Talk:2008–09 UEFA Champions League

message: As you add teams to the group stage list, please make sure the comment marks are in the correct place (around the UEFA coefficient rank only) for all teams. If there are more than 8 teams in a column (Each column corresponts to the pot they will be placed in for the draw) or a team is out of order, please use cut and paste to rearrange.
Thank you. Danke. Gracias. Obrigado. Shishini(sp?). Domo arigato.
RaiderRich2001 (talk) 18:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group Stage Updates as teams qualify 

message: If you do your maths, there will be an odd number of teams in the second qualifying round: 
Second Qualifying Round:  (28 teams)
*14 winners from the First Qualifying Round
*9 champions from associations 16-24 (Bulgaria, Switzerland, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Denmark, Austria, Poland, and Hungary)
*6 runners-up from associations 10-15 
This gives 29 teams!!!
The Champions of Poland and Hungary are not "certain to compete in the second qualifying round of the Champions League". As it stands at the moment, they will start in the first qualifying round.
However, they both will be 'promoted' if the winner of the current edition of the Champions League qualifies for this addition via its league position of its associated national league.--Fridge46 21:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake in Association Team Allocation list 

message: We may be being a bit hasty in filling in the teams by round as we are. By the sounds of it there's about to be a little reshuffle, to be confirmed on 1 December - from what I understand, the same teams will qualify, but some of them will be entered in different rounds, and it seems there is to be another round inserted between the Third Qual. and the Group Stage. Falastur2 (talk) 02:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Those "reshuffles" will come into effect for the 2009-10 UEFA Champions League, not for this one. This is because the domestic leagues were each told at the start of this (2007-08) season which places would qualify for which round of which 2008-09 European competition, and they can't change that in the middle of the season. - MTC (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My mistake. I read a webpage which suggested that it would be implemented in this (08-09) season. Falastur2 (talk) 13:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualified teams 

message: The team qualifying for the third qualifying round is not necessarily the team that finishes 2nd in the league. In fact, teams 2-5 compete in a "play off" tournament, and the winner goes to the third qualifying round. So in fact the 5th place-team in the league can still qualify. See Eredivisie#European competition for details. JACOPLANE • 2007-12-29 17:42
:I added a note to indicate this attached to the list of teams, but it was swiftly removed with the reasoning "it's the usual play-off system used by the Dutch" and implying it's not worth mentioning. I've added it back in, as the list of allocations only mentions Champions, runners-up etc. and from that you would assume that AFC Ajax should have been the second Dutch qualifier. - fchd (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dutch second team 

message: There is surely a mistake, since champions of Poland are written in this article that they will start from 1st qualifying round AND 2nd qualifying round.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.55.83.194 (talk) 09:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First team from Poland 

message: I don't know much about Champions League (so I'm not deleting anything) but how come FC Zenit is listed as the club which will automatically play in the group stage?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.190.69.34 (talk) 14:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they won the Russian Premier League 2007.  ARTYOM  14:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep, it was me that added them. Winning the Russian league guarantees Group Stage play next season. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yep, before 2007-08 no team from Russia qualified for the group stage automatically (champion and runner-up qualified for QR3 and QR2, respectively). It was due to Russia's low position in UEFA coefficients. Advancement in ranking occured as a result of CSKA Moscow's triumph at UEFA Cup 2004-05 and the Russian teams' successful participation in 2005-06 season. Also due to Zenit's current good performance in UEFA Cup, three Russian clubs will take part in UEFA Champions League 2009-10, two of which will qualify directly to the group stage. See here for current UEFA coefficients :)  ARTYOM  16:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FC Zenit St Petersburg? 

message: I came up with an idea of having an inter-wiki project for Champions League, UEFA Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup. The idea is we can have match reports from Wikinews and use them on Wikipedia article for 2008-09 Champions League, 2008-09 UEFA Cup and 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup. There should be no sourcing issues since there is a requirement of 2 sources per match report.
#This is an inter-promotion thing for Wikimedia Foundation.
#All match reports would be of the same standard.
#The standard NPOV will be in the match reports as required by Wikinews and Wikipedia.
There will be 213 matches for Champions League, 359 UEFA Cup matches, 78 Intertoto Cup matches for a total of 650 matches. Therefore, there will be a number of people needed to do this. If you're interested or have any questions or comments, you can ask them here or if you would like to sign-up, you can go here. Don't write how this is too big or a bad idea. This is to survey to see how viable this is. However, if you have some constructive comment or question, then feel free to add. Kingjeff (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Inter-Wiki project idea

message: Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for UEFA Champions League. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wikinews invitation

