Talk:UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying

Non decision

The article includes the information that "UEFA did not decide to keep France and the Republic of Ireland separate in the draw". Indeed they did not make that decision. There is an infinite number of decisions that they did not make: they did not decide to engrave the names of the teams on baked beans, to be drawn from a pitcher plant halfway down a cliff by members of Earth Wind and Fire's brass section, abseiling naked while reciting the 17 times table in Quechua. That method of making the draw was never suggested, but there again, neither was ensuring the separation of France and Ireland. Throwaway comments in response to tongue-in-cheek questions at a press conference do not necessarily generate good encyclopaedic content, and not every comment that is verifiable is relevant or noteworthy. Any meaningful argument for retaining this gloss? Kevin McE (talk) 00:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

How about, you aren't the arbiter of what is and isn't relevant to other people? The information has been here for months, if not longer, without anybody finding it so irrelevant, so the question should be, how do you intend to prove that it's not relevant, taking these basic facts into account? The question was obviously asked by the press as a pertinent issue, unlike your long list of made up fantasy crap. And from what crystal ball did you divine the idea that this was a tongue in cheek query either? Were you there? Put simply, if you've got an argument against its inclusion as a piece of reliably sourced and prima facie relevant info, that isn't simply a straw man argument, or an assertion that you are the voice of the reader, then present it. Otherwise, I think you might just have to deal with the fact that not every article on Wikipedia is going to contain information you personally wanted to read. MickMacNee (talk) 00:31, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me repeat my question: Any meaningful argument for retaining this gloss? Kevin McE (talk) 00:35, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's reliably sourced, of obvious relevance at least to paid journalists if not to you, and hasn't been objected to by anybody until you turned up with the pretty vacuous point that it's 'gloss', and that you should have some sort of veto on what is and is not relevant content. And I'll repeat myself too, if intentional deafness is the game you really want to play here: do you actually have a better reason to remove it other than the fact you think it's as irrelevant to readers as your pretty pointless strawmen examples are? MickMacNee (talk) 01:00, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I also think that it is NOT noteworthy. Otherwise, you might as well add "there

The person who added the comment is in favour of its retention. That is to be expected, but does not establish a consensus for inclusion, and it is inclusion, not exclusion, that must be justified. There is no evidence presented that there ever had been a proposal that these teams be separated in the draw, and so even though no decision was made to keep them separate, there is no evidence that any decision was made to not keep them separate. Indeed, it is not even proven that a question was ever asked as to whether consideration had been given to keeping them separate. Plenty of other European teams have had controversial matches in recent times, this never has been grounds for avoiding matches in later tournaments, so why should it have been noteworthy here? Given that the citations cannot even agree on Platini's words, their veracity cannot be assumed. Kevin McE (talk) 01:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Exclusion doesn't have to be justified? That's proveably false tbh, certainly for uncontroversial & reliably referenced content like this. Go try it on any random page, see how long your removal lasts. And the fact that it has existed for so long without challenge does indicate a consensus. And there's been well over 1,000 page hits a day here with zero comment on it, showing just how strong it is infact. It doesn't have to have been a formal proposal to be relevant or worthy of notice, that's again, just your personal view of what should be on the page. But I'll take sources judgement on what's relevant or worth noting over that any day. You want to see an active consensus on it? Then go to WP:3O. Never mind 'plenty' and 'recent', if you have a real example, then let's have it, so we can see if a) they could be potentially drawn, and b) if any sources bothered to take notice of the potential of them being kept apart, enough to solicit Platini for his opinion on the matter. How he was solicited is frankly irrelevant. As for the sources, if you think the likes of AFP and the Irish Independent are unreliable, then Wikipedia is screwed. Without a copy of the full transcript, your claim there's been a discrepancy here is just that, your claim. If you have to point out how the coverage in different sources differs to try and make your point, all that does is show that multiple sources took notice of the thing you are arguing is not worth noticing. MickMacNee (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If there are over 1000 hits a day here, and your addition is as well received as you suggest, then this discussion will soon fill up with comments in support of it, in which case I will of course cede to consensus, as any responsible editor would. As to what is proveably false: prove it. If there is no discrepancy between sources, you will be able to tell me exactly what Platini said. What the sources definitely do not say is that he was commenting on any proposal that the draw might have been rigged to keep them apart. However, the point of a talk page is to allow many people to join in, so maybe we should leave it to let others comment. Kevin McE (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, seeing as you seem to be repeating yourself and still don't seem able to hear replies. To make it absolutely clear for anyone who might be responding though, no, I don't have the transcript so no, I can't tell you what he said, or prove or disprove there is a discrepancy in the sources. Neither can you. It's frankly irrelevant. He was clearly asked about it, and he clearly responded. Sure, they don't say it was a proposal, but I never said it was, or that this is even needed to make it relevant. As for proving the obvious, again, I'll let others interpret how well you know Wikipedia if you really think that's not a basic fact. MickMacNee (talk) 12:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll dip my toe in the water. I don't think anyone disputes the general notoriety of the handball controversy, but it's not the sort of thing that typically would trigger something as drastic as ruling the teams not be drawn in the same group. Honestly, if it hadn't been included in this article, it would never have occurred to me even as a possibility. However, it was brought up in the press conference and commented on by Platini. That tells me that at least the reporter(s) there believed it was a topic of interest to their readers/viewers, and that it had some notability. I say leave it in the article. LarryJeff (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

But the key issue is that the only thing that we know came up in the press conference is the prospect of RoI playing France, not the prospect of the draw being arranged so as to keep them apart. Kevin McE (talk) 08:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Intense rivalries are the stuff of sport. On first reading, I found it odd to see this matter included because it's highly fanciful that a sporting event would arrange to avoid a match because of a previous refereeing controversy, and this conclusion seems especially strong to avoid because in the immediate aftermath of the fateful match Ireland wanted another match as soon as possible. The standard I understand from the proponents of its inclusion is that it came up at a press conference, although I believe that was only because in the rehearsal simulation the two were actually drawn together. If not for that accident, it would have gone unmentioned. What is really notable here? That an Irish French soccer match would carry overtones of their last meeting? That Ireland might get some satisfaction from defeating France? Wow! There are many rivalries more intense. This isn't even a decision because keeping them apart wasn't considered. Is it notable that they didn't consider it? I hardly think so. A matter that is not considered without controversy is not notable. It might not even be trivia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As above, who are you to judge what is notable, better than reliable sources? They wanted the match replayed for obvious reasons, none of which have anything to do with whether they would be happy to play them in these later qualifiers, for a completely different competition. If you have a single example of any other existing 'rivalry' that did come out in the rehearsal draw being mentioned in actual sources, then please, let's hear it, and we can include it too as being of equivalent importance and worth. Otherwise, it's just more strawmen, and your argument is not much different to Kevin's, a.k.a. 'I'm not interested/DONTLIKE this info, and I am going to apply some ridiculous unheard of and completely made up standard for inclusion that articles must only contain info on formal happenings, as a cover for my obvious straight up personal opinions on the matter'. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

And one thing's for certain, had they actually been drawn together, it would have formed the central part of all subqequent coverage. Not background info, straight up core issue stuff. As it was in the World Cup too (although as ever, there were Wikipedians way back then using their prowess as better editors than those who are paid to do it, to confidently say what would and would not be covered by sources and was thus notable or not). To suggest such a draw would have then been considered trivia, to suggest this is what would happen if any other 'rivals' had been drawn together, is frankly, not remotely believeable. I'm watching England v Wales right now, which is a centuries old 'rivalry', and there's absolutely no mention of past controversial refereeing decisions, certainly not over and above really notable issues of the pre-game/game coverage, because that's not how the real media works. It's not how Wikipedia should work either. MickMacNee (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Infact, I'm reminded of how Kevin acted in the Afd on the actual controversy article, where he also tried to assert real world coverage was unimportant compared to Wikipedia editor's views (and infact, WP:FOOTY editors should have a privelaged status even in that group on football issues!), and he also had a habit of asking for proof of formal happenings before he would accept something was important enough to include in any article. It was apparently not enough for a newspaper to report the words of notable individuals, he wanted proof that the Irish were going to raise it with the French as part of a formal agenda item, in a completely unrelated dipolomatic gathering. MickMacNee (talk) 16:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Mick that I have not been clear. I agree with much of what you say of course. If the match had happened it would get a lot of attention. But shouldn't we focus on whether or not it was notable that the organizers didn't even consider if they should do something? I don't agree that anything a journalist writes about is notable -- or even true. That's not the correct standard. And I am not saying the case is all one way or the other. I see it as a slightly difficult issue, so to decide it fairly I find myself trying to find an analogy to put it in context. So I will reject the charge that I'm taking an ad hoc standard. Rather, I would ask if there is another case of a competition committee not considering something at all and the decision they didn't take then is considered notable? I'm struggling to come up with an example of that, but if there are some that would clarify. I think it's fine for us to be mindful of why the journalists asked about the decision that wasn't taken (the simulation raised the issue). The importance of that fact I believe can be made clear by pointing out that, as far as I know, no one suggested that France and Ireland should not play matches before the simulation raised the possibility that they would meet in the qualifiers. That is a very significant fact that in my mind tips the scales. If it was indeed a genuine controversy, it would have come up before the simulation. As I say, it takes some work to put the issue in context. Thanks for thoughts that I think are part of the picture for me. But the lack of a discussion before the simulation suggests to me that this is not really that important. Thanks. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

