Talk:UEFA Euro 2020/Archive 1

Only potential final venues
I see that so far only potential final venues are being mentioned in this article. (I presume) we keep it to that for now? So no mentioning of possible group games host cities (like Kyiv or Donetsk)? I think that would be best since we don't know what city is how serious about it now. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  22:06, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree. Only until more information about other host cities became available. If I'm not wrong that decisions should be made during next year or so. Nightfall87 (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a page about cities who bid and have an expression of interest section like the UEFA Euro 2020 bids page which is apparently only for countries who wanted to bid before the changes. Kingjeff (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer a subsection in this article with the use of "flagicons" and a minimal of information (readers can read more in the references) in alphabetic order. See example below:

Expression of interest as host cities
🇩🇪 Germany – Berlin, Munich, Dortmund and Stuttgart 🇺🇦 Ukraine – Kiev and Donetsk —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  20:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No EU flag please!
Please do not place a EU flag in the infobox please. Possible host countries Serbia and Ukraine are not part of the EU and it is unrealistic to think they will also be EU-countries by 2020. The accession of Croatia to the European Union took 9 years; so if Serbia is lucky the accession of Serbia to the European Union will be in 2021. (Current Ukraine–European Union relations are in such a bad state that an Ukrainian EU candidate status is unthinkable right now...) Only place an EU flag in the infobox after we are sure all host countries are EU members. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  23:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the Flag of Europe is also the flag of the Council of Europe and of the continent as a whole. Belarus, Israel and Kazakhstan are the countries that are a member of the UEFA but not of the COE. - FakirNL (talk) 09:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

UEFA is not branding the tournament as "tournament in the member states of the Council of Europe"... I think most readers do see the Flag of Europe as a flag representing the EU (only). Better leave it out to avoid confusion I say. Besides non of the other UEFA Euro.... wiki-articles has a flag of the host country in its infobox(es) (see 1960 European Nations' Cup and the others...). —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  17:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Schedule Change
When did UEFA change the qualifying dates? Also the change is not in the table.Perfectamundo (talk) 18:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Tournament name translations
I've removed the extensive list of the tournament name in different languages from the infobox, but have been reverted back on this. I think it's ugly looking, and excessive information. None of the languages are languages of the host nation, as there is no host nation for the tournament - it's being hosted by UEFA, with a selection of venues. The languages are not labelled, which reduces their use. From what I can tell there's no French, Flemish or Basque on there either. There's no UEFA document which lists all these as the official name of the tournament. Basically, I don't see any basis for having them there - thoughts? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. It's unnecessary. For some reason it's a custom that has been applied to every World Cup, but with no encyclopaedic basis for doing so. I say we remove it from all international competitions per WP:UE. – PeeJay 16:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think removing the extra names is necessary. The names listed will be used during the group stages, so I don't quite get what is there to gain by removing them. Nergaal (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's speculation - we don't know what will be used during the group stages. The tournament may well get a generic 'UEFA 2020' branding. Why only include the names of the host venues? And why include Spanish but not Basque, given the city hosting matches in Spain is Bilbao? It grants these translations unnecessary prominence, has no encylopedic value and perhaps most pertinently is a bit ugly! Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Basque does not function as an official language at EU level. While UEFA is not a subset of EU, I still think it is a decent indicator for threshold of languages. Nergaal (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly! The list is based upon a series of speculations, arbitrary decisions and presumptions ie it is not encyclopedic and shouldn't be on the page! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dog's Breakfast
What a total dog's breakfast UEFA have made of this competition. The qualification procedue is tougher than a degree in Advance Quantum Theory. Who came up with this?? And then, the competition proper... it seems that almost every team there gets through to the Knock Outs. Madness. The relevance of this/my comment: surely there must be/has been criticism of this barmy format?! If so, it deserves a place in the article. 90.29.109.229 (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are sources, please provide them. I haven't seen any. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:24, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

