Talk:UEFA Euro 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portugal Portal
UEFA Euro 2004 is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Portugal To-do:
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified UEFA Euro 2004 as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.
WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on UEFA Euro 2004 is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Table width?

DragonFire, a table element width of over 100% is fairly nonsensical, don't you think? :) --Shallot 07:07, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I thought that too but if the width isn't more than 100%, then the tables won't be aligned in all Wikipedia skins. You see, all tables have a width limit which is determined by the data inside each cell. If a table row has long names such as Netherlands, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg or Switzerland, the limit will be the smallest width in which the names aren't cut off. If you try to format a table by inserting a 75% width, for example, and if that width is smaller than the limit, then the table will preserve the data inside each cell and will discard the width you inserted. So, even though the width you inserted was 75%, the real (smallest) width will always be 102%, for example. The width that I used for the qualifying groups is the smallest width for groups 9 & 10 -> 106% (it's actually a little bit more). If you try to reduce the width of this table you will see that you can't (on the Standard skin). All the other qualifying group tables are aligned according to this one. With these widths, the tables are aligned in all Wikipedia skins. ;) If aesthetic isn't important, then I agree that the widths should be reduced. :) DragonFire 17:25, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Announced squad listings

I have added Announced team squads to the page with links to the Swedish and English squads. Personally, I am not convinced they are in the right place as they are respectively at: 2004 European Football Championship/Sweden and 2004 European Football Championship/England. I do think they should come under 2004 European Football Championship but not entirely sure how... Any advice/action welcome - Calexico (Talk) 14:11, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

My thought would be to put them all on one page, 2004 European Football Championship squads maybe. sjorford 08:19, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

These pages need to be moved. A '/' indicatesd a subpages and subpages were banished from Wikipedia some time ago. See Wikipedia:Subpages_to_be_moved Mintguy (T) 18:52, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure that the recent change to this page, linking the squad pages against the team names in the qualification section is quite correct. Perhaps there should be another page showing a list of the squads. Mintguy (T) 18:57, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, how about renaming the articles to English national team at 2004 European Football Championship or a similar name. Then on 2004 European Football Championship there could be a table with links to the national teams as well as the 2004 editions. No matter what, the articles should remain in existence and linked on from this page as well. Maybe we can agree on a name for the individal pages. I'd go ahead and do the changes. Yardcock 19:06, Jul 31, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Qualification

What do you people think of putting the whole qualification in a separate article? Something like 2004 European Football Championship (Qualification). This way, all match results and statistics, concerning qualification, could be available. It seems rather poor only to include the final qualification tables. Besides, the 2004 European Football Championship should only focus on the final tournament.
This could also be done for the World Cup or any other competition as well. Take a look at Football World Cup 2006 and you'll see why the qualification should have its own article. DragonFire 20:09, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

All sounds very reasonable to me - makes sense to separate the qualifying from the final section of competitions... Calexico (Talk) 09:57, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rules?

What are the rules for qualifying/winning a group/progressing to the next round, how many points for a draw etc etc... are these anywhere in wikipedia? Lupin 08:39, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

3 points for a win, 1 point for a draw. If two teams have the same number of points, then the difference between the number of goals scored and conceded is taken into account (with the team scoring most goals being preferred). If they still can't be separated, then the result of game played between the two teams is taken into account (the team that won that one would progress). If there's still no difference, then it's the toss of a coin, but I can't recall a championship table being resolved on that basis!. -- Arwel 10:23, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I remember once in a World Cup (Italy 90?), there was a group where the 4 teams tied in all their games of the first phase, except for one game. Only one goal by England to Egypt disentangled the 4-sided draw the last day, and the coin tossing was avoided.
The semi-final of the European Championship in 1968 between Italy and the Soviet Union was decided on a coin toss after a 0-0 draw. Italy went through to the final and went on to win the Trophy! Mintguy (T) 03:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I think there's more criteria for determining who goes through in the event of a tie - can't recall where I read it, but points gained in qualifying is one determining factor.
Arwel you're after getting that the wrong way around! For Euro 2004 the rules are slightly different. (From Euro2004.com) "If teams finish level on points, then the winner of the match between the sides in question will finish highest, or should they have drawn, goal difference, followed by goals scored, qualifying record for the 2002 FIFA World Cup and UEFA EURO 2004™, a fair play ranking and finally either a penalty shoot-out or drawing of lots." -- daveirl 02:23, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, yes -- I was reading a web board last night which was discussing the situation in the Sweden/Denmark/Italy/Bulgaria group. If Sweden and Denmark draw their match 2-2 or higher then it doesn't matter by how many goals Italy beat Bulgaria, they'll still be out. Complicated, isn't it? :) -- Arwel 09:34, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Should these (confirmed) rules be paraphrased and go into the article? There seems to be variations between each major football competition, so I guess it would have some historical value even after the group play round has been completed and qualification for the cup rounds decided. Mortene 10:09, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)


