Talk:UEFA Euro 2012/Archive 1

City missing on the map

I would like to fraw the attention to the fact that Kharkiv is missing on the map of Ukraine

Source ?

As President, Mr Platini is not eligible to vote except in case of a tie.

-No. He voted for Itly, he said it in an interview on Polish TV

Data accuracy

I think the spelling of the name of the stadium in Wrocław should be "Olympic". Also, there is no host club. The stadium is owned by the city, not the speedway team "WTS Atlas".

It should also be pointed out that there won't be six Polish cities hosting the tournament. Currently chosen are: Warsaw, Gdańsk, Poznań and Wrocław. Cracow and Chorzów are just "reserve" venues.

I added a section with the reserve venues mentioned on the official site[1] Willy turner 16:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

"Voting procedure" and "Other candidates" sections should be updated. --81.219.231.40 13:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

First round votes

The first round of voting was the 3,4,5. So no majority was achieved there. I see someone reverted it, but that is true information. The three then voted over to the other,that gives 8-4. Bazsa 18:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

And where did you find that info? You could've added it. On every source I saw only a single round with 8-4-0 outcome. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 20:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well during the live Tv coverage, a member of the Hungarian Comitee mentioned this info; and I sawit on a fan-forum, that also named the three members who voted Hungary. But the media and news only mentioned 0 votes, so it's probably false. It can stay this way. Sry for the late reply. Bazsa 15:49, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lviv

Ukraina Stadium is not the arena for Euro 2012 in Lviv, that's just an existing stadium there. The arena used in the Championship will be a newly built stadium. Delete the "Ukraina stadium" link.

It says here[2] that Ukraina is the venue. Willy turner 01:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a mistake, the city council is preparing to allocate new land for the construction of the new stadium. So it cannot be Ukraina stadium.

Yes, that's true. I don't know much about it but all my friends from Lviv have been telling (bragging) me that they are building a new stadium there. Rock on, Bogdan 00:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

The stadium used will be the Lemberg stadium which is currently being built http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3_%28%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%BE%D0%BD%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.146.103 (talk) 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Updating

Okay, as we're after the bidding and the choosing, perhaps the sections on host selection should be removed or spun off into a separate article? --Ouro (blah blah) 05:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dates of Euro 2012?

Euro 2012 will have to avoid colliding with the London 2012 Summer Olympics/Paralympic Games (July-September), so almost certainly early summer, but are thes Euro 2012 dates known yet? --Mareklug ^talk 05:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

No, they're not. You can be almost sure it's going to be a June to beginning-of-July event, as usual (compare with Euro 2004 and Euro 2000). --Ouro (blah blah) 06:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Greece and Turkey

The current article reads:

   * Flag of Greece Greece (6 votes, eliminated)
   * Flag of Turkey Turkey (2 votes, eliminated)

I may be confused but I think it was Turkey who received 6 votes and Greece was last with 2. One of the archive versions (of 30 March 2006) of the article also says so:

Turkey and Greece were eliminated with 6 and 2 votes respectively.

Would you possibly tell me which of the two is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.36.9.157 (talk • contribs).

Turkey got 6 votes and Greece got 2 votes (source). Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Image

Question to experts, would this image be useful? I am sure there would be no problem with copyright. --Irpen 00:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a neat image, but probably too small; if there is a larger version, I think you're right - it can be reasonably uploaded under CC. At any rate, it seems the article right now needs more text than tables and pictures.--Riurik^(discuss) 23:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the text will come soon, as soon as there will be some developments towards Euro 2012. My question for the experts is, is the image found by Irpen going to be the official logo? If not, where to get it? Is it possible? I will try to find one in a few days, am currently away from my usual place of residence. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 16:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No. The official logo won't be known probably until next year or 2009. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 17:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Mirror Weekly to-do list for EUFA 2012

Mirror Weekly (by Yakub Loginov) wrote a detailed piece "Eurostep towards understanding" on the challenges facing Ukraine and Poland to successfully organize the 2012 UEFA Championship. It may be useful reading material if anyone is interested. At the moment, it is only available in Ukrainian and Russian, but an English version ought to become accessible in the future.--Riurik^(discuss) 23:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Third place play-off

Will the losing semifinalists of the Euro 2012 play a third place play-off? --88.77.248.212 14:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC) No (make the answer short) they abandoned the idea several years ago  ¢нαzα93  17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Quarter final venues?

In the breakdown of where the fixtures will be played, it states that Warsaw and Kiev will host quarter final matches. Will these two cities share all four quarter final matches (as was the case in 2008) or will two other venues be chosen outside the largest two stadia scheduled for the semi finals (as in 2004)? The article states that all host cities will hold three group matches, with Warsaw hosting a quarter final match and a semi final (5 matches), and with Kiev hosting a quarter, a semi and the final (6 matches). This currently leaves two quarter final matches unaccounted for. Is it known where these other quarter final matches will be played? Colin, 04.07.10. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.38.155 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Very good question. I wondered this myself. The number of games for each country don't equal the sums of the constituent sites at present. If two of the quarters are yet to be assigned, the article should clarify that point. -- Regards, PhilipR (talk) 06:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The article pl:Stadiony Euro 2012 claims that the other quarterfinals will be held in Gdańsk and Donetsk. Let me cite the media: "So far, UEFA has only decided to stage opening game in Warsaw and the final in Kiev. Both cities have been confirmed to host the semi-finals, too. However, it has not been decided yet, where the quarterfinals will be played."[3] There is an ongoing debate whether Gdańsk, Wrocław or Poznań are better prepared to host the other quarterfinal, so I guess that we just have to be patient and wait for the final decision from UEFA. Sliwers (talk) 08:11, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

2012 UEFA European Football Championship → UEFA Euro 2012 — Euro 2008 was moved so this shouldn't be too hard — ¢нαzα93  17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this on Talk:UEFA European Football Championship so as to have one centralized discussion. --Richard 06:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

<... The discussion was moved to Talk:UEFA European Football Championship by User:Richardshusr ...>

Not in Poland

I read an article today in the Irish Sunday World newspaper saying that Poland may have to pull out of hosting the tournament due an extreme lack of construction workers to build/improve the stadiums. does anyone know if their is any truth to this?--Irishboi 23:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this is true, a deputy proposed that. But I think it is impossible, UEFA can't let this happen! Probably, Poland and Ukraine will do a beautiful spectacle hosting the UEFA Euro 2012 jointly... (I hope so!) --vonusovef ^(wha?) 14:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, i made a mistake, i saved a my personal&stupid joke with the flags of cratia and hungary <:| —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.122.196 (talk) 11:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:New Shakhtar Stadium.jpg

Image:New Shakhtar Stadium.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Bid history - Azerbaijan, Romania, Russia?

I can remember that originally there were eight bids, including three by Azerbaijan, Romania and Russia, and at some point they were whittled down to five. Shouldn't that be mentioned? 212.36.9.156 (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to be WP:Bold. However, bid selection is only one part of the entire event and as we get closer, the bid process section may be shortened to make room for other content.--Riurik^(discuss) 17:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dnipro Stadium.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:52, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

scotland still possible

check it out

Scots eye Euro 2012 rescue plan

Scotland could be the beneficiaries if Uefa takes a dim view on Ukraine and Poland's preparations for Euro 2012.

Doubts persist about the suitability of stadiums and infrastructure in the former Eastern bloc nations and an inspection is planned this summer.

SFA chief executive Gordon Smith told BBC Sport: "We have made it clear that we'd like to be considered if it's not going ahead in Ukraine and Poland.

"With the event likely to expand after 2012 it would be our last chance."

Scotland and the Republic of Ireland failed with a joint bid for Euro 2008, which gets underway in Switzerland and Austria at the weekend.

But Smith revealed that he had held discussions with Uefa president Michel Platini about hosting future tournaments.

"I asked if the size of the competition was increasing from 16 teams," he said.

"And, given that it probably would after 2012, we would not be able to stage a European Championship if that was the case.

"But he (Platini) said there might be an opportunity, you never know.

"There is an inspection on Ukraine and Poland's facilities in June or July and if they don't match up they may have to take the tournament elsewhere.

"I said was that we'd like to be considered if that situation arose. We haven't been told we are on standby or anything like that."

Igor Miroshnychenko from the Ukranian FA told BBC Sport: "I have heard the story about the possibility of the championships being taken off us.

"I spoke with Uefa on Wednesday and they told me that they have no plans at the moment to move elsewhere.

"But it's not a good situation here at the moment.

"We have no main stadium and there are problems with the roads. It's not a good situation politically.

"People here feel there are too many problems to host this tournament. Can we host it? I really don't know."

Italy was widely expected to win the Uefa vote for Euro 2012.

However, their bid was overshadowed by a referee corruption scandal and problems with football-related crowd trouble.

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond is a keen football fan and has voiced his interest in the nation hosting a major event.

"I've had discussions with Alex Salmond and the Scottish government and they would like us to apply for a tournament," added Smith.

"We know about the criteria that has to be met and there is a financial cost to that, so we'd have to see if that money could be raised by government."

Hampden Park, Ibrox, Celtic Park and Murrayfield, the home of Scottish rugby, all meet international standards.

But another four stadiums would have to be constructed or upgraded in order for Scotland to succeed with any bid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/7437379.stm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.55.157 (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Not funny

In the Croatia-Hungary section it says that Rijeka is a popular tourist attraction. It's a joke, right? Anyway, it's not funny. Zhelja (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Why a joke??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.206 (talk) 14:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Which groups are Ukraine and Poland in?

Is Poland in Group A and Ukraine in Group B or vice versa? Someone should mention this in the article. 198.53.218.230 (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

We don't know yet. It's only just been announced which group South Africa will be in at the 2010 FIFA World Cup, so I would expect it to be two years before we know anything about Euro 2012. – PeeJay 19:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

'Participation' 16 to 20/24 teams

[Link here] (foxsports.com.au); Proposal for 16 to 24 teams was "agreed unanimously by senior officials of UEFA's 53 member nations." Someone want to find an alternate source to confirm and run with this in the main article? Gresszilla (talk) 23:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio in the infrastructure section?

This sentence:

UEFA EURO 2012™ will bring new stadiums to Gdansk and Warsaw in Poland and Dnipropetrovsk and Donetsk in Ukraine, as well as ensuring the renovation of eight other grounds.

Looks suspicious to me because of the way "UEFA EURO 2012™" is formatted, as though it was lifted from an official UEFA press release or something. Google didn't help me find anything obvious though. -PhilipR (talk) 02:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Seeding

Does anyone know if Spain will be the top seed for the qualifying draw? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.52.10 (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Spain Will be 1st seeds Along with Germany, Netherlands, Italy, England, Croatia. With 3 of Russia, Portugal, France and Greece depending on their results in the playoffs.Gero13 (talk) 02:35, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Lemberg stadium, not Ukraina

The stadium that'll be used in lviv will be the lemberg stadium currently in construction http://uk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%B1%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B3_%28%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%B4%D1%96%D0%BE%D0%BD%29 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.106.146.103 (talk) 22:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemberg Stadium

It appears that we have two conflicting figures for the capacity of Lemberg Stadium. This UEFA newsletter, produced in February 2010, claims that the stadium will have a capacity of 40,610; but this UEFA.com page claims that it will only hold 30,000. Obviously, these are two drastically different figures, but both are provided by the organisers of the tournament. Can anyone provide any references from another reputable site that support either figure? – PeeJay 23:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Logo

If you look at any of the Euro 2012 pages on UEFA.com (see here for an example), you will see that UEFA prefers a logo similar in layout to this one, which I uploaded. If you look at this page, you will also see that style of logo seems to be the preferred primary logo. However, User:Biala Gwiazda seems to believe that this version of the logo should be used in this article, and for no apparent reason other than he seems to like it better. I dispute this opinion, not only for the reason that UEFA seems to be using this version as its primary logo, but also because the version I uploaded shows the graphic portion of the logo more clearly. It is not necessary for the text portion to be particularly visible compared to the graphic portion; it is necessary that it be visible, but not that it take up more space than the graphic portion. This issue must not be allowed to descent into the realms of personal opinion, and User:Biala Gwiazda has done nothing other than express his own opinion on the matter. Biala Gwiazda, if you have any, please provide some evidence that supports your standpoint. – PeeJay 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Odessa Status

I see in this page that Odessa stadium was rejected. However, I was just looking at satellite picture of Odessa stadium (I don't know how old is it) and on it it is clearly seen that the stadium is in complete rebuild (see [4]). I don't see any other explanation for timing, does anyone know for a fact what is the Odessa status for this championship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.3.139.2 (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is pretty clear about it and you may verify it on UEFA website - Odessa will not host Euro 2012 games. Odessa was suggested as an alternative option in case one of the other cities wouldn't be able to meet UEFA criteria. UEFA seems to be happy with the progress of the preparations in the remaining cities. Notice that the stadium is not the only requirement. Dnipropetrovsk was rejected despite an already existing stadium and you can see construction sites in other cities (e.g. Lviv: [5]). Sliwers (talk) 18:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

For (possible) future reference (?)

This probably doesn't belong in this article: Ukrainian police officers, doctors and customs officers who will be involved in hosting the finals of the Euro 2012 European Football Championship will pass special courses in the main European languages. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 20:18, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeding for group phase of tournament

Is it yet known HOW seeds for the group stage of the tournament are going to be decided? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.232.229.100 (talk) 05:33, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Some advice could be here: UEFA Euro 2008 seeding, seeding for the previous tournament. And, as I understood, it may be changed for the 2012 championship. 85.217.22.47 (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

How can we now form pots if final coefficient of all the teams will be known when all of the qualifying matches are finished? Only thing that is certain is that Poland, Ukraine and Spain (if they qualify) will be in Pot 1. For instance, if Italy qualify by current coefficient they would be in Pot 2. But they could be easily overtaken by England, Croatia, Russia, Greece or some other team and slip in Pot 3... Difference between these teams are minimal. Nightfall87 (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Germany could also overtake the Netherlands as well, even if the Netherlands qualify as group winners. Then there is this odd sentence in the article: "[...]the games in each group will be held at just two stadia, with the seeded team remaining in the same city for all three matches. [...]Poland and Ukraine, as co-hosts, were seeded first automatically." But Poland and Ukraine play in DIFFERENT cities. So actually the teams A4, B1, C1 and D2 are the ones which play always in the same city. --134.176.19.98 (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

UEFA warned Ukraine it could be stripped of hosting rights for the 2012 European Championship

See here. I propose we wait and see what happens this coming week. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 18:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

They say they are not doing it... — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 16:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Suspension of Ukraine's no longer on UEFA agenda as of Yesterday. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Qualified teams

Germany qualified after their 6-2 victory against Austria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.141.57.94 (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

as of now, Italy and Spain have also qualified as their respective group winner. Netherland is also qualified, but as of now it isn't sure if it will be as the group winner or the best runner-up. AnelZukic (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Splitting the bids

I suggest moving some of the information into UEFA Euro 2012 bids :

• Bid details from Italy and Croatia-Hungary (and possibly the other two)
• The former candidates of venues in Poland-Ukraine bid.

