Talk:2018–19 UEFA Champions League/Archive 1

Archive 1

???

Why is it taking so long this season? Some clubs allready qualified (Malmö, Flora, Vikingur, HJK, Spartaks, Rosenborg, Cork, Valur...). Just use the acess list and make an article. http://img.ekstraklasa.org/files/Kalendarz_pucharow1505740400.pdf 09:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

why no criticism section?

Why is there no criticism of the new format that obviously panders to rich clubs? In regards to sourcing, I know Celtic (who will have to go through 4 qualification rounds now) were one of those attacking it. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:7C90:95F8:B852:ED30 (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That's an interesting interpretation of the process. Do you have any reliable sources that support your interpretation? Without that, it's original research and not worth discussing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:14, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Distribution Section: Teams qualifying from previous round

The preliminary round involves four teams. Assuming that they follow the normal format, this will give two teams going into the next round. Yet the first qualifying round shows only one team qualifying from this round. Is this right, and if so, why?46.7.195.132 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

The format will be two rounds of single-leg matches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.247.245.1 (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! A break with tradition by UEFA, but an explanation nonetheless.46.7.195.132 (talk) 13:03, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Bonus points for historic UEFA trophy winners.

In the announcements for the changes to the competition for the 2018-19 season onwards, UEFA declared that there would be:

A new system for the club coefficients: clubs will be judged on their own records (deletion of the country share for individual club coefficient unless that coefficient is lower than 20% of the association's coefficient). Historical success in the competition will also be acknowledged in coefficient calculation (points for previous European titles with a weighted system for UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League titles)

https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=2398899.html#/

There seems to be no reflection of this in the current standings, or any confirmation of exactly how this will work. Anyone know anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nessy76 (talk • contribs) 15:00, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

There will be two coefficients: one for seeding and one for financial (prize money) (sorry for my not perfect english). This means, that clubs with a higher coefficient, including historical results, recieve more money. Just in principle, I don't know details. --94.142.217.58 (talk) 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Group stage seedings

The new regulations are on the UEFA website [1]. And there are some changes :

13.06 For the purpose of the draw, the 32 clubs involved in the group stage are seeded into four groups of eight. The first group comprises the titleholder (top seed), the UEFA Europa League titleholder and the domestic champions of the six associations ranked highest in the access list (see Annex A). If either or both titleholders are the domestic champions of one of the top six associations, the group is completed with the champion(s) of the next highest ranked association(s). The other three groups are composed in accordance with the club coefficient rankings established at the beginning of the season (see Annex D). --Rashinseita (talk) 00:48, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

redistribution of teams in qualifying rounds

Liverpool haven't quite secured Champions league through their league yet, so not an issue yet, but it may be soon. Exactly how will teams be redistributed in the qualifying rounds? The article stated that "the champions of association 11 (Czech Republic) will enter the group stage, and champions of the highest-ranked associations in earlier rounds will also be promoted accordingly." - but if you follow that backwards then you get a complication with the play-off round only having 1 team making the first qualifying round. If their were two spots you could move two teams forward, and have the other 2 play for the remaining spot - but with only one spot what will they do? Will the play-offs instead be changed to have BOTH winners through rather than play each other for one spot? And if that does happen, what happens in the Europa league - as there would only be 2 losers going to that not 3, so will someone get a bye in that? I realise there is a bit of speculation here, but if Liverpool do secure the CL through their league, then it's something the article will have to deal with. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:C67:4316:FEBD:E2BC (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you are obviously right. 20 teams are supposed to play in the second qualifying round. IMHO there are two possible scenarios: - The belarusian champion qualifies directly to QR2, leaving 31 teams in QR1 who will be joined by the only qualifier from PR, so we will have 32/2=16+4= 20 teams - The belarusian champion remains in QR1, but PR qualifies two teams instead of one, so we will have 32+2=34/2=17+3=20 teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.232.230 (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok - someone has now added a distribution section with the following "

   The champions of association 11 (Czech Republic) will enter the group stage instead of the play-off round.
   The champions of association 13 (Netherlands) will enter the play-off round instead of the third qualifying round.
   The champions of associations 18 (Denmark), 19 (Belarus), 20 (Poland), and 21 (Sweden) will enter the second qualifying round instead of the first qualifying round.