I changed the rules for separating teams on the same number of points yesterday, but it seems someone has taken them out again. Currently the explanation is incorrect. They way I explained it was very clear and reflects this page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/euro_2004/3818337.stm - would be nice if someone could change it back again... goal difference & goals scored BETWEEN THE TEAMS IN QUESTION comes into affect before overall goals scored/goal difference.

[edit] The Title

The Title 2004 UEFA European Championship gives no immediate indication of what sport we are talking about, for those with no knowledge of the governing body of European football, UEFA is meaningless. The page should be moved back to where it was before at 2004 European Football Championship Mintguy (T) 10:43, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

For people with no idea of what sport we are talking about, they just have to read the first paragraph! We don't have to give all the information in the title. In fact, it perhaps ought to be moved to UEFA Euro 2004, as that seems to be the title used by the official web site. sjorford 15:22, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. UEFA should be used like NBA etc. Very few do not know what UEFA is related to, if they wonder what part of football it is about, they will read the article. Everyone knows about the UEFA Champions league for instance.

[edit] The name debate

There needs to be a decision made on this as there is a similar debate over the World Cup.

  • YYYY European Football Championship or European Football Championship YYYY
    • Pros
      • Descriptive
      • Most consistent with Football World Cup and Rugby World Cup etc.
    • Cons
      • Long
      • Not in common use
      • Could be confused with other European football championships (champions league etc.)
      • Does not mention UEFA (and for this reason - not used by them often).
  • UEFA Euro YYYY
    • Pros
      • Official name [1]
      • Short
      • In common use
    • Cons
      • Does not mention football
      • Does not apply to pre-1964 when it was European Nations Cup
      • Inconsistent with Football World Cup and Rugby World Cup etc.
  • YYYY UEFA European Championship or UEFA European Championship YYYY
    • Pros
      • Used by UEFA - [2] "two years later the first European Nations' Cup, now known as the UEFA European Championship"
    • Cons
      • Does not mention Football
      • Not as common as Euro YYYY
      • Inconsistent with Football World Cup and Rugby World Cup etc.
  • UEFA European Football Championship YYYY
    • Pros
      • Used by UEFA - [3] "The European Nations' Cup became the UEFA European Football Championship for 1968."
      • The most descriptive, it includes both UEFA, European and Football.
    • Cons
      • Could be confused with UEFA Champions League, although highly unlikely. This could be included in the article. ("Not to be confused with" or something like that.)
      • Even longer
      • Incosistent with other sports that do not mention their governing body in the title.

[edit] Votes

  • YYYY European Football Championship or European Football Championship YYYY
    • Ed g2s 19:10, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC) - for cross-sport consistency reasons.
    • MykReeve 16:54, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC) - the most easily understandable article name for someone previously unaware of the event.
    • Mintguy (T) 00:30, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC) - Clearly the most easily understood title with consistency for similar Wikipedia articles about other sports, which see no need to mention the governing body quite so prominently. Also I don't recall the designation "Euro XXXX" being used before 1996. Perhaps it was, but even using this would be inconsistent as before the break of the 21st century it was "Euro 'XX" rather than "Euro XXXX". One more thing. If you look at the international links for this page, noe of the muse UEFA. It might be of interest to note that on the trophy itself it says "Coupe d'Europe". Mintguy (T)
  • UEFA Euro YYYY
    • --Frankie Roberto 12:11, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) - this is closer to the very common colloquial name for the championship ('Euro 2004').
    • Scurra 13:13, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • --62.251.90.73 13:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC) - or just 'Euro 2004' the official and most widely used tournament name. The purpose of the title is to tell where the article is about, not to give a short description. The article is about the tournament 'Euro 2004', maybe you could do redirects from the other names or something.
  • YYYY UEFA European Championship or UEFA European Championship YYYY
  • YYYY UEFA European Football Championship or UEFA European Football Championship YYYY
    • TomAnd 11:32, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) This is the official name, and the most descriptive.
    • Kwekubo 23:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC) Offical and descriptive. If thought too long for common use, a shorter name like UEFA Euro XXXX may be used as a shorthand redirect. -- Kwekubo 23:05, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • JB82 Official name. 'Nuff said. JB82 20:43, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      UEFA has used various versions of the name - how is this one more official than the others? Ed g2s 09:49, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • sjorford 13:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC) although the word "football" could be dropped, it makes it a bit long winded. And the first two tournaments ought to be at 1960 UEFA European Nations Cup, or similar.

