Jump to content

Talk:2008–09 UEFA Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Putting teams into the article

[edit]

Maybe we should only put teams into the article after they actually clinch the spot for the tournament. Kingjeff (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's an appropriate place to toe the line, and it avoids any complicated notes. We should make it a policy for the Intertoto and CL pages too. Aheyfromhome (talk) 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that I can't find any reasons that support this movement. It's neither good nor bad to add the teams before they clinch the spot. So I can't find any problems to add the teams. On the other hand, this movement cause some unnecessary changes already(E.g: remove the cup winner of Faroe Island). --Yick50907551 (talk) 10:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's simpler. What if teams win the league and win the Cup. Do they get both UEFA Cup and Champions League spots? What if they win the fair play award from their league? Do they get a UEFA Cup fair play spot? What if Bayern wins the German cup and gets the Intertoto Cup spot. Which one do they get? The point is that it's not as simple as saying that they win a spot in Champions league, uefa cup or intertoto cup if they finish in a certain spot in a domestic league, domestic cup or european cup. Kingjeff (talk) 17:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Bayern win the German cup and get the Intertoto Cup spot, then they would qualify for the UEFA Cup and the Intertoto spot would go to the next team. In answer to your question, the team would recieve the highest spot (e.g. Champions League instead of Uefa Cup). Eddie6705 (talk) 17:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just pointing out that it's not as simple as saying that a specific spot in in domestic competitions = a specific spot in European competitions. Kingjeff (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not black-and-white, for sure, but it can be simple enough. There is an order to the importance of European slots - a hierarchy, if you like. It is thus:
  1. Champions League through league position
  2. UEFA Cup through Cup win
  3. UEFA Cup through league position
  4. UEFA Cup through Fair Play
  5. Intertoto Cup through league position (assuming application)
While this may make it seem over-complicated, it means we can make things simpler - if a club is in a CL position, they shouldn't be mentioned here. If they applied for Intertoto it makes no difference here, as UEFA Cup takes preference. You can make logical deductions easily enough and use them to remove uncertainty as you mentioned.
That said, I remain in support of only adding teams after they conclusively take a UEFA Cup slot. Falastur2 (talk) 21:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How simple it is is really up to the reader. Therefore, having multiple teams in one spot can make out like all of those teams have qualified. Kingjeff (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-Wiki project idea

[edit]

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) 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early issue

[edit]

I moved the Early Issue section because it's better to see it at the top then inbetween the first round and final. 76.67.62.25 (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Club controversy

[edit]

Do we need the English clubs controversy section? Surely the section would only be relevant if Cardiff had qualified for the UEFA, which they haven't. KyleRGiggs recently added a hidden comment saying it shows the future of the Welsh teams playing in England. How does it? Surely we should have the section when a Welsh side actually wins the FA Cup, not when they haven't. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 10:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry for changing the name here, because Giggs for Temporary is me, who was temporary suspended due to compromising of the account, I have said before. It is easier to reach my user talk page if I make that change. Sorry for be rude. :) Raymond Giggs 12:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Back to the topic, it is still worthy to mention. Despite Cardiff City will not qualify to the UEFA Cup, Platini has interrupted before. The interruption is worthy to mention enough. On the other hand, it really shows the future of the three Welsh teams playing in England. Platini's statement has clearly stated that he is strongly supporting Cardiff City's place, and The FA finally succumbed, and promised that Cardiff City may get a UEFA Cup ticket if they win the FA Cup. It may (not must) means that all Welsh clubs playing in England could allow to get a UEFA competition ticket by English competition in the future. Raymond Giggs 12:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, to reduce the arguments on "The future of the Welsh clubs", I removed those words, just keep the words "Do not remove this session". Raymond Giggs 12:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FC Nordsjælland

[edit]

FC Nordsjælland have been added as the Danish fair-play representive. Is this sourced to anything? The present source only mentions Denmark, not the team. --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 10:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. According to the amateurs website by Bert Kassies, no team is confirmed. But Nordsjælland and Copenhagen would get this spot. I suppose the contributor who added Nordsjælland is because Copenhagen got a UEFA Cup ticket. I have no idea for including this team or not. Raymond Giggs 12:23, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not forget that the Danish season isn't even over yet... Falastur2 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there's no source, it shouldn't be added. Verifiablity, not truth. OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, agree. Raymond Giggs 05:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source for Danish fair-play competition: http://www.dbu.dk/sr/poolFairPlayPosition.aspx?poolid=52169. 33rd and last week of games will be this weekend. Hockey-holic (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of Rep. of Ireland teams needed

[edit]

I noticed that both IRL teams are listed as unseeded first qualification round teams. However, St Patricks have been put in the table for second qualification round teams. Since I assume that Irish FA teams are not allowed to get directly into the second round, is this a case of wrong placement? 91.36.192.161 (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, Irish teams enter at the first qualifying round. It seems someone moved the last row of the first qualifying round to the last row of the second, I have fixed it now. - MTC (talk) 11:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hungarian participants set

[edit]

MTK Budapest won their game against Rákospalotai EAC tonight. With MTK playing Sopron this weekend (see www.kicker.de) and all matches of Sopron being counted as won for their opponents (see Sopron's wiki page for details), MTK cannot be moved from 1st place any more. So, the "Hungarian picture" looks like the following:

MTK Budapest: Clinched CL qualification spot
Debreceni VSC: Clinched UEFA Cup qualification spot
Honvéd Budapest: Earned spot of Hungarian Cup winner because they play Debrecen in the finals - Edited: Honvéd not in, see below Hockey-holic (talk) 11:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this constellation is immovable now, can all Hungarian participants be assigned to their respective cups? Hockey-holic (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone edited my changes from Honvéd to the 3rd placed teams in the Soproni Liga.

