Talk:UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying

message: On the day of the draw, many people thought that Group E was favourable to England's qualification chances, and that Group B was decidedly unfavourable to Scotland's qualifying chances. [6] This group was given added spice when two of its members, Italy and France, reached the 2006 FIFA World Cup final.
Seems to me like that statement is a bit anglo-centric. I don't really think most people around Europe are interested only in what England and Scotland's qualifying chances are. Besides, isn't the use of the words "most people" adding in so-called weasel words?
Salmon 02:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus you could say 'the draw wasn't favourable to San Marino' using the same justification.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.172.245 (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction to the draw

message: There's no ideal way of displaying them all, especially here - with 7 or 8 in a group and 42 or 56 fixtures, but maybe something like the UEFA U-21 Championship 2006 format could be done.  We may have to wait until all fixtures have been sorted out first...</br>Slumgum 01:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've adopted a 3-column, no flag icon, bullets only for dates approach.  This way each group's fixtures can be displayed on one screen (768x1024 res). It's less colourful, but more practical.  Apologies to those who worked hard including all the  templates.Slumgum 21:14, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not if Scotland draws Italy and Italy defeat Faroe Islands, while France lose to Ukraine. Italy will then have 27 points, and Scotland and France will both have 25, but Scotland will go through because they have a better head-to-head record with France (2 wins). Artyom (talk • contribs) 07:06, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fixtures & Groups

message: Will the qualifying be shown on TV?
:Of course it will, but not on worldwide. I actually don't know about EuroSport will broadcast some games, but national TV stations will. kalaha 20:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, well unfortunately we were subjected to ALL of the England home games on the BBC, which is pretty disgusting, except for the England-Croatia game! So stop complaining. 86.132.166.22 (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  TV 

message: Why is it called Republic of Macedonia when FIFA, UEFA and the EU Recognize is as FYR Macedonia???
:Yeah, we should use the name that UEFA go by (hence Ireland are Republic of Ireland). --Robdurbar 19:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I got moaned at when I first used FYR Macedonia on Wikipedia, so I now use Republic of Macedonia, as the country's article is titled.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As far as I can see, the official name is simply Republic of Macedonia, so that's what should be used. - MTC 18:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. The article follows the official designation used by UEFA. ·ΚέκρωΨ· 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYR MACEDONIA 

message: Tiebreaker 3 seems a bit redundant. If two teams have equal goal difference in their head-to-head games, they're obviously going to have equal goals scored in those games as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.132.173.59 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 1 September, 2006 (UTC).
:If you look at the first sentence, this concerns two or more teams. If three (or more) sides were level, this could be a decider. --Robdurbar 17:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, for instance, imagine the extreme case in which all matches in a group end 0-0 except for one match which ends 1-1. All teams are equal on points and have the same goal difference (zero), but the two teams that played 1-1 have scored one more goal than the others. If you then look further into the tiebreakers, the visiting team playing in the 1-1 game would win since they scored more goals away from home. This scenario is ofcourse very unlikely, but still it happens sometimes that teams have the same goal difference but a different number of goals scored. --Pelotastalk 17:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, the goalscorers in that example have got to get bonuses from their national football association ;) --Robdurbar 18:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, yeh it also came to me that in this example it would probably be useless who was first and second since they both go through. All the other places would be 'drawn by lots' but also be irrelevant since they are all not qualified. Atleast the goalkeepers have a nice record! --Pelotastalk 19:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Could someone explain why England is placed over Croatia although Croatia has a much higher goal difference? England has also played more matches and therefor has a lower average score. 213.64.150.45 17:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's explained in article 2008_UEFA_European_Football_Championship_qualifying_Group_E Sue-Tomi 05:06, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiebreakers 

message: Italy-Lithuania is being played at Stadio San Paolo in Naples, not in Milan as stated in the article.
FixedArchibald99 20:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong location for a match 

message: Match attendances can be found use national FA websites (where reliable) or Sky Sports Live Score Centre. Archibald99 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also found that ESPNsoccernet has game attendences available as well.  // Laughing Man 22:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match Attendances 

message: In a few rounds of matches, it'll probably be better to have a top 10 or top 25. Kingjeff 13:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, unless we make a seperate article: 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying goalscorers --Pelotastalk 17:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems like someone else made the article already. Feel free to nominate it for deletion if you think it's useless. However in the mean time i've added and corrected the info on this article relating to the goalscorers. Also I renamed the 'Goalscorers' paragraph to 'Top Goalscorers' and removed all players with just 1 goal, list would otherwise become very long soon. --Pelotastalk 15:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Top Goalscorers