message: The list of confirmed teams in the group stage is shown on the main page, and we need 2, or 3 letter codes to try and make the result tables of last season :)
* Chelsea - CHE
* Manchester United - MU
* Lyon - OL
* Internazionale - INT
* Real Madrid - RM
* Bayern Munich - BAY
* PSV Eindhoven - PSV
* Villarreal - VIL
* Roma - ROM
* Porto - FCP
* Werder Bremen - BRE
* Sporting CP - SCP
* Zenit St. Petersburg ZEN
* Bordeaux - BOR
* Celtic - CEL
* CFR Cluj - CFR
please feel free to post your views below // Finns 18:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure why you need to use FCP to avoid confusion with Portugal. I can't see why anyone could possibly get the idea that the Portuguese national team is playing in the Champions League, especially over such a minor matter, and if you start trying to dodge conflicts like that, you're opening up the possibility for ruling out just about any of those codes as being "possibly confusable" with a different meaning for the same code. Not to mention that on the vertical column, the club names are listed, meaning it's virtually impossible to mistake Porto for Portugal, short of if you were actually trying to. POR worked fine last year, can't see why this year is any different. Falastur2 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: We should use the same three-letter codes as UEFA, as shown by their main page on a matchday. – PeeJay 19:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a good idea. Nevertheless, if implemented, make sure to double-check for possible conflicts within the domestic league tables (use of r2 headers is assumed). Hockey-holic (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Three-letter abbreviations don't have to be consistent from competition to competition. For example, Manchester United may use the abbreviation "MNU" in the Premier League, but they are often referred to as "MU" by UEFA. If there are any other such differences between the abbreviation used by the club domestically and in the Champions League, we should ignore them and use the UEFA-defined abbreviation. – PeeJay 21:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I would change the following proposals: Olympique Lyon - OL (common abbreviation for the club), Zenit St. Petersburg - ZEN (the club is usually referred to as Zenit) Hockey-holic (talk) 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have made some more changes, and we should be able to ready the full list next week! // Finns 19:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Codes for results tables in the group phase 

message: Since we seem to get those repeats on adding and unadding the TH UCUP to Zenit at the moment, I would like to point out, especially to those IP editors, that consensus was reached on the topic last year not to add the note. Details see below (this is a copy from last year's talk page). Hockey-holic (talk) 14:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be put in either. If we put it in we'd rather as well add all the other cup/league competitions that clubs happened to win last year (which we won't). As far as continual reverts go, I think whoever's doing it is trying out their hand at trolling (one born every minute). We'll just have to put up with it. Aheyfromhome 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it doesn't have any effect. Sevilla qualified for the Champions League 07-08 by coming third in La Liga 06-07, not by winning the UEFA Cup 06-07. Winning the UEFA Cup 06-07 was merely coincidental in relation to their Champions League 07-08 qualification. - PeeJay 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After AC Milan is - "(automatic qualification as title holders)", therefore showing the reason why they are in the competition. So, adding "(Winner of UEFA Cup 2006-07)" after Sevilla FC could be very easily misinterpreted as meaning that they are in this competition as a result of winning last seasons UEFA Cup. OK so most of us know that is not the case, but anyone viewing the article with no knowledge of the topic, that is without a doubt, how it would read. Therefore, Peejay is correct, it is not appropriate to keep adding into it this article. In addition it does nothing to improve the article, and it could also be argued that if the article were to include details of last seasons UEFA Cup winners, then each club that has won the UEFA Cup, CL (or even the old Cup Winers Cup) should also have that information by their clubs name. But that is clearly neither relevant nor justifiable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Zenit St. Petersburg saying TH UCUP 

message: OK, I'm getting bored of continually reverting the article whenever this gets put back in, so I thought I'd better take some friendly advice from User:RichardRundle and bring the debate here (yes, I know I should've done that sooner, and I'm sorry). So, what does everyone else think. I know there have been others who have removed this info when it has been put back in, but I'd like to see if there's anyone who thinks that, despite its irrelevance, the fact that Sevilla won last season's UEFA Cup should be kept in the article. - PeeJay 18:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it should be put in either. If we put it in we'd rather as well add all the other cup/league competitions that clubs happened to win last year (which we won't). As far as continual reverts go, I think whoever's doing it is trying out their hand at trolling (one born every minute). We'll just have to put up with it. Aheyfromhome 18:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Because it doesn't have any effect. Sevilla qualified for the Champions League 07-08 by coming third in La Liga 06-07, not by winning the UEFA Cup 06-07. Winning the UEFA Cup 06-07 was merely coincidental in relation to their Champions League 07-08 qualification. - PeeJay 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After AC Milan is - "(automatic qualification as title holders)", therefore showing the reason why they are in the competition. So, adding "(Winner of UEFA Cup 2006-07)" after Sevilla FC could be very easily misinterpreted as meaning that they are in this competition as a result of winning last seasons UEFA Cup. OK so most of us know that is not the case, but anyone viewing the article with no knowledge of the topic, that is without a doubt, how it would read. Therefore, Peejay is correct, it is not appropriate to keep adding into it this article. In addition it does nothing to improve the article, and it could also be argued that if the article were to include details of last seasons UEFA Cup winners, then each club that has won the UEFA Cup, CL (or even the old Cup Winers Cup) should also have that information by their clubs name. But that is clearly neither relevant nor justifiable. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 00:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sevilla - UEFA Cup Winners 2006-07 