Why?

The Runners up in the Hungarian Cup gets the spot, not the 3rd placed team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.31.185 (talk) 04:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again someone edited in the 3rd placed club in the League.

Anyone else caught doing this, and I will move to have the page protected to prevent further vandalising.

Someone doesn't seem to understand that :

1. Cup has not been decided. Would Honvéd prevail and win the cup, they would automatically qualify (Unlikely given first leg ended 7-0 for Debrecen) 2. Because Debrecen already have taken 2nd place, they are ineligible to also take the Cup Winners spot. Therefore if they win the Cup, the runners up get the UEFA Cup spot that the winners normally receive.

NOT the 3rd placed club in the Hungarian League.

Do NOT edit in the 3rd placed team again, it will be deemed vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.254.192.207 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Since those edits back and forth are annoying, I looked for UEFA's participation criteria for domestic cup winners. To sum it up: The losing cup finalist will gain the spot If and only if the winner has qualified for UEFA Champions League. In all other cases, the spot will be awarded to the team finishing right behind the regular UEFA Cup spots. Taken this fact, and Honvéd losing 7-0 in the 1st leg of the Cup finals, Győri ETO FC are all but qualified for the UEFA Cup. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some dates

[edit]
  • June 27, 2008 draw for 1st qualifying round of the UEFA Cup
  • July 17, 2008 1st qualifying round UEFA Cup, 1st leg
  • July 31, 2008 1st qualifying round UEFA Cup, 2nd leg
  • August 1, 2008 draw for 2nd qualifying round of the UEFA Cup
  • August 14, 2008 2nd qualifying round UEFA Cup, 1st leg
  • August 28, 2008 2nd qualifying round UEFA Cup, 2nd leg
  • August 29, 2008 draw for 1st round UEFA Cup
  • September 18, 2008 1st round UEFA Cup, 1st leg
  • October 2, 2008 1st round UEFA Cup, 2nd leg
  • October 7, 2008 draw for UEFA Cup group stage
  • October 23, 2008 1st matchday UEFA Cup group stage
  • November 6, 2008 2nd matchday UEFA Cup group stage
  • November 27, 2008 3rd matchday UEFA Cup group stage
  • December 3/4, 2008 4th matchday UEFA Cup group stage
  • December 17/18, 2008 5th matchday UEFA Cup group stage
  • December 19, 2008 draw for 3rd and 4th round UEFA Cup
  • February 18/19, 2009 3rd round UEFA Cup, 1st leg
  • February 26, 2009 3rd round UEFA Cup, 2nd leg
  • March 12, 2009 4th round UEFA Cup, 1st leg
  • March 18/19, 2009 4th round UEFA Cup, 2nd leg
  • March 20, 2009 draw for quarter-finals and semi-finals UEFA Cup
  • April 9, 2009 Quarter Finals UEFA Cup, 1st leg
  • April 16, 2009 Quarter Finals UEFA Cup, 2nd leg
  • April 30, 2009 Semi Finals UEFA Cup, 1st leg
  • May 7, 2009 Semi Finals UEFA Cup, 2nd leg
  • May 20, 2009 Final UEFA Cup (Istanbul) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.82.83 (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cup winner spot, Serbia

[edit]

First, thanks to Isavevski for coming up with the source. According to this article, FK Zemun have not gained an UEFA license in order to participate in this year's UEFA Cup. They have ten days to appeal this decision. If the ruling still stands after that, their spot of being the losing domestic Cup finalists will be awarded to 4th placed Borac Cacak.Hockey-holic (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zemun's appeal has failed, meaning that Borac will advance to the UEFA Cup and OFK Beograd taking their Intertoto Cup spot. Hockey-holic (talk) 14:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian participants

[edit]

If CSKA does not regain its UEFA license, there will be no CL participant from Bulgaria this year. Thus, Levski, Litex and Locomotiv Sofia would remain in the UEFA Cup.

Source:

See also the Champions League talk page.

Hockey-holic (talk) 09:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top scorers

[edit]

Comments

[edit]