The information in it self is interesting, but perhaps not that relevant when the championship starts in 9 months, and the article will at that moment become much longer too. Yosh3000 (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

new sources for stadium capacity?

The [6] - Press Kit: Logo and Slogan unveiling. UEFA. 14 December 2009 which are atm used as source for most of the stadiums capacity clearly says that: "(the capacity is) to be confirmed following completion of the construction work". The source therefore confirms very little.

The official site: [7] / hostcountries mention other other numbers of the capacity, but these pages were created Monday 25 January 2010 (a bit newer than the first source), and don't say if they have been updated since.

Are there any newer sources / articles about the capacity of the stadiums? Yosh3000 (talk) 23:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Do we need a redirect...

... at Євро 2012, the Ukrainian for "Euro 2012"? Just wondering. --Theurgist (talk) 00:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

This [[8]] probably enough, in the interwiki links. 82.141.66.136 (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Qualified/participating teams

In my view the current table (permlink) at the "Qualified teams" section could be taken to the article about the qualifying competition, and for this article we'd better reconstruct the table so teams get arranged alphabetically, because what team came from which qualifying group is not that important and relevant for the final tournament itself. We could also delete the "Qualified as" column, add a column indicating finalists' current FIFA rankings, and rename the section header to "Participating teams" (instead of the current "Qualified teams"), by the same reasons. --Theurgist (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How about section showing where teams will stay on a Google map?

How about a section showing where the teams will stay on a Google map? So far I know this:

Germany: Dwor Oliwski Hotel, Gdansk Netherlands: Sheraton Hotel, Krakow England: ? Hotel, Krakow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.73.242.204 (talk) 10:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

BLOCK

This article need to be blocked because:

• 1.COUNTRIES are constantly being changed by vandals!
• 2.SCORES are constantly being changed by vandals!

TeAm.

Cuisine

Do we really need to put information on Polish and Ukrainian cuisine on this page? I find it very unnecessary since this is a page about a football tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.250.94.250 (talk) 22:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Removed. Wikipedia ain't a tourist guide. --illythr (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

tour guide versus activities to make way for the event

Please consider to not adding same stories about prost. and miners' strikes. EURO 2012 is not the article about socilogical activities. Only sport.

Thanks for your cancell editions of nasty S24oneworld user. tschüss — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki77798 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Moving from my talk page to the article's.

I'll address your concerns and the broader issue. The information about temporary legalization of prostitution and destruction of stray animals is about what has to happen for the sport to happen. There was a section for the 2010 FIFA World Cup and an entire article dedicated to this sort of coverage. Information about local accommodations, cuisine, and other cultural events which transcend the games, are not appropriate. If someone wants to know about the local cuisine because they are travelling to the events, they can check the articles of those nations. In short, the former should remain in the article (I notice someone has removed it again) as it is affected by the games while the latter shouldn't. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that not all editors want to discuss to reach consensus. Anyone else care to weigh-in? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I'm not quite sure what "check collumns[sic] in EURO 2008" means. Was there any similar activity at Euro 2008? UEFA Euro 2008 doesn't list it, but that doesn't explain anything. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Walter Görlitz that this information should be in the article. These competitions often do have a wider effect on the countries that host them, and when they do the articles should cover this as well as what happens in the competition, so long as all content is properly referenced. - filelakeshoe 09:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I think we should wait until it's over, so that reliable sources can properly gauge what was a notable "event effect" and what wasn't. So far, it looks like the stray dog killing affair is going to be there (lots of outrage, pressure and even response from top country officials and thus, lots of coverage, that, however, does not establish long-term notability), whereas the prostitution legalization is not (just one protest by a controversial group). In short, EURO 2012 hasn't happened yet and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --illythr (talk) 15:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Terrorism

Should the Dnipropetrovsk bombings be mentioned? The mass media often mention how it can be related to or affect the championship. Hellerick (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Unless you can find a direct link to the games in a reference, I wouldn't mention it.

Songs???

I havent heard anything about "Here Comes The Rain" by Stormi Henley being a Euro song, but the Don Omar song is just somebody's "YouTube guess"...def not Euro songs. Secondary songs are NOT official songs--71.58.55.146 (talk) 02:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro2012#Music The official Polish song for the tournament is "Koko Euro Spoko" by the folk band Jarzębina.[53] + The official Ukrainian song for the tournament is "Вболівай!" by Ukrainian All Stars. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2ewd1vmps8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.79.236.18 (talk) 01:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Who is boycotting

tell me who of czech is boycoting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanFucke (talk • contribs) 01:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ask the WP:RS not me. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

For sure you. You are canadian catholic and you so hate Ukranians. Why?

Whos asking?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mongo44420 (talk • contribs) 01:54 12-05-01 (UTC)

Canadian yes. Catholic no. Don't hate Ukrainians since my mother is one and one of my best friends from university is one. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The source I added is reliable. I it vague in saying "Czech Republic is also putting pressure on Ukraine." The Press reports are cumming out thick and fast so hopefully more details are likely to be available soon. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

POLITICS in sports articles?

I highly recommend to think about that naming EVERY German politician (whos earlier protested agains Euro ouside ITALY) and now dont want to visit euro in Ukraine is nonsence! Germans not protested during Olimpics in 2008 that in China people are veeeeery bad treated! And now canadian is removing discussion. Shame on you! China donot respect rights of mankind and Tibet but anyway sport is sport politics and money are different! (talk) 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I have just readed this article there is not mentioned any names.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GermanFucke (talk • contribs) 02:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The political events are very notable and I think the article should include them. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 06:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Please dont post politics in SPORTS events. Joey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.223.189 (talk) 23:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies or Ukrainian Concerns and controversies

Should the section Concerns and controversies be called Ukrainian Concerns and controversies ? My thinking is that it should be Concerns and controversies as not all the problems relate to Ukraine, but User ip:91.218.156.247 disagrees given that most relate to Ukraine. I am not to sure that the intention should be to blame one nation or the other, or clear one nation or the other, but to show the Concerns and controversies of UEFA Euro 2012. Any thoughts? Another problem I see with Ukrainian Concerns and controversies is that it is ambiguous and implies Ukraine has concerns over UEFA Euro 2012, or am I reading to much in to it? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The edit was in place for about an hour and reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be 'Ukrainian Concerns and controversies. The intension is to show the Concerns and controversies more clearly and precisely - not to blame one Nation or another. It's true that all existing concerns we are now talking about is related to the Ukrainian side so title is correct and more specified. I rebuilt this section a liitle. I think now it is more corresponding — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonFor (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It should be neutral in the headings and it should be fleshed-out in the sections. This finger-pointing and nationalism has got to stop. Wikipedia is not a forum for the petty problems of these games and their organizers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutral in the headings and fleshed-out in the sections? You're contradicting yourself. Where do You see nationalism or something like this in this title? Wikipedia is the place for telling THE TRUE in most exact way it could be. Polish side has no problems in overall preparations, has no problems with any authoritarian regime, has no contoversies about not respecting human rights, has no problems with terrorist accidents, has no problem with massive protests and sex tourism, has no problem with hotels overcharging and finally has no problem with boycotts. So why on Earth this article can not be named Ukrainian concerns and controversies? This is most appropriate and accurate title -that's all. If you do not have any more arguments please respect the facts and do not wrongfully edit somebody proper work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.156.247 (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree with all above; "Ukrainian concerns" is misleading anyway because this implies Ukraine has concerns, also the first paragraph of the section is about Poland, and there's really no need to point the finger at either country or any issue in the section heading, people can read the text. - filelakeshoe 08:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

First two sentence is only about Poland. The title "concerns and controversies" is misleading beacuse this implies that Poland has too all these concerns and controversies but it hasn't as you can see. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.156.247 (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

No it doesn't, it just implies that there are concerns and controversies. As well as being inappropriately divisive, "Ukrainian concerns and controversies" implies "Ukraine has concerns about the tournament", which is not what you want to say. Please stop reverting people, your title has no consensus and you've already violated WP:3RR. - filelakeshoe 09:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's keep nationalistic views out of it. It's clear that there have been some concerns from UEFA and others about the tournament as a whole - and that includes preparation and facilities in both countries. Having the more general heading is not making a judgement about your country or implying that your country is worse or as bad as etc. Wikipedia is not here to judge - it's here to report facts. The fact is there have been concerns about the tournament, it is jointly hosted, and some concerns have been expressed about both countries.Ytic nam (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry. It's hard to believe that those advocating for a country-specific heading are not speaking from a Polish WP:POV. Czar Brodie is a frequent editor of Poland-related articles and theThe anon editor's IP is located in Poland. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that Czar Brodie (talk · contribs) was against the country specific header. - filelakeshoe 14:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Czar Brodie is a Scottish editor. My edits stem through trying my hand at my first Wikinews article, Given the subject was Yulia Tymoshenko, I have been following the news and updating Wikipedia and events led me to UEFA Euro 2012 page. I usually edit Scottish clan articles and my recent eastern European foray is only related to the Tymoshenko affair and it repercussions. However I felt that my edits were beginning to conflict with others perceptions of how this page should read and have decided to take a little distance. Hence this humble call to agree as to the best way the Concerns and controversies should be set out. filelake is correct in thinking that I prefer Concerns and controversies for reasons given above. Another point of note is that Euro 2012 has not happened yet, and it seems probable that the last word has not been said. I think a section should be available where editors can clearly place updates and new information that does not require the whole section to be reorganized. What I am saying is that if more problems surface with Poland, I think editors should have a place to put these without building new sections and reorganizing the whole. Accordingly, Concerns and controversies, makes the most sense as it is a blanket term that includes any problem that may arise in relation to Euro 2012 whether it is in Poland, Ukraine, or even another country. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Ytic Nam is a Welsh editor :) and I am against the country specific heading. From what i can see the only 2 editors in favour of adding the word Ukrainian are a Polish editor and an anonymous Polish IP address.Ytic nam (talk) 15:41, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the nationality of ip and another should have any baring on the argument. So what if they are or are not polish. I think they are entitle to a view and may have a point regardless of their nationality. Lets steer the discussion back to the merits based on other factors. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I would normally agree, but when it's evidence of a WP:POV or an WP:AXE then it does have a bearing. As long as the argument is neutral the you're fine, but suspicion is increased in some instances. In all, we must assume good faith. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Aye, thanks for that Walter Görlitz, agreed. I have been looking at the way other football championships articles handle controversies when two (or more) nations are host. The best I could find was 2012 Africa Cup of Nations. This does indeed set the problems of the two countries in separate headings. There are two things I like about it, it is clearer than the proposed Ukrainian Concerns and controversies, and the controversies is a heading in its own right cumming straight in just after qualifications (not tucked away down the bottom). So I propose that the heading controversies is created which is paragraph 6 (before Match officials and after Final draw, there are then two sub-paragraphs: Poland and Ukraine (alphabetical listed), these then have their controversies listed under an appropriate sub heading. Note also 2002 FIFA World Cup, here the Ticket sales problem was in Japan, yet the title is neutral. Note also that it is a separate paragraph high up in the article, it does not have a separate section for Korea (perhaps because Korea had no notable controversies). Any thoughts? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 09:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that 90% of this controversy happend in Ukraine so I agree to divide section. Your ever. Joeh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.223.189 (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I have seen that two users without permission and discussion named add created sections. Also there where seen that 2 users without permission blocked and 3 times reverted editions. Next time this kind of behaviour will be noticed(users will be blocked). Back to the case.

Wikipedia MUST be PRECISE AND CLEAR. It is sugessted to name section 'Ukrainian Concerns and controversies'. Not to blame any organizator. Existing concerns we are now talking about is related to the Ukrainian side so title is correct and more specified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.48.76 (talk) 01:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Headings need to be short, succinct and distinct within the article, the body copy needs to be precise and clear. Oh. That's the way it is already. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Czar Brodie (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC) proposes this set up:

Broadcasting .... Ukrainian Controversies Boycott [[9]] Terrorism text and refs here on Terrorism Police criminality text and refs here on Police criminality Preparation text and refs here on Preparation Hotels overcharging text and refs here on Hotels overcharging Protests text and refs here on Protests Animal welfare text and refs here on Animal welfare Polish Controversies text and refs here on Polish Controversies (create sub sections if more than one, but no need for extra titles as it stands).... Miscellaneous Logo and slogan etc...

The idea is that the section are major headings in the article. I understand that it may be controversial to place it high up in the article, so I propose that Ukrainian Controversies becomes paragraph 11 (after 10 Broadcasting) and Polish Controversies paragraph 12 (with Miscellaneous now being 13). Seems to tackle all the issues: It divides the countries, and is crystal clear. Any thoughts? Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 10:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies or Ukrainian Concerns and controversies section 2

sorry, add the above title as my heading confused the talk headings. see above for my suggestion. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Generally, Your proposition is fairly good, we really should divide the countries cause the problems are highly polarised (all existting issues refers to Ukraine). But, like I said before: Polish controversies is only about two sentence and nothing more (moreover, this controversy is out of date - its from 2008 an it was clarified almost at once). Whole chapter "Polish controversies" will be much shorter then any sub-division of "Ukrainian controversies" chapter. "Polish controversies" should not exists as a separted chapter cause it will be too short. If any, it should exists as a sub-division. But You're on a right track. Please keep in mind what i wrote, and try to rebuild Your propostion once again - I believe next time it will be the best.