message: It would be nice to see some explanations for teams automatically qualifying for the group stage or qualifying rounds. Teams such as CFR Cluj, Zenit St.Petersberg are included in the list of teams automatically qualifyed. Please some explanation for this would be helpful. rokkafellah (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cluj and Zenit are in the group stage because they won the Romanian and Russian leagues respectively. According to the UEFA Access List, the winners of those leagues qualify for the group stage directly. – PeeJay 19:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Coefficients or What? 

message: There is such note on the page:
|}
*:  Order of legs reversed
When we click on  we go to the Note 2, but when we click on :  we don't go to the  (because there is not id #endnote 2_back).
I suggest to change these note to (for example):
|}
;Notes
 
--Ahonc (Talk)  20:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with this. However, I would also suggest that all of the notes be moved to the bottom of the page, in-keeping with the MOS. All footnotes should be in a section at the bottom of the page, between the "See also" section and the "References" section. – PeeJay 20:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Why are the legs reversed in the first place? — chandler — 22:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  About notes 

message: Seeing as we were trying to use the UEFA codes for everything, the Supercup match center uses ZNT for Zenit rather than ZEN // Finns 19:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Better change it then. – PeeJay 19:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

text: On TV It uses  MAN and ZEN for me. — chandler — 20:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's probably a code used by the TV network broadcasting the game in your area. On ITV in the UK, the codes are "MAN U" and "ZEN", but the UEFA MatchCentre says "MU" and "ZNT". – PeeJay 20:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there official codes of teams?--Ahonc (Talk)  13:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not as such, but for the purposes of an article about a UEFA competition, I don't think it's too outlandish just to use the same abbreviations as they do. Saves on a lot of petty arguments anyway! – PeeJay 18:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that codes are not important. Each code has a link to article about team. I think that's why we can used similar codes in different tables (for example, abbreviate both Olympiques as OLY).--Ahonc (Talk)  21:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why abbreviate Olympique Lyonnais and Olympique de Marseille as OLY when we can differentiate between the two by abbreviating to LYO and OM? – PeeJay 21:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but it will be also understandable.--Ahonc (Talk)  21:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's perfectly understandable as it is. That's the idea behind the codes. They're supposed to be immediately recognisable as referring to the clubs they are meant to refer to. Anyway, the common names for Olympique Lyonnais and Olympique de Marseille are "Lyon" and "Marseille" respectively, which makes "LYO" and "OM" perfectly acceptable as codes for those clubs. – PeeJay 21:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And why does Lyon use three-letter code and Marseille - two-letter? If I'll make this article I'll unify codes (LYO, MAR, MAN, ZEN...).--Ahonc (Talk)  21:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure you would. However, I'm sure there are others who would disagree with your opinion of what the correct code should be. Therefore, we should use the UEFA codes to avoid arguments, as I said before. – PeeJay 21:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zenit code 

message: Is there any way we can try to keep using the same name for a club all the way through the article?  For instance, Anorthis Famagusta are called exactly that for the qualifying rounds, but are just called Anorthis in the group stage.  This can be confusing for many reasons, and I think that whichever name (shorter, longer, doesn't matter) we settle on should be used throughout.  I also don't think it would be a bad idea that if we settle on the really short versions of names (like just Bayern for Bayern Munich), we should try to stick to as short a name as possible for the rest of the clubs, again for consistency.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 04:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have fixed the inconsistency in the naming of Anorthosis. Also, which clubs do you think should have their names shortened? All the names seem fine to me. – PeeJay 09:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, what I meant was that "Bayern" is to "Anorthosis" as "Bayern Munich" is to "Anorthosis Famagusta," so whichever one we go with, we should stick with for all clubs.  Examples would be just calling A.C. Milan "Milan" or Inter Milan "Inter."  I guess what I'm saying is that if we're going to go with the shortest unique name possible for some clubs (which is fine), we should do so for all of them.  Hopefully this clarifies the issue?  --  Grant.Alpaugh 00:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand what you're suggesting, but which team names would you change? How extensive would this change be? Basically, I think I'd be happier to change "Anorthosis" to "Anorthosis Famagusta" and "Bayern" to "Bayern Munich" than to change all the rest. – PeeJay 07:25, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess what I'm saying is that something like CFR Cluj, if it were like AC Milan it would just be Cluj if we're going to use Milan, etc.  Basically I think we should decide if we're going to use prefixes, suffixes, and location indicators in the articles.  If we're going to shorten Liverpool F.C. to Liverpool, then there's no reason to use Aalborg BK, since "BK" is just the Danish form of "F.C.," AFAIK.  Also, if we're going to leave the "Munich" out of FC Bayern Munich, then I don't understand why we need to include the "St. Petersburg" or "Eindhoven" in what by all accounts should just be "Zenit" and "PSV."  I guess what I'm saying is that we should not include things that are not part of the name of the club (like location indicators), or the functional equivalent of "F.C." (C.D., C.F, BK, IFK, etc.), whether they are prefixes or suffixes.  I've tried to do this with the CONCACAF Champions League, and once you get going, the names become much more consistent, and the rest of the community usually catches on rather easily.  I think it improves the readability of the article by increasing consistency.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 17:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I think this needs to be done on a case-by-case basis - e.g. I'd always just use "PSV" as that appears to be the complete name of the club and the "Eindhoven" is just added by those who don't know any better, but use "Anorthosis Famagusta" as that is the name of that club, the Famagusta bit not as thier current location (which I believe is Larnaka), but as a reminder of where they played until 1974. I'd use AaB for Aalborg, as that's what I see most Danish sources use. I'm not too bothered either way about F.C./BK etc. - fchd (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: Shouldn't Shakhtar Donetsk and Porto switch places? Shakhtar Donetsk has more away goals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.61.116.116 (talk) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First, I think you mean Sporting CP, not Porto. Second, no. As the two teams have not played against each other, and their overall goal differences and goals scored are equal, they are ranked by their UEFA coefficients. Since Sporting's is higher, they are ranked higher than Shakhtar. – PeeJay 15:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shakhtar Donetsk and Porto 

