Talk:UEFA Euro 2016 knockout stage

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as lacking sufficient context to identify its subject, because... it is useful to see which teams can still make it to the knockouts. It is better to have the information on a separate page because the Euro 2016 page is very big. And it is not long until the knockouts begin. --Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 14:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Very poorly written and completely unsourced. This article should be properly created by a more experienced user when there is sourced content and proper information to add. IT has alkready been deleted once yesterday and yet the same user recreated it again. It is currently just a bad list of links. Qed237&#160;(talk) 15:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is nothing notable in a list of "teams that may qualify". In that case we might as well create 2042 FIFA World Cup and list every nation in the world. All the teams that may qualify is the teams in the tournament and main article. Qed237&#160;(talk) 15:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've tried to re-create the article, following the standard format, adding 3 refs (UEFA.com), template and category. I took the tables (Bracket, Round of 16, Quarterfinals, Semifinals, Final) from UEFA Euro 2016 article. If there are still problems, feel free to revert. --Dэя-Бøяg 18:01, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Does the article need sub-headers under "Round of 16" (here) and afterwards? (e.g., "Switzerland vs Poland" as a sub-header seems redundant.) -- Ehsan1981 (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I realized what is there is like the Wikipedia template (e.g., 2012 (here)). So please disregard. -- Ehsan1981 (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Colors in table
Hello. Now in table "Combinations of matches in the Round of 16" used 2 colors: #BBF3BB and #FFBBBB. But for me these two colors are the same. Can anyone change one of these colors to another? GAV80 (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd propose the following based on H:Color? ~ Ablaze (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * {{legend|#CEF2E0|#CEF2E0}}
 * {{legend|#F2CEE0|#F2CEE0}}
 * The colors have been discusses at WT:FOOTY and there is consensus to use them. It is the same as the colors in standings tables. On the other hand, it is not good if readers have problems with the colors. Do we really need to use both? Perhaps we should only use green "still possible combinations", or red "combinations no longer possible", instead of using both. <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> 12:33, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This table is not implementing that consensus fully though. The standings use color and an explanation cell which tells what result a coloured position yield (e.g. progress to knock-out stage). This table however uses color as only means of presenting information, which is a serious violation of our accessibility guidelines. This accessibility issue is clearly demonstrated by the above complaint. Red and green colours are especially problematic since a lot of people are red-green colorblind. Tvx1 17:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Format of Combinations Table
I had a look at the page today, and in my opinion the new layout for the "Best Ranked Groups" column in the Combinations table looks dreadful and more confusing. I didn't want to just revert it because I haven't been part of the page, but... yeah. I'm just getting that on record in case anyone agrees. Aheyfromhome (talk) 12:53, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Here are the two tables. If editors prefer one over the other then you can vote here. Please also state your reason. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Old table
I prefer the old table:
 * New table "looks dreadful and more confusing" (quoted from comment above). Aheyfromhome

New table
I prefer the new table:
 * Can easily see which combination contains (or not contains) which group. Chanheigeorge
 * "easy to found combination" (quoted from edit history). GAV80 (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Croatia
They're guaranteed a top-three finish, with at least 4 points, and as NI and Albania have only 3, the Croats have qualified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Culloty82 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Don't use unknowns for knowns
What possible advantage to readers can there be in writing (for example) "3rd Group A" when it is absolute fact that that refers to Albania? I see none, so I have changed such instances. Kevin McE (talk) 15:44, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Reverters refusing any chance to build consensus by refusing discussion. How can "/", to be read as "or" be allowed, but not the word "or"? And if that is the reason, then simply replace the "or" with "/", but there can be no encyclopaedic justification for replacing known identities with anonymous references. Kevin McE (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We don't use or's at the brackets or matchboxes. Therefore, a consensus stating otherwise is needed. The Replicator (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And your resonse to the second sentence above? How is the oblique anything other than an "or"? Kevin McE (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * And to the third sentence? Why prefer feigned ignorance to fact? Kevin McE (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you participate in an edit war that would be pointless in just minutes? You decided to impose your opinion which is used nowhere else without establishing any proper consensus? This was extremely inappropriate. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 20:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I notice you have addressed none of the questions above. Constant removal of unquestionable fact is not helpful to readers, and consensus is established by arguing reasons, not intransigence and knee-jerk rejection of improvement. Kevin McE (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fine, that's your opinion, but you decided to go ahead and impose your opinion, which other editors clearly disagreed with, without any consensus. You declared your opinion was the most logical, and therefore enforced it upon the article. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

So, now that it is not a current issue, can anyone explain in what way it provides better information to readers of an encyclopaedia to publish "3rd Group C / D" rather than "Northern Ireland / Turkey", when it is an absolute and incontrovertible fact that Northern Ireland and Turkey are the teams that are third in groups C and D respectively? Or were the constant reversions and vandalistic removal of information pure intransigence? Kevin McE (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not list a team until it is certain they will participate in the match. With your logic, should we list all the quarter-final matches as 'Team A / Team B vs Team C / Team D'? Or, how about this for the final?:


