Talk:2007–08 UEFA Champions League

For those of us outside UK

For those of us not familiar with UK football abbreviations, what does "UEFA" mean? It's not explained in the article. Maybe someone could edit the article to explain what that abbreviation means. Public Menace (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not just a UK abbreviation, but UEFA is the Union of European Football Associations. If it's not linked to in the article, then it should be. – PeeJay 22:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

lock

I suggest a temporary lock be put on the article as someone keeps changing the scores and the winners to arsenal. Arsenal did not win, they did not get any where near it. Get over it arsenal fans and stop editing the page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.119.27 (talk) 03:15, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Structure of article

Shouldn't information on the first qualifying round go FIRST and information about clubs certain to compete in the group stage go later in the article? 80.2.82.110 15:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I originally put them in this order as it seemed logical to list the best clubs (the ones qualifying for the group stage) first. I realise it will all be swapped around once the competition actually starts, feel free to swap them around now if you think it's necessary though. - MTC 16:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Live Scores

As we go into the knockout stages i think that wikipedia should just have a little area at the bottom where the live scores are displayed. So that we can keep up with everything going on? Chaza93 21:33 2 May 2007 (BST)

I think we should mark the result in bold text when the match is finished. That way everybody could tell whether the match is still been played or is already finished...ZeiZei 86 18:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We usually use italics for live scores. Aheyfromhome 19:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Milan certain ?

Hi are you sure Milan are certain of their place for next season ? Including this weekend (12th 13th May) there are 3 rounds of matches left for every team. Firstly Milan would have to lose the 2006-7 Champions League Final to Liverpool. Then if Milan lost all 3 Serie A matches Lazio would remain ahead of them, and any of Empoli, Fiorentina or Palermo could catch up with them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.161.94.33 (talk • contribs)

No, AC Milan are not certain of their place, yet a vandal (more than one?) keeps adding them. - MTC 17:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I would imagine they would be confirmed being the current champions, No? Xatticus 09:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Note the date on my previous message; when I posted that message the final had not been played and AC Milan were not certain to finish in the top 4 in Italy. - MTC 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dates?

Does anyone know the dates of draws or matchdays for any of the rounds? If so, could someone please add these into the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyduncan (talk • contribs)

I have added a provision calendar to the article. - MTC 05:29, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Miss Out

Just a question, but who looses out on their place in the group stage now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaza93 (talk • contribs)

(removed comment tags from above message) No-one is gong to lose out on a group stage spot as AC Milan and Liverpool have both qualified for the 3rd qualifying round through their leagues. However you could say Dinamo Bucureşti have missed out on a Group Stage spot as they would have qualified for the group stage if Manchester United or Chelsea had won the 2006-07 tournament. - MTC 19:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The information about qualification against association rank, or the information about the second and third qualifying rounds is wrong. The information about qualification says that runners-up from association 10 (which is currently Romania), says that both the Champions AND runners up get spots in third round qualifying. Only Steaua has been put in the second round qualifying. Could someone please explain why this is. Funkyduncan 13:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The Association Team Allocation section was wrong, the 10th place league runners-up go to the second quailfying round, see here. - MTC 16:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see someone has done a quick botch job, there are still discrepancies, eg, someone put that 1 team from associations 10 to 15 is 5 teams, when that in fact makes 6. 80.2.82.110 14:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed that now, I forgot about the numbers on the left. - MTC 15:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so if the holder has already qualified for the Group, let's say Man U or Inter won the CL instead of Milan, then who would be added to the group stage (ie what range of associations would get another champion or runner up included), AND this year since Milan DID need their automatic group stage invite to bypass third round qualifying, what range of associations got another champion runner up or third place qualifier??? I realize this matters very little but I'm a details kind of guy and its driving me crazy

I'm sorry, I might be able to answer your question if I understood.Rokkafellah 19:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to explain the exact situation, but if you check out this site, it should start to make sense. - PeeJay 19:40, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Champions League title holder had qualified through their league then Dinamo Bucureşti would have qualified directly to the group stage as the champions of the 10th ranked association, Romania. This website has good explanations of how it works. - MTC 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Removal of Seeding

I don't understand, why someone deleted the seeding. If you said it is useless in UEFA Cup, that's fine. But how come you said that seeding is useless on CL? KyleRGiggs 10:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Mjefm decided that as "it looks a lot better", that was a good reason to change the order to country order. I personally don't care whether they are sorted in country ranking order or seeding order, as long as they're in some kind of order. - MTC 17:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We should remove seeding from the second qualifying round, since we don't know FOR CERTAIN that Dinamo Zagreb and APOEL will get through. Funkyduncan 17:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually that doesn't matter as the draws for the first and second qualifying rounds are done at the same time. The draw for the second qualifying round assumes the seeded teams in the first qualifying round go through. - MTC 17:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Request of semi-protection

After I stopped editing the access list because all of them confirmed, some of them changed the teams. KyleRGiggs 18:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what message you are trying to convey here, but the level of vandalism is well below that which would warrant semi-protection. Oldelpaso 14:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Too see what you need for Protection, hang around WP:RfPP for a while, see what fails and what passes Chaza93 18:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sevilla - UEFA Cup Winners 2006-07

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)

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)

Why has the fact, that Sevilla FC has won the UEFA Cup 2006-07, no effect on Sevilla FC, no effect on the UEFA Champions League 2007-08, and no effect on the qualification for the UEFA Champions League 2007-08? --88.77.233.180 09:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

Second Qualifying Round seeding

Can anyone confirm that the Beitar Jerusalem and Zaglebie Lubin definitely WON'T be seeded. If Dinamo Zagreb or APOEL Nicosia were defeated would that mean the winner from QR1 would be seeded OR would the first two teams get the top spots.

The draws for Q1 and Q2 are done at the same time, so when the ties from Q1 are draw into Q2 the coefficient of the Q1seeded team is carried forward. Basicly the higher co-efficient of the Q1 ties is taken forward by the winners. But I have no idea about the specifics that you're asking about because I'm just in the middle of watching Buzzcocks :D Aheyfromhome 21:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

"Winners Match x" or Club A/Club B formatting

There is some disagreement here over the best way to show the second qualifying round ties. I (and one other editor) have replaced "Winners Match 1" with Khazar Lenkoran/Dinamo Zagreb for example. This is already the format used for the 3rd Qualifying Round, and takes away the need to look back up to see who the teams involved in Match 1 are when looking at potential opponents. - fchd 20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The draw for the Third qualifying round hasn't been done yet, so the team list for that round is done by UEFA coefficient order, not who will be playing whom. In some ways I agree that it means you don't have to look up the page, but if that's your main point regarding this issue, then I'd say you're just being lazy (no offence!). The official draw at UEFA.com was listed with a "Winners Match x" format, so that's what I reckon we should use here. - PeeJay 20:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the table for the third qualifying round looks dreadful. I reverted it to a list, but it was changed back to the table with three or four potential teams in a slot (and I did not feel like starting an edit war by re-reverting). This is bad for several reasons. First, it is difficult to read. Second, it does not work well with the sentence that precedes the table, which says that the teams listed below are certain to compete in the third qualifying round. Third, the similarity in table format makes it look like the draw has already been made (Liverpool will play Sparta Prague, Arsenal will play Fenerbahce, etc.) although this has not yet been determined. I vote we return to a list, sorted by UEFA Coefficient and separated into seeded/unseeded teams if desired. —Ed Cormany 15:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, tbh. I don't know why it was made into a table in the first place, but since it was I was just trying to make it look ordered. - PeeJay 16:16, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

ERROR

Fenerbahce are cited as a team required to qualify for the Champions League in the third round qualification stage. In fact, the champions of the Turkish Super League automatically qualify for the group stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.7.49.6 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not according to UEFA.com. All the information is accurate as of this date. - PeeJay 08:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This year is a slightly odd year because AC Milan did not qualify for the UCL group stages via Serie A - they are there because of their unfortunate success last season, meaning that some teams end up going back a round Chaza93 18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, are you talking about the year 2005? Fenerbahce will not be able to qualify for the group stage directly although Milan qualify for the UCL group stages via Serie A. If Milan qualify for the group stage via Serie A, the group stage place will go to Romania League champion Dinamo Bucharest, not Fenerbahce. KyleRGiggs 19:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

All I say is who cares? Fenerbahçe dominated Anderlecht with two clean sheets and we should look at who Fenerbahçe have to face now: Internazionale(The Nazis) PSV Eindhoven(flying Dutchmen, I'm confused of how to plural "Dutchmen") and last but not least the Slavic representation: CSKA Moscova. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rokkafellah (talk • contribs) 19:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why three qualifying rounds?