message: There is zero encyclopedic value in updating intermediate game scores. Just enjoy the games while they run.--Tikiwont (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me, we've heard this spiel umpteen times. People will continue to update live scores regardless of whether you tell them not to or not, so I suggest that you just leave them to it. – PeeJay 21:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it can become disruptive enough to warrant administrative measures. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I'm not saying I condone it, but like I said above, people will continue to update scores as they come in despite warnings to the contrary. By the way, I just noticed that my comment above sounded a bit accusatory, and for that I apologise. – PeeJay 08:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. There may indeed always be someone who will consider the scores out-of-date, but what I hope for that it is a phase people move through before doing something more productive. But that is probably an insight people indeed have to reach themselves. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:08, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, I've been guilty of updating the scores as they happen, but I'm trying not to do so any more. By the way, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't "correct" my spelling ;) – PeeJay 09:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, that wasn't me but this spell checker thingy, that I installed to correct my own awful typing.;)--Tikiwont (talk) 09:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a news service 

message: Will Juventus be qualified for the knockout stage if they beat Real Madrid on matchday 4?
I say yes, but Hockey-holic says that this would be a scenario after gameday 5
Let's see:
If Juventus beats Real, they will have 10 points and Real will have 6 points after 4 games. In order to catch Juve, Real can't lose to BATE on matchday 5 neither to Zenit on matchday 6. But BATE needs to beat Zenit, Real and Juve in order to catch Juventus. And Zenit also needs to beat BATE, Juve and Real to catch Juventus.
So, if Juventus beats Real on matchday 4, they will be qualified for the knockout stage  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.145.91.202 (talk) 11:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if Juventus beats Real? 

