Talk:UEFA Euro 2012/List of matches

?
I noticed in the knockout section the match start times (22:45) disagree with other sources (21:45) even after adjusting timezones see http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/european-championship/2012/groups-schedule — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.244.247.185 (talk) 14:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The kickoff times given at BBC.co.uk are UTC+01:00, British Summer Time. --213.196.211.150 (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Final Group games kick off time
What is the reason that these games kick off at the same time instead of staggered like the earlier matches? Just curious? -- Trödel 20:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If the teams knew the result of the earlier matches, most of them would play according to that. Playing the last matches at the same time prevents that, at least partially. --Matthiaspl (talk) 00:18, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It would distort the competition ("Wettbewerbsverzerrung" in German), e.g. by giving the teams playing the second match information about the result they need to achieve in order to proceed to the quarterfinals. This includes possible scenarios where a team would e.g. have an incentive to permit goals by the other team, or they lose the incentive to score a goal because a 0:0 draw would be enough for them, or where both teams know that a draw would advance them both, etc etc. Like Matthias said, playing the matches at the same time only partially alleviates that problem (see e.g. UEFA Euro 2004 Group C), but shielding the teams from all radio communication is simply unfeasible. --87.79.131.212 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the reason for the current system with the same kick off time is the scandalous West Germany 1–0 Austria (1982 FIFA World Cup). The UEFA switch to same kick off time can be seen by comparing UEFA Euro 1980 and UEFA Euro 1984. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting! I wasn't aware of the history of that rule. --195.14.222.155 (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2012
! Thursday, June 28
 * *20:45 || align="center"|29 ||Donbass Arena, Donetsk||rowspan=2 valign=middle align=center | Semi-finals || align="right" | || align="center" |  –  || Winner of #27
 * 20:45 || align="center"|30 ||National Stadium, Warsaw||align="right" | 🇩🇪 germany || align="center" |  –  || Winner of #28

Jo green29b (talk) 20:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ by users 1969 and JDamanWP. —A bit iffy (talk) 21:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Merge with UEFA Euro 2012
With most of the tournament in the past this article really seems to be redundante. Almost all the info is in the UEFA Euro 2012 article or in its group subarticles. The only info that is not is the about the opening and closing ceremonies, and that should really be in the UEFA Euro 2012 article. So I say we merge this article into the different appropriate sections of the UEFA Euro 2012 article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge WP:RECENTISM, it is possible to accomodate the schedule in the dropdown (collapsible) box within the main article. Brand meister talk   09:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The above arguments have been treated in the recent deletion discussion, with the result of keeping the article as is. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UEFA_Euro_2012_schedule — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.215.32.199 (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge I completely agree with the proposal, this shedule article is redundant since the main article contains about all the relevant information and the little additional info can be merged easily. Additional navigation is unnecessary, the main article is structured and links well. Hekerui (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I've no particular view on this. However, Oppose for now. I feel it's improper to start this debate so soon after the AfD debate was closed. In fact, it would be better to leave it until after Euro 2012 finishes when perhaps people can take a more considered view on whether the article should exist in its own right.—A bit iffy (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge. Makes sense. There is no new information except for the bit about the opening and closing ceremonies, which should be briefly discussed in the main article. A possibility for the closing ceremony is to discuss it in UEFA Euro 2012 Final. This is how it was done for UEFA Euro 2008 Final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dar5995 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. A sizable portion of users has argued in favor of keeping the page at the very recent AfD. Those same arguments still apply. Revisit after the conclusion of the Euro. --213.196.216.100 (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose at least for the duration of the competition. I don't understand the rush to get rid of a useful and harmless article when it has more than 70,000 page views every day. Why make it harder for tens of thousands of readers to get the information they want when there is nothing problematic on the page and we can just wait a week to decide? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The only schedule info left is that of the semifinals/finals and all that info is in the main article easy to reach. Jack Bornholm (talk) 02:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Why do we have to rehash the AfD so promptly after it was closed? Just shelve this for now and reopen it after the competition is concluded. Like PH asks, what's the rush? --213.196.218.2 (talk) 02:57, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * With two weeks discussion as standard the final will be over before a consensus will be reached. It is my experience that when a event is over many editors loose interest very fast and any discussion on articles that might be redundant or nonencyclopedic is hard to stir up interesse for. Is there a general consensus that this article can be merge when the event is over? That is ok with me, but this article really seem to be in violation with Wikipedias not news section. I tried to say that on the now closed deleted discussion but it was closed just after I have stated that (and a other editors have said that this was a new argument in the discussion] and I got no change to say anything more. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hard to stir up interest for, or in other words: there likely wouldn't be much or any opposition. So you have just given yourself the best answer as to why later rather than right now. Also, Not news would be a reason to delete, but nobody even seriously argued that point in the AfD (incidentally, you didn't either). This is just the second incarnation of the AfD, and I have to wonder why some people are hellbent on tagging this page with whatever they think will stick. It's awkward, and as with the AfD, the timing is more than questionable. The main intent of the timing seems to be tagging the page, to rub as many people the wrong way as possible. That was most obviously Armbrust's intention in the AfD, seeing as he conducted himself there, and I don't see anything different here. The timing tells the entire story. --87.79.128.164 (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The first time I saw the delection discussion was when I made my comment, so it would be hard for me to comment earlier and I dont know what different editors agendas are. So you think it is better to wait until no one cares anymore and sneak a merge in under the radar instead of asking for a open dialog? Or is it simply that the article right now meets a need that any newsorganisation could meet. That it is not really an encyclopedic article that are worthy of preserving for many many years but simply is a convinient way to seek some news info on the schedule right here and now? And when that news need is not longer needed no one of the editors opposing the merge really cares anymore? I dont think so and hope not because that wouldnt be very encyclopdic thinking Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, had you looked at the AfD, you might have found that the timing (before the conclusion of the Euro) also greatly decreases the chances of the merge proposal, just like the AfD. --87.79.227.221 (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per Dar5995. The competition also reached the knock-out stage, which has a page (UEFA Euro 2012 knockout stage, where the matches are in chronological order. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  09:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Come on guys, seriously? Again? As it was explained in the AfD by dozens of users, this is a very interesting and useful article that can stand on its own. Trelos physikos (talk) 07:12, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, for now. A stand alone page has been helpful enough so far. Maybe the pages could be merged after the tournament is over. Till then, I say let it be.
 * Keep for now Article can stand on its own. -- Trödel 19:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - the article isn't too long, and it would fit nicely into the UEFA Euro 2012 article. 75.16.186.172 (talk) 23:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. A separate article for the schedule is completely redundant, as the same exact information is found on the main article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is not a deletion discussion. --87.79.111.175 (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.58.198 (talk) 01:20, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - It's completely redundant, all the information can easily be found in the main article. Even more so now that only the semi and final is left to plays. - Svefnpurka (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge - It is not an interesting and useful article (unless Euro 2012 comes round again), it is completely redundant. It should never have been created, since it clearly fails the 10-year test. --Jameboy (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a deletion rationale, and it's a bit late for that. The deletion discussion turned up no consensus to delete. --87.79.227.221 (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge - SEVERAL of these separate pages have been moved over now whcih I had to also vote on to get done. There is absolutely nothing different to this page than to those ones: they all featured a small intro para, a table, and some cites — exactly the same as this schedule page does, hence merge is perfectly the correct thing to do here. The main UEFA Euro 2012 article isn't too long, and it would fit nicely into that, so users can actually get to see the game schedule (you know, the ACTUAL LIST OF GAMES IN THIS COMPETITION WHICH SHOULD RIGHTLY APPEAR THERE !) on that page. Get on with it. Jimthing (talk) 21:53, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. As a note, not even the World Cup has a separate article for the schedule, as the main page is enough to cover the schedule. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:23, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You liar!!! See article: List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches -- 109.201.225.52 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a liar, he probably just didn't check before making that assertion. On a related note though, like the Euro 2008 and Euro 2012 schedule pages, List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches has been unsuccessfully nominated for deletion - twice. Since this merge discussion is nothing but a rehashing of the AfD, the arguments and results from there should be considered when closing this discussion. If some people can't wrap their egos around community consensus, they are simply in the wrong place. --87.79.97.70 (talk) 20:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct. I did not check.  Now, having known of its existence and looking at hindsight, that schedule list for the 2010 World Cup had outlived its useless and shouldn't exist anymore, because the same exact information is included in the main 2010 World Cup article. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 02:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, you had your chance to weigh in at the deletion discussion. It was closed without a consensus to delete. --213.196.219.4 (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- 109.201.225.52 (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge -- The schedule information is most decidedly not a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia should have enough respect for ourselves to have some minimal standards regarding content worthy of separate articles.  