You've only got two points that really stand up. The fact it happened and has been reported is indisputable. The idea all issues are considered and finalised before the simulation is speculation (why then even do a simulation?). The idea that footballing authorities are always ahead of the press when deciding whether to give official consideration to things is also pretty far fetched (video refereeing etc etc). The only remotely valid points are the request for evidence this sort of info is never included in similar articles, or the requirement for evidence of a complete lack of reporting of it before the simulation. And frankly, for an argument over a single line, I'm not particulalry willing to spend the time on the first point as its a pretty large job to prove with any certainty. And I'm sure any random World Cup / Olympic / Superbowl host selection article contains reported factoids about non-considered decisions. I might do a search to disprove the second, but what then? Is one source enough? Or would I have to find significant coverage? It's not like I'm trying to show notability for an actual article here is it? Turning 2010 UEFA refusal to consider separation of France and Ireland prior to the Euro 2012 simulated draw is not next on my job list. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, that's not what I said. I said there was not discussion about France and Ireland not playing prior to the simulated draw. And I mean anyone. As far as I know, no one anywhere in any form mentioned even once that maybe there was a chance that Ireland and France should not play because of the hand ball. No one. Not once. Anywhere. At all. So that tells us something very significant: it was not an issue that anyone was thinking about. Since we know that, we can see easily why it came up: the simulation, in conjunction with the discussion of the matches that wouldn't be allowed, raised the issue. That tells me that it is at best trivia and almost certainly not notable. Can you refute that? My mind is open so you can make your case. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't miss the point at all. Embarking on a search for sources which would refute your claim that "no one anywhere in any form mentioned even once that maybe there was a chance that Ireland and France should not play because of the hand ball. No one. Not once. Anywhere." is precisely to what I referred when I said, "Is one source enough?" I need to know if such a task would be worth it, or whether the issue would then become something else if I found one. MickMacNee (talk) 18:21, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Depends who it is, don't you think? If it's Platini, that's enough. If it's someone official, that's very significant in my opinion. If it's something else we have to use our judgement, it seems. Again, I don't know of a single prior mention, and I've googled it. Thanks again. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"The fact it happened and has been reported is indisputable" The fact of which happening? That Platini made a comment that it would be either great or nice (depending on which of two contradictory, but apparently reliable sources one chooses to believe) to have France and Ireland drawn together. A throwaway comment in a press conference: it is not even clear that the questioner mentioned the handball in the question. Platini is a diplomat, and if a Kazakh journalist had asked him about the desirability of a game between France and his country, no doubt Platini would have said that that would be trés jolie too. MMN clearly has a great interest in the handball incident, and the article pertaining to it, but the handball incident has no significance of any kind to the qualification tournament for Euro 2014. Nor does any other opinion expressed at a promotional press conference. Prove otherwise, and I'll drop nmy objection. Kevin McE (talk) 21:57, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not of a mind to reject speculation that a fan of the sport might smile a little when they read of Platini's comments. It's something to consider, what's going to happen the next time they play. But when the great story of Euro 2012 is told, the fact that the organizers didn't rank Ireland/France among the rivalries that are just too flammable to give matches will be about as interesting as not paying for something that's free. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Again with the endless strawmen. Come on then Kevin, regale us all with the reason why on Earth a Kazakh journalist would even ask such a question of Platini? Or better yet, tell us all what the Irish journalists who reported the comment had been referring to, if not the handball? Is it even possible for you to actually make a post that doesn't include some made up illogical nonsense to support yet another meaningless observation? You believe all opinions expoused in press conferences are of "no significance", and I have to prove otherwise? Now you are just wasting people's time tbh. You're a strawman building timewaster Kevin. That's what I believe, until you 'prove otherwise'. Fair enough? Or does this post not count because I didn't refer to what the pink unicorns or flying tree people also think of you? MickMacNee (talk) 03:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

What straw men? The fact is, this matter was not raised by anyone at all anywhere in any venue prior to the press conference. That indicates it's a non-issue. Unless there was some kind of prior mention, this is just something random that came up in a press conference. Is there any evidence of more? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Let's make this simple. If it is the case that the November 2009 match has any effect whatsoever on the qualifying tournament for the 2014 European Championship, the comment may have a place here. If it does not, it shouldn't. I remain of the opinion that it does not. I see nothing in your argument to make me think otherwise. I acknowledge that Platini made comments in a press conference that may well have pertained to that match, but that comment had nothing to do with the tournament that is the subject matter of this article. That press conference comment might be relevant to report as part of the aftermath of the match in Paris on the article about that game: it is irrelevant here. Kevin McE (talk) 09:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I think it actually does belong. The reason being is that UEFA DID decide that Azerbaijan and Armenia could not be in the same group (and they even moved Armenia when that happened) and they ALSO had decided that Russia and Georgia could not be in the same group (even though it was possible for them to be drawn together). So noting that they did not also make this decision regarding France and Ireland is probably noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.59 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

IP's comments totally ignore the key different between military conflict and disputed referee's decision. No-one has argued that the November 09 match has any relevance to the tournament in question, so I am removing it. Kevin McE (talk) 09:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Attendance

What's the point of the attendance table? It only contains 6 teams and doesn't seem to be sorted in any particular order. It appears to be a random list of 6 countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.240.128.75 (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First, it should be singular. Attendance not Attendances since it's not a list of all of the attendance values, but a table summarizing attendance for matches held in various countries. This level of detail just shows how well thought-out the section is.

Second, the material does not meet WP:V and has no WP:RS. It's essentially a glaring case of WP:OR and I'm sure that we'll see a lot of edits like this one that can't be challenged because there's no reference. The only way to salvage it would be to use Math functions in the table and that would slow page load times down.

I propose deleting it completely. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Yellow entries

A few teams cannot win anymore so I put them in yellow. Nergaal (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody else think this category is unnecessary? Why not just put teams in red as the competition continues and they become mathematically eliminated? Why not let the reader do their own original research on who can still win the group with the amount of games left? --MjrHalloran (talk) 23:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

A few of us think that stating "mathematically" before " eliminated" is unnecessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I read that whole discussion. I didn't mean actually changing of the statements in the legend. I'm proposing removing the yellow category altogether. I think the whole category is dispensable and stylistically ugly. Like I said above, isn't it enough just to mark (to be perfectly clear: with red) the teams that become eliminated as the competition continues? --MjrHalloran (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a reasonable suggestion, and I think this might be a good opportunity to change the legend to be professionally precise. The teams that are not in the hunt, are beyond hope, over the horizon, etc. should be labelled accurately. Since "mathematically eliminated" is not universally accepted, I'd like to propose a couple alternatives in the interest of compromise. The legend could read Not a qualifier or Out or Out of the running for qualification. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:18, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I would nominate Out of the running for qualification. As a further rant against the yellow "group winner" category, I think in an article about qualification it seems odd to be focusing only on winning the group. Yes, winning the group means qualification but so does being the second best of all the groups. So this category ignores that and to me, as a user of wikipedia to check table standings for multiple leagues and competitions, looks odd and out of place in most if not all the tables. At the moment it just seems to highlight which teams have 3 games left. You might as well label the yellow category just that! :D --MjrHalloran (talk) 02:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

The second place race is covered in a separate table and I think it's very useful given the somewhat arcane procedure. Since the race for "first second" includes every team below group leader, one could argue that it's incomplete without the lower teams that could finish first among seconds. In other words, there are third and fourth place teams who could finish first among seconds and they're not on a table that shows their standing. But it's dangerous to stand on tables, so that's probably for the best. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removing yellow highlighting. Winning the group is not the ultimate aim of teams in this competition, it is one of three ways of meeting the goal. By the time of the event, there is no discrimination between those who qualify as group leaders, as top 2nd or through playoffs. I see no benefit in rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic by arguing about the phrasing of a category that should not be there. Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm offering this compromise for the legend of the red group, the teams that are mathematically eliminated from qualification. I'm fine with Out of the running for qualification, but the other two would work for different reasons. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm responding to the title of the thread. As to text for the red teams, I would suggest that more formal language is more appropriate, as well as more concise: Qualification impossible Kevin McE (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah this category kind of turned into legend restructuring and labeling :D. I'm a fan of a more concise label as well. I like Qualification impossible as well. --MjrHalloran (talk) 06:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So I edited the legends (removed yellow category and changed text for red category) for this page and all other group pages and removed the yellow highlighting as well. Now that we can see what that looks like, anyone who has an interest in this care to share their thoughts? --MjrHalloran (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with removing the yellow category, as of all the second-places only one can actually qualify. I think there is an important distinction between first and second place for that reason. Possibly it should be called something else. "Cannot qualify directly?" "Cannot Qualify without Play-offs?" --OpenFuture (talk) 03:41, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

True enough changing the label changes the context. Still it seems odd to have this. This is setup similar to the WC 2010 qualification is it not? So the playoffs are scheduled after the group stages, which means all yellow teams will become red or blue. I can see the argument for providing detailed group tables in between scheduled matches but to me it just seems like extra work. Am I reaching too far to assume that readers can infer who is still in the running for making the playoffs, winning the group, etc. without having to color it for them? --MjrHalloran (talk) 05:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, from comments (and edit wars) it is definitely too much to assume. It can be quite complex sometimes and people tend to be blinded by bias. :-) But you are right that the Yellow is only a temporary color. I'm not sure that's an argument though, once it's over the labels must change from "Cannot qualify" to "Didn't qualify" anyway... --OpenFuture (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

But that is simply not true: one of the second placed teams will qualify directly/without play-offs. Kevin McE (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, right, my bad, I misremembered. But it doesn't change anything else I said. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the changes until the discussion yields a consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So on what grounds do you conclude that there is a consensus for including contentious material? The majority of opinion and reasons have been for avoiding the word mathematical and for removing the yellow markings. It is inclusion that requires consensus, not exclusion, or preservation of the first boldly posted. Kevin McE (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The 'mathematically' discussion below is over. There wasn't a consensus to change it and so the status quo of some months remains. That's how it works on Wikipedia. Also, I would suggest that those of you who don't like my proposals for the new legend should offer more than one alternative to avoid the tug of war style of editing that seems to lead to bad feelings. I made three suggestions in the interest of compromise and I don't really see any reason why others with proposals should do any less. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The "status quo" has no status: anything appearing in the encyclopaedia is open to challenge, and unless a previous clear consensus existed, anything is liable to be removed if its inclusion is challenged. Constant procrastination of recognising a consensus, or claiming that unanimity is necessary for consensus, as a means to maintain the current text is the wiki equivalent to filibustering. A clear majority of the opinions given here are against retaining the yellow category. Why should we make multiple suggestions, when we believe that we can make one which is accurate, in the appropriate tone, and concise? Why would I dream up two more that I would consider inferior? Kevin McE (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The only ones that has explicitly said you wanted to get rid the Yellow category is you and MjrHalloran. That is a majority in as much as only I said I wanted to retain it, but it's not much of a majority. Ring Cinema said it was "resonable", Nergaal was the one who put teams in yellow, and Walter Görlitz said nothing about it. And that's is. Calling this "majority" and "consensus" is highly premature. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Kevin, I told you why multiple suggestions are a good idea. Tug of war editing gets kind of old so why not do your best to avoid it by showing your willingness to compromise? I made a gesture in that direction but you seem unwilling to bury the hatchet. If you want to know the truth, "mathematically eliminated" is obviously, clearly, and unequivocally how the legend should read, but I judged that it had become a loaded phrase in this group. Hey, so it goes. Sometimes being right isn't worth it. This is a place where one should expect to compromise and that applies to all of us. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It's obviously more straightforward in a tournament where all the advancing teams go to the same stage. In that case, it's simpler because we typically just worry about whether a team is "advancing" and (except possibly for seeding in the next stage) don't really care whether they are the winner or runner-up. Here, where (most of) the 2nd place teams will advance but have to play an extra round compared to the group winners, there is a very real difference between winning the group and being the runner-up. Because of that, I do think it's relevant to point out when teams can no longer be the group winner. LarryJeff (talk) 15:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well, glad to see this got more discussion! Everyone has good arguments going here. After some thought I've decided that my original argument or concern was from a logic and design point of view. I was irked that with yellow in the context of not winning the group, whole tables could become yellow which I thought would be silly at this stage in the tournament. The reasoning for having an intermediary category is sound but maybe I was put off by having it where the qualification stands right now? (I mean, I was put off enough that I decided to get involved with the editing of this wiki entry!) I'm much more happy with it after the next one or two games are played in September. To me, then the qualification has really tightened and it makes sense to denote who has been eliminated and who is still vying for group winner or second place. So that is my concession at the moment. As well, I'm still against labeling the category "No longer can win the group" and prefer to think of it as these teams can only achieve second place since second place can get you to the playoffs or for one team, direct qualification.

