Talk:UEFA Euro 2008/Archive 2

InterWiki problem

Why does this article has double language links? like 2 French links, 2 Arabic, so are other languages. Is this a matter of a template that added them links? Mohamed Magdy (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a problem with how the table for Group A was added. The interwiki links from the Group A article were outside the noinclude range, so they were added to the main article along with the table. It should be fixed now. --Scottmsg (talk) 16:43, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

look in the article semi finals june 26 is misleading

how russia will play spain in semi finals?as far i know Italy is not yet eliminated? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felisberto (talk • contribs) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

You're looking at an old version of the article. The vandalism has now been reverted. – PeeJay 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

re WP:NOT#NEWS and "live score updates"

I have clarified the section to emphasise that edits are supposed to be for future reference, i.e. that they stand the text of time. Updates do not qualify (what the score was at 23 minutes before half time is of no consequence to the final result, since it is only the score after full time - plus extra time and penalties if required - that determines the points value and goals for/against, etc.) Even where it is the 22nd minute goal of the game that decides it, this is only important at the end of the match. When reverting any such incorrect edits, please point the editor to this section and this discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add this banner:

to the top of the page, as it has helped us with 2008 Major League Soccer season. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The prose of that template makes no sense in this situation and only confuses prospective editors. Removed. - ElbridgeGerry t c block 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

It is very useful and should immediately be reinstated. 78.34.143.49 (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be applicable in many situations, and until the knockout rounds started there were multiple games each day. This banner is applicable for leagues and tournaments, and if anyone is confused by the wording in the banner, then they probably shouldn't be editing this article in the first place, no? -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Templates are supposed to be applicable in many situations, but that does not mean that they are. This one, in particular, is not highly applicable to the Euro 2008 knockout stage, since there is only one match per game day now (and so editors can only really edit the results of one game). It also asks editors to update the whole page! Crazy. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The tournament had multiple games per day until the knockout rounds started, and if people were confused by that then they probably can't put their pants on in the morning, let alone access the internet. Updating the whole page means update the scorers and whatnot as well so that the page is as accurate as possible. The whole point is that people shouldn't feel like they have to rush to add inaccurate or misleading information that might not be verifiable. Goals are often reassigned or called back, and we don't need sixteen edits to the article per match adding inaccurate info, when one edit at the end of the last match will do just fine. We have enough problems reverting vandalism that we don't need a million good faith but inaccurate edits as well. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Although it is correct to say "The tournament had multiple games per day until the knockout rounds started", this template was not added until after the knockout rounds had started, so as a justification for the template, it is fundamentally flawed. I would prefer not to have in-match updates, but I gave in trying to revert them during the last World Cup. They are only really a problem when people update things like scorers' lists during the match, as this leads to a danger of counting their stats twice. Kevin McE (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Who gives a crap? So what if someone wants to update the score of a football match. People do it for tennis during the grand slams, and they did it for basketball during the NCAA tournament. They will do it again for the Olympics. What possible problems could it cause Wikipedia? What damage does it do? If you really want to help Wikipedia, which you must think stopping this does, then fight vandalism or improve an article or help out a new person. This does nothing but cause headaches and arguments. -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Finally...someone hits the nail on the head. Honestly, this ugly orange box gives the article a massive eyesore. Sure, Wikipedia may not be a news site, but who cares. Be bold and ignore it. I think it's great that I can come here and see the score as the match progresses. Honestly, it's a football match with what...maybe four yellow cards and five goals if we're lucky??? This isn't a basketball game where the page will be updated every two seconds. It's a football game with updates needed MAYBE every ten minutes. Give me a break, this is causing more problems then solving them. – Nurmsook! (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Besides, I kinda like the way it was updated so quickly. --Illythr (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CWY2190, so what if it is updated every 10 minutes?

The proposed template is ugly and does not really tell us anything. If someone wants to add it again please lets discuss it here first, it really does not help the article. I would rather see some updated live score rather than an eyesore at the top of the article for 90 minutes.