Why does UEFA make the Champions of weaker leagues go through three extra rounds than the top 16 seeds? I don't understand. A 76-team tournament should be formatted more like the NCAA Basketball Tournament, where the bottom seeds have to win one more round than the top seeds. Kendanielone 21:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Because people will pay more money to see big teams play other big teams than to see big teams play small teams, or even small teams playing other small teams. UEFA regards profit as more important than having a tournament with charm and traditions. That's why. If you think you have a way of organising the tournament that brings in a lot of cash and is also fair to the smaller teams, I'm sure UEFA would love to hear your ideas. - PeeJay 22:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

All of the above is agreed, plus the gulf in class is immense. I know that upsets happen, but playing the lower teams against the big guns really really would be a waste of time. Having 3 qualifying rounds gives lower teams chance of some decent competition and to maybe win a match. That way they can move up the coefficient rankings and get bumped up the pecking order a bit. Aheyfromhome 10:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess if Europeans like the format better with 3 qualifying rounds it's fine, it just seems strange to an American athlete. The culture of sport in America says if I am a player or manager on a small team, I still want my shot at Manchester United or Inter Milan whether it be in the Champions League (for an Icelandic club) or in FA Cup for a club that currently plays in the FA Cup prelimary round & I want the formatting such that each of us have to win a similar number of games to win the tournament. Kendanielone 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Who said we like that format? Personally, I'd prefer to see the tournament go back to the way it used to be and have just the champions of each country in a straight knock-out competition. It would give the competition so much more value, and it would actually give teams an incentive to push for the title in their own leagues. However, the powers-that-be would never have it, as they want to rake in as much money as possible, and the way to do that is to get all the big teams playing each other all the time. - PeeJay 19:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Boo to UEFA. Having said that though, it's not like the system is entirely bias, in that no league has an automatic right to get into the cup at a later stage. The leagues that have earnt automatic group places have done so through their teams' consistent performance over a few years. If the champions of San Marino consistantly got to the group stage then they'd get an automatic place in a few years too. The coefficient system is a bit long term but its pretty much fair in the money-grabbing UEFA system. It's the same in the FA Cup. If you're a good team then you'll be in a higher league and then you get to play less matches because you've proved yourself. Everyone agrees that it would be sportingly right to have every team play 9 rounds, but then the smaller teams would miss out on the prize money and the bigger teams would complain about the extra games. The 731 clubs are pretty much happy with the way it is at the moment. And after all, it only takes 11 matches to win the FA Cup if you start from the bottom. If you deserve to win it, then you will do, getting a shot at the big teams on the way. Aheyfromhome 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeding Showing or not?

I added the seeding of the third qualifying round at the article but PeeJay called me to wait. I understand it would make the article more clean but less information without linking. KyleRGiggs 19:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to say that the winner of Match X will be seeded or unseeded, though? I can't even remember if we had "Seeded Teams" and "Unseeded Teams" sections for the First and Second Qualifying Rounds. - PeeJay 19:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I have no any arguement about the first statement. However, I believe I have made seedings in first and second qualifying round, or you should check the history. KyleRGiggs 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, put the potential teams in the third qualifying round draw. I would go even further, and say have the two potential teams as for instance "FC Pyunik or Shakhtar Donetsk" rather than "Winner Match 1" etc. - fchd 19:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It would make the name so long. Should we use the term Winner Match X instead of two teams? KyleRGiggs 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Future format

I am impressed of the Spanish article about the CL 2006-07. So I think we should do something to make the article to be a good article. KyleRGiggs 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though I can't read the Spanish, I agree that the article is impressive. I particularly like the fact that they used a bracket for the knockout rounds, because the parings are not drawn round by round from that point in the competition onward. I developed a bracket for two-leg results much like this which is currently implemented on the Coppa Italia 2006-07 article. It can be very quickly adapted to have a single-leg final. Other than that, all of us who are contributing here should just follow the games closely and start writing good prose about them, starting in the group stages! —Ed Cormany 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well... The good thing of the Spanish article is, there is a comment of each group or each game since Round of 16. KyleRGiggs 11:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Table

I fail to see what purpose the table in the Qualification section serves. The clubs that qualified for the tournament are shown in the Qualifying Stage and Group Stage sections below, as well as the template at the bottom of the page, so what is the need for the table? - PeeJay 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing else in that article that easily identifies where each club *entered* the competition. The template at the bottom will identify where each time *exits* the competition. In my opinion, it is a well-designed, useful, addition the article. - fchd 20:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with fchd's opinion. That is why I put that table onto the article. However, we could know which team participated in First Qualifying Round becuase they got eliminated in QR1. *laugh* Yeah when I saw the article from Netherlands, I impressed too, as same as the Spanish article of CL 2006-07. KyleRGiggs 11:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Group Stage Draw

What will happen for the draw?? I mean since Sevilla play their qualifying draw how will they include them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.125.55 (talk) 00:25, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Sevilla and AEK Athens will be included in the draw together, with seeding determined by the higher of the two teams' coefficients. - PeeJay 00:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. And I have to say thanks to PeeJay, you let me found a better sentence to describe that statement. Raymond Giggs 04:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I presume that their entry in the draw will also count as being both representing Spain and Greece, to ensure that regardless of which team wins it won't create a situation in which two teams from the same country would be in the same group. —Ed Cormany 02:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The draw for the group stage is in the group stage article and is not needed in the main article. Kingjeff 05:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, otherwise the main article is too long. --Cbf729 08:17, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, per Kingjeff. John Hayes^talk 09:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but you could have explained that in the edit summary to save the minor edit war. - PeeJay 10:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Error in Seeding Table

If two teams have the same coefficent ranking, the team that obtained the most points in the previous European campaign is seeded the highest. If this is the same, then it is based on the previous one to that..... This is done for the previous five campaigns. If still even, the team that finished higher in the league is seeded the higher. This year, both Chelsea and Manchester United have a coefficient of 99.618. To determined who is seeded higher, points gained in the previous year are used. For 06/07, these are: Chelsea - 28.486; Manchester United - 27.486. Therefore Chelsea is seeded the higher. This is shown on xs4all and uefa. Additionally, when the draw was conducted, one of the graphics show that Chelsea is ranked above Manchester United.--Fridge46 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear!!! I was wrong! Thank you for your help. Raymond Giggs 18:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I had a feeling Chelsea were ranked above United too, but I wasn't sure so I left it as it was. - PeeJay 18:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So I would have to say sorry to everybody because of my ignorant. Raymond Giggs 18:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You don't have to apologise to anyone, man. Don't worry about it. - PeeJay 18:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Group Stage Tables

Is there any need to include all the detail on the group stages in this article, when there is the article specifically for that. We are only duplicating information, at least the group tables should be removed. I know previous years are like this, but it doesn't make them right. John Hayes^talk 19:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The group tables are sufficient, IMO. The Group Stage article will include summaries of every match as well, so it's not like the separate article is totally redundant. - PeeJay 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry you misunderstand me, maybe I didn't explain myself well. I don't want to get rid of the seperate article, but get rid of the group tables from this article, as they are in the seperate article. John Hayes^talk 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Well, surely it would be useful to keep the group tables in the main article for people who just want to know what position each club finished in without having to open a separate page? - PeeJay 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

But then there is almost a case for moving all the info from the seperate article into this one. As another example, if you have an article on a musician, often they will have a seperate discography article, and only a very basic list of albums in their main article. I don't think having to click one more link is too much of a price to pay for removing a lot of duplicated information. John Hayes^talk 20:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely my point. Leave the group tables in the main article, but have the tables along with match summaries in the separate article. The main article should be as informative as possible without including any superfluous information. - PeeJay 20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been consensual on several similar articles to include only group tables the main tournament article, and in a group stage-specific page duplicate the tables but add the match reports for each group. It's fine as it is. Parutakupiu 20:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It just seems to me that having one makes the other redundant. John Hayes^talk 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It may seem, but imagine that the group stage-specific page will have 8 (groups) × 12 (matches per group) = 96 match reports! So, when this phase ends, this page will be far from "redundant". Parutakupiu 22:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong the match reports are far from redundant, I'm not questioning the existance of either article, only that the group tables exist in both.John Hayes^talk 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