Having only three scorers on the top scorers chart seems a little understated. Does anyone have the info to add those goalscorers on two goals? Assuming there are some... I don't think we need to add the scorers on one goal, though; that would be overkill. Falastur2 (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since qualifying goals don't count towards the final goals total at the end of the tournament, I would remove the top goalscorers table altogether. Only start recording with the first matches of the first round (i.e. the round before the group stage). – PeeJay 17:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't? Hmmm, ok, fair enough. Didn't know that. Falastur2 (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I disagree. At least have a separate table for the qualifying rounds scores - don't ignore them completely. - fchd (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know what the hell are you doing. Top scorers should not include the goals from the qualifying rounds. However, if you still want to make that such of table, I strongly recommend using three tables: Qualifying rounds only, Not including Qualifying rounds, and Overall ones. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Raymond here. Also, if you decide to have three different tables, there should be a clear indication that only one is official and the rest are shown for purely statistical purposes. BanRay 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think using several tables would be confusing, especially since we don't do it with any other tournament (including this season's Champions League article. Seriously, this is like putting qualifying goals into the World Cup articles, which distorts things since teams enter at different stages. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, why don't try using those irrelevant tables on the Champions League article? I think it may be boring! Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the World Cup is a very weak arguement. World Cup Qualificiation is a tournament hosted by each confederation whereas the World Cup is directly a FIFA event. I am more inclined to include goals from UEFA Champions League qualification and UEFA Cup qualification. Kingjeff (talk) 23:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that unless there is a reliable source for the qualifying round goal scorers, we shouldn't have the tables. I couldn't find any such info on google except the page on soccernet.espn.go.com, which doesn't have all the goalscorers, for some reason. Where is the current top scorers info in the article coming from, by the way? Since there are a lot of matches being played, it's easy to miss quite a few goalscorers if it's currently done manually.  ARTYOM  23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a slower process, and I'm not the original editor so I don't know if this was the source, but one place to check all scorers is by clicking each fixture report link here. Falastur2 (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just took a second look and some are missing. Oh well, it's slightly helpful. Falastur2 (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't going through the fixtures and counting the goals scored count as original research? If so, I'm in favour of removing the tables that include goals scored in qualifying rounds. – PeeJay 00:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. No original research is about not quoting yourself or arguments and ideas you made up. The facts presented here are nothing to do with us, so they aren't our original research, they are published facts, which are allowed. Falastur2 (talk) 00:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What we are doing in creating these tables is taking empirical data and presenting it as our own statistical breakdown. Sounds like OR to me. – PeeJay 00:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree. WP:OR says that OR is:

...unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments...

What we're doing isn't arguments, speculation or ideas, and the only thing WP:OR has against facts is unpublished facts - meaning facts which relate to our own lives or experiences which we are attempting to use to alter established arguments. WP:OR is about stopping us from using Wiki to propagate our own ideas. That's not really what we're doing, we're just compiling a list of scorers which have been published by UEFA. If this counts as OR, then so would adding the scores from the games. Falastur2 (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Point withdrawn. I consider myself "lawyered". – PeeJay 01:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If we look at it from another point of view, populating this list would take quite some time, as all the game reports will need to be verified. This may be easy now (all teams have only played once), but the further it gets, the harder it would be to verify all that information if it's not published somewhere else. I don't really see the need to do that, as the list of qualifying round goalscorers is not as notable. In addition, UEFA has a habit of reattributing the goals, differing from the initial report, and thus we might end up having incorrect info out here.  ARTYOM  01:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point. I'm still rather neutral on whether to keep the info or not, really, so I'm going to withdraw from the debate at this point. And apologies, PeeJay, I didn't mean to sound like I was "lawyering" you. Falastur2 (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Why is there an overall table and an qualifying round only table? There should be only the overall table or a qualifying round table with a final tournamen table. Kingjeff (talk) 02:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right. Nobody has ever collated top scorers using qualifying rounds before. It's like making Australia the top scorers of the WC qualifyers when they whacked American Samoa 31-1 or whatever it was. The official statistics ignore the qualifying rounds, so should Wiki. Anything else is adding it up ourselves doktorb wordsdeeds 19:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly the point. This is like putting qualifying goals into the World Cup article. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's time for a vote? Kingjeff (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

May I remind everybody involved in this case to remain cool-headed? You are just in the middle of an edit war. I would propose to solve this matter over at the WP:FOOTY discussion page. The reason for this is that if qualifying scoring should be included, it has to happen at the CL article as well. So, calm down people.

Grant, you are citing a former consensus reached on the topic as reason for your edits. Would you be able to find the respective discussion somewhere in the archives? Hockey-holic (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point of view is that the goals in the Qualifying Rounds have to count because it is part of the competition. However, I would propose a table similar to the one here: [[1]] This kind of table could record goalscorers by round, which is very helpful in a tournament such as this, with teams entering at almost every stage. Perhaps someone could adapt the table in the above link to serve everyone's interests here. Rougue1987 (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not pointing to any one particular discussion, but I am pointing to the fact that no UEFA Cup or UEFA Champions League article from the last several years includes qualifying goals. There have been many people who have tried to add them, but they have always been removed because they are not part of the tournament proper. As has been pointed out throughout this discussion, this is like putting qualifying goals into the World Cup articles, which in 2006 would have made an Aussie golden boot winner as they beat some Pacific Islanders by 30 odd goals. The greater point is that this situation cannot (or at least should not) be decided here, but at WT:FOOTY, as this is part of a series of dozens (if not hundreds) of articles. If these goals were included in a more in depth article about the qualifying round, that would be fine, but in the main article, not without a massive discussion at WT:FOOTY. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
a) WP:FOOTY does not this or any other football article, discussion can be held amongst interested editors of any particular article. b) Just because we've always done something one way does not meen that will be the best way forever. c) If the results of the qualifying round are worthy of inclusion in this article, a brief resume of the individual goalscorers (separately from the later rounds if you wany) would not be out of place. d) Your (Grant) constant removal of the table while this discussion and straw poll is in progress is potential vandalism. Why can't you wait for the outcome. e) It's all UEFA's fault anyway. Why can't they make the competition start at the first round and do away with this split between qualifying rounds and the rounds proper? - fchd (talk) 05:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still find the claim of WP:OR in this discussion to be erroneous, and I fear that this misunderstanding of OR will affect the results of this vote, but I've already said my piece on OR so I'll leave it at this. Falastur2 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your claim that analyzing box score statistics is not WP:OR, but you claimed earlier you were withdrawing from the debate so I didn't bother responding above. --SesameballTalk 23:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm willing to discuss it; what I meant by the above comments was that I've already made my statement so I didn't want to make a second similar and lengthy statement here. Falastur2 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that the "no original research" rule doesn't apply here. The goalscorers in these games have already been compiled by a number of sources. It's not as if we'll be watching the games and keeping track of the goalscorers ourselves. So this would not be "original" research, as the research would have already been done. Rougue1987 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Largely my argument :) Falastur2 (talk) 00:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR states that "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas." There is no original research. and there is no original thought and it is published through all the match reports. I just stated, "...and it is published through all the match reports." This is an indirect method. The question is can an indirect method like Match Reports be used? UEFA.COM is definetely verifiable. Kingjeff (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RSSSF collates and lists qualifying goals (separately I admit), but at least it doesn't ignore them completely. Therefore it's definitely not WP:OR - fchd (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention other sources, such as kicker and Soccerway. They also keep track of the Qualifying Rounds' goalscorers. Rougue1987 (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overall table