Ps. No need to place this paragraph as #11. It should stay where it is. This is article about sport event and all sport-releated topics should be placed first, and then, if exists, other-releated topics should find their place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonFor (talk • contribs) 13:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that NeonFor. A couple of points: Just because Polish controversies are a few lines does not mean that it can not come under a heading. They are notable and should be included. So if we divide it seem silly to then say "that as Ukraine is bigger, Poland should not be mentioned (or only have a sub heading)". I am not trying to balance the controversies, I am trying to divide them. The other point is that It would have to be a main paragraph in my view for two reasons, firstly this seems to be the standard way controversies are addressed on wiki football articles: see 2012 Africa Cup of Nations, 2002 FIFA World Cup, and 1978 FIFA World Cup; and secondly, it allows the sub paragraphs to not be confused and lost in other sections giving better division for Poland/Ukraine and clearly marking what problems belong to which nation. The most notable topics should be placed first in my view, technically you could argue that any one of them has nothing to do with sport; but every single one is there (and only there) because they relate to Euro 2012, it is this relation to Euro 2012 that is important. I base the notability on two points, recent events are more notable than older events, and more press coverage makes an event more notable in my view. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The proposal is not acceptable. This focuses too much on the non-sporting issues of this sporting event. and increases the total number of headings. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, I withdraw from the article. To be honest I do not know what the procedure is so it is difficult for me to edit. My understanding is that the article was not about Sport but about Euro 2012. I dont think I am qualified to be of assistance. Was interesting nevertheless. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz - Firstly, you should better start to use some arguments in "your statements". So far you do not represent proper level of so-called dicussion. Secondly. This is true that there's too much non-sporting issues on this topic so i suggests that Concerns and controversies should be shortened - this is topic about sporting event! Thirdly. If we should not add another heading, we should stay with ==Concerns and controversies== and then add sub-sections ==Ukrainian controversies== and ==Polish controversies==. This is exactly what Czar Brodie proposed but without creating a new headings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonFor (talk • contribs) 15:26, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I modified the TOC so it won't become too lengthy no matter how many sub-headings are used.

@NeonFor. Thanks for stepping into the shallow end. Feel free to dive in deep and read the whole discussion above. You will see the arguments presented. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:30, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

stepping into the shallow end? :) We've Only Just Begun... 1. Concerns and controversies are too long right just now and I'm not talking about future edits - it should be shortened. 2. I know the arguments presented - it was mainly my own arguments. I'm talking about yours... not existings... whatever 3. So, the most important thing: Heading: ==Concerns and controversies==, sub-sections: ==Ukrainian controversies==' and ==Polish controversies== I think it will be clear enough and it divides the controversies and issues in most logical way. What do you think about it? And to be honest, I'm not asking You - Walter Görlitz. I think you alreday "use" your arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonFor (talk • contribs) 15:55, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

political events can be highly notable for sports so theres no reason to exclude them. Alternatively, we could use another page Controversies of UEFA Euro 2012, or something of the sort. Also a 2 sentence section should be merged elsewhereLihaas (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

In a lot of countries POLITICS opinions and SPORT NOT penetrate each other, so the section as many people claimed there should be shorted and short. I am Asian and i like football a lot, i am going with my colleques to visit poznan, krakow, warsaw and donbas arena.

greetings — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.203.214.151 (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Gdańsk/Danzig

I was under the impression that the Gdańsk/Danzig vote was just for biographies and city articles, when writing in a historic context. It seems stupid to bring German historic names into an article solely about a tournament that takes place in 2012. Why Wrocław (Breslau) but not Warsaw (Warszawa, Warschau) or Lviv (Lwów)? This information is essentially irrelevant here since there isn't a single English source talking about stadiums in Breslau. - filelakeshoe 14:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No it does not; it refers to the name of the city in general. "For locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name should also include a reference to other commonly used names... This applies to both before and after 1945." This is about what name to use for cities that used to have a German name in the English language - Warsaw is and was the name commonly used in English. However, I reverted my edit. --IIIraute (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes this is stupid and should be removed. No reason for German name here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.220.145 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I did remove it, however: The article is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). This applies to both before and after 1945" ⇒⇒ The result is binding on all parties. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. → Not so difficult to understand--IIIraute (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

disruptive edits

These edits [10] are disruptive and they are misapplication of the Gdansk/Danzig vote. They are an attempt to game the vote. And they make the text in the article look ridiculous. Also, why not also "Kjiów" and "Lwów"? Why not insert the German name into the list "Gdańsk, Gniewino, Gdynia, Jelenia Góra, Józefów, Kielce, Kołobrzeg, Kraków, Legionowo, Lubawa, Międzychód, Opalenica, Ostróda, Puławy, Słupsk, Tychy, Warka, Warsaw, Wieliczka, Władysławowo and Wrocław"?

Again, vote does not apply here.VolunteerMarek 14:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The article is affected by the Gdańsk (Danzig) Vote. "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). This applies to both before and after 1945" ⇒⇒ The result is binding on all parties. Violations against the rule established by the outcome of this vote can be reverted exempt from the 3RR rule. → Not so difficult to understand--IIIraute (talk) 20:18, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Even if you think you're 100% in the right, the fact that numerous editors have disagreed with you means that by now you're very clearing behaving in an extremely disruptive manner. A more constructive approach would have been - instead of edit warring across a dozen articles (again, EVEN IF, you're 100% right) - to bring the issue up at the Gdansk/Danzig vote page.VolunteerMarek 20:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

ha,ha,ha... who are the "numerous" editors - the ones that didn't get their way at the vote - what issue are you talking about. Why don't you explain to all of us what the following sentences do mean: "The first reference of one name for Gdansk/Danzig in an article should also include a reference to the other name, e.g. Danzig (now Gdansk, Poland) or Gdansk (Danzig). This applies to both before and after 1945" --IIIraute (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

who are the "numerous" editors - umm, you only have to look above, as well as on other talk pages of articles you've been disrupting.VolunteerMarek 21:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

they are always the same two users + one IP - why don't you now tell us what those sentences mean?--IIIraute (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Why doesn't Talk:Gdansk/Vote apply when the page states that it is in relation to "dozens of articles mentioning the city on Wikipedia"? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Since no answer has been given shall I assume that it does apply? If so, I will be restoring Danzig per the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone edited group D incorrectly. They moved England to the top of the group while shifting everyone down one. This is important information as it refers to how the teams were selected into each group and when they play each other. The group should be in this order: Ukraine, Sweden, France, England — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adnan7631 (talk • contribs) 02:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. Someone had changed the order here. El0i (talk) 03:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Auschwitz visit by teams

Recently an editor has been moving the section on the Auschwitz visits by the teams to the section on the teams' base camps. The two are unrelated. Doing so makes it seem as though they're making the trip because it's convenient or a simple side-trip like making a trip to ground zero because you're staying in New York, or Sherwood Forest because you're staying in Sheffield. They're not related in that way. For instance, the German national team's base camp is located in Gdansk. Auschwitz is more than 550 KM from their base camp. It's not a day trip for any of the teams. It's an intentional visit. It's unrelated to the location of any team's base camp and should not be rolled up (read: hidden) in this section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Animal cruelty

Controversies should be well-sourced and I am reluctant to base content on The Sun and The People.Ankh.Morpork 15:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Alternative sources The Independent, The Guardian, AFP, UEFA. GwenChan 15:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The controversy section should also avoid becoming a WP:COATRACK since that violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. And in fact this section here is a textbook example of what a coatrack is - editors looking on the internet for negative tidbits to add. Keep the stuff that's important and remove the marginal stuff. Yes, use high-quality reliable sources, not tabloids. Seriously, stuff about hotels charging high prices during a major sports competition as some kind of major controversy? When does this NOT happen? Ridiculous.VolunteerMarek 16:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing WP:COATRACK at all. These have all been legitimate and notable controversies that have arisen solely out of the preparations for the tournament. Regarding the hotels, it becomes notable when Michel Platini, who is UEFA president and a FIFA vice president, announces that "bandits and swindlers" are undermining the tournament, forcing Ukraine president Viktor Yanukovich to order his government to investigate price increases and ensure hotel rates are "economically reasonable" during the championship. GwenChan 16:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Well... I'm not sure how to respond to "I'm not seeing it". This is a textbook example of a COATRACK. Compare for example Sydney Olympics or Bejing Olympics - there was way more controversy around each one of these two, much bigger sporting events - but the first one doesn't even have a criticism section and the second one keeps it short and to the point, rather than adding in every tidbit someone found on the internet or in a tabloid. That's how it should be done here.VolunteerMarek 16:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I also want to note that apparently no other UEFA Euro xxxx article has a controversy section, certainly not one as long and as full of fairly obscure issues (like hotel prices) as this one. For example, nothing about the controversy of English fans earning a fine for racist taunting of Turkey, among many other incidents (including by Italian fans, Spanish fans, etc): [11] [12] [13]. It's not like this stuff is hard to find.VolunteerMarek 17:15, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing stopping you from adding that content to those other articles. GwenChan 17:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Why would I want to do that? Please think for a second before you write something. My whole point is that there shouldn't be these UNDUE "let's find everything negative we can on a country we don't like" kind of COATRACKS in these articles and you're telling me to go make some. The implicit assumption that you are making - that I am only objecting to *this* particular text, but I would welcome it in other articles - says something troubling about the way you perceive the world.

At the level of Wikipedia editing policy and practice, basically, when I point out that there's crap in this article which should be removed, your response is "it's okay, you can go and add crap into other articles". How does that make sense? Are you sure you're in the right place? Perhaps a comments section of some blog would be more appropriate venue for your contributions.VolunteerMarek 22:35, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you withdraw that insulting commentary. GwenChan 00:27, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Besides, it is incorrect to suggest that these controversies are trivial. When the Ukrainian government has to step in to investigate hotel pricing, or to ban the killing of stray dogs, while promising law reform off the back of the protests, then the issues have become rather notable. GwenChan 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The hotel controversy was reported by mainstream media and involved senior political and UEFA figures and cannot be described as "marginal". Please identify specific concerns that can be rectified as opposed to wholesale deletions.Ankh.Morpork 17:50, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

No, both the stray dog thing and the hotel pricing ARE trivial. Sure you can find a mainstream media that wrote about it - though as pointed out above, a lot of these things are sourced simply to tabloids. But so what? We don't include every negative thing about Barrack Obama that appears in this mainstream media as that would make for a ridiculous article, and would violate... yes, WP:COATRACK, WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Same thing here. Whenever there is a focus of attention on a place or a person - here, because of a sporting event - there will be a plethora of sensationalist stories which really do not merit inclusion. Focus on the important ones, and leave nonsense about high hotel prices out of it.VolunteerMarek 22:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The 2010 World Cup article had them. Olympic game articles have had them. The fact that past articles have not had them is likely because people with nationalistic POVs removed them for similar reasons being proposed now. If they have WP:RSs, they are fine to stay in since they're balanced and do not push a POV and are neutral. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh drop the "nationalistic POCVs" crap. I can just as well turn that around and accuse others of putting the text in here in the first place out of nationalistic POV motives. Particularly the kind of nationalism that manifests itself in expansive smugness and deep hypocrisy. Removing barely relevant junk from articles which is being inserted essentially as a way to construct an WP:ATTACK PAGE - though at a level of a particular country rather than a particular person - doesn't have anything to do with nationalism. It's just the common sense, good sense, editorial judgement.

BTW, notice that I haven't tried to remove the stuff about racism or security - those are relevant topics. Even there there is most definitely a huge slant in how it's being presented (see for example here where statistics show that compared to other places incidence of racism are probably lower in Poland, or lacking any kind of comparison with the very frequent racism one sees in Western European games), but at least those are relevant topics. All I've tried to do is remove some barely notable nonsense about high hotel prices and stray dogs. Hell, the crackdown and abuse of homeless people during both the Atlanta and Sydney Olympics doesn't even get a mention in those articles, but here we have *crucial* info on hotel managers charging higher prices and stray dogs being euthanized. The whole situation is absurd.VolunteerMarek 22:48, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Your so called trivial matters drew the attention of the Ukrainian president, prime minister, EUFA president and head of the Ukrainian Euro 2012 organizing committee. I do not understand why you describe this as "barely notable nonsense".Ankh.Morpork 23:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Along with Ukraine's (former) Minister of the environment (now deputy secretary of the National Security and Defense Council) Mykola Zlochevsky, agreeing to adopt amendments to the Ukrainian legislation regarding the treatment of stray dogs, officially announcing an immediate ban on the killing of stray dogs, announcing a programme to construct new animal shelters and pledging to introduce new legislation to make it compulsory for city mayors to enforce such new regulations or run the risk of facing prosecution.[14][15][16]. When something attracts the involvement of WSPA, PETA, the msm et al, and triggers a change in a nation's legislation, it is far from trivial. GwenChan 23:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

In my view, James Wolf's account can be condensed slightly as it may be disproportionately lengthy. Your thoughts?Ankh.Morpork 12:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If you think that it would benefit from distillation then I agree =) GwenChan 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Protests - prostitution

This section detailing the FEMEN group and its policies does not appear to be especially noteworthy and has poor sourcing. The section should be removed or significantly improved upon. I will try and see to this later.Ankh.Morpork 17:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Already discussed above. What's wrong with the source? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:14, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Link to previous discussion please. The linked source is a site that uses citizen journalism and unedited user content. Let alone the link does not even work!Ankh.Morpork 18:22, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

They have already attempted to snatch the trophy three times, have vowed to disrupt the tournament, and are receiving msm coverage: The Independent, The Telegraph, CNBC. GwenChan 18:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is above under tour guide versus activities to make way for the event. It worked on 2 December 2011 and when it was discussed above so all you have to do is google and find it by title, which is why bare links are not appropriate. That's what I did and fixed it and added another. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I will add that AllVoices is not the best of sources and hence my comments.Ankh.Morpork 19:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Road system in Poland

I don't think this version of road system map should be published in article about Euro2012, because it is more of a wishful thinking and not current state. Here is more realistic map http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Plik:NowaMapaStan.svg&filetimestamp=20120211015439 . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.207.223.92 (talk) 08:13, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. The actual map represents the final objective of the highways in Poland. It is misleading while being descripted as road system in Poland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kubntk (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Tagging

Please explain exactly you consider to be NPOV and your preferred POV version as you so far have declined to do so. Ankh.Morpork 22:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The tagging is ridiculous. You nagtag the page with (my bolding) "This article primarily may relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole, as detailed in coatrack articles and content forking. Bloated "controversies" section with marginal issues. (May 2012)" And then you say (above) "All I've tried to do is remove some barely notable nonsense about high hotel prices and stray dogs." I counted - that totals SEVEN sentences in the whole article. Are you really claiming SEVEN sentences that you disagree with constitute "primarily may relate to a different subject, or to only one aspect rather than the subject as a whole, as detailed in coatrack articles and content forking. Bloated "controversies" section..."? GwenChan 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No, it's perfectly appropriate. The parts I removed were really just the most egregious ones. The whole section is problematic.

