2014–15 Uefa Champions League

The title holder will be either Real or Atlético Madrid, and both teams have qualified via their domestic league performance. Therefore, it should be safe to assume that the title holder spot will be vacated and changes can be made accordingly...—sagi2711 — Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Roma">Roma is qualified to the group stage, since they are the winner of the head-to-head score against Napoli. check this: 2013–14 Serie A —Statli12 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That page is wrong I will fix it. 6 matches left (18points) and only 12 points behind. QED237 (talk) 15:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
My mistake too.. I also thought 4 matches left(12points).. —Statli12 (talk • contribs) 16:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Easy mistake to do. Different leagues play different amount of matches so easy to count wrong. No worries.QED237 (talk) 16:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Didn't know where to add this, but Ludogorets Razgrad can advance to the Round of 16 if they beat Real Madrid by 5 goals and Liverpool-Basel ends with a tie. It won't happen, but you can't count them out just yet. Ajudoonor (talk) 04:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Ajudoonor: no they can not advance to round of 16, goal differential is not the tiebreaker if two or more teams end up on the same points, it is head-to-head matches. If they win they get 7 points together with Basel or Liverpool (if Basel dont win of course) and then they lose both on head to head (1-0, 0-4 against Basel and 2-2, 1-2 against liverpool). QED237 (talk) 12:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
@Ajudoonor: You can also read this info from UEFA where they says Ludo is eliminated from CL but may reach EL. QED237 (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Tykyheg (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC). Edited: 07:16, 18 May 2014 (UTC),

Remember also that unless Chelsea win the 2013–14 UCL and don't finish in the top 3 of the PL, the NI and Welsh teams move to the second round. In which case an Andorran/Sanmarinese team could be seeded over an Armenian one. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 08:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, it happened the way you said Tykyheg (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it not way too soon to start with seeding when the amount of teams in the different rounds are not set yet. For example as mentioned above Tre Penne from San Marino can be seeded if Chelsea win CL and end outside top3 in England (probably wont happen). This must be considered and at least mentioned, things can change. My thoughts are that we should wait with the seeding until we are sure of the amount of teams in the rounds. QED237 (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it's too soon. - filelakeshoe (t / c) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I'm using the talk page and not the article page itself. - Tykyheg (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Group stage seeding so far:

Tykyheg (talk) 07:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry If I dont understand but why are you keeping to update the talkpage with this? It is sourced from Kassiesa the current seedings and it will be implemented in the future. To me it is uneccesary clutter on the talkpage of something that will be innaccurate in the future and in article anyway. Also we should not change already existing talkpage-comments which is what happens with this "seeding". Why add this on the article talkpage? Is is WP:OR you want to show you made on your own? QED237 (talk) 10:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Talk page guidelines states The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page (accessible via the talk or discussion tab) is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject.

I would not say this "seeding" as a matter of discussion (Only wheter or not it should be inserted in article). If you want to list all seedings perhaps it is best to use your sandbox. QED237 (talk) 10:26, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I understand this is not a matter of discussion. I'll put it in the article itself, as it is done every year. My only intention was to help wikipedia and to avoid an edit war on the article due to other contributors deleting the changes because they think it is original research and not routine calculations Tykyheg (talk) 16:12, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand you idea about avoiding edit war but in this case we have to go talk when/if it happens. About the seeding you should not add until there is consensus to do so and currently there is consesnus not to do so on this talk. I would say we should wait until most teams have qualified. The teams are not yet confirmed by UEFA. QED237 (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay now, later tonight all clubs have qualified for CL (only hungary left). If no one opposes I suggest we can add the seeding now, since we know participating teams. We could wait until all teams are confirmed by UEFA, but that can take time and when it becomes June tomorrow I think it is time for seeding. I can fix it. Anyone oppose or agree? QED237 (talk) 19:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Romanian League is not settled yet so why on the access list of the champions league they are entered as Romania's representatives? Nayefjuve (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at it very shortely. QED237 (talk) 00:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

You are coorect they should not be there and have been removed, some IP was a bit too fast adding them. I will keep an eye out for this. QED237 (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't Chelsea put in the Group Stages in the team section, they already qualified at the group stages; you have put Manchester City and Arsenal and they have qualified today.Japhes5005 (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither Arsenal or Chelsea know what round they will be in yet since both can be third or fourth in Premier League so there should be a note saying both qualified but the teams should not be listed in the different stages or access list. I will fix it shortely. QED237 (talk) 00:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea have not qualified for the group stages yet. QED237 (talk) 00:43, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed at the moment but Premier league is popular and some keeps changing it unfortunately. I will watch this page closely, to try and prevent these kind of incorrect edits. QED237 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Chelsea have qualified for the group stages as their goal difference be greater than that of Arsenal's.Japhes5005 (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

