Talk:List of UEFA Champions League finals/Archive 1

Archive 1

Inconsistency

There is some inconsistency within this page to clean up. AC Milan or A.C. Milan (see the discussion of this topic)? One club is referred to 3 different ways: FK Red Star, Red Star Belgrade, and FK Crvena Zvezda. -- JoelCFC25 19:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

All the names are technically correct. Therefore, we have to redirect these names into a more common name usage for the respective clubs. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

All Time Goal Scorers

Is the All Time Goal Scorers table relevant to the title of this article? The table should only reflect goals scored in the final, not all rounds. Or the article could be renamed? Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I hadn't even noticed that. I agree with you, if it is to be included at all it should only reflect goals scored in finals, not the entire competition. My first instinct would be to remove it altogether and perhaps paste it into the European Cup article. JoelCFC25 21:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. It now appears only HERE. The table on this page was inaccurate, with Shevchenko on 52 goals.
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:02, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

France?

At the bottom of the page is a trivia note that describes France as one of the six great European football nations. Surely Portugal ranks higher - and certainly in the European Cup/Champions League, Portugal has four wins to France's one. Is the French league really better than the Portugese? (Yes, I am disregarding national team success.)

Well, in my opinion, the Portugese league is SLIGHTLY better than the French league in terms of the success of the Porugese clubs in European competition. However, the Portugese national team's progress in the international arena cannot be disregarded. Their mrdiocre performance internationally indirectly weakens the Portugese league. UEFA takes this into account (please correct me if I am wrong) in awarding the clubs places in European competition. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 19:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just done some quick google research, and it seems that Portugal is in the top six Euro club nations, but Netherlands isn't. This is according to UEFA's national association coefficients. This ruins the trivia statement, since the 1971 final was Ajax-Panathinaikos. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 19:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

@Siva: The national team's results don't count for the league coefficient. See UEFA coefficients for details. Nanouk 04:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

• Trivia: There has not been a single European Cup Final so far which did not have a representative from one of the six leading European Club football nations: Spain, Italy, England, Germany, the Netherlands and France.

---

I've been bold and removed the "fact", since it can't be justified, at least not by me. If anyone can justify it, here it is. (Above)
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

European Cup?

"European Cup" should be "European Champion Clubs' Cup"

--RasMyn 06:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Details

Is there any particular reason the "details" link points to the tournament overview rather than the final's article? -- Daduzi ^talk 14:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Flags should be positioned next to the clubs, in my opinion, with no direct link to the country: AC Milan, for example. This is how it is done in all European football articles.  ARTYOM  15:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

1981 spanish flag shows dictatorship's emblem

I don't know how to change this, but please, that year Spain was already a Parliamentary democracy (now eagle in the flag). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.218.233.146 (talk) 23:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

1966 final shows the wrong score

It's showing 3-1 instead of 2-1. I'd change it, but I don't know how to edit that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.244.196 (talk) 12:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Draws and Printing

Isn't there a policy some where that says all facts should appear on the printout . There is all WP:ACCESS . The draws need a different system Gnevin (talk) 16:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Results by country

In the (Results) "By country" section, it states that Serbia has had one winner and one runner up. Presumably this relates to Partizan being runners up in 1966 and Red Star Belgrade winning it in 1991. However, while both of those clubs currently represent the present-day country of Serbia, the country they were representing at the time was Yugoslavia. The list of winners lists Yugoslavia as the country for these clubs, so at the very least there is an inconsistency here. I believe "Serbia" should be replaced by "Yugoslavia" in the results by country section. No club representing the present-day country of Serbia has ever reached the final. To use an analogy - if Celtic are admitted to the English Premiership at some point (which has been proposed several times), would their victory in 1967 suddenly be credited to England? I don't think so. BFC1890 (talk) 02:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

---

I agree 100% with this. It's the same apply for those already defuncted nations such as Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and East Germany. The team can ONLY be credited for their association at the time they represented for that country. Just like Dynamo Kiev, when they won the Cup Winners Cup twice in the 70s & 80s, they were belong to the Soviet Union, so their 2 Cups win were (should be) credited to the Soviet Union, NOT Ukraine, (which Dynamo Kiev currently represent). I hope someone will fix it accordingly. Viva 00:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone and changed the entry to list Red Star and Partizan under the SFR Yugoslavia rather than Serbia. My initial reasoning was that both teams are now Serbian, and thus entered 50 UEFA CL competitions regardless of the geopolitical distinctions made at the time. However, since the table shows the list of winners by country and not from the club's perspective (not to mention the perspective of the club's allegiance now rather than at the time in question), I think I agree that they should really be listed under SFR Yugoslavia. However, I'm still not completely content: shouldn't we then also have to draw a distinction between the titles won by West German teams and German teams? Krea (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Mistake

Someone changed last years finals. Can anyone correct it please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.19.189 (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Liverpool is not included in the performances by club section even though they should be second on the all-time list behind real madrid with 5 wins and 2 runner-ups —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.243.105.200 (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Winners by Nation table

Recently, the winners by nation table has been removed for a simpler one on two occasions. So, let me discuss why I think the former table should be reinstated.

