Talk:UEFA Euro 2016/Archive 1

Requirements
The article claims that 3 stadia must have above 40,000 seats. But this is not fulfilled for the Euro 2008 in Austria+Switzerland, there are only two stadia above 40,000 seats. (Also, there are only 5 stadia above 30,000 seats, since the other 3 of the 8 stadia have exactly 30,000 seats). Can someone correct this?--129.70.15.202 (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * New demands from 2012. See this pdf page 21 under "Stadium Capacity".--Kjello0 (talk) 19:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Denmark/Sweden bid
To it/the ones that continue to delete the Danish-Swedish bid: Why?? It is the thinnest reason not to be able to understand the Danish source - well, it's a shame that the Danish media do not write their articles in English!!11!!1 But that is how it is... I have a reliable source, but still it's deleted. That is too bad... ka la  ha  12:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * No no no... NOT AGAIN! ka  la  ha  20:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Galatasaray new stadium 1.jpg
The image Image:Galatasaray new stadium 1.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:


 * File:New Trabzon Stadium.jpg
 * File:New Konya Stadium.jpg
 * File:New Kocaeli Stadium.jpg
 * File:New Antalya Stadium.jpg
 * File:Kadir Has City Stadium.jpg
 * Image:Swedbank Arena planned layout.png
 * Image:Paoathens3.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Ireland and the GAA
The Scotland-Republic of Ireland potential bid section lists a number of GAA grounds as potential venues. However the GAA has in the past banned 'British sports' from being played at GAA grounds. Only giving special dispensation to Rugby and Football, at Croke Park, while Lansdowne Road is being renovated; see Rule 41. I don't know a lot about the GAA or Rule 42, but I would assume that the GAA would be against using these grounds for a UEFA tournament. Or did the GAA give their approval for use previously in the 2008 bid? In either case shouldn't this be explained in the article? JonBradbury (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

5-Star Stadiums don't exist any more
The article mentions that 4 and 5-Star stadiums are a requirement to host the tournament. The UEFA does not use these categories any more, though. See Talk:UEFA elite stadium. OdinFK (talk) 18:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Speculation
At least 50% of this article appears to be speculation without any backing from good cites. Discussion of what stadiums may be used, and what countries may bid to host does not belong in the article. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I've clear a large part of the uncited stuff out now. While articles on future events can contain speculation, it has to be speculation from a reliable source. A great deal of the material here was completely unsupported by any cites to make it possible to determine just how informed, or widely inaccurate, the speculation was. The section on the Scotland - Ireland bid appeared to be a fanciful retread of 2008 bid, without any evidence that anyone of any note was even remotely considering a 2016 bid. The Greece section was equally uncited and didn't even venture to suggest that a bid might be forthcoming. It just launched into a discourse of what stadiums may be used.

Similarly, all the stuff discussing what stadiums would be suitable, and which stadiums could be improved, and what infrastructure would be adequate or improved, etce, etc, appeared to be entirely speculative original research and opinion. The cites that are provided all suggest that no decisions have been finalised in this regard by any of the confirmed applicants. -- Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Decided not to bid
While there might have been some point in this section immediately after 9 March, I would suggest that detail of who did not bid is meaningless. That serious consideration to entering a bid might be worthy of a sentence in the article of the relevant FA, or all three might bear mention in a brief sentence here, but a subsection for each of them already feels more like old newspapers, not a timeless encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Norway-Sweden Out of the Race.
Its has been said as of today - 9/12-09 that the Norway-Sweden joint bid to host the UEFA Euro 2016 after the goverment of the two countries, will deny the monetary guarantee to pay for the cost assosiated with the games.

source (in Norvegian ) : http://www.vg.no/sport/fotball/norsk/artikkel.php?artid=596422 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.166.228.18 (talk) 14:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Italian 12° city
you forgot to put into the italian bid's section the twelth city that has been decided: Parma. Its stadium is Stadio Ennio Tardini --Thomas romano (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Paring down the Turkey / Italy sections
Now that the bidding process is over, we should probably think about paring down the sections on Turkey and Italy (don't eliminate them completely, but they don't need this degree of mention, with all the proposed stadiums and such). 68.62.16.149 (talk) 17:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agreed. – PeeJay 17:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the host has been decided, maybe there can be a Euro 2016 bids page? Kingjeff (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that we should have a common UEFA Euro hosts page similar to the World Cup.-NineInchRuiner (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Venues
I suggest that the venues section has the map/photos only showing the 9 venues that have actually been selected, with the text explaining that 3 other stadiums were originally in the bid as well. At the moment the main part of the venues section is giving the same prominence to the stadiums that will not be hosting football.Eldumpo (talk) 08:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Euro 2016 Bidding Controversy
It is interesting that there is no mention of the highly controversial Euro 2016 bidding process in the article.

Turkey accuse UEFA of bias as France is picked to host Euro 2016

[http://www.oasisblues.com/2010/05/scandal-france-2016-boycott-euro-2016.html scandal: france 2016... boycott Euro 2016]

Guus Hiddink slams UEFA decision to grant France Euro 2016 ahead of Turkey

 “The presence of Nicolas Sarkozy tipped the balance. In the end it was 7-6. So I think it was good he decided to come. If he hadn’t come, Turkey would almost certainly have won.” “I’m happy because France has won, and I’m French — let’s not forget it,” Platini said after the vote. Tmhm (talk) 10:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand, why is this controversial? Sure, Platini is French, but he's the UEFA president too. Turkey are just being sore losers. – PeeJay 13:48, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It is always mention that Platini is the UEFA president and french and France won the bid. But nowhere does it say that the vice -president is turkish. The controversy is taking over the whole article. Maybe just a mention and a link to another article with full reference and facts. To mention as well that only the english version of the article reports it, not even the turkish seems to mention anything(I don't speak turkish). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.219.15 (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason it's not mentioned in the article is that it has never come up in the media, as far as we know. If you can find a rebuttal article to support your statement, feel free to add it to the article. – PeeJay 10:56, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Let's just be happy we don't have to go to eastern Europe, again. 83.86.4.72 (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to know if there has ever been a bid for a major sporting event which didn't end up with the losers claiming it was all a fix. Bandanamerchant (talk) 23:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

trolling, Guus Hiddink on Oprah
you have trollers. Some wrote that Hiddink said he would kill 24 cats if France won, and that he made the remarks on Oprah....yeah, right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.7.186.2 (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it sounds very unlikely. The provided reference doesn't has nothing to do with it anyway.  Maimai  009  16:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Nancy no longer host
Pulled out for financial reasons:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrcolyer (talk • contribs) 00:48, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