The information is entirely redundant (or very close to it) in any case.86.41.140.91 (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The schedule information is most decidedly not a topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. -- The recent AfD did not arrive at that consensus. --87.79.97.70 (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Merge" insofar as there is anything to merge. In fact, everything in this article is already in the main Euro 2012 article so the present article can be deleted without losing anything at all. Dricherby (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You're late to the game. The deletion discussion is over and yielded no consensus to delete. --213.196.219.4 (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Which doesn't stop there being more deletion discussions in the future. Given the number of people who said "keep until the tournament has finished", I wouldn't be surprised if there was a consensus in a week's time. Dricherby (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but this is not that discussion. --213.196.219.4 (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a free discussion so I dont think it is good to restrict anyone simply stating their opinion. Dricherby has supported a merge and are simply stating his own opinion as we all can. No reason to restrict him or bite of his head. Taking a interested in the discussion on Wikipedia I am sure you will like this article: Why create an account? that shows the many benefits of having an account and being a registered editor instead of being anonymus. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:54, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No, thanks. You will show the exact same respect to me and my arguments regardless of whether I'm an "established" registered user or an IP editor. And thank you for not dismissing my simple statement that the deletion discussion is over and yielded no consensus to delete as "biting off" someone's head. Apropos biting though, you would most certainly profit from carefully reading Please do not bite the newcomers. Not that I'm a newcomer, but your dismissive citing of WP:WCAA seems to imply that you think all IP editors are clueless newbies who don't know policy and guidelines. Not to belabour the point, but people like you are the very reason I'm not registered. --87.79.211.190 (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont think newbies are clueless. I myself havent been very active editing more than a half year but have been registered for years. So registered editors can be "newbies" even though they have been registered for years. Old and new can be clueless and IP editors can have been reading Wiki and editing for years. But I will never understand that an active editors editing and discussing every week would choice to show what I find disrept to the wike and his or her fellow editors to not register to have a talkpage where others can commonicate with that person and not a IP adress that can be shared. And I cite that article to many IP editors I know are not newbies. I think that being registered have many advances for each editor beside shoving respect for once fellow editors. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever this is, it certainly isn't the place to discuss the benefits or otherwise of being a registered user. On the other hand, it is a de facto deletion debate because "merge" means "move the content from this article into some other article and then delete this one". Since all the information in this article is already in the other article, the only part of the merging process that remains to be done is deleting this article (if the consensus is to merge). Dricherby (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the main article dont have a timeline of all the playdays but the info sorted in the different groups, the contents of this article could be a collapsable table at the top of the results section in the main article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The UEFA Euro 2012 schedule page is too long to copy into the main article as a standalone section, and any other kind of merge would be nothing more than deletion by the back door. It should be retained, and renamed to List of UEFA Euro 2012 matches, as a perfectly acceptable standalone list of the matches that took place, in a simple chronological format, which is something that is not available to the reader from the main article. Cracker92 (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge I think this page should be merged because if people are reading the UEFA Euro 2012 page, wouldn't the want to see the schedule to what happened? ChrisAmaddeo (talk) 14:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Sem-final result
Just thought i'd let the administrator of the article know that the final score was 1-0 in favor of Spain. thought an update to the chart was needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Autot00n (talk • contribs) 21:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No it wasn't 1-0. The article says the correct result: Portugal 0–0 (2–4) pen. Spain. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Renewed merge proposal with UEFA Euro 2012
Now that UEFA Euro 2012 has concluded, this page should be merged with the main article, since it gives no new information. Many people who opposed the previous merge proposal said "keep for now," saying to wait until the conclusion of the tournament. I now propose again that this page be merged with the main article. Please discuss and list reasons for support or opposition. Thanks. Dar5995 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Still merge because there's still no information in this article that isn't on the main Euro page. Dricherby (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is getting ridiculous guys, c'mon! Are we going to have this discussion every other week? This article is very useful for all the dozens of reasons people mentioned in the AfD, where it was decided to keep it. So, since merging this article is equivalent to deletion I don't see how we should not reach the same conclusion, ie keep keep keep! Trelos physikos (talk) 08:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: The italicized parts of the above comment were originally written in boldface. On my screen, one of the three "keep"s appeared at the start of a line and looked like a new !vote. To avoid confusion, I've removed the extra boldface. Dricherby (talk) 08:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What is the reason for keeping it? Now that the tournament is over, the article gives no new information and only lists information that is in the main article. Also, most of the support for keeping the article was because the tournament was still going on. The tournament is over, so a new discussion