So, the groups will be:
I myself am not convinced if the article really needs a breakdown of the permutations, but this could be worthy of a discussion. The visualization could be either something like what's above or something like what the French Wikipedia has. --Theurgist (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need to go into that much depth, considering the whole lineup isn't even confirmed yet. Just commenting that certain teams cannot play in certain groups is plenty for me. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * While the draw is certainly limited, I don't see the necessity of such a table. There's already enough information available to see there are fewer options for teams based on the draw conditions. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:30, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Nah, not needed. Kante4 (talk) 19:22, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Now that we have the draw results, I think it makes sense to show the respectively four countries (or rather their flags) at UEFA Euro 2020. --IRISZOOM (talk) 18:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I couldn't disagree more about the flags. Per MOS:FLAG, we shouldn't add flags purely for decorative purposes, which is what we would be doing here. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:43, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The flags would of course be there for the same reason the flags of other countries are displayed, not more or less "decorative". --IRISZOOM (talk) 06:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Four flags for one place isn't decorative? We can just as easily have no flag as we do now and show the same information. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC) contribs) ''' 08:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It isn't showing the same information at all as you have to click on the links to another article to know which countries are in the different pathways. Displaying flags (or mention) which countries are fighting for a place would therefore have an informative purpose. --IRISZOOM (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Having a list of those in the playoff path might be fine. Flags on their own, certainly not. We shouldn't be using flags to convey information on their own. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:14, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There's no way that this format should ever have been used. There's also no need for speculation like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I generally don't disagree with what's been said, but don't we use flags to "convey information on their own" when we indicate where something is from or where something is located? --Theurgist (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * 🇮🇹 Juventus
 * London
 * 🇯🇵 Kei Nishikori
 * 🇶🇦 2022
 * The last entry, for Qatar's WC event in 2022, we would never use a flag to designate that. And likely would not link to the nation either. All of these are MOS:ACCESS issues. That has been made clear multiple times and sport work groups ignore that fact. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, we do have articles that do this, but it's not something we should do. At the very least for sportspeople, flags show something slightly different than a country as they show sporting nations. However, even then, we should define the flags on the first occurrence (see several FAs I've made, such as the 2019 World Snooker Championship to see how this could be done ie flagathlete). This is also somewhat true of clubs, with the same previso - sometimes a club is physically in another country, but is deemed to represent another, such as the case with say Swansea City A.F.C in the 2013–14 UEFA Europa League. The one for London is particularly jarring, as you could make a similar argument to use the ENG flag. We definitely wouldn't use a flag in place of a country, such as in the last case, if it is anywhere, we should be removing them pretty quickly due to the clear ACCESS issues. Showing flags in conjuncture with other information can be ok, but there are other issues with screen readers, metadata and realistically we are putting lots of images on pages for no real reason which weighs down load times (not by a lot admittedly). The fact that articles elsewhere ignore MOS:FLAG doesn't mean a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument works. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:42, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The "flag of host + year of event" configuration is seen routinely in tables like this one. --Theurgist (talk) 22:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * good catch - that needs a purge. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

What does quadrennial mean?
What does quadrennial mean? Best regards, 2001:56A:F322:FC00:10E0:CD1A:8458:DCA6 (talk) 21:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reoccurring every four years Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:05, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I think 2020 until we get some more details for everything. If we find that the common name for the tournament is 2021, then we should change all mentions to that. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 18:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Too soon to rename it 'Euro 2021'
The announcement may have just been made to reschedule it to summer 2021 but does that necessarily mean it has been renamed 'Euro 2021'? Does it have to be rebranded as such?

Surely we should await UEFA's formal announcement before this is done. Gallovidian85 (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, I was also a bit myth'ed by the move! Didn't seem quiet right with out the additional citation to support the rename. Govvy (talk) 14:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. I know that people often want to get Wikipedia updated as quickly as possible but we are not a news outlet and I believe should move slower in these kinds of situations, awaiting official confirmation and the publication of reliable sources. We now have confirmation from UEFA that the tournament is to be postponed until next year but nothing to indicate a name change yet. Indeed, the media release from UEFA still calls the competition "UEFA EURO 2020". UEFA EURO 2020 was scheduled to take place in 12 cities across Europe from 12 June to 12 July 2020. The proposed new dates are 11 June to 11 July 2021. It is entirely plausible that the name Euro 2020 remains even if it is played next summer - we don't know yet. I propose that we move the article back to UEFA Euro 2020 and update the article accordingly unless/until we hear in a reliable source that it has been renamed. WJ94 (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add - here's the source I was referring to. WJ94 (talk) 14:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Revert Move until sources (and probably UEFA) call it Euro 2021. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Revert - Far too soon to make this change. We don't even know if the name will change at this point. – PeeJay 15:17, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I've reverted (slightly surprised it let me!), per WP:BRD we can continue the discussion. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with this, although I suspect we will need move protection, as new users coming to article will continue to try and "correct" the title. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't know what the common name will be though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Should move all the navbox templates back as well? Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, and the qualifications articles also, and dam move lock please. Govvy (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Haste for haste sake. I'm sure it won't take too long for this to get resolved in RS. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * umm You're an admin now! Can't you semi and move lock the articles?? Govvy (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