[edit] Euro 2004 or Euro 2004 Finals

The article talks about "qualifying for Euro 2004", but the qualification stage was part of Euro 2004. The teams have qualified for the "Euro 2004 Finals". This may be too pendantic a point to change, so I thought I'd just float it in talk. - Paul

[edit] Match Results

Underneath the match results as well as the scorers what other infomation is needed? I see we have noted players who were sent off, I think missed penalties should also be included (to this affect I had put the Beckham miss in but it has since been deleted). Grunners 23:12, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I deleted the penalty miss because it's a *score* sheet - the official Euro 2004 site doesn't list them - I've never seen any football report that does include penalty misses. The sendings off are dubious inclusions as well ; but if we are going to include them, can they at least be consistent. There have been two sendings off so far - one has the time of the incident marks on it, the other doesn't. Zaphod Beeblebrox

I think if we're going to include sendings off, there has to be some explanation of what "S/O" means, or preferably a link at the first use. It'd be nice if this were readable by your average sort of people who aren't soccer aficionados (or football aficionados for you crazy Brits). --Delirium 07:45, Jun 14, 2004 (UTC)

Crazy Brits? :P only one country I can think of that consistently uses the term 'Soccer' instead of 'Football'! :) Grunners 19:22, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Really?! To paraphrase Arte Johnson, "Veddy interesting. And ironic, too." JB82 20:46, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Which one country? Australia? New Zealand? Canada? The United States? Whichever it was you were thinking of, you must have been missing some... --Delirium

Score sheets usually have goal scorers, red cards and penalty misses on (or some combination of the three). Off the top of my head, teletext listed missed penalties. It's hard to remember all the times I've seen it beacause it doesn't happen very often, but I'd list all three. (P.S. Surely everyone knows what S/O means, its not just a "soccer" thing is it?) Ed g2s 23:12, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I've never seen a penalty miss on the score sheet, but other than that I agree, S/0 is just fine. daveirl 08:25, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Somewhere we need to explain the other abbreviations (including S/O) -at least with links to a section of a football (soccer) section that explains them (Is there one?). Took me two guesses to figure out D and L. Rmhermen 02:48, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
Never heard "s/o" before I saw this page, but it might be that English isn't my native language. I did quite quickly figure out that it must mean a red card, but didn't (though in retrospect I think I should have) realize that "sent out" was what it stood for until I saw it spelled out on the match stats page. -- Jao 12:31, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Sent Off not Sent Out. Mintguy (T) 17:45, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Stadiums Maps

Why don't copy the Map of the Stadiums from the german wikipedia? I can't upload the map, because i've got no account for your wikipedia. source: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Em2004.png - 12:34 de:Benutzer:rec

This is good but it needs translating into English. Mintguy (T)
Done (English, Portugese, Blank). Ed g2s 21:03, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Err, shouldn't that Portuguese one say "Lisboa" rather than "Lisbon"? -- Arwel 23:01, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Yes, fixed. Ed g2s 15:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Also, Oporto is in English what Porto (o porto = 'the port') is in Portuguese, I think. --Kaihsu 10:32, 2004 Jun 21 (UTC)

[edit] Results now have their own page

For those of you who aree planning to update the scores of the games after someone scores the last goal, please be advised that the results now have their own page. This action was done because the article was getting to be over 30kb in size. When you arrive at the page, please click the link to the "Results" page and update away! Thank you. JB82 20:02, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think we should move this page back, possibly when the tournament finishes. Ed g2s 23:51, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
We should split off the tables and stuff, since we have now reached the 32kb warning. Results and the actual championship are two distinct things, and I think it would be good if we could do a little better write-up on the EC other than just results.
I agree that we have to split off the detailed results. [[User:Sverdrup|❝Sverdrup❞]] 16:08, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Hi tech balls?