As an aside, I just got to add - you do realize that the BBC documentary that is being used for a good chunk of the text, is the same one which seems to think that Austria borders Poland and the Czech Republic borders Italy? Talk about signaling the ignorance of the subject one is discussing loud and clear.VolunteerMarek 05:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

So because some work-experience gonk in the graphics department mislabels a map the credibility and almost 60 years of experience of Panorama is negated? Talk about a feeble straw man argument... Perhaps the Polish and Ukrainian thugs they filmed were really paid - English! -actors? Could it, in fact, have been filmed entirely on a giant sound stage at Pinewood Studios? You really are clutching at straws. GwenChan 08:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Please, please, please, look up straw man fallacy. Read it, think about it, then try posting again.VolunteerMarek 01:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

One mistake on a map (a bad one admittedly) doesn't negate the content of the rest of the documentary.

Also, I think the tags are unnecessary - just a cheap way to distract attention from unsavoury issues by over-nationalistic editors.Malick78 (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

For those of you unfamiliar with the situation here, Malick78 is my own personal stalker who's been engaging in harassment of myself, off and on, for the past few years.

YOU advertised this page on the Polish noticeboard. Sorry, did you only want nationalist editors to come here? I can understand your disappointment in that case... Malick78 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why it is necessary to have a COATRACK tag at the top of the article if only the controversies section applies to this dispute. Unfortunately, the Coatrack template doesn't have a parameter to change the text to refer to a section, but simply moving the tag itself to the head of the Controversies section gets the point across, given the text the original editor provided. I have moved the tag to this location. -Jhortman (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I considered doing it that way myself. Maybe someone should go and play with that template a bit.VolunteerMarek 05:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't apply and should be removed. That would solve the problem best. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is an essay, not policy, not a guideline. GwenChan 08:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

To address the tagging. You say "The whole section is problematic..." but you can't show why, or raise specific points. Your main argument boils down to 1."It is trivia." 2. "Similar articles don't have it." To address your first claim, "trivia", as explained above, does not lead to nation states rewriting their legislation. These incidents have received wide coverage in WP:RS. Your second point has also been addressed above. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't notable. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is "crap." That, I suspect, is the heart of the matter. You just don't like it. I'm sorry, but this is starting to seem like a case of disruptive tagging in an attempt to force your edits through against consensus. GwenChan 08:42, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is: the whole section is MUCH TOO LONG It is really "Bloated" as much as it possible. This is mainly sport article but people put here everything what happenen around (mainly on ukraine). Is almost every ukrainian problem is a problem releted to Euro 2012? Offcourse NOT. A couple of protests, Police criminality, Animal cruelty, political problems? It all should be shortened. Once tv, newspeper or something rise a one-day pseudo-senstaion and do we all this crap put here? Nonsense. Following that - do every sports article should have big section about controversies? No. Once again - perfect word for describe this low-quality article is "bloated". Should be shortened a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.156.247 (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't - as you claim - deal with "almost every ukrainian problem." It deals specifically with the controversies that have occurred directly as a result of Euro 2012. And again, these are not "one-day pseudo-senstaion" [sic] - these are long-running issues, widely covered in the msm and WP:RS, which have led to the direct intervention of the national governments. Regarding your question, "do every sports article should have big section about controversies?" The answer, of course, is yes... if they are controversial sports events, which this certainly is. I disagree that it is "bloated" - I pointed out above that the sections being specifically highlighted constituted a mere seven sentences. That is not bloat. In fact, the very brief coverage of the issues in the article gives the impression that they might be trivial and not widely covered, a problem I intend to fix by increasing the information and the sources. GwenChan 10:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

NPOV does not allow for a complete suppression of material but requires that it is presented in a fair and balanced way. I repeat to you something that you have still failed to address: Please explain exactly you consider to be NPOV and your preferred POV version.

Please explain why both the undue tag and coatrack are necessary, as I am reluctant to conclude that this is pointy tag-bombing.Ankh.Morpork 11:12, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Ankh.Morpork 11:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

The tags seem like an overreaction to me. I think the miscellaneous section is wrongly named and should be split into several different sections. Controversies is generally considered a POV title for a section and maybe a better title is required. Some of the content needs trimming but I think a lot should stay. Boycott Calls needs to be reduced so that it just shows the facts of whats happened without so many opinions. The entire second paragraph and a lot of the fourth pararaph in the Racism section should be removed, again we don't need so many people's opinions (In this case there is a pro-England POV aswell). The Animal Cruelty section needs massively trimmed, or maybe a merging of it and other issues? It is mostly opinion and conjecture of animal welfare groups and little of it has to do with the actual tournament. Police criminality has nothing to do with the tournament so should be removed. Apart from that it seems mostly ok to me. We do need to remember though that this is a European tournament not a British/English one. So things like this The Foreign and Commonwealth Office general travel advice for Ukraine already warns that travellers "of Asian or Afro-Caribbean descent and individuals belonging to religious minorities" should take extra care in the country due to racially-motivated violent crime. Both Danish and French fans have also been warned by their governments about the risk of racial violence. are wildly inappropriate. Adam4267 (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam, these are good points (and I agree with each one individually) but "apart from that" doesn't leave all that much. I am going to reiterate the statement that the stuff on hotel price increases (which happen at *every major sports event*) and stuff on the stray dogs is UNDUE in this article. Add the topless protest stuff to that too. Remove those two trivial sections, and implement the changes you propose above and I'll be perfectly happy to remove the tags myself.VolunteerMarek 21:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

But I won't be happy if everything is removed. "Consensus" does not mean "what Volunteer Marek demands." GwenChan 21:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying everything needs to be removed so I don't know what you are referring to. But while you bring up "what Volunteer Marek demands" let me point out that what "Wikipedia demands" is NPOV, and UNDUE is part of that - and WP:NPOV does trump WP:CONSENSUS (which we don't even have here).VolunteerMarek 21:28, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion the topics covered should be covered. I do not know enough about the countries in question to say whether or not the way in which the sections are written are POV: they do read in a predominantly negative way, but it's difficult to write an allegation of racism etc in a way that isn't. The boycott and racism, hooliganism and antisemitism sections strike me as being too long though. —WFC— 17:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Those topics are definitely notable but the other topics really aren't.VolunteerMarek 21:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Non-notable on what grounds? Just repeating the phrase over and over without explaining why doesn't make you correct. GwenChan 21:18, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, on the grounds that similar articles of this nature don't include stuff like this (which you incorrectly dismissed by telling me to go and put stuff like this in them) and the fact that these topics are only tangentially related to the main topic.VolunteerMarek 21:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As I already pointed out, similar articles do contain "stuff" like this. See 2010 FIFA World Cup#Construction strike, 2010 FIFA World Cup#Event effects and 2012 London Olympics#Controversy. I'll assume good faith and assume that you didn't check the articles that I pointed to as containing similar sections, however, now that I've linked directly to them you can drop this non-argument. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:56, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Walter, once again let me repeat myself. I don't have a problem with there being a controversy section. I have a problem with THIS controversy section which is a coatrack and full of undue and trivial material. For all three articles you link to the controversy section is much shorter and sticks to issues which are truly relevant rather than random stuff that somebody stumbled across on the internet. That's the difference. So can you actually address the argument that is being made rather than the non-argument that is not being made?

Further, the reason that this section is potentially such a large part of the article (at least in the eyes of some) is because the event itself has not begun. Once it does and the primary focus of the event, the tournament, starts generating data (read: scores, tables, on-field controversies, etc.), this material that we're discussing will become a much smaller portion of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:01, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I hope so - but if that's the case, I don't see why it justifies the stuff being in the article in the first place.VolunteerMarek 01:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree with my previous speaker. Some topic should definitely reduced to a couplue of words (just straight, short information), some should be removed and others marege whit each others. Animal welfare and Euro 2012? (who on teh earth add more info to this topic? does he know waht it is all about? I don't think so...) police criminiality? What elese? Landing on the moon? Someone should listen to the opinion of Wiki users and make some cleanning works with whole this controversies section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.78.35.195 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Some anonymous editors should realize that the only reason that the material is in the article is because we listened to the opinion of Wikipedia editors and users and came to consensus on what is included. If you want to berate us you're not going to achieve anything. If you want to support the efforts of editing, then start doing that. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

And some non-anonymous editors should stop berating other, both non-anon and anon, editors for taking a different view, while at the same time claiming CONSENSUS for their POV which obviously does not exist.VolunteerMarek 21:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

As the general consensus is to retain and trim you should take a piece of your own advice and read WP:IDONTHEARYOU. GwenChan 21:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's not that IDONTHEARYOU it's more like that YOUDIDNTTOACTUALLYREAD what I wrote. I also think the section should be retained and trimmed. Like wise the anon ip above is calling for "cleaning" it up not for removal. The discussion is about what should be trimmed and what should be retained. Please respond to what people actually said, not to what you imagine they said.VolunteerMarek 21:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to trim it a bit based on what I said above. Adam4267 (talk) 19:34, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey, we seem to be at least moving toward consensus, although not there yet. As I understand it, we are agreeing that the general outline of the material is deemed notable and worthy of inclusion, but would benefit from being trimmed and edited from a Eurocentric perspective? The boycott section perhaps could be trimmed to just list those nations that have already stated that they will not attend. I'm unsure about the police corruption; this is something that existed before the tournament was awarded. The animal culling is significant: it was only initiated because of the tournament, and the subsequent international pressure has led to the Ukrainian government changing their nation's legislation. That sort of thing really doesn't happen often. I agree with Adam that having a section titled "controversies" is awkward, and it is a troll magnet. The usual form would be to integrate criticism into the relevant sections of the article, but this is difficult here as little has been written about the preparations. Perhaps the section should be titled "International responses"? That might also give a focus for what should and shouldn't be included. GwenChan 20:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

With respect to the stray dogs - do you really think that this will be relevant in a couple months? In a couple of weeks even? Is it really even now? I actually don't have a problem with the "controversies" title itself, just with the section being a coatrack for barely relevant issues.VolunteerMarek 21:06, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

When external, international pressure forces a change in another nation state's legislation, it is "relevant." Do you really think that in the grand scheme of things the football games themselves will be relevant in a few weeks? They will have been played, the whistle blown, the ball taken home. The newly introduced legislation will still, however, be there. GwenChan 21:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Its not about the legislation its about Reliable Sources, they clearly think that in the build-up to the games this is an issue. I think most of the irrelevant stuff, in that section anyway, is gone - maybe the boycott section could be smaller. We now need to organise it better. The use of a section entitled controversies/criticisms is considered POV. Also most of that stuff is unrelated. Although Miscellany was used in the previous tournament (2004 didn't have a similar section) I think that's awful and its just a bunch of small stand-alone paragraphs. Something else which you shouldn't have, we need to try and merge them. I'm thinking something along the lines of Tournament branding, Political problems in Ukraine, Infrastructure (Delays sub-setcion) etc. Adam4267 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's summary... subsections "Boycott calls" & "Racism, antisemitism and hooliganism" (and "Claimed problems in preparation" in small extent too) should be trimmed to a couple of more important information. It will look something like "Hotels overcharging" subsection - direct information, no more opinions and other such stuff. I think it will be more absorbable for absorbable. And do not forget - this article is about SPORT EVENT - not "Problem of Ukrainian Nation, politics etc". Whole "Claimed problems in preparation" section it's only an add-on to main article. I think when mentioned sudivisions and section as a whole, will be trimmed a lot We will find a consensus soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonFor (talk • contribs) 21:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

One of the problems I see with the section on hotel pricing is that it doesn't explain why Platini would refer to "bandits and crooks." It reads now as though this is - as Volunteer Marek keeps saying - just the usual "fast buck" tactics seen at all major events. That does appear non-notable. BUT in fact, it is about genuine "bandits and crooks" - mafia-style organised crime syndicates - who have, through violence, including shooting people, taken over control of hotels and torn up previously agreed contracts with tour operators. This is why Ukraine's deputy prime minister Borys Kolesnikov pledged to take action on 12 April and the government threatened that they might have to step in and introduce state-controlled tariffs. German weekly Der Spiegel ran an article explaining this which can be read here. GwenChan 21:57, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Gwen-Chan, if this is indeed the case - it's not just price gouging but organized crime stuff - and you can show me reliable sources to back it up then I will be perfectly willing to change my mind and agree to the inclusion. Generally speaking I'm happy to change my mind and agree with others - just gimme a good reason to do so.VolunteerMarek 01:19, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Der Spiegel is one of the most widely regarded publications in Europe for its investigative journalism. They broke much of the story here. Finding other sources is trickier: as the journalists point out, UEFA and Ukraine have been trying to keep a lot of this "out of the news." I'm currently wading through Ukrainian newspapers at the moment to see what they have reported. GwenChan 01:46, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I know what the Spiegel is. And that is indeed a reliable source and a potentially significant aspect to the story which could turn it from what looks like random trivia into something which is notable and actually belongs in the article. If you find more sources along these lines then I will happily support including this info.

However, unfortunately, the text that is in here presently is NOT based on Der Spiegel and it does NOT cover this angle, but rather just whines and cries about high hotel prices at a big sporting event. Because you know, it's one thing when rich hotel owners in rich countries raise prices at their sporting events, but how dare poor people raise their prices when the sporting even is held in their country! The injustice of affluent Western Europeans not getting the dirt cheap accommodations when they go to poor countries that they have an inborn natural right to just makes me shake with anger!... Sorry about the editorializing but honestly, that's how the section reads right now. And that's why it's bad and unencyclopedic.