message: What if someone were to make a page with euro2008 qualifying statistics ie goals cards goalies and such
I'd say it's fine on this page. Archibald99 21:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics 

message: For whoever edits the goal scorers, Thierry Henry has been credited with scoring France's third goal against Georgia, not an own goal by Malkhaz Asatiani, as shown on the official UEFA match report. Ross1 12:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hehe, surely it is obvious evidence that it was an own goal. :) But the question is whether the official sources like Uefa.com for instance will change their report and 'award' it to Asatiani. If not, I believe Henry will get credited for it. I believe however that should Henry get credited, the video could be a useful 'extra' and valid reference to use in a 'note'. --Pelotastalk 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think "official" is a thing to be used cautiously. If, say, the North Korean government issued a statement today that they had annexed Seoul, would we believe them, despite the fact that it was "official"? So really, what we should use in this case is news reports, which are readily available: Henry was credited (Yahoo), Asatiani og (BBC), Asatiani og (AP), Asatiani (goal.com), Asatiani although Henry was credited (SportingLife.com). So here's what I suggest: write Henry (since that's reported as "official") but with a note that Asatiani actually scored the goal (cite the sportinglife report which describes it pretty accurately.) Sam Vimes | Address me 15:35, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very true about the 'official' thinghy and a good suggestion. Only, I would write it being an own goal with the note. Because we are sure it was an own goal. (See video). --Pelotastalk 15:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, video's good enough evidence. Plus my kicker today which said own goal and didn't even mention Henry. Sam Vimes | Address me 20:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frances third goal against Georgia 

message: Is this game really being played in Minsk? Seems to me it should be played somewhere in Lithuania, not Belarus. AEJ 18:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was in Kaunas.    sʟυмɢυм • т • c  19:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lithuania's game, September 6 

message: This article is now over 51kb, it could be load too much if a group fixtures didn't split to group article respectively. Thinking about it. --Aleenf1 09:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm on it. Group A etc. Archibald99 16:31, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the idea was to split the fixtures into group articles, not the tables. --217.248.51.15 17:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Archibald99, please keep tables in the this article, just like 2006 FIFA World Cup --Aleenf1 05:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done... --217.248.51.205 07:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Fixtures to group articles? In this only table and plain results. Kahkonen 19:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article size 

message: When reporting what country a referee is from, shouldn't it be the link to that country's soccer association and not to that country itself? Kingjeff 04:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referee links

message: shouldnt the points column be at the end like at the UEFA site..its a bit confusing to read like this... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.81.227.95 (talk) .
I like it like it is now. Kingjeff 18:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think it makes sense first, as this is the most important item to determine group rankings. Laughing Man 18:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I maintain that points on the right, bolded if you like, is the standard way of displaying tables. That's where people expect to see the figure, and I think Wikipedia should follow the convention, unless there's some definite improvement in changing the order of the columns, and I can see none. Change to the traditional format! - fchd 22:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POINTS COLUMN 

message: People editing standings tables here should learn the  UEFA competition rules because errors have been added to this page. As of 6 September 2006, four Group C teams shared 3 points each and were listed here incorrectly in the following sequence:
Team    Pts Pld  W   D   L  GF  GA  GD
Turkey   3   1   1   0   0   2   0  +2 
Greece   3   1   1   0   0   1   0  +1
Bosnia   3   2   1   0   1   6   5  +1 
Hungary  3   2   1   0   1   4   5  -1
This should have been:
Team    Pts Pld  W   D   L  GF  GA  GD
Hungary  3   2   1   0   1   4   5  -1
Turkey   3   1   1   0   0   2   0  +2
Greece   3   1   1   0   0   1   0  +1
Bosnia   3   2   1   0   1   6   5  +1
...despite the fact that Hungary has a negative goal difference. This unusual ranking sequence is due to the way the competition head-to-head rules operate: it is not simply a case of comparing points, goal difference, and goals scored. The latter corrected sequence agrees with that displayed at UEFA.com, at least until the next set of matches is played in October 2006. A Stand-Up Guy 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the head-to-head standings is just like the regular standings: a team who's played 3 matches and got 4 points is ranked ahead of a team who's played 1 match and got 3 points, even though the second team got maximum points and may even beat the first team. It's just how teams are ranked during group play, and it's a temporary thing which we don't have to worry about at the end. Chanheigeorge 01:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proper standings sequence and head-to-head rules application 