[edit]

Vote for one overall sortable table which would include one column for qualifying goals, one column for final tournament goals and an overall column which would combine the two previously mentioned columns.

Player Team QR FT Total
Player A Team A 5 14 19
Player B Player B 1 15 16
Player C Team A 3 17 20
Player D Team C - 10 10


  1. Kingjeff (talk) 19:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. - fchd (talk) 19:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. And to me. Failing that, a single table excluding the qualifying goals would be best. – PeeJay 20:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I know I said I wouldn't get involved, but of the three, I favour this one somewhat, provided the sorting works. If it doesn't, then I agree with PeeJay in going for just the one table. To me, having a table only for the qualifiers was never an option I liked much, it was always between whether to add an overall table or not. Falastur2 (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I suppose I support this option, as I feel that the goals from all matches in a tournament should be counted, regardless of round. However, I think that with all the teams that enter this tournament at different points, goalscorers should be grouped by round. The following link is something along the lines of what I mean.[2] If that table can't be adapted to help here, however, I support the Overall Table option. Rougue1987 (talk) 01:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This option (along the lines of the WCqual tables)Jlsa (talk) 00:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two tables

[edit]

Vote for two tables where one table would include only qualifying goals and the other table would only include final tournament goals.

I know the example tables are from last season's UEFA Cup. Just pretend they are two different tables. Kingjeff (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One table

[edit]
Rank Name Team Goals
1 Russia Pavel Pogrebnyak Russia Zenit St. Petersburg 10
Italy Luca Toni Germany Bayern Munich
3 Germany Stefan Kießling Germany Bayer Leverkusen 7
4 Sweden Henrik Larsson Sweden Helsingborg 6
Benin Razak Omotoyossi Sweden Helsingborg
Romania Adrian Mutu Italy Fiorentina
7 Bulgaria Dimitar Berbatov England Tottenham Hotspur 5
Germany Miroslav Klose Germany Bayern Munich
Germany Lukas Podolski Germany Bayern Munich
Greece Dimitrios Papadopoulos Greece Panathinaikos
Argentina Sergio Agüero Spain Atlético Madrid
Argentina Fernando Cavenaghi France Bordeaux
Austria Roland Linz Portugal Sporting Braga
Denmark Jon Dahl Tomasson Spain Villarreal

Only include goals from the tournament proper.

  1. This is the only thing that can be done without bringing this to WT:FOOTY, as this change would have ramifications for dozens of articles. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Grant, if UEFA ignore them, then so should we. BanRay 20:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't really see the need for the qual. table, I don't think it counts on UEFAs goals scorer table for the UEFA Cup. And seeing as some teams and players would have the "advantage" to play more matches and against worse teams, just the final tournament, as all other competitions have it. — chandler — 20:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As no group, certainly not UEFA, certainly not FIFA, count qualifying goals, by doing so here, we are breaking the rules of WP:OR. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per everything said above.  ARTYOM  01:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per doktorb. Notably, a similar discussion occurred just last year when UEFA apparently began counting qualifying goals on the website, but later corrected the count to tournament proper (old talk page: [3]). I see no reason why wikipedia should begin contradicting UEFA now. --SesameballTalk 23:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moved my vote from 'Two Table' to this section in order to reach a decision. Further reasons: See anything above. Hockey-holic (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Although I agree with those who say counting qualifying goals would not be original research (as it is simply aggregation of published data) I am in favor of the 'tournament proper' option. UEFA does not include these goals in their count, and Wikipedia should not contradict what the organizers consider official. FWIW, here is a link to last year's CL stats on the UEFA website in which they include group stage and knockout round goals only. (Sorry, don't see any stats for UC.) [4] SunnyDSunnyD (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Round-By-Round Table

[edit]

Vote for a Round-By-Round Table which would include a column for each qualifying round and each round of the tournament along a total column.