As an aside, I thought it was interesting that no one chimed in when Nergaal made the edit back in March. --MjrHalloran (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

If we wanted to grade it finely, there are other possibilities. Pick the one that applies:

1. Through by winning the group
2. Through by clinching first second
3. Can win group
4. Can finish first among seconds
5. Can finish second but can't be first second
6. Can win group but can't be first second
7. Can't finish as high as second.

Did I forget any? --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

@MjrHalloran, the reason I didn't have anything to say when the yellow was added in March, is because I thought it was a good idea.

@Ring Cinema, I don't think we need to identify so many different categories in the standings. There would just be too many colors to keep up with. Really all we should be doing is identifying when a team has either clinched or been eliminated from reaching a particular stage. Ideally, IMO, that would be at most 4 categories:

1. Clinched direct qualification (doesn't matter whether as group winner or best runner-up)
2. Clinched at least a playoff spot (possibly leave this one out)
3. Cannot qualify directly but still can reach playoff
4. Eliminated from all qualification

The 3rd in my list would be the ideal replacement for what we currently have as "cannot win the group", but would be slightly more complicated to track since we'd have to be comparing the possible adjusted points for all possible 2nd place teams in other groups. It could be done. LarryJeff (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm not proposing it. I'm making a list of the possibilities. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think this is good. Although I propose:

1. "Group winners and best runner-up among all groups directly qualify for the finals" (same as now)
2. "Remaining group runners-up advance to the play-offs" (same as now)
3. "Cannot qualify directly but still can reach playoff"
4. "Eliminated from qualification"

--OpenFuture (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you proposing those four as the legends for four designated categories? --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be happy with the list proposed by OpenFuture. LarryJeff (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with OpenFuture's suggestion --MjrHalloran (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Mathematical elimination

In the phrase "They cannot mathematically win the group", is the word 'mathematically' superfluous? My preliminary conclusion is that it is not, for reasons I'll try to state as briefly as possible.

There is not only one way to parse 'Team A cannot win the group'. I can think of two. Case one: Team A does not have enough talent to win enough of their remaining games to overtake the leader. They are behind in the standings far enough that, given their talent level and the talent level of the other teams, they will not be able to finish in first. Case two: Team A has fallen so far behind the leader of the group that they cannot win the group even if they win all their remaining games. That is, they cannot mathematically win the group.

These two interpretations of the phrase 'Team A cannot win the group' are not the same. Both are common. In one, the meaning involves mathematical elimination. In the other, it does not. Therefore, the word 'mathematically' is not superfluous as it is used in the phrase under consideration. In fact, the word identifies the sense being used. --Ring Cinema (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

To say "Team A cannot win the group" when one means that the likelihood of them winning is unspeakably small is POV, OR and untrue. As such, an encyclopaedia shouldn't say it, and if another editor puts such a thing in, it should be deleted on those grounds. So the only time that the encyclopaedia states that they can't win, it is to be assumed that it is an incontrovertible fact, not merely something probable. That being the case, emphasis is redundant.

If you want to avoid misleading, ambiguous comments, consider that there is no such thing as "mathematically winning" a league: it is won or lost on the basis of sporting achievement and results, not numerical ability. It is a cliché that should be avoided. Kevin McE (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Silliest discussion I've seen in a while. 1) It is superfluous and 2) it does explain how they've been eliminated (as opposed to a team who have been eliminated from advancement for some breach of rules). For the most part the adjective could be excluded without harm. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

You say it's superfluous but you're not responding with careful reasoning. For the word to be superfluous, there must be no ambiguity without the word. However, leaving out the word makes it ambiguous.

Compare:

phrase A = "Team A cannot win the group"

phrase B = "Team A cannot mathematically win the group"

If A and B mean exactly the same thing there is no ambiguity and I agree that the word 'mathematically' is superfluous. However, that is not the case. Phrase A could be interpreted to mean this:

"Team A is not good enough to win the group". Let's call that phrase C.

Since phrase A might interpreted to mean phrase B or phrase C, it's ambiguous. So, to be clear, we use phrase B instead of phrase A because it's more clear. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Context is everything. In the discussion of who can and cannot qualify for a particular stage, adding "mathematically" is unnecessary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

To show that the word 'mathematically' is unnecessary, you have to have an argument that shows that there is no ambiguity in the phrase with the word removed. Since I show very carefully that there is an ambiguity without 'mathematically', the only conclusion is that the word is necessary for the sake of clarity. There's a good discussion here on Wikipedia of how to use the phrase if you're curious. Or try a google search on "mathematically eliminated" and you'll find countless examples. Thanks for your thoughts. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

While others may use the phrase, doesn't mean it's correct. All you have done is proven Kevin's point that it's a cliché. I can point to many articles that include trivia in discussion about the event such as "the two franchises have met seven times in the history of the event" which means nothing. It's like adding Monday always follows Sunday. Both are factually correct and neither means anything in relation to the current event. The fact that I say that a team is mathematically eliminated from competition means exactly the same thing as the team is eliminated from competition. In short, it doesn't really matter how the team is eliminated. In fact, if a team is eliminated for any other reason, we would more readily comment on those reasons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

(@ RingCinema: Please don't presume to tell me whether I have been careful in my reasoning, or I might feel inclined to express an opinion as to whether you have been open minded in your reading.)

OK If you insist, there is ambiguity without the word mathematically: it is the ambiguity between a true comment and an opinion; the ambiguity between assumption and truth; the ambiguity between what should be be in an encyclopaedia and what should not. So once we eliminate what should not be in an encyclopaedia (what you call Case 1 in your first post), there is no ambiguity if we restrict ourselves to what is true, factual, NPOV and encyclopaedic. Rather than insert a clichéd qualifier before what appears properly, delete what should not be in the article. Defending the addition of mathematically as necessary, apart from being (imho) stylistically ugly, is justifying inclusion of untruths. Kevin McE (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

As you rightly point out, Walter, teams are eliminated for other reasons and when they come up we comment on them. However, what we are covering in this particular section of this particular article is exactly those teams that are, in fact, mathematically eliminated. Not eliminated for those other reasons, but just exactly that one. And for that reason, we say so, to indicate to the reader exactly what we're talking about. That is what the word is there for, and that is why professional writers the world over use those words in exactly the same context: to tell the reader what they mean without ambiguity. Or, as Wikipedia puts it in the article on mathematical elimination "there are not enough future games or competitive events remaining to be played to avoid defeat, even if all future events were won." If you know of another way to remove the ambiguity, I am open to it. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I love that article. It's a favourite, that I look at frequently. Most importantly, a short read. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

So we better add a '(mathematical)' behind 'group winners' in the legend. -Koppapa (talk) 19:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Just for this article or all articles (historically) as well? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Is there more than one reason that one is the group winner? See, there's no ambiguity there. Now, if we were talking about who could win the group before play is complete, then we might need a modifier. When the group play is over, that possibility for ambiguity is moot. As it happens, there is good reason that good writers use this construction. Thanks for the thought. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The only person intent on retaining the qualifier (which means that on the grounds of consensus, the matter is already resolved) has still failed to address the fact that any claim that a team "cannot" win the title when in fact they could possibly do so is untrue, and so should not be in an encyclopaedia. The only reason for the modifier is to distinguish between encyclopaedic fact, and POV that should not be in the encyclopaedia. Retaining the modifier, and claiming that it is necessary, is only meaningful if you are willing to admit speculative opinion into Wikipedia. Most of us are not willing to legitimise such a thing. Kevin McE (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "mathematically" is superfluous. We can simply have "Can not win the group", and if it is for any other reason than that they simply can't achieve the necessary number of points, then the reason can be stated in a note under the group table. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I think that "mathematically" is necessary, but only to dissuade people from making edits to say "so-and-so can't win the group cos they're shit" or whatever. – PeeJay 12:07, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm opposed to making it more ambiguous on purpose, OpenFuture. I think we all agree that if it's not ambiguous then it can be cut. I made a very careful argument that the word has a purpose and I haven't seen anyone knock it down. As PeeJay seems to say, there are other ways to interpret "cannot win the group" and that is why professional writers all over the world use the adverb. If you can't knock down my argument (either one, in fact), what's the basis of your objection? Having an opinion is not an argument. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

The "mathematical" adds no disambiguation. removing it does not make the statement one bit less ambiguous or unclear. "Cannot mathematically win the group" yields seven hits on Google. "Cannot win the group" yields 9450 hits. That "professional writes all over the world" uses the adverb seems to have no basis. If you want to disambiguate completely, it should be "can not win the group unless one or several teams that are currently leading the group is disqualified or otherwise prevented from fulfilling the group stage" is perfectly clear. I don't think we want that. ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

You're clearly mistaken. As I've very carefully argued above, the phrase without the adverb is subject to at least two interpretations; with the adverb there is only one. That's what ambiguity is about: subject to more than one interpretation. (If I'm mistaken about that, I'm interested in your argument.)

Should we include the language you offer? Well, you seem to be saying that a team that's mathematically eliminated might still win the group another way. Not to be too obvious, but that doesn't contradict that they are mathematically eliminated. I think you believe that your proposal is one I would logically have to adopt. But since mathematical elimination is common and multiple disqualifications at this level of football are uncommon, I don't see the cases as parallel. (Check Google for "mathematically eliminated" if you want to find the 1,580,000 examples. This is ordinary usage and someone who can't find the examples is trying to miss them.) --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Firstly: The first meaning of your two meanings is not a reasonable interpretation, as nobody who makes these kinds of tables, and especially not Wikipedia, makes that type of judgements. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would interpret it that way.

Secondly: Should somebody misinterpret it that way, no harm is added. If they think "They don't have enough talent to win the group" when they see this marking, that are actually correct! They don't! Even if they suddenly would receive divine intervention and become the best team in the universe, they still don't have enough talent!

Thirdly: Adding "mathematically" doesn't clear anything up, it just implies that there are *other* ways they can win the group. I.e. they *can* win the group, but not "mathematically". So it's not clearer. It's just unclear in other ways. And if you misunderstand it in 'this* way (which of course also is unlikely) that is actually a "bad" misunderstanding in that this misunderstanding is incorrect in a way that the other misunderstanding is not. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. You seem to agree that there is some ambiguity without the adverb, so we agree on that. Your three points in one way or another try to minimize the significance, but I believe they fail.