24 teams
Will the expanded tornament have 6 groups of 4, and will it be a last 16 or still a last 8? It does not add up to me. Babydoll9799 (talk) 15:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Last 16. Explained under extended format. -Koppapa (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Removal of unnecessary maps
I have reverted a couple of changes that have been made by a particular editor over the last few days - namely, a couple of maps that he/she has added. While these maps look good, and a lot of effort has obviously gone in to them, they seem to be unnecessary. The first one was a map of the stadium locations, of which a map is already included. The other was a map of UEFA members, which has little relevance to this article. This, along with the fact that no such maps are included in previous UEFA Euro articles, is why I have reverted the edits. If anyone disagrees (or agrees!) with my decision, then feel free to discuss it here and make a decision. Zestos (talk) 18:23, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Decision controversy
I have some reservations about this section. It's not very well balanced and uses a number of Platini's quotes out of context to try and make it appear more controversial than it was. For instance, the first quote where Platini says Turkey can host a tournament when they have a Turkish President was clearly a joke; yet it's written here as if he was deadly serious. Newspapers might have thought it acceptable to take that quote and spin it into a controversy, but that doesn't mean we should repeat it on Wikipedia without some qualifying statement. Bandanamerchant (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Qualifying Format
"In May 2013, Platini confirmed a similar qualifying format will be again discussed during the September 2013 UEFA executive committee meeting, set to take place in Dubrovnik."

Well Dubrovnik has come and gone and as far as I can tell there's no media coverage mentioning the qualifying format. Anyone know how this is actually going to work? Bandanamerchant (talk) 17:34, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Why the big word?
Why say will be the 15th quadrennial top-level European football event.

When it could just be "will be the 15th top level european football event" 77.99.186.110 (talk) 14:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because that doesnt let you know it's every 4 years. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 14:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. If you don't want to have to deal with big words, I suggest that you stick to the Simple English Wikipedia. – PeeJay 14:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I know this is an old comment, but that's precisely the attitude that leads to unreadable articles. Needlessly complicated phrasing/words should be stamped out where possible. This "if you can't understand it then it's your problem" thing is the complete opposite of what an encyclopedia should be about. Bandanamerchant (talk) 17:38, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * How is it complicated? Quadrennial means "every four years". If you see a word you don't recognise in any work, not just an encyclopaedia, you should look it up. – PeeJay 09:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no advantage to using a word/term fewer people understand when there's a simpler term available. It's the classic flawed reasoning that plagues countless articles on Wikipedia - using overly technical language on the grounds that it makes the contributor feel smart, when the goal is actually to communicate to as wide an audience as possible. In this case it's already been fixed and the article is much better for it in my opinion. Bandanamerchant (talk) 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I have no idea why you're making a big deal about this. If even one person picks up a dictionary because they didn't know what it meant, we've done a good job. We're here to educate, not pander to people who don't value their educations. – PeeJay 21:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right, we're here to educate, and as someone who teaches students every day in a university, my opinion is that needlessly using complex terms when there's a simpler alternative available is a spectacularly poor way to educate people. The point in the article is to inform readers about its subject, not to give them a crash course in the English language. Now there's no point in going back and forward countless times over it, I'll simply state that in my opinion the original comment was correct and I'm glad it's been changed in the text. Bandanamerchant (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Villeneuve d'Ascq instead of Lille
Should the map list "Villeneuve-d'Ascq" as a site instead of Lille? It is correct that the Grand Stade Lille Métropole is located there, but it's part of the Lille metropolitan area and most people will be more familiar with the name of Lille.

If we're going to stick with Villeneuve-d'Ascq, then should we not also list Décines-Charpieu instead of Lyon, since the Stade des Lumières will be located there? Funnyhat (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with both comments, there's definitely an issue of consistency here. The obvious choice would be to use the Lille and Lyon since they're the residing clubs in these two stadiums (Pierre-Mauroy and Stades des Lumières) 5moufl (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Group B fiasco
I just had to delete a fictional account of Group B's competition. Someone "recorded" Ireland and Italy advancing with Sweden in third and Portugal last. This tournament hasn't happened yet, and I had to remove it. I hope no one else decides to say that Switzerland wins Group C or something crazy like that. VampyIceMan 10:17 13 August 2014 (Central Time, US) — Preceding unsigned comment added by VampyIceMan (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Updates
Am I wrong or does this page need serious updating now that the draw have been made (months ago) and the early matche have already been played? I'm happy to do it, but is somebody already tasked with it? Ohuanam (talk) 23:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The matches that have already been played are just qualifying matches, for which we have a separate page at UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying. – PeeJay 22:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In the event of a Germany-Russia final...
...who will go to the Confederations Cup in representation of Europe, especially as these tournaments usually don't have a third-place game. This needs to be spelt out in the lead, or simply remove all mentions of the Confederations Cup until we know enough not to include the regulations on who will go. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 13:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think this case is clearly described in regulations. My guess - if Russia-Germany meet in Euro final, then FIFA will invite Argentina (WC runner-up) or Copa America '15 runner-up (if Argentina wins). Or maybe even Copa'16 winners, but not a 3rd wild card European team -BlameRuiner (talk) 14:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Fans not being considered
As with many 'factual' articles on Wikipedia this one reads like an advertisement. I appreciate that the facts such as stadia, teams, leagues etc.. must be reported - and they have been. But there are other 'facts' too: less apparent but still out there. For instance, in the eyes of many fans, Platini has ruined this tournament by allowing so many teams to qualify. Why turn a tournament of 16 (which worked) into a tournament of 24 (which means that countless games are being played with no real effect on the outcome). Why arent traditions or the opinions of fans ever taken into account? 213.114.44.178 (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Because what you call 'facts' are actually just opinions. Find us some sources for the criticism of the new format and there'll probably be some way of working it into the article, but all you've got at the minute is your own opinion. – PeeJay 10:54, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Final Draw
Why 🇫🇷 france Coefficient 46,416 because they have 33,599 Coefficient?

