# Talk:2008 UEFA Champions League final

It might be 13 months away still but all Champions League matches in Moscow usually kick-off around 5:00pm UK time instead of the usual 7:45. Does this mean the final will kick-off earlier or will it stay at the normal time due to it taking place in Spring? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.208.136 (talk) 20:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

The WikiNews article about the semi-final between United and Barca that KingJeff added: appropriate to this article or not? – PeeJay 17:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The winners of the semi finals go directly into the final. If anything before the final is irrelevent, then "Route to the final" section shouldn't be in the article at all. Kingjeff (talk) 17:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, appropriate.  Even more so if we get one on tonight's semi final, also. Neıl ☎ 17:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I have already prepared the article. It's already to have the template filled and the write-up. Kingjeff (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikinews templates are supposed to be placed on articles about events that they are directly related to. For example, a Wikinews article about the 2006 FIFA World Cup final should be linked to from the 2006 FIFA World Cup final article on Wikipedia. You wouldn't expect to see articles about the World Cup semi-finals on the World Cup final article, would you? So why put articles about the Champions League semi-finals in the Champions League final article? – PeeJay 17:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
So, a team that qualifies for the final of this tournament is not related to this article? Kingjeff (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
You're really not listening to me, are you? A news story about the semi-final is not appropriate to an article about the final. Period. – PeeJay 18:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I am listening to you. This is a case that you wanting your own way. Kingjeff (talk) 18:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And you seem to be blinkered by that misconception. I have just given you a perfectly reasonable explanation for why the Wikinews link is not appropriate to this article and you are choosing to ignore it. – PeeJay 18:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
And I have given you a perfect reason to include it. Kingjeff (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
How can you have a perfect reasons to both exclude and include something? That just doesn't make sense. Anyway, I think we should leave this to a third party, as you obviously won't listen to me. – PeeJay 19:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I said both or neither. Kingjeff (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Both of what? – PeeJay 19:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought you were talking about an earlier comment I made. Anyways, I'm not going to get into an arguement to the point that this page will get protected. Kingjeff (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the article simply looks out of place on this page. I would keep the "Route to the Final", but eliminate the WikiNews article that refers to the semifinal match. The only WikiNews article I would expect on this page would be that of the final result of the final match. Acedriven (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2008 (UCT)
Route to the final would have to go too. Kingjeff (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Why? Because you'd throw a tantrum if it didn't? I'm prepared to risk that eventuality. – PeeJay 23:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Me throw a tantrum? It's you who has been in a tantrum here. Not me. Kingjeff (talk) 00:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

You do realise you just used a slightly altered version of "I know you are, but what am I?", don't you? – PeeJay 01:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Call it what ever you want. Kingjeff (talk) 01:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I wrote an article about Chelsea's route to the final, this got deleted. Why?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.182.162 (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC) 

It should not have been. I shall restore it now. – PeeJay 16:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Chelsea's Route is relevvant and i have no problem with it being there but the same should be present for Manchester United. --Gaiushallivar (talk) 22:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It is there - I put it there myself just a couple of days ago. I felt somewhat disappointed to see Chelseas' route being there but not Manchester United, so I added it. It is placed at the top since I believe that United are classed as the "Home" side, since they got to the Final first and their side of the draw was pulled first. If this is incorrect I am happy to see it moved below Chelsea. However, the Final Details are also listed with United first, so I assume that this is the correct way round.DAAdshead (talk) 10:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why are the finals titled "Year" UEFA Champions League Final (e.g. 2007 UEFA Champions League Final, while other articles follow the format UEFA Champions League "Insert season year"' (e.g. UEFA Champions League 2006-07 or UEFA Champions League  2006-07 knockout stage)? Thanks. Do you? yes...|or no · 00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: I'll had this message to WikiProject Football as well. Do you? yes...|or no · 00:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
In common speech, most people would usually say "... the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final ...", rather than "... the UEFA Champions League Final 2008 ...". As for the season articles, I think they should probably be moved to "Season" UEFA Champions League, to follow what most people usually say in common parlance. – PeeJay 07:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The stats are clearly wrong. 0 Chelsea shots on target? what about the goal!  Francium12 (talk) 02:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected it. ;) crassic![talk] 02:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
There are some very odd snippets in this article.  For instance the Uefa's William Galliard claims Chelsea had unsold tickets the day before the game yet the club itself posted up 'Sold Out' at least a week before and the clubs own Chief Executive confirms it. I think the club itself would know.  There were travel packages available up to the last day but they did NOT include a match ticket so maybe Mr Galliard made that missassumption.
Also it's claimed that only 25,000 travelled from the UK to Moscow despite 42,000 tickets sold by the clubs. And then the chartered flights are mentioned. This is misleading. It's well known that a big percentage of those who travelled to that game did not fly direct because of the huge hike in air fares and the scarcity of seats.  Many took two or three different flights across Europe so their direct point of departure into Moscow wouldn't have the UK. Of course there were others who did fly in from different parts of the world.  The Match Ticket being used as a visa would also not shown this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.219.99.139 (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC) 