How would you suggest that we summarise the events of the group stage in the main article then? - PeeJay 22:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to have a (summarized) section of the group stage, on the main article, without having at least the results. There is no other way, in my view. Parutakupiu 23:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your probably right, on the one hand it would be stupid to only have the match reports in one article, but on the other a group stage section without the tables would be pretty meaningless. The only other option to me would be to write it in prose in the main article, linking to the article with the tables, but maybe that's not the way things are done in these sort of articles. John Hayes^talk 06:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll forget about the groups, but what really shouldn't be in this article is a list of all the matches, as that sort of detail is in the other article, otherwise we really are duplicating the entire thing. John Hayes^talk 09:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I personally think that at least the results of matches (not stuff like attendance etc.) have to be included in this article. I remember it was that way last season, and it was really comfortable to see the current standings and the match results below. I found out today that match results were removed from last season's article, but yet I think that anyone would find it better if match results were listed below. --Artyx 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If they were listed in this article, it would mean that the seperate article would only be there to list goalscorers and attendance. I don't think that would be notable enough for its own article. John Hayes^talk 11:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and think that this year's article should match the format that last year's article is in currently, i.e. standings tables only. Individual match results and the seeding table/draw information should be moved to the separate article page. As matches are played, some qualitative prose should probably be added (as was discussed above), but the quantitative, almanac-like details will create too much clutter in my opinion. —Ed Cormany 22:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't make sense. I mean, if you just show the group standings in the Group stage section and a link to a separate article, then you should just show the teams who were eliminated at different knockout stages in the Knockout section and make a link to a separate, knockout article. You are saying that if we list the group stage scores in this article, a separate article for group stage would be unnecessary. Then wouldn't a separate article for Knockout stage be unnecessary, if you will include the results in the main article? Besides, articles in other languages (those i've checked) list the scores from group stage as well. --Artyx 15:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, what other languages do really isn't that important, more important is doing what is correct. Secondly, you are probably right, when the time comes, by the same logic we probably should have a seperate article on the knockout section. Until we get there there is no point starting it, as we have no idea what teams or fixtures there will be. The point is this article shouldn't get too big, if it does it is better to split it into smaller articles. John Hayes^talk 15:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion: Tables similar to those used in UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying could be used to indicate the group stage results. --Artyx 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I second this proposal. It accomplishes all the goals mentioned above: it keeps this article short (at least scrolling-wise), it includes the results of individual games, and it does not duplicate all of the information of the separate group stage article. —Ed Cormany 15:01, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I'll "third" this proposal, as long as we can keep the results table adjacent to the rankings table, rather than below it. - PeeJay 15:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Whatever happens with the decision as to where to put the tables... can we please put the points in the rightmost column, not the left? I know there's a couple of people here who are convinced that the points column should go immediately next to the club, but every football confederation's website, along with those for all major competitions around the world (including UEFA's for this one), have points on the right. Kinitawowi 18:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. When I made the tables, I had originally put the points in the right-hand column, but it seems like someone changed it back. If no one objects, I'll move the points column back again. - PeeJay 18:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice try, but it had points on the left when you added it (link to diff). ;-) Kinitawowi 19:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I was sure I'd put the points column on the right. :-S PeeJay 20:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Also agreed. It is the standard way of doing it. - fchd 18:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

My revert

First of all, I think it's straightforward enough to list the team as FC Dynamo Kyiv. If you look at that article's talk page, you will already see a discussion where there was strong consensus to refer to the team as "Dynamo Kyiv" and not "Dinamo Kiev". As for the group stage team ordering - well, whenever I go to an article that contains a table for a competition which has not started yet, I expect to see the teams in order of seeding (or, for league tables, the order in which they finished last season). Or, even, in alphabetical order. Instead, they are in some random and arbitrary order that I cannot understand. See, for example, Premier League (alphabetical order) or Bundesliga (last year's results). ugen64 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That "random and arbitrary order" was just that. It was UEFA's computer random draw which assigned each group team a number from 1 to 4 to determine the fixtures (4 plays 1 while 2 plays 3, etc.). But I agree that the order should be the coefficient ranking. Parutakupiu 02:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you still argue talking about Kyiv is the name, why don't you change the article "Kiev" into "Kyiv". Second, Moscow would be change into Moskva. Raymond Giggs 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, don't muddy the waters here, the discussion about Kiev is entirely seperate to the one on Dynamo Kiev. Either way, This article isn't the place to argue about Dynamo Kiev / Dynamo Kyiv. This article should use whatever the article on the club uses. Currently that is Dynamo Kyiv. If it is changed in the future, then it should be changed here too, but only then. John Hayes^talk 06:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the discuss is going nonsense because no one regard my thought. The team is called CSKA Moskva but they used CSKA Moscow. I don't know why they are using that criteria to make "Dynamo Kyiv". Raymond Giggs 07:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Because Moskva is not commonly used in English, whereas Kyiv is becoming increasingly used. - PeeJay 08:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I could not see any words of "Kyiv" in Hong Kong. That means Kyiv is still not being common. Raymond Giggs 09:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If you look here [1] UEFA uses Moskva not Moscow, they also use Kyiv. So why should they get Kyiv but Moskva gets Moscow? Chandlertalk 09:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry? Did you know what we are talking about? We are talking what we should do when handling a non-English name city. [2] UEFA said Dynamo Kyiv is from Kiev, not Kyiv. But someone said that Kyiv is the English name. By we did, CSKA Moskva is written as CSKA Moscow, so Dynamo Kyiv should be written as "Dynamo Kyiv" by this criteria. Raymond Giggs 18:28, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good but we have already had a discussion on this point, and there was already a consensus that the article should stay at Dynamo Kyiv (see the talk page I pointed to). It is true that Kiev is by far the more common spelling of the city, but for the football club it has been established that we use the spelling "Dynamo Kyiv". Look, it doesn't matter whether I individually agree or disagree with you about the issue (for the record I disagree), the fact is there was a consensus to keep the article at Dynamo Kyiv and ignoring that consensus is a violation of Wikipedia policy (and do not point to WP:IAR, because there is no conceivable advantage to Wikipedia for violating the policy on this issue). In addition, making cut-and-paste moves (perhaps you should read our policy on page moves as well) and violating WP:POINT in other ways does not help your case (okay, we understand, you disagree with us and believe Wikipedia is being inconsistent. that's all well and good but don't disrupt Wikipedia to emphasize that point!). ugen64 00:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I mean, I can point to other examples. For example we use FC Dinamo Bucureşti instead of FC Dinamo Bucharest (same with FC Rapid Bucureşti and FC Steaua Bucureşti). Okay, you might say we are being inconsistent when you look at examples like CSKA Moscow but you cannot go around saying "I will disregard the previous consensus because I feel it is incorrect". If you feel it's incorrect, you can make that argument and try to get a consensus for your view, but unless you do that you cannot unilaterally change things to fit your own opinion. ugen64 00:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

None of this discussion is relevant here, this article should simply use whatever the article on the club uses, regardless of what it is. If, for the sake of argument, the consensus is that the club should be called Ministry of Silly Walks then that is what we should use here. John Hayes^talk 00:28, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Template: qualifying rounds are out

I agree with anon who removed the qualitying rounds from Template:Champions League 2007-08. This information bloats the template; after all, we have the article for this. Conscious 08:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. John Hayes^talk 09:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Template is for putting in the articles who participated in UEFA Champions League, including Qualifying Rounds. Raymond Giggs 09:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Who said that? Are there any reasons for this? Conscious 09:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted back for the moment. Raymond rather than just changing it, discuss your reasons for including them first. Last years example doesn't include them either. My reasons for not including them would be 1) It bloats the templates per Conscious, 2) They didn't reach the Champions League itself. John Hayes^talk 09:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)//

What is called didn't reach the Champions League? They are played in Champions League qualifying rounds! So they DID played in Champions League. Raymond Giggs 18:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The qualifying rounds are called the qualifying rounds because you have to play in them to qualify for the Champions League. That's why UEFA don't count goals from the qualifying rounds when calculating the tournament's top scorer each year. - PeeJay 21:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is - UEFA counts the result of the UEFA Champions League AND UEFA Cup to UEFA Club coefficients. Raymond Giggs 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

However, I could determine that no qualifying round in UEFA Cup template, because there are 80 teams in the First Round already, huge enough and the clubs maybe not a top club(i.e.: Cup finalist). But in CL, only 76 top teams. At least we could find which team was the greatest one at that year. Raymond Giggs 05:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The World Cup has qualifying stages as well - do you want to add all of those countries to the World Cup template (Template:2006 FIFA World Cup for example)? ugen64 00:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

That's two different situation. For the FIFA World Cup, or European Championship(that's Euro2xxx), all members joins, but in CL and UEFA Cup, only the top rankings' club joins. Should Derby County in the template? Irrelevance! Raymond Giggs 05:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. - Qualifying rounds are a part of the competition itself. In England at least, we talk about the team finishing in 4th in the F A Premier League being in the Champions League, regardless of the fact they have to play the third qualifying round. - fchd 06:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because it's virtually a foregone conclusion that a team in the top 4 of the Premier League will reach the Group Stages (barring, for example, Everton's finish 3 years ago), or at least it's said to be so. The more relevant question to ask (and I don't know the answer), is "do people commonly say Tampere United are in the Champions League?" ugen64 18:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I certainly would say that Tampere United were in the Champions League this year, yes. - fchd 19:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Results Table

Sorry my idea din't work and to let you know, just reverse all of my comments below! El-Nin09 18:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the results should be on the page in some way, even if we have a table such as the one shown below.