I could, sure. I don't think move protection is particularly a good idea, it's not been moved all that much, and certainly not vandalism. Semi-protection might be a good idea, but we are better off posting to WP:RfPP, as it's not something I'm particuarly familiar with. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:35, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * please discuss any page move, or global replace of 2020 with 2021 here. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I support moving it because it will inevitably be rebranded by UEFA in the coming hours so it's not premature. Famous media have already started to circulate the new designation.BBC, Goal.com, Yahoo. --Sakiv (talk) 16:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Saying something will happen soon means its premature. We can wait! There's WP:NODEADLINE. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt it will be rebranded this month, let alone today. For now it is best to wait to see what UEFA decides, given the unprecedented nature of this postponement. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The yahoo article is lifted from goal.com, so that is a single source. The english version of BBC has not renamed the tournament. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:51, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Actually I doubt the tournament will be rebranded at all. In my opinion the title must remain "2020", as the date change does not automatically imply that the name has also to change. Furthermore, there is a number of competitions (e.g. Supercoppa Italiana, Supercopa de España, Emperor's Cup, Mundialito, British Home Championship, and many others) where the name does not necessarily match the year in which they are played. —Foghe (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2020 (UTC) P.S: On the UEFA website the tournament repeatedly is—and apparently will continue to be—only reffered to as "UEFA Euro 2020", even with the new dates clearly highlighted in the same page. (UEFA website.). —Foghe (talk) 17:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is actually re-branded, that is when we make the changes. Until then, we do not. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:49, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Another issue is what to use when only referring to tournament year, for example UEFA European Championship or the infobox of UEFA Euro 2016/UEFA Euro 2024. Should 2020 still be used per the name of the tournament, or 2021 as this is meant to identify what year the tournament takes place in? S.A. Julio (talk) 18:29, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Until it's called "2021" it is WP:OR to call it anything else. Just because the year has been used to identify when the tournament finals were held is no reason to change it now without RSes to support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Revert for now It will almost certainly be changed, at least if UEFA is competent. However, if you legally change your last name to your jersey number in mangled Spanish, then whether that's wise or not is irrelevant, it's your official name, it's what you're called in reliable sources, and the name of your article should reflect that. Sure, it may be stupid to call it Euro 2020 if it's in 2021, but that's not for us to decide. Smartyllama (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * What should we do with 2021 Copa América? The situation is the same.--Dipralb (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * They currently seem to be using 2021, if the logo on that page is accurate. UEFA does not (yet). --Bygmester (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like that needs moving back and fixing, Maybe you can fix Copa América as well? Govvy (talk) 12:08, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, in my opinion for now it's the best. —Foghe (talk) 13:35, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes for now 2020 is the right titles for both until sources confirm these changes.
 * With WP:OR, a case of malicious moving happened in December 2019 when an idiotic troll moved Burnley's no.2 Matthew Lowton to Jonathan Field without any sources confirming he changed his name (he did not, obviously). Here, changing the year yesterday does not pass agreed moving yet as sources does not confirm.
 * This is an unusual situation to have two Euro events being separated by only three years. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:10, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I get and agree that UEFA Euro 2020 should still be the official name, but in the List of List of UEFA European Championship finals, the year 2020 should be changed to 2021, as the information asks what year the final is held in and not what the official tournament is called. thomediter (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Official confirmation that the tournament will still be branded as Euro 2020. I agree it is best to remain consistent in the naming of the tournament, even when only the year is listed. A note could possibly be added next to the year to prevent confusion. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Same of S.A. Julio, in my opinion better to have the same year also in lists and templates, as I think the info there refers to the name of the tournament, not its position in the calendar. —Foghe (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, UEFA have now backtracked on the tournament naming. Though we will still have to wait until a final naming/branding decision is made, so the Euro 2020 name still remains. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It will be called UEFA Euro 2021, so I’m moving the page. 82.42.44.219 (talk) 10:47, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources for this? The page is move protected so you need to gain consensus that it has a new name first and then an admin will move the page. Spike &#39;em (talk) 10:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

It was just a mistake by the UEFA: [https://twitter.com/UEFA/status/1241072558264537088 With apologies for the earlier error, to be clear no decision has yet been made on the name of the rearranged EURO to be held in 2021. The earlier tweet was sent by mistake.] --HSV1887 (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC) UEFA announced that it will still be the Euro 2020. Kante4 (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then the article's title will obviously have to stay this way, but I think that prose, tables, lists, etc should be using the year 2021, especially if it's just the year that designates the tournament. We shouldn't state that events took place "in 2020" when they took place in 2021. The 1996 tournament was officially branded as "Euro 96", but we don't use just "96" to designate it. The same applies to the "2020" Olympics in Tokyo. --Theurgist (talk) 00:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Daily Mail as a source
I removed a factoid derived from the Daily Mail from the article. The Daily Mail is a source so generally unreliable that we have a policy not to use it. The link is here. I hardly think the article is the worse for losing this. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no blanket ban per Deprecated sources. I would argue in this specific instance, an interview transcript would be suitable to use as a source for a non-contentious detail. The information provides further context on why the UEFA administration chose a pan-European format for the tournament. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * With the greatest of respect, I do not think you understand the link you have included, and it does not provide for random exceptions to allow poorly sourced material. The language of WP:DAILYMAIL is fairly simple: "Consensus has determined that the Daily Mail (including its online version, dailymail.co.uk) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. As a result, the Daily Mail should not be used for determining notability, nor should it be used as a source in articles." I would welcome a discussion here explaining exactly why this dodgy quote attributed to a living person, referenced from a dodgy source is absolutely vital for the article. I'm disappointed you have restored the non-compliant material without consensus. You need to be careful to avoid the appearance of edit-warring to restore material against policy, please. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 16:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * IP user - your wording is very aggressive, please be more courteous. The other user has simply followed WP:BRD. I agree that this isn't exactly a major quote that is incredibly important to the article. WP:DAILYMAIL generally means we don't use it at all, unless there is a major reason for its inclusion. In this case, I don't think it adds much. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Anon is stating facts (but I have a great many questions as to why an anon is this knowledgeable). Many editors remove Daily Mail on-sight. I do not agree with that policy, and prefer to look at how the source is being used to determine if it should be removed or tagged. Regardless, has been replaced with  and so this discussion is moot. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree with S.A. Julio and Walter Görlitz—the page WP:Deprecated sources precises that "additional exceptions may be specific to individual sources", additionally citing the Daily Mail as an example. This is a situation where the source is one of the few sources, for a non-contentious topic. As written above, the deprecation is not a blaket ban, and the advise shouldn't be intended as an invitation to remove indistinctly every reference to the paper. Additionally, in my opinion there are sources a lot more wrong, unfair and biased than the Mail that are still permitted; let's consider calmly and prudently what the source says, not who wrote it. --Foghe (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Information regarding the Czechoslovakia national football team
This comment concerns explanatory note "d" (under the table of qualified teams):

"From 1960 to 1980, the Czech Republic competed as Czechoslovakia."