What's new with the footballs that are used in the current Euro championship? Commentators say they are hi-tech. Could someone elaborate? Nichalp

I just got back from a tournament in Hawaii where we used them. They are a real pain, at least for a goalkeeper 8-) They are even lighter than previous balls and swerve about in the air all over the place. I didn't study them carefully but several people commented on the strange panel pattern. They do feel very nice to kick. Bob Palin 21:23, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Top scorers list

Ruud van Nistelrooy has been listed with a country of (Net) ; I understand that this is meant to signify the Netherlands - but the more recognised abbreviation for the country would be "Nld" or "Hol" - would anyone object if this were edited? Zaphod Beeblebrox

Actually I would expect it to say NED, I saw it so many times per the list of IOC country codes. --Shallot
Okay then - NED it is then...Zaphod Beeblebrox
That's all very well - but we're not using IOC country codes to avoid some codes which aren't recognisable as their country to english speakers. I used flags in the top scorers list as they're are international, and the first three letters of the english name elsewhere.
I'd say NED is pretty recognizable; to start, I'd say some people would better recognize NED because they think that's how Netherlands is spelled in English. But the reason to use IOC codes is to be consistant throughout soccer tournaments: is SLO Slovakia or Slovenia? is TUR Turkey or Turkmenistan? is CON Congo or DPR Congo? (it's neither). This is the best naming system we have so why not use it throughout the soccer tourneys? After all, EUN exists olny for sporting events. Telso 18:39, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree whole-heartedly. "Net" is never used as an abbreviation of "The Netherlands". Never. When I saw it (in the calendar, that is) I actually couldn't come up with what it stood for. ("Is there a European country beginning in Net? Well, let's see..") NED, on the other hand, doesn't need this interpretation because it is already a well-known code, as are the other IOC country codes (and ENG for England). -- Jao 09:56, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well - I would have implemented the NED change - but we appear not to be using them now, we've gone over to using flags. My only problem with that is the flags are that the images are very small, and some people might not know their national flags -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 19:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If it's ok for the BBC to use [4] Holland (HOL) why can't we? Mintguy (T) 07:55, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The problem is that Holland is not the country the team is from; Holland is a region in the Netherlands. I know at least some people in the other Dutch regions would feel insulted if the team was thought to be from Holland. Telso 09:03, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
why do dutch football supporters always chant "Holland" then?

[edit] Goal timings

When a player scores more than one goal in a match (for instance Wayne Rooney in the Croatia/England match), it is conventional to give all those scores on one line (each timing separated by a comma) rather than quoting each of them on a single line. Hence, Rooney 45'+1', 68' . This is the way I have always seen it in any other match report, and it is the way UEFA have reported it in their web pages as well. Should we consider adopting this convention ourselves? -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 19:03, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've seen this as well I just didn't notice it wasn't used on this page. It should be changed; if there are no objections, we should do it within the day. Telso 20:19, 2 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I object. Listing goals together is a good idea when compactness is essential. Listing goals separately is visually clearer, especially when those goals are separated by another scorer which makes it much easier to see in which order the goals were scored. It also draws to the attention of reader the fact that a player has scored more than one goal (and for anyone scoring twice in a European Championships - that attention is well deserved :)). Ed g2s 03:14, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
It's not really a matter of compactness - it's a matter of aesthetics ; *every* other football report I have ever seen lists goal timings on a single line for each player. At the moment, I think it just looks unattractive and goes against convention - the fact that someone has scored twice is easily noted by looking at the timings in the score sheet. Zaphod Beeblebrox 06:57, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I believe it is a convention born out of necessity. Using the compact form you can almost always (provided San Marino aren't playing) fit the score sheet on one line, which is useful for TV where they have the score come up on a thin bar along the bottom. While the short version may have some aesthetic appeal to some, I feel the longer version is more visually informative, and content beats style for me. Ed g2s 15:54, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Final assessments