No, they have not yet qualified. How unlike it might be but Arsenal still ha a mathematical chance to reach third place so until evrything is final, Chelsea will not be added. QED237 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Each Chelsea and Arsenal have both have one game left, Even if Arsenal win and Chelsea looses both will equal on points 79, Chelsea have a goal difference of +43 and Arsenal +25 this means that Chelsea will have to at least conceded 10 goals and Arsenal scored 10 which is easier for Arsenal than scoring against Chelsea, Even, if Arsenal do have the same goal difference as Chelsea, Chelsea have the greater head to head.Japhes5005 (talk) 09:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right. Just as you say Arsenal still has a chance so the positions are not yet sure, they might change even if it is very unlikely. QED237 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This source (http://www.insidefutbol.com/2014/05/09/jose-mourinho-provides-chelsea-fitness-update-ahead-of-cardiff-clash/139909/) says "the Blues are guaranteed to finish at least third in the Premier League, securing an automatic Champions League group stage spot". And Original Research is not allowed in Wiki English. :) Tykyheg (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tykyheg: Perhaps you should read WP:CALC. This is simple math and it is easy to prove Arsenal can pass Chelsea even if it is very unlikely (which is why Mourinho says as he does). QED237 (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I know that we in the past have used templates for the group stage tables (and the fixture/result beside it if a parameter is used in template). So I wonder if there is any interest in templates this season? I can easily make them as I have experience in template editing and I just made very similar templates for 2014-15 Champions Hockey League. The main reason is that the table is used on many pages (all individual club pages and this main page as well as group stage-article) and it would simplify updating (only need to update on one place instead of every article). Also it can be easier to spot vandalism as only the templates needs to be watched instead of all articles (and some vandals dont know how to edit a template). When the group stage is over the templates can easily be substituted and removed from wikipedia if necessary (after TfD). Any opinions? QED237 (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The source used is a bad one because it only covers assists by players who have also scored a goal. With all the goals yesterday there are only 4 assists listed. I'd say get rid of that table alltogether or search for an outside source, though with the varying definition of a assist that probably will differ from UEFA and thus be of little value anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not see that but I guess you are right. Now I start thinking about previous seasons, is it the same for those? And yes it should be official source or no table at all since the definition changes. I am against assists on many other articles as there often are unsourced and WP:OR or there are no good source to verify them (no official source from that tournament organiser), so I would not be to sad if the assists was removed. QED237 (talk) 10:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
It is since this season (first noticed it at the UEFA site for the World Cup) that they don't have a separate statistic for assists but you can only sort the goal-scorers by assists. This are some links that have all players ESPN, weltfußball.de, soccerway, one can see they differ already. -Koppapa (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I, too, consider that assists could go, at least until a wider agreement exists in their definition actual contribution to game statistics. I can understand the reason to count assists in basketball, but they seem completely irrelevant in (association) football to me. Rentzepopoulos (talk) 13:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

181.53.168.141 (talk) 19:06, 6 October 2014 (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. Cannolis (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hello, I just intended to edit the "goal scorers" part, in which Messi is not included. Messi has scored 4 goals in this 2014-15 champions league season so far. I would be grateful if this is considered.

Sincerely, Football fan Rektung (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