Rank Player Total
goals 		Goals by round
R1 R2 R3 R4 PO
1 El Salvador Rudis Alberto Corrales Rivera 6 6 0
2 Jamaica Luton Shelton 5 — 5
3 Canada Ali Gerba 4 — 4
El Salvador Ronald Cerritos 4 4 0
Guatemala Carlos Ruíz 4 — 4
6 Cuba Roberto Linares 3 — 3
El Salvador Eliseo Quintanilla 3 1 2
Grenada Jason Roberts 3 2 1 X X X
Grenada Ricky Charles 3 3 0 X X X
Honduras David Suazo 3 — 3
Mexico Jared Borgetti 3 — 3

Protection request for this article

[edit]

Since the edit war has not stopped as of now, I requested protection for this article in order to prevent further disruptive actions. I ask the opposed parties to settle their dispute on the WP:FOOTY talk page. Hockey-holic (talk) 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Due to the recent edit warring this page has been protected for a period of time. Please use the time to discuss the matter here and come to a consensus on what should and shouldn't be included on the page. If an urgent edit needs to be made during the protection, please place the template {{editprotected}} here with details of the edit that needs to be made and justification for the edit, and an administrator will come by to make the edit. If you have agreed and resolved the dispute before the expiry of the protection, please make a listing at requests for unprotection. While it is also possible to make such requests on my talk page, it would be quicker for you to use those previous methods. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my saying so, Hockey, but I'm not sure protection is the best thing to do here. Yes, there's an edit war going on, but it's not a hugely-disruptive disagreement - I've seen edit wars where a revert is made every other minute, this barely gets a revert every few hours, and it's thoroughly ignorable to the rest of us. What's more, we are already working on a consensus decision with a vote right above your comment which is ongoing - a consensus vote you haven't even taken part in. If you'd left us even a few more hours, and maybe added a vote yourself, we could have already decided this without protection. Furthermore, this competition is an ongoing competition which is already in full swing, and to have denied us the chance to make any edits is a very disruptive move, especially if the protection gets extended until past the round of second leg matches next week. Personally, I think we'll solve this much faster if we just leave the article as it is. Falastur2 (talk) 18:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:PNSD for information about voting to decide results. I think I will leave the page protected for the time being – the page can always be unprotected once you reach a consensus, and it will ensure there is no further edit warring. Stifle (talk) 18:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Falastur, I take the blame for not voting on the topic yet (ballot committed, see above). Nevertheless, the issue has not been ressolved for three days now with an increased amount of edits and re-edits over that time. The protection request was made in order to cool down tempers and to prevent further edit warring. I definitely do not doubt that a consensus will eventually be reached.
As for the ongoing competition, the protection has been issued until Tuesday. I was aware of the problem that the competition has already started, but since all but one matches will be played on Thursday, I did (and still do) not see any problems. Furthermore, four days should be enough time to reach a consensus on the matter. In order to give a constructive proposal, what about the two-table solution? This might be a suitable compromise to all involved parties. Hockey-holic (talk) 19:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I wasn't aware of a limit 'til Tuesday on the protection (it isn't noted on the main page) and I thank you for voting now. Still, I have my reservations about the protection... Falastur2 (talk) 19:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Due to this edit war and the ensuing decision to edit protect, the latest qualification developments have not been included, namely the results of the eight return legs played in the Intertoto Cup today. Administrator, please make these updates by updating the participant list in the Second Qualifying Round to include the IC third round winners Grasshopper Zurich, Braga, Deportivo, Napoli, Rennes, Sturm Graz, Vaslui and Aston Villa and eliminate the names/flags of their opponents Burgas, Sivassport, Bnei Sakhnin, Panionios, Tavriya, Honved, Neftchi Baku, and Odense. This should be an uncontroversial edit. SunnyDSunnyD (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well wait another day to incorporate the results of the three remaining Intertoto fixtures. Incidentally, I note that all conversation about a resolution to this has ceased since the protection of this page. Pardon my saying so, but this is exactly the sort of disruption to the process that I predicted... Falastur2 (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The results from the last fixtures are now in: Stuttgart, Elfsborg and Rosenborg went through, while Honvéd, Riga and NAC were knocked out. I second SunnyDSunnyD's request to edit the article as proposed and including the last results. David ekstrand (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the protection had a chilling effect. We simply need more input. All leaving the page unprotected would have done was continue the edit war. -- Grant.Alpaugh 02:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've updated all Intertoto references now, so removing editprotected template Sam Vimes | Address me 21:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just an additional note that relates to the discussion over which goalscorers should be included. The "tournament statistics" box is currently inconsistent with previous versions of the UEFA Cup. It should read 0 matches and (obviously) 0 goals as the official bit of the tournament has not yet started. Jlsa (talk) 00:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and along those lines we should probably also change the tournament start date to September. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:49, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since the protection will be lifted in a couple of hours, I would appeal to everybody to refrain from adding any lists with goalscorers until the matter is ressolved via consensus (see above). Hockey-holic (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then maybe Grant should stop vandilizing the page. Kingjeff (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh boy. It doesn't matter who started the altercation. All that matters is that it doesn't happen again. So please, FIRST bring discussions to a consensus, THEN make the changes (whatever they will be) to the article, not the other way round. Hockey-holic (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