The article mentions Greece's "organisation and solid defensive play". This should probably be expanded somewhat. They played a "total" defense, one where all the players had defensive duties. In other words, even though Kapsis and the guys in the back did their job very well, Zagorakis and the rest of the midfielders were no less involved in the defense. And at the same time, they attacked with at least half a dozen players in every counter-attack — I watched the replay of the goal against France: it was scored with no less than five Greeks in the French 16m box! They weren't an attacking team the likes of the Czechs, but they knew where to find their chance and they never failed to capitalize on them. On related note, some more comments could be made about other teams, how the big five were all out after the quarter finals, the final team chosen by UEFA, etc. --Shallot 12:40, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Funny they didn't qualify to this year's World Cup. Due to this there should be a mention of Greece's Team Coach and his job, I believe. migo 01:30, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Music Of

There should be something about the music of the Euro Cup 2004.

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was Move.--Húsönd 03:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


2004 UEFA European Football Championship → UEFA Euro 2004 — All of the ones known as UEFA Euro YYYY being requested —  ¢нαzα93  08:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

[edit] Discussion

Any additional comments:


  • Note: This move involves all of these Championships and qualifying since 1996, when it took on the name  ¢нαzα93  08:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

[edit] GA Review On Hold

I'm going to go ahead and place the GA review on hold. I believe that in some sections, it is hard to read, especially the Match officials section and the notes section under first round. However, and most importantly, this article lacks in-text citations. For a good example of how to utilize in-text citations, see 1930 FIFA World Cup (which is a Good Article). I believe most of the article is good, but these two areas need some improving before it can get to GA. If these are fixed within the hold period, I'd pass it. --Son 17:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I cant quite understand what you want us to do with this article, it seems quite easy to read Chaza93 19:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no in-text citations given within the article, and there needs to be verifiability through references in the article. See the 1930 FIFA World Cup as an example. When it comes to the Match officials and the notes section, it should be revised to use less space in the article. In particular, the notes section could be condensed into a paragraph, rather than another list. The match officials looks far to big than it needs to be. --Son 20:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok i will sort out the citations and officials page, but the tiebreaking tools have been put in lists on all previous occasions Chaza93 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Alright. I think that will be fine. --Son 16:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the changes made so far; just be sure to add a separate references section above the external links by adding {{reflist}}. --Son 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
OK i have added the reference list, but what do you think needs references? Chaza93 17:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The tie breaking rules is the first one I can think of. I'll go through and tag the ones needing a reference. --Son 17:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I can't find refences for half of these Chaza93 18:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Everything is sorted now Chaza93 19:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

Congratulations! This article has passed as a good article! --Son 20:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I believe further issues should have been addressed before this article was promoted to GA. I fixed some minor issues myself, however, other issues remain. Some of the problems include poor prose in the lead which is also not a summary of the article but rather introduces new (unsourced) information; incorrect use of dashes; copyrighted image in the infobox lacking the required fair use rationale; references are unformatted (see WP:CITE); improperly placed (fixed myself); insufficient (much of the article is unsourced); and inappropriate in at least one case (other WP articles are not appropriate inline citations). For this reason, I have nominated this article at WP:GA/R. Regards, LaraLove 05:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Score section is not sourced. GA on hold for now. OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I really dont understand half of this, as im only 14 could you explain it better, then i will re-nominate it Chaza93 18:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
I would help, but I've got so much going on right now. My best recommendation is to get with the wikiprojects that have tagged this page. Just click the link and hit up the talk pages. Ask them to help you out. Look over WP:CITE on how to cite reliable sources, which are explained at WP:RS. To help format references, check out WP:CIT for templates that can be helpful. WP:DASH explains the proper use of dashes. WP:LEAD explains what is expected of the lead section. WP:WIAGA lists the criteria for an article to meet in order to be promoted to GA.
I know that's a lot of reading, but don't be overwhelmed by it. Just do one thing at a time. Building a GA is a process. Take your time on it, learn the policies and guidelines, improve the article, then nominate it for GA. When your article truly meets standards and achieves GA, it's an accomplishment to be proud of. And knowing the processes will make it easier to bring that next article up to standards. Drop a line on my talk page with any specific questions. Lara♥Love 18:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)