There are a lot of things to worry about, live football score is not one of them. FFMG (talk) 03:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

On the bright side, I changed that bright orange template to something more subdued. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The template is used on a bunch of other articles, please don't change the color because it bothers you on this article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It bothers me on every article. Changing the colour of a template is not vandalism. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Goal music

What's the music that plays every time a goal is scored (even during penalty shootouts)? Could this be added to the article? Neıl 龱 10:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Samba? --Illythr (talk) 10:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) It's called "Samba de Janeiro", IIRC. However, I don't really think it's worth mentioning in the article. If it had been specifically recorded for the tournament, like the songs by Shaggy and Enrique Iglesias were, then maybe it should be mentioned, but it's really just an incidental piece, much like "Seven Nation Army" being used when the players walk out. – PeeJay 10:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think it was made for the 98 World Cup, though I'm not sure... just remember it from there at least — chandler — 10:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a song called "Samba E Gol" on the 1998 World Cup soundtrack album (Music Of The World Cup: Allez! Ola! Ole!), which used the same tune. – PeeJay 11:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't think that's the one they use now then? — chandler — 11:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Could be the same one, but I'm not sure. – PeeJay 11:20, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all - I don't see why this couldn't go in the article, though (ditto "Seven Nation Army") ... is it just PeeJay opposed to this? Neıl 龱 11:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

To expand my position on the matter, these pieces of music are purely incidental to the tournament. Their use is just as background music, which is entirely irrelevant to an encyclopaedic article. – PeeJay 12:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

One sentence would be relevant in the Music section, no? Neıl 龱 12:11, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's indeed Samba de Janeiro, and it's relevant information. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Neil, you can't just wait for one person to come along who supports your argument and say "Oh yeah, that's a consensus, let's add the info to the article" and leave it at that! Furthermore, "Samba E Gol" is by Bellini, not "Samba de Janeiro". Finally, I fail to see how WP:DUE supports the inclusion of this info. Please explain. – PeeJay 11:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Samba e Gol!" was indeed written by Bellini. As was the 2008 remix, entitled "Samba de Janeiro". Your ownership of football articles has been noticed before, PeeJay. At present, you're the only editor who believes the information shouldn't be there. If anyone else is reading this, please chip in - should one line about the music used every time a goal is scored be in the article? I feel it should (after all, I came to this article to find that out in the first place). WP:DUE relates to ensuring an article correctly reflects a neutral point of view, and is irrelevant here. Neıl 龱 11:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, so you only came to this article to find out the name of the song; but in five, ten, twenty years, will anyone still care what music was played when a goal was scored? In the grand scheme of things, it's hardly relevant. – PeeJay 11:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Neil. I don't see why goal music shouldn't be included. I consider myself a new Wikipedian and as such I haven't yet read all the manuals, but I can't see why information that could be useful for future readers shouldn't be included in the article - especially if it's something that only takes a referenced sentence or two to be mentioned. As for PeeJay's ownership of the article - he deleted my list of football boots manufacturers represented at the tournament saying it's nonsense, but at the same time he deleted the list of kit manufacturers which was also submitted a few days earlier by me and which nobody complained about. Granted - maybe the boots list was too trivial (even though it seemed interesting enough for a few sports newspapers to report), but honestly - I can't see why the tournament ball deserves mentioning, while kits don't. The same could be said for goal music. I'm not into edit wars that much, and if PeeJay thinks he's the authority on notability and encylopedic value of everything - then good for him, but IMO if a piece of information related to an existing article could be useful to the reader and if it's hard to find elsewhere, it shouldn't hurt to mention. And btw yeah - precisely because it may become relevant in the grand scheme of things 20 years from now, bits like that deserve to be included in the article. Perhaps in 100 years the goal music will be a major part of every tournament, performed and composed by 22th century Mozarts and Pavarottis. Perhaps somebody will want to look up Euro 2008 and see what was it like back then, and perhaps I'd like to find out who manufactured kits for the Euro 1988 Dutch team because I want to make my own replica kit. You get the picture. Timbouctou (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

2008 remix? Video on YouTube — chandler — 11:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a link to a copyright violation and cannot be used as source. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

......... What it proves is that the remix is not from 2008 as it's been posted 2006 — chandler — 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