While I would have thought the scorers table should be in (a) because I think it is right and (b) that was the status quo before the edit-warring started, I will accept the alternative position for now until a wider consensus has been acheived. - fchd (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tables was status quo. I was simply reverting vandalism. Grant wants his own way and intended to battle until he got it. Kingjeff (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The status quo was to only have a table for the top goalscorers in the tournament proper, not the qualifying rounds. You, sir, need a time out. – PeeJay 21:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually wrong on both accounts. Kingjeff (talk) 22:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus for every article in this series is to count only goals scored during the tournament proper. Your behavior during this whole discussion has been rude and inappropriate, if not bordering on harrassment. You do need a time out. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We both know you want it that way. You vandalized the page and you like edit warring. Kingjeff (talk) 22:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingjeff, I support having all the goals counted in some way in this article, but for now the consensus is against that. You can't add the Qualifying Rounds goals at this point. Please refrain from doing so. Rougue1987 (talk) 23:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you and Grant are acting exactly like two specific players in this little clip (the game can be compared to the discussion over the topic): [5]
I know my proposal is not new, since it has already been made, but what about adding three tables to the article, one with just qualifying scorers, the second with just scorers from the proper rounds and the third carrying all rounds? Both of you would get your will this way. Hockey-holic (talk) 23:16, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just combine the three tables you suggest into one table, with one column for qualifying goals, one for goals scored in the tournament proper and another with the total number of goals? – PeeJay 23:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because this would create a case of WP:OR in my opinion.
Let's assume that a player of a team which played in the QR scores 15 goals. His team then gets eliminated in the First Round proper, where he doesn't score at all. Let's assume further that no other player from a team in the proper rounds reaches that total of 15. If all scorers would be put into one single table, this table would signifcantly differ from those of the official sources and thus create a new position, which is not allowed according to WP:OR.
So, I'm suggesting the three-table solution. One table corresponds to the "official" table provided by UEFA, while the other two are a compilaton of given facts from the official game sheets for informational purposes. Hockey-holic (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the table would have to be primarily sorted by the number of goals scored in the tournament proper, wouldn't it? By doing so, any player who scored a large number of qualifying goals but none in the final tournament would come low down on the list. – PeeJay 00:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that one table would be primarily sorted by goals overall, not by goals scored in the proper rounds. Besides, do you really want to maintain a large list of scorers? There are already a large number of scorers within the proper rounds, and I guess that if scorers from both proper and qualifying rounds are added to one single table, it will eat up more space than the rest of the article. However, I also see your possible argument of the possibility of one player appearing in both sections, but that's what the overall section would be for. To reduce the size of those tables, I would propose to only include the best 15 or 20 scorers for every category. Hockey-holic (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I still fail to see how this could possibly be OR. It's not original and it's certainly not research. Falastur2 Talk 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is original so far as it is usually not done by the main sources, so that you do not have any references to rely upon. Hockey-holic (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has been done regarding Qualifying Rounds goals in articles about previous years? Jayjg (talk) 00:21, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe qualifying goals were ignored previously. But that doesn't make it the right decision, I'm not sure that standard came through consensus but rather through habit. Falastur2 Talk 00:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, the article series ignored scorers from the proper rounds as well until last season. UEFA Cup 2007-08 is the only article from this series to include them. Hockey-holic (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
World Cups and continental championships ignore qualifying goals as well. I really don't think those competitions are so different that this fact should be dismissed entirely. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grant, World Cup Qualification is a Competition under the jurisdiction of each confederation. This is not the case for UEFA Club Competitions. Kingjeff (talk) 04:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, but you can't argue that the qualifying rounds aren't part of the World Cup tournament in the same way the UEFA Cup qualifying rounds are part of the UEFA Cup. Every World Cup FIFA loves to say things like "What started with more than 150 countries more than 2 years ago is now down to just 32 teams..." You are arguing for a very different precident to be set than what is done on every other competition article. Also, you completely ignored my argument about the way we treat the continental championships as well, so you must be aware of just how tenuous your argument really is. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am arguing for a very different precidents here. One precident for international competitions for national teams and another one club competitions that are ran by confederations. Qualifying for international competitions for national teams is very different, in both how it's played and in the administrative funtioning, from club competitions. Kingjeff (talk) 04:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the argument you are making about the World Cup, but continental championships are a seperate thing entirely. You simply cannot argue that the difference between the qualifying rounds of the UEFA Cup in relation to the UEFA Cup proper is fundamentally different from the relationship between qualifying for the European championships and the final tournament. You are effectively arguing that David Healy should be included in the article about Euro 2008 as the top scorer for the whole tournament (or at least included in one of many tables that list top scorers a myriad of ways). -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, look at the next section and ask why are any matches on this page at all? If you're right about the qualification, then doesn't qualification merit it's own page? Kingjeff (talk) 05:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there ANYTHING on this page

[edit]