So please find more info along the lines of Der Spiegel article. But that's a different line than what is in here now.VolunteerMarek 02:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

A Ukrainian item here. Mstislav Skorobogatov, owner of the hotel Slavutych, says that masked men stormed his hotel, took control, and ramped up the costs. GwenChan 02:15, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Also [17], [18], [19]. GwenChan 02:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, with these, you either going to have to gimme some time - I can read Cyrillic but very slowly, or you could translate the relevant portions. I'm also not qualified to judge the reliability of these sources so some insight along those line would also be helpful. Btw, thank you for looking for these.VolunteerMarek 16:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I haven't heard much about the whole "bandits and crooks" thing but here are some more sources looking at it; [20] [21] [22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4267 (talk • contribs) 12:32 1 June 2012 (UTC)

All of these are just the same "When I, as a British citizen go to a poor foreign country, I have a inborn God given right to stay in an inexpensive hotel" kind of whining. As the Ukrainian vice-premier said "Only the market can influence" hotel prices, which are supposed to increase during sports events (in fact it's efficient for them to do so, and in this probably egalitarian as well)! And in fact they do, without fail. But for some reason when Ukraine does it, it's notable? No. The organized crime angle is noteworthy, increasing hotel prices by themselves are simply not - just a reflection of the ... "nationalist" (to borrow Walter's phrase) mindset of some of the sanctimonious Westerner media.VolunteerMarek 16:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

To put things into context, there's a TON of sources out there (funnily enough, a lot of them American and Australian) which talk about price gouging and very high prices at the London Summer Olympics. Just the tip of the iceberg here: [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. But there's not a peep about it in the 2012 Summer Olympics article. And there shouldn't be (before someone tells me to go add it in...) And the reason for that is simply because hotels *always* increase prices during major sports events (or whenever demand goes up for that matter) so it's not really notable.VolunteerMarek 17:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no limit to how much information can be included, what we need to think about is "is this really necessary", "does it contribute to informing readers about the subject of the article". This was quite a big issue a while ago so I think it could definitely do with being expanded a bit. There are many more issues than usual surrounding this competition, and there's no reason why they can't all be included. However, we just need to make sure that each subject is given due treatment. Adam4267 (talk) 22:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2012-07-01

I'm sorry if you're being stalked Volunteer Marek.

I don't see any other editors here agreeing with you on this. It's not a coat rack. These are all valid issues linked to the tournament. If you would like to create an article for controversies related to the tournament and then summarize the controversies and point to the article, that would make sense, but short of that, the best we can do is edit for brevity. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

No one is stalking him. He advertised this page on the Polish noticeboard (guess why).Malick78 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I notified the Wiki projects which are relevant to this article. And yes you are stalking, harassing me on my talk page and generally being disruptive.VolunteerMarek 23:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I linked to this article 2 days before I edited it. Perhaps I didn't follow you here? Quit making absurd accusations (and certainly don't give them as edit summaries, if an edit is warranted, it's warranted for content reasons, not because of imagined persecution).Malick78 (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Righhhhhhtttttt... so we get in a disagreement on another article and then shortly after you show up on another article you've never edited that I'm active on and revert me and it's "an accident" and I'm imagining things. I must be because this is like, what, the sixths or seventh time that the exact same thing has happened in the past two years? Please.VolunteerMarek 16:28, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The tags are right at the top of the section I had referred to with my link. I wonder how on earth I spotted them... so subtle there at the top of the section? Either way, reverting me by claiming 'stalking' is dishonest. It's content you revert, not perceived/imagined intentions.Malick78 (talk) 18:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Walter, but this just isn't true. Above User:NeonFor, User:194.78.35.195 (IPs are just as free to contribute to Wikipedia - provided they're not evading a ban or something - as registered users) do seem to agree with me. And User Adam4267, while he thinks the tags are a "overreaction" does seem to acknowledge that there are some serious issues with the section. On your side there's you, Gwen-Chan and possibly Ankh-Morpork. It seems more or less evenly split (splitting Adam down the middle, perfectly split). You seem to be pulling the ol' trick where someone claims "consensus" for controversial edits, even when no such thing exists.VolunteerMarek 01:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's true (and we shouldn't call other editors liars). There are many more who agree with the current consensus than a few anonymous nationalists who want to minimize the embarrassments and dirty laundry being shown. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

There's one anon IP here, the rest on both sides is anonymous to some extent or another. And IPs have a perfect right to edit Wikipedia. And again drop the "nationalist" nonsense. It's just as easy for me to dismiss your arguments as "nationalist". It's an ad-hominen personal attack and irrelevant to the issue at hand. Discuss content not editors.

So no, there's no consensus or agreement with the current version.VolunteerMarek 16:37, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Walter please stop being so petty. Its not contstructive and is not helping the discussion. We all want to make this article better and I think if we work contstructively together, we will be able to. As it stands I think the concerns and controversies section is in decent shape but the content could still do with some tweaks. However, the section name is still POV ("Miscellaneous" is just stupid) and we need to organise that whole section better. Adam4267 (talk) 17:36, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't think all of the editors in this discussion do want to make this article better. Some just want it to exclude particular information. It's not about tweaks with those editors, it's nationalistic pride. I'm fine with organizing and editing the material for clarity, but that's not what is on the table. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

When you take an attitude like that - automatically dismissing other editor's concerns because of what YOU IMAGINE about their motivations - it's pretty much impossible to take this discussion or yourself seriously.VolunteerMarek 21:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Walter, will you please stop misrepresenting "what the talk page says". The talk page does not say what you think it says. As pointed out above, the split is about 50/50. So don't claim "consensus" when you don't have it. Edit summaries such as these [29] are false and border on dishonest.

I'm thinking that at this point we should probably ask for a RfC.VolunteerMarek 23:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Before I do open RfC, I want to hear others' opinion on the matter.VolunteerMarek 23:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think the two tags that Walter removed are fine to go, three was unnecessary. The hotel section is still under discussion and shouldn't be removed yet. I don't think an RfC is necessary, I think the middle ground between what both sides want is fairly close. I think a few changes are needed either way to have a well compromised section. Along with changing the section headings. Adam4267 (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Walter really wasn't the one who removed them, but nevermind. The justifications for each tag are as follows:

POV - this is BOTH due to the inclusion of UNDUE material and the way that the material is presented. There's no context to the accusations of racism (for example, similar incidents at football matches in other countries, in other competitions etc). This has gotten better though.

UNDUE - Undue is part of POV, but here, since it is THE major problem, IMO, it justifies a tag of its own. The stuff on hotels, the stuff on dogs, the stuff on topless protest is barely related and should go. These are each undue *individually*.

When you start piling in lots of UNDUE stuff you wind up with a COATRACK. Hence the third tag.

On the hotel stuff, like I said, if we can get reliable sources which discuss a connection to organized crime then we can put that in. But if it's just random complaints about high hotel prices that just simply does not belong in the article. Hotel prices are high at any major sports competition, and other articles on such major sports competition (prime example, London Olympics), don't include this kind of trivia.

Honestly, the fact that certain editors are so keen on keeping this fairly trivial stuff in the article at all costs is making *me* suspect their motives.VolunteerMarek 00:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

And I'm glad that you think that RfC is unnecessary but since there does appear to be an obvious communication breakdown on the talk page, while at the same time some editors insist on their version (and falsely call it "consensus"), it's the logical next step. Tags in an article should stay until the problem is resolved. I have seen NO attempt by Walter to resolve any of the problems. Gwen-chan seems to be trying but is not quite there yet (perhaps the answer is in the sources s/he gave above).VolunteerMarek 00:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC) e

Walter, please!

[30] Stop with the false edit summaries. First of all, the "talk page" isn't a person so it cannot "conclude" anything. Second, if you mean "people on the talk page" have concluded, then that is simply false. As I keep saying over and over and over again, several editors have noted a problem with this section. It is not "fine". Whether or not these tags "are necessary" is still a subject of discussion. Quite simply, tags should not be removed until the issues are resolved, which they have not been.

You revert with false edit summaries. You refuse to engage in meaningful discussion and instead attack other editor's (imagined) motives. Your actions at this point are plain disruptive. VolunteerMarek 01:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Having read over the above section, I have to agree with Walter that consensus is that your tagging is not warranted. I would suggest/support the section be spun off into a Concerns and controversies over UEFA Euro 2012 article with each subsection being pared down slightly. This way some of the UNDUE could be dealt with (especially if further controversies arise) and the controversies can be covered in more complete detail on the fork page. (See things like and 2010 Winter Olympics and fork page Concerns and controversies over the 2010 Winter Olympics for how this is commonly done.)

Well then, that's a new opinion. But perhaps you didn't read the above discussion carefully enough, and yes, Walter has been working hard to marginalize some of the opinions expressed. So let me quote them again:

"Totally agree with my previous speaker. Some topic should definitely reduced to a couplue of words (just straight, short information), some should be removed and others marege whit each others. Animal welfare and Euro 2012? (who on teh earth add more info to this topic? does he know waht it is all about? I don't think so...) police criminiality? What elese? Landing on the moon? Someone should listen to the opinion of Wiki users and make some cleanning works with whole this controversies section."

@Walter Görlitz - Firstly, you should better start to use some arguments in "your statements". So far you do not represent proper level of so-called dicussion. Secondly. This is true that there's too much non-sporting issues on this topic so i suggests that Concerns and controversies should be shortened - this is topic about sporting event! Thirdly. If we should not add another heading, we should stay with ==Concerns and controversies== and then add sub-sections ==Ukrainian controversies== and ==Polish controversies==

"Let's summary... subsections "Boycott calls" & "Racism, antisemitism and hooliganism" (and "Claimed problems in preparation" in small extent too) should be trimmed to a couple of more important information. It will look something like "Hotels overcharging" subsection - direct information, no more opinions and other such stuff. I think it will be more absorbable for absorbable. And do not forget - this article is about SPORT EVENT - not "Problem of Ukrainian Nation, politics etc"."

"I think the miscellaneous section is wrongly named and should be split into several different sections. Controversies is generally considered a POV title for a section and maybe a better title is required. Some of the content needs trimming but I think a lot should stay. Boycott Calls needs to be reduced so that it just shows the facts of whats happened without so many opinions. The entire second paragraph and a lot of the fourth pararaph in the Racism section should be removed, again we don't need so many people's opinions (In this case there is a pro-England POV aswell). The Animal Cruelty section needs massively trimmed, or maybe a merging of it and other issues? It is mostly opinion and conjecture of animal welfare groups and little of it has to do with the actual tournament. Police criminality has nothing to do with the tournament so should be removed. Apart from that it seems mostly ok to me."

Does that honestly look like "consensus" to you?VolunteerMarek 02:07, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I shouldn't imply that the talk page itself, which is obvious both inanimate and non-sentient, concluded anything. I should have written "the discussion on the talk page has come to the consensus" rather than use the short hand that was used. However, I trust that in future, and due to the lack of space permitted for edit summaries, that you (and other editors) will allow the shortened version of my edit summaries to stand for the above phrase.

I'm sorry if you think I'm attacking your motives. I didn't intend to do so, and if you show me where I did, I'll either strike it (if it's on a talk page) or make a comment to the contrary (if it's in an edit summary).

Whether these are necessary is only a subject of discussion for Volunteer Marek. The rest of us talking here seem to have concluded that they're not, however I'll be willing to see evidence to the contrary. The other editors seem to agree that the prose can be edited for brevity but the topics are perfectly acceptable. I trust that it has also been noticed that the table of contents does not display those sub-topics specifically to avoid a litany of complaints being aired so early in the article.

Now, I will remind editors should WP:NPA:comment on '''content''', not on the '''contributor''' and not to engage in editing articles when the edits are controversial and discussion is still ongoing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Anon from Belgium hasn't shown face and parachuted in for the one edit.

NeonFor is a WP:SPA and a Polish nationalist who is objecting to anti-Polish material.

Adam4267 comments have been followed-up and we agree that editing, but not removal of content, needs to happen.

Can you show me where consensus to restore the coatrack and npov tags is? Also, while you're doing that, did we discuss the complete removal of the animal cruelty section? I must have missed the consensus-building process on those two issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:29, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is either just not true or a tactic to marginalize editors who disagree with you.

The anon IP has made several comments. Perhaps your attitude of WP:BITE may have had something to do with the fact that they haven't posted recently. Congratulations on driving a potential contribution away from the project.

Your labeling of NeonFor as a "Polish nationalist who is objecting to anti-Polish material" is a straight up personal attack and a violation of Wikipedia's policies. Very anti-collegial and a prime example of your attempts to marginalize any voices which don't fit your pov. I could just as well label you a "nationalist". It's not that hard. All it takes is typing the letters n. a. t. i. o. n. a. l. i. s. t. on the keyboard. But that's not how discussion on an encyclopedia works. Ad hominen attacks are not a substitute for reasoned argument. It might be worth noting that throughout this discussion, while some of the other folks that are disagreeing here, like Gwen-Chan, have actually made an effort to substantiate their arguments, find sources, do some real work, while all you've done so far is resort to name calling, invoking non-existent consensus and attack editor's supposed motives rather than the actual issues. I'm having trouble finding a single comment from you in the past few days which actually discusses the text, rather than just asserts "rightness" and attacks others.

Also, I think you meant to put this comment below.VolunteerMarek 02:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

The "evidence to the contrary" which you ask for is right there right above your post! How can you miss it???VolunteerMarek 02:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Look this stuff is all ridiculous, lets "comment on content not contributors". We are never going to get anywhere if these petty disputes continue. I think we are closer to a consensus than thought, but it actually takes discussion of the content. Rather than petty disputes and/or edit warring. Adam4267 (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Part of WP:NPOV is balance

In regard to this. Please see WP:BALANCE.

The text is well sourced. It is directly relevant as it is about the Panorama show which is being discussed and reactions to it.

And frankly, I am having trouble understanding the claim that "this isn't necessary as it has nothing to do with Euro 2012" - if this has nothing to do with the Euro 2012 then by the same logic, neither does the Panorama program. So either remove that part or keep this part.

That's what NPOV (which is non-negotiable) entails.VolunteerMarek 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry these reactions which are basically just saying "England is bad as Ukraine/Poland" have nothing to do with Euro 2012. And that section isn't about the Panorama programme it is about the issues of "Racism, anti-semitism and football hooliganism" in Ukraine and Poland. So having important Polish and Ukrainian people saying why that documentary is wrong is fine, because they are discussing Euro 2012. On reflection, this seems reasonable to include in the section Aviram Baruchyan, an Israeli player who plays as a midfielder for Polonia Warsaw was interviewed and told the program that he had never been harassed due to his ethnicity. His statement was cut from the show, as were the statistics provided by Polish police which showed that the number of racist incidence at matches has fallen over the last decade. However, the stuff about England is not - Euro 2012 is not in England. It is in Poland and Ukraine. And you don't need to tell me about POV or Balance, I know about them very well. Adam4267 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Template for the matches

Hi guys,

I think that we can use the template {{footballbox}} for the matches of the group stages, what do you think about it? TøW€®MªN ™ _{answer me} 10:43, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not in the main article. That's what we have sub-articles for the groups for. – PeeJay 12:54, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As for the tournament title in Ukrainian

It should be "Чемпіонат Європи з футболу 2012" not "Чемпіонат Європи по футболу 2012". Compare: 1 vs 2. Pamerast (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Totally agree. I'll change it immediately. I know it, because I'm from Ukraine. MAXXX-309 (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Spelling error

In the Suspension of PZPN section, "Polish Minster for Sport" should be "Polish Minister for Sport" (with the extra 'i').