	BES	LIV	MAR	PRT
Beşiktaş	XXX	24 Oct	28 Nov	3 Oct
Liverpool	6 Nov	XXX	3 Oct	28 Nov
Marseille	18 Sep	11 Dec	XXX	24 Oct
Porto	11 Dec	18 Sep	6 Nov	XXX

I can do this for all of the groups if we have consensus for it! El-Nin09 08:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Codes i have come up with are as below: (italics shows newly added.)

• Arsenal - ARS
• Barcelona - BAR
• Benfica - BEN
• Beşiktaş - 1. BES 2. BEŞ
• Bremen - 1. WBR 2.BRE
• Celtic - CEL
• Chelsea - CHE
• CSKA Moscow - 1. MOS 2. CSKA
• Dynamo Kyiv - DKY
• Fenerbahçe - FEN
• Internazionale Milano - 1. INT 2. INM
• Lazio - LAZ
• Liverpool - LIV
• Lyon - 1. OLY 2. LYO 3. OL
• Manchester United - 1. MCU 2. MANU 3. MU 4. MUFC
• Marseille - 1. MAR 2. OM
• AC Milan - MIL
• Olympiakos - 1. OLM 2. OLY
• FC Porto - 1. PRT 2. POR 3. FCP
• PSV Eindhoven - PSV
• Rangers - RAN
• Real Madrid - 1. RMA 2. RMD 3. RM
• AS Roma - 1. ROM 2. ASR
• Rosenborg - ROS
• Schalke - SCH
• Sevilla - SEV
• Shakhtar - SHA
• Slavia Prague - 1. SLA 2. SLP
• Sporting Lisbon - 1. SPO 2. SCP
• Steaua - STE
• Stuttgart - 1. STU 2. VBS
• Valencia - 1. VCF 2. VAL

El-Nin09 09:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Changes I would make: BEŞ for Beşiktaş, OLY for Olympiakos, LYO for Olympique Lyon, IML for Internazionale Milano, RMD for Real Madrid. - MTC 09:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I wouldnt change Lyon or Olympiakos. wouldnt change Inter. wouldnt change Real Madrid, wouldnt change CSKA Mosvka (i mean there are other Moscow teams too). Though i would change Man Utd to UTD or MAN. Chandlertalk 12:12, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are going to do it, I would replace the XXX with a dash, it doesn't draw the user to it as much: John Hayes^talk 10:27, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

	BES	LIV	MAR	PRT
Beşiktaş	-	24 Oct	28 Nov	3 Oct
Liverpool	6 Nov	-	3 Oct	28 Nov
Marseille	18 Sep	11 Dec	-	24 Oct
Porto	11 Dec	18 Sep	6 Nov	-

OK or we could simply shade the boxes grey El-Nin09 10:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

	CHE	VCF	SCH	ROS
Chelsea	-	11 Dec	24 Oct	18 Sep
Valencia	3 Oct	-	28 Nov	6 Nov
Schalke	6 Nov	18 Sep	-	11 Dec
Rosenborg	28 Nov	24 Oct	3 Oct	-

I would change Werder Bremen to "BRE", Dynamo Kyiv to "DYN", Internazionale to "INT", Manchester United to "MNU", Real Madrid to "RMA", Stuttgart to "STU" and Valencia to "VAL". The rest I would leave as they are. Either that or we could wait until the first games of the season and use the abbreviations as determined by UEFA on their TV coverage. Also, I would remove the XXXs and shade the boxes grey. - PeeJay 15:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Explanation on the Codes, i am trying to keep with the ones used by UEFA. Unfortunately this does mean a couple of changes to the domestic ones. El-Nin09 18:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I would also keed Real Madrid as RMD otherwise there may be confusion with AS Roma El-Nin09 18:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I added some new now... I don't think it HAVE to use 3 alphabets. However, I would like to take a vote to determine which one is better. Raymond Giggs 05:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

UEFA was using these short codes to display the group standings on their website last year. I guess they would be doing the same this year. Anyway, I remember they were using CHL for Chelsea, CSK for CSKA, MU for Manchester United and POR for Porto... For some others, I would suggest DYN for Dynamo Kyiv, RMD for Real Madrid, LYO for Lyon (because, if I'm not wrong, Marseille's official name is Olympique Marseille, and using OLY might be confusing), STU for Stuttgart, VAL for Valencia and SLA for Slavia Prague. --Artyx 07:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

OK right put the team name and then 1. 2. 3. 4. etc for the code you prefer!

*Besiktas 1

• Internazionale 1
• Lyon 2 (confusion olympiakos)
• Man Utd 3
• Olympiakos 2
• FC Porto 1
• Madrid 2
• Slavia Prague 2
• Stuttgart 1
• Valencia 1

El-Nin09 07:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

<s?*Besiktas 1

• Internazionale 1
• Lyon 2
• Man Utd MNU
• Olympiakos 2
• Porto 2
• Real Madrid 2
• Slavia Prague 1
• Stuttgart 1
• Valencia 2

PeeJay 07:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

*Inter Milan 2

• Man Utd 3
• Stuttgart 1
• Valencia 2

no opinion on the others —Ed Cormany 13:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

*Beşiktaş 2

• Internazionale Milano 1
• Lyon - 1
• Manchester United - UTD
• Olympiakos - 1
• FC Porto - 1
• Real Madrid - 1
• Slavia Prague - PRA
• Stuttgart - 2
• Valencia - 2

Chandlertalk 14:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

*Beşiktaş 2

• Inter 1
• Lyon 2
• Man Utd 3
• Olympiakos 2
• Porto 2
• Real Madrid 2
• Slavia Praha 1
• Stuttgart 1
• Valencia 2 Sam Vimes | Address me 14:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Vote Voided

All votes will not be counted due to the unexceptable voting time.

The vote is so early to finish... but no objection because no one votes to my OL idea. And I forgot to make "SCP"(Sporting Clube de Portugal, as the short name in badge) and "FCP"(FC Porto)! Shall we vote this again? Sorry for making unconvienince. Raymond Giggs 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

There is totally 6 team-code added. They are Bremen, CSKA Moscow, Marseille, Roma, Porto and Sporting Lisbon. Raymond Giggs 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't listen to him u cant own a idea 172.159.230.188 10:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC) WHERE THE HELL ARE THE VOTES??? 172.159.230.188 10:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

OK right put the team name and then 1. 2. 3. 4. etc for the code you prefer!

• Beşiktaş 1
• Bremen 2
• CSKA Moscow 2
• Internazionale 1
• Lyon 3
• Man United 3
• Marseille 2
• Olympiakos 1
• Porto 3
• Real Madrid 3
• Roma 2
• Slavia Prague 1
• Sporting 2
• Stuttgart 1
• Valencia 2

Raymond Giggs 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Beşiktaş - 2 (BEŞ)
• Bremen - 1 (WBR)
• CSKA Moscow - (no preference)
• Internazionale Milano - IML
• Lyon - 2 (LYO)
• Manchester United - 4 (MUFC)
• Marseille - 1 (MAR)
• Olympiakos - 2 (OLY)
• FC Porto - 1 (PRT)
• Real Madrid - 3 (RM)
• AS Roma - 1 (ROM)
• Slavia Prague - 1 (SLA)
• Sporting Lisbon - 2 (SCP)
• Stuttgart - 1 (STU)
• Valencia - 2 (VAL)

MTC 16:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Besiktas 1
• Bremen 1
• CSKA 2
• Inter 1
• Inter 1
• Lyon 2
• Manchester United 3
• Marseille 1
• Olympiakos 2
• Porto 2
• Real Madrid 2
• Roma 1
• Slavia 1
• Sporting 1
• Stuttgart 1
• Valencia 2

--Artyx 16:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC) (Edited. Added those closed yesterday. --Artyx 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC))

Congratulations to whoever re-opened the vote, all votes should remain open for a minimum of 24 hours to enable those in all time-zones and with any work patterns to contribute.