1) Are my interpretations reasonable? It may be "unlikely" it would be misinterpreted without the adverb, but that's why one tries to avoid ambiguity. It is pretty good evidence on my side that there are so many Google hits on "mathematically eliminated." Is there some good reason to introduce ambiguity? You seem to imply that since it's unlikely we can ignore it. Why not just be clear in the first place?

2) No harm if someone misinterprets it, you say. Says who? That's speculative if not incorrect. And again, why introduce the possibility of harm for no reason?

3) You say that 'mathematically' only says that there are other ways to win. That's false. What it says -- and I've been very clear on this -- is that what we are covering right here in this place with this notation (i.e. the yellow highlight) is this: those teams which are mathematically eliminated. In this article in this spot right here we are showing which teams satisfy one criterion: they are mathematically eliminated. You actually have it backwards when you say it implies there are other ways. What it really does is exclude the others. Other notations would cover other things, but this yellow highlight covers this precise circumstance.

So your third point is completely backward, your second point is not germane, and your first point, which is closer to the mark, seems to imply that there is some good reason why we shouldn't be clear when we can be. If you can persuade me that we should be indifferent to ambiguity, I am on your side. And thanks again very much for your clear and careful argument. It makes it a lot easier. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not think we should be indifferent to ambiguity, that is a complete straw man. In my experience when the discussion starts generating straw men, then it has become pointless, so I think I'll end it here. To be clear: I don't agree there are many hits on "mathematically eliminated", I don't agree it's less ambiguous with "mathematically" in the sentence. Your questions in regards to point 2 was already fully answered. Your point 3 is circular. Your statement that saying can not "mathematically win the group" excludes all other ways of winning it is factually incorrect. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. Of course I don't think you have it right but you want to leave it there. For the record, I raised no straw men and your comments above are inaccurate or fallacious. If you'd like to revisit it later I'll be happy to. Ring Cinema (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Ring Cinema, you have still not attempted to address my objection to the addition of the modifier: that any interpretation beyond what is covered by the definition of cannot that you seek to identify as mathematical (in fact, you seem to want to characterise qualification as mathematical, not capability, but that is a side issue) should not appear in an encyclopaedia anyway. By extension, insisting that the only valid application of cannot must be qualified, you open the door for inappropriate opinions about what a team can or cannot achieve. However, it is not helpful to be having this discussion on a minor page such as this. The issue, if you believe it to be important, should be dealt with at WT:FOOTY, as it would effect all future league events. Kevin McE (talk) 23:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your objection. You seem to say that readers of all encyclopedia articles know what doesn't belong in the book and so if an ambiguity like this one presents itself, they can mentally cross out the forbidden interpretations and just focus on the allowable. Is that your argument? Ring Cinema (talk) 03:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Someone reading an encyclopaedia should know that wooly phrasing of opinions is not encyclopaedic content. Kevin McE (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

So you actually are hanging your argument on the idea that the reader is responsible for knowing what belongs in the article, not the writer for making it clear. Then this is "encyclopedia by mind reading". If that's the case, we don't really need to write it down, do we? I wonder if anyone on your side will have the intellectual honesty to agree your argument is good faith silly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is an article about an event that is going on. I think it is misleading to just write "Team A is eliminated" when it is clear that they still have games left to be played. Being "eliminated" means that you are out of the competition. The best way to indicate that they are "out of contention", or cannot progress, or whatever, is to say that they are "mathematically eliminated". This means that they will be eliminated once this stage of play ends, but they are still playing for the time being. Once the qualification campaign ends, then it should be noted that they are "eliminated", but since they are still playing, it should be noted that they are only "mathematically eliminated" since they are still participating in the tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.59 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You are completely correct. Luckily, the word "eliminated" does not appear anywhere in this article, with or without the "mathematically" qualification. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The title of this discussion is "Mathematical elimination". :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.59 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but this is the discussion page, not the article. The article does not use the word elimination and never have. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

So now you're trying to say that "cannot win" is different from "eliminated"? I don't think so, my friend. As soon as there is a sound argument that there is no ambiguity without the adverb, I would say let's get rid of it. In the meantime, I think we are in good company with the 1,580,000 others who recognize that when you're talking about mathematical elimination you just say so and avoid long discussions like this one. --Ring Cinema (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

See, OpenFuture, this is where we discussed it and you couldn't make a sound argument. To review, you had one point that was completely backward, another that was not germane, so you had to rely on the argument that ambiguity was okay, since we agreed that the adverb removes the ambiguity. Now, I don't know under what circumstances you admit you were mistaken and change your mind on something, but if you can't even come up with one -- not one -- sound reason for your position maybe this is something you should consider. I assume you want the article to be as good as possible. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem determined to retain what is rejected by most of those who have commented. Several reasons have been given. You seem to be determined that nothing will change your mind in the matter: that is your right, but as soon as you do that you are no longer trying to seek consensus. You are in breach of 3RR on this matter already. Kevin McE (talk) 18:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You seem to think that I was the only one who opposed the "mathematical", this was not the case. Drop the WP:STICK. --OpenFuture (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

No, we're about evenly divided and you can't defend your arguments. You really can't defend your position at all and yet you stick to it. And you pretend you didn't ask to set the issue aside; we both know you did. I would note that you didn't know the status quo version was there a long time before the discussion began and I think you also don't know the numbers on each side of the question. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this is all incorrect. I never did any such thing. You have now reverted this five times during the day, with three people undoing your reverts. It should be blatantly obvious to you that you are in the wrong here. Keep this up and you will end up blocked. --OpenFuture (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a little funny to me that we're arguing over what to call the yellow, yet none of the teams that belong in the category are even marked yellow anymore.LarryJeff (talk) 04:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I know, this is really so funny. This is the first page I edited where three editors claim a consensus when there are equal numbers on both sides. For the laughable record, OpenFuture, Kevin, and Walter, you are the only three on your side. On the other side are the original editor, me, PeeJay and 32.97.110.59. So, yeah I can see why you would claim you have a consensus. There are three of you and only four opposing you. Excellent job of counting, guys. Which of you has the integrity to correct your mistake? --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:POLL. The discussion is moot. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

So you can't defend your assertion that you have a consensus for change. Noted. I agree. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

True or False

OpenFuture, you claimed that everything I said above was false. Getting things right is important here. So, let's take each statement one at a time and see if they stand up. I make four claims:

1. You really can't defend your position at all and yet you stick to it.
2. And you pretend you didn't ask to set the issue aside; we both know you did.
3. I would note that you didn't know the status quo version was there a long time before the discussion began and
4. I think you also don't know the numbers on each side of the question.

Let's take them in reverse order.

Do you know the numbers on each side? I assume you don't, unless you're the kind of person who thinks they are winning when they're down 4-3. You claimed you had a consensus, even though four editors disagreed with you and three agreed. So I am correct on that. You didn't know the numbers.

Did you know what was the status quo? Well, you wrote on my talk page: ""Mathematically" has never been status quo, there has never been consensus for it." But the word was there for months before it became an issue, so I am again correct.

Did you agree to set the issue aside? Well, you wrote "I think I'll end it here." on June 5, when mathematically was still included. I responded briefly, respected your wish not to continue, and we left it there, with 'mathematically' in. So you lose that point also.

Can you defend your position? Well, it's obvious that you can't, as the present case makes clear. So let's summarize, OpenFuture. You claimed none of my claims were correct. So you are wrong if even one is correct. Yet all my claims were correct. Now, I am prepared for you to say that when you are behind 0-4 you are winning.

I look forward to your response. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I was wrong about it not being Status Quo, it was for months without me noticing. In everything else you are obviously incorrect. Most importantly your absurd claim that I need to be wrong in only one of your points to be wrong. No I don't. The only thing relevant is if the arguments for "mathematically" hold up. And they don't as I showed above. The point being that *you* can not defend the addition of "mathematically". And since you can't, the addition doesn't stay. That is all that is relevant. Nothing else makes any difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well you have made so many mistakes it's hard to believe anything you say. You haven't made a coherent response to my takedown of your exceedingly weak arguments in favor of your position. (To review for others, you agree that it's ambiguous but you think we should be careless! Obviously that's not good for an encyclopedia, so I will keep the point until you can explain why it's not important.) Secondly, I notice you don't contest that more editors oppose you than support you. Therefore, you lack a consensus to make the change. Noted. --Ring Cinema (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I probably haven't made any response to your takedown, as I have never seen anything I can recognize as a takedown. I answer what needs to be answered, which is less and less. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Name the editors who said they back your position. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Rephrased

I think the easiest way to end this (if it hasn't yet) is to change the context of the two classifications but they are still correct. What happened to this?:

@Ring Cinema, I don't think we need to identify so many different categories in the standings. There would just be too many colors to keep up with. Really all we should be doing is identifying when a team has either clinched or been eliminated from reaching a particular stage. Ideally, IMO, that would be at most 4 categories: Clinched direct qualification (doesn't matter whether as group winner or best runner-up) Clinched at least a playoff spot (possibly leave this one out) Cannot qualify directly but still can reach playoff Eliminated from all qualification The 3rd in my list would be the ideal replacement for what we currently have as "cannot win the group", but would be slightly more complicated to track since we'd have to be comparing the possible adjusted points for all possible 2nd place teams in other groups. It could be done. LarryJeff (talk) 03:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I'm not proposing it. I'm making a list of the possibilities. --Ring Cinema (talk) 05:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I think this is good. Although I propose: "Group winners and best runner-up among all groups directly qualify for the finals" (same as now) "Remaining group runners-up advance to the play-offs" (same as now) "Cannot qualify directly but still can reach playoff" "Eliminated from qualification" --OpenFuture (talk) 06:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Are you proposing those four as the legends for four designated categories? --Ring Cinema (talk) 07:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC) Yes. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I would be happy with the list proposed by OpenFuture. LarryJeff (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC) I'm satisfied with OpenFuture's suggestion --MjrHalloran (talk) 03:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

We had a fairly good consensus going there IMO. For good measure, I've checked out this entry in other languages and their table either follows this version (or parts of it), chooses not to designate until the competition is over, or simply designates the winner and the runner-up. So can't really get an indirect consensus from that (but the French version looks NICE and I agree more with how the Dutch version is setup Legend wise.) However, I would phrase the last two like this:

Team can only place second in group

Team can no longer qualify but has games remaining

I think these are clear, concise enough, and we don't need to bring mathematically into them at all whether it's superfluous or not. --MjrHalloran (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"Only place second". So they can't place third? :-) I think also the "has games remaining" is unnecessary. But then you get the problem with differentiation of what they are capable of, and what could in theory happen. So I still prefer mine (or well, they are LarryJeff's really). --OpenFuture (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