If, as some suggest, the qualifying matches are not part of the UEFA Cup, then why are those results on this page? Shouldn't they be on some other page - Qualification for the UEFA Cup 2008-09 or something like that? Jlsa (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, but I think that deals with a very slightly different area. The discussion above deals with the creation of statistical tables collating the goal scoring record of the qualifying rounds, something which would be unique to Wiki, and consequently against the spirit if not the law of WP:OR. Given the nature of the qualifying rounds, outlining the results alone on the same page makes sense (unlike the World Cup, say, where it would create a massive article with unclear progression). doktorb wordsdeeds 05:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It still seems odd. The "tournament info" box will state that (IIRC) 125 matches were played, but anybody looking through the tables will see far more than that (and, there really is no indication in the page as to why this would be the case). Additionally, (and to get ridiculously technical) the UEFA regulations for the UEFA refer to the qualifying rounds as part of "the competition" (6.0.1) - just not part of the "main competition" - and outlines the workings of the round (ie, a knockout round) in the same section as all the "proper rounds" (as it happens, the description of the qualifying rounds and the first round in sections 6.0.2 and 6.0.3 is virtually identical text, except for the words "Qualifying-phase" rather than "First Round"). Many of the other regulations make no distinction between qualifying rounds and the main phases. By way of contrast FIFA regulations for the World Cup refer to qualification and the finals as two completely separate competitions and outlines the workings of them under two separate sections of the regulations (Preliminary Competition - sections 15-24 and Final Competition - sections 25-44). Similarly, almost all the relevant sections of the regulations for Euro 2008 have separate sections for the qualifiers and the finals - even bits that would seem silly like "Kit approval procedure" Jlsa (talk) 05:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is in 2 parts: The first is simply that you make a valid point that should be discussed either at this page or (preferably) at WT:FOOTY so as to establish a broad consensus as to the direction of this series of articles. All I'm saying is that we can't (or at the very least shouldn't) change a well established consensus about how we treat football competitions on WP without having an extensive conversation about it. The second is that in (good) articles about football competitions, some attempt is made to cover the qualification process for that competition. If the qualifying process is simple (or not well covered enough) as to be detailed briefly in the article, we do so. If, however, there is enough detail or complication as to warrent or require a seperate article about the qualification process (like with the World Cup or European Championships) we simply link to a more specific and detailed article. I think that if there is enough detail available to justify a seperate article, then we should create and link to it, but if not, the article is fine as it currently is. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The UEFA website notes "Only strikes from the first round onwards count towards the totals" (for the award for Top Scorer in the UEFA Cup), which raises the question - If goals in the qualifying rounds were not part of the UEFA Cup, why would you need this caveat? UEFA counts all other results obtained in the UEFA Cup qualifying round just the same as it counts results obtained in later rounds. See, for example, the historical results for FK Rudar Pljevlja which states they have played 2 UEFA Cup games in their history (in the first qualifying round last season for those who don't remember their Montenegrin history). Not two qualifying games different from the UEFA cup, but 2 games in the UEFA Cup, counted exactly the same way as Zenit's match in the UEFA Cup final. If the "qualifying rounds" are not part of the UEFA Cup, why are they counted here? Jlsa (talk) 23:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay fine, we've solved the issue then. Qualifying rounds are part of the tournament, but goals are not counted per UEFA directive. Case closed. -- Grant.Alpaugh 03:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That problem (quite apart from the charming back and forth between you and Kingjeff) is that the article as it stands is obviously confused on a number of levels. First, the qualification section says 119 teams qualified for the UEFA Cup (so, obviously that is including the qualifying rounds), but the tournament box will probably try to say that there were 125 games (whatever) - so qualifying rounds aren't in. UEFA's list is not about listing the goals scorers, it is about giving an award to a top scorer. Any table Wikipedia creates following this has therefore to be very clear about what it covers, and why. That is, it has to say "This table excludes goals in qualifying rounds because UEFA exclude them for the purposes of their top scorer awards". That's fine - but then the question of why a second table can't be included that includes these other goals - which have definitely been scored in the UEFA Cup is asked. The arguments against this are 1) it's a lot of work (not your problem, someone else needs to do it - although if the table appeared to be half arsed you'd be well within your rights to delete it), 2) it's not what we've done before (so what, there's lots of cases where Wikipedia's coverage of events expands in more recent editions - just look at old WC qualification details cf the current one), 3) it's not what UEFA does (again, so what, as long as we are clear as to what the table is, and it is accurate), 4) it's WP:OR (that's just silly, it's just statistical collation, that does appear elsewhere as noted before - compare that with the "on the next matchday" stuff in the World Cup tables. I don't think any confederation puts this information out, and I know when I do it I'm working it out for myself, but it's always in these tables because it's factual and it's of interest - and don't try and delete them, people expect this sort of stuff in their wikipedia). So, in conclusion, demanding a table that matches UEFA's table is fine - but preventing others from adding a secondary table that is clearly labelled and is accurate seems wrong. By the way, your arguments relying on the WC Qual vs WC final difference etc are really, really weak. You would be much better using the example of the FA Cup in this case, then you could at least make a sensible comparison.Jlsa (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is (and always has been) that you have an interesting case to make, and we should have a discussion about this on WT:FOOTY so that we can get a broad consensus about whether qualifying rounds are part of tournaments or not, etc. Maybe we should have different rules for club and international football tournaments. There are a lot of things to iron out, and I think we should definitely talk about them. -- Grant.Alpaugh 18:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]



Grant, if qualifying rounds are part of the tournament, then wouldn't this mean that everything about them including results and goalscorers? Also, since when does UEFA direct Wikipedia? I also like how you said "case closed." That typically is you. Kingjeff (talk) 03:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you read? The quote specifically says that only goals from the first round onwards (i.e. the competition proper) count toward totals for UEFA's purposes. Compiling statistics and giving them undue significance is the very definition of WP:OR. I don't understand what is so controversial about that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what the quote says. It says they only goals from a certain point count for the top scorer award. Goalscorers in other rounds are mentioned in reports, and certainly deserve to be tabulated in articles that include the results of such games. Besides, UEFA is hardly an independent third-party source. - fchd (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if we're going to have a list of top goalscorers that isn't in violation of WP:OR then we can't include them in that table. It's really as simple as that. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or we use lists generated by RSSSF, or whatever. Anyway, tabulating existing information in a combined form is not WP:OR - read the definition of original research in that policy. The goalscorers are verifiable from match reports, taken from UEFA or a myriad of third-party sources. I could see where you could argue under WP:N (but I'd vehemently disagree), but definitely not under WP:OR. - fchd (talk) 07:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The quote specifically says that only goals from the first round onwards (i.e. the competition proper) count toward totals for UEFA's purposes." What about something for Wikipedia's purpose? "Compiling statistics and giving them undue significance is the very definition of WP:OR." Doesn't this mean that recording results is giving undue significance? Kingjeff (talk) 04:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't make things up for WP. That's called WP:OR. As for your second comment, please catch the next clue train that comes through your area. Or you could always go back to leaving the project. Or maybe annoying the people at the German WP would be a nice change of pace? You just want to have an argument for argument's sake. Gag me with a spoon. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research Grant. I know what the quote said. I was the one who quoted you. Do you remember that? I simply asked "Doesn't this mean that recording results is giving undue significance?" Kingjeff (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I, unlike, I think, yourself, can read. Unfortunately, that doesn't give me the ability to divine meaning from nonsense like "Doesn't this mean that recording results is giving undue significance?" If you wouldn't mind, I'd love for you to explain to me how in the flying fuck that would be the case. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're just too single minded to understand the question. Let me ask you this. Do you think all women should be cooking, cleaning and popping out babies? Kingjeff (talk) 04:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse my ignorance, but what the hell does that have to do with anything we're talking about? -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do about the issue at hand. I think you're single minded and wondered about your opinion on what a woman's role in society is. Kingjeff (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're a douchebag and should go back to leaving everyone alone, so I guess we're even. Either way the issue seems to have been pretty fairly settled. Get fucked. -- Grant.Alpaugh 05:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group Stage