37.122.117.125 (talk) 13:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It has now been corrected, UEFA had 46,416 in their article first, probably typo. Qed237&#160;(talk) 13:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently blank
The article has been made completely blank by someone and has still not been fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewebaholic (talk • contribs) 18:16, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge Super Victor (article about the mascot of the tournament) into this article. The reason is that I feel not enough material can be gathered about the mascot of a soccer tournament to establish enough relevance for its own article. 100 percent of the content found in Super Victor can also be found in the UEFA Euro 2016 article. --rayukk &#124; talk 13:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Notable subject. There are many similar articles, see and . 178.94.166.186 (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Category:Association football mascots includes mascots of soccer clubs, not tournaments; Category:FIFA World Cup mascots currently only contains three standalone articles (1, 2, 3). It should also be pointed out that ever since the UEFA Euro 1960 information about the tournament mascot has been written into the respective article about the tournament and/or into the article UEFA European Championship mascot. --rayukk &#124; talk 19:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. The UEFA 2008 Mascot and UEFA 2012 Mascot have both been merged into their respective tournaments. There is not enough relevance to justify Super Victor as a separate article apart from UEFA Euro 2016. Just not notable enough.--Shreerajtheauthor (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. Nothing resoundingly innovative or memorable about the mascot. Everything there is can be relevantly summarised here &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. The subject is not relevant enough to have a standalone article. Parutakupiu (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support - Not notable yet. If 'he' shows some lasting notability after the tournament, then fine, but there's hardly enough valuable content there to justify creating a standalone article. – PeeJay 09:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support. 'He' temporarily does not have more information than those described in UEFA European Championship mascot. Goleo and Pille, Zakumi and Fuleco all have more. Centaur271188 (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2015
145.235.0.28 (talk) 06:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Qed237&#160;(talk) 11:35, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Ordering of the qualified teams
I observe that the table listing the qualified teams at the UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying article is transcluded into this article as well. In that table, the teams are ordered by date (and then, presumably, by time) of securing qualification. While this chronological order is of some relevance for the qualifying tournament article, I think that for the Euro finals article an alphabetical list of the finalists would make more sense. What is most important here is who will appear in the finals, not when or how they got there (that's already duly covered by the qualifying tournament article). Therefore, I suggest a new, alphabetical table be placed here, which will otherwise be the same as the present one, and which will still be sortable, so readers who wish to sort the teams by qualifying date can do so. --Theurgist (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Germany Different to West Germany?
Should Germany be listed as "[previously] competed as West Germany"? Today's Germany is the same Federal Republic of Germany that competed in the 1960s, 70s and 80s (it may be bigger now since the unification with East Germany but it's not legally a new country, unlike Croatia or the Czech Rep). Herky bird (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Technically no, but in the English language that country was always called "West Germany" at the time, even though it is the same state as the current "Germany" (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) and the same football association. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Tiebrakers
The tiebrakers section reads at point 4: "If, after having applied criteria 1 to 3, teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1 to 3 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the teams in question to determine their final rankings. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 5 to 9 apply". Does someone understand what that actually means? I'm not a native speaker, so that might be my problem, but to me this sounds exactly the same as criteria 1 to 3: Comparing the matches played between the teams in question. However, this obviously wouldn't make any sense, so could someone point out what "reapplied exclusively" means? Thank you! -- Christallkeks (talk) 22:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, good question and I dont think you are the only one that are not sure about these rules. I will try and explain as good as possible. When all matches has been played there could be more than two teams that are tied (for example 3 teams). Then after criteria 1-3 has been applied, two of those teams could still be tied and then you look at only does two teams. I will take an example step by step.


 * 1) For example Team A-Team B 1-2, Team A-Team C 1-0, Team B-Team C 1-2 and they all beat team D with 1-0.
 * 2) Team A, Team B and Team C all has 6points and team D has 0 points.
 * 3) We start with criteria 1 to separate Team A, Team B and Team C, but since they have all beaten each other they have 3 points in "matches played between the teams in question". For that reason all 3 teams are still tied.
 * 4) In criteria 2 all teams have goal differential 0 and they are tied here as well (Team A has 2-2, Team B has 3-3 and Team C has 2-2).
 * 5) The next criteria looks at goals scored and here Team B has scored 3 goals (2 against team A and 1 against C) while the other teams are still tied on two scored goals.
 * 6) Now we are criteria 4 and in criteria 3 we determined that team B had score more goals than the other teams and they are winners of the group. However, since Team A and Team C both scored two goals and are still tied, we go through criteria 1-3 again but this time only for Team A and Team C and exclusively only the matches between those to teams.
 * 7) Now looking at Criteria 1 for Team A and Team C we see that Team A won against Team C and should be ranked above.
 * 8) So the final ranking are now Team B, Team A, Team C and Team D.


 * I hope this is clear otherwise, feel free to ask again. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ok, so that sentence is just the formal way of saying "if there are still tied teams, but less than before, repeat criteria 1-3"? Or, a bit more formal but IMHO still better to understand than the official wording, "if criteria 1-3 reduced but not eradicated the number of tied teams, reapply criteria 1-3 to the matches played between the teams still tied"? Then I'd suggest to either change the article's wording or at least add a note clarifying this, since it really is hard to understand. Thank you for your detailed explanation! -- Christallkeks (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * (First, forgive any mistakes in my etiquette here since this is my first time contributing to a talk page!) I'm a native English speaker and I agree the language used in the official regulations is confusing. I had a couple comments/question I wanted to contribute. I think the main point of confusion is the use of "teams in question" in sections A and D. As I read it, I thought "teams in question" in parts A and D were referring to the same set of teams (the orignal set of 2-4 teams described in the beginning)., thank you for the very good explanation. After reading your explanation, I can't think of any other interpretation that makes more sense, and I now see that the UEFA is probably using "teams in question" in part D to refer to a potentially different set of teams from part A. I wanted to ask though if there was any documentation/source that corroborates this interpretation of the language? For example, an explanation coming from a UEFA official.


 * , I think your suggestion for new wording is a good one. I think it makes things very clear. I would just replace the word "eradicated", maybe with "eliminated". To incorporate your langauge into the existing wording, I think UEFA should have used something more like: "d. if, after having applied criteria a) to c), the number of tied teams has been reduced but not eliminated, criteria a) to c) are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the teams that still remain tied to determine their final rankings. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria e) to h) apply;"


 * Regarding updating this wording in the article, it seems to me it shouldn't be updated unless there is some comment from the UEFA confirming this interpretation, or if it's agreed there cannot exist any other reasonable interpretation?


 * Lastly, a minor thing I wanted to point out is that the official regulations uses in part A the language "among the teams in question", but this article uses "between the teams in question". The words are nearly synonymous here, but using the word "among" could possibly lead to an interpretation where it means all matches played by the tied teams (rather than only matches between the tied teams). Maybe the original "among" should be used in the article, and the meaning left to the interpretation of the reader? Ekimjela (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Remove or fix the map of qualified teams with Russia split in two
¨The map over the qualified teams splits Russia in two totally random making the whole section really confusing. Please somebody fix it, just paint all of Russia blue. It should take a normal person 2 seconds to do. I would do it but the page is locked. It really is disturbing my map-autism, so please I would really appreciate the help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2016#/media/File:UEFA_Euro_2016_qualifying_map.svg

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.216.222.148 (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you are talking about. Is there some part of russia that is not blue? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 14:59, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, looking at the map, I can't see anything wrong. The orange section underneath lines meandering along Russia are various ex-Soviet countries. That said, it would be helpful to connect the main bit of Russia to the Kaliningrad Oblast with a thin blue line. Nick F., Toaster (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2016
In the test : "The UEFA General Secretary Gianni Infantino". However, Gianni Infantino is the former UEFA General secretary and current FIFA president.