should happen. Dar5995 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The UEFA Euro 2012 schedule page is too long to copy into the main article as a standalone section, and any other kind of merge would be nothing more than deletion by the back door. It should be retained, and renamed to List of UEFA Euro 2012 matches, as a perfectly acceptable standalone list of the matches that took place, in a simple chronological format, which is something that is not available to the reader from the main article. Cracker92 (talk) 22:50, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't the information redundant? All of the matches and the times of the matches are listed on the main page, including the results, all in detail. It is pointless to have a standalone page that introduces no new information. Dar5995 (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * They are in two completely different formats, which makes it far from pointless redundancy. It is perfectly acceptable to present the same information in two different ways if it serves the needs of the reader, and I say that it does, even after the tournament has finished. Cracker92 (talk) 23:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * What need of what reader does it serve? Dricherby (talk) 08:29, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The need for a list of the match dates, results, venues and stages, in a chronological order. Cracker92 (talk) 16:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And does that need exist? You seem to be saying that the article serves the need to have the article, which is circular. Dricherby (talk) 17:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Where's your proof that it doesn't exist? Attempts to delete it have been rebuffed twice, if the need didn't exist, then explain that. I can tell you I prefer to look at this article than try and deduce the same information from the main one, but I sense you're not going to believe me and try and convince me I don't need it. Cracker92 (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion about merging had eleven people who thought it should be merged straight away, four people who thought it should be kept (one of whom gave no reason at all), and five who thought it should be kept 'til the end of the tournament and then discussed again. A lot of people in the deletion page also said to keep the page but delete or reconsider when the tournament's finished. I wouldn't describe that as "rebuffing" so much as postponement of a decision. Dricherby (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If it is a colapsing table it would be more than fitting in the main article. And in no way too long. Why should this list not be included together with all the other lists in the main article. Why is this list so important it needs its own article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A list in the main article would be entirely redundant. All of the information about the matches (results and times) are given in the "results" section of the main article. The schedule article should be removed and the information about the opening and closing ceremonies and the other small amount of non-redundant information in this article should be integrated in the results section of the main article. Dar5995 (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. main page is too long - this serves a purpose and the failure of the nominators to respect consensus by continuously rehashing this issue first through an AFD, then merge that ignored the AFD comments, and now, hours after match is played, renewing their arguments and finally addressing the concern of many commentators are just wasting everyone's time and show a lack of respect for their views. Bloodzeed (talk) 23:58, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do not remove the merge discussion template claiming that a consensus has been reached when no such thing has happened. In the previous merge discussion, eleven people said to merge, four said to keep the page and five said to wait until the tournament was over before discussing again. That is not a consensus. Dricherby (talk) 07:27, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I made the proposal again because many people who opposed the first merge proposal did so saying "keep until the tournament is over." I only made the proposal after the tournament was over, so as to see what people would say now that the tournament is over. I'm going to wait and see, and then a decision will be made. There is no harm in having another discussion (a warranted one), as it does not affect the pages' content whatsoever. Dar5995 (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. Is the same information in both articles. For me the schedule article is useless when I already have the possibility to see the chronology of the matches on the main UEFA Euro 2012 article.  AdrianRO   talk 14:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge. Duplicated information from the main Euro 2012 article.  What information is in this article - that is not in the main article?  Nothing!  In fact, the main article has more.  The purpose for the existence of this article as argued by those who want to keep this article has passed. For future reference, "schedule" articles should no longer be created, because imagine if this idea spreads to "regular season" schedules. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 15:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per Dricherby. This article doesn't contain any information, which isn't already on the main article. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  07:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Given that the page failed an AFD mere weeks ago, this renewed proposal is completely unacceptable. --CTC (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A large number of people in both the AfD and the previous merge discussion expressed the opinion that the page should be kept until the tournament was over. The tournament is now over so it's entirely appropriate to discuss again. Dricherby (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Instead of schedule pages
Handle future soccer tournaments in this fashion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:2012_Summer_Olympics_football_convenience_templates

Mr. HandsomeFella did a mighty fine job with this. It's convenient, concise, and crisp. No need of having a separate, redundant page for the schedule, when the schedule is already written on the main page. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)