message: Please discuss any questions about scenarios here!!!
===Group E===
Can Celtic still qualify for knockout stages if they lose to Manchester United in next match?
And if Manchester United defeat Celtic are they definitely through to knockout stages?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.195.24 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the article, in the case of a Manchester win against Celtic, the fate of both teams is in the hands of Aalborg BK. If and only if Aalborg manages to beat Villareal, there will be a small chance for ManU and Celtic to escape their current destiny, and then only if a couple of other strange things happen so that three teams will be tied on points after Matchday 6. Hockey-holic (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks guys! I had added the scenarios under my IP address yesterday, thanks for updating it accordingly and filling in things I've missed. I hope everything is correct now. Radicell (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Two things come into my mind. First, the sentences in their current form are facts themselves because they are applied logic reasoning. I get your point though. The discussion of this topic might probably lead to a similar philosophical discussion as "What was first - hen or egg?". Second, I think that people adding "what if"-facts can be compared to people doing "live updates". You just can't stop them. Personally, I'm not against adding sentences like "abc qualifies if xyz happens" IF they describe possibilities for the coming matchday ONLY. Any further-going assumptions should stay out of the article and rather be discussed in a local pub or similar facilities. :-) Hockey-holic (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were prominent in the World Cup Qualifying sections, so I added them here as well. Radicell (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and regarding your "You just can't stop them." comment, why would you want to stop them? Radicell (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey guys, can we move these to the Group Stage Page and thereby eliminate clutter on the main page? Right now we seem to update the main page first. I will make the edits myself when I get home. Nlsanand (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: As proven by my edits today, I too am not convinced that the scenarios have a place in this article. It may be simple mathematics to analyse the teams' records and extrapolate their potential finishing positions, but it is also original research, IMO. – PeeJay 18:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, OR, as a rule, eliminates people posting their theses on Wiki. This again is just an extrapolation of fact that is used to give context to users. Why should we wait for soccernet to publish their what if scenarios (which are sometimes wrong)? I think these items are useful to readers. Since it is convention to have these (as in World Cup or Eurocup), I am going to put the scenarios but only on the Group page. My concern is that there seems to a "Yes" and "No" side on this. However, if we eliminate it entirely, then the "No" side who ignored the precedent from previous tournaments, will have created a precedent to site in the future. Again I won't do this til later. Nlsanand (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They still have no encyclopaedic value, in my opinion, whether here or on the Group Stage Pages, regardless of what "soccernet" whatever that is says, or regardless of any precedent, either in the past or for the future. Best kept to fan pages. - fchd (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: If they are to be included at all, add them to the Group Stage Pages. But they are, let's face it, facing the OR regulations right in the eye, and it's close between who is going to blink first. I wonder if there is much point in telling people "If X wins and Z draws or loses..." to be honest. In any other context, they would be deleted (if, halfway through the American elections, someone edited "If Obama gets A, B and C, and McCain doesn't get D, then Obama wins" it would have been undone immediately. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this is preferable is that often end of group matches are filled with permutations that people like to have summarized. This is consolidating a state of facts which are alreaady available on the print but may not be easily decipherable to someone not acquainted with tiebreakers. Everyone here seems to hit on the OR issue, or the encyclopedic issue, instead of looking at "What do people care about." Nlsanand (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being able to "give the people what they want" is all well and good, but it's irrelevant if the information cannot be properly sourced. – PeeJay 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Previous match results are sourced. They are the information on which the scenarios are determined. Hence, the info used to write the scenarios is sourced. If I have a source which tells me a=1 and b=2, do I know a separate source that tells me a+b=3? That is what you're saying. If you think the stuff written is untrue, just verify it and edit it if it is wrong. All it takes is someone taking two seconds to think before they press the revert button, which you have appeared unwilling to do so far. Nlsanand (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how including the scenarios can violate OR. Saying that Liverpool will qualify if they win or draw their next match is not OR. It's sort of obvious. We don't have to source that π = 3.1415926535... for example, do we?  ARTYOM  10:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: So, did we just go ahead and delete it? I don't think it's original research, it's just a summary to help the average Joe Dimwit figure out how teams will go through. If we really want to be strict about this, then the World Cup Qualifying ones should be deleted as well. Radicell (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no concensus to delete. It has just sat as deleted for right now, because the No side got the last edit. I'm at work right now. If someone else can do it, would appreciate. Nlsanand (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus is always on the editor adding a piece of information to prove why that information deserves to be included. I am yet to see a decent reason for the inclusion of the scenarios. – PeeJay 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here are the reasons, the info is verifiable (your OR argument, on which the initial revert was predicated, does not hold water, see above). It is useful to a user as a means of consolidating info (see arguments above). Finally, in the lack of consensus previous precendent of it being used for other events should have some sway; there is always onus on the reverter to make a case where deleting that's usually standard for a page; I have seen no attempt at a legitimate in your arguments above that warrants your reverts. Groups page for now, while leaving debate open??? Arbitration if need be. Nlsanand (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still cannot see how the info is verifiable. Unless a reliable source publishes similar scenarios, anything you do to prove it yourself is OR. – PeeJay 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it is OR. Your opinion doesn't prove things, until it is proven that scenarios = OR, then the scenarios should stay. 221.220.177.156 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The qualfication criteria is sourced, the scores are sourced. The fact that you can't verify it is because you're too lazy to do the calculations. I am willing to listen to an argument that says these aren't encyclopedic, but really your OR argument is bullshit. I'm beginning to think you don't have a grasp of logic, or are just trolling. Nlsanand (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have inserted them into the Group stage page. We can delete them from the main page if there is some form of consensus. I am actually for elimiating them from the main page, and putting in some form of colour scheming, that identifies teams that control their own destiny or something. Nlsanand (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I read somewhere that the scenarios don't go that well with the individual scores, I read that somewhere around the WC Qualifying talk pages. The UEFA Cup 2008-09 article has the scenarios as well, should we add them to their group stage article? 221.220.190.190 (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks okay to me on the page, but I'm not that picky about presentation. Nlsanand (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scenario discussions 

message: Can Celtic still qualify for knockout stages if they lose to Manchester United in next match?
And if Manchester United defeat Celtic are they definitely through to knockout stages?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.195.24 (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As stated in the article, in the case of a Manchester win against Celtic, the fate of both teams is in the hands of Aalborg BK. If and only if Aalborg manages to beat Villareal, there will be a small chance for ManU and Celtic to escape their current destiny, and then only if a couple of other strange things happen so that three teams will be tied on points after Matchday 6. Hockey-holic (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Group E