Is it necessary for someone to keep adding that Ferguson was waiting for the referee in the tunnel at halftime? I wouldn't particularly mind, only it's unverifiable, somewhat irrelevant to events, and previous edits of the same section suggested that Ferguson had issued threats to "fockin' 'ave you!". I'd assume I'm right in thinking that this is not a platform for bitter fans to make libellous accusations. Longsight (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Now, from memory Chelsea have one the UEFA/Cup Winners Cup back in the early 1970's (1971 per WP) and as recently as the late 1990's (1998 per same), plus the European Super Cup again in 1998. This is the first time they have reached the final of this competition. I don't know if someone wants to reword this, but I am only not removing the above sentence as I know I am totally biased about things Chelsea. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

As true as this is, the terminology "European Cup" is typically used to refer specifically to the premier European competitions, ie. the old European Champion Clubs' Cup and the UEFA Champions League that evolved from it.  While Chelsea have been in the final of the UEFA Cup, and indeed won it, the competition is not generally refered to as the European Cup.  It's a confusing issue, but according to the standard usage, it does make sense.  The European Cup page specifically refers only to the Champions League, as opposed to both competitions, and this is how I've always heard the term used.
The Super Cup is a separate issue altogether, as it's a one-match prestige competition between the winners of the two major European competitions, and has never been referred to as the European Cup. Longsight (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough, although I still think that the wording needs clarifying on the page - Chelsea have never been in a "European Champions League Cup" Final, because it can read that Chelsea have never been in a European cup final (a Cup for a European based competition). It may just be me, but then I have my reasons... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Any info why he did not play? Chaldean (talk) 21:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it matter? He was on the bench, but I guess Grant didn't feel that it was appropriate to bring him on. – PeeJay 22:09, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be notable if it was because of an injury. Chaldean (talk) 00:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
That's a big "if". Let's not speculate. – PeeJay 08:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
No, he wasn't injured, just not good enough to make it to the firsteleven. The TriZ (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

There are a bunch of creative commons images from the final here. Use this tool to upload them to Wikimedia Commons. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-26 22:44

Where did you get this information from that Ronaldo was fan's man of the match? Alot of sources point to Nemanja Vidic being the man of the match  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbc06 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC) 

Ronaldo was voted as man of the match by the fans during the game using UEFA.com's MatchCentre. Edwin van der Sar was chosen by UEFA as their man of the match. Nemanja Vidic was not one of the official men of the match. – PeeJay 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Article failed to mention John Terry being cleared of the alleged spitting at Tevez or Owen Hargreaves shoving referee Lubos Michel in the chest. This has now been rectified.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.131.51 (talk) 04:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC) 

appears to believe this is 'his' page, and will seemingly revert any edit made to it without any debate. i have made a number of constructive, justifiable edits to the article, and this user simply refuses to debate any of them. his loss. Jw2035 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