[edit]

Somebody wrote that the current groups for the first round proper will be the eventual groups for the group stage. However, this isnt the case - there's a separate draw (as it even says on the page here) for the group stage to determine the groups. I think we need to make sure this isnt changed and that people dont get misled here. Either way, I changed it. Interesting draw though! --Simonski (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, http://www.uefa.com/competitions/uefacup/news/kind=1/newsid=743487.html suggests that we shouldn't even be mentioning groups yet. The first round appears to be a straight knockout round with 40 ties: clubs ranked 108 or higher were seeded. Is there any evidence that the "first round groups" mean anything? Pete Ridges (talk) 15:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixtures for Group Stage

[edit]

Anybody any idea when they're announcing the specific fixtures for the group stage? --130.159.248.44 (talk) 11:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will be some time today. I'm surprised they're not out already, tbh. – PeeJay 11:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out Bert Kassies' site, as linked on the UEFA coefficient page. It's unofficial, but it tends to get it right. If you look just above the green-coloured title bar for "Group Stage" it lists the order in which teams are drawn for the group stage, including who is at home, according to the pot they were drawn from, i.e. Team A v Team E or whatever. Then link that to this page's infobox at the top which has match dates and you can determine each club's games. Falastur2 Talk 12:13, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm...I take it back. Having reexamined the evidence, I'm not now entirely sure that the teams A, B, C, D and E are chosen by the pots but by a random computer draw, so...yeah. I retract my previous statement (though the website linked is very helpful otherwise). Falastur2 Talk 12:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. Although the order of fixtures has already been determined, the allocation of the teams to the A, B, C, D and E slots is done by a computer draw, the results of which have not yet been released. – PeeJay 13:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also massaged so that clubs in exceptionally cold climates (e.g. Russian clubs) aren't usually at home in the last set of fixtures when the chances of postponements are high. - fchd (talk) 13:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a table for the fixture at the main article. Could anybody help for fixing it? Thanks :D Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Design of group stage tables

[edit]

I'd like to make two tables into one line. Such as the design at the free agents section in 2008–09 Miami Heat season article. But it seems failed. Could anybody give me a help? Thanks. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're asking. Why would you want transfer tables in the UEFA Cup article? – PeeJay 09:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what he wants to do - I believe he intends to put the "league tables" for Groups A and B next to each other on the same line, then C and D directly underneath, then E and F, G and H. However, I'd still prefer to add a results table to fill those gaps instead, I can't see why it can't be done. Falastur2 Talk 14:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actual problem might be that every team plays just once against every other team. Hence a results table would either contain too many shaded boxes (à la Slovak Superliga 2008–09, for example), or people would try to fill in all results in one line on a permanent basis. So, in order to avoid any confusion, a listing of all group games should be preferred over a table (but that's just my two cents). Hockey-holic (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that in leagues, too many shaded boxes becomes unsightly - though I would disagree that that totally negates its usefulness - but I think that in a table of five teams, there really shouldn't be a problem. I'm putting together a few alternatives on my userspace as we speak, to test my theory before implementing it. Falastur2 Talk 15:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I submit the following for your approval: see here. I'm up for trying a different style if anyone wants to request one, but I haven't yet set up my internet in my Uni house yet (hoping to today) so be aware it may take a few days to appear. Of course, you can also experiment yourselves. Falastur2 Talk 15:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks MTC. That's what I mean. Thanks :D Raymond "Giggs" Ko 10:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long permutations

[edit]

Rather pointless, no? Especially at this stage regarding first/second place, when there is another article for the group stage which repeats it all. Surely all that matters is whether they go through or not? It just makes the main UEFA Cup page unnecessarily long. Feudonym (talk) 00:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regions map

[edit]

Ia there an explanation somewhere as to what the regions map is about? Why are there regions within UEFA and do the affect the set up of the cup competition somehow? Wiggy! (talk) 12:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's so that teams in the qualifying stage of the UEFA Cup get drawn together, so they don't have to travel so far for a qualifying match. – PeeJay 12:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've put a bit more text under the picture to explain what the regions are for. Falastur2 Talk 15:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, gentlemen. I'm smarter now. Wiggy! (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map 2

[edit]

2008-09 UEFA Cup. This map is wrong! Cyprus has two clubs in the first round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.109.53.237 (talk) 18:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2017, and no one has fixed this map! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.151.231.226 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008–09 UEFA Cup. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008–09_UEFA_Cup&oldid=1196538005"