Piumabianca84 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated. — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 05:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Groups Section Ordering
Hi, what way are the teams ordered in the group section? It's not alphabetical and not by their date of qualification. 86.185.196.193 (talk) 15:49, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess your are talking about the standings tables? Teams in the group are currently ordered based on the position in the groups they were given in the draw (and the position within the group determined match order). The order can be seen in this and ths article from UEFA. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay but even if there is a nominal ordering assigned within each group before any matches are played, the cell background colours and "qualifications" column in these tables make no sense until enough matches have been played to determine the outcome. We need to get rid of these until then. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2016 (UTC)


 * It's not really that misleading when one sees "Played 0" in every one of the columns. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

But taking Group A as an example, France are no longer on "played 0", having played one match and won it. However, clearly neither are they yet in a position of being guaranteed to advance to the knockout phase, although that's what the label would appear to indicate. At some point in each group, depending on all the results, some teams become certain to qualify for the knockouts. What I am saying is that the "qualify" column, and the highlighting that goes with it (cell background colour), should be empty to start with (or maybe set to "possible knockout phase"), and the label "advance to knockout phase" should only be applied to teams once they reach the point where this is guaranteed -- even though teams can be listed in some kind of group order before this point is reached. I would also argue that when a team reaches a stage where it is impossible for them to qualify, this should be indicated in the "qualify" column with the words "cannot qualify", probably with an accompanying red (or pink) background for the row. The only thing in favour of the present format is that it is less effort, not that it is actually better. Given the likely level of reader interest in this article during the course of the championship, I'd have thought that it is worth the effort. --Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Teams are marked with statusletters when they have qualified and this has been discussed many times before. It is the best way of explaining what happens. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 01:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Status letters are not the best way of indicating this. I've always maintained that a simple line should be used to indicate the places that grant qualification, with highlighting (and possibly a status letter) added only when qualification is a mathematical certainty. – PeeJay 11:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Kosovo should now be grey on the map
Now that Kosovo has gained full UEFA membership, it should be separated from Serbia in the map, and coloured grey (because it was still not a member at the time of the qualifiers). --Theurgist (talk) 09:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added Kosovo to both maps. Thank you for reminding me. GarethTJennings (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2016
More information to be added into the hooliganism subsection of controversies. I would add a sentence saying:

Fighting continued on the day of the tournament, this time predominantly between Russian and England fans. It also spilled into the stadium, with English fans having to flee from Russian fans after the full time whistle.

Or something along those lines, to make clear that the fighting has not just been English fans in the streets, but also what has been reported to be more organised Russian fans causing trouble actually at the matches.

Eng736 (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I've noticed the section has since been edited to mention the violence outside the stadium continuing, but I'd say it's still worth mentioning the scenes inside the ground (something along the lines of my second sentence above?). Eng736 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  02:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Can we please avoid crystal balling OR?
The group stage is now under way, and no doubt the instant group A completes there 2nd set of games, there will be hundreds of people working out 100s of scenarios across the various groups depending on what happens if they finish 3rd if W beets X, or Y draws with Z, or what happens with such and such a goal swing and so on, and so on. There are only 3 to 4 days between a teams 2nd match and it's 3rd - and given that other groups will play those days, the result of a team finishing third will probably change each day. So what's the point in going into this sort of crystal balling OR when it's going to be on the page for so little time? put it in a blog where it belongs, not wiki. And this includes the silly status letters which will probably be edit warred over several times with one person insiting that one letter is correct because x and y can still draw, and another person reverting claiming that this will mean zz can't pass them, and so on, and so on....

So please can we be sensible and just wait 3 to 4 days for information to become FACT and final? 90.219.175.78 (talk) 09:03, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Hooliganism section
Hello. Regarding the England/Russia hooliganism story, French prosecutors said today that the violence was largely caused by 150 Russian fans, who were 'well prepared' and 'well-trained' for 'ultra-rapid, ultra-violent action.' I suggest this development is clearly extremely important and fundamental to this story, and I think this article should duly include it. The following are my sources (I quoted above from the BBC article):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36515213 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-2016-violence-russian-england-fans-marseille-violent-clashes-football-a7079246.html http://www.worldsoccer.com/euro-2016/england/french-prosecutors-150-russians-behind-violence-376374 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.34 (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Hooliganism section
Hello. Regarding the England/Russia hooliganism story, French prosecutors said today that the violence was largely caused by 150 Russian fans, who were 'well prepared' and 'well-trained' for 'ultra-rapid, ultra-violent action.' I suggest this development is clearly extremely important and fundamental to this story, and I think this article should duly include it. The following are my sources (I quoted above from the BBC article):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36515213 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/euro-2016-violence-russian-england-fans-marseille-violent-clashes-football-a7079246.html http://www.worldsoccer.com/euro-2016/england/french-prosecutors-150-russians-behind-violence-376374 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.12.120.34 (talk) 15:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system
It's not clear (in the article or the cited UEFA regulations) regarding the ranking tiebreaker "Position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system" whether higher coefficient confers a better or worse group ranking. I guess higher coefficient = higher ranking is a more natural interpretation of the text; then again given how neutrals tend to favour the underdogs UEFA might take an opportunity to give them a slight advantage. OTOH maybe UEFA prefer to favour the more lucrative TV markets. jnestorius(talk) 11:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