Firstly, the information is not trivial: simply because the data can be sourced from the table above does not mean that it is without merit. By that same argument, the whole article is redundant because the information is duplicated from the individual champions league seasons' pages. Why bother listing that info when you can just look up the winners from the individual pages, then? For example, the column of club winners was a useful collation of those winners from a particular country because that information that was not found elsewhere on the list -- if I wanted to know that information, I would have to read it off from the entries of the table above it. Again, there is merit in having that information more readily available in the former table than having to parse it for yourself.

Next, that the information was not relevant: strictly, it is true that some of the previous table columns were not relevant to a list of CL winners. By that same argument, though, I could then remove the match attendance figures, and also the scorelines too, because that's not pertinent to a list of winners either. So, whilst we are allowing a degree of leniency in permitting information, why is the number of competitions entered, for example, not allowed? If a nation wins some amount of trophies, is it not useful to know how many times they were able to win that trophy? Or how successful that nation has been in winning those trophies? I think it is quite natural to include information on competition entries with a count of competitions won. It allows one, for example, to gauge how successful a nation has been in winning trophies measured by how many times they won a competition they were eligible to compete in. I believe that anyone wishing to know how many competitions a nation has won would be naturally interested to know that same figure measured against how many times they were able to win a competition. I believe that, at the very least, the "competitions entered" information is eminently relevant, although I admit that an argument against the wins/final ratio can be made.

Lastly, that the information is unsourced: not true. The source for the information is this site itself. The list of club winners and runners-up and the number of competitions entered is available (and sourced) in the individual CL season pages. The "competitions entered" data, for example, is summarized at the CL stats talk page, here. All this information is readily verifiable. Krea (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The list is a featured list when it was promoted this was the table that was in use. Since then this information has been added which is not relevant to THIS list. It IS relevant to the statistics article because what I removed are stats. Wikipedia is not a place for overbearing statistics that were in the table see WP:TRIVIA. The important statistics relating to this list are the number of times team from a country have won and lost the competition. You do not need the number of entries as its outside the scope of the list. The fact that the competition has been ruuning for more than 50 years should give the reader a reflection of the success of the countries. Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself you need third party references which I doubt are available especially for the percentages. To say you could remove the scores and attendance is nonsense. Of course its pertinent as it relates to the match that the teams won. The team wins the competition at the final so its natural the score and attendance should be included look at other featured lists of this nature such as List of FA Cup Winners. P

Your missing the purpose of the argument if you think the page is redundant. The purpose of the list is to list the winners, it is not redundant as all the winners are grouped together. It is repetition to have the clubs in the by nation table. It is a BY NATION table not a by nation and clubs table. The information is above the table the reader will have already digested the information it does not need to be repeated, its not hard to browse up the page is it?

Personally I think the table should solely be used in the stats article as that is what the majority of the table was, it is simply not needed here because it goes beyond what is necessary for the list, its not a list of competition entries or ratios of victories so its not needed for the list. NapHit (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The fact that it was featured before is of no consequence. All that shows is that it was good before, not that it was as good as it could be. "Overbearing statistics" is a horror of a term that people who are more concerned with aesthetics than information frequent, and I'm uneasy that it has appeared. WP:TRIVIA also is not relevent: that guide says that trivia should not be placed in a list, but subsumed into the article. Quoting from that page: "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations. Issues of inclusion are addressed by content policies."

"The fact that the competition has been ruuning for more than 50 years should give the reader a reflection of the success of the countries." But that imparts no knowledge since each country has participated a variant amount of times. No "reflection of success" is gained from vague statements or assumptions.