message: Upon further thought, it will be sufficient for Juventus to qualify for the knockout stage if they win their game on 5 November, even if there is a winner in the other game on that day. The reasons for that are:
*If BATE wins, they would have 5 points. In the worst case, another BATE win against Real and a Juventus defeat against Zenit in the Day 5 games would get this group to Juventus 10 pts, BATE 8 pts, Real 6 pts and Zenit 4 pts, thus assuring Juventus the qualification.
*If Zenit wins, they would have 4 points, setting the group standings at JUV 10 pts, RM 6 pts, ZEN 4 pts, BATE 2 pts. Zenit then win their Day 5 game against Juve, which would get them to 7 points while Juve still have 10 points. If Real wins against BATE (this would be the only case where Day 6 matches become relevant), they would have 9 points after five games. Since Real and Zenit then play each other on Day 6, only one of them would be able to qualify besides Juventus.
My apologies go to the anon editor who came up with this first but got constantly reverted by me. Hockey-holic (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks guys! I had added the scenarios under my IP address yesterday, thanks for updating it accordingly and filling in things I've missed. I hope everything is correct now. Radicell (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: After matchday 4, Group H

message: Do these "Scenarios" have any place on an encyclopaedic article anyway? Being full of ifs and maybes doesn't add any value to the facts as already presented. - fchd (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Two things come into my mind. First, the sentences in their current form are facts themselves because they are applied logic reasoning. I get your point though. The discussion of this topic might probably lead to a similar philosophical discussion as "What was first - hen or egg?". Second, I think that people adding "what if"-facts can be compared to people doing "live updates". You just can't stop them. Personally, I'm not against adding sentences like "abc qualifies if xyz happens" IF they describe possibilities for the coming matchday ONLY. Any further-going assumptions should stay out of the article and rather be discussed in a local pub or similar facilities. :-) Hockey-holic (talk) 19:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They were prominent in the World Cup Qualifying sections, so I added them here as well. Radicell (talk) 09:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, and regarding your "You just can't stop them." comment, why would you want to stop them? Radicell (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Hey guys, can we move these to the Group Stage Page and thereby eliminate clutter on the main page? Right now we seem to update the main page first. I will make the edits myself when I get home. Nlsanand (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: As proven by my edits today, I too am not convinced that the scenarios have a place in this article. It may be simple mathematics to analyse the teams' records and extrapolate their potential finishing positions, but it is also original research, IMO. – PeeJay 18:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, OR, as a rule, eliminates people posting their theses on Wiki. This again is just an extrapolation of fact that is used to give context to users. Why should we wait for soccernet to publish their what if scenarios (which are sometimes wrong)? I think these items are useful to readers. Since it is convention to have these (as in World Cup or Eurocup), I am going to put the scenarios but only on the Group page. My concern is that there seems to a "Yes" and "No" side on this. However, if we eliminate it entirely, then the "No" side who ignored the precedent from previous tournaments, will have created a precedent to site in the future. Again I won't do this til later. Nlsanand (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They still have no encyclopaedic value, in my opinion, whether here or on the Group Stage Pages, regardless of what "soccernet" whatever that is says, or regardless of any precedent, either in the past or for the future. Best kept to fan pages. - fchd (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: If they are to be included at all, add them to the Group Stage Pages. But they are, let's face it, facing the OR regulations right in the eye, and it's close between who is going to blink first. I wonder if there is much point in telling people "If X wins and Z draws or loses..." to be honest. In any other context, they would be deleted (if, halfway through the American elections, someone edited "If Obama gets A, B and C, and McCain doesn't get D, then Obama wins" it would have been undone immediately. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reason this is preferable is that often end of group matches are filled with permutations that people like to have summarized. This is consolidating a state of facts which are alreaady available on the print but may not be easily decipherable to someone not acquainted with tiebreakers. Everyone here seems to hit on the OR issue, or the encyclopedic issue, instead of looking at "What do people care about." Nlsanand (talk) 23:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Being able to "give the people what they want" is all well and good, but it's irrelevant if the information cannot be properly sourced. – PeeJay 23:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Previous match results are sourced. They are the information on which the scenarios are determined. Hence, the info used to write the scenarios is sourced. If I have a source which tells me a=1 and b=2, do I know a separate source that tells me a+b=3? That is what you're saying. If you think the stuff written is untrue, just verify it and edit it if it is wrong. All it takes is someone taking two seconds to think before they press the revert button, which you have appeared unwilling to do so far. Nlsanand (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see how including the scenarios can violate OR. Saying that Liverpool will qualify if they win or draw their next match is not OR. It's sort of obvious. We don't have to source that π = 3.1415926535... for example, do we?  ARTYOM  10:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