True, Bellini's "Samba De Janeiro" is from 1997. First, I thought this is the song that's played after the goals. I have never heard (about) "Samba E Gol". If the music is the same in both songs and the difference is only that they "sing" "Samba E Gol" instead of "Samba De Janeiro", then how do we decide which of the two is played? I personally can't make out the words in the song when they play it in the stadium. But if "Samba E Gol" has a different tune, then the song in question is certainly "Samba De Janeiro". Can anyone approve? --Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The Samba e gol Ive heard is just the same but with gol instead of janerio.... Now which song they play I have no idea, is it even with words and not a just instrumental version?. Samba e gol — chandler — 12:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I was just guessing it's with words, on TV I can only hear the music in the background, but that's too quiet to decide whether it's just an instrumental version or not. If it is, then it doesn't really matter which of two is played. Thank you for the link! Rosiefromconcrete (talk) 13:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Does the goal song have an article? If not, why not?--Les boys (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Tie breaking criteria section

I think that the tie breaking criteria section should be hidden in show hide box or should be moved down because its taking too much space above in group stage section. I think it would be better that when a user clicks the group stage section in contents(TOC) it will go straight to the points table other than tie breaking criteria and thats what a reader wants to know (not the editors). For users , the criteria is written in notes under each table that how the points tie has been broken. Harryroger (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

BLP

The section UEFA_Euro_2008#Discipline contains a list of offences. Presumably this is negative information, and all those mentioned are still alive. The fact that it doesn't have any inline citations makes it a possible WP:BLP violation.

Please give the citations as soon as possible. Thanks.Bless sins (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Presumably, you would be right. In actual fact, you're wrong. Yellow and red cards are just part of the game, and hardly "negative information". No need for citations here. – PeeJay 21:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP says: "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons — whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable — should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion, from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, user pages, and project space."

Even if the material isn't negative, it still needs a source. "No need for citations here" is accepted nowhere on wikipedia.Bless sins (talk) 22:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

So you draw attention to an issue based on the fact that it may be "negative information" then state that that fact is irrelevant anyway. Smooth move. Anyway, surely the match reports from each match are citation enough? – PeeJay 22:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

For basic information that is freely available from numerous sources (goals, cards, etc.), citations are not always necessary. However, if we were to say "Player Z elbowed the opponent's goaltender in the 78th minute but, because no officials saw the incident, Player Z was not carded", then we would be required to have a citation. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Update

BBc have confirmed a mojor powercut in Vienna as the cause for the 15 min blackout, i would change this but cant as its locked so... someone who can do it please do —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.236.146.87 (talk) 20:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Centre or Left

This discussion I'm about to open really doesn't regard this specific article, but it does affect all of the other one's that have a match summary:

• UEFA Euro 2008 Group A
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group B
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group C
• UEFA Euro 2008 Group D
• UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage
• UEFA Euro 2008 Final in the near future as well.

User:Twas Now recently centralized the "Man of the Match" and "Referees" fields to keep them from appearing to be on the left team. After, User:PeeJay2K3 restored the older version "to the left" because centralising looks odd, and anyone who confuses the man of the match and the match officials as being members of the left team probably should check into the nearest pre-school. I guess this ultimately comes down to a personal taste since we're dealing on how things should "appear". I personally prefer moving this to the centre, however I see the "writing" logic behind keeping them on the felt side, so I really ouldn't mind either. Opinions? Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Centralised as above looks odd because they are not left justified as if they were in a middle column. If that was done, that would be fine in my opinion. Separately, I don't see the logic in separating the referee from the assistants or 4th official, either they should all be at the top, or put below. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Keep them left... in the center it looks, to say the least odd... It should also be noted that it is a universal format for football matches used here, which has been used at least since the last world cup when I joined wikipedia. — chandler — 07:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For some games, such as Croatia vs Turkey, there is sufficient space between the left team and these people to suggest they are separate—at least on my monitor & resolution. However, for Netherlands vs Russia and most other games, the separation between the left manager and the Man of the Match is smaller than the space between the MotM and the officials.