"Wikipedia cannot be a reference for itself you need third party references which I doubt are available especially for the percentages." This is especially wrong. I cannot stress that enough. The ultimate source of the information is from an external sources. The table only re-expresses that information. Simple calculations do not need to be sourced -- see WP:NOR.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how excluding the scorelines or match attendances is nonsense. A list of winners is only a list of winners, not how many people attended the game or by what score they won by. It is silly to exclude it, I agree, but why should one set of de facto irrelevant information be allowed and not another. If you're going to argue that information should be allowed only in strict compliance to the title of the page, a list of winners is only a list of club names that won the competition. So, again, using your own argument, the scorelines and match attendances are inadmissible. Look, I don't necessarily think you're wrong, but I'd just like a good reason for why you're right and I'm wrong. If a club wins a competition, it is relevant to know by what scoreline (I'm not arguing against that); but, why in a count of national wins is the count of eligible entries not relevant? If I win something ten times, then it is natural to also want to know how many times I could have won that thing (so someone could gauge the relative success of your attempts, for example).

For the clubs column: the table should not be subservient to the title, but vice versa. Put another way: just rename the table, then, if you don't like the fact that it displays club information along with national information. That's just arguing over semantics. As for why I argue for that info to be in the table: you said yourself that the article is not redundant because it imparts information by grouping together competition winners. But, that's what the clubs column also does. Just because you could go through the table above and extract that info (relatively, easily, I'll admit) does not mean that it's just as easy to do that than see it explicitly in the table. Again, I believe it is useful information that would otherwise have to be collated, rather clumsily, from the table above if it were not there. The job of the article, after all, is to impart information, not look pretty.

"Personally I think the table should solely be used in the stats article as that is what the majority of the table was, it is simply not needed here because it goes beyond what is necessary for the list, its not a list of competition entries or ratios of victories so its not needed for the list." I'd go along with this. Just cut the whole table out. I just don't see a reason for leaving some useful information out whilst retaining others just because it looks messier or because someone believes some information is relevant or irrelevent -- these are subjective, mostly, and I prefer to err on the side of more (useful) information than easier to look at.

(Also, I don't mean to be rude or brusque in any of this, It's just that I'd like a good reason for excluding information.)

Krea (talk) 17:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is where I'm confused you first say Wikipedia itself is a reference then say that external sources are vital and there is no need for routine calculations to be referenced. Well that would mean the table as it stands now is fine as its collating info already in the article. But how does that apply to the percentages which is not an easy calculation or the competitions entered as not every country has entered the same amount of times? This alone should be reasons for excluding the info as it is not verifiable. Other articles within wikipedia cannot be used as a source, which I think you fail to understand.

You want a good reason I think the above is a good reason. The info removed cannot be sourced externally. The clubs column is not needed as there is a table above dedicated to clubs with a flag next to the club indicating its nationality, it does need to be in the next table as its repeating info. Its clear what club are from what countries why does that need to be repeated? NapHit (talk) 18:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

OK, maybe I wasn't clear about the sources thing. Here's my understanding of it: the information is collected from the individual season pages (1955-56, 1956-57...) and is not original research because it is merely collecting information about winners or competitions entered (so, nothing that is not trivial). Yes, that's not good enough if those pages are themselves not sourced. But they are. Ergo, the data in the table is sourced. The calculations are simple ratios -- 12/55 or 12/(12+14), for example, and they don't need to be sourced. The competitions entered is simply counting data that is already sourced -- I believe that is OK.

I don't think we're going to agree with the clubs column. Fine. For the sake of not going around in circles, and on the principle that something is better than nothing, I'll concede the wins/final percentage as being relatively useless, and (begrudgingly, for now) the club winners because it can be fairly easily looked up above (although I still protest that it's useful). I have to insist on the "competitions entered" and the other percentage entry, though. That is genuinely useful info that is otherwise difficult to obtain.

Krea (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The reason it needs sources is because its not inherently verifiable see Wikipedia:CHALLENGED#Anything challenged or likely to be challenged. Its not enough to say that the season articles cover this as wikipedia is not a reliable source anyone can edit it, therefore there could be inaccuracies within the list. As this is a featuredl list it requires a source otherwise it could be deemed that the list is not verifiable and it will be removed. This is why it requires a source and is why its been removed as is don't think there is a source that covers the information. NapHit (talk) 23:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ha ha ha very funny, Chelsea win 3 v o Bayern Munich 2012. Wishful thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.26.227 (talk) 06:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism

This article has been vandalized, it currently states that Kathmandu from Nepal won the first five European Cup trophies. This is not only untrue, but if such a team exists they would not be eligible. The manner of the drawn games has also been vandalized, you cannot win a game by 'crying', etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.82.19.226 (talk • contribs) 09:58, 22 June 2012 (UTC)‎

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Football League Cup winners which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:30, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