• Besiktas 2
• Bremen 1
• CSKA Moscow 2
• Internazionale 1
• Lyon 2
• Man Utd MNU
• Olympiakos 2
• FC Porto 2
• Madrid 3
• Slavia Prague 1
• Stuttgart 1
• Valencia 2

fchd 17:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Besiktas 1
• Bremen 2
• CSKA Moscow 2
• Internazionale 1
• Lyon 2
• Manchester United MNU
• Marseille 1
• Olympiakos 2
• FC Porto 2
• Real Madrid 2
• AS Roma 1
• Slavia Prague 1
• Sporting Lisbon 1
• Stuttgart 1
• Valencia 2

PeeJay 17:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Beşiktaş -2. BEŞ
• Bremen - 1. WBR
• CSKA Moscow - 2. CSKA
• Internazionale Milano - 1. INT
• Lyon - 1. OLY
• Manchester United - 5. UTD
• Marseille - 1. MAR
• Olympiakos - 1. OLM
• FC Porto - 2. POR
• Real Madrid - 1. RMA
• AS Roma - 1. ROM
• Slavia Prague - 2. SLP
• Sporting Lisbon - 1. SPO
• Stuttgart - 2. VBS
• Valencia - 2. VAL

Chandlertalk 18:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet Results tables

I decided not to post this in the previous section because it contains the red message. But I still think that the results of group games have to be included in the article in some way. Since we agreed to have the results in tables like discussed above we should probably decide what team codes to use and add the tables to the article. --Artyx 09:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I think that we should leave the results for the group stage article. John Hayes^talk 09:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just have a list of results

i.e. Chelsea 3-6 Liverpool Porto 0-1 Besiktas

etc. etc. seeing as El-Nin09 decided not to leave WP with a bang. 172.202.80.67 17:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because El-Nin09 bailed on this project, why can't we still implement it? It seems to be consensus that it's a good idea, and we already have the table code right here in the talk page. I say we should be bold and go for it. —Ed Cormany 18:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

The way results were included in this version of 2006-07's article is pretty good, especially because it provides dates of matches (which using the table discussed here wouldn't). Maybe a smaller font could be used and the results be entered on the side of group table rather than below it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyx (talk • contribs) 16:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It may seem annoying that I'm coming back to this subject over and over, but the group standings without the results seems... incomplete, probably. Results are the important part of any group stage in any competition, in my opinion. Maybe the results shouldn't be included in the tables, as discussed above. A good example for including the results may be the UEFA Champions League 2005-06. For the article not to become too big, the whole Qualification section may be removed, ot at least the table of clubs there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artyx (talk • contribs) 09:34, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

All matches are shown here: UEFA_Champions_League_2007-08_group_stage so no real need for them in here Chandlertalk 12:00, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. This is the main article, so all the major information should be here. Results are essential. - fchd 12:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

-I'm seeing some weird chracter between the digits of the scores in tables. What is that thing? Is it my system missing some fonts or is everyone seeing those? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.197.19.240 (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It should be an endash. You must be missing some fonts for some reason. – PeeJay 00:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

My guess would be your screen resolution is lower than 1024x768, or your browser window is not maximized when you view the page. That causes the columns in table become narrower, and the scores get split in two lines because of not enough space. The character that appears there is an external link icon, since scores link to match reports on uefa.com. Artyom (talk • contribs) 08:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Group table column order

I attempted to spark a discussion earlier on about where the points column should be in the group stage tables (immediately next to the team, or in the rightmost column), but I only got a couple of comments (both approving a move to the right, in line with worldwide practice for football league tables). I've been bold and moved it; feel free to chime in here if there's any comment. Kinitawowi 16:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong support for this move. - fchd 17:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Me too. - PeeJay 17:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with the move since this is the most important colum in the table. Kingjeff 17:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

So why not have it in the second-most visible position in the table, i.e. on the right-most side. - PeeJay 19:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd argue that the most important column is the position, myself... Kingjeff, I'm glad to have lured you out of the woodwork on this. ;-) I seem to recall

us having a similar conversation about this issue sometime in the past, but the discussion petered out, so while you're here again... every single confederation's website, and those of all of the major leagues around the world (and the MLS :-p), and every significant newspaper, displays tables with the points on the right. Given that Wikipedia is intended to make things easier for the reader, why exactly should we fly in the face of internationally-accepted convention? Kinitawowi 19:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Points are always to the right. Chandlertalk 12:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I've piped these changes down to UEFA Champions League 2007-08 Group Stage as well now. Kinitawowi 20:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Brief session of Group Stage

To make the article into a better article, Spanish article about 2006-07 edition is a good example for archiving this - making some brief session into group stage. Raymond Giggs 17:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that we should have some prose about the progress of the group stage. It might still be a little early to add anything of this nature that wouldn't be merely speculative, but after a few more games are played it would be useful. It might also be good to point out any particularly contentious matchups that are taking place in the group stage. To those who have been reverting such edits, I understand that the quality of writing in those edits has not been great, but we should seek to improve those edits rather than eliminate and discourage them, saying they are "worthless" without consensus. We can develop these paragraphs here or on a subpage if necessary, before their inclusion in the article. —Ed Cormany 20:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Goalscorers

It would probably make more sense to include the club that the player plays for, rather than his nationality. --Artyx^© 09:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't we include both, as we did last year? UEFA Champions League 2006-07#Top scorers —Ed Cormany 18:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Combining the group stage results into the competition article

It is better to put the match results into UEFA Champions League 2007-08. But the price is - making the article into a featured article - at least good article. Any ideas? Raymond Giggs 16:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

We discussed this before. Use a results table as suggested before. Just because User:El-Nin09 threw his toys out of the pram doesn't mean we can't use his idea. - PeeJay 17:20, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about it being a featured article or a good article, I just want a useable article. Results in this main page are an absolute must, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Rundle (talk • contribs) 17:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Strongly support. Artyx^{T C} 18:53, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that the page looked better with list of results than with result tables, as it is right now. Results tables may be taking up less space on the page, but, as I mentioned before, the whole "Qualification" section (I don't mean "Qualifying rounds" section here) may be removed to make more space. Artyom (talk • contribs) 07:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Early start at Moscow

Why did the match between CSKA Moscow and Fenerbahce start early (at 18.30 CET instead of default 20.45 CET) on 02.10.2007? I could not find any information anywhere (unregistered user) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.233.145.91 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian clubs always kick off their home Champions League matches at 18:30 CET, as 20:45 CET is too late in the evening. It would finish after midnight local time. - MTC 18:54, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, 20:45 CET is 22:45 MSK, meaning the games would finish at around 00:45 local time. Artyx^{T C} 19:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

A furthermore all 4 teams in the Moscow group will probably be playing at this time on matchday 6. Kingjeff 14:08, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This is unlikely, as CSKA plays an away game with Fenerbahce on matchday 6. Artyx^{T C} 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok. My comment was the assumption that they were home. Kingjeff 15:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Russian clubs always play away on the final day for exactly this reason. - MTC 16:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

What names should be used?

Well maybe there should be some sort of discussion here (or somewhere) about what names of the teams should be used on this template

These are the ones I think of that might be disputed

Beşiktaş Besiktas?

CSKA Moskva CSKA Moscow?

Dynamo Kyiv Dynamo Kiev?

Fenerbahçe Fenerbahce?

Internazionale Inter? Inter Milan?

Olympique Lyonnais Lyon? should get the same as Olympique de Marseille at least

Slavia/Sparta Praha Slavia/Sparta Prague?

Sporting CP Sporting Lisbon?

Bayern München Bayern? FC Bayern? Bayern Munich? (Name added due to the article in 2006-07)

I would say the English common name should be preferred, but I guess some of you disagree :) Chandlertalk 18:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

All of those listed fall into one of these categories:

• Needlessly dropping the correct diacritics (Beşiktaş, Fenerbahçe).
• Using English translations of non-English place names (Moskva, Kyiv, Praha, Bucureşti).
• Needlessly adding a place name to the end that's not used in the official name ("Sporting Lisbon" is as bad as "Arsenal London").
• Pointlessly shortening the name (Olympique Lyonnais, Internazionale).