Should it say "From 1960 to 1992", as the last international match played by Czechoslovakia took place in the early 1990s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess the reason it doesn't say that is because Czechoslovakia didn't qualify for Euro 84, 88 or 92. – PeeJay 00:09, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense, thank you for clarifying! It's not a mistake, as I initially assumed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Successor States
In the "Qualified Teams" section someone has added false information that Ukraine, Slovakia, North Macedonia, and Croatia had previously competed under the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia. While it is fine to leave this information as an extra note, it does not mean that these countries had competed in the aforementioned tournaments, as FIFA and UEFA only recognize Russia, Serbia, and the Czech Republic as successor states.--Celtic1985 (talk) 14:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Name
According to UEFA, the official name of the tournament is 2018–20 UEFA European Football Championship, and not 2020 UEFA European Football Championship. However, there seems to be a confusion as some editors change it to "2020" despite the info being sourced. IMO the official name should be used. What do you guys think?  Clog Wolf  Howl 08:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's also called https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/mediaservices/presskits/uefaeuro/index.html 2019-21 UEFA European Football Championship on the same site.
 * A quick search results in exactly six uses of the term "2018–20 UEFA European Football Championship", seven of "2019-21 UEFA European Football Championship" and 8,710 of "European Football Championship" on uefa.com. While Google is not entirely definitive, my newly found term has more right to be used in the lede than yours, and neither should be used as it is not the official term by far. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:59, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop the edit war . The term is not correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Stop falsely accusing me please.  Clog Wolf  Howl 01:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * These are four edits, although the two on 06-03 could be considered one as they occur immediately adjacent to one another. 2021-05-28T15:59:01, 2021-06-03T08:27:55 and 2021-06-03T08:36:47 2021-06-05T08:31:44 You have started a discussion and no one cares for your opinion. I have shown that your opinion is false, yet you have asked for others to discuss. You're not, why should they. You can keep stomping up and down, but you're in the wrong here. Restoring to a preferred version is part of an edit war, but you're correct. One edit does not make an edit war, it just makes you wrong. Striken.
 * Also, please read MOS:INDENTGAP, MOS:LISTGAP and WP:TOPPOST. Do not leave space when replying on a talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm completely OK with your decision. I just want to end this here. Also, thanks for your suggestions, will keep that in mind next time. Thanks,  Clog Wolf  Howl 03:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Locked already?
Fascists at Wikipedia in full force I see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 36.11.229.16 (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It is a preventive measure against vandalism and live updates, most of which comes from unregistered users and random IP addresses. If you would like to constructively contribute, first consider registering an account. Please also be aware of WP:NPA. Thanks! Benjamin112 (talk) 23:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

please split into different articles
In some months/years nobody is interested in most of the article, so please split it into Covid, preliminaries, ... Makes also easier to find the match plan, matches and those really intresting things in a fussball tournament. -- LAZA74 (talk) 11:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The qualification already has its own article, nothing here requires splitting. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:27, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have zero idea what you want split. The qualification has its own article, and is suitably WP:BROAD in coverage. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Germany and Czech Republic
Is it more accurate to say that the current Germany and Czech Republic teams are the FIFA sucessors to West Germany and Czechoslovakia rather than just competed as these former countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.102 (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes that is more accurate.Tvx1 19:26, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Can an appropriate change be made to "Qualified teams" then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.102 (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I guess so.Tvx1 13:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * current Germany is the same as the so called West Germany. A country/state/nation of West Germany never existed. The Federal REpublic of Germany was founed in 1949 and still exists today! 17:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F4:DF1E:9015:E957:C952:EF0E:291E (talk)