 * Also, the article references UEFA, who uses the '3rd Group X/Y/Z' style. We should not be going against the main source for the article. If you have a major issue with this, bring it up at WP:FOOTY, don't just blindly revert because you think your opinion is the best. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 21:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * That is absolutely NOT what I was doing. I only acted where an "or" was essential (let's not pretend that the oblique is anything other than an "or"), but instead of obscuring the known fact (that the identity of "3rd Group C) was incontrovertibly known to be Northern Ireland) I made that easily visible to the reader.
 * During the Ireland-Italy match, if any TV or Radio commentator said "if the third placed team in this group gets sufficient points, they will play the winners of Group A", without identifying the winner of group A as France, they would have been either displaying ignorance of something that had been known for some time, or keeping clear information from their listener: I cannot for the life of me imagine why anyone thinks that Wikipedia should act in such a way.
 * What you are proposing is equivalent to presenting the line up for the final as "Winner Match 49 vs Winner Match 50" after the first semi-final has been played.
 * And I avoided the eyesore you present above by not using the flagicons, as you well know, so it is hard to see your misrepresentation of my posts as anything other than disingenuous. Kevin McE (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I must say I completely agree with User:Secret Agent Julio and User:The Replicator here. We should definately list these possibilites and it only tells other editors it is okay to do it everywhere like for example the finals as in the example above. We have never done this before and should not do it now. For example in 2016–17 UEFA Champions League we list "Winners of match 4" instead of "FC Santa Coloma/Alashkert" as opponents to Dinamo Tbilisi in the second qualifying round. This content should not have been insterted and definately not while edit warring without consensus. You should be really happy that you have not been blocked (both of you). <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> 23:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Like SAJ, you seem to have totally misunderstood, or to be unwilling to understand, my posts. I am not suggesting a listing of possibilities, I am advocatng the identification of what is known. Kevin McE (talk) 05:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just drop it, guys. The 16 teams in the knockout phase are now known, and this argument is moot. – PeeJay 10:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * No it isn't. There will be other tournaments, and whether editors are ever right in making oblique references when clear identification is perfectly possible is a key issue when it comes to servicing readers of an encyclopaedia.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:33, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Format
Now that the knock-phase is underway, the format section which details how the bracket will be made up has become redundant. All the match line-ups and who progresses to which next match is clearly provided in the bracket and in the detailed match-ups. Yet, when I remove it, I keep getting reverted on the basis that it is vital information. Now can someone please explain to me why it is so vital to have three complete lists of the knock-out phase's matches and to list the names of the teams competing in this knockout-round three times? Tvx1 13:10, 25 June 2016 (UTC)