8)They can place third, or fourth, or whatever but there's still the possibility they could get second. This is why I had a problem with that whole designation at this stage in the competition in the first place. Anyways, I definitely prefer LarryJeff's examples over the current version. "cannot qualify directly but can still reach playoff" adds an extra layer of work regarding the best runner-up which I don't think is valuable enough to trouble ourselves with. Keeping the context broad by just mentioning second place (or we could change it to runner-up to work with the previous categories) on purpose allows us to leave it alone. On top of that argueing to add mathematically before "place second" in the interest of disambiguation like Ring Cinema was for, is moot because there is plenty of disambiguation in the context by concentrating on the second place. Additionally, LarryJeff's usage of elimination brings up the mathematically problem again as well. I've seen the red elimination designation I've volunteered used in many previous tournament pages. --MjrHalloran (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I haven't actually calculated it (nor am I inclined to given the number of win-draw-loss permutations remaining across 9 groups), but I'm pretty sure that any team who can still finish 2nd in their group now or following the next round of matches would be able to be the top 2nd place team. That being the case, if we change the yellow category as discussed to be teams whose only shot at qualifying is through the playoff stage, rather than teams who simply cannot win their group, then no teams would fit that category yet. Would have this (note I'm not proposing this text for the table legend, it's just an explanation of which teams fit the categories):

Clinched 1st place in group

Clinched at least 2nd place in group

Best possible finish is 2nd in group, and cannot be the best 2nd place

Cannot finish in the top 2 in group

Again, this is if we change the definition of the yellow as discussed above. As of now, the yellow category would be empty. I have no problem with that. LarryJeff (talk) 21:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see where you're getting that and I like how you included "best possible finish". I'm a little confused though, isn't what you just said contradict using the wordage you volunteered for the yellow category? Now that I think about it phrasing it as not qualifying directly is to open-ended with that best runner-up possibility. As you say, it probably wouldn't come into play until the next set of games are finished or later and no teams could fit that (except Iceland if I look at it now).

In fact, as of now the only teams that fit that scenario at this stage are those who have three games remaining and fewer than three points.

I think my sticking point is that it's too much work (to be valuable) to figure this category out after each round with the phrasing as not qualifying directly. So if we phrased it maybe as "Team's best possible finish is runner-up (in the group)¹", it doesn't matter if they are going to be the best runner-up or not. They can achieve second place and when we can figure out who has clinched the best runner-up position we can go ahead and highlight them green.

This makes me wonder if there should be a separate color for that team. Just on the basis of style and design than anything else really.

_{1 - Optional text there}

--MjrHalloran (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

MjrHalloran, I just noticed that you had addressed my comment. I guess I missed the change in my watchlist. Anyway, I don't think I said anything to contradict myself. All I did in this later table was substitute the category names with definitions of what would qualify a team to fit that category. I think right now the best use of the yellow shading would be to continue to show teams who cannot win their groups but could still finish 2nd (in other words, exactly what you recently changed it back to). When there are only a couple of match dates left, then we'll be able to determine where the "bubble" might lie for qualifying directly as the best 2nd place team. Then, we can change the meaning of the yellow shading as discussed above to teams whose only chance to advance is through the playoff round. LarryJeff (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I like it...I gave up anyways when the other editors hijack the discussion to get at each other.--MjrHalloran (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If we come to a consensus on this and OpenFuture, Kevin, and WalterGorlitz are in the minority, are they going to again claim they have the consensus? I'd like the three of them to promise that they will not again claim they have a consensus when they are in the minority. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I"ll add my voice to oppose using the term. I don't know who WalterGrozier but I agree with his stance. But it's not a vote and consensus is against this not in favour. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but could you be more specific about what you're opposing? --MjrHalloran (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

In the past, when OpenFuture, WalterGorlitz, and KevinMcE were in the minority, they falsely claimed they had a consensus and changed the page. If we come to a consensus on this and OpenFuture, KevinMcE, and WalterGorlitz are in the minority, are they going to again claim they have the consensus? I'd like the three of them to promise that they will not again claim they have a consensus when they are in the minority. --Ring Cinema (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

First, consensus is not a vote.

Second, your argument is still full of flaws.

Third, this entire argument is moot since the term is not used in this article.

Fourth, who would like a consensus opinion of what Ring Cinema can do with his attitude? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say consensus is a vote, so that's moot. Perhaps you believe that you can have a consensus even when you're in the minority, and that is incorrect.

My argument hasn't been knocked down on any of its points but that is not germane to this issue.

I'm asking about your commitment in the future, so the mootness is moot.

I've followed consensus policies; you have not in the recent past. For that reason, I am asking for your commitment to follow policies on consensus in the future. Are you willing to follow those policies or not? Your resistance to the idea is telling. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:13, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You implied it. And there you implied it again.

Yes it has and no it isn't.

"Have you stopped hitting your wife"-arguments are not constructive.

No you did not, yes we did. We are committed to consensus now and previously, you are committed flogging a dead horse. Are you likewise committed to continuing your edit warring and personal attacks? --OpenFuture (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with OpenFuture, and you still don't appear to understand what consensus is. And you did say that consensus was a vote. You compared the number of people who stated one opinion and the other. Seems like a vote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter, please explain how you can be in the minority (as OpenFuture acknowledges below) and claim a consensus. I look forward to your response. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledged no such thing. In fact, I explicitly denied it. Why on earth do you claim that I said we are in the minority, when I in fact claimed that we are in the majority? Did you even read what I wrote before you made this comment? Or are you intentionally lying? I don't get it. It's like your earlier claim that I had asked to put the issue aside. Completely false, I never said anything like that. Why did you claim that? Do you think people will just believe what you say and not read my comments for themselves? Your behavior is incomprehensible to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is also laughable to claim victory on the cause of "four" vs "three", when these four include an "original editor" who has not said anything in this discussion, an anonymous ip-address that doesn't even know how to sign his posts, and PeeJay, who has said only one thing in the whole debate. Since I pointed out that including "mathematically" doesn't remove any ambiguity at all *nobody* has supported Ring Cinemas position. So, although this isn't a vote, the vote is 1-3, possibly 2-3, but not 4-3. Neither vote count is of course enough to decide consensus. For that you need both much more opinions, and a much larger difference. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

So you admit that you didn't have a consensus and were in the minority, but you decided to ignore it. Is it your intention to continue to ignore the consensus in the future or not? It should be a simple matter, but instead you repeat the evidence that you ignored the consensus. Yes, it is really quite laughable that you think that vindicates you. Thank you for stating it so clearly. --Ring Cinema (talk) 16:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

That is the exact opposite of what I said in every way possible. --OpenFuture (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

You can remove my !vote from this discussion as I no longer have any opinion on the issue. By the way, Ring Cinema, when opinion is divided as closely as it apparently is here, you certainly can't claim a consensus. A majority of one does not constitute a consensus here. – PeeJay 19:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

PeeJay, you got it backward. They claimed a consensus and I agree with you again, there was none. What is quite incredible is that OpenFuture knows there were four opinions expressed contrary to his, he knows that there were three in agreement with him, yet he has figured out some way to twist that into a consensus in favor of his view! Really amazing stuff. Harvard Beats Yale 29-29! So, again, I'm asking those three guys to promise that they will not repeat their mistake. Interestingly, they have a hard time promising that they will not ignore the consensus if they disagree with it. Since we really can't function properly if they want to ignore the consensus, we should probably give them the chance to affirm their commitment to Wikipedia policy. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is you who have it the wrong way round. The inclusion of anything in Wikipedia is only by consensus, something inappropriate but present enjoys no benefit of the doubt.

But such discussion misses the point. We are meant to be building consensus, not trying to define it. Regardless of the reason, the phrase cannot mathematically win the group is one that many readers feel could be improved upon, and there is a body of opinion that cannot win the group is insufficiently precise. Rather than argue about the numbers on either side of that debate, it behoves us to find a phrasing that meets the concerns of both sides. So:

Propose following categories to be colour coded (not all of which are yet applicable, and some of which will become redundant and should be deleted when that happens)

• Teams that have qualified for the finals
• Teams taking part in the play-offs
• Teams for which at least a play-off place is assured
• Teams for which winning the group is impossible
• Teams for which reaching the finals is impossible

Can we move on, and make discussion the tool for constructing consensus, rather than arguing over its definition from here on... Kevin McE (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

An excellent point Kevin McE. Not sure we need colour-coding for all of those: most notably, "Teams for which winning the group is impossible". I would argue Qualified and Eliminated (before the end of group play) are the only colours that need to be defined. Once group play has completed, simply the teams that moved on need to be signified. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

At this stage, "qualified" is a little ambiguous (although I hesitate to bring that word back into the discussion), since not all the teams who advance will be advancing to the same stage. Short version of some of my previous comments: being a runner-up in this group stage is significantly different from being the group winner, since (except for one of the runners-up) they will advance but have to play an extra round, which the group winners get to skip. For that reason, it is relevant to show win a team is unable to win the group but can still finish 2nd. LarryJeff (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Exactly, Kevin. I'm not suggesting that we redefine 'consensus'. That is what you, Walter, and OpenFuture attempted. So what I'm asking is that the three of you promise that you will follow the policy on consensus instead of subverting it like you did last time. I want that promise from the three offenders: Walter, Kevin, and OpenFuture. Once we know that you won't again attempt to claim you have consensus when you are in the minority, then we can edit the page using the usual methods. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:11, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you are suggesting we redefine consensus, but you don't understand you are suggesting that, because you don't understand that your definition is not the Wikipedia definition. You are the only one claiming consensus based on majority, despite us repeatedly pointing out that consensus is not a poll. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No-one here has the right to demand promises from any other editor, so let's just drop that line of argument. Let's try to move this forward instead of raking over hot coals incessantly.

I wasn't aware that qualified per se was controversial, it says qualified for the finals which is not ambiguous. I argued against needing impossible to win group, but it was clear above that (whisper the word) consensus would not settle with that omission. Kevin McE (talk) 07:07, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

No, OpenFuture, I never said that consensus means having a majority. Rather, I have said something correct, which is that when three of you want to change and four of us say don't change, there is not a conensus. You, Walter, and Kevin were in the minority and you claimed there was a consensus for change. So now I want you three to promise that you will never again claim that you have a consensus when you are in the minority. If you don't make that commitment, I would assume that you might want to claim you have a consensus when you are in the minority. Is that your intention? Thank you. --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Final words on the issue: You are clearly not reading your responses, nor the policies we link to. As a result you endlessly repeat arguments that have been shown to be false, and questions that have been answered. With that attitude it will be impossible for you to be a constructive editor. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

RC: I have absolutely no intention of promising you anything. If you wish to contribute to the discussion about how this should be phrased, you are very welcome to, but if you are only coming to this talk page to insist on some sort of promise, you would be better advised to stay away. Kevin McE (talk) 16:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

As per Kevin, Ring Cinema's behaviour is becoming increasingly nonconstructive and uncivil. Consensus seems to be forming that you participate in the discussion in at hand. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

I have read the policy on consensus and have contributed to it, so I know what I'm talking about. For example, there is this selection: "Consensus is not necessarily unanimity. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but if this proves impossible, a majority decision must be taken."