Map


On this qualification map, is it possible for someone to make the border lines of each country black? At the moment you can't really see the border's, it's just a mass of blue and red with no distinguishing boundary borders. I consider the map very poor quality. :/ Govvy (talk) 11:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , I decided to replace the map with a vector version which renders more clearly and also changed the colours to be less bright. Do you think the borders are easier to see now? GazThomas402 (talk) 16:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, that map is so much easier on the eye, you can see the country lines more clearly. Very much appreciated. Govvy (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2021
Where it says host countries, instead of just England it either needs to say United Kingdom or you need to add Scotland because some of the games are in Scotland. 213.205.192.200 (talk) 10:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This was already the case, Scotland are listed second from the bottom. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Greenpeace protest
Hello, please add information about the Greenpeace protest. --190.134.242.140 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Group A - Turkey
The (Y) should go with Switzerland, not Turkey. I don't see where I can edit it myself, so I ask here. --Maresa63 Talk 04:56, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, I just realized I'm wrong, as it depends, how they play against each other. Never mind! --Maresa63 Talk 05:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021
In Budding Venues, correct Macedonia to the correct name of North Macedonia Paskalip1 (talk) 09:12, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. Currently there is a comment in the wikitext stating "Macedonia was used during the bid process" so I'm going to leave it as is pending consensus for change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Netherlands in the round of 16
Currently, the article places the Netherlands in specifically match 40, the group winner match of group C, when in theory, they could still become second by losing to North Macedonia and either Ukraine or Austria winning, with a combined goal difference between matches of three or more. However unlikely that is, it's still possible on paper for the Netherlands to be placed second, so they probably shouldn't be in the brackets already. KarstenO (talk) 11:19, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No they can’t. Head to head results take precedence in case of a tie. As the Netherlands have beaten both Ukraine and Austria and those two cannot both win the match they’re playing against each other, Netherlands will always finish first.Tvx1 13:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Stadium capacities
Hi all, I just noticed that some of the stadium capacities that have been changed by a result of Covid are different on the UEFA website than mentioned on this article. For example, according to the article, Wembley has a capacity of 22,500 for the time being, but according to UEFA, the capacity of Wembley is 21,500. I guess this could be caused by the fact that UEFA, as always, reduces the capacity somewhat for various reasons, but news sources use the original capacity (eg. they take the stadium capacity as 90,000 and calculate 25% of that as 22,500, but if UEFA reduces the capacity to 86,000, then 25% is 21,500). Is there anything that should be done with this, in your view? Should we leave the capacities as they are on the page, or adjust to include data from uefa.com? Miki.krok (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Qualified teams
Austria, Ukraine and Sweden are assured of finishing in the top three, but under qualified teams they already appear as qualified. That shouldn't be the case yet, right? Haltik (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Was just about to mention the same thing. Certainly for Austria and Ukraine, a loss by either of these teams in their last game (especially by a wide margin) could easily result in that team being eliminated by placing 3rd in the group and then not being ranked high enough in the third-placed teams table. Not sure about Sweden (edit: yeah, seems Sweden aren't qualified yet either). 67.11.86.2 (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This was a incorrect edit by an IP, it has now been reverted. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Christian Eriksen
I’m questioning the structure and content of the page. In my opinion the main page of an event should mention all the main things, with more details to sub pages. One of the main things of Euro 2020 is what happens to Christian Eriksen. Everyday it’s in the main news and it’s a common thing people talk about. However; when people are visiting this page, they see a page with a lot of statistics and a lot of background information. You have to search for prose from secondary sources. I think the incident of Christian Eriksen should be mentioned on this page (however when I placed it, it was removed). Now you have to find the subpage UEFA Euro 2020 Group B to read a sentence about him. Less experienced readers wont find it and will move away. SportsOlympic (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * While it's not in the daily news where I live, a mention of should probably be made, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It can be mentioned in a few sentences, however you had copied the text from the Group B article word-for-word while also adding an unsourced statement. It should be a basic summary and properly sourced. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , ahh OK, in the Netherlands (where I live) it was today again in the main national news (NOS Journaal), now that he is out of hospital. And yes when writing, I forgot to add the source of an article I was reading at the time. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This could also be moved to a tournament summary section, for example see UEFA Euro 1996. Or an incidents section, which could also mention the Greenpeace activist. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:58, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , yes I agree. And this might also stimulate people to start writing about Euro 2020. However, I don’t have the time to do it now. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2021
Change the part in bidding venues where in nations one is refered to as Macedonia, which is recognised as North Macedonia and should be adressed to as such. 2A02:587:440C:7CE:384A:395D:F324:353C (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The bidding process completed in 2014, the country name "North Macedonia" did not exist at the time. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