•  Done -- Alexf^(talk) 13:44, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Mandžukić

Conflicting sources: UEFA say he scored twice, BBC say he scored once and that the second goal was an own goal by Shay Given (it was definitely a borderline case). I suppose UEFA's record is the most reliable source here since the stats will be based on this? - filelakeshoe 11:42, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what anyone other than UEFA says. UEFA keep the records on their own tournaments, and they recorded the third goal as belonging to Mandzukic. Given did not score an own goal. – PeeJay 12:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Ball micro chip and goal cameras

1) Does anyone know if a micro chip is used in the ball for sensoring goals?

2) Does anyone know how many cameras there are on each stadium and how they are arranged?

- Soerfm (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no form of goal-line technology being used at this tournament. And no, I have no idea how many cameras each stadium would have. – PeeJay 18:58, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 June 2012

46.99.251.6 (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC) GICMANI KARIN

•  Not done Empty request. -- Alexf^(talk) 15:02, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

If Greece wins the game vs. Russia, they will qualify.

The actual standings of the A group of the UEFA Euro 2012 Final Tournament is the following, after 2 matches played: RUSSIA 4 +3 CZECH REP. 3 -2 POLAND 2 0 GREECE 1 -1

Let’s investigate the cases for a greek win in the third game, facing Russia: Greece will have 4 points, with a goal difference ≥0 and Russia will also have 4 points with a goal difference of ≤+2. - If Czech Republic wins the table of standings will be as shown below: CZECH REP. 6 ≥+1 GREECE 4 ≥0 GR vs RU RUSSIA 4 ≥+2 GR vs RU POLAND 2 ≤-1

In this case Greece qualifies because the first criterion is the game between the two teams (or, for being just, the goal difference in the games between the teams with equal points). So Czech Republic qualifies first and Greece second from the Group. - If Poland wins, the standings will be: POLAND 5 ≥+1 GREECE 4 ≥0 GR vs RU RUSSIA 4 ≤+2 GR vs RU CZECH REP. 3 ≤-3

For the reason explained above. - If Poland and Czech Republic have a draw in their game, the table will be: RUSSIA 4 ≥+2 ≥+2 GREECE 4 ≤0 ≤+1 CZECH REP. 4 -2 -2 POLAND 3 (0)

In this case there are 3 teams with equal points gained and the goal difference of the matches played between them will count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ciberche (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I think such interesting calculation really would get more attention on the groups main articles talkpages. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:48, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Surely any notes of explaination explaining possible scenarios on Matchday 3 in Group A has to include EVERY possible scenario (however unlikely) for it to be of any use. The actual scerario described isn't actually that unlikely to happen, its very possible. And the explaination added earlier is very confusing, with the explaination that if the two results described happened it says that the wrong team will go through.

If Greece win against Russia, and Czech Republic draw against Poland, then Russia, Czech Republic, and Greece would all be on 4 points, with Poland automatically being out on 3. The group would then be decided by a head to head to head record between Greece, Russia and Czech Republic, in effect a mini league table between them 3 nations, with the Poland results for each nation being dropped. Russia, Greece and Czech Republic in that situation would ALL be on 3 points, and so it would come down to goal difference between those 3 countries, in the matches against each other. Greece would automatically get through if they win, so it comes down to the goal difference between Czech Republic and Russia, meaning Russia could lose by 4 goals to still have a better goal difference, and if they lost by 5 goals it would depend on goals scored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.108.243 (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Base camps notability

The map for base camps locations has grown pretty ugly, but before I'd invest any time to replace it by locator maps there is a question to be asked: is this stuff even notable? Such information is missing for the previous EURO and the last World Cup, so maybe scrap it here as well? — ⟨✆∣µzdzisław∣⚒⟩ 22:35, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

It might be notable because of the great distances betwin the base camps and the places where the matches are played. It would almost be the same distance for Denmark to stay home at their normal base camp and fly to Kharkov compared to what they "have to" do now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Isent it more normal to stay in the same city as once matches are played and then relocated when or if the team reached the quarterfinals? Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

This fact sure is notable itself, but currently a reader needs to infer it by themselves, especially if they are not familiar with geography and distances in Poland and Ukraine... Regards — ⟨✆∣µzdzisław∣⚒⟩ 23:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to simply plot the basecamps into the stadium map? right now we have right next to each other with almost the same info. Then the table with the basecamps could be moved down under the stadium table. Maybe remaking the basecamp table so it shows both where the teams stay and where their matches are. Then the reader that want to learn about the geografic would have a easy time seeing for example the info on his countries team. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Logo, slogan and theme songs

"The slogan reflects the fact that Poland and Ukraine were united in the past as one country and are now two nations in central and eastern Europe with ambitions to stage the best tournament in the history of the European Championship."

Poland and Ukraine were never united as a one country, someone mistook Poland for Russia or Ukraine for Lithuania. I believe this is quite a mistake and should be corrected as soon as possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.24.222 (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if it is true that the the slogan is suppose to tell that, but Ukraine and Poland actually have been united many times depending on what you mean by Ukraine and Poland. True the two countries with the excact borders of the present have never been a single state (like Czech and Slovaks) but they have been a part of the same cultural and political area many times. As late as before the second world war when the western (to some most ukranian) parts of Ukraine was a part of Poland. And of course they where united under Russian rule for many years before the first world war. And then there is of course the great Lithuanian-Polish empire that had most part of western Ukraine in it too. I am sure I have forgotton something betwin the present and the foundation of the first russian states by the wikings in Ukraine. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In that sense Poland and Germany were also 'united' as a one country, but I'm sure that's not really what the author meant. In deed, Ukraine was under Polish rule from time to time, or we were together a part of Russian Empire, but that shouldn't be called 'united'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.24.24.222 (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

No. Parts of Poland were part of the German federation, and Silesia encompassed part of what is both, but Germany is not presently part of the discussion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Denmark vs Portugal

Please change the score to 1-2 (1 to Denmark, 2 to Portugal)86.44.213.142 (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Correction: Final score: Denmark 2 - 3 Portugal. Treyvo (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Btw what is the point of adding protection for a week in a middle of a major tournament? Nightfall87 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Done Please use Template:Edit protected next time. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

ADMIN!!! PLEASE UPDATE, og break the protection. --Pixi Uno (talk) 18:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies section splitting

"Concerns and controversies" section grew up and now lends undue weight to certain ideas relative to the article as a whole. I think, this section must be split into a new article. MAXXX-309 (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

And now that the tournament is about to start it will become a lot less of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Restored. The only way it would be acceptable to remove it again would be to create a new article with the existing content and summarize the controversies and point to the new article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Not true. Most of the stuff in the old section was rewritten, merged with other subsection or move to other parts of the article. A lot of double references where erased, but I am sure that we dont need 3 or 4 references to the same sentence. A thinning is necesary when events progress and there is also Wikipedias notability policy to take into account. If you think a certain point (like the Holocaust section I made a section on below) should be restored you are free to put it in the talkpage and all editors can contribute to if it is notable or not. But general rewritting and thinning (like have been done with infastructure, now a part of the top section) is normal and good. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thin it, but don't remove it as the WP:AXE-grinders have done. Next total removal will result in a new article on the subject. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thin it much. This section has enormous undue weight. No need for new article, but thinning incl. removal some old stuff and reduction other to the essential info only is absolutely necessary. NeonFor (talk) 14:18, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

You are free to make any article on any subject you like and I wish you good luck in not getting it spedy deleted. I am sure you can make a fine article, I dont know if it would be notably, but that is not up to me. But stop destroying other editors work in adding, thinning and rewritting this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

@Jack Bornholm Are You talking about me or Walter Görlitz? NeonFor (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

As per your combined abilities in English, my point remains. This is censorship by a few nationalists. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

"Next total removal will result in a new article on the subject." There was no total removal - this just thinning an it is in progress now. Once again you can only destroy somone work. You have no right to create new article (will be deleted)NeonFor (talk) 15:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was talking to Walter, but everyone is free to make articles if they believe there is a notable need in Wikipedia. Of course the need may only excist in the editors mind. My abilities at english have been trashed before, but I have never been accused of being a part of a non english conspiracy. LOL. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Removing the link to the main article on the subject is simply self-serving censorship. The new article will not be deleted, but you can try. In short, there is no valid reason to delete the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no valid reason for the existence of this article. Otherwise all information about concerns & controversies should be moved there. So let's choose: moving all this text to new article (like in case of 'squads' section) or removing this article and thin this section...91.218.156.247 (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems thinning and moving. It's nationalists who want both the material completely removed. They assume we're fooled by their "nothing to see here" efforts. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not see anyone wants to delete both material. How can you judge the situation? how can you know is there something to see? It seems you're fooled by comerical media information so your opinion is nothing more than the internet-based stories (sic!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.218.156.247 (talk) 16:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Nationalists??? How would me being a danish nationalist have anything to do with this article? (I dont consider myself to be that, but even if I was I dont see the connection) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:01, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry Jack. I didn't mean to lump you in with the nationalists.

As for deleting material, in the two weeks that I've been gone massive sections have been removed. Just this morning another section was removed without discussion. There's not much we can do now that the article is locked, but at least the article won't be censored for a while. Perhaps we can request that the article will be unlocked if the nationalists agree not to remove any more material.

Since the new article exists, how should we prune what's left and summarize the controversies? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Who are those Nationalists you keep talking about? Are you yourself from Poland or Ukraine and is this a local political thing? I fully agree with the ones that are thinning out the section, it had undue weight.

• I think the way it was with 3 parts is good.
  • The historical UEFA concerns dating from yesteryear
  • The political boycott since it is a large thing in Europe on govermental level
  • The Hooligans/Racism since it directly concern the tournament.

But many different organisations or causes that try to tag themselve onto the EURO 2012 to get attention does not have to be a part of this article. The pestcontrol killing stray dogs and cats is a good example. Even though we in many countries does not see stray cats and dogs as pests they can be. I am sure many readers from middleeastern countries would agree. And historical these animals have been a pest at least in Ukraine. So that the general pestcontrol takes action to secure health and good conducts in the streets is a normal thing for them, just as killing rats. But some animal protection organisations does not agree. Killing stray dogs is normal, and having a discussion about it have nothing to do with the football championship. The people debating this topic simply would like to get more attention. And it is the same with more seriouse matters as democracy in the countries. It is seriouse discussions that have been going on for years, but they are not directly attached to the football. I only believes that subjects that are natural attached to the games (as hooliganism and the state of the stations and other UEFA concerns) or matters that Goverments have attached (like the boycott) should be a part of the article. Anyone else, noble or not, that want to advance their cause by attaching it to the EURO 2012 shouldnt be a part of this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

So why do we need new article? If we already has it, than almost all material should be placed there. In main article about Euro 2012 only just few major sentences should be placed, like in case of "Broadcasting" section. @ Walter Görlitz why do you call me and other users a Nationalists? I'm from Poland and most of these concerns are releated with Ukraine. I do not want to delete whole article as You've imagined yourself.NeonFor (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria

No reference to rules (for tie-breaking criteria).

This section is not very clear. For example what is the difference between 2 and 4 and 3 and 5. That is, I'm not sure what "in the matches among the teams in question" means.

For example (at the moment) Portugal and Denmark have the same points (3) and same Goal Difference (0) but Portugal is listed above Denmark in the table, why?

-122.150.200.116 (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

See the following link; it has the official tie breaking criteria (the amended version on page 66)

http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/91/48/36/914836_DOWNLOAD.pdf (Page 66) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohamedraif (talk • contribs) 13:00, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article full protected

With the current protection only Administrators can edit this article. I have asked the administrator Rjd0060 that have done this the following on his talkpage:

I see that you have made a full protection of this article. Even though I understand the background of this, with the many editing conflicts, I am worried that it will not be updates as well as before. Right now I see that the subarticle are already updated with the info on the Netherland versus Germany match. But since the article is now protected the editors normally doing this work can not do so. Have you considered how this article will be updated after every match? Are you going to do that twice a day, or have you asked other adminstrators for help. This article depend on fast updates for internet trafic, if it are not updated the trafic will stop. And I am sure we all agree that Wikipedia being popular is a good thing.Before the full protection it was updated during the games, that I guess is not necesary. But it should be updated straight after each match, and preferly at halftime too.

Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. This is a major current event, we should not be protecting this page. I strongly recommend unprotection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It is a major current event, but match results can go into the appropriate location. Until we have assurances from the nationalists that they aren't going to remove entire sections because they feel it's again WP:UNDUE, we can't leave the article. I suppose if others are willing to watch the article to revert such wholesale censorship or block those disruptive editors, this is the best choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Until we have assurances from editors who seem unable to comprehend the simple rule of "discuss content, not editors" and insist on repeatedly engaging in personal attacks, such as our friend Walter here, there's no point to the discussion. And apparently you're not too clear on the meaning of the word "censorship" either (hint: it's not the same thing as editorial judgment). If anything the section needs to be further paired down.VolunteerMarek 22:16, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

By reading the comments of the two honored editors above this comment I think it is clear why the article have been fully protected. But it still doesnt solve the problem about the update of the article. It is a lot of update we are talking about. Not just the result of the game, but also all the info in the infobox, the penality section, the goal score section and proberly more I have forgotten right now. This have all to be updates twice every day. Who are doing that now? Right now the infobox have still not been updated. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

If the problem comes from one or few editors, they should be temporarily topic banned or 1RR restricted by the admin, instead of all of us having to suffer from their edit warring (please note that I am not aware of who is edit warring here, and I am not concerned of who has been edit warring more or less; my comment here is just an argument for unprotection). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 22:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I will gladly submit myself to only monitoring of vandalism if the Early EUFA concerns section is restored, and edited if required. The rest of the controversies have been moved to their own article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have unprotected the page, as editors are correct that full protection is not appropriate. However I shall not hesitate to immediately block any editor who attempts to edit war over content without prior discussion, of which I see none on the page. Consider it under a 1 revert restriction--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the 1 revert restriction here. Can we add something to the edit notice? Something like {{community article probation}}? - filelakeshoe 14:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Please change the following line in the infobox:

| matches = 10 | goals = 25 | top_scorer = {{nowrap|{{flagicon|GER}} [[Mario Gómez]], {{flagicon|RUS}} [[Alan Dzagoev]] <small>(3 goals)</small>}}

for:

| matches = 12 | goals = 33 | top_scorer = {{nowrap|{{flagicon|GER}} [[Mario Gómez]],<br>{{flagicon|RUS}} [[Alan Dzagoev]] <small>(3 goals)</small>}}

It adds a <br> between the players' names so that the infobox is not as wide. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Semi-protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Broken wikitable

Someone should remove the broken wikitable under the group A section. Firstly because it is broken, secondly because it is supposed to cover all scenarii regarding qualification for quarter finals, and such a table belongs in the main article for group A (it already exists actually). Maimai009 07:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Already done - it's on a sub-page, and was fixed with this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Dash format

From "Host selection": "In 2005 these were narrowed down by UEFA to three candidates: Croatia–Hungary, Poland-Ukraine and Italy." The dash in Poland–Ukraine should be an ndash. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed it myself now. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Boateng ban

He's picked up 2 yellow cards in his first 2 games. This seems to have been missed. * mgSH 11:58, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, you need to add the following row to the table

Jerome Boateng

in Group B v Portugal in Group B v Holland

Group B v Denmark

ArtVandelay13 (talk) 13:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Semi-protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Germany v Netherlands

The hyphen between the scores in Group B should be an ndash. (This page protection is ridiculous...) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Semi-protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:22, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference list

Any idea why only 70 of the 96+ references are actually showing up in the reference section and why some are unlisted?VolunteerMarek 19:36, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The 70th reference is actually the last one in the article, even though in the article it is 96th. No idea why. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be references 68 through 93 that are not working.VolunteerMarek 20:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Your excellent detective work made it easy to find and fix. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice, thank you.VolunteerMarek 20:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Stadium Capacity

Why the capacity of stadiums, which are stated in the article, are less than attendance at the match, stated in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.113.65.206 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Because UEFA are absolutely incompetent. In their official documentation, they said that the capacity of the Warsaw stadium was 55,000, but the attendance at the POL v GRE game yesterday was at least 56,000. Fucking ridiculous. – PeeJay 21:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the UEFA stadium info articles they updated the max capcity of the stadiums, so I have updated it here.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria given in current version not correct

See this piece of news: [31]; or the regulations (scroll down to the last few pages for the amendment): [32]. I put the amended correct version a while ago: [33], not sure who re-edited it. This is significnat if Denmark and Portugal both lose 0-1 in the final match. Without the new criteria d, Denmark beat Portugal by UEFA coefficient; with the new criteria d, Portugal beat Denmark on the head-to-head between the two teams. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

An edit trying to correct references busted the tie-breaker list earlier today, the editor restoring it later apparently failed to notice the amendment and only added the original 8.07 from the competition regulations. Agreed that it needs to be re-added. Zeyes (talk) 22:06, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In current verion: PSO shootout, someone drunk? Matthew_hk tc 22:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

That was the criteria for 2008, which was almost applied had Turkey not scored that late goal against the Czechs. I guess somebody just thought it would still be in effect for 2012. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

It still is, actually, check section 8.08 of the regulations /AB-me (chit-chat) 22:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Took the liberty of re-adding this into the edit request /AB-me (chit-chat) 23:04, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the PK criteria to within the list. I hope it is correct! Chanheigeorge (talk) 23:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The following taken from an earlier version should be good. Somebody please make an edit request. I will also copy and paste to the group subpages. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:40, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria

If two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the following criteria are applied to determine the rankings (according to paragraphs 8.07 and 8.08 of the regulations, and amendment to 8.07 adopted by the UEFA Executive Committee):

1. Higher number of points obtained in the matches played between the teams in question;
2. Superior goal difference resulting from the matches played between the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points);
3. Higher number of goals scored in the matches played between the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points);
4. If, after having applied criteria 1 to 3 to more than two teams, two teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1 to 3 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the two teams in question to determine the final rankings of the two teams. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 5 to 10 apply in the order given;
5. Superior goal difference in all group matches;
6. Higher number of goals scored in all group matches;
7. If two teams which are tied in all criteria 1 to 6 play their last group match against each other (i.e., the result is a draw and the two teams have the same number of points, goal difference and goals scored), and provided no other teams within the group have the same number of points, the ranking of the two teams in question is determined by penalty shoot-out. Otherwise, criteria 8 to 10 apply in the order given;
8. Position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system;
9. Fair play conduct of the teams (final tournament);
10. Drawing of lots.

Note: As all teams have different UEFA national team coefficient, the last two tie-breakers (fair play conduct and drawing of lots) will never be applied in this tournament.

Support: Criteria No. 4 is important. For example, Group B last round, Germany 2-3 loses, Portugal wins, this criteria would apply. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 07:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Article is now Semi-protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 17:20, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I think I must withdraw my support. After carefully reading the regulations, I find no. 4 and no. 7 are only for the qualifying competition but not for the final tournament. I don't know why its like that, it can cause a serious problem if Germany really loses with 2-3 while Portugal wins with a good result, but the rule is the rule. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Forget about it, I didn't see this. --Tomchen1989 (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Germany already through

As Germany beat Portugal, Portugal cannot finish above Germany. So, no matter what happens in the Denmark v Germany game, the Germans are already through. Shouldn't they be coloured in differently? OldSquiffyBat (talk) 08:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If both Denmark (vs Germany) and Portugal (vs Netherlands) win thier next game (three teams with 6 points) than Germany may still finish 3rd. The tie-breaking will be decided by goal difference.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not necessarily goal difference, maybe goals scored in head-to-head-matches or other criterias.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Portugal can finish above Germany, for instance Portugal wins and Germany loses 0-1 -> Germany is eliminated.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 June 2012: France already qualified

France is already qualified for the next round. If England wins against Sweden, Sweden has less points than France and France is qualified. If England draws to Sweden, France has a better Goal Differance than Sweden and is qualified. If England loses to Sweden, France has a better Goal Differance than England and is qualified.

So eather way, France is already qualified.

Gordijnhoofd (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Not done: I'm not messing with the template!!!!! Mdann52 (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

As you can read on the main article on group D there is a very very small change that France will not qualified. It is a very little risk but in football one shall neve say never. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

That chance is not that small, France just has to lose by 1 goal more than England lose.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Stray comment (moved to bottom of talk page 6/16/2012)

I think there are some confusions between the group state of the finals and the group stage of the qualifying competition:

The tie breaking conditions are, I think, as follows:

Equality of points after the group matches 8.07 If two or more teams are equal on points on completion of the group matches, the following criteria are applied, in the order given; to determine the rankings: a) highernumberofpointsobtainedinthematchesamongtheteamsinquestion; b) superior goal difference in the matches among the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points); c) higher number of goals scored in the matches among the teams in question (if more than two teams finish equal on points); d) superiorgoaldifferenceinallthegroupmatches; e) highernumberofgoalsscoredinallthegroupmatches; f) position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system (see Annex I, paragraph 1.2.2); g) fairplayconductoftheteams(finaltournament); h) drawingoflots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.83.177 (talk) 15:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie Breaking Criterion with 2 teams

There's an error in the group stage part where it says "if more than two teams finish equal on points" twice. However the requirement is two teams or more, not more than two. See http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/91/48/36/914836_DOWNLOAD.pdf point 7.04. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash2in1 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I can't see any error in the text.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

7.04 describes the qualification, final tournament rules are in 8.07.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right, I stand corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dash2in1 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say in the UEFA document that a penalty shootout is conducted in case of a tie between group matches? 72.53.153.82 (talk) 22:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

8.08 --Anaxagoras13 (talk) 08:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Quarter Finals

Which silly little boy has put Spain vs France and Croatia vs England in?? Neither are decided yet. Change it immediately.--86.46.171.144 (talk) 20:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be mentioned that Germany and Portugal will be playing their quarters in stadia they helped open. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.18.73 (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Groups Shading

In Group A surely the Russia and Poland columns in the table should be shaded in red to identify that they are eliminated? Not a major thing but should be looked at. Jas39 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

This should be gone though once all group matches are done, heck this should've not been done for this examples as all group matches were done for that group. –HTD 16:46, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I've changed it on the main page for 'Uefa Euro 2012' hope that was okay? Jas39 (talk) 17:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally I think that we should keep the red shading until the all groups have finished their matches. I find that it gives a better view. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Why change the shading after all the groups have played all their games, it looks better so why not keep the red shading in? Jas39 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

It would not be consistent with the articles on earlier championships. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Change the red shading on the previous championships then, the red shading in the table looks a lot better. 87.127.32.60 (talk) 06:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The red shading isn't needed once the group matches are done. It'll be redundant to the green shades for the advancing teams. –HTD 08:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

No reason to change all this articles, easier simply to change this one. And after looking at the old articles I agree with HD, the red shading is redundant and it looks a lot better without the red shading. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Results map

We should replace the qualification map with a results map, similar to the ones in all the other Euro entries, such as this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieftastic (talk • contribs) 03:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

• I have made this (normally they are only made after the tournament):

[File:Euro 2012 results map.png]

- Soerfm (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Why not have both maps? This one could be put into the groupstage. I will be bold at do so and lets see if it catches on. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Local prices in Kyiv

Enjoy EURO 2012 to the fullest, taste the local cuisine and culture. Local prices will surely help any visitor.

Food If you want to get the real feeling of Ukraine and save some money at the same time then you should avoid eating out at busy streets and tourist places. The best advice is to eat at places where the locals go.

There are 2 McDonalds in Kyiv with the following prices in dollars: Double Cheeseburger – 1, 8 $, Big Tasty – 3, 7 $, Hamburger – 0, 8 $, Big Mac – 2, 25 $, Fried Potato – 1, 2 $, Village Potato – 1, 5 $, Chicken nuggets – 2 $, Fish Fresh Roll – 2, 9 $.

However, if you would like to try the local cuisine and dishes such as Ukrainian borsch or varenyky, you will not pay more than 1, 5 $. Here are some recommended places where you can eat local food:

■Puzata Khata
■Dva Gusia

Note: McDonalds, Puzata Khata & Dva Gusia have free WC.

Beer

If you would like to enjoy your pint of beer in Ukraine you should bear in mind that drinking alcohol in public places and streets is strictly prohibited! The fine for breaking the law is 6, 75$.

As for the prices, you can get your beer at a supermarket from 0, 6$ to 2, 5 $ or at a bar where the average price is around 1, 5 – 2 $.

Nightlife Those who would like to enjoy the nightlife in Ukraine there are many great clubs, discos and pubs. The average entrance fees are from 12, 5 $ – 25 $, depending on the club.

Public Transport The best way to save money on transportation is to take a walk and avoid taxis. The following charges apply for the public transportation:

Bus, trolleybus, tram – 0, 2 $

Local Marshrutka (mini bus) – 0, 3 – 0, 4 $
The tube – 0, 25 $

Source: Andrewfighter (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though these info would be interesting for a person traveling to a fan traveling to the games, the wikipedia is a encyclopedia not a news or a tourist page. |What Wikipedia is not article clearly states that and I am sure you would enjoy readint the whole article. But just to qoute a line:

• '"Travel guides. An article on Paris should mention landmarks, such as the Eiffel Tower and the Louvre, but not the telephone number or street address of your favorite hotel, nor the current price of a café au lait on the Champs-Élysées. Wikipedia is not the place to recreate content more suited to entries in hotel or culinary guides, travelogues, and the like. Notable locations may meet the inclusion criteria, but the resulting articles need not include every tourist attraction, restaurant, hotel or venue, etc. Also, while travel guides for a city will often mention distant attractions, a Wikipedia article for a city should only list those that are actually in the city. Such details may be welcome at Wikitravel or Wikia travel instead."

And this is not even an article on any of the cities hosting the matches but simply and article on about the European championship finals. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Question

Sorry if my question is stupid, but why did Greece advance? They have equal points with Russia, and then the next criteria is the goal difference, right? That's higher for the Russians. Help me understand. - Dubfire (talk) 06:56, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article you'll see that the second tie-breaking criteria (after points) is points in head-to-head matches between the tied teams. Greece and Russia are on 4 points, but Greece beat Russia, so Greece go through. DragonQ (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criterias 2-4 does not apply. Here's the reason for number 2: "(if more than two teams finish equal on points)". According to these criteria Greece would not advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.117.214 (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Criteria 1 applies, Greece beat Russia.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:01, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Prize money

Do we need a section on prize money for this championship? Has it been announced? -- Y not? 21:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It has been. First is 23.5 million € i think. Feel free to add if sourced. -Koppapa (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims of Dutch hooliganism

On 18 June, User:Mvg040 added the following claims to this article:

A clash involving Dutch and Russian, Ukrainian football supporters took place in Kharkiv. 17 People were arrested - 10 Dutch and 7 Russians, 7 people hospitalised - 3 Ukrainians and 4 Russians. The clash started when Russian and Ukrainian fans provoked the Dutch by burning the flag of The Netherlands and the Dutch retaliated by attacking the Russians & Ukrainians.

On 13 June 2012, after the Euro 2012 match between Netherlands and Germany, Dutch fans attacked German fans and set fire to cars with German license plates.

17 June 2012, after the Euro 2012 match between Portugal and Netherlands, a group of according to eyewitnesses, 250 Dutch fans attacked the Portuguese fans that were chanting victory songs at the Dutch. 27 Portuguese and 2 Dutch were hospitalised, 5 Portuguese seriously injured.

All this seems highly unlikely to me, as there have been no news reports about these incidents that I'm aware of. Setting cars on fire, flag-burning, and hospitalizing people is quite serious, so there should be some news sources if this were all true.

As there is no proof whatsoever that any of these things happened, I removed these claims. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

the ranking in Group A is listed incorrectly - Poland has two ties and a loss, putting them in the last place. Russia is in the third place with 4 points.

173.3.202.88 (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. El0i (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 June 2012

In the discipline section it is mentioned Portugal was fined due to spectator incidents when in fact, if you read the source, it was actually fined due to being late for the 2nd half of the game against Germany.