text: So, did we just go ahead and delete it? I don't think it's original research, it's just a summary to help the average Joe Dimwit figure out how teams will go through. If we really want to be strict about this, then the World Cup Qualifying ones should be deleted as well. Radicell (talk) 11:08, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no concensus to delete. It has just sat as deleted for right now, because the No side got the last edit. I'm at work right now. If someone else can do it, would appreciate. Nlsanand (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The onus is always on the editor adding a piece of information to prove why that information deserves to be included. I am yet to see a decent reason for the inclusion of the scenarios. – PeeJay 20:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here are the reasons, the info is verifiable (your OR argument, on which the initial revert was predicated, does not hold water, see above). It is useful to a user as a means of consolidating info (see arguments above). Finally, in the lack of consensus previous precendent of it being used for other events should have some sway; there is always onus on the reverter to make a case where deleting that's usually standard for a page; I have seen no attempt at a legitimate in your arguments above that warrants your reverts. Groups page for now, while leaving debate open??? Arbitration if need be. Nlsanand (talk) 20:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still cannot see how the info is verifiable. Unless a reliable source publishes similar scenarios, anything you do to prove it yourself is OR. – PeeJay 20:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it is OR. Your opinion doesn't prove things, until it is proven that scenarios = OR, then the scenarios should stay. 221.220.177.156 (talk) 06:11, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

text: The qualfication criteria is sourced, the scores are sourced. The fact that you can't verify it is because you're too lazy to do the calculations. I am willing to listen to an argument that says these aren't encyclopedic, but really your OR argument is bullshit. I'm beginning to think you don't have a grasp of logic, or are just trolling. Nlsanand (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I have inserted them into the Group stage page. We can delete them from the main page if there is some form of consensus. I am actually for elimiating them from the main page, and putting in some form of colour scheming, that identifies teams that control their own destiny or something. Nlsanand (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I read somewhere that the scenarios don't go that well with the individual scores, I read that somewhere around the WC Qualifying talk pages. The UEFA Cup 2008-09 article has the scenarios as well, should we add them to their group stage article? 221.220.190.190 (talk) 10:31, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks okay to me on the page, but I'm not that picky about presentation. Nlsanand (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Encyclopaedic value?

message: They shouldn't be first? They have greater goal difference than Liverpool!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.117.172.226 (talk) 10:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the tie-breaking criteria. – PeeJay 10:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah they win based on the 2nd tie breaker which is total goal diff.  The goals away only comes into play if the total goal diff is tied which it is not.  Atletico is in first.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.159.169.123 (talk) 17:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I may quote your proposed criterium. It says:"superior goal difference from the group matches played among the teams in question". In other words, only the matches between teams who are even in overall points are taken into account in order to break up the tie. If, let's say, Liverpool, Atletico and PSV were all three tied at 5 points each, only the games between those three teams would be taken to break the tie. So, in short, as Liverpool drew with Atletico, criterium #2 still leaves the tie intact. Hockey-holic (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Atletico Madrid 

message: Is there any merit to distinguishing between who wins the group and who finishes 2nd?  As I understand things, group winners avoid each other in the Round of 16, so there is a point to missing out on the theoretically best teams in the tournament.  If there is, then it should be inidcated within the group standings, and the scenarious should discuss group winning scenarious as distinct from simply qualifying for the next round.  I dunno.  Thoughts?  --  Grant.Alpaugh 23:04, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group Winners/Runners-up 

message: I agree to the statement that trivia is not encyclopedic by Richard Rundle. However, it is notable that the game Bayern-Sporting is the biggest two leg win in UEFA Champions League era. How do we include them? Raymond Giggs 07:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is mentioned in the knockout stage article. – PeeJay 08:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so clear. I need to search to find the words. Raymond Giggs 07:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia session 

message: i know we bring up the inclusion of a bracket every year, and i don't want to belabor the point too badly.  nevertheless, it seems wrong to include all 16 teams from the knockout stage in the bracket.  the last three rounds do feed into each other in a way that can be represented by a bracket, but that relationship just doesn't hold between the first knockout round and the quarterfinals.  the bracket makes it look like Barca were guaranteed to play Bayern if the two won their ties, even though that was not determined until a later draw.  i propose using an 8-team bracket, but i'm sure some others will express a desire to eliminate it entirely. —Ed Cormany (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This same dilemma was held during the 2008 Stanley Cup playoffs (see the discussion here under 2008 Playoff Bracket Misleading). The result of the discussion was to uphold the 16 team bracket, but remove the connection-lines between the last 16 and the last 8 (see the result here). lil2mas (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support removing the bracket entirely, it provides no information not already available. If the bracket must be kept, remove the first knockout stage. Removing the lines just means further explanation and to me it looks a little messy (although still a vast improvement on having non-existent connections) Stu.W UK (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree.  The bracket quickly displays information about the knockout rounds that is not adequately conveyed by just a list of ties.  The relationship between the teams and their place in the draw is best shown by a bracket.  I also don't think there's anything wrong with showing all of the knockout rounds in the bracket.  There are plenty of sports that reseed teams after certain rounds, and they show their tournaments using a bracket.  It doesn't have to mean that the whole thing was predetermined.  Showing only the quarterfinals on is misleading as well.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 04:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree with Grant, it shows the way to the final much easier than text ever can. It takes 1 second to see "oh the winner between barca and bayern play chelsea or liverpool" while otherwise you'd have to look up "oh which quarter final was it that was drawn against the other? ..., 3 and 4 ok.. and 3 was Barca and Bayern, 4 was Chelsea and Liverpool... ok so the winner of Barca / bayern play chelsea or liverpool", if you want to go in closer and read the text they'll see that there was a new draw before the quarters. chandler · 04:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I don't agree with having the bracket in it's current form as it gives the impression that the draw is set from the first knockout round onwards.  I would rather not have the bracket included at all but if it must stay then keep it to quarter-finals onwards. ZoeL (talk) 00:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