I did not say that anyone would confuse those people as members of the left team, but that the visual continuity suggests they are. I think we need to take into account graphic design, rather than accept tradition without reason. There are only two columns: left and right. This creates the impression that there are two groups of men, and that those on the left are together, and those on the right are together. By placing the MotM and the officials in the middle, between both sides, the visual cue is that these titles are independent of either side. But if you decide to keep the old way, simply for the sake of tradition, that is fine, too. I have accepted folly on Wikipedia before, and I can do it again. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 18:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Soccerball shade.svg

Is the image of the soccer ball that important when the bookings aren't listed? --Howard the Duck 03:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think that, you shouldnt talk about it here, as its not a topic that concerns this article alone, but all football articles with matches in them. Its is a set of templates which are used, with pictures, and I think the ball should be kept because it clarifies that it IS a goal and nothing else. — chandler — 08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See also: Template:Football match report templates

Match report templates

{{try}}

{{kick}}

{{Penalty miss}}

{{sin bin}}

{{blood bin}}

{{2min}}

Is the Golden Goal really necessary seeing as it doesn't happen anywhere anymore? // Finns 18:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My guess is we still have the this template on articles from the golden goal era. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there not a way a template can be like "retired" but kept, so it doesn't get added anymore? // Finns 18:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What if we need to add it to match summaries from the golden goal era? Silly suggestion, IMO. – PeeJay 19:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If anything we should add a silver goal template for that era. — chandler — 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between the image for a goal scored from open play and the one for a penalty? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess) (talk) 20:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

{{goal}} is used for goals scored during the match. {{pengoal}} is used for goals scored in a penalty shootout. If a penalty is scored in normal time, we use {{goal}} thus: {{goal|25|pen.}}, which produces 25' (pen.). – PeeJay 20:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

TV Coverage Failure

The BBC went over to their radio commentary for most of this time; does anybody know if this was followed worldwide, or whether it was a pre-conceived contingency plan? And, surely there are questions to be answered as to why TV coverage is directed through a single site (Vienna)?--MartinUK (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Huh, it was worldwide, just read the article. And for "why TV coverage is directed through a single site (Vienna)", have you seen the size and altitude of the the host nations? It's probable that Vienna is the only place that has the ability and "network" to redirect coverage worldwide (I'm not sure of that though). Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Read my comment again, I was asking whether going to radio commentary when the TV signal went was a unique spur-of-the-moment thing, or something the entire world had planned. Fair point that it might not be possible to route a worldwide signal from any other location; obviously we'd have to check into what the arrangements were for World Cup 2006 in Germany for example--MartinUK (talk) 21:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't worldwide. Apparently Swiss and Turkish TV had their own signals that weren't directed through Vienna, so the viewers in those countries saw the entire game. German TV used the Swiss signal after a couple of minutes, so Germany did get to see Klose's goal even though the feed from Vienna was out. Fckgo (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok. Well, the option to go on to radio commentary is possible only for televisions that have permission to reproduce radio frequencies, or that own a radio station that was at the time (possible for public national TVs like BBC, RAI or France 2) but practically impossible for all of the private televisions that where broadcasting this (like TSN). So I guess it simply depends by each of the broadcasters' access to other media and planning for "extreme occasions". Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• In Sweden the picture was lost and we had no commentary. After some minutes, we were taken over to the TV studio - but only to talk about what was happening. No radio commentary. (We lost the 2nd German goal, saw the 2nd Turkish goal from a securty camera (!) and then lost the picture for all of injury time). A shambles really. Setwisohi (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Oh, and I hear from a friend that, in Hong Kong, it was much the same as in Sweden. TV studio and not much more. Setwisohi (talk) 21:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Maybe the BBC were simply lucky or inventive.--MartinUK (talk) 21:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what happened in Sweden, ca. 22:02:00 local time it went down. ca. 22:05:30 the audio came back. ca. 22:08:30 the video came back. At this point the the commentators audio stream (not the sound from the pitch) was out of sync, audio about 1-2 seconds before the video. ca. 22:21:20 it went down. ca. 22:28:20 video came back (from a strange angle in one of the corners, can't remember if the audio and video came back at the same time.). ca. 22:35:10 it went down, this was at injury time and it never came back until after the match. (The time codes are from instant-whine @ IRC) — chandler — 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

TV4 couldn't go over to radio, as they don't have radio channels — chandler — 22:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

ESPN also said a power failure led to the blackout. Commentators Derek Rae and Andy Gray talked about some of the chances each side had before going back to the studio. No radio coverage was available either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.107.188 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