tied in points teams as of 15/06/16
Why is Portugal number 2 and Iceland number 3 if they both have 1 point. Please fix it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:75:2E34:F198:FCE4:73D:7A58:D83 (talk) 12:43, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You can see the tiebreaking criteria here: UEFA_Euro_2016 --Ugly Ketchup (talk) 13:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OMG, it's just 1 game, it's completely irrelevant who is second or third right now!--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 14:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Slovakia and Czech Republic
Why are Czechoslovakia's past tournaments counted for Czech Republic but not for Slovakia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.5.232 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Czech Republic is the successor team to Czechoslovakia (and before that, Bohemia), they were all run by the same association &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 03:20, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I think both Slovakia and Czech Republic are successors to former Czechoslovakia. Or none of them. Both countries were equal parts of Czechoslovakia. The name of the former country tells for itself. And by the way, 8 of 11 players in the lineup for the final match in 1976, when Czechoslovakia won its only European Championship, were from the Slovak part of the former country. So, how can you count the victory for Czech Republic? Both current countries own it - or none of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N3V4D1 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As said above, the Czech Republic Football Association is the successor of Czechoslovakia Football Association. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 13:04, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, just to clarify, this isn't a decision that Wikipedia editors have made, it's an official FIFA pronouncement. Russia is the successor of the USSR team, Germany is the successor of the West Germany team, DR Congo is the successor of the Zaire team and so on. Brickie (talk) 12:31, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)This is a matter of history - therefore, there is no objective true, no facts. There are only subjective opinions. The adding of the whole history of a unit composed of 2 parts to only 1 part of it is your opinion, not a fact.
 * 2)My opinion is that if 2 independent countries decide to join together (1945) and then later decide to split again (1993), it is not correct nor logic to add their common history to only 1 of those countries. Especially, if they were equal and they even both agreed not to claim the whole common history for anyone of them.
 * 3)A football history is a part of a history, it should not be taken apart - as a something different.
 * 4)FIFA is not an authority in deciding of what is a history fact. This is the work for historians. FIFA is just a legal organisation and makes its own rules. It does not rule a history perception of anything.
 * 5)The successory is a matter of some legal system, it does not change the history. It can not influence what already happened before. The FIFA's deciding of a successory brings only some future's consequences, it does change the past. No organisation can change history, no one can take the history and give it to someone else.
 * 6)In 1945, Slovak football association and Czech football association decided to merge. In 1993 they split again and they both decided to start as a 2 new associations. They also decided that none of them would claim the past common history as anyone's own one.
 * 7)The Czechoslovakia national football team's only championship triumph - the EURO 1976's one - was a work of both Czech and Slovak players (8 of them in the final were Slovaks, 3 were Czechs). It is a logical nonsense to count these 8 Slovak players into the independent Czech football history.
 * 8)The Czechoslovakia's biggest football clubes' achievements were the Slovan Bratislava's triumph in Cup Winners' Cup and Spartak Trnava's semifinal in Champions Cup (both in 1968/69). Both these clubs are Slovak ones. According to your "logic", you count both these achievements into the independent Czech football history. It is another nonsense coming from your "logic".
 * 9)If there were (hypotheticaly) 2 matches played between 2 parts of the common country (Czechoslovakia), in this case the matches between Czechia and Slovakia, and one of them would be won by Czechia and the another one by Slovakia, according to your "logic" both of the victories had to be count for Czechia, as the Czech republic is "the successor" of the whole Czechoslovakia's history. As you can see, your "logic" is illogical.
 * 10)This article is about UEFA Euro 2016, an competition run by UEFA, not by FIFA.
 * 11)UEFA claims no Czechoslovakia national football team's history to Czech republic nor Slovakia, as you can see here: http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=cze/honours/index.html and here: http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=svk/honours/index.html. UEFA rather states its this way: http://www.uefa.com/teamsandplayers/teams/teama/team=58836/profile/history/index.html and I think it is the correct way.
 * 12)Even FIFA itself claims no Czechoslovakia's matches for Czech republic! You can check it on FIFA's website here: http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/teams/country=cze/matches/index.html. You can find only Czech republic's matches played since 1993 (since 1992 in case of futsal) counted as Czech republic's ones. No Czechoslovakia's matches at all.
 * 13)What about players and coaches who played for both Czechoslovakia and then for independent Slovakia - like Ľubomír Moravčík, Peter Dubovský, Jozef Vengloš and so on? According to your "logic", you have to count a part of their careers into the independent Czech history and another part into the independent Slovak history. Another nonsense.
 * 14)Maybe you, by mistake, consider whole this thing as a "Slovakia joined Czechoslovakia and then depart of it". However, the truth is that Czechia and Slovakia, 2 different countries joined together as equals and then split again as equals, thus leaving the common state's history as a past thing, belonging to both of them, equally. Again, both these countries were equal. None of them has a bigger right for their common history.
 * 15)What about the case of the Great Britain's football team made for the Olympic Games (2012)? According to your "logic", you have to count it into one of the British countries' (Scotland, Northern Ireland, England, Wales) history. Another nonsense.
 * 16)What if (hypothetically) there will be a team of joined European Union countries? And then it will split again. Into which european country's history will you count it then? You can choose anyone, it still will be a nonsense.
 * 17)What if (hypothetically) FIFA and UEFA claims different historical "facts"? What if another organisation like FIFA appears in future? What if there will be more different views on history from more different organisations? What if, for example, Czech republic exits FIFA and UEFA and joins another organisation which will count their previous performances differently? Will you change your statementes here?
 * 18)I think the history facts should be presented here regardless of any organisation's opinions.
 * 19)I think that the dates of entries of any national associations into any international confederation and any organisation's statements about any successory should not rule how we perceive and interpret history.
 * 20)The fact is that there was a Czechoslovakia's national football team. The fact is that it is not here anymore. The fact is that there are Czech national football team and Slovak national football team now. The fact is that there was no Czech national football team competed in 1976, so you can not count the 1976 triumph into the Czech national football team's history. If you do, you just lie. If you write that Czech national football team competed in 1976 as Czechoslovakia national football team, then you have to write, similarly, that Slovak national football team competed as Czechoslovakia national football team in 1976, too. If you write that it does not, you lie. So, either you write that both Slovakia and Czech republic competed from 1960 to 1992 as Czechoslovakia, or none of those two countries. If you write that only one of them competed so, you just write a lie.
 * 21)It is not a vandalism to correct a lie.
 * 22)It is not according to Wikipedia principles to write a lie and block the others to correct it.
 * I demand you either correct those lies written in this article or let others to do it or prove they are not lies. If you write even third time that Czech Football Association is a successor of Czechoslovakia Football Association, it will not change the lies that Czech republic competed in 1960-1992 and that only Czech republic competed as Czechoslovakia in 1960-1992 and Slovakia did not competed as Czechoslovakia in 1960-1992. Because these two facts do not depand on FIFA's claim on who is a successor of whom. --N3V4D1 (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You're ranting and not making any sense, especially when you say that the Czech Republic beating Slovakia would be it beating itself under this logic, among your other straw men. The same organisation administered football in Bohemia, Czechoslovakia and Czech Republic. We would not, for example, include Germany's results after the Anschluss to Austria's record &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are "we"? Do you speak on behalf of all Wikipedia? I though it is a public encyclopedia... So, no response to most of my comments. Do you have no arguments to deny them or no courrage to admit them? Maybe you haven't read nor understood what I had written. Of course I would not include Germany's 1938-1945's results to Austria's record, either. That is just my point. I would not include Czechoslovakia's results to Slovakia's record nor to Czech republic's record, either. Czechoslovakia is just a different country than Slovakia or Czech republic. How can you write that Czechoslovakia is Czech republic? Czechoslovakia's national football team won the Euro 1976, Czech republic did not. How can you write that Czech republic won the Euro 1976? It is just not true. And if you write that Czech republic competed as Czechoslovakia in that time, you cannot write simultaneously that Slovakia did not compete as Czechoslovakia in the same time - because both these countries did! Even if you are an English native speaker and I barely speak English - you probably do not understand what the word "successor" means. It is "someone or something that comes after another ​person or thing" (according to Cambridge dictionary: http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/successor). So, if anybody says that you are a successor of XY, it does not mean that you are XY. You just follow XY, you come after it, you replace it. According to your "logic" James Madison is Thomas Jefferson, because he is his successor... They are both presidents of the USA, James Madison is Thomas Jefferson's successor, but it does not make Jefferson's deeds the Madison's ones. The same as Czechoslovakia's achievements are not just Czech republic's nor just Slovakia's ones. Both these countries created Czechoslovakia till 1992, not only one of them. So, even if the FIFA or you or anybody says that the Czech republic is a successor of Czechoslovakia, it does not make the Czechoslovakia's triumph from 1976 the Czech republic's triumph. So, I demand again you to disprove my arguments and prove your ones or let the others to change the illogical lies to real, true facts. You should not decide what makes sense, the logic itself should. This should be a free encyclopedia, not a factory transforming your opinions into false facts. I am really disappointed how Wikipedia works now and I will never support it (with finances or articles) again until it works this way. And I will spread the word to the others to do the same. N3V4D1 (talk) 13:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think The Almightey Drill explained it to you pretty well. The same organisation (i.e. what is now known as the Football Association of the Czech Republic) has been responsible for the administration of football in Bohemia, Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic since it was founded. As a result of that, the records of the Czech Republic are shared by those of Bohemia and Czechoslovakia; and not just by Wikipedia, but by UEFA and FIFA as well. Wikipedia doesn't just make up facts to suit an agenda, we follow the sources that are available to us, and since the sources consider the Czech Republic a continuation of Czechoslovakia but do not consider Slovakia in the same way, that is what is reflected in Wikipedia's articles. – PeeJay 13:49, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have already posted the sources and I do it again because you maybe missed it - here is the FIFA's Czech republic's profile: http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/teams/country=cze/matches/index.html and here is the UEFA's one: http://www.uefa.com/memberassociations/association=cze/honours/index.html. The first one clearly says there are no matches for Czech republic before 1992, the second one shows there are no titles won for Czech republic before 1992. Both FIFA and UEFA do not consider the Czechoslovakia's 1976 Euro title as the Czech republic's one. So what are you writing about? What sources do you refer to? Where are your quotations? I see none. Where did tAD explained it well? He explained nothing, he did not even respond to most of my comments, he just offended me that I am ranting. I explain, I give arguments, evidences, qoutations. What do you do? How can the Czechoslovakia's association and the Czech republic's association be the same - and in the same time the latter be the successor of the previous? If it is the same, it does not need a successor. One cannot be a successor of himself, I think. Even if Czech republic is recognized as a successor of Czechoslovakia, it still does not make the Czechoslovakia's matches be the Czech republic's ones (same applies for players, managers and so on). Where are Slovak players in your "system"? Did not they exist before 1992? Actually, they did. And they were not Czech republic's players. And BTW, Czechoslovakia was a federation of 2 equal countries. They willingly joined together in 1918 and then willingly separated in 1992. Czech republic did not conquer Slovakia as it was in case of Nazi Germany and Austria in 1938.N3V4D1 (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * At the same time you have UEFA saying that the Czech Republic FA was founded in 1901 and joined UEFA in 1954. Everything you are suggesting is original research. There is no basis apart from your own theories. And the straw man about "successor team" being equivalent to saying Jefferson and Madison were the same person is just...well. That's not what it means, otherwise West Germany would be the successor of Czechoslovakia for winning Euro 1980. If you have a problem with UEFA and FIFA's definitions, write a letter to them, Wikipedia is not the place to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * FIFA profile the Czech Republic with Czechoslovakia's record. Full stop. Let's stop whipping this deceased equine. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Czechoslovakia team should be neither counted for Czech republic nor Slovakia. That is how it appears in UEFA and FIFA pages. Wikipedia article should adher! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sisoslonik (talk • contribs) 21:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Another hit-and-run moron. I literally above you posted that FIFA's profile on the Czech Republic team says that they were founded in 1901 and took part in events before the formation of the country in 1993. For the last smegging time, the same organisation who administered football in Czechoslovakia and even Bo-bloody-hemia within the Austro-Hungarian Empire is now running football in the Czech Republic. But thank you for (falsely) saying that FIFA share your logic, instead of the above bullshit about American presidents and Wikipedia apparently having to take a different line in the history of football than the body that runs the flipping sport. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 06:54, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Statusletters