It should be changed from:

Apart from discipline measures following violation of football rules, UEFA fined the German Football Association €10,000, the Portuguese Football Federation €5,000, the Croatian Football Federation €25,000, and the Football Union of Russia €30,000 for spectator incidents.

To:

Apart from discipline measures following violation of football rules, UEFA fined the German Football Association €10,000, the Croatian Football Federation €25,000, and the Football Union of Russia €30,000 for spectator incidents. The Portuguese Football Federation was fined €5,000 for delaying the start of the second half of the game against Germany.

 Done - I have added that note, as the source says so.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Source choices

I made a few edits to the "discipline" section of the page and added two citations. I made the citation from UEFA as opposed to a news source like The Telegraph or BBC. I looked that the Wikipedia page discussing reliability of sources, and it said that wikipedia authors should rely on "third-party" sources. So which source should I choose: UEFA (not third-party) or reputable news sources, like The Telegraph or BBC (third-party)? Thanks. Dar5995 (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Discipline isn't a particularly controversial subject with UEFA so I think they can be assumed to be neutral and reliable on it. Adam4267 (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

In general, though, when I edit pages about UEFA competitions, I usually pick the uefa.com sources as opposed to other sources, such as The Telegraph or BBC. What do you think is better (in general)? Dar5995 (talk) 01:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Since this is an UEFA competition the UEFA.com sources should be used. Kante4 (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Add seeding to group tables

I suggest adding the initial seeding next to the teams into Groups tables, to make it more informative. For e.g. In Group A, it communicates value when you say 13th seeded Czech topped the group. Yes, this is trivial for die-hard soccer fans, or europians, but an encyclopedia target all other audience as well. Also, such information can be deduced from other sections of this page or ranking page, but difficult as a reading.

Team            	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Czech Republic (13)	3	2	0	1	4	5	−1	6
Greece (8)       	3	1	1	1	3	3	0	4
Russia	(6)     	3	1	1	1	5	3	+2	4
Poland	(16)    	3	0	2	1	2	3	−1	2

Atif.hussain (talk) 02:31, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I am against this change for the very reasons you suggest: the information is already present elsewhere in the article. It doesn't need repeating just to indicate giant-killings or upsets. After all, in the example you've used, although Poland has seed #16, they were included in Pot 1 for the draw, making the seeds misleading. – PeeJay 02:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

No, as PeeJay said and it just looks silly. Kante4 (talk) 12:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Large gap between text and column table in Qualification section

There is a large gap between the introductory text and list of qualified teams in the Qualification section. I don't know how to format it so that the columns can be next to the picture. Can someone fix this? Dar5995 (talk) 10:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Is there really any reason to have this list? The name of the teams are above and below this section. The metodh the teams have secured their participation, either by winning a group or playoff, have no bearing on their seeding and others in this final. And of course there is a very nice main article. I am being bold and are removing the list. If you disagree please reinstated it AND state the arguments here so we can talk about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The analogous list appears in each of the last three UEFA Euro pages (2008, 2004, and 2000). There is a slightly different format in each page, but to me the format on the 2008 and 2004 pages is the best. I am going to add the table and it should remain because it will mirror the other pages. Dar5995 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

section: Match officials

With a subpage/main article with all names of the officials couldnt we remove the list from the main article. We dont have any of the names of the squads (like the team captains) and I think it would be good have the same style in this section. It is kind of the idea with a subarticle that all the info does not need to be in all the article. Otherwise there is not really any reasons for making subarticles. I am being bold and are removing the list. If you disagree please reinstated it AND state the arguments here so we can talk about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:28, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Support. I added a similar section to the Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 match officials. Just like with seeding and venues, an additional article is superfluous and unlikely to be edited in the future. Dar5995 (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

edit request: Anatoliy Tymoshchuk

The Ukrainian midfielder was cautioned in the match vs. England, which was his second one for the tournament, so given Ukraine's elimination, will miss one 2014 World Cup qualification match. Please add to suspension section. Btw, Tymoshchuk received his yellow card (for committing a foul to prevent an England breakthrough) in the immediate aftermath of Devic's disallowed goal (which was an incorrect decision, as admitted by tournament officials), so there is the chance that UEFA may decide against suspending him, but it seems as if they rarely erase cards. Oleg Morgan (talk) 01:10 am, 21 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.114.150 (talk)

Second yellow card accumulations and single yellow cards are erased upon completion of the tournament and do NOT carry over to the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification tournament (see 21.05 on p. 27 of UEFA Euro 2012 Rules and Regulations). Only red cards carry over, as in the case of Wayne Rooney (from Euro 2012 qualifying tournament) and Keith Andrews (who will miss one World Cup qualifying match after receiving two cautions in the game against Italy). Therefore, there is no need to add anything to the suspension section. Dar5995 (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, my mistake, I wasn't completely sure about that, thanks for clarifying! :) Oleg Morgan (talk) 21:51pm, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Concerns and controversies section

See also: Talk:Concerns and controversies related to Euro 2012

I am sure whatever wiev we all have on this section we can agree that not all people making concerns or attaching their own causes to the championship should be covered in the section. On the other hand I dont think we should simply ignore past or present notable problems the hosts or the championship have had to overcome just because this is a sports article. Of course the main focus of the article should be on the matches, but there should also be room for the problems the once taking care of the EURO 2012 faces.

• Would these 3 parts be good.
  • The historical UEFA concerns dating from yesteryear. Is is of course historical info on the championship, but it is an encyclopedie. Since it is UEFA concerns it must be notable and relevant to the UEFA EURO 2012.
  • The political boycott since it is a large thing in Europe on govermental level and ministers have public stated that they boycott.
  • The Hooligans/Racism since it directly concern the tournament being the fans.

I have put these 3 parts in the article and I am looking forward to hearing opionons about this subjcet. I have also put all the different discussion on different subsections in this section. Before they where all over this talkpage but now they are gathered in the same place since they are all about the same thing. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Holocaust Memorial and Chernobyl

Delegations including the German, the Italian, the Dutch and the English, visited the Auschwitz concentration camp, before the start of the tournament, to pay tribute to the 1.1 million people who died there.

UEFA confirmed to CNN that it had no plans to make a donation to victims of the Chernobyl disaster but would invite 125 children to a match in Kiev on June 19. The chairman of the Chernobyl Children's Trust described it as "lip-service" and a missed opportunity to raise awareness about the ongoing consequences of the disaster.

This section was in the article. Is it important enough to be in the article or is it simply two very seriouse and noble charities that are getting a little attention. I have parked it here to hear your opinons Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Does not belong in the article. it is unrelated to the sport and the tournament. May belong in the articles for the places (though I doubt it) but that would have to be discussed there. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, does not belong here. Pretty irrelevant to the tournament. Hopefully now the tournament's started we can prune down on the trivial activism and controversy cruft in this article. People use these sporting events as an excuse to start shouting about whatever issues the host countries are involved with and I don't think this should be given too much weight. - filelakeshoe 13:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Politic, advertisment and activism is a part of football and have been for a long time. A issue as the lady in prison have made a lot of noise all over europe and are involving many goverments. I think such things should have a small section as it have now. But I agree there must be limits. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be in the article. Flags-Chaser (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Should be restored to the article as it relates to several teams. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko (Political Boycots)

Since it has been in the media all over Europe and has been considered on goverment level in most countries I guess that the boycot section have its place in the article. I belive that it would be good to put a picture of the person in question in this section. It will be the only photo in the section so it would not crowed it. Even though many dont recognize the name they will the photo of her. Maybe it should be another photo of her, but this one relates to the section by shoving the two politicians (from the same euro party) as mentioned in the section. It is alway a good question how much mention of the politics that sports also is full of that have to be in a article like this, but this section is here and I believe that a photo is good to quickly show the problem and then we can go on with the matches. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

The killing stray cats and dogs

I was wondering why the killing of animals in preparation for the EM has been remove from the page?

This almost seems like a form of censorship, which is a really big disappointment.

Szklany (talk) 20:26, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Even though we in many countries does not see stray cats and dogs as pests they can be. I am sure many readers from middleeastern countries would agree. And historical these animals have been a pest at least in Ukraine. So that the general pestcontrol takes action to secure health and good conducts in the streets before a major event is a normal thing for them, just as killing rats. But some animal protection organisations does not agree. Killing stray dogs is normal where they are a pest, and having a discussion about it have nothing to do with the football championship. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Doing that as regular policy is not unusual. Do so to make way for the games is noteworthy. The claim was made and sustained that it was for the games. Agree with Szklany that it's a form of censorship. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it has something to do with the football championship, these dogs where killed in order to prepare for the championship. Even if they are seen as pests in that country, there has been outrage and protests in other countries about it, and not even mentioning it is just plain wrong.

Oh and btw wiki sites in other languages mention it at least in passing. Szklany (talk) 07:55, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

So if the cities in mentioning have had a rat problem and they took action to take care of this problem before the EURO 2012 you still think it should be mentioned in the article? I would think they have swept the street and maybe also cut the trees so they look good, maybe they have also painted some of the official buildings . I dont know but it would be normal to clean and refreshing the city before the arrival of important guests. Just as any of us would do if we got important and dear visitors to our home, and kill the stray rat we might have luring around. Isent that just normal behavior? Is the problem not that in some cultures cats and dogs are showed greater love than in other cultures, and that is why the action can not be seen as normal preparetions to a event. That sounds very much as cultural imperialism to me. Do you have any references on uproar in Poland and Ukraine about it or is it simply foreigners trying to advance animal right by using the EURO 2012? If homeless people was bussed out of the cities it would be something to write about. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes i think that would be fair to put in the article, if there were protests in other countries and the country itself against killing the rats. And since big news corporations and other media outlets have talked about it, I think that it at least deserves a mention. To me it just seems like people are trying to protect the image of the games. And btw here is a link about the protests in the Ukraine Protests over stray dog killings in Ukraine. 89.244.72.164 (talk) 10:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes. And a killing of alligators on the loose, and the pythons that escaped the zoo, and the primates exhibit that was infiltrated, and the minx farm that was attacked by soccer hooligans from Lichtenstein. Why can't you grasp the concept that anything that is done to accommodate the games or results from the staging of the games is fair to discuss and is not undue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Time to thin

Now that the section has been restored, we should give a brief summary of all controversies and move the details to the main article. If we can condense each of the controversies to one or two sentences that would be ideal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Then please do that - once it's done then these disagreements will become less pertinent. Please be careful however not to create any WP:POVFORKs.VolunteerMarek 15:11, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I personally think that there should still be 3 subsections to this section with the major theemes. But maybe before that a kind of start paragraf would be good. The kind that is in the start of articles. If all the many problems simply is mentioned in a long list it would saying that the German Chancellor boycotting Euro 2012 is of the same importance as the leader of the Tjernobyl relief organisation being angry that not enough attention have been giving to his organisation. Do you think that all the problems have the excact same weight? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

An Idea:What about adding the Early UEFA concerns (in a shorten version of course) to the host selection section. That way it will thin this section (it could still be mentioned with a single sentence in the lead) and still be mentioned as a historical fact. Much about this contreversy was about UEFA sports politic anyway and a part of a bit unjusted prolonged selection process. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the "Host selection" section is a better place for some of the "Early concerns" stuff, though the extent of the material moved should be trimmed. In particular the stuff about the 2010 interview is a bit anachronistic and not very significant (nothing happened).VolunteerMarek 15:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Now I agree with Walter Görlitz - "If we can condense each of the controversies to one or two sentences that would be ideal" - that's the point! Offcourse, like Jack Bornholm said not all problems have the excact same weight but not all problems should be mentioned in these few sentences. All problems will be detailed in the new artcle. Now we should condense 3 major controversies into one or two sentences and mark that the others problems also exist in another 1-2 sentences. Everything else should be placed and detailed in new article.NeonFor (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

All of the controversies in the spin-off article should be mentioned, although I agree that not all deserve the same weight. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

And by "weight" I mean number of sentences. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I've prepared a brief summary of most controversies releated to the tournament. One or two sentences for most of them should be enough. So this is it:

In response to Yulia Tymoshenko's hunger strike and her mistreatment in a Ukrainian prison some European politicians and governments have announced they will boycott the tournament in Ukraine.

Ukraine has come under criticism from animal welfare organizations for killing stray cats and dogs in order to prepare for Euro 2012. Ukrainian Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources and Minister Of The Environment takes some actions to prevent killing animals but it is still remains unclear how this measures will be enforced.

Bombs explosions took place in Dnipropetrovsk on 27 April 2012 and were described as a terrorist attack that may jeopardize the organization of the tournament in Ukraine.

Another minor important issues were associated with FEMEN’s group protests against prostitution and sex tourism in Ukraine, and enormous raising hotel prices by many hoteliers in this country.

Please, lets someone write another 2-3 sentences about 'racism & hooliganism' and additional couple of words which will serve as a introduction (short version of ‘Early UEFA concerns’ subsection). After that, we could be able to put this text to the main article. NeonFor (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good suggestion. Any other responses/comments?VolunteerMarek 16:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

There are a few Wikicaps issues and it could be combined into a single paragraph, otherwise a good start. Missing information. The following have not yet been addressed: Criticism of preparations, Suspension of PZPN and hotels overcharging. Another paragraph for racism, antisemitism and hooliganism issues. --Walter Görlitz (talk)

For early concerns:

After Poland and Ukraine were chosen by a vote of the UEFA Executive Committee as host countries for Euro 2012, several issues arose that jeopardized the Polish/Ukrainian host status. In Ukraine there were financial difficulties related to stadium and infrastructure renovation related to the 2008 financial crisis. In Poland, issues arose related to corruption within the Polish Football Association. In April 2009 however, the president of UEFA, Michel Platini announced that all was on track and that he saw no major problems. After a UEFA delegation visited Ukraine in September 2011, he stated the country was "virtually ready for Euro 2012".

The 'racism & hooliganism' part is the tricky one so I'll leave it alone for now.VolunteerMarek 14:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The stuff on FEMEN, hotel prices and stray dogs, has been moved to the "Concerns and controversies" article and should just stay there. Here it would be sufficient to include a "Main:Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012" link.VolunteerMarek 14:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

So, the section in main article was thinned as we discussed it here. Every concerns and controversies was mentioned in the main article. Nothing was cut off or removed – everything is moved to the -> Concerns and controversies related to UEFA Euro 2012 so please add all new informations (if they occur) ONLY to this article and DO NOT restore it to the Euro 2012 main article.. Obviously we could change some sentences in this thinned section.NeonFor (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2012 (UTC)