During the post-match press conference a EUFA official said that the signal loss was due to thunderstorms in Vienna, and that a statement will be released regarding the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.149.157 (talk) 22:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can understand why the Swiss might have had a separate feed not going through Vienna, but Turkey? And also, the BBC stated that the screens in the fan areas (vienna?) went off at 1-1 and never came back on. The BBC have public radio, which they switched to, and for a time the picture returned but they stayed with the radio commentators. MickMacNee (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: Tonight the television signal in the International Broadcast Centre was interrupted several times in the second half due to technical reasons which are currently being investigated, in particular to evaluate the impact of the violent electrical storm over Vienna at that time. The second half is being refed to the broadcasters. UEFA will communicate more information when the investigations are completed. – [1] What they've released so far, I guess — chandler — 23:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

According to [2] it was Swiss TV and Al-Jazeera (not necessarily the Turkish broadcaster - can someone confirm?) who kept their pictures, and the fan zone was evacuated for safety reasons, rather than simply due to loss of pictures.--MartinUK (talk) 23:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I can watch Al-Jazeera (Qatar) on my TV and they couldn't practically show the whole second half. Since the failure took place, they weren't able to reconnect again with the game. I hope it helps.--ECanalla (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Did Polsat in Poland change to Swiss signal? Anyone knows? Because there where some problems, but all goals where shown, though the third one for Germany with commentary done from the studio in Warsaw, so audio was lost... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.87.218 (talk) 23:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

In Portugal also the signal failed but not during the goals... Aritajustino (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Some explanations from Vienna:

• Yes, there was a horrible thunderstorm with heavy lightnings during this match in Vienna, but under normal circumstances this wouldn't be a problem for any professional broadcasting corporation.
• The problem seems to be, that for the EURO 2008, the UEFA has for the first time ever "monopolized" the entire TV-signal, which is produced by UEFA itself (respectively its 100% doughter UEFA Media Technologies SA) in the "International Broadcast Centre (IBC)" in Vienna (see [3], IBC). During the last weeks, already a lot of criticism was coming from the national broadcasting corporations, especially about "censorship" by UEFA (who didn't show some critical stuff - see [4], [5], [6]). Due to their contracts, all broadcasters all over the world HAVE to use this UEFA-standardized-signal during the match (they can show their own material in the break or after the game).
• And the IBC in Vienna (which is operated by the UEFA itself) seems to be not as prepared for bad weather as normal broadcasters (so maybe they didn't have a sufficient emergency power?!). We will see, what UEFA will tell us the next days ...
• The Swiss State Television SF was (as far as I know) the only broadcaster who had enough own cameras in the Basel-stadium to transmit independetly from the UEFA-cameras, as Basel is in Switzerland ... and I am quite sure that the Austrian State Television ORF will be prepared for doing the same during the last two EURO-2008-matches in Vienna, at the latest since this massive failure of IBC ;-)
• So I think, the criticism from the national broacasters (and the European Broadcasting Union) about this TV-signal-monopolization and overregulation by UEFA-control-freaks will rise, due to this unbelievable failure and lack of professionalism in the IBC (so maybe in the long run this thunderstorm made sense). By the way: Like the German TV-channel ZDF, even the Austrian State Television (ORF) used the signal from his neighbour, the Swiss-TV SF, when the UEFA-signal faded out (which was officially a breach of contract with the UEFA, but who cares when everybody wants to see the match). -- Rfortner (talk) 01:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the ins and outs of the thing - it was a shambles. The third biggest sporting event on the planet, the key moments of the semi-final, a global audience and then? Black out. 90.231.2.252 (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, there was another brief crowd invasion during the Germany-Turkey semi (presumably just one person, judging by the BBC commentary. TV shouldn't be used for political censorship and internal ego boosting. The whole thing's a disgrace and heads must roll. --90.212.117.21 (talk) 09:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's better not to show the idiots who run onto the pitch — chandler — 09:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe, maybe - but also maybe not. Anyway, this should be a decission taken by the free media and not by UEFA itself!

