Paint or a similar simple program.

You use the pipette tool to pick the color and then use the bucket to fill the color into the country you want (remember islands). Soerfm (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

mistake in Goalscorers section?

Hi, in the "Goalscorers" section, shouldn't German and Portuguese players be shown in bold as they are also still active in the competition (they can still score goals in the 3/4 place final match)? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.84.89.132 (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

There is currently no such match in Euro. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Please update total no. of gaols scroed and avg. in top right box

Thanks! Jcecoke (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Opening game

In the introduction of the article, it says the opening game between Greece and Poland was a 2-2 draw; the score was in fact 1-1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.28.169.76 (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:25, 12 July 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)

Which does not mean Wieliczka is a part/quarter of Kraków - they are two separate municipalities, with two separate budgets and two separate authorities etc. (e.g. a mayor of Wieliczka is not in any way subordinate to a president of Kraków). If the Italians stayed in Hilversum, would you say their base camp is Amsterdam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.177.89 (talk) 14:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Now I dont know what Hilversum is, but most large cities have such different municipalities inside them. If the italian team was staying on Frederiksberg or in Brøndby I would say they are staying in copenhagen even though they are not staying in the municipality of Copenhagen (witch are only a third of the actual city) Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

OK, if so, either keep to your rules and as far as Ireland is concerned, change, please, Sopot for Gdańsk (actually, Germans also stayed in Sopot which you put as Gdańsk!), or try to be more specific and put the things as they really were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.198.177.89 (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Sopot and Gdansk is actually a part of Trójmiasto, so maybe that would be better to write that. The problem with that name is that it is not really known outside the narrow baltic area. Unlike Wieliczka versus Kraków where a larger city has outgrown a smaller town this is 3 "cities" of more or less same size that have grown toghether. Actually it would be just as correct to say that Gdansk is close to Sopot or Gdynia, but Gdansk is by far the most known city of the 3. It is not me personally that have made this informations avaible in this article so I dont know if you are right about Germany. Maybe you have a source? Also you might like to have an account on Wikipedia so you yourself can participate positiv to the many articles here. Also when you are writting comments on talkpages please sign your comments. It is done by 4 times ~ That will automaticely sign your name (or if you are not logged in your IP adress) and timestamp. Thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Possibility of including notes on teams wearing black armbands?

I know it's not terribly relevant, useful or significant information for the UEFA Euro 2012 group of articles, but a few teams have sported black armbands throughout the tournament, and I was wondering if there is any place for their mention here. Just a suggestion. Here are supporting pages I found:

Spain to wear black armbands to honour Roque
Greece to honour former coach by wearing black armbands in quarter-final
GERMANY-ITALY: BLACK ARMBANDS FOR MANUELE BRAJ
Irish football team to mark 1994 Loughinisland atrocity

EG90 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

unexplained revert

My edit here [en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=UEFA_Euro_2012&diff=499920762&oldid=499910313] appears to have been reverted without edit summary. Who did that, and what is their rationale? The content is merited. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I havent had any part in this edits, but I was thinking the other day that since this happened in England (as I understod it) it really is not relevant for this article. Every thing that happens in every country in Europe cant be a contraversie related to the arrangement and organisation of this tournament. Maybe on the main article, I dont know. But People living and playing 100 km away cant be held responsibile for form some racists using them as a pretense to violent acts. Maybe this fit better in an article about domestic english hooliganism. If the problems was that english fans had attacked italian comminities in the venue cities I could understand the connection. But again I dont know anything about any unexplained reverts, just my two cents about the actual edit. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I understand your opinion but I don't think it can be applied to this article, which is about Euro 2012 in general. There's no limitation here to events in Poland and Ukraine alone. -Chumchum7 (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

You can simply add it again and different editors can have a debate about it here. But before that you might consider if it would be better writting about it in the main article Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012 and just adding a line, maybe in connection with the other things about England in the section. I dont really have a strong opinion one way or the other but as you may have noticed earlier there has been quit a debate about how long this section should be. You can see it at the bottom of archive 1. So the section is a bit "explosive". Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Panorama blanked out

Panorama has now been unilaterally deleted without discussion [1]. The edit should be reverted, and discussed here. Because it is WP:UNDUE to entirely omit the huge Panorama controversy while including the much less reported FEMEN protests and the rather obscure animal rights issue.-Chumchum7 (talk) 17:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)]

I've reverted it myself, and invited via the edit notice the user to bring it here per WP:BRD. - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Chrism, thanks very much for that. -Chumchum7 (talk) 20:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Panorama issue is a major one. On the other hand I dont think that the section needs to mention all and every little conterversy (as the animal rights one) that is what the main article is for. It is better to have the major problems mentioned in a coherent section instead of a list of major, minor and obscure issues. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It is erroneous to say Torres is "Top Goalscorer(s)" in the infobox

He won the Golden Boot yes (a UEFA award with different rules), but there are 5 other guys who were top scorers too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.233.29 (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The infobox says "Top scorer(s)", not "Golden Boot winner(s)". – PeeJay 23:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
In the infobox all of the names of the players who scored three goals are listed, but Torres is bolded in order to indicate that he won the golden boot. Dar5995 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the case now, but it wasn't the case when the IP posted the original comment... – PeeJay 23:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
...and it's back to nonsense again!? Also on the Euro 2008 article, and probably on some more. --109.93.239.52 (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
If you look carefully at all of the past Euro pages, all of the top goal scorers are listed in that section, not just the golden boot winner. In 1996, 2004, and 2008, the the top goal scorer was the only person with that number of goals. However, in 1992 and 2000, when there was a tie between two or more players, all of the tied players were listed (and no one was bolded). Torres is NOT the only player with three goals, and therefore all of the other top goal scorers should be listed with him. Dar5995 (talk) 22:48, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:UEFA_Euro_2012/Archive_2&oldid=504778305"