  Not done All statistics will be updated when the sources has updated. Wikipedia relies on sources and we dont update a player because we know he has scored, we update when the source (in this case UEFA) updated their stats. Then we update all players at the same time. Also please note that edit request is to say what you want changed and/or added and add a source for your request. If it is a good request someone will make edit for you, we dont hand out special permissions to edit pages. A semi-protected page can be edited by autoconfirmed users, which takes 4 days after account creation or 10 edits to other pages. QED237 (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please move Man City to 2nd in table as per superior GD. Thx 106.68.230.73 (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorted by matches between tied teams here. Doesn't really matter anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
  Not done As Koppapa says, the official rules say teams are ordered by "matches against teams in question" (head-to-head) after group stage has finished, so we follow that rule and order after head-to-head now too. Goal differential is not a tiebreaker. On talkpage of that template (for that group) I have made the head-to-head calculations. QED237 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Thx for explaining. Hadn't realised that results betw only the teams on equal points was being used instead of overall group results. World Cup used to do it this way but changed (2006/2010). 106.68.96.185 (talk) 15:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like how new templates look. They are more difficult to read. Have this change been voted anywhere?Tykyheg (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tykyheg: This new format of tables has been developed in last month and has been up to discussion several times at Wiki talk:WikiProject Football and there was for a few weeks ago a final consensus to start use it everywhere and the progress can be read at Wiki: WikiProject Football/League season/Table conversion. This new module is for both group stage tables as well as league tables as before the tables were different on different places (should be same everywhere) and the old version was not MOS compliant as colors can not only be used to show things as readers may be colorblind. It should also be easier for new editors to update, then what it has been before, especially on league articles. Of course you are free to bring your comments here or at WT:FOOTY (the discussion is currently on top of that page I think) about the table. What is it that you dont like with this new format, how is it more difficult to read? Perhaps it is something that can be fixed, but most likely it is just that it takes time to adjust and get used to new format. QED237 (talk) 21:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
It is sad. The new template is bulky and confusing. They have to read letters in parentheses to see is a team qualified or not. League tables are different from group stage tables, and both types should not be confused. I think I will drop opening Wikipedia pages to check current football standings. Maksa (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the new look either. You can't just look at it and know instantly, you have to read more into it. It makes it more time consuming to get information out of it. 50.121.114.122 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I'd like to add to the dissenting voices here. The older templates were much clearer in terms of what was going on. Now there's a mess of colours and symbols which take quite a while to decipher. A lot of the time, I feel as though updates to these templates put convenience and/or consistency ahead of clarity. Surely the whole purpose of any encyclopaedic article is to be clear and easily understood? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.217.126.214 (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree, the older template was much clearer. Schnapper (talk) 06:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I noticed that the various articles have recently been changed to show AS Monaco rather than Monaco. The reason given was so that the confusion over whether this was AS Monaco FC or the Monaco national team could be avoided. Frankly, I find this ridiculous. The UEFA website itself uses Monaco rather than AS Monaco, and I highly doubt many people are that confused. How many even know that Monaco has its own national team? Not to mention that it's a hyperlink, so a reader can hover over it to see that it is, indeed, AS Monaco FC. Italia2006 (talk) 15:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The idea that it would be a Monaco national team is sort of killed off by the big French flag to the left of the name, so I agree with Italia2006 '''tAD''' (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Can someone else respond to this? I've watched and studied football for two decades, and this site prides itself on "Common Name". Well nobody calls Monaco "AS Monaco". It's Monaco, that's it. Like The Almighty Drill mentioned, the French flag is to the left, not the flag of Monaco. Let's change it back, before we start putting FCs behind Liverpool and Chelsea and CFs behind Real Madrid. Italia2006 (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree entirely. Whatever next, putting Celtic F.C. in case people think that "Celtic" is a representative team of all Welsh, Irish and Scottish people? '''tAD''' (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Changed back. Italia2006 (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There is misinformation in the Group Stage section of the article. It states that league winners are automatically placed in Pot 1 which is untrue. Manchester City won the Premier League last season and are in Pot 2.

Issue also exists on Group Stage-specific article.

72.52.96.14 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

That's not what it says, it says the title holders (i.e. the team that won it the previous season) are placed in pot one. Valenciano (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

I know Monaco plays in the France National league but Monaco IS NOT part of France, so it should be placed the flag of Monaco instead as well as the statistics of the club are not part of a french club statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That isn't how it works. The flags shown are the flags of the association that the club is representing. So Swansea City are shown together with the flag of England even though Swansea is in Wales and Derry City are shown with the flag of Ireland, even though they're based in Northern Ireland. This doesn't affect Monaco's independence. For UEFA purposes, points obtained by Monaco *do* count towards France's UEFA coefficient. Valenciano (talk) 19:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

UEFA say Monaco is a French team. The Principality of Monaco has no UEFA-recognised FA. '''tAD''' (talk) 19:47, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

That´s ok. BUt. A nation flag is a symbol of which someone or something "belongs" so, Monano is not in no way a french team. I propose to delette national flags in wikipedia (all languages) because Associations are not the same as nations. Or we can use the "logo" of the associtions instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 20:08, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Association logos are copyrighted, and can not be used except for on the pages about those entities. Nor are they recognisable to a wide audience, especially when shrunken to the size of icons. In football, AS Monaco FC "belongs" to France by being a member of their association. '''tAD''' (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

OK. No icon or flag at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 21:23, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Monaco represents france, plays in french league and all coefficient points they earn go to france so they should have french flag. QED237 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

AS Monano no es un equipo francés de ninguna manera, aunque juegue en la liga francesa, como dice la wikipedia mismamente: La Association Sportive de Monaco Football Club (traducida al español: Asociación Deportiva de Mónaco Fútbol Club), conocida también como AS Mónaco o simplemente Mónaco es un club de fútbol perteneciente al Principado de Mónaco. Fue fundado en 1924 y juega actualmente en la Ligue 1 de Francia con acuerdo deportivo, ya que no es un equipo francés. El equipo desarrolla sus encuentros como local en el Stade Louis II (en español: Estadio Luis II), ubicado en el distrito de Fontvieille.