North Macedonia is not eliminated
They could beat Netherlands 4-0, Ukraine could beat Austria 1-0 and they could still get 3rd place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.4.21 (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed - should be a Y. They only need to win and have Austria get heavily defeated. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:43, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The first tiebreaker for this tournament isn't overall GD. Check the tiebreaker section, since North Macedonia lost against Austria and Ukraine, they can no longer qualify even with a better GD. JenningsTheCrow (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Superior goal difference resulting from the matches played between the teams in question;''
 * Higher number of goals scored in the matches played between the teams in question;''
 * So as it stands Netherlands is +3, Ukraine is 0 and Austria is 0, North Macedonia is -3 (Goal Differential)
 * If Austria loses and gets to say a -1 or -2 Goal Differential (If Ukraine wins 1 or 2 to 0), and if North Macedonia beats Netherlands, say 4-0, then
 * North Macedonia would be +1, Ukraine would be +1 or +2, and the deciding factor between North Macedonia and Austria (the Goal Differential) would be in :::North Macedonia's favor. so In this hypothetical the chart would look like this
 * Netherlands GF 5 GA 6 PTS 6
 * Ukraine GF 6 GA 4 PTS 6
 * North Macedonia GF 6 GA 5 PTS 3
 * Austria GF 3 GA 5 PTS 3
 * (Assuming Ukraine wins 2-0, Macedonia wins 4-0, very unlikely but possible) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.4.21 (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if they had a higher goal difference, because they lost to Austria, they can not sit higher in the table than them even with the same number of points. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * You can't just skip the first tiebreaker, "Higher number of points obtained in the matches played between the teams in question" will be applied before the secondary goal difference tiebreaker you quoted. Regardless of if Austria loses and ends up with a -2 GD and North Macedonia beats the Netherlands 4-0, North Macedonia will still be eliminated because they have 0 points against Austria's 3 from "points obtained in the matches played between the teams in question" (Austria and North Macedonia). JenningsTheCrow (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah thanks for the clarification I thought "Higher number of points obtained in the matches played between the teams in question", does not refer to the points won by one of the teams over the other (Austria over North Macedonia, 3-0), but of the entirety of matches a team plays, but you are correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.4.21 (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Advance to knockout phase" is misleading
It makes people think that teams have already definitively qualified when in fact only the Netherlands have secured their place in the rankings. And this is a more interesting fact than which teams would theoretically qualify after two games. Besides, it is a general rule that the first two of a group qualify for the next round. With this established somewhere, one can automatically deduct this from the table. The repetition of "Advance to knockout phase" is redundant and adds to the confusion. The one-letter explanation (X) "Assured of top three finish" clashes with "Advance to knockout phase". A person with no knowledge of the system either understands that "Advance to knockout phase" is meant generally or they are completely lost since there is no way to determine which of the features come first. The "Updated to match(es) played on" still doesn't explain if it is theoretical or definitive qualification. It is simply overshadowed by the striking colors and the larger letters of "Advance to knockout phase". --46.114.7.54 (talk) 23:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is based on how Module:Sports table was designed. The qualification column shows the outcome by finishing in that position, while status letters explain whether a team has secured qualification (or has been eliminated). S.A. Julio (talk) 00:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Premature Group Stage Progress Updates
I don't have the required access to amend, however, Netherlands have been marked as group winners. This is premature as of Sunday 20th, as they play their third group game on Monday 21st. If Ukraine or Austria win and Netherlands lose and the combined goal difference is more than 3, Netherlands would come second in the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueIce82 (talk • contribs) 19:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The first tiebreaker in the group stage is the head-to-head record, so it is impossible for Ukraine or Austria to surpass the Netherlands. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed. There is no circumstances left that would mean they wouldn't win the group, aside from being disqualified. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

3rd Place Permutations Still Possible
These are highlighted in green, but how are they being determined. I don't see how it is possible to be certain which groups are eliminated from a top 4 place in the 3rd place table. Nor do the "possible remaining permutations" indicate that any particular group is certain to be in the Top 4, or Bottom 2.

Perhaps an explanation can be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8832:1300:14C6:E8D2:61F6:B4C0 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Switzerland have already qualified as a third-place team, so only the combinations including Group A can be valid. And some of those combinations are also impossible because of the point mentioned in the discussion above (Ukraine have a better GD than Finland). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Simply put, as Ukraine finished ahead of Finland in that ranking combinations with group B qualifying but not group C are impossible.Tvx1 21:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible Combinations Following Group B Action
It is impossible for Ukraine to miss the Knockout stage and Finland to qualify. In the table of possible remaining combinations of 3rd place teams the 4th through 6th rows are no longer possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a01:4b00:8832:1300:14c6:e8d2:61f6:b4c0 (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Could you provide a source confirming this? Spike &#39;em (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * It's just routine calculation. Ukraine have a better goal difference than Finland, so the combinations involving Finland (B) qualifying while Ukraine (C) don't are impossible. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I misunderstood which section needed editing! Spike &#39;em (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021 (2)
missing match 31 for Group D 22 June 2021 21:00 (20:00 UTC+1) Croatia - Scotland Hampden Park, Glasgow Referee: Fernando Rapallini (Argentina) Chilled engineer (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Request Seconded: Please have this match reinstated to its rightful place on this page. 2A00:23C5:B22E:7001:A4ED:C3FD:AF4D:93C9 (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done S.A. Julio (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2021
There is valid year contribution for Czech Republic in the qualified team's section, however these three years (1960, 1976, 1980) should be added as contributing years also for Slovakia, as the contributing country was at that time Czechoslovakia.