There is no good reason to use any of those in your second column. - MTC 19:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

The reason is that this is the English wikipeidia, and Sporting CP is never called Sporting CP, always Sporting Lisabon, Arsenal is NEVER called Arsenal London. Chandlertalk 12:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

You could just call them "Sporting". That shouldn't cause any ambiguity, and people would still know who you were talking about. - PeeJay 12:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure, look I understand that ppl want team names to be in the native lingo, but just as an example as to when it gets pushed, with Red Star Belgrade (which i guess is the common name) here it's Crvena Zvezda. And those who don't know Serbian, they might miss what team that is. Chandlertalk 12:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

And to call them just Sporting doesnt really work, as there are more Sporting teams including one in Portugal, Sporting Braga, i guess thats why it's called Sporting Lisbon, because there's another Sporting in Portugal Chandlertalk 16:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps, but if I was to say "United" to you, I'm sure you would think of Manchester United, despite there being more than one "United" in England. Regardless, Sporting's proper name is Sporting Clube de Portugal, so they should be called Sporting CP or just Sporting. Nothing else. - PeeJay 17:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with those changes. AC Milan could be shoten to Milan. Kingjeff 19:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I would say nothing after no consensus was made between Dynamo Kyiv and Dynamo Kiev. For some editor, they have a doubled-criteria. I mean they are using both English and local name in the same article. For example, They said Dynamo Kiev should be Dynamo Kyiv due to its local name. However, I don't know why those people who Dynamo Kyiv is correct said that Bayern Munich is correct - By Kyiv's criteria, the name should be Bayern München! So I would not join any nonsense discussion if you have no consensus on it. Raymond Giggs 17:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way. There is no need to discuss about which name should Steaua use. Use "Steaua" simply without the city name. Steaua is very common. Raymond Giggs 17:21, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is Steaua on it's own common? Most websites I have seen include the city, as does the Romanian Wikipedia. In fact I have only ever seen Steaua alone used on UEFA's website. - MTC 17:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you should google yourself. (Well... I believe you would not do it.) In their official website, Steaua used a simple name - FC Steaua (but I don't think FC Steaua is better than Steaua). Raymond Giggs 17:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Sports teams says all-English names should be used. I didn't know this either, just found out. Artyx^{T C} 10:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well I think that should be followed Chandlertalk 09:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

And then you'd be left with things like "Bavaria Munich"! - fchd 12:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually the english name is Bayern Munich even though Bayern is German. Using english names doesn't mean it'll be all english words. Kingjeff 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Highlights and borders

PeeJay2K3 reverted an edit by Xhandler with a message saying "such a huge change should have been discussed on the talk page first". Xhandler has now restored the change, I noticed that after posting this but I'll leave this here to keep PeeJay2K3 happy. Xhandler replaced the highlighting of teams in group tables with borders seperating the different sections of the tables. I think this is a very good idea, and I agree that highlighting should be reserved for when a team is assured of what they will be doing after the groups, just like the system being used for UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying tables. - MTC 15:54, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

First of all, this is quite a bit modification to the style of the article, and so it should have been discussed here first. Second, I'm not against the idea. In fact, I think it's quite a good idea. It just should have been run by the rest of us first before being unilaterally implemented. - PeeJay 16:29, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

The old format conveyed all the same information, only in a different manner, using bold and italic to denote teams which were mathematically qualified or eliminated. Therefore it is purely a stylistic choice, but I've seen more and more similar articles going to the border/highlight format (for example UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying). In one sense, this is a more elegant method of presenting the data, although I don't object to the old format. If we do move to the border/highlight style, I recommend using a darker shade of blue for the border, just as a darker shade of green is used. —Ed Cormany 01:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The qualification scenarios

Where are the qualification scenarios, or where can I add them? They used to be in every competition with about 1 to 3 games remaining to play. Kiwi8 08:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, I think it would be best if you didn't add them, or at least kept them on the talk page, as I'm not convinced of their encyclopaedic value. However, we shall see what everyone else thinks. - PeeJay 11:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we're trying to keep the main article as concise as possible. I think it would be best to add them to the separate group stage article. —Ed Cormany 13:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Even then, are they really necessary? They'll be up for a month at the most, then removed once the positions are finalised, so what's the point? - PeeJay 13:57, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

they do seem pointless. in my opinion, anyone who is a fan, are going to know what position their team is in, without having to look it up. (for anyone who is not a fan, would they even care? probs not, lmao!) 77.101.18.129 21:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (geeness)

Someone may be a fan of a particular team and still not know what has to happen for their team to qualify or whether their team will still be in with a chance if X or Y happens. It is therefore certainly beneficial to have the scenarios, to allow people to see if it is possible for their team to become either certain of qualifying or certain of not qualifying on the next matchday. Darryl.matheson 23:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be beneficial, but is it encyclopaedic? Seems a bit WP:CRUFTy to me. - PeeJay 23:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

By the "it will be removed in a few weeks" logic, then why do we update the intermediate standings at all? The fact is that most sports event pages on Wikipedia are more like an almanac than an encyclopedia. There is good precedent on similar pages for including tiebreaker and qualification scenario information. I still think it shouldn't clutter up the main article though. —Ed Cormany 13:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion the the qualification scenarios at the moment are too much reading and very confusing. My idea to simplify them would be to have them along the lines of (using Group D as an example):

(Example 1):

Possible developments for matchday 6 (4 December):

• (AC Milan beat Celtic; Shakhtar beat Benfica)
  • AC Milan will qualify top with Shakhtar beating Celtic to 2nd (due to better head-to-head between the 2 teams).
• (AC Milan beat Celtic; Benfica beat Shakhtar) or (AC Milan and Celtic draw; Benfica beat Shakhtar)
  • AC Milan will qualify top ahead of Celtic in 2nd. Benfica will take the UEFA Cup spot.
• (AC Milan beat Celtic; Shakhtar and Benfica draw) or (AC Milan and Celtic draw; Shakhtar beat Benfica) or (AC Milan and Celtic draw; Shakhtar and Benfica draw)
  • AC Milan will qualify top ahead of Celtic in 2nd. Shakhtar will take the UEFA Cup spot.
• (Celtic beat AC Milan; Shakhtar beat Benfica) or (Celtic beat AC Milan; Shakhtar and Benfica draw)
  • Celtic will qualify top ahead of AC Milan in 2nd. Shakhtar will take the UEFA Cup spot.
• (Celtic beat AC Milan; Benfica beat Shakhtar)
  • Celtic will qualify top ahead of AC Milan in 2nd. Benfica will take the UEFA Cup spot.

(Example 2):

Possible developments for matchday 6 (4 December):

• AC Milan will qualify top with Shakhtar beating Celtic to 2nd (due to better head-to-head between the 2 teams) if:
  • (AC Milan beat Celtic; Shakhtar beat Benfica)
• AC Milan will qualify top ahead of Celtic in 2nd. Benfica will take the UEFA Cup spot if:
  • (AC Milan beat Celtic; Benfica beat Shakhtar)
  • (AC Milan and Celtic draw; Benfica beat Shakhtar)
• AC Milan will qualify top ahead of Celtic in 2nd. Shakhtar will take the UEFA Cup spot if:
  • (AC Milan beat Celtic; Shakhtar and Benfica draw)
  • (AC Milan and Celtic draw; Shakhtar beat Benfica)
  • (AC Milan and Celtic draw; Shakhtar and Benfica draw)
• Celtic will qualify top ahead of AC Milan in 2nd. Shakhtar will take the UEFA Cup spot if:
  • (Celtic beat AC Milan; Shakhtar beat Benfica)
  • (Celtic beat AC Milan; Shakhtar and Benfica draw)
• Celtic will qualify top ahead of AC Milan in 2nd. Benfica will take the UEFA Cup spot if:
  • (Celtic beat AC Milan; Benfica beat Shakhtar)

Looking at that I would say Example 2 is the best option. Although I am aware it is technically more text than what is currently being used I think it is easier to decipher especially at a glance. For instance, if I were a Celtic fan (never going to happen) I could easily see that there is only 1 scenario of results in which they could not qualify for the last 16.

What's your thoughts? (Rfc scott (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC))

Elimination from Knock-out Stage

Maybe we should point out which teams can no longer finish first or second in their groups. Juve2000 01:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)  Done F9T 16:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Group F

Excuse me. It was my mistake. -- Worobiew 09:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Marseille Advancing

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if Marseille beat Besiktas, they won't be qualified for the next round. If Liverpool beat both Porto and Marseille, then Liverpool will tie Marseille in points, and can knock out Marseille on either goal difference or head-to-head records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.65.222 (talk) 22:34, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Group A Situation

There seems to be some confusion over the hypothetical Liverpool/Marseille/Porto three-way tie situation, so here's my working.

If Besiktas beat Porto and Liverpool draw with Marseille, then Besiktas end top of the group on 9 points and Liverpool, Marseille and Porto would have 8 points each. Evaluating these positions requires analysing the mini-table produced by the results between those three teams. Those results would be:

• Porto 1-1 Liverpool
• Liverpool 0-1 Marseille
• Marseille 1-1 Porto
• Porto 2-1 Marseille
• Liverpool 4-1 Porto
• Marseille x-x Liverpool.

