Talk:2013–14 UEFA Europa League

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Astana eligibility

As Astana win the 2012 Kazakhstan Cup I insert them on that spot but reading their article it said that wasn't eligible for 2011-12 EL because"they had not yet existed for at least three years", this problem remais also this year so there is some ref about it? But on the EL 2011-12 page there is that the limit it is three year, what is the real limit? Stigni (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Astana were founded in 2009, so this point is inconsequential. It's been four years. Krytenia (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea Flag

It appears that Nfitz wants to discuss the usage of the England flag next to Swansea City. I think that the issue is simple, the flags are not representing a geographical nation, it is representing the football authorities who run the game in their respective countries per UEFA. Since Swansea qualified through the English system it is right that the England flag is used as they qualified in a spot that was intended for the English FA. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agreed; this is a sporting competition and not a geography lesson. Same situation as with AS Monaco. Aheyfromhome (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fully disagree. Flags beside the team reflect the nationality of the team. It might well be an English spot, but as it's not an English team taking the spot, putting an English flag next to it is discriminatory. Should either use a Welsh flag or a Union flag (which is what England and Wales has been playing under recently). Nfitz (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Fully disagree, they're representing England as they qualified through an English competition so it should be the English flag. Leave it as it is, with the footnote. VEO^onefive 02:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are not representing England. They are representing The Football League which contains the senior teams of England and Wales. Either the Welsh flag should be used, or the flag for all English teams in this league and the European Champions League should be changed to use both the English and Welsh flags. Nfitz (talk) 03:29, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - In UEFA competitions, teams do not represent leagues, they represent national associations which make up UEFA. The national FAs are each given by UEFA a certain number of spots (according to their coefficient), who then distribute these spots according to their domestic competitions (leagues, cups, league cups). Swansea City is chosen as a representative by the English FA, not by the Welsh FA, so this should be English flag. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well I think that the consensus is agreement to use the England flag. Especially since there is precedence that Monaco and Derry City use the flags of France and the Republic of Ireland and don't use the flags of Monaco and Northern Ireland despite being in the geopolitical area. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Can someone with 'God Save the Queen!' as part of their name be trusted to be an impartial judge of consensus position?--161.7.111.187 (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I will point you towards WP:NPA. Last time I checked GSTQ was the anthem of the whole UK which includes England and Wales. But I digress. Just looking at the discussion shows that more people than not say that the English flag should be used. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Swansea are in the unusual position of having participated in UEFA competitions under the auspices of the Welsh FA. Would it be worth adding something to the footnote to address this? Krytenia (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so as that was 20 years ago before UEFA changed the rules. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:16, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think Derry City have represented both NI and RoI in UEFA competitions. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea should definitely use the English flag since they are taking part in the Europa League as a representative of England. Their performance in the competition gives coefficient points to England, not Wales. – Pee Jay 17:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This whole discussion is nonsensical. These flag icons should all be scrapped per MOS:FLAG, since teams don't represent countries (in the traditional World Cup or Olympic sense). The whole page looks like a kindergarten project--do soccer fans needs so many bright colors? Drmies (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they do they are representing national associations in international club competition. Plus it is a helpful aid to which nation they are representing since I wonder if people would know to differentiate between Minsk and Dynamo Minsk or Hibernians and Hibernian's countries for example. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That there's certain numbers of clubs from certain countries doesn't mean they represent that country. And representing an association is not the same thing as representing a country. Funny how this is the same in other sports--in the Tour de France articles one hears the same arguments. At least Mixed Martial Arts is cleaned up; strange how they're one up on FOOTY. Drmies (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Representing a country's national football association may not be identical to representing the country itself, but it's as near as damn it. It is a fact that Swansea are representing England, so they use the English flag, just like Francis Obikwelu represents Portugal in athletics and races under the Portuguese flag despite being from Nigeria. – Pee Jay 22:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teams from lower tiers

Since there are a few clubs who will be playing in lower tiers during the competition (Hødd, Wigan, Pasching...), wouldn't it be odd/relevant enough to be mentioned in the article? Schnapper (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly deserves one or two sentences. Why not. -Koppapa (talk) 07:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Feel free to improve or complete it. Schnapper (talk) 16:11, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the case of Vaduz should be explained. Schnapper (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Romanian Teams

Which team will be unseed in the second round beetween the romanian teams? Beacuase all of these team had CC: 4.604. The qualification order? Or some other criteria? There was some other cases in the past? Stigni (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In the case of equal coefficients, the UEFA administration takes a final decision on the order of the rankings, taking into consideration the individual coefficients of the most recent season." Regulations, Page 54, Point 8. -Koppapa (talk) 10:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have individual rankings... Stigni (talk) 11:13, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case UEFA administration takes the final decision. So none knows for sure what will happen. There might have been such an example in the past, but UEFA doesn't have to follow accordingly. -Koppapa (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In 2007, user KyleRGiggs wrote "Both Chelsea and Manchester United got the same coefficients. However, Manchester United is the champions of Premier League while Chelsea is the runners-up at the same league. According to the seeding criteria, the higher-ranking-team at the league would be top seeded if those teams have the same coefficients" (http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=2007%E2%80%9308_UEFA_Champions_League&diff=next&oldid=152283913) He/she may have the source for this criteria. 89.7.243.236 (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Ireland entrants

On page 44 of the 2013-14 competition regulations, it's given that all 3 of the Republic of Ireland entrants will enter at the first qualifying round. However, in this article, it says that the cup winners, Derry City, will enter at the second round. Is this a mistake in the article? ScoobyHugh (talk) 11:14, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Derry City may have been promoted due to last season's competition winners, Chelsea, competing in this year's Champions League. – Pee Jay 11:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Peejay said. See 2013–14 UEFA Europa League#Distribution Stigni (talk) 11:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I see, many thanks to you both. It was silly of me to miss that! ScoobyHugh (talk) 11:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Matchorder

Hi.