" - is there a source for this? 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:3532:B71D:272D:50CA (talk) 21:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Obviously not. Instead I found an article which confirms the previous version, but I don't know if I'm able to link it because of copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.232.230 (talk) 06:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I have a doubt: the 17 losers of QR1 and the three losers PR are supposed to Europa League QR2, therefore would there be possible to have one of the scenarios depicted above? I mean, in the "32/2=16+4=20" case, there will be 16 QR1 + 3PR losers going to Europa League while in the "32+2=34/2=17+3=20" alternative will have 17 QR1 + 2PR losers going to Europa League. In both cases there would be one "loser missing", am I jibber jabbing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.94.80.100 (talk) 08:34, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

and this is exactly why you don't introduce a De-facto fifth qualifying round to get rid of as many small teams as possible to give them no chance of making the group stage that only rich clubs are allowed to enter. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:F4B2:B39:93C:7465 (talk) 08:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I think that in 2QR of EL (champions path) a bye will be given to either the team representing the best ranked federation involved, or the team with the highest coefficient involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.232.230 (talk) 06:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys, I finally obtained permission to link the source I found which confirms that danish and belarusian champion are promoted to QR2: [[2]]. Can you please fix the page accordingly? I'm not able to do it. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.232.230 (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Mistake on map

On the map of the group stage teams it is mentionned that Spartak Moscow has qualified already instead of Lokomotiv Moscow. This has to be changed. Spartak Moscow has qualified for the third qualification round and Lokomotiv Moscow has qualified for the group stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:2D13:9600:D1FA:76C5:B46F:E9B6 (talk) 07:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Inter or Lazio

I notice that Inter has been shown as the 4th place Italian team, but according to https://www.google.ie/search?q=serie+a&rlz=1C1CHBF_enIE752IE752&oq=serie&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0j69i60j69i65j69i61l2.10542j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#sie=lg;/g/11dfl0c_cg;2;/m/03zv9;st;fp;1 Lazio finished ahead of Inter on GD. Are you sure that it is Inter that qualifies?46.7.195.132 (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

I've just looked on the UEFA website, and it is indeed Inter that is shown as qualifiers. Any idea why this has happened?46.7.195.132 (talk) 07:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

We qualified because we are ahead of them in head to head matches — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.225.232.230 (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

TYVM: I've just discovered that.46.7.195.132 (talk) 10:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2018

Insert Alashkert as champions of Armenia, because of a Disciplinary Committee that deducted Shirak 12 point (available here: http://www.ffa.am/hy/1526714227#.Wv_PoSWT5NA.facebook) 151.45.26.176 (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sam Sailor 07:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Map

Is anyone else seeing the map labels aligned =top and =bottom way way above/below the dots? The text "Madrid" is somewhere up in the Basque country in my browser and Barcelona's and Monaco's are overlapping. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm seeing it as well. In both Firefox and Chrome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Valencia / Pot 3?

Want to ask before edit: Valencia it's already in pot 3? As far as I can see it's.

If Dynamo Kyiv ( 62000 ), Ajax ( 53500 ) and RedBull ( 55500 ) got qualified they're into pot 3 and there is still one position in pot 3. Same if Benfica ( 80000 ), Dynamo Kyiv ( 62000 ) and RedBull ( 55500 ) got qualified. Benfica enter pot 2, Liverpool pot 3 and and there is still one position in pot 3. The other teams have lower points than Valencia.

Am I wrong?

Slevin K (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Why split the qualifying rounds into two articles?

Why split the qualifying rounds into two articles, for "Champions Path" and "League Path" each? Previous seasons only got one article for qualifying rounds, which makes updating, referencing and browsing much easier. Sofeshue (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. There's no need for this. – PeeJay 09:14, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Disagreed. To prevent high page size. And there is no connection between these Hhkohh (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There are only four or two league path matches per respectieve round. That doesn’t create any size issue at all.Tvx1 21:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

You are too late to discuss this. Tvx1 Already merged by me Hhkohh (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Well, the relevant champions league articles were merged. The same split still exists for the Europa League articles.Tvx1 14:16, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Tvx1: You can see previous discussions:

1. WT:WikiProject Football/Archive 117#2018-19 UEFA Champions League and Europa League
2. WT:WikiProject Football/Archive 118#split of articles of 2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying (via my talk page)

Since I have no enough time recently, if necessary, you can open a third discussion on Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League qualifying phase and play-off round Hhkohh (talk) 14:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Liverpool in Pot 2?