By the way: Today the UEFA had a press conference in Vienna and confirmed, that the problem was in THEIR international media center IBC, due to three "micro"-failures in the electricity which leaded in each case to a shut-down of all their image processing servers (and rebooting took some time). The press conference was held by Alexandre Fourtoy, chief of UEFA Media Technology SA. ... When UEFA trys to play broadcaster by itself, maybe UEFA should also invest some money in an Uninterruptible power supply (UPS) ;-) -- Rfortner (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The semi-final protestor was complaining at China's treatment of Tibet - which includes censorship of pro-Tibetan voices....--MartinUK (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

8 minutes seems like a long time for it to take to restart - longer than it takes a 25-year-old ZX Spectrum to load a 48K game from cassstte.....--MartinUK (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Per my recent revert, not showing protestors/disruptions/pitch invasions has been a long standing practice for a while now, in football and other sports, so any suggestion that UEFA have suddenly introduced a form of censorship in this tournament is not going to fly to be honest. MickMacNee (talk) 13:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What surprises me, is that they i. took an age to reboot the thing and ii. had no back-up to switch to. I'm left with impression that the technical staff consists of one man and an 'Idiots Guide' - whilst there are clearly more highly-paid administrators than you can shake a stick at.... 90.231.2.252 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

But if you think about it, the backup may have had to have reset aswell, fanzone all evacuated of 25,000~ fans. UEFA said they are taking steps to make sure it doesn't happen again // Finns 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Maybe there is a misunderstanding, but the evacuation of the Fanzone (which is located in front of the Vienna city hall) due to a heavy storm has nothing to do with the power problems in the International Broadcast Centre (IBC), which is located far away in the Vienna Congress Center ("Wiener Messe" [7]). Ok, the weather was bad, but the IBC (and its master control room) is located absolutely "inside" and housed by a massive building, so it was not disturbed by the storm itself. Only the lightnings caused some very short failures (milli-seconds) in the Vienna power supply - and the IBC coudn't handle this, due to technical problems with their own Uninterruptible power supply (UPS). Every professional server administrator has to be aware about such short power failures during heavy lightnings, and has to take measures against it (like UPS). -- Rfortner (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Watching the live feed on Wowow in Japan, it lost about five minutes early in the second half (between the 60-65 minute mark). But, all of the goals were seen, and after the 65 minute mark, I don't recall any outage at all. AFAIK, Wowow did not have an independent feed; and, the English commentator (global?) seemed quite in sync with the video feed throughout the game (and tournament). There was occasionally a caption about the Japanese audio going out (there were some Japanese announcers on site for the semifinals), but, I was listening to the English, so, I don't know how long they were gone. Neier (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Spain won every game played?

"This was only the second time in the history of the tournament that the winning team won every game played in the tournament"

In fact, Spain tied 0-0 with Italy in the quarters and advanced by penalties. My understanding is that by custom advancing by penalties has been treated as a tie (draw), not a win. I'll go look for authoritative sources (e.g. UEFA sites). - PhilipR (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have reworded it: "that the winning team won every game in the Group Stage". − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reworded it again to say that "the winning team went through the entire tournament without losing a match". – PeeJay 22:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

They all call it on TV as the first team since france 84 to win all matches... they count a pen or ot win as a win. — chandler — 22:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

shoot-out wins are considered draws. 76.69.121.6 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

"This was only the second time in the history of the tournament that the winning team went through the entire tournament without losing a match; the other team to do so was France in 1984."

This is incorrect. Germany didn't lose a game at Euro 96. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.42.72.68 (talk) 22:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, true enough. Oversight on my part. Sorry. – PeeJay 22:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Bronze medal

The third place is shared by both Turkey and Russia, so the bronze medal section should contain both nations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.57.101 (talk) 13:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no "third place" at the European Championships. – PeeJay 13:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think 91.76.57.101 is confusing third-place with semi-finalist. Kingjeff (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If the two teams actually are given physical bronze medals by UEFA, then maybe we should list both teams as coming in third place. However, as far as I am aware, only first and second place are officially recognised. – PeeJay 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, so Russia and Turkey would be called semi-finalist as opposed to third or fourth place. Kingjeff (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Read the following article from the uefa.com: http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19079.pdf The section on the medals on page 3, specifies quote: "34 bronze medals will be awarded to each defeated semi-finalist team." end quote. Thank you.

Alright, smartass. Cheers for the link, but try not to get on your high horse about it. – PeeJay 18:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, just could not bear to see turkey alone there, that is all. In all news they were calling the bronze for both teams. Thanks for the justice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.57.101 (talk) 18:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what's up, will Turkey and Russia get their place in the infobox or not? :-) --Illythr (talk) 22:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Third Place

After the European Championship in 1980 Italy, UEFA decided that BOTH semi-finalists will be given Bronze medals without any match for thirdship place. In this context, UEFA gave Euro 2008 Championship Bronze medal to Russia and Turkey. Those who say that Russia and Turkey shouldnot be listed are missing the fact that UEFA gave Euro 2008 Championship Bronze medal to Russia and Turkey. 78.168.75.158 (talk) 15:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

New table style for main UEFA Euro 2008 page

I saw this on the French WP and thought it looked great and much more appetizing. Do you think we should change the tables? If yes, should we do it on the World Cup article(s)?