I propose that for this tournament we only use "A" (advance to next round) or "E" (eliminated) to avoid a lot of edit warring as well as long statustext below the table for this short group stage. Any opinions? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * When something is certain it can and should be added. Kante4 (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes but is the X and Y really needed. Very long text and not very useful with a status saying they "might" qualify. In my mind only A and E. Do you want the X and Y as it is in group A at the moment? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:24, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with that. Kante4 (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't understand this... why would you make up new rules out of nothing? For now, let's do it as usual. O l J a  18:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Not making up rules. Since editors previously expressed concern about to many and complicated statusletters I thought I should take it for discussion. There is no rule regarding the statusletters. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support status letters. They are informative and make it easier to become aware of the teams' statuses, especially when the statuses are not immediately visible from the table (as it is in Group C currently). Besides, just two status letters are not "too many", and I'd say they're rather straightforward than "complicated". --Theurgist (talk) 18:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support status letters. Same as Theurgist. I see 's point and know about him getting criticism about the use of letters, but just as some editors complained before, now we have here some editors disagreeing about not using them. I can make the necessary changes after the matches, together with other users interested in. The Replicator (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support status letters also. In my opinion: standings with letters better. GAV80 (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – The thing is that it is 4 letters A, E, X and Y with very long text for X and Y and readers have expressed concerns that with so many letters for only four teams (same amount of letters as teams), together with colors and the long text about teams "might qualify" makes it too much and complicated. I can understand both sides of the discussion. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support – but perhaps simplify the wording on the X and Y letters. For example, X could state Will finish in top three, and Y could state Cannot finish in top two. Thereby cutting a bit of the waffle, just a thought. Chris0282 (talk) 19:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. The Replicator (talk) 19:38, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that idea, the information about possible qualification if third already exist in the table and shorter message would be good. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Can we carry on this idea? The Replicator (talk) 20:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Brilliant. Just brilliant,  O l J a  20:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Shorter explanation
There has been proposal above to make the statusletters shorter; X – Assured of top three finish, Y – Cannot finish in top two. Or something similar. What do you think? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * who have all contributeds above. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:12, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove all unsourced letters Just look at the incorrect letter added by who who does not seem to properly understand the tiebreaking rules. Are all these letters OR and must not be added, or do we have RS for them?  LoveToLondon (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment What is that an example of? I added that letter by accident - not because I "do not seem to understand tiebreaking rules". These letters have existed in the past, and they will now. O l J a  20:20, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, per reasons mentioned above. The Replicator (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, X – Assured of top three finish, Y – Cannot finish in top two. Very good and clear. GAV80 (talk)
 * Ok, - if that's what you mean then Support, as it would make it easier to interpret for the reader, as you say.
 * Support Per the above, they're the simplest and most succint. Also, should we have "E" for eliminated? Joseph2302 (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A and E are kept until the end of the group stage (all groups). After the last group stage matches, all letters are removed except H for France (hosts). The Replicator (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Short makes sense and is easy to understand. Kante4 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * comment Status letters are scenarios by the back door. especially when after all teams have played two games, people will be using OR to work out if someone should be A not X or E not Y because if they finish 3rd it will/will not (respectively) be enough to qualify.  213.104.176.176 (talk) 07:51, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Great way to communicate relevant knowledge without excessive text. @above post: The table showing which combinations of 3rd place teams has been there all the time. If that can be populated it will directly translate some X's to A's and Y's to E's. Finding a national newspaper that writes "Team Z now ensured spot in round of 16" instead of relying on the same type of math as determining that a team will finish 4th seems an odd claim for OR. Lars Ransborg (talk) 09:24, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Strong POV
Despite numerous articles in reliable sources about vandalism and violence by both English and Russian fans, the section on hooliganism completely ignores the English fans and use English sources to blame the Russians. This is a rather strong POV-pushing, so tagging the article until this has been sorted. The fact that this is English Wikipedia means we use the English language, not that we write article from an English point of view. Jeppiz (talk) 13:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that, by way of balance, we also use Russian sources to blame the English? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A read of the section on Hooliganism describes nothing that isn't confirmed by this German reliable source. To tag the whole article as POV rather then the relevant section that you believe to be is well and truly excessive but I can't see any POV in the first place. Calistemon (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that, by way of balance, we also use Russian sources to blame the English? -- Yeah, because that's the only alternative here... As you correctly presume, it is categorically impossible to remove the POV except to introduce even more POV from the "other side". --85.197.22.6 (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, great, we all love RT, don't we. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Having read through the sources a bit more I feel that it is our section which isn't neutral at all. Even British sources have reported that Both Russia and England have been warned that they could be thrown out of the tournament if their fan's violence continues and that the here have been new riots today, this time between English, French and Welsh fans (no Russians involved at all), yet nothing of that is mentioned in this article. Only the Russian are discussed for some reason. Tvx1 21:11, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The headline at your second link says "Euro 2016: dozens arrested in Lille after England and Russia supporters clash" and it says "... teargas to attempt to disperse English, Welsh and French fans" and "the chants from their English and Welsh counterparts got louder and were accompanied by finger pointing and some evident tension". This to you counts as "new riots" which "don't involve Russians", yes? You're telling us that Welsh fans have been "rioting"? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * By the way, any discussion about this should really look at Violence at UEFA Euro 2016 first. The section here should just be a summary of that one. If that main article is well-balanced, so should this one be. Also - see the above thread "Hooliganism section", which says, with a source: "French prosecutors said today that the violence was largely caused by 150 Russian fans, who were 'well prepared' and 'well-trained' for 'ultra-rapid, ultra-violent action." This seems to have been largely ignored. Yes, England fans have reacted violently to violence, but it seems this was very well-planned and organised violence. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * That source also contains the following passage: French police used CS gas to disperse England and Wales fans again later in the evening. This time there was no violence or even any Russian supporters visible, just a roaming group of singing, drunk young men, mainly English. You see, a clear example of incident that didn't involve Russians at all. Tvx1 23:26, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * a roaming group of singing, drunk young men, mainly English is a riot? Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I described that as an incident. Tvx1 12:28, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You did, sorry if I wrongly accused you. So I'm guessing you see it as "hooliganism" (and what constitutes hooliganism is a little open to interpretation). There doesn't have to be any violence as such. I'm just not sure, in the context of football, if getting drunk, roaming around and singing (not even chanting) is really very notable. well not compared with, you know... letting off flares, beating people with metal bars, kicking people in the head with steel-toe-capped boots, filming it all on a belt-fitted go-pro cam, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I see absolutely no neutrality in this section. Even if I were somehow related to England, I would not write so one-sidedly. Guys, English fans in Lille were provocating Russians, that's absolutely clear. What else could they do there? Their match in the other city. And blaming ONLY Russians for bullying is no fair, at the very least. But reading this section, it seems that English fans are just so innocent, so that evil Russians came and gave fight to peaceful guys for nothing. Yes, UEFA has given officially a suspended disqualification and fined the Russian team, but there were also official warnings to English as well. It's only one sentence about this fact now. I understand that you are following the Wikipedia guidelines, but this is clearly not fair. Kind regards, Waylesange (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And you think the statement by "French prosecutors" was just made up? If there are sources describing rioting by English fans, accounts should be added. Drunkenness could be mentioned certainly, although it's not necessarily hooliganism. The section says quite clearly "The English team was also warned about disqualification, but was not formally charged." That's a fact. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Waylesange and Tvx1 and think they have made the case quite clearly and convincingly. The fact that one loud user objects over and over again should not really influence things. WP:CONSENSUS does not mean total unanimity. Jeppiz (talk) 11:11, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Who is this despicable "one loud user"? Is he having his own little riot perhaps? I'm suggesting consistency with the separate main article. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And now we had Croatian fan violence inside a stadium. Tvx1 19:03, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Tiebreakers: yellow and red cards
Hi. This time there is a particularly high probability that yellow and red cards will have to be counted in order to determine the ranking (see SUI/ROM, ENG/RUS, GER/POL). The current wording of the article mentions "3 points for a red card as a consequence of two yellow cards". This formulation leaves it unclear whether the first (and indeed the second) yellow card still counts as 1 point alongside the 3 points for the red card. The official text of the Regulations is clearer on this, but uses too many words. Probably it would be wise to change the wording in the article. Something like "2 points for a second yellow card followed by a red card", or "3 points for two yellow cards in one match followed by a red card"? Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's very simple. Each yellow card is 1 point, each red card is 3 points. When a player is sent off after receiving two yellow cards, only the red card counts. So, yellow=1 point, direct red=3 points, 2xyellow=3 points, yellow+direct red=4 points. Tvx1 19:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. But this is not necessarily the way an average reader would understand the present wording (( Ivan Volodin (talk) 15:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