As the side note 8 players of the line-up squad in the final match of 1976 were Slovaks and only 3 of them were Czechs so it is unfair to add contribution only to Czech Republic. 188.167.105.93 (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The Czech Republic is considered by UEFA and FIFA as the sole successor to the old Czechoslovakia. I know it doesn't make sense, but that's the way it is. Cheers. – PeeJay 15:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That’s true, but that doesn’t mean Czech Republic and Czechoslovakia are one and the same team.Tvx1 16:02, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No one said they were. But the records held by Czechoslovakia are considered to only be held by the Czech Republic now. – PeeJay 16:15, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This article literally states they were. It says the Czech Republic competed as Czechoslovakia . Successor is not the same thing as inheritor.Tvx1 20:09, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Except in this case it is. FIFA lists all of Czechoslovakia's achievements on their profile page for the Czech Republic and none of them on Slovakia's page. – PeeJay 22:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Where? I cannot find any Czeschlovakia achievements on Czech Republic's FIFA profile. Meanwhile their UEFA makes a clear distinction that it was Czechoslovakia achieving results prior to 1993 and that the Czech Republic played their first official match in 1994. Moreover Slovakia's profile acknoweledges the Slovak contribition to Czechoslovakia's tournament win in 1976. Our practice here of describing the successor as "played as" is an incorrect oversimplification of the facts. The only one where that is actually correct for is (West) Germany as that always was the national football team of the [[Federal Republic of Germany].Tvx1 11:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Belgium top-two spot
Why does the article say that Belgium has qualified in the top-two of their group, just like Italy...? I know Italy cannot finish in third place, but if I'm correct, Belgium can still finish third if they lose to Finland by a wide margin and Russia defeats Denmark. All teams would have 6 points and based on H2H goal difference, Finland and Russia may finish both above Belgium...? Lavâch (talk) 01:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , this was an incorrect change made by an IP and was reverted. S.A. Julio (talk) 11:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think it was right though. According to this:
 * "If there is a three-way tie on points, the application of the first three criteria may only break the tie for one of the teams, leaving the other two teams still tied. In this case, the tiebreaking procedure is resumed, from the beginning, for the two teams that are still tied."
 * So even if Belgium were to lose by a wide margin, the tie would only be broken for Finland, making them the first in the group. Belgium and Russia would then still be tied and the tiebreaking procedure would be resumed for these two teams. Since Belgium won from Russia, they would still be second. Nylls (talk) 12:08, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Or I misinterpreted the meaning of the word 'may' in there and it actually was an incorrect change. I cannot find this rule in the official regulations at least. Nylls (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello, as far as I understand the rules, the 'may' was meant for the case that two of the three teams have an identical goal difference in the head-to-head. This can still be the case in Group E, if Poland defeats Sweden by a 2-1 margin and Spain and Slovakia draw. In that case, Spain is eliminated with 3 points, while the other countries have 4 points. In that scenario, the head-to-head results (SVK 2-1 POL and SWE 1-0 SVK and POL 2-1 SWE) would give the following results: POL 3 points (3-3), SWE 3 points (2-2) and SVK 3 points (2-2). Poland would be the group winner based on head-to-head goals scored, while Sweden and Slovakia would be tied. Now, the calculation would revert to the first step; head-to-head result between Sweden and Slovakia only (and because of that, Sweden would rank second). In the case of a large Finland win over Belgium (say 6-0) and a Russia win, Finland would win the group (H2H GD 6-1), before Russia (1-3) and Belgium (3-6) third. Because Belgium was not tied with Russia, there would be no need to revert to the first step. Although, as we now know that neither Finland nor Russia did win, it doesn't matter anymore for Belgium :-) Lavâch (talk) 12:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Finland is not eliminated yet
Theorhetically, if Germany wins and Spain loses and Portgual fatally loses (GD of more than -4 or more) against France, Finland and Portugal would have the same of Points, but Finland would have a higher GD. In that way, Finland could still advance to the knockout phase. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amp2001 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information was accurate until a user incorrectly changed the permutations table, which was reverted a few minutes later. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Information of most interest is buried deep
While one appreciates the dedicated effort that goes into creating and maintaining articles such as this, the actual information that, I would suggest, at least 90% of readers, both now and into the future, wish to find, is buried deep down in the article, starting at the section "Group stage", and requiring extended scrolling, through content of very limited or specialised interest, to the point that readers may give up. 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:4D26:372B:4040:4D4C (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What would you suggest? The organisation/structure of this tournament has been very complex, so as a result the article is somewhat long. I could see the final draw and match officials being split to a separate article similar to the World Cup, and the bidding venues table could be replaced by prose. Otherwise I am unsure how much more could be removed S.A. Julio (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

On this Euro 2020 page there is no information about each team's 26-man squad that were selected to play in the Euro 2020. I'm wondering if we can input that into the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForzaAzzuri19 (talk • contribs) 11:52, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a Squads section, which has a link to UEFA Euro 2020 squads. 24 separate 26-row tables would be too much for this article. Spike &#39;em (talk) 12:00, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Own goal
Add Martin Dubravka to own goals section, as he just got an own goal against Spain — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForzaAzzuri19 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't add match scores/scorers until after the match is complete. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Parachute incident
The bit about the parachutist fails to mention that it hit people in the crowd and they were taken to hospital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:8aa3:c300:861:74b1:545a:9f95 (talk) 21:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My reading of the story was that debris created by the entry hit people and the parachutist was lauded for actually avoiding injuring people. The two injured were taken to hospital: https://www.aljazeera.com/gallery/2021/6/16/several-people-in-hospital-after-parachute-protest and other sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Whether he hit them or not, he still caused their injuries. From your source:Several people are being treated in hospital for injuries caused by a protester who paraglided into the Allianz Arena. Spike &#39;em (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

About the strange Tiebreakers rules 7
When I first read the Euro 2020 group stage tiebreaker rules from the FIFA official document, I find very puzzled by rule no. 7 which says:

→"Higher number of wins in all group matches"

As it is clear to me that all teams which are tied on the same points by the end of the group stage must have the same number of games won.

While the original document does not have any further explanation, Wiki here provides the footnote:

→"This criterion could only break a tie if a point deduction were to occur, as multiple teams in the same group cannot otherwise be tied on points but have a different number of wins."