Tabulating these:

Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts
Liverpool	4	1	2	1	5+x	2+x	+3	5
Marseille	4	1	2	1	3+x	3+x	+0	5
Porto	4	1	2	1	5	7	-2	5

This table isn't iterated further, so Besiktas go top, Liverpool 2nd, Marseille 3rd and Porto 4th. Kinitawowi (talk) 16:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The topic is over. None of them get the same points. Raymond Giggs 19:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Well spotted, Einstein :-P – PeeJay 19:55, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

ERROR

All CSKA Moscow home matches were played at Lokomotiv Stadium, not Dinamo Stadium. Change this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.76.97.49 (talk) 04:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The Trivial section

Should this includes Liverpool's recovery from one point from three games to come second in the group or not? F9T 19:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Have any other teams ever done this before? If they have, then I'd say Liverpool doing it isn't that notable. If not, then put it in. – PeeJay 23:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

It would be better (especially according to WP:TRIVIA) to instead write a short paragraph about their group's matches and the process of qualification. If we could write such summaries for each group, it would significantly improve the article. —Ed Cormany (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On a related note - Filippo Inzaghi surpassed Gerd Müller as the all-time highest scorer in European competitions when he scored his 63rd European club competition goal, in AC Milan's 1–0 victory over Celtic on 4 December 2007. He is also currently the highest-scoring Italian player in the history of European competition, having scored 34 of his 63 European competition goals for his current club AC Milan. - is it just me, or is the statement being used incorrectly. The best of world in history will always be the best from his country. I'm guessing, but the argument (should it even be notable) would be that he is the leading scorer of goals for Italian clubs in European competition.

Milan or AC Milan

I believe that we should stick with AC Milan in referring to the A.C. Milan side. Milan by itself is a bit unclear. There is another club with Milan in its name, or Milano to be precise, that being F.C. Internazionale Milano. They of course are commonly referred to as Inter Milan although that is the informal name and I agree with keeping Internazionale in the article. Most other articles I've read, including previous Champions League seasons, use AC Milan or A.C. Milan instead of just Milan. I know that other clubs in this article don't have F.C. or F.K. etc., attached to their titles, but I believe with two Milan-based clubs in the competition it would be more user-friendly to just add the AC to AC Milan. --Tocino 00:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm on the side of just using "Milan" to refer to Associazione Calcio Milan. In formal circumstances such as these, Football Club Internazionale Milano is almost exclusively referred to as "Internazionale" or just "Inter", so there should be no ambiguity, IMO. – PeeJay 00:55, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Inter Milan when shorten are ussually called Inter and AC Milan when shorten are ussually called Milan. Kingjeff (talk) 02:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I support using simply Milan. Anyone who knows that there are two clubs in the city knows which one is called Milan, and adding AC in front of it won't help those who don't. Furthermore, the name is linked to the A.C. Milan article every time it appears, so anyone who is truly confused is only one click away from clarification. I also support using Inter instead of Internazionale, since I have never heard anyone (American or Italian) call the club Internazionale informally. In the past, however, there has always been a faction of editors who insist on using the rarer title. —Ed Cormany (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with keeping just Milan instead of AC Milan. Regarding Inter, I personally have no preference in whether the club is called Internazionale or just Inter. Inter, however, sounds to be more an informal name, although it probably matches more to the English-language Wikipedia. Serie A 2007-08 article refers to clubs as Milan and Internazionale, so I think we should use those names as well. Artyom (talk • contribs) 05:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Irregardless of either Internazionale or Inter, this name, whether in short or long form, is what they are referred to. Kingjeff (talk) 06:17, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about you guys but on my side of the ocean, the two Milan teams are referred to as:

• AC Milan: AC Milan
• Inter Milan: Inter Milan

Although I must say for the "non-fan", "Milan" per se is confusing, but not as confusing if you use "Inter" for Inter Milan. --Howard the Duck 12:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Trivia on Filippo Inzaghi

It says he is the highest scoring European player ever and then it goes on to say he is the highest scoring Italian player ever. Doesn't the first statement make the second redundant? I have not made any changes just in case I have misuderstood something. 99.248.53.179 (talk) 23:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The way it is written does make the second statement redundant: if Inzaghi is the highest scoring player in the whole competition, then he is surely the highest scoring player from Italy, from AC Milan etc. We should consider, however, that the author may have meant something different by saying that Inzaghi is the highest-scoring Italian player (e.g. Inzaghi may be the highest-scoring player in the history of Champions League and European Champions Cup (in case he was already playing then), but the second statement may include all European club competitions, including UEFA Cup and Intertoto Cup) Artyom (talk • contribs) 10:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It may not be redundant if you say from AC Milan. The achievement can be done on several teams that make the UEFA Champions League. Kingjeff (talk) 03:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal vs Emirates stadium

Why is this name being reverted? It is likely that UEFA do not use the official name due to advertising reasons etc. This does not change the fact that the stadium name is Emirates Stadium. In a similar way the Welsh rugby team are sponsored by Brains, but the name is changed in France due to alcohol advertising laws, this does not change the fact they are sponsored by Brains. I have reverted the stadium name to the official name. There is no reason to follow the name that UEFA uses. Nouse4aname (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Although the stadium link from "Arsenal Stadium" was to Emirates Stadium, some users might just enter "Arsenal Stadium" in the search field and get to a totally different article. Since the original Arsenal Stadium was closed, these users might get confused.  ARTYOM  21:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does this mean you would be willing to change every link that has been piped from "Arsenal Stadium" to "Emirates Stadium"? And what about all the stadia that were used under different names at the 2006 FIFA World Cup? Will you be changing those as well? – PeeJay 00:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't aware the problem was so widespread, but yes, I will change those also if I come across any. Perhaps you could do so too? Nouse4aname (talk) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I won't help, because I don't believe it's the right thing to do, but I won't hinder either. – PeeJay 08:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I think that is a rather stubborn and counterproductive attitude. Only UEFA refer to Emirates Stadium as Arsenal Stadium, and this is only due to corporate/sponsorship reasons. There is no reason that Wikipedia needs to follow UEFAs naming, as we are not governed by the sponsorhip regulations that they must abide by. The official name of the stadium is Emirates Stadium, and it is here that the match is played. They do not take down or cover up the Emirates sign when Arsenal play at home in Europe, so why should we use an unofficial name here? Other media outlets use the official name [3], [4], [5] are just a few examples. So, perhaps you wouldn't mind helping rectify this problem, or at least pointing me in the direction of other mis-named stadia.Nouse4aname (talk) 08:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Quarterfinals and Semifinals

Added the dates of the quarter and semifinals. Would be happy to see them to be made to look better, but thought the article was lacking without this important information.

Also think it should be on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylelbishop (talk • contribs) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Brief of the groups

Reference to the Spanish article es:Liga de Campeones de la UEFA 2006-07, they made a brief session in every groups and every matches since first knockout stage. Shall we study the format from them? Raymond Giggs 16:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

agg

whey does aggregate go 1,2,3,4? what does that mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.180.76 (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Those are match numbers (i.e. Quarter-final 1, Quarter-final 2 etc.) that will be replaced with agg scores after the matches  ARTYOM  16:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Finals

What do they 'draw' for the finals? Juve2000 (talk) 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

You mean the final match? They drew which team would be the nominal home team, so I guess that team would get to pick first which of their kits to wear and stuff like that. What they said during the draw is that this is required "for technical purposes" (or something like that)  ARTYOM  23:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no real home team. One team is designated so they can go through the montions of having a home team and an away team. Kingjeff (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Rigging allegations

Added a section on the rigging allegations. Fishy at the very least or maybe a good guess? Francium12 (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not fishy, its just fake... They drew it live with ppl from all clubs there. Chandlertalk 01:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the sentence saying: "Making such a prediction carries odds of 191–1", because I'm not so sure this is the case. The Mirror article simply says: "It was claimed that the odds of anyone guessing the full draw - including which quarter-final winners would be drawn against each other in the semi-finals - were 191/1" (my italics).

Now journalists can't do math of course, so this must be based on hearsay. First of all, the "including which quarter-final winners would be drawn against each other in the semi-finals"-part is just plain rubbish; the comment made no such prediction. Furthermore, the prediction did not get the home/away drawings right, which makes the odds a little better. I believe the right probability is: 1/7 * 1/5 * 1/3 = 1/105 ≈ 0,95%. Anybody wanna chime in? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 14:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The math's right. I worked out a few probabilities before the draw and yes, there's 105 different combinations of pairings. So if 105 internet forums made a guess, one would get it right. Aheyfromhome (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Further developments: I found a Guardian source supporting my claim, so I included it. The article was written by a certain "Sachin Nakrani", and as we know, all Indians are great at math (hey, kidding!) Anyway, why 104-1 rather than 105-1? I'm no statistician, but I believe odds calculation is different from probability calculation, in that when we're talking about odds the "1" should be included in the total. Am I right? Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 14:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Odds are different. There was a 1 in 105 chance of it happening, betting odds 104-1. So if you bet €10 on it, you'd win €1040, plus your €10 stake. EamonnPKeane (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

hello, i'm just concerned about the language used in that paragraph. it states that a prediction was made about the result, which is misleading. the guy on the liverpool forum actually said that he heard a rumor that the draw was rigged. and the results he heard were true. that's another thing altogether. ------(Aameen Johal) 2 april 2008

Semi-final Table

Which is the better one?