(sentence removed). You have removed a great deal of sourced information from the article, with your only explanation being that it allegedly improves the article to have done so. An article about the Champions League final does not have to be solely about the match itself, and much of the information you removed helped to fill out what would have otherwise been an extremely bland article. – PeeJay 19:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC) refactored by Oldelpaso (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
dear, dear, such language. just because a bit of trivia or cruft is sourced doesnt mean it adds anything to the article. honestly - 'coincidentally, the towns are twinned...'. what is that if not pointless trivia? Jw2035 (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
That level of reaction is both unjustified and highly unpleasant.  It would be courteous to refactor the above comment. Knepflerle (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. I apologise. I was merely caught up in the heat of the moment. – PeeJay 01:05, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the lead of this article is really quite dismal - it almost immediately loses sight of what is most important and encyclopaedically relevant to the topic.  In years to come, this final will not be remembered for trivia about twin-towns, design concepts and "coincidences" of other finals.  If this material meets the threshold for inclusion (which is debatable indeed), it certainly does not belong in the lead.  The paragraph which defines the article is the place for facts which define the event.  The Background section may be more suitable, but this should not become a dumping-ground for material that, although verifiable, serves only as journalistic colour material. Knepflerle (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

i've reccomended the article for GA with the edits made to remove cruft and trivia due to the intractability of User:PeeJay2K3 - we shall see what a third party makes of the article  Jw2035 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

It won't get very far with large parts unreferenced, this was my point you make think you edits are helping but sections without references make the article totally POV. Also I would advise you read WP:MOS as it is recommened the lead has 3 or 4 paragraphs yet this has one, and will be instantly picked upon at GA. NapHit (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:2008 UEFA Champions League Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
This article does not meet the good article criteria and has too many issues. It has therefore failed its nomination. Issues include but are not limited to:

There are too many [citation needed] tags, indicating that this article needs more inline citations to verify the information.
Questions and comments placed on this page will receive responses. Once these issues have been resolved, feel free to renominate the article. Thanks! Gary King (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit warring is getting quite silly, and appears to be spreading to other articles too. Working out what's what from the edit history has become quite confusing. Due to the obvious contentiousness, may I suggest that changes are discussed here before being enacted? If people can't do that then protection may become necessary. 
So, to save a lot of headspinning diving through diffs, can one or more of the parties summarise the dispute and give their reasoning for their stance below? Maybe if some productive discussion ensues it could give some pointers for Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Matches. For reference, examples of featured match articles (which have a tendency to act as de facto templates) are 2007 UEFA Champions League Final (promoted Oct 07), 1923 FA Cup Final (promoted Nov 08) and 1956 FA Cup Final (promoted Nov 08). Oldelpaso (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Jw2035 decided that some finals articles contained too much trivia and decided that they shouldbe shortened to remove this cruft as he called it. Me and PeeJay objected to this, stating the information was relevant and followed examples such as the articles you have mentioned above. There was no attempt by Jw2035 to discuss these changes before he made them. His edits resulted in the articles losing sourced information and cohesiveness, as evidenced by the review of this article at GA, which he put up to try and prove his point. NapHit (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't as much object to the removal of the crufty passage from the lead (especially as those coincidences were more relevant to the UEFA Cup final), but Jw2035's removal of large blocks of text from the "Route to the final" and "Reactions" sections was a bit much. He didn't even discuss the edits first. – PeeJay 19:40, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
It looks like I turned up late to this one, its all gone quiet now. Not that I'm complaining on that front, of course. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:48, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As I said in the section above [1], I think Jw2035's complaints have more than a little merit in them.  The lead of the article is bloated with unnecessary detail which barely meets the threshold for inclusion anywhere in the article.  Just because a trivial fact was used as colourful filler in a journalistic article does not make it automatically relevant or suitable for an encyclopaedic article. Knepflerle (talk) 15:49, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

The reaction section is totally biased, and almost certainly written by an over-enthusiastic Manchester United fan.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunsnroses15 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 
Did my best to clear it up, although kept in a lot of quite obvious fan boy stuff. I guess if its got a citation then may as well stay. Stuff like, glee from United players contrasted Chelsea's tears, is total fanboy stuff, not onjective and not taking into account that it happens in every Champions League final.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunsnroses15 (talk • contribs) 01:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC) 

I add a statement to the article (which is true) It gets rejected (by Peejay2K3) because : you cannot simply add material without a source. Even though the article is full of unsourced information! I then remove other material without a source & another member (Chandler) Reinstates it! Then he/she removed all the [citation needed] labels! Are the lunatics running the asylum???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.151.179 (talk) 04:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC) 