message: I've noticed that Cyprus has two strikers named Yiasoumi. There's both Yasemakis Yiasoumi and Yiasoumis Yiasoumi, seems like Yiasoumi is a popular name there. UEFA mentions Yiasoumis Yiasoumi as the scorer in the match report of the Slovakia versus Cyprus match (6-1), however on wikipedia Yasemakis Yiasoumi is said to be the scorer for Cyprus. There's no article or information to be found on wikipedia about one of Yiasoumi guys (brothers?), although Yiasoumis Yiasoumi is mentioned as a member of PAOK FC. Anyway, is there anyone who is sure which player scored the goal, all too confusing for me. :) --Pelotastalk 12:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was me who put it as Yasemakis, so every chance I was wrong. Archibald99 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, I've been looking for more sources and I have yet to find the first one saying it was Yasemakis, they all mention Yiasoumis. However if I don't mention Slovakia in the query then it's hard to keep them both apart. Anyway, I'll change the name for now to Yiasoumis Yiasoumi and then later today or this week create the article also. --Pelotastalk 17:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia - Cyprus 

message: I was wondering, should not all pages with the individual results contain this paragraph at the end:
==See Also==
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group A
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group B
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group C
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group D
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group E
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group F
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group G
*2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying goalscorers
But then, that's a lot of links that need to be copied. Maybe better to make a template for it? --Pelotastalk 22:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But I have no idea how to make a template. :) Archibald99 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha, lol yeah ditto ;) But can't be that difficult, I'll have a look and try to create the template. If people disagree it can always be removed so more reactions always welcome. --Pelotastalk 22:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This might help. Archibald99 22:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, found it too, it did help. I've made this:
Feel free to improve. --Pelotastalk 22:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make a Template? 

message: The current tables don't reflect the correct methods of separating teams in Euro 2008 Qualifiers - for example, Greece currently top Group C, they are not 3rd.
If I get time later I'll correct this, but if one of the article's custodians wants to sort it first, that's great. :-) --DaveG12345 09:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect Standings as of 8 October 2006

message: It seems that part Reaction to the draw is some UK-centric. Or I am the only one who thinks so? --Сергій bbhhh 22:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This point was brought up at the start of this talk page: #Reaction to the draw, then it seemed to be forgotten. - MTC 05:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  UK-centric 

message: "Scores are unneeded. They're already in the group psge." Really? I think fixtures can be in groups articles but scores can also be in this article (of course in short style). Kahkonen 14:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scores should be also in this page, because standings depends highly on them... I think short style scores would be best as in version 16:13, 11 October 2006. But because there are 50 games, scores should be bottom of tables, not to right of them. Kahkonen 20:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It's this way easier to edit points table and... I think scores are the most important things in qualifications :D. Kahkonen 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I thought there should be some kind of colums in scores, because there are so many games (56 in A and 42 in others). I chose 4 columns (11 games for every column). (class="wikitable" is ugly for scores, removed it) Kahkonen 09:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it would be easiest. (I'm not sure if dates are needed.) Kahkonen 11:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This way?  Kahkonen 11:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. :) Archibald99 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Should dates be removed when games are played? Tkrldi 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's clearer, better looking and more informative to leave them on.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  01:18, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me too. Kahkonen 08:54, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scores are not unneeded 

message: I think someone should change the format and keep it that way....everytime i come here its changed....scores are posted then taken off ..now country flags....KEEP IT ONE WAY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.81.227.95 (talk • contribs) 
: The flags were a little too much so I removed them.   I know it was a lot of work to add them in, but it really detracts from the readability. // Laughing Man 05:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page format 

message: I commented out the "Qualifcation Summary" section, let's enable it when it can show some relevant information. // Laughing Man 05:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  qualification summary 

message: I hope the following TEAMS JOIN Austria/Switzerland 
SERBIA
FINLAND
UKRAINE
FRANCE
TURKEY
NORWAY
GERMANY
CZECH REPUBLIC
RUSSIA
ENGLAND
SWEDEN
DENMARK
NETHERLANDS
BULGARIA
so what teams will make it?
:This page is for discussing the Wikipedia article, not the competition. -- Arwel (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who will qualify 

message: how long does it take for teams to qualify. I mean how much more points will say e.g. Finland need.
:The number of points needed depends on how well the rest of the teams in the group do. The minimum number of points with which it is mathmatically possible to go through in a 7-team group is 10. This can happen in the highly unlikely event that one team wins all their matches, every other game is drawn, and all teams but 1 end up on 10pts and having a mass tiebreaker session. (see 'tiebreaker' section above) Im sure there must be a definate figure somewhere around 33pts which mathmatically guarantees being in the top 2, but i can't be bothered enough to work it out right now. lol In summary, you need to do better than the third placed team does. It might sound a bit obvious, but that really is all it depends on: how good the third best team is. -aheyfromhome 22:25, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  qualification length 