First Group Stage Result
Can't see where it says anywhere how many games in the group stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdgillen (talk • contribs) 16:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Currently reflects a 5-0 France win. This match has not yet occurred. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.229.248.14 (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately this tournament is subject for some vandalism, but it it often fixed quickly. I will keep an eye out for more vandalism. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Italy not yet group winner
In section 8.2 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2016#Qualified_teams_2 Italy is already shown (as of Sat 18th @ 17:20 hrs French time) as having won group E, which isn't true (or at least is premature): if Italy loses their final match against ROI, and Belgium beats Sweden, both Italy and Belgium will be on 6 points, in which case Belgium could be the group winner with goal difference. Whoever ends up winning the group - could well turn out to be Italy - my point is it hasn't been decided yet. Or have I missed something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.131.57 (talk) 15:25, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just read the rules. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 15:35, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Specifically point 1 at UEFA Euro 2016. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Head to Head Italy beat Belgium, therefore in the event of both these teams ending up with the same points, Italy will be ranked higher and since neither Ireland nor Sweden can catch Italy by points, therefore Italy have won the group. At best Belgium can achieve second place, at worst last, that is if Ireland beat Italy and Sweden beat Belgium. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:25C0:380:9D5:23F4:48E2:3EC3 (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, so clearly I had missed something. :) I stand corrected.  Thanks for clarifying, whoever made the last comment.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.89.131.57 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016
Italy is said to have it's game on match 43, however if Belgium win and Italy loses Italy will be in second place so their game would be match 42. http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro/season=2016/matches/round=2000744/match=2018002/index.html Here is the official website stating that Italy is not confirmed for this game.