Will anyone be able to elaborate on this how such a scenario may arise? Like the fans of a national team make trouble and cause the national team to lose a point? That sounds absurd to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diplomike (talk • contribs) 18:28, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, basically. UEFA could choose to deduct points from a team as a punishment. – PeeJay 19:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I assume the UEFA just blindly copied this criterion from some other competition (e.g. the EURO qualification) where this situation is actually possible due to a higher number of games played... 46.114.7.240 (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Certainly we don't need a comment, in which case a certain tiebreaker is used. This point surely was not created especially for the case of point deduction!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the purpose of the note is to prevent confusion to readers and explain how this is not really a tiebreaker. The other note was also included for clarity, though it seems to have been removed somewhere in the mayhem of the past few weeks. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Bidding venues
The name "Macedonia" is not accurate. I think it is mandatory to be renamed to "North Macedonia". Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:C80A:2219:8DFA:DED7:CB2E:197B (talk) 12:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is accurate. The topic was discussed in this section --Genericool (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, when the bid was made, it was still a single nation: Macedonia. The final list of bids was published on 26 April 2014, and the decision of hosts on 19 September 2014. North Macedonia did not exist on paper prior to February 2019; more than three years prior to the nation's existence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:02, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Now it is a single nation too :-) The nation already existed in 2014, it had just another name.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It is simply incorrect to state that North Macedonia existed as a nation prior to February 2019. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong, the nation exists since 1991, in 2019 it was just a name change.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong again. Macedonia existed since 1991. North Macedonia was a name change, but did not exist prior to that name change. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed the "FYR" someone added in the last day, per WP:MOSMAC: The term former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia or any of its abbreviations will not be used. This policy also states: In historical contexts referring to events between 1992 and 2019, Wikipedia articles will continue to refer to the country by its then-current official name and Where necessary, explanatory notes such as "(now North Macedonia)" may be added to such references. To prevent further incorrect changes, I have added a note to the table. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor correction that needs to be made - in the first subsection of the controversies section
It is stated that reference 232 (regarding the Danish team's decision to continue the match against Finland) is in Nepali, but it is actually in Dutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Own goals - still in the tournament?
Does it make sense for a player to still be in the tournament, rather than his opponents in the own goals section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.102 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A player can score multiple own goals for teams in the tournament, so the own goal scorers remain bolded until the country they play for are eliminated. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Move the section Knockout phase to the top
As discussed above, the most interesting information is buried deep in this article, with a lot of content being of interest to very few. As a solution, I suggest that we move the section "Knockout phase" to the top, after the lead section. Or perhaps also the "Group stage" section. These sections describe the main event, so I believe it is reasonable to put them at the top. Kildor (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a ridiculous idea. The article has a table of contents, just use that. – PeeJay 12:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I must agree with PeeJay. Also, this is to show that PeeJay and I do not always disagree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Minor correction that needs to be made - in the first subsection of the controversies section
It is stated that reference 232 (regarding the Danish team's decision to continue the match against Finland) is in Nepali, but it is actually in Dutch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.100.143.101 (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Own goals - still in the tournament?
Does it make sense for a player to still be in the tournament, rather than his opponents in the own goals section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.9.7.102 (talk) 19:28, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * A player can score multiple own goals for teams in the tournament, so the own goal scorers remain bolded until the country they play for are eliminated. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Move the section Knockout phase to the top
As discussed above, the most interesting information is buried deep in this article, with a lot of content being of interest to very few. As a solution, I suggest that we move the section "Knockout phase" to the top, after the lead section. Or perhaps also the "Group stage" section. These sections describe the main event, so I believe it is reasonable to put them at the top. Kildor (talk) 08:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that's a ridiculous idea. The article has a table of contents, just use that. – PeeJay 12:34, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I must agree with PeeJay. Also, this is to show that PeeJay and I do not always disagree. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Stadiums' capacity
Might not be the best source (https://www.barrons.com/articles/inflation-retirement-51624655527) but it's true as we could see for the UEFA report, Bucharest increased their capacity for the round of 16 match to 25,000 (50% approximately). I suggest a reference to that in the spectators limit section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XMillennium94x (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Discipline
For players that didn't get the opportunity to serve their suspension at the tournament, there are two different variations in the table under Discipline listing the impacted players.


 * Team eliminated from tournament
 * Suspension served outside tournament

What is the difference between these two? and what suspension (if any) will have to be served in future matches? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:8832:1300:502A:DA74:236D:9697 (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the sections, yellow card suspensions do not carry forward to other international competitions. Red card suspensions will be served in the World Cup qualifiers. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021
In the Italy vs Spain semifinal section, add the attendance as 57,998. 73.162.91.15 (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Official names
See Talk:UEFA European Championship/Official names Piotr Bart (talk) 12:50, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Golden Boot?
Should there be a mention of the Golden shoe winner in the main header? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.189.4.21 (talk) 22:53, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no parameter for the golden shoe/boot in Infobox international football competition, and probably not necessary since the top scorers are already listed. Possibly a note could distinguish which player receives the golden boot. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Italia UEFA Euro 2020 champions.jpg

Lack of source for "Team of the Tournament"
"Team of the tournament" was added to the article a few hours ago. However, the official selection for "Team of the Tournament" has yet to be published. I propose to delete the "Team of the Tournament" section unless reliable sources can be provided PapaMike (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

"COVID-19 outbreak at the UEFA Euro 2020" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect COVID-19 outbreak at the UEFA Euro 2020. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 July 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:00, 28 July 2021 (UTC)