message: Insted of using goal difference why not use aggetated scores as ties. I mean look at england and FYR macedonia england got a tie at home and a win away so there.
:Goal difference is the same as aggregated scores. And if you mean aggregated scores between the tied teams, then this is already what happens. Please see if the article has the information before asking questions on here. - aheyfromhome 21:49, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Idea 

message: What was wrong with the tables...who keeps changing this ???
:I can't see anything wrong with the tables as they are now. Teams are separated first by results against each other, if that's what you mean. But then there's a section about that in the article and a big section on the discussion so I can't imagine you'd have missed that. - aheyfromhome 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not what he's talking about. Some IP keeps changing the points and rankings. Compare the tables on this page with the ones on the individual Group pages. 89.120.193.125 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who Keeps Changing it  

message: These tiebreakers only make sense once all the matches have been played. Otherwise a team may not have played any others in the tied group, for example. In any case, what seems most important is to rank teams with the same number of points by matches played first. This could never have been an "official" tiebreak rule because the official rules only have to do with the final standings, and at that point everybody has played the same number of matches, so such a rule would be irrelevant. But after points it is the most relevant thing for us. Joeldl 05:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiebreakers (2) 

message: I just reverted a group of edits as I believe that they do not match the data at http://www.uefa.com/competitions/euro/standings/index.html.  If I am in error, please comment here with a better source and undo my revert.  --After Midnight 0001 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  My revert 

message: Can you please not change the format of the scorer of the two goals for Turkey in that match. I am well aware that the scorer was Hamit Altıntop and the convention needs to reflect that. However his full name is listed rather than this surname so that there one can differentiate between him and his brother Halil Altıntop who also happens to play for the Turkish national team. I understand if someone clicks on the link, they will be taken to Hamit's page, but I believe that its deemed proper to list the scorer on the page by his full name - especially if there is more than one H.Altintop. Gaijin84 13:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey vs Norway Group C 

message: I would like to suggest turning the tables into templates, so that it saves time for editors, so the table only needs editing in one place and it changes everywhere Chaza93 16:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. It's dreadful to change all instances. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 00:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: What is written in note 1 right now, "Denmark-Sweden match abandoned at 3-3 due to a fan attacking the referee. Although not yet confirmed by UEFA, the the referee's decision to award a 0-3 walkover to Sweden will most likely stand. This has been included in the table." is simply not factual. The referee has no power to decide on the score of the match. He has the power to abandon the match given the circumstances, but what to do with the match (replay, continue from that point, score stands, 3-0 walkover) is decided by the higher authority, i.e. UEFA. Chanheigeorge 23:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, it kept getting changed. I was more than happy with what it initially said when I left it last night. At the time however it was being confirmed that Sweden had won 3-0. I've changed it 'again' and implore anyone to please not change the info or actual format until things have been decided. As it stands the match was abandoned with no formal result. God made footnotes for a reason, I don't think the event needs to be plastered within the main score headline. Gaijin84 19:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The decision is due on Friday. Gaijin84 15:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Denmark vs Sweden 

message: :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.
*Support It would make sense for all articles under this competition be changed to UEFA Euro ....... Chaza93 17:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Regardless of what is written above, I think that as teams secure their qualifying spots, the current procedure of automatically green highlighting the top two spots is misleading.  There is no way to distinguish a qualified team from a "if the qualifying ended today, top two" team.  Since the qualification of the top two teams is not such a mystery, I question why it needs to be highlighted before a team has actually qualified. Neier 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right. I've actually had to explain my 8 year-old nephew that the "two highlighted countries are not yet qualified", so I guess this could be fixed. Nonetheless, I don't think there's a problem with the red highlight, huh? Parutakupiu talk || contribs 00:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe this is a good compromise.  And before anyone asks, the lighter shade of green does not show up well as just a line; thus, the darker green. Neier 05:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it looks now, with the green line, is good... But later when the qualifiers draw to an end will all the teams have green or red highlighting? I think ok if the teams who qualify have green, but all other teams with red? nah... wouldnt like that.  CHANDLER    07:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that once both qualifiers from a group are determined, the red shading should be eliminated.  Other tournaments in the past are consistent with that.  Probably, the green line should be deleted at that point too. Neier 07:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's perfectly obvious that once two teams qualify and get the green highlight, the remaining are all eliminated thus it's unnecessary to shade them red. I approve the current situation. Parutakupiu talk || contribs 18:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green highlighting revisited 