I am making no false arguments and you have named none. Rather, I am making a simple request of the three of you. Sadly, Kevin says he won't promise to follow the policy on consensus in the future; the only reason to take that position I think is that he apparently intends to ignore it again. That is not productive.

Walter, I am being perfectly civil. As for being constructive, it's obvious that if the three of you don't want to follow the policy on consensus again, then we can't productively work toward a consensus.

I know that you don't enjoy having it pointed out that you acted like you had a consensus before when you didn't. As OpenFuture pointed out, there were four editors who did not agree with the three of you and you ignored them even though it was mentioned at the time. That is what happened, no matter how justified you think you were in ignoring other editors. Because of that, I am asking that you promise not to make editorial changes in the future when you are in the minority. Once you have done that, I think we can productively work toward achieving a consensus on this page. Thank you for all your efforts! --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

"Kevin says he won't promise to follow the policy on consensus in the future; the only reason to take that position I think is that he apparently intends to ignore it again": perhaps he isn't willing to be told what to do and say by someone acting in an extraordinarily arrogant manner. Maybe you should consider that possibility. If you had read my response carefully, I said that I won't promise you anything, and that you have no right to demand such a thing. As to my willingness to follow the principles of Wikipedia, I'll just point out that I have been an editor here for 2 1/2 years longer than you, with more than 12 times as many edits as you, and that unlike you, I have never been the subject of a ban. Kevin McE (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Again you claim I said the exact opposite of what I actually said. --OpenFuture (talk) 04:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad Kevin got this back on track. I'm for both possibilities of just highlighting "qualifiers" and "eliminated" as Walter mentioned OR the former in addition to highlighting potential runners-up as Larry mentioned. I originally argued just to have "qualifiers" and "the eliminated" way back at the end of last month. At that time Kevin was for that.

Larry's position I believe (and I think OpenFuture's too but he can chime in and correct me), is that the page as it appears right now, is okay. But, when the September games are over, then that's the opportune time to rephrase this category to reflect teams that can only place second in their groups. Again, that is Larry's (and other's?) opinion(s).

Even if we decide to have this category my argument against waiting is that it should be phrased broadly, as in, "Best possible finish is group runner-up". This takes care of the situation right now and doesn't need to be changed until it's removed after the group stage is over.

As Larry and maybe others have stated this phrase is inclusive of the eventual Euro2012 finals qualifier and the play-off stage teams; and it should be! Until a team starts dominating the best runner up table and we can go ahead and designate them a qualifier, guess what?, their best possible finish is still their group's runner-up position. Doesn't matter what's going on in other tables or the best runners-up table, unless a team clinches it based on points possible and games remaining (notice I didn't use mathematically :P). And if that happens earlier than expected (my prediction is it won't) it's already been discussed in the blue category what happens to the rest of the runners-up. So we would have some runner-up in green and then other teams still trying to make the playoffs in yellow in the other groups. To summarize, I don't think the two distinctions should be which teams could directly qualify and which teams could reach the playoffs. That includes the headache of the best runner-up. Instead, it needs to be between group winners and runners-up in general.

I think if anyone wants to back up a different phrasing because we need to take into account the best runner up position you need to provide a good hypothetical situation with fictional results of the September 2^nd games.

Just keep in mind if someone accomplishes that, it's most likely going to convince people to just get rid of the category altogether.

Well, hope that all made sense. ~Chris (MjrHalloran (talk) 08:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC))

To clarify, Kevin is still in favour of omitting distinction between "can come 2nd" and "can qualify". I only included the fourth item in my list of categories because I thought the previous discussion mandated it. Kevin McE (talk) 11:34, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently we are supposed to be working toward a consensus here. But the three editors who changed the page recently, claiming a consensus when there was none, have not yet said that they will not repeat that in the future. I understand that what you did is very embarrassing to admit, but it happened. Everyone knows what happened. I would like to put it behind us but you have to be honest. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we need to draw a line under this discussion and just settle on the fact that we've got no consensus. For that reason, we should just leave the article as it was before all this started. – PeeJay 20:55, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I think we quite evidently have consensus both against "mathematically" and for rephrasing it, although not yet any consensus for the exact phrasing. Again: there is only one person defending the "mathematically", and he is refusing to listen to arguments. That *is* a consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No one is still contesting the consensus on 'mathematically'. The three of you claimed a consensus when four editors opposed you but you edited the page anyway. So what? We all know it happened and you can't defend it except by saying that two editors don't count. I promise I won't laugh about that. But moving forward in good faith, we should follow the policy. If you don't want to follow the policy on consensus, just say so. If you don't say that you want to follow the policy, then don't expect the rest of us to forget that the three of you didn't follow the policy. What is the point of having a discussion if you won't accept that sometimes four editors oppose the three of you? That is not complicated. --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:19, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS is not a vote. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect score

Group A is showing the Aut v Ger game as 0-2, when it should be 1-2. Have absolutely no idea how to fix it in the template - in fact that seems to show a 1-2 scoreline. Psygremlin (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I had a brainfart with the German & Belgian flags. Carry on, nothing to see here. Psygremlin (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear.

Be aware of two things:

1. The reason Ireland is in the top of its group currently is because of the tiebreaking rules. There is no need for head to head results, because the tiebreaking rules CLEARLY state that the second step is using the goal difference. Third would be the goals in favor.

2. San Marino currently can't win the group, but it CAN qualify, in all technicality. San Marino still has 4 matches to play. If it were to win them all, it would gain the 12 points to tie with Sweden, in the case that Sweden loses all its next matches. San Marino's goal difference is unrelated to the decision of it being able to qualify or not. In all technicality, it COULD be able to raise its goal difference enough to beat Sweden if it were to tie in points.

190.10.7.25 (talk) 02:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Both points are wrong. First tie breaker is head to head. Thus Ireland wouldn't be first now. UEFA lists them first because tecnically the tiebreakers are only used after the group stage. San Marino is out because. For them to reach 2nd place, Sweden cannot gain one more point. Sweden plays Finland twice, as they have to lose those. FInland will get to 12 points, furthermore Sweden has to lose to Hungary, thus those getting to 12 points. As Finnland and Hungary play each other (with 12 points each) one team will move to at least 13 points. -08:25, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it's true that in the future, it will be impossible for San Marino to qualify due to those circumstances, but that has yet to happen, therefore, it should be placed unable to win the group for this very moment. 190.10.7.25 (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

No, if it *will* become impossible, then it already *is* impossible. That is the nature of "will"m and a difference against "may become impossible". San Marino can currently get a maximum of 12 points. The Netherlands has already gotten 18 points, and at least one other team will get more than 13 points. Hence San Marino can not qualify. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If that were the case, why don't we go ahead and just put that any other country like Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Azerbaijan or Latvia isn't going to win cause we know it WILL happen? Be objective, if it hasn't happened, it can't be written. 190.10.7.25 (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Because we don't know it *will* happen. These teams can still theoretically qualify. San Marino can not. That's the difference you see. Even if San Marino wins all their games, they can still not qualify. What is unclear with this? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, it's understandable. Sweden will probably have 15 points after tomorrow, anyways. 190.10.7.25 (talk) 03:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

First tiebreaker is head to head

From UEFA site

• 7.04 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) higher number of points obtained in the group matches played among the

teams in question;

• b) superior goal difference from the group matches played among the teams in

question;

• c) higher number of goals scored in the group matches played among the teams

in question;

• d) higher number of goals scored away from home in the group matches played

among the teams in question;

• e) if, after applying criteria a) to d) to several teams, two or more teams still have

an equal ranking, the criteria a) to d) will be reapplied to determine the ranking apply;

• f) superior goal difference in all group matches;
• g) higher number of goals scored in all group matches;
• h) higher number of goals scored away from home in all group matches;
• i) fair play ranking in all group matches;
• j) drawing of lots.

So the WP page on the qualifying has it wrong. --Ring Cinema (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I finally understand. It says AMONG THE TEAMS IN QUESTION, so yeah, you guys are right on that. I apologize for my misunderstanding. The San Marino ordeal is true, though. 190.10.7.25 (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Your San Marino ordeal is not true, unfortunately. The highest position that San Marino can finish in, is in third place. We are not saying that the chance of San Marino qualifying is so small that we can neglect it, we are saying that there is no chance of San Marino qualifying. As explained above, even if San Marino would tie with Sweden, Finland or Hungary will pass them.--EdgeNavidad (Talk · Contribs) 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I edited certain groups on this page based on what the individual who started this discussion suggested, as I too made the same mistake of believing as he/she did, that goal difference was the main priority in the tiebreaker. The instructions are vague, and therefore there needs to be better explanation of the rules on this page. Burbridge92 (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Application of tiebreakers to interim situation

UEFA do not apply the tiebreakers to the tables until the qualification stages are complete. Compare the official tables with our current display. Comparing teams currently level on points scored on the basis of the matches between them, when only on team has thus far had home advantage in these games,is necessarily going to give slanted results. Are the majority of reliable sources following UEFA's lead in the presentation of current standings, or are they doing as we do? Is it appropriate to apply UEFA's criteria in a way that UEFA do not intend? And if we need to use inapplicable criteria to determine interim standings, then our identification of which teams are in 6th place in a group must be suspect, thus throwing into doubt the table of second placed teams. Kevin McE (talk) 08:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, one problem is that the docs on the group templates say "If in any doubt, check with standings from the official website (http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/standings/index.html) or other reliable sources." while also saying "In particular, make sure teams with the same number of points are ranked correctly based on the tiebreakers of the tournament." We need to make up our minds here. Should we apply tiebreakers or not? For me it's not a big deal. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I think groups should be displayed based on results between teams. Although overall goal difference is techically correct at present because results between teams doesn't come into play until all group games are completed but this is ultimately a misleading way to represent the groups as in all likelyhood overall goal difference will play no part in most tiebreaking situations. Either way this situation should be sorted out as at present some groups are listed by overall goal difference and some by results between teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwohallor (talk • contribs) 01:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Do we have any idea how UEFA ranks the teams now? --Ring Cinema (talk) 14:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

They seem to be ignoring head to head results, ie they are ranking them by:

1. Superior goal difference
2. Higher number of goals scored
3. Higher number of goals scored away from home
4. Fair play conduct

--OpenFuture (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what I thought. I think they're just being lazy (or oblivious). Perhaps they are depending on us to do the work for them. --Ring Cinema (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I find it odd that they are not doing it after the June matches. If I remember correctly, they applied the tiebreakers after the March matches, because I was checking if the standings were correct at that time. And as you all know, UEFA also applies tiebreakers in the interim stage for UCL and UEL tables. Perhaps the math guy at UEFA has gone on summer holiday? Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