Group A   Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts 1 Portugal 3 2 0 1 5 3 2 6 2 Turkey 3 2 0 1 5 5 0 6 3 Czech Republic 3 1 0 2 4 6 -2 3 4 Switzerland 3 1 0 2 3 3 0 3

7 June, Basel Switzerland 0 1 Czech Republic 7 June, Geneva Portugal 2 0 Turkey 11 June, Geneva Czech Republic 1 3 Portugal 11 June, Basel Switzerland 1 2 Turkey 15 June, Basel Switzerland 2 0 Portugal 15 June, Geneva Turkey 3 2 Czech Republic

I think it looks much better. What do you guys think? -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 18:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Definetly looks so much bettter, I say go for it. Although I don't have the pull to change a major site like that.... - Birdy (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (contributions)

I disagree. The text is too small, and I don't like the lack of lines in the table. The only thing I would implement is moving the results to the right of the tables. Other than that, I can't see it catching on. – PeeJay 19:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the results and table on the same row would look good, and save space. The World Cup and Euro qualifiers have something similar which could probably easily be modified to write tough the matches in this fashion — chandler — 19:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think wikitable looks better — chandler — 19:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Medal Images

I think that the mdeals should be replaced with a better suiting image, as they now have the olympics logo on them! 99.240.227.140 (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC) (aka Rich Guy)

Only if you view them in full size. Otherwise, they just look like generic gold and silver medals. There is no need to change them. – PeeJay 21:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There is Image:Gold medal icon.svg () and Image:Silver medal icon.svg (). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 21:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't nearly look as good as the current ones. The current ones who replaced ... You don't notice the olympic rings in the template. — chandler — 21:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Fastest Goal

Where's the fastest goal?

It was scored by Luka modric vs poland in the 4th minute penalty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.219.110.61 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Own goals

I miss the own goals in the goal list. There was at least one of Thierry Henry in the match against Italy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.26.120.40 (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

[8] De Rossi's goal, not an own-goal — chandler — 13:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Commemorative coins?

Does anyone think this section is worth keeping in the article? Personally, I don't, but I promised User:Miguel.mateo that I'd start a discussion about the issue. Basically, my argument is that the main article should be kept for information relating specifically to the tournament, and that info about special coinage should be left for another article, if not deleted altogether. Opinions? – PeeJay 11:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I think the whole "Miscellany" section is a "Trivia" section in disguise. Furhtermore there are way too many extremely short sections througout the article (e.g. the New Trophy section should in my opinion not be at the highest level). I would suggest working all these subheaders into a well-flowing way into the article. For example "Match ball" could go with "Venues" and/or the "New Cup" section in a section "Tournament organistion" as that all relates to the matches. The Mascotte, Slogan, Music and Coins could go in another section something like "Promotion" (and you could add some of the activities in the host cities, and other marketing to that as well). "Television failure" could be part of a new section on "Media coverage" which I think should become part of the article anyway. Arnoutf (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Austrian Commemorative Coins in the Miscellany section

Hi all,

I just want to bring this topic for consensus. Austria, host of the games, issued two special commemorative coins celebrating this occasion. The coins are official and legal tender in Austria. The goverment minted enough coins seeking circulation. However, unfortunately or fortunately, the coins were kept in private hands since it is a rear issue; so they often do not circulate. I have placed a small paragraph in the "Miscellany" section, with the picture of the two coins. Something to note is that the names of the stadiums where the last eight games were played are also printed in the coins.

The question I bring is: is this information relevant enough to keep it in the article? Everything is verified and citations can be put if required (they are already wiki-linked), I just put the paragraph to the minimum possible, not to "hurt" the content of the article. I personally think it is very relevant, and I am sure a lot of people bought those two coins at face value (five euro) just to remember the games.

Thanks, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

PeeJay, I just realized we were both editing at the same time, let's keep the answers in your section, sorry for that, Miguel.mateo (talk) 11:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)