If Benfica qualify from the Play Off round they will go into Pot 2 with a co=efficient of 80.000 and Liverpool will be in Pot 3, that is correct isn't it?Statto74 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I took into account the current coefficient and not the one at the end of the previous season. --Baronedimare (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an RM

Your input are welcomed in Template talk:2018–19 UEFA Champions League group table#Requested move 20 October 2018 Hhkohh (talk) 15:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Liverpool

Shouldn't it be 4-2 against Red Star since they lost today? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enigmaman (talk • contribs) 02:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. The results are stored in {{2018–19 UEFA Champions League group tables}} and they seem to have four matches, two wins, no draws and two losses. Are you expecting something different? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

On the right of the table it shows the matchups. It says 4-0 for Liverpool against Red Star. Enigma^msg 04:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, because it was 4-0 in the game in Liverpool. If you look at the row for Red Star, you'll see that's where Red Star's victory last night is acknowledged. – PeeJay 10:57, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Internazionale not "Inter Milan"

The name used by UEFA for the Italian club F.C. Internazionale Milano is "Internazionale", not "Inter Milan" which is not the name of the club.--93.34.95.231 (talk) 10:43, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The name used should be consistent with the name of the English language wikipedia page, which is "Inter Milan". There is a discussion point about this there. I think the English wikipedia page name should be changed myself, but that has not been approved yet, so we have to be consistent. Jopal22 (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Jopal22. The club's name has been discussed many times at the article with efforts to move it to something other than Inter Milan defeated multiple times. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You’re forgetting that the original discussion that got the article moved to Inter Milan was flawed in the arguments presented. – PeeJay 19:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You're forgetting there have been multiple move discussions. One to move it Inter Milan and three to move it to F.C. Internazionale Milano, all of which failed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that once the decision was made, it would be very difficult to move the article back to the correct title. If the readership hadn’t been misled originally, the article would never have been moved. – PeeJay 05:54, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

You know as well as I do that what you just wrote is nonsense. If the title were actually the club’s common name in English, there would be enough proof and editors would have been swayed by the insurmountable evidence. That is not and has not been the case. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to insult your intelligence and suggest you don't already know this, but WP:COMMONNAME isn't the only criterion by which an article's title should be judged; unfortunately, the original RM ignored this fact and in fact rode roughshod over established Wikipedia naming conventions for sports teams (see WP:NCST). The person who proposed the original RM claimed that FC Internazionale Milano isn't the club's common name: that's true, but it ignores the fact that the club has several common names: "Internazionale", "Inter" and "Inter Milan"; all of these satisfy at least three of the naming criteria, but none any more than the others. Considering there are three common names for the subject, none of which dominates significantly over any of the others, the sensible solution is now and always has been to title the article after the club's full name in order to preserve consistency between the titles of similar articles (c.f. Juventus F.C., Genoa C.F.C., S.S.C. Napoli). The club calls itself FC Internazionale Milano (and either "Internazionale" or "Inter" for short, never "Inter Milan"), ESPN calls them "Internazionale", The Guardian calls them "Internazionale" or "Inter", Goal.com (as odious as I find that site) calls them "Internazionale", Soccerway calls them "Internazionale". I am not saying, nor have I ever said that no one calls them "Inter Milan" or even that they shouldn't; what I am saying is that when you have multiple valid nicknames for a subject, you can't just pick one and discount all others to suit your point. If you continue to claim not to be able to see my point, I'm going to have to assume you're missing it intentionally. – PeeJay 08:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Stop dancing around the facts with alternate ones. If you want the article moved, open a move discussion. Until it's moved there is a clear community consensus not to use the endonym for the club name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean "alternate facts"? I've given you Wikipedia policies and evidence to back them up. – PeeJay 08:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Get the article moved and we have no need for protracted discussions like this. Since Inter Milan is one of the commonly used names, and it's the name of the article, it makes sense to use it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what has been said, and as already mentioned on top of this discussion, please note that UEFA (which as you all know is the main football organization and entity regulating European football) calls the club "Internazionale" on its official website and on its official documents. UEFA is the most reliable and respected source for European football. So the club should be called "Internazionale" at least on UEFA competitions pages. Wikipedia users should not be allowed to modify a club's name providing a different version from recognized version used by the main football organization in Europe. This not a good service to Wikipedia.--Blocci (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sure, but UEFA's website also has Crvena zvezda and Lokomotiv Moskva amongst other differences to Wikipedia https://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2019/standings/ Boothy m (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