To get some action on this, I propose a straw poll. If there are other options, feel free to add them. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Follow UEFA

I propose that we follow the Official UEFA tables for the groups: http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/standings/index.html This avoids edit wars, as we have one simple official reliable source for the tables. The documentation for the Group Templates should be changed accordingly to say that the listing should reflect that source, and nothing else. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Apply Tie-Breaking

I propose that we apply tie-breaking criteria on all groups even in absence of reliable sources for this. It should not be seen as WP:Original research as the rules are unambiguous. The usage of http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/standings/index.html as a reference should be changed in the template documentation noting that this link is used for the data, but should be ignored for the order, as these tables do not apply tie-breaking criteria. This gives a more accurate reflection of the actual standing in the group. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Straw votes

• Follow UEFA --OpenFuture (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Apply Tie-Breaking --EBB (talk) 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC), Schnapper (talk) 15:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC) 190.10.7.25 (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Apply Tie-Breaking - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.59 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Follow UEFA While I understand the appeal that this is not OR, it is at least dangerously close to WP:SYNTH Kevin McE (talk) 21:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
• Follow UEFA Seems like justifiable OR to do it ourselves, but that's still OR. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• See an edit summary by a user. As of now, in all instances of ties between multiple teams, the teams concerned haven't yet played all scheduled games against one another; I suspect that UEFA might start applying the tie-breaking once the complete head-to-head record between two or more given teams is available. But I still prefer that we apply tie-breaking, because UEFA has never stated that its officially accepted tiebreakers are only applicable under certain circumstances, and because in my view the tie-breaking indeed gives "a more accurate reflection of the actual standing in the group" as readers may consider what results a team needs against the opponents it is equal on points with in order to overtake them, and what teams will have the advantage if the teams concerned continue to be equal on points until the end of the qualification process (e.g. Romania vs Albania was a 1–1 draw, therefore Albania will have the head-to-head advantage if they draw 0–0 in the return leg, but will not if they draw 2–2; on the other hand Moldova will be ahead of Finland with any draw in Helsinki, because they have already defeated the Finns once). --Theurgist (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

In relation to your point that "UEFA has never stated that its officially accepted tiebreakers are only applicable under certain circumstances", I would observe that the paragraph detailing the tiebreakers is headed "Equality of points after the group matches" (my underline) Kevin McE (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, I agree that this might be seen as debatable, but I also see a few more points to consider.

While UEFA has to define criteria for determining the final rankings, it would be redundant if similar criteria were stated for the rankings halfway through the qualification cycle, because a team's position at any point of the qualifying competition other than its end plays no role for either qualification, seeding or anything else concerning the tournament proper. Intermediate rankings serve just for estimating the chances of each team for eventually succeeding in their campaign.

UEFA hasn't stated an indication that the tiebreaker that substitutes head-to-head records before the qualifiers finish, if there is one at all, is namely goal difference; we're just taking that for granted by default. One might think of numerous ways to separate teams that are equal on points earned so far:

a) overall goal difference

b) head-to-head records

c) UEFA national team coefficient

d) fair play ranking

e) alphabetical order

f) population

g) GDP per capita

h) ...

How can we just guess that we should use the goal difference, or any criterion other than the one that will be valid eventually, when there is no place where this has been written down?

Imagine two teams have no fixtures scheduled for the last matchday (like Estonia and the Faroe Islands do not), stay equal on points, share 3rd and 4th place (i.e. places that do not grant qualification), and one has the better goal difference while the other has the head-to-head advantage. Should we then list the former team ahead, and wait until the rest of the teams in the group play their final fixtures before we apply the head-to-head record effect and swap the teams' places? --Theurgist (talk) 09:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

For everyone's information, here is the source that we're discussing: pages 6–7. --Theurgist (talk) 09:19, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to guess anything if we don't apply tie-breaking, as the alternative is to follow UEFA's listing. Hence we don't need to guess what they use, we will just use what they use, no matter what that is, no guessing involved. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

• Follow UEFA as it seems to be what every other site does. I don't particularly like it as it confuses people (why does goal difference count first now but not at the end of qualifying) but it seems Wikipedia is on its own. Sam Vimes 11:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Follow UEFA While using head to head results in a two-team-tie makes sense (perfect sense, if both sides played a leg at home), a three way tie based on head to head results like in the current Group H standings (where two teams have played 3 matches and one team has played 2 matches) makes totally no sense. If following uefa, one should however comment out those head-to-head results till the end for clarity. -Koppapa (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
• Apply tie breaking criteria please. I am not much of an editor for this sport, however I believe that the evidence suggests that this year's handling of the tables is an anomaly. This link http://web.archive.org/web/20070707002218/http://www.uefa.com/competitions/euro/standings/round=2241/group=2630.html shows a snap shot of the qualifying process (for 2008) in which UEFA uses the tie-breaking criteria during the qualifying process. They don't have a rule for interim tables spelled out anywhere, but this time they have handled it differently than before. Does anyone have a reason why? Look at the edit history of other UEFA tournaments and see if this has ever happened before (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2010%E2%80%9311_UEFA_Champions_League_group_stage&oldid=394774349 for instance). Either UEFA has made a mistake, they just don't care, or there is something as yet unpresented that explains it.18abruce (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Current table of runners-up: also OR?

Similar to the debate above, what about the table of the current runners-up? Is it not OR? More or less following the line of logic for people who argue for not applying interim tiebreakers:

1. I do not see UEFA (or any other sources) providing this table in the interim stage of qualifying.
2. At this point we are not even sure which team is actually the "current" runners-up and 6th-placed team due to the tiebreaker controversy (is AZE or KAZ now 6th in Group A)?
3. It is only meaningful to compare runners-up when the groups are finished, or at least, when the combination of runners-up+6th-placed team of a group is 100% certain, as the combinations of the current runners-up+6th-placed team as given in the interim stage are not 100% certain to stay the same at the end of qualifying, therefore rendering it more or less meaningless to compare teams from different groups at this stage. In fact, taking it to the extreme, it is possible to conceive a scenario where a combination of the current runners-up+6th-placed team has a 0% chance to stay the same at the end of qualifying. (E.g., with one single match left, current runners-up plays 6th-placed team; if they win, they will finish as group winners; if they lose or draw, the 6th-placed team gains point and finish 5th.)
4. One can argue that it would be more helpful to list all still possible combinations of runners-up+6th-placed team in order to check which team will definitely (or definitely not) finish as the best runners-up, which is one thing that the editors seem to really like to add when editing. Of course, this would make the table bloated and very unreadable.
5. The national team ranking for seeding is interim and will change based on future results, not only based on its own results but also results of all participating teams, or at least, from a seeding perspective, those that are still contenders for runners-up.

Chanheigeorge (talk) 12:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure it is OR. Especially point 2 makes this list pretty pointless. -Koppapa (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

We don't know who is the current runner-up? Yes, we do, because we know how the tiebreakers work. (That UEFA doesn't apply their own tiebreaks to their own tables is another matter.) I don't quite agree that current runners-up listings are meaningless, either. They are almost as meaningful as standings of an incomplete group and it's pretty clear those tables are of great interest. I don't understand how this "list them all" thing would work; sounds dodgy, but might make an excellent paragraph in the section. Seedings will change, you say? Not a real objection as the table is self-evidently interim, provisional, temporary, changeable, and contingent. That doesn't mean it's not useful. In sum, I think it's fine to look on that table as a case where we reiterate what we find in a reliable source for the purpose of providing something useful to our readers. Does that seem fair? --Ring Cinema (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Play-off draw seeding using 2012 coefficients

Wondering about the sentence (in the qualifying play-offs section)

Each nation's coefficient and ranking position for the draw and final Euro 2012 draw will be calculated per results up to and including 11 October 2011:[12]

I know it's given a reference, but I can't for the life of me dig out the relevant paragraph in the regulations...the closest I get is

7.07 The eight remaining runners-up contest play-off matches. The four ties are determined by means of a draw. The four runners-up with the best position in the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system (see Annex I, paragraph 1.2.2) are seeded for the draw.

but that doesn't give the date of the ranking to be used. Sam Vimes 12:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just say see Annex I, paragraph 1.2.2 --Sayka41 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Done that too. There it says the 2010 ranking will be used 'qualifying draw' and the 2012 ranking for the 'final draw' but nothing about the play-offs. Sam Vimes 11:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

They say that's the same ranking as for the final round draw. --Sayka41 (talk) 16:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Iceland should be marked as "cannot win group"

Iceland has 1 point with 3 games remaining for a maximum possible of 10 points... 3 other teams have 10 points already and still have games against each other, meaning that at least 1 team will have more than 10 points no matter what, therefore making it impossible for Iceland to win the group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I feel I should respond to this since I'm responsible. Since OpenFuture or Ring Cinema (I forget) reverted only my legend edit but didn't add the color designations back it's causing confusion now. If no one objects I will revert my edits from a week or so ago. I do think we need to relabel this category however but I won't argue that in this section. --MjrHalloran (talk) 04:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It was Ring Cinema. I think we have consensus to have the yellow category now. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Next Matchday

As the teams are divided into 9 groups, it is very difficult to find out from this article, when is the next match-day and which the matches on the next match-day. Currently, we have to go through the matrices in all the 9 group tables to find out this information. It will be very helpful if a small section 'Next Matchday(s)' is created and the matches on the that day is mentioned under that section, along with the how qualification is dependent on matches on that day.
Anish Viswa 07:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, this *is* an encyclopedia, not an events calendar. For a list of upcoming matches, try http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/matches/index.html --OpenFuture (talk) 08:07, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Each group article has what you are looking for. LarryJeff (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Error in Group F- Latvia's results

At the moment the league table for Group F shows Latvia as having won 1 and drawn 2 matches but also as having 7 points. The results table beside it shows that they should be marked as having won 2 matches and drawn only 1 for those 7 points.

Unfortunately I don't know how to edit that sort of table, so I'm pointing it out in the hope that someone who knows how to do that will sort it out.

IrishPete 00:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

There are special templates for all groups, you can easily edit them, but i must say that during matchdays these pages are edited very often and the final result could be seen only at the next day, at that time all the errors are fixed. Captain armenia (talk) 16:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

runners-up

Should we list ALL teams that could be runner-up in the runners-up section (around 40 teams), with even teams that are 6th in their group, in the latter case we must not count the matches against the "5th" placed teams, it's clear that we must create a full list of runner-ups, with also the fact that in later rounds there is a great possibility that the current runner-up can't gain the 2nd place and would only go down, and i think that only 2-3 teams in the current runner-up list would eventually be second in their group making the current list useless. In group A where Germany already qualified, why the rest of teams aren't coloured yellow? And should a 5th color be added for teams that can't gain 1st place, but could be the best runner-up, or it's just very difficult to calculate? Captain armenia (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary. We should only list teams which currently ARE on the second place in their groups. In group A the rest isn't colored yellow, because it's clear that they can't win the group anymore when Germany already won it. I am against a 5th color, that would only further complicate things. 91.21.125.105 (talk) 11:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Then we must change "can't be first in the group" to "can't qualify directly", thats again if it could be calculated. Captain armenia (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

MAP

Is there anyone who can add a map with countries which qualified, can qualify and can not do it? Like in 2012 Africa Cup of Nations qualification. / TIGERTATOO — Preceding unsigned comment added by TigerTatoo (talk • contribs) 09:59, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The map used in articles for champions and europa league could be used for that purpose.Captain armenia (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

5th colour for 6th team?