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Arsenal / Liverpool	1	Fenerbahçe / Chelsea
Schalke 04 / Barcelona	2	Roma / Manchester United

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Winner of Quarter-final 1	1	Winner of Quarter-final 4
Winner of Quarter-final 3	2	Winner of Quarter-final 2

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Winner of Quarter-final 1	1	Winner of Quarter-final 4
Winner of Quarter-final 3	2	Winner of Quarter-final 2

The last one is too ugly I think... Raymond Giggs 11:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Definitely not the first one. It's between the second and third ones for me, and since the winner of Quarter-final 1 is guaranteed to be English, I'll go for the last one. – PeeJay 11:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd pick the second one, because, although the winner of quarterfinal 1 will definitely be English (no doubt :D), the presence of the English flag there seems unparallel. Either there be an English flag for winner of quarterfinal 1 and for winners of other quarterfinals, or no flags at all, IMHO.

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Winner of Quarter-final 1	1	Winner of Quarter-final 4
Winner of Quarter-final 3	2	Winner of Quarter-final 2

 ARTYOM  11:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, a better way. Raymond Giggs 12:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My view - ditch the table altogether until the teams involved are known - a simple one or two sentence piece of prose would be much better. - fchd (talk) 11:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Game Times / Kickoff Times

Should we include game times (kickoff times) on this page? It was the primary reason I came to the Wikipedia article on a current sporting event, and I was surprised to see them missing :) But if kick-off times are not relevant then we could remove the kick-off time for the final match. Also, I am not sure if it is important to note exactly the time when the drawings occurred for an overview of the season. --Oeq1st1 (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

So far out we don't put kickoff times because they could change. UEFA.com might be a better place to go for that information. -- Grant.Alpaugh 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The Controversy Bit

I think we should take a look at removing the controversy bit. It was novel when it happened, but in the grand scheme of things I don't think it should really be kept on the page. The odds of it suggest that it isn't that statisticly significant and that a guess by :cough: some poxy internet forum (no offence) isn't really a grounding for throwing doubt on the integrity of UEFA. Aheyfromhome (talk) 00:07, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Controversy surrounding the draw is noteworthy. It's definetely written in the neutral point of view. Kingjeff (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Noteworthy. Whose gone and removed it? Francium12 (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It really isn't noteworthy. Out of the hundreds of draw predictions that were made before the draw, the fact that the media picked up on that one was purely coincidental. – PeeJay 12:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It really is noteworthy. The fact that it was predicted means this is possibly a scandalous thing that is going on here. Kingjeff (talk) 15:40, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dude, the odds are only 105-1. If you asked every kid in my local school to have a guess then at least 6 of them would get it right. And I predicted that Manchester United would win the title this year, but I doubt that means the premier league is fixed. The maths in this fully supports that it has absolutely no significance. If about 3 or 4 english internet forums got the draw right, then that'd be cause for suspicion.

The media have to find stuff to report, and they filled up a bit of time or space with this. Especially as here in England there's always a background level of suspicion about UEFA draw rigging. I think the truly neutral thing would be not to mention it, otherwise we'd have to mention a host of other random news articles that get reported and don't have any real point. Aheyfromhome (talk) 15:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Group A and E summary

Why is it that only Groups A and E only have summaries, and none of the others? Wouldn't it be beneficial if either none of the groups, or all of the groups, had a small summary? I don't find the point in just these two specific groups having one. --Snojoe (talk) 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe someone was going to write summaries for all groups, but gave up for some reason after these two.  ARTYOM  21:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks absolutely ridiculous for only these two to get that, and I'd do it myself but I've only got such a limited knowledge of how the group stages went for all the teams, I'd probably do no good in it. Would there be any harm in just removing them until someone else, or the previous person, finishes them, at which time they could just re-edit the page to reflect it? --Snojoe (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be in the Group Stage article. Kingjeff (talk) 21:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Inter-Wiki project idea

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.

1. This is an inter-promotion thing for Wikimedia Foundation.
2. All match reports would be of the same standard.
3. 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) 21:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Missed Penalties/Red Cards

Why is it that I keep trying to add the details of missed penalties in normal time to the game summaries but they keep being removed. Can someone explain why these details are not important? The details of Cristiano Ronaldo's missed penalty against Barcelona, for example, are needed to put the game into context as it had a huge influence on the result. Thanks. 92.2.28.25 (talk) 09:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Because missed penalties, by convention, are not commonly added to the match summary. We could, perhaps, write a bit of prose about each game and add it to the article, but I don't believe that missed penalties add anything to the match summaries. – PeeJay 09:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. 03md (talk) 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Missed penalties are maybe not a huge factor for the match outcome, but are worth mentioning.
But I'm wondering why red cards aren't shown in the match summaries? Aren't they a key factor for the outcome? They should maybe be added, or have this issue been discussed before? lil2mas (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't believe anything other than actual goals should be included in the match summaries. The parameters are "goals1" and "goals2". That kinda says to me that only goals should be put in. – PeeJay 19:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Trivia list

PeeJay, please stop reformatting the Records section with bullet points and tagging it as a trivia list. Why would you do this? And please don't call me "buddy", it's condescending. It was' a trivia list. I reformatted it, took out the most pointless bits of trivia, and restructured it into a viable sections on the various landmarks and records set during this season's campaign. There is no need for bullet points on viable prose. See the manual of style. Neıl ☎ 13:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, there is way too much "trivia" there. It desperately needs to be cleaned up, or culled altogether. - fchd (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

LOL. It's obviously a trivia section. It's a collection of unrelated facts that have no other place in the article. – PeeJay 16:00, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of the content of the article has no other place in the article. Most of it is also duplicated on multiple articles. Neıl ☎ 17:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying it should be deleted from the article entirely. The article just needs more text in each section so that the trivia items can be integrated into the main article. – PeeJay 17:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I give up, life's too short. If you want to keep making it into a bulleted laundry list of trivia, PeeJay, then have fun with it. Neıl ☎ 07:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not you're buddy, guy! ← chandler 16:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

It's "I'm not your buddy, friend!". ("I'm not your friend, guy!" "I'm not your guy, buddy!" etc etc etc) - sorry, I'm a pedant ;) Neıl ☎ 17:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

You are mistaken, pr00fs! ← chandler 18:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Games not over!

Will people stop editing the results of games until the games are actually over!. Remember Man Utd were losing the final in 1999 after 90 mins Francium12 (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

FC Barcelona Catalonian Flags

Someone has changed the flags in front of FC Barcelona from Spanish to Catalonian flags. Though I understand that some Catalonians don't regard themselves as Spaniards, the Barcelona football team represents Spain in this competition. IMHO this should be reverted. 82.170.131.213 (talk) 22:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection.

It's inevitable. The next few hours are gonna be filled with mass vandalism. So, might as well take measure before it happens. Azuran (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

IP 124.171.32.16 seems to be an Arsenal fan that keeps vandalizing this page! Full protection needed, please. Marco Alfarrobinha {chat}_{contributions} 03:34, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

No need. Full protection would make the long-time registered user could not edit. Semi-protection is okay. (Hey! My surname is not "Giggs", please!) Raymond Giggs 04:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I requested a semi-protection. Someone made some unacceptable vandalising edit such as changing Chelsea players into Arsenal players and Arsenal win the penalty shoot-out... Goodness... (Hey! My surname is not "Giggs", please!) Raymond Giggs 04:44, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Posterity

Are we supposed to keep this and other similar templates in club articles even though it's a past competition? - Dudesleeper / Talk 23:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

I would say not. I would keep it in this article though. – PeeJay 23:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

How about keeping them until July 1? - Dudesleeper / Talk 09:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

If you want. – PeeJay 10:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Non-free file problems with File:2008 UEFA Champions League Final logo.jpg

File:2008 UEFA Champions League Final logo.jpg is currently tagged as non-free and has been identified as possibly not being in compliance with the non-free content policy. For specific information on the problems with the file and how they can be fixed, please check the message at File:2008 UEFA Champions League Final logo.jpg. For further questions and comments, please use the non-free content review page. -- Toshio Yamaguchi 11:58, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2007–08 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/20070312003915/http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19071.pdf to http://www.uefa.com/newsfiles/19071.pdf

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

FC Astana

The hyperlink is to FC Astana created in 2009. This should be obviously incorrect. The link should be to FC Astana 1964, the Kazakh champions of 2006. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.231.78 (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for noticing --BlameRuiner (talk) 09:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)