There are two seperate arguments here. One is using a different name to the article on the teams here. While the article on the club is titled Inter Milan, this article should use Inter Milan. The discussion on moving the page Inter Milan should be elsewhere, on its talk page or the football project talk page.

On the latter, Inter Milan is the common English name and used by a variety of English language sources. A quick search picks up: the BBC, ITV and Sky Sports among broadcasters; the Times, Telegraph, Independent, Evening Standard, and Express among newspapers (the Guardian now stands out in using Internazionale, but older articles used Inter Milan); the Bleacher Report and many others on sports websites. Reuters and the Associated Press use Inter Milan. UEFA isn't an English source and naturally uses names used by clubs in their own countries.   Jts1882 | talk  10:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

One has to wonder how much that has been swayed by Wikipedia's choice to title its article on the club thus. – PeeJay 10:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Doubt it, they also using Sporting Lisbon when the wikipedia page is Sporting CP Jopal22 (talk) 13:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm thinking more about trends over time. I know quite a few sites used to use Inter or Internazionale but have since changed. – PeeJay 14:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Seems unlikely. Most of the broadcasters and newspapers I mentioned were using Inter Milan long before Wikipedia existed. They were probably among the sources that determined the name of the Wikipedia article.   Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The venue for the final

UEFA, the organisers of this competition, are calling the venue for the final the 'Estadio Metropolitano', not Wanda Metropolitano, which is the name used for that stadium in other competitions. I feel it is sensible to use the name UEFA are using, as it's their competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A31B:8540:EC00:14DF:E231:8E20:F0AF (talk) 17:16, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

The title of the article on the sadium should be used, which is currently Wanda Metropolitano. If the name should be changed a WP:RM should be opened. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. What UEFA choose to call the stadium is irrelevant. The stadium has a name, and I see no reason to pander to UEFA's whims when it comes to sponsored names. – PeeJay 21:24, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

No need to pander to UEFA on the name used, but is it appropriate to use the sponsor name for that stadium? The article begins Metropolitano Stadium (Spanish: Estadio Metropolitano), also referred as Wanda Metropolitano for sponsorship reasons, is a stadium in Madrid ..., which relegates thee sponsor name to the secondary name, and the infobox uses Estadio Metropolitano. There should be more consistency in the article.   Jts1882 | talk  06:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Flags

Why do we have national flags, when these teams do not represent their countries? Why not the team flag, or the city's flag? This makes no sense at all. Drmies (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Teams are representatives of their national football association, though. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, each team is put forward by their national association, so they are in effect representing their countries. Not sure why you would suddenly raise an objection to this. – PeeJay 21:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Not really. They are representative of the first leagues, not the nation. I have been raising this same objection for years. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. The teams are representing the National Association, with qualifying determined by the leagues and cups under the auspices of that association. The national association determines the flag, which should be remembered if Cardiff or Swansea ever qualify for European competition as English represenatives.   Jts1882 | talk  06:47, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Which is exactly what happened in the 2013–14 UEFA Europa League. – PeeJay 10:40, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

I've opened a related discussion at WikiProject Football regarding where these flag icons should link. S.A. Julio (talk) 07:41, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Away goals template

@PeeJay2K3: I see you have nominated that template for TfD, however it seems to be messing with the page a bit since you done that, maybe we should just switch over to wiki code? Govvy (talk) 09:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I've remove the extra new line introduced. Does that fix the messed page?   Jts1882 | talk  11:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

I already substituted the template into the page, so there shouldn't have been any issues anyway. – PeeJay 11:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Looks like Jts fixed it, before the boxes in the page had this big long line that the template had been put forward for deletion, it had obscured the competition tree graph. Govvy (talk) 11:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Wanda panorama.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)