Would it be possible to have a 5th colour to designate the teams that finish 6th in the table as opposed to those who simply can't qualify for the Groups A-F? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.87.199 (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

We can use black colour if the team is fixed in their current position Captain armenia (talk) 16:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see what useful information an extra color for that gives us. --OpenFuture (talk) 16:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It's useful to distinguish the 6th ranked sides from the teams 3-5 who are/will be eliminated but whose results still count towards the rankings of the second-placed teams for best-runner up and playoff seedings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.46.87.199 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The other colors deal with the status of teams, ie can they qualify or not. If somebody is definitely last or just probably last is really of no interest except for if there is going to be a Footnote six for the group in "Ranking of second-placed teams" or not. It otherwise makes absolutely no difference to anything. --OpenFuture (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Netherlands Qualified?

Are the Netherlands now qualified because they will win their group or get the best runner-up spot? Or can Greece or Croatia still get best runner-up? 77.251.184.67 (talk) 20:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Denmark can be the best runner up, so the Netherlands isn't qualified. 93.39.196.42 (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No, Denmark and Portugal face each other next round, so only the group winner can get 6 more points. Vesal (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I have added the explanation to the content. Please check if the format is appropriate. Here is a copy: "As of 6 September 2011, although Netherlands may not win the group, they must qualify as a group winner or the best runner-up. Should they not win the group, they have secured 18 points after excluding the points from matches against San Marino, the sixth-placed team in the group. The highest possible number of points (excluding the points from matches against the sixth-placed team in the group if necessary) are 17 in Group A (by Turkey), 17 in Group B (by Russia), 14 in Group C (by Serbia), 14 in Group D (by Bosnia and Herzegovina), 16 in Group F (by Croatia or Greece), 17 in Group G (by England), 17 in Group H (by Portugal or Denmark) and 16 in Group I (by Czech Republic). As none of these highest possible scores is 18 points or higher, Netherlands must qualify as the best runner-up if they fail to win the group. (They will qualify for sure if they win the group.)" Ckhandy (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Your explanation is wrong. Denmark can reach 19 points: group H consists of 5 teams, so all the matches have to be considered because there's no sixth-placed team. So: current 13 points + 6 potential points (two games left) = 19. CorradoM (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But if Denmark gets 19 points, they will win the group, in which case Portugal will get maximum 16 points (or vice versa) as they will face each other. Both teams can also land at 17 or even as low as 14 points each. Neither can get such high points as 17 if Norway wins the group
90.227.54.42 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

That seems right. Sorry. However, uefa.com states that the Netherlands are "on the verge of a finals place" [1], here why I'm doubtful. As regards my opinion, now I think your edits are correct. CorradoM (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Further explanation can be given here.

• Group A: Germany has won the group. Possible sixth-placed teams are Austria, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan. Turkey and Belgium may be the runner up. The best scenario in Group A is Azerbaijan become the sixth-placed team and Turkey win both remaining matches. They will secure 17 points (excluding 3 points from their assumed win against Azerbaijan).
• Group B: Andorra must be the sixth-placed team. If Russia, Republic of Ireland, Armenia or Slovakia is the runner up, they will have at most 17, 15, 14 and 14 points respecitvely (excluding matches with Andorra). If Republic of Ireland win both matches while Russia defeat Slovakia but lose to Andorra, Russia will be a runner up with 17 points.
• Group C: Faroe Islands must be the sixth-placed team. Let alone the group winner Italy, only Serbia may secure at least 18 points in total. As Serbia defeat Faroe Islands twice, the highest possible points of Serbia (excluding matches with Faroe Islands) is 14.
• Group D: Luxembourg must be the sixth-placed team. The highest number of points (excluding matches with Luxembourg) are 17, 16 and 12 for France, Bosnia and Herzegovina and Romania respectively. With some careful calculation, one may check that the runner-up of this group can have at most 14 points as there is still a match between France and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
• Group F: Malta must be the sixth-placed team. Only Croatia and Greece can be the runner up. Assuming Croatia defeat Latvia and Greece defeat Georgia (for the sake of higher points), the runner up of the group, after exclusion of matches with Malta, will have 16 points (by Croatia if Greece defeat Croatia or by Greece if they draw) or 15 points (by Greece if they are defeated by Croatia).
• Group G: It is clear that the best scenario is obtained when Montenegro defeat both England and Switzerland. In this case, England will be a runner up with 17 points.
• Group H: Norway can accumulate at most 16 points. As there is a match between Portugal and Denmark to be played, the runner up of the group can have at most 17 points. It is achieved by Denmark when Portugal defeat Iceland, Denmark defeat Cyprus and Denmark draw with Portugal.
• Group I: Only Czech Republic and Scotland can be the runner up. Their may accumulate 16 and 14 points respectively.Ckhandy (talk) 22:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Serbian home game, attendance of 200?

This seems like an implausibly low amount for a high-tier team like Serbia. Is it authentic? Is it related to some sort of penalty for the match v. Italy?
90.227.54.42 (talk) 22:19, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Nevermind, I found the note in the Group C page.
90.227.54.42 (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Armenian and Russian positions in Group B

As I understand it, the head-to-head system means that Russia remain above Armenia despite the latter's superior goal difference, because Russia have scored 4 points against Armenia; Armenia only have 1 vice-versa. Yet the table on the page says that Armenia are above Russia. 46.208.207.28 (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's been switched LarryJeff (talk) 18:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Can Norway still qualify? Only in theory!

As I can see, Norway can only get a second place if Denmark defeats Portugal in last round, plus they will need to gain superior goal difference over Portugal. This seems impossible since currently Portugal has +10 (20/10), and Norway only has +1(7/6)!!! See: Regulations 7.04 f) superior goal difference in all group matches; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.36.185.129 (talk) 20:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I think you are confusing 'impossible' with 'highly unlikely'. As pointed out in that group's discussion page, Denmark win 3-0 against Portugal, Norway win 6-0 against Cyprus is one possible scenario. Not that likely, but definitely possible! Bertcocaine (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Russia can still be second! If they lose against Andorra and Ireland beat Armenia, they can be the best runner up with 17 points. So I think that letter "G" should be deleted from the table explaining which of the runners-up can be the best one. Regards Valerio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.126.80 (talk) 12:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

There is no letter G for group B. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Denmark are guaranteed at least a play-off place

I notice this morning that the blue denoting that Denmark have at least a play-off place has been removed, but they have the better head-to-head record over Norway, so Norway cannot catch them, so Denmark should be in blue as they used to be. 46.208.207.28 (talk) 13:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

That color is not "at least a play off place", but "a playoff place" and since Denmark still can win, it should not be blue. That's how it was used earlier at least. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

No - it's "Secured at least a place in the play-offs" - just look at the article. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Seeded teams

I have removed the following a few times recently:

The seeded teams will be Croatia, Portugal, Republic of Ireland, and Czech Republic.

The unseeded teams will be Turkey, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Estonia.

And an editor used http://www.world-results.net/uefa/ranking.html#2011 as the reference. The reference does not indicate that those eight countries are seeded or unseeded. I would argue that seeding isn't particularly encyclopedic and what's more important is the pots that the teams end up in and the draw order. However, if someone decides to add the material in I trust that it will be referenced, without flags, and correct. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why is Montenegro hosting the 2nd leg against the Czech Republic if they were unseeded? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RMB1987 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I can only think of two reasons

1. There was a scheduling conflict and the Czech Republic conceded the date to Montenegro, or
2. The data about who was seeded and who wasn't was incorrect despite the assurances by the Anon from the Philippines.

Aside from that, I can't think of any reasons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• or....They don't grant favouritism on order of games to seeded team any more... it is done by draw. At least, BBC seams to have heard it somewhere. Seeding only guarantees the so called better teams (based on UEFA coefficient) do not meet each other. --ClubOranje^T 18:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Never thought of that. Thanks Oranje. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I watched the draw ceremony live yesterday. To determine each play-off pairing, Zbigniew Boniek first picked up one ball from each of the two pots, then put the two balls into a third pot and shuffled them, and then opened the two balls one after another. The team whose name was there inside the first ball would host the first leg, and the second team would host the return leg. The home-and-away orders of all pairings are random. --Theurgist (talk) 02:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

UEFA Euro 2012 qualifying#Goalscorers

Do people think it's reasonable to list all goalscorers from the qualifying stages. Would it perhaps be better to just the list the Top 10 or 20 (plus ties)? Eldumpo (talk) 08:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Pushing the data in to a collapsible table may be sufficient.
Anish Viswa 09:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Don't see the point of listing every goalscorer: see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In this particular case, I'd have thought scorers of 5 goals or more would be enough to list all of, which before the last series of games was 16 players. Preferably with a cited source and with MoS-compliant flag usage. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Remove it. Retain highest scorers. Cruftish at best. Kevin McE (talk) 06:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

• Remove List the top ten scorers. This isn't a 64-match tournament like the World Cup so listing all scorers is unreasonable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Remove With over 300 individuals scoring at least 1 goal, it's too much. If someone's interested enough they could look at the match reports in the subarticles. A list of the top 10 to 20 here is sufficient. LarryJeff (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Remove per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
• Keep I like the way it is now, but if removing is certain, I would propose to keep at least all goalscorers with 4 or more goals. AnelZukic (talk) 16:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Could the USA qualify?

I was reading through all this trying to find out if the USA could qualify and also if other countries could. How is that decided? It would seem on the face of it that they could as many of the teams do not come directly from the EU. What would it take for the USA to have a chance? Might be a bit off topic but really it could be asked of any country in the world. How are the teams selected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.51.40.249 (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the map at the top of the page detailing which countries have qualified, may qualify and have failed to qualify?

It's missing as of this morning. 46.208.207.28 (talk) 12:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still up on the euro 2012 article. --Ring Cinema (talk) 12:49, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

At time of writing it's wrong, showing Portugal in and Bosnia-Herzegovina out, but their match is still underway. 209.118.197.220 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC).

National Team Coefficients Incorrect

The national team coefficients are incorrect by a factor of 1000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.246.205.21 (talk) 13:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

No, they're not. --134.176.19.70 (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not now they've been changed, no.