 * This is quite standard way of showing tournaments (and stages). First a format section with the rules and how the tourament/stage will be/have been played. After that we list what teams will play in this tournamet/stage and how they have qualified. Finally, the brackets and matches themselves to show results and how matches was played. I see nothing wrong with that. We should not only have a list of matches, without information and 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> 14:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But all the matches are included despite the format section. An a standard way of showing it? The previous two tournaments don't do it, nor does the article on the previous world cup. So why is it so vital here? Give me an argument why people wouldn't understand the stage without the seamless bracket? Tvx1 14:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This tournament is the first tournament where some third-placed teams advance to the next round so it is vital for us to explain how the third-placed teams qualify and how it is decided who meets who, as it is not standard A1-B2, B1-A2 and so on. <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> 15:47, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Qed237. Even if the final match-ups are indicated by the bracket, it is interesting and encyclopaedic to know what the potential match-ups could have been. – PeeJay 21:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First tournament where third-placed teams progressed? No. Not by any means. Three FIFA world cups used this format as and we don't have a format section there either. But I still don't see why listing the permutations is vital. How will anyone not be able to understand who won the tournament without it? Regardless, the need to somehow represent the informations on the third-placed teams does not justify listing three times that the final will be contested between the winners of semifinal 1 and 2. We can easily reduce the tables by referring to the source for the full 3rd placed teams permuations and use prose to explain the situation. We should also reduce the teamless bracket to just the Last 16 round so as to present the outset for the knock-out round and allow the rest of the article to provide the further progress. Tvx1 21:39, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It may not be the first ever tournament to allow third-placed teams to progress, but it is the first European Championship to do so, if that makes any difference to you. The winner of the tournament is not the only vital piece of information – the identities of the referees and the details about the match venues are also irrelevant in that regard. You've made your grievances known, but like the Bremain voters, you need to accept that you're in the minority here. – PeeJay 22:14, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There's just three people in this discussion so don't go into minorities and majorities here. That leads nowhere. If also stated how we can keep the format section without all the unnecessarry and self-explanatory duplication. There are bo venues and match details in the format section so that isn't even remotely relevant to the discussion. Tvx1 01:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Qed237, can you give me one genuine argument which the quarterfinal until final line-up must be included in the format section? It has NEVER been done before and it is utter duplication. Those stages are already detailed in the bracket and the match-up sections. Our readers have the information regardless. Just providing the outset for the round of 16 is surely enough. Tvx1 14:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know what, having seen the proposed edit, I actually agree with Tvx1. Let's get rid of those unnecessary bits. – PeeJay 16:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Italy wing-backs
Aren't Italy's Florenzi and De Sciglio acting like wing backs just like Evra and Lichtensteiner ??? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:25, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the lineup from UEFA they are listed along midfielders. But it is all just "a game of numbers" what formation they use. <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> 18:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh okay. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * This is happening again with the Wales and Belgium game, officially they are wingers, but in my mind I can't shake of the fact they are actually Wing-backs. I'm talking about Chester and Taylor. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Please update
Please update the information on this page to be in line with UEFA Euro 2016. E.g. Turkey and Albania are the missing third-place teams. --SabasNL (talk) 01:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Turkey and Albania didn't qualify for the knockout phase, so why should they be here?--Je suis blocked by Darkwind 08:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Formations
Some of the team formations (shirts on the pitch images) do not reflect the actual formation played in the matches. For example Germany vs Italy - your image has back 4, but Germany played back 3 in this game. It is not acceptable to use only the "expected formation" based on TV graphics produced before the game actually begins. You must watch the game itself (or read a reliable report from somebody who did) and note the actual formation used in the opening minutes. Otherwise these graphics are pointless and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.255.56 (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not from TV graphics, this is from UEFA. They publish the lineups before the match, which is what we use to create the images. For example, UEFA indicated Germany had a back 4 in their official PDF, which is what the image references. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 18:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The graphics are only supposed to be indicative anyway. Plus Germany might have started with a back four then switched to a back three to counteract the Italian tactics. How can you know otherwise? – PeeJay 19:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Julio: UEFA takes the team sheet from the coaches after they selected the starting XI. Then UEFA "guesses" a formation based on the 11 names and also previous matches.  But these guess formations do not necessarily correlate to the actual match which has yet to kickoff.  Your images just recreate guesswork published by UEFA in advance of the match.  This is OK for a pre-match article, but it is simply not good enough to publish as if it was factual information relevant *after* the match.  In the case of Germany vs Italy (for example, one of many) the UEFA guess was wrong  (see UEFA link cited below).  You already give a separate list of the 11 starting players so there is no need to add a random guess picture of some shirts on a pitch which may or may not correlate to the actual formation on the field.  Such info is nonsense to publish after the match, as it is only produced by UEFA as a guide for press, commentators etc (hence I mention TV).
 * PeeJay: Indicative? Indicative of what? Some UEFA official's guess?  Don't you think it would be better to indicate the *actual* formation?  After all, isn't that what the average Wikipedia visitor would assume is represented by the image?  I don't understand why you make poor excuses rather than address the problem.  It's not as if the actual formation info is hard to find.  Either you watch the match and see it yourself, or you read any number of respectable sports journalists reporting on the match, or you can easily read it from UEFA itself:  actual formation Germany-Italy  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.148.255.56 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't understand this little revert war that we have got ourselves into. The information you are reverting back to is plain incorrect. It doesn't matter that UEFA said one thing in their report, it is hardly as though they are infallible. If anyone watches that match back they will see that Neil Taylor didn't start on the right and Chris Gunter on the left - it's absolutely absurd than anybody should suggest this. If you are indeed a Wales fan as you claim then you should a) remember this and b) even if you don't, know why that is absurd (can you seriously believe they randomly swapped Gunter and Taylor to their weaker sides for just a game of this magnitude). Why is it wiki policy to include wrong information because some random person has written it one way on UEFA's site, even though it can be demonstrably observed to be falsifiable by.....watching the match. This encyclopaedia is meant to be accurate, and sometimes that means applying scrutiny to your sources instead of blindly following/repeating them, that's how false news spreads.  Helloher    (Death is not my phone number)  08:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What published sources are there that say Wales lined up in the way you describe? The line-up graphics and the team lists are based on published sources, per Wikipedia policy. I recognise that it's very frustrating, but as someone who regularly works on broadcasts of UEFA matches, I'm reliably informed that the teams themselves are responsible for submitting the tactical line-ups to UEFA. If it's wrong, take it up with the FAW. – PeeJay 10:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @PeeJay
 * How can I challenge that policy? If it is mandating that we have to include demonstrably false information then there is something wrong with the policy. A simple glance at the footage shows that Taylor was on the left and Gunter on the right.
 * Additionally, as a Wales fan, you would no doubt have watched that game. Do you not remember that Taylor was on the left and Gunter on the right?
 * Anyway, here are two sources that have Taylor and Gunter the historically accurate way round:
 * https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36613679
 * https://www.transfermarkt.com/spielbericht/index/spielbericht/2702907
 * Clearly it is just an error on UEFA's part. If the rules are so rigid that they cannot account for that then it makes the policy worthless.
 *  Helloher    (Death is not my phone number)  12:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not really a policy you can challenge. Everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable, and we have an official source for the line-ups and tactical formations. However, if you would like to suggest a better way of sourcing line-ups for football articles, I suggest you raise it at WT:FOOTY, where we can have a more centralised discussion. This would affect more than just this page. – PeeJay 13:42, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll raise this matter over there, thanks for pointing me to that talkpage.  Helloher    Talk  14:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)