I would like to talk about the discussion/warring about matchorder that has been going on. I think (and Chanheigeorge actually started reverting before me with the same thinking) that the matches should be in matchnumber-order and the original order in UEFA-matches link http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/matches/round=2000467/index.html. The matchnumber is easily shown when clicking on the matchreport for the match and looking in the browserheading (where you write the webaddress). All of the matches has numbers, Chornomorets Odessa-match has 2012356, Srijoki Bijegi-match 2012357 and so on. The UEFA link above had the same order before adding matchtimes, and they then sorted by times.

The IP-user "battling" with me and Chanheigeorge uses another UEFA link http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/draws/index.html where UEFA quickly wrote down the result of the draw to have an article on their webpage with the result. This link has another order.

The difference is that in the first link the matches are ordered according to matchnumbers and it is one seeding-group at the time. The second link takes no consideration to matchnumber and seeding-group and takes the games drawn first, due to UEFA special draw where the drew numbers and that number decided meetings in all seeding-groups.

What does everyone think? If this warring goes on I'm afraid page will get protected so please give me your opinion so we can stop this warring. Qed237 (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The first qualifying round and second qualifying round was from http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/draws/index.html as well. 108.162.157.141 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No it was according to matchnumber. However in the first and second round the order of the UEFA article was the same as the matchnuber-order. Qed237 (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at he original order on picture 7 and 8 on the link http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/news/newsid=1973141.html Qed237 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/matches/round=2000467/index.html where if you click at the second leg at August 8 ("Third qualifying round: 8 August" in middle of page) it has the same order I like (according to matchnumber) now before the matchtimes are set. Qed237 (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few points:

Take a look at he original order on picture 7 and 8 on the link http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/news/newsid=1973141.html Qed237 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also look at http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/matches/round=2000467/index.html where if you click at the second leg at August 8 ("Third qualifying round: 8 August" in middle of page) it has the same order I like (according to matchnumber) now before the matchtimes are set. Qed237 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Finally look at last year (third round) where the article http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/news/newsid=1842549.html says one thing and the wikipedia article http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_UEFA_Europa_League_qualifying_phase_and_play-off_round goes after matchorder where Videoton has 2009771, AIK has 2009772 and so on. It was sorted according to matchnumber in prevoius years so why change now? Qed237 (talk) 01:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the end, who cares? :-) We don't use "Winner of match x" anyway. Which would be only reson for a specific order i'd guess. -Koppapa (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Qed237 on his points, but will refrain from editing on this part for now. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't be bothered reading the full discussion above, so I don't know whose "side" I'm on, but I think we should order the table by the order the teams were actually drawn. Then, when we list the matches themselves with the {{footballbox}} template, we can list them chronologically. I don't see any problem with that, do you? – Pee Jay 01:19, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that UEFA has a new "smart" way to conduct the draw, where several teams where drawn at the same time. Therefore there are different way to determine matchorder. Me and User:Chanheigeorge then go after the matchnumber of each match given by UEFA (seen on the matchreports) and that is the same order seen on pictures and video from the draw. 108.162 instead goes after another UEFA-article published after the draw that has another order. Shouldnt the order be based on matchnumber, that UEFA give the matches according to the draw, and pictures from the draw with the same order? Or what do you think User:PeeJay2K3? QED237 (talk) 01:32, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This makes things more difficult. Just pick a way and stick with it. I don't care any more. – Pee Jay 11:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Since the order last year was according to matchnumber (when article had another) it is the best to have like it is now and as it was last year (according to matchnumber). QED237 (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Teams with same point.

Hi

Two teams has the same points. Who is ranked first? QED237 (talk) 21:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If two teams have equal CC the team with most points in the most recent season is placed ahead. If they have same in all years, eg new teams such as Swansea and Wigan, the method of qualification to EL is used, so Wigan (CW) rank above Swansea (LC). See the Romanian teams in QR2. The Cup winner and league runner up were seeded but 4th placed team was unseeded. Zirath (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who takes Fenerbahçe's spot?

If Fenerbahçe are being excluded from the tournament, who will take their spot [if anyone]? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They are already exluded and UEFA will decide who takes the spot. The decision from UEFA will come today or tomorrow if I remember correctly. QED237 (talk) 10:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's today's afternoon. -Koppapa (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any information about where will the "Lucky-Loser" team that will be drawned tomorrow be positioned within the pots? Will it have its own rank or will it lay in pot 4? Razaviv5 (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

APOEL from Cyprus will take their spot as lucky loser and they will have their own rank, not in pot 4. Depending on who wins the AZ Alkmaar-Atromitos game, they will be in pot 1 (if Atromitos win) or 2 (if AZ win). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nayefjuve (talk • contribs) 07:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and it has already been insterted. QED237 (talk) 07:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beşiktaş

To the above, why are Beşiktaş still playing when they've had their appeal rejected?[1] - filelakeshoe (t / c) 12:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because CAS had not made their final decision yet. They will decide on 30 August (tomorrow) at the latest. QED237 (talk) 12:06, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can read about it here QED237 (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now they are banned and replaced by Trmoso as the article shows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.75.36.96 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Group H

Sevilla is green and Estoril is red!

You can read about it on UEFA.com or on this link. The tiebreaker is matches amongst teams in question (and not goal differential) so even if Estoril get on same points they have worse result against the other two teams. The same goes for Sevilla that even if the other two teams get 9pts, they were the better team in matches against those teams. QED237 (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2013–14 UEFA Europa League. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2014/accesslist/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2013–14 UEFA Europa League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 00:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]