message: I'm slightly not happy about this. Both teams will not play any games, so therefore its only fair that the tables don't represent this. How can Azerbaijan play 10 games, if they've only played 8 and will only play 12? I believe it should be changed to reflect the ACTUAL state of play. Gaijin84 12:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair point. I've changed the template to the lower number with an asterisk and a note at the bottom. Its a bit unsatisfactory at the moment but I'm sure someone will improve on my edit. Aheyfromhome 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armenia vs Azerbaijan - group A

message: The "Q" in "Qualifying" should not be in capital letters. --Howard the Duck 01:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved it, a simple change like this shouldn't need a requested move. - MTC 07:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a redirect so I thought a can't move it. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 00:50, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that only applies if the target isn't a redirect, I was able to move it with no problems (aside from the task of fixing all the double-redirects) and I'm just a normal user. - MTC 05:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You gotta blame me on this since I didn't even try hehehe. Also, the naming of this article (see a couple of sections above) is contentious so I just let others do the move. --Howard the Duck 09:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to [[UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying]] 

message: Well, now at the next match day we'll probably get half the teams unable to qualify... and I think it will be unnecessary See here I think it looks pretty sloppy. This and this looks better. Chandlertalk 23:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I propose keeping the red until after the qualifying, then turning it grey El-Nin09 19:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I also think the highlighting for eliminated teams (red? it looks pink to me) should be kept until the qualifying is over, it would be confusing otherwise. - MTC 19:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red highlighting 

message: I think they should be moved from 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group A to UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying Group A
To go with the other articles. Chandlertalk 02:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually there's no need for a request, because I don't think it'll be disputed. Chanheigeorge 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying Group A 

message: I think that Azerbaijan vs. Armenia section should be moved from this article to the Group A's article with a link from this article. If it stays here, by the same logic a section about abandoned Denmark-Sweden match should be added, but that will bloat the article probably. --Artyx 16:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed altogether that section. That info is mentioned on a footnote at the article's Group A section, as well as in the Group A sub-article. No need to give it a special emphasis on the main qualifying article. Parutakupiu 16:58, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move Azerbaijan vs. Armenia section 

message: How are they elimanaited?Tell me how?--Someguyudontknow 21:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cyprus is still alive. I've reverted the mistake. Also, Israel is out, because they lose to England in the tiebreak if both have 23 pts, and Russia has to finish with either more than 23 or less than 23 (due to the fact they have to beat England and lose to Israel). Chanheigeorge 21:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cyprus Elimanited? 

message: Something has to be done to the templates. The fixture tables of groups D and F are messed up (results of Spain and San-Marino away matches get divided into two lines, thus making the tables awful). This happens if viewed with Internet Explorer, at medium-sized font (default setting). I didn't try it with other browsers though. Artyom (talk • contribs) 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with templates 

message: Scotland's win over France is not the first French international competitive football defeat.  That is really badly worded, though I think I now understand what the writer meant.  First competitive loss since 2004, since the 2006 WC Final counts as a draw.  Correct?  I'm not sure that that is exactly trivia worthy.  If it was the first loss in 5+ years, then maybe I'd agree.
:I'm not sure, but I think the author meant France's first home defeat after Russia defeated them 3-2 in 1999. Because, France didn't win a single game at 2002 FIFA World Cup, for example. Artyom (talk • contribs) 18:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, the section changed since I looked at it earlier today. But I guess you're right, France didn't lose a single game at 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) either. Not sure about their friendlies after 2004 though Artyom (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed the section to first qualifying defeat, this is more significant, seeing as that record stretches back to 1999. F9T 19:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

text: You're probably right. The paragraph should be removed, in my opinion. And the fact that Russia became the only team not seeded in top two pots to qualify should also be mentioned. Artyom (talk • contribs) 20:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: The article states Italy has qualified.  However, this assumes they beat the Faroe Islands - whilst we may think that a foregone conclusion, surely it is only proper to reflect the fact that its not decided for certain? § LilRedCasanova (talk) 12:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They have qualified, Scotland have no matches left and there are no others within 3 points. - MTC (talk) 12:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assumed future result of Italy vs Faroe Islands? 

message: ... Is it time to start removing the red shading of the eliminated teams?(I know there's one game left but it does not have any effect on teams advancing) Chandlertalk 22:14, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should stay for a little longer - a couple of weeks. At least until the draw for Euro 2008 group stage on December 2. Artyom (talk • contribs) 09:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now that the qualifier is over