Por tanto, no debería asociarse ese club como un equipo francés porque NO lo es. En tanto en cuanto, debería pues acerse un inciso como mínimo, y las estadísticas debería revisarse para que no sean incluidas como si AS Mónaco fuera un equipo francés. Gracias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 19:31, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

You know how this is the English Wiki English. You should probably speak English. – PeeJay 19:42, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn´t know we were supposed to speak here in english, whatever language is possible to be used, your problem if you don´t understand. I´ve learnt english because of people of you in this anglosaxon imperialist world, you have to be open minded and learn another languages my friend ;)

If this were the Spanish Wikipedia, I would agree with you, but you've chosen to use the English Wikipedia, so you should speak English. – PeeJay 20:05, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I´ve tried to delete my message in order to undo my mistake but again it appear, we must have the right to delete or own messages if we admit we were incorrect. So please, let me delete the message and then, this one too. Tank you, and I apologise for any problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you just post a translation of the original message? – PeeJay 20:49, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

It says that AS Monaco isn´t a french team but plays in the french league, so the flag that appears is the french one because the league. So then, if there are no problem, I´ll clear the old spanish message and I´ll finish the discussion because I understood why it is so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I´ve just deleted my own messages because I wanted to remove them from the original talk, (why AS Monaco uses the french flag), and they don´t contribute to anything. So what it is ridiculous is to maintain them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 22:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Reason to remove comments: do not contribute to the talk.

I´ve just said the reason that they do not contribute to the talk, this section is to talk about the main talk (AS MONACO as french o monaco team) that in fact, I´ve created.IT IS UNFAIR NOT TO ALLOW TO REMOVE OWN COMMENTS then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.25.238.87 (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. Other people have also contributed to this discussion and if you remove your comments you will make our contributions look like a one-way conversation. Furthermore, the entire conversation should be retained to allow people in the future to understand the topic. – PeeJay 22:55, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I think user 80.25.238.87 was right. In fact commemts not constructive with the topic of the talk must be deletted, and the user should have the right to remove any of them if do not follow the argument.

But the discussion about whether AS Monaco should use the French flag or the Monegasque flag is an interesting one, and the discussion should be preserved for posterity. If you think the comments don't "follow the argument", you're wrong. – PeeJay 09:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Agree with PJ. Blanking talkpage posts should just be done for OBVIOUS trolling or completely illogical rants. The Spanish IP had a legitimate concern and question, which we responded to with sources. If he had come just to call us Anglo imperialists to have the audacity to write in English on an English-language website, it'd be right to blank him. '''tAD''' (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Are they really needed? The colum heading already mentions the unit ("Minutes played"). This applies to player stats tables in other football-related competitions. Parutakupiu (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

They would be needed if the number of seconds played was included, as has been the case in the past, but since we seem to only be doing the minutes now, I agree they're not needed. – PeeJay 15:12, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

add assist leaders player-minutes played-assists-team Lionel Messi-967-5-Barcelona Cristiano Ronaldo-975-4-Real Madrid Cesc Fàbregas-696-4-Chelsea Koke-833-4-Atlético Thomas Müller-690-3-Bayern Yacine Brahimi-682-3-Porto Robert Lewandowski-842-3-Bayern Eden Hazard-654-3-Chelsea Hector Herrera-789-3-Porto Jérôme Boateng-900-3-Bayern Pajtim Kasami-391-3-Olympiacos Fabian Frei-670-3-Base

source:

http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2015/statistics/round=2000548/players/kind=goals/index.html#order=4desc

Wertyuiooo (talk) 18:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

  Not done See discussion above with consensus not to have assist. Definition of assists varies and UEFA currently only shows assists for those players who have scored so there ould be assisters not appearing in the source that should be there. QED237 (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

FC Bayern vs FC Barca: 3-2 and aGgregate of 3-5: Barca advance to Finals.
117.222.91.108 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC) 117.222.91.108 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done Just relax, match just ended. It will be updated. QED237 (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, And as it ended, since I could not edit, I just posted here. Thank you User:Qed237.
117.222.91.108 (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

while messi and ronaldo had 10 goals each , ronaldo and neymar played one less match than messi and neymar less minutes than cristiano

UEFA confirms neymar as the winner of the top scorer status, please change it

http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2015/statistics/round=2000548/players/kind=goals/index.html Footballfanbrazil (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

It's a tie. -Koppapa (talk) 05:27, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2014–15 UEFA Champions 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/uefachampionsleague/season=2015/competitionformat/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} 21:29, 28 March 2016 (UTC)