Knight Of Shame (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: As written above, read the rules please, Italy is confirmed as group winner and will play in this game.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 20:01, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * From UEFA after Belgium v Republic of Ireland: Result means Italy have won group and will face Group D runners-up in St-Denis on 27 June. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:06, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2016
The current list of top scorers are as of 'Matchday 2 of 3', not 'Match 2 of 3'.

122.171.99.31 (talk) 20:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg Not done Updated after 2 of 3 matches today, not matchday 2. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 20:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

England already in Final??
Hi, I've noticed in the section "Bracket" that England is already added in the final. Is it a mistake/vandalism? could someone restore the previous version? I'm not a football expert ;). Wjkxy (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed.--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 17:05, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm posting this in the wrong spot, so sorry.

But England is in. Any team with 4 points *will* advance, even if they get releated to the 3rd position. As there are already sufficient teams with 0 or 1 point after 2 completed games. As a result, there will be at least 8 teams with 3 poitns or less after all teams have played 3 games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.62.169 (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No any team with 4 points will not certainly advance at this points. Groups A, C, D, E can still finish all with a third-placed team with 4 points and group F can even finish with a third-placed team with 5 points. In such a case, England can still be overtaken by 4 other third-placed teams if they finish third as the tie-breakers (goal-difference, goals scored,...) will decide which teams go through. Tvx1 19:20, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I have a minimum of 1 team in each of groups A-D which can have no more than 3 points apiece. If Wales beats or draws Russia, England will automatically finish 2nd place or better, regardless of the outcome of their match against Slovakia. If England loses to Slovakia, and Russia beats Wales, then England still finishes ahead of Wales on head-to-head. Thus there is only 1 scenario in which England is 3rd at all.

(I won't try to include the fact that Turkey *will* lose to Spain)

Finally, of groups E and F ugh...forget it. I can't handle the permutations right now. I don't agree with you, but my neckbearded indignation is proving to be nothing more than impotent rage. You win, for now, Darkwind... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.226.62.169 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It's trivial to see that all six groups can get a third-placed team with at least four points. England could lose big in their last match and get the worst goal score of third-placed teams. If Russia is disqualified then we don't even know how the third-placed team in England's group will be counted. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * If both Slovakia and Wales win their final match they'll both finish Group B with 6 points while England ends up third with 4 points. If Slovakia and Russia win their final matches, Slovakia wins the group with 6 points, both England and Russia will have 4 points and the scorelines will decide which of them finishes second, while Wales finishes last with three points. These are two scenarios which can see England finish third with their 4 points.


 * Now let's take a look a the other groups:
 * A:Romania wins and Switzerland wins or draws => Romania is third with four points. If Switzerland loses they both could still finish third.
 * C:Germany, Poland and Northern Ireland can all still finish third with four points.
 * D:Czech Republic wins and finish third with four points. If Croatia loses the Czech can even still finish second, with the Croats then finishing third with four points.
 * E: Ireland, Sweden and Belgium can all still finish third with four points. Sweden and Ireland win=> Both finish with four points and tie-breakers determine which team finished second and which third. If Sweden draws and Ireland wins, Ireland finished third with four points.
 * F: Iceland–Hungary is draw and Iceland wins againts Austria, Portugal wins against Austria as well, while Hungary–Portugal is a draw => Hungary, Portugal and Iceland all finish with five points while Austria is last with no points. Iceland wins against Austria and Portugal wins against Hungary => Hungary finishes third with 4 points. Austria wins against Iceland and Portugal wins against Hungary => Austria finishes third with four points.


 * So you see, groups A-E all groups can all still finish with third-placed team with four points, while group F could even have a thrid-placed team with five points . Clearly, England isn't assured of the next round by any means. Tvx1 22:27, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Now that match day 2 is completed, all groups can still finish with a team in third place with four points. Tvx1 15:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2016
Winner of the group E is not Italy as stated in the article as Belgium can Win its match against Sweden with good goal difference and in the other match Italy could lose against ireland making their goal difference(GD) less than that of Belgium and hence not a group winner.

Rishab.gupta33 (talk) 14:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the rules the tie breaker used is the result between the two teams against each other which Italy won. Belgium can therefore not surpasse Italy. Calistemon (talk) 14:15, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In fact, this has already been explained twice in above sections on the talk page. Tvx1 15:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌. I'm not sure how this could be made any clearer. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Wrong rules for teams having equal points and goals
In ties there's no rule for penalty shootout anymore (check UEFA source link). You have to remove point 7 from Tiebreakers section.
 * X mark.svg Not done I read the rules just now here from UEFA and article 18.02 says that penalty shootout exists. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

What happens IF Russia gets expelled?
Are all the games counted as 0-3 losses? Including the previous ones? How would they count for the 3rd place team rankings? Nergaal (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * At this point pure speculation. I would guess that their matches are as you say 3–0 losses and table is counted based on that. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I guess everything gets changed to 0-3. But if UEFA kick them out, they'll also tell us how the games will be awarded. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Regulation 27 says that if they're expelled then all their matches are annulled, so England, Wales and Slovakia would only have played 2 games each. -  Chrism  would like to hear from you 22:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

It's an IF and only IF. I doubt UEFA would expel them without informing the public what would happen to the other three teams' results. We're here to report facts from sources, not speculate in a big WP:CRYSTALBALL &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * The current official rules are known. Article 27.03 of Regulations of the UEFA European Football Championship 2014-16 says:
 * "If an association is disqualified during the competition, the results of all of its matches are declared null and void, and the points awarded forfeited."
 * If the rules are followed then group B will be determined only by matches between the three remaining teams, but if Russia has played all their matches and including them would give another result then there may be controversy. It's unknown how UEFA Euro 2016 will be handled. Article 9.03 of Regulations of the UEFA European Football Championship 2010-12 said:
 * "If an association is disqualified during the qualifying competition matches, or at the final tournament, the results of all of its matches are declared null and void, and the points awarded forfeited."
 * In 2012 and earlier there was no ranking between teams in different groups. UEFA apparently failed to consider this possibility when the current rules were made. says:
 * "But the truth is no-one knows for certain at this stage. Not even Uefa, who say an emergency committee would have to convene to work out what happens."
 * I agree none of this should probably be in the article for now. If Russia is disqualified or UEFA publishes what would happen then we may reconsider. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2016 (UTC)


 * They have been eliminated, so this doesn't matter anymore. Tvx1 20:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)