NC information

I the "NC" information should be moved elsewhere on the page. It's trivia that clutters the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjhughson (talk • contribs) 11:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be removed completely as it's entirely irrelevant, an arbitrary criteria that adds absolutely nothing to the list. TonyStarks (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow. I'm a real fan Iron Man, but this is the Champions League and if the winner is not the previous season's league champions it adds a great deal and not at all arbitrary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree that it's irrelevant in this context, the only reason to have it there is to make a quasi-political "Champions League should be for Champions" point. It is worth noting perhaps the first team to win without being champions of either the domestic league or Europe the season before, but no more than that.145.8.180.209 (talk) 07:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Defending champion not qualifying until 2005

Surely this assertion in the lead can't be right? Does it just refer to the Champions League era, in which case it needs clarifying? For example, Nottingham Forest qualified as defending European Cup champions, not league champions, in 1979-80. Angmering (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2016

Since the start of the competition, there have been five single-nation finals: Spain in 2000 and 2014, Italy in 2003, England in 2008 and Germany in 2013. Should be: Since the start of the competition, there have been six single-nation finals: Spain in 2000, 2014, 2016, Italy in 2003, England in 2008 and Germany in 2013. Yyuwiki (talk) 11:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I removed the entire sentence instead because source was old and the text does not belong there with the tables. Qed237 (talk) 11:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2016

replace this text "while Stade de Reims, Valencia and Atlético Madrid are the only clubs to have finished as runners-up twice without winning" with this: "while Atlético de Madrid is the only team to reach three finals without having won the trophy. Stade de Reims and Valenica have finished as runners-up twice without winning." Aaliseda (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

An Idea?

Color the teams if they have won their league, the platform of this article is similar to various articles that I have occasionally go and read, like the List of English Champions and List of Spanish Champions and so on, they have coloring segment, to see if they won their local cup and European Cup. It will serve well for this article. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's not necessary and not within the scope of the list. NapHit (talk) 10:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

It's extremely necessary, it shows you the champions who were champions in their own country. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, "extremely necessary"? What does being the champion of your own country have to do with actually winning the Champions League, aside from granting qualification? – PeeJay 11:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I thought my words were clear, since 1955 till 1997 in order to be qualified you had to be a Champion (some exceptions are included), how hard is it to have some color in the table indicating that the team is a champion of their respective league not my country but the country that the club competes in. It is a crucial information that the article lacks, yet other articles of English Champions and Spanish Champions have color schemes to show if they won the European Cup/Champions League or Local Cup, it's not that hard to do, the blueprint is out there. I'm just giving some heads up since I'm interested in adding colors to the table. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Who cares if it's hard? It's not necessary, that's the point. – PeeJay 19:00, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

As Peejay states it's not necessary so what's the point? Juat because we can add colour to the table doesn't mean we should! NapHit (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

How is not necessary to see the Champion of the Champion?? With your logic we should remove the facts that there are winners of Champions League and FA Cups in the List of English Champions. Also I ever said that since we can add we should add, you probably shouldn't create lies about me like that. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, maybe we should remove that info from the other articles. Thank you for your suggestion. – PeeJay 19:53, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I understand you like being funny, so I'm just going to go ahead and watchlist all the major European division articles. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Why? So you can start an edit war? I wouldn't recommend it, pal. – PeeJay 20:19, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend twisting my words, I know that you think you are the owner of football related articles and everyone who disagrees with you must be edit warring, but edit warring is against Wikipedia Guidelines. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 02:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, buddy boy. And maybe try taking your own advice and not twist my words. If you attempt to revert me without engaging in a proper discussion, you will have started an edit war. Again, I wouldn't recommend it. – PeeJay 09:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

You can edit war if you want, if that is part of your behavior and conduct here in Wikipedia, but I wouldn't encourage it. Yes before we edit we have to ask our Lord and Savior PeeKay. You can go ahead and ruin Wikipedia articles, just do it on your discretion. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Also where did I twist your words? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 17:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Minor glitch when sorting the table by Venue

I'm looking at the Champions by Year table and clicked the Venue header to sort by that column and it has some problems...

1. The column is sorted, not by the name of the stadium as I was hoping for, but by the country flag which is part of the column. This is why Ernst-Happel-Stadion (Austria) is listed before Allianz Arena (Germany) and why the column is not truly sorted.

2. I noticed this because of Olympiastadion. There are four entries with Olypmiastadion, both Berlin and Munich, but they are not grouped together rather 3 are together and one is at the end of the list. I realize now that it's because the last in the list is "West Germany" whereas the others are "Germany"

I don't know how to affect the sort, but I strongly suggest that this column sort on the name of the stadium, not the country in which it's located.

Zonker.in.geneva (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)