You add a controversial statement without source, I removed demands for sources on that Man Utd won their 17th title, that both Man Utd and Chelsea did not lose any games in the competition until the final, that Man Utd played their usual formation with the exception of ONE player, that Hargreaves is a holding midfielder, that Chelsea did the same, that Ryan Giggs got that shot in the last minutes and that of a colouring wording... not highly controversial and seriously... demanding a source for that Man Utd won their 17th title... Do you take such claims serious? chandler · 04:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
The wording you use is highly POV, in meaning that it was a offence that SHOULD be punished which is highly doubtful as it was the REF he directed towards Drogba, if the ref felt that he'd been handled he'd given it a second thought and sent off/cautioned Hargreaves. Plus why do you feel every decision on a pitch you feel is wrong should be notable enough to be mentioned by just your word? chandler · 04:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
I was told i couldn`t add material without a source even tho the article is already filled with unsourced information. Do you see the contradiction ? What I added wasn`t controversial, its true & the source is the match footage. Watch it. Hargreaves clearly shoves the ref quite hard in the back and shouts at him. A clear bookable offense (or worse)which was not punished! Theres also no mention of Ferguson haranguing the ref at half time. The match footage is also the source for the whole "Match summary" section. Stuff like a the thrilling pace was maintained throughout,United spent the rest of the first half pressing for a second goal & Lampard's equaliser coming at the end of the first half led to a transformed Chelsea in the second half. Whos opinion is this ? Why is this unsourced material allowed but not others ? Wikipedia has rules on having a neutral point of view too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.151.179 (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC) 

Stop labeling Salomon Kalou as a midfielder on the substitute's list because he has never been a midfielder, and it looks ridiculous. He operates as a forward. PatoMilan (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)PatoMilanPatoMilan (talk) 01:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, because Kalou is a winger, and Association football positions lists "winger" as a midfield position. – PeeJay 07:27, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
O really, cause Henry and Messi are labeled as wingers in the 2009 UEFA Champions League Final article, and they're not midfielders; Wingers are forwards, I dont care if some wikipedia article says different. Ever heard the term "winger forward"?? PatoMilan (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)PatoMilan
Henry and Messi both started the 2009 final, so their starting positions are given, not their usual positions. Kalou was on the bench, so his generic position is given. The fact is that football positions are too fluid to be able to define where "defence", "midfield" and "forward" begin and end. You say Kalou is a forward, I say he's a midfielder, but what do the third-party sources say? – PeeJay 15:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Third party sources say he's a forward, on FIFA, ESPN, the official Chelsea website, I can go on. If you say he's a midfielder, I say Cristiano Ronaldo is a goalkeeper. Lets just make up everything, huh? That what you want to do? Cause it sounds like it. Kalou has never been a midfielder; I dont care what you think, because what you think matters not a damn thing. He's a forward, stop changing it to conform to your opinion. The third party sources make you look like a fool. PatoMilan (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)PatoMilan
[2]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PatoMilan (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
You really ought to remain civil, or you may find yourself getting blocked. Kalou's position is easily confused, so don't bullshit me about Ronaldo being a goalkeeper. Get yourself an attitude adjustment. – PeeJay 09:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Kalou's position is easily confused by someone who just likes to edit and yet doesn't know a thing about the sport. You should have checked outside sources instead of being sure of your own opinion, because when you're wrong it makes you look bad, know what I mean? Only someone who has never watched Chelsea games or games with Kalou playing would think he was a midfielder. And you know what, I am being civil, I haven't used false language or insulted you, while you have. Here's a tip: know what you're talking about before you start editing whatever you want. PatoMilan (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)PatoMilan
Erm, would you care to point out a time when I have been uncivil? Sure, I can accept that I was mistaken about Kalou's position, but there's no need to get personal about it – and that is the very definition of incivility. – PeeJay 22:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on 2008 UEFA Champions League Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160120233027/http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind%3D1/newsid%3D464106.html to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind%3D1/newsid%3D464106.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind%3D1/newsid%3D464251.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/ticketing/newsid%3D664977.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/fixturesresults/round%3D15109/match%3D301604/report%3Dst.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chelseafc.com/page/NewsHomePage/0%2C%2C10268~1318700%2C00.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season%3D2008/round%3D15109/match%3D301604/report%3Drp.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/fixturesresults/round%3D15109/match%3D301604/report%3Dst.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/fixturesresults/round%3D15109/match%3D301604/report%3Drp.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 02:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)