text: Keep the bracket, it displays the path to the final more easily than any table, scoreboard or paragraph can. However, ditch the lines connecting the round of 16 to the quarterfinals, and arrange the R16 matchups the way they were drawn by UEFA. My second choice would been ZoeL's suggestion. –Howard the Duck 05:21, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of rounds in bracket 

message: Why not display the final match as the first item? It is the most important one, followed by the semi-finals, quarter-finals etcetera. Migdejong (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Two words: chronological order. – PeeJay 14:30, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  PeeJay2K3, be nice ;) Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi PeeJay2K3, thank you for pointing that out. My question however was, and let me refrase that: why would chronological order be better that the inverse order? Isn't it better for a reader to first see the important matches, and only later the matches that were played by unkown Georgian and Luxemburgian teams? (No offence intended) Migdejong (talk) 10:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that would be completely illogical. The article should (and does) follow the competition through in chronological order. - fchd (talk) 10:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

text: If users want to look at the final stages, it will only take a few seconds for them to scroll to the bottom of the page. Or they can go to the Knockout Stage articles and flick through the seasons. However, other people can follow a teams progression or read through the structure of the competition without having to unnaturally read from bottom to top. Aheyfromhome (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st

message: What's with the "minutes per goal" column? It's not in the source. Is it a commonly used statistic? Or is it just synthesis of published material that advances a position? —JAO • T • C 00:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, it's not in the source, but I don't think it advances a position. It's simple arithmetic. – PeeJay 01:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course it's simple arithmetic, I'm not saying we need a source for the numbers. I'm just saying that if the statistic is not normally used in reliable sources, then it's pretty strange to have it here. There's a lot of simple arithmetic we don't go adding to articles, so I was just wondering whether there was some special reason to include this seemingly arbitrary statistic. I don't know why I didn't google it myself though—I did now, and I'm getting 2,000 hits, and while I don't see any organization publishing official lists of this kind, a few of the hits do seem to be from reliable sources, so it should be fine (I certainly agree that it's an interesting statistic). (Another problem with the column might be that it might get people to think Gerrard has the best MPG of all scorers in the tournament, which is not necessarily true, but I don't think we have to worry too much about that, especially since it's not a sortable column.) —JAO • T • C 09:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree with Jao - Seems to me that there are Pool supports out there attempting to clutch at some success out of an otherwise shyte season ;) In all seriousness though, it is a misleading piece of arithmetic... - Ck786 (talk) 00:08, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Minutes per goal

message: We all remember the drama of the Chelsea vs Barcelona semi-final 2nd leg. The referee did not have his best day. Nonetheless, I think it is not appropriate to include this rather subjective recollection into the short paragraph about the semi-finals: "Chelsea were knocked out by Barcelona after a highly controversial performance by referee Tom Henning Øvrebø."
Firstly, it sounds as if wikipedia was stating that Øvrebø's performance was the actual and only reason for Chelsea not winning. And secondly, we could write a similar sentence next to practically each and every game of football. This sentence does not belong here as it hints to an intentional discrimination of Chelsea by the referee and the UEFA. We should not forget that Øvrebø's worst call during that evening was to send off Barcelona defender Abidal after a blatant Anelka dive with 25 minutes left to play. 83.191.122.174 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't believe the current wording gives the impression that Barcelona's win was down to Ovrebo's refereeing at all. It merely points out that it was a major aspect of the game, which it was. – PeeJay 22:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The UEFA '"conspiracy" against Chelsea

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on 2008–09 UEFA Champions League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080829002014/http://www.uefa.com:80/uefa/keytopics/kind=131072/newsid=736884.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefa/keytopics/kind=131072/newsid=736884.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on 2008–09 UEFA Champions League. 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/20080920060946/http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind=1/newsid=464251.html to http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/news/kind=1/newsid=464251.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified