2015–16 Uefa Champions League

The access list is not yet released by UEFA, so unfortunately I dont know that. All we have is the article Added bonus for UEFA Europa League winners from UEFA saying they will play in playoff round (or possibly group stage depending on winner previous year). QED237 (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a question .If the Cup Winner of (one of the first 12 countries) qualified for the third qualifying round of the Champions League and lost what would happen? Will play in the Europa League Groups or will play in the play off of Europa League? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.131.8 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As losers from third round CL they will enter EL in play-off and an other team from that country has already been given their spot in the group stage. QED237 (talk) 23:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

www1.skysports.com UEFA is close to changing the seeding system for the group stages of the Champions League. Under new proposals, the top eight seeds would comprise of the defending Champions League winners, along with the seven domestic league winners of the top-ranked UEFA nations. The plan needs approval from the UEFA Executive Committee before it can be introduced but it is hoped it would take effect from next season. UEFA's next Executive Committee meeting takes place on September 18 in Nyon. Tykyheg (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The description and diagram exploring what might happen in various scenarios depending on the nationality, league position etc of the Europa and Champions League winners is admirable. However, this now takes up a huge chunk of the page, as well as covering a number of different scenarios which may/may not happen. This, I feel, is giving WP:UNDUE weight to a series of technicalities. I'd suggest that we remove the majority of it with a much simpler: "If not already qualified, the Europa League title holder will enter into either the play-off round or the group stage. If the Champions League title holder qualifies via their domestic league for the group stage, the position reserved for them in the group stage will given to the Europa League title holder. In other circumstances, the Europa league title holder will enter the play-off round. The final access list will be altered according to whether the two title holders use their allocation, and the rounds into which they enter. UEFA has published a detailed document outlying several possible qualification scenarios" (Reference). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I am all for such a change, has reverted in the past but the adding user said it was informative and has added more and more and I feel it is to much info. QED237 (talk) 17:12, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

For what is worth, below are the current possible scenarios. Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Depending on whether (and which round) the Champions League and Europa League title holders qualify for the tournament via their domestic leagues, the following changes will be made:

CL winners qualify?	EL winners qualify?
	Group stage	Play-off round (League Route)	Third qualifying round (League Route)	Not qualified
Group stage	SUI1: Q3(C) → GS   ROU1: Q2 → Q3(C)   NIR1: Q1 → Q2   WAL1: Q1 → Q2	ELW: PO(L) → GS   FRA3: Q3(L) → PO(L)   RUS2: Q3(L) → PO(L)	ELW: Q3(L) → GS   FRA3: Q3(L) → PO(L) If ELW is from FRA: ELW: Q3(L) → GS   RUS2: Q3(L) → PO(L)	ELW: → GS
Play-off round (League Route)	FRA3: Q3(L) → PO(L)   RUS2: Q3(L) → PO(L)	FRA3: Q3(L) → PO(L)   RUS2: Q3(L) → PO(L)	ELW: Q3(L) → PO(L)   FRA3: Q3(L) → PO(L) If ELW is from FRA: ELW: Q3(L) → PO(L)   RUS2: Q3(L) → PO(L)	ELW: → PO(L)
Third qualifying round (League Route)	FRA3: Q3(L) → PO(L) If CLW is from FRA:   RUS2: Q3(L) → PO(L)	FRA3: Q3(L) → PO(L) If CLW is from FRA:   RUS2: Q3(L) → PO(L)	ELW: Q3(L) → PO(L)	ELW: → PO(L)   POR3: PO(L) → Q3(L)
Not qualified	No change	No change	ELW: Q3(L) → PO(L)   POR3: PO(L) → Q3(L)	ELW: → PO(L)   ITA3: PO(L) → Q3(L)   POR3: PO(L) → Q3(L) If CLW and ELW are from same top 3 association: ELW: → PO(L) (replace 4th team from same association) ITA3 and POR3 stay in PO(L)

So by now 3 of the four remaining teams in the 14/15 Champions League have qualified for the group stage, with the last one (Real Madrid) expected to do the same. Could we maybe do away with the scenarios and provisionally write CL/EL title-holders under teams qualified, changing it to just EL, when Real inevitably qualify as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.92.59 (talk) 19:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
No changes will be made until it is 100% clear, Real may still miss CL. QED237 (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
Now Real is 100% clear. AdamKot34 (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
I have made some changes accordingly and will take a look at the general text. QED237 (talk) 20:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Isn't Barcelona assured of at least the playoff? They have a 15 point lead on fifth place Sevilla with 5 games left, but in Spain the tie-breaker is head-to-head which Barca hold having won 5-1 in Barcelona and drawn 2-2 in Seville. Dawindler (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

There could also be 3 or 4 teams on 81pts and then a "minitable" with all head-to-head matches. In that case Sevilla can actually end above Barca depending on matches against Athletico/Valencia or whatever team ends on same points as Barcelona and Sevilla. QED237 (talk) 22:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. Dawindler (talk) 22:35, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry. Thanks for the mini-legaue scenario, but unless I'm misunderstanding the minileague system, I'm not seeing any "mini-league" scenario in which Barca doesn't go through. We have to assume for this exercise that Atletico defeats Barca (if not Barca would have more than 81 points), Sevilla defeats Real Madrid (if not, they can't get to 81 points), and Valencia draws or defeats Real Madrid (with a loss, Valencia cannot reach 81 points). In a five way minileague on 81 points, Barca would have 16 points, Atletico 14, Valencia 12 or 14, Real Madrid, 6 or 7 and Sevilla 6. 4 team league with Real and Atletico: Atletico 13, Barcelona 10, Real Madrid 6, Sevilla 5. 4 team league with Real and Valencia: Barca 13 Valencia 8 or 10 Real Madrid 6 or 7 Sevilla 5. 4 team league with Atletico and Valencia: Barca 13, Atletico 8, Valencia 8, Sevilla 3. 3 team mini league with Real Madrid: Barca 7 Real Madrid 6 Sevilla 4; 3 team league with Atletico: Barca 7, Atletico 7, Sevilla 2; 3 team league with Valencia: Barca 10, Valencia 4, Sevilla 2. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawindler (talk • contribs) 23:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
You may be right but I think that falls out of Routine calculations and becomes Original research. It is so easy to miss something so it is best to wait until we are completely sure. QED237 (talk) 10:43, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
With their league win tonight they have secured top3 and group stage qualification. QED237 (talk) 19:55, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Juventus has 14pts more than Lazio, 15pts more than Roma and 17pts more than Napoli. There are 6 more games for each team. The worst senario:

• Napoli win all the 6 games (one against Lazio) to get 18pts.
• Lazio win 5 of the games (all except against Napoli, including against Roma) to get 15 pts.
• Roma win 5 of the games (except against Lazio) to get 15 pts.
• Juventus lose all the 6 games.

League table will be -> Napoli 74, Lazio 74, Juventus 73, Roma 73

• Juventus is better against Roma in head-to-head points. --Statli12 (talk)

Just wanted to inform I opened a discussion at Talk:2015–16 UEFA Europa League#Romania regarding some Romanian teams not being eligible for European competitions. Qed237 (talk) 19:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I see some has started seeding so I open this discussion like we did last year at Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League#Seeding. Then we decided to not add seeding until we know what teams will participate because the accesslist can still change. We can not even know how many teams will participate in the first round yet. So if no one opposes lets wait, there is no rush. Qed237 (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I also think it is too early..at least two more week so we figure out all remaining teams, and even if we waited a bit more it wont really change anything because we really don't know most teams seeding yet. in my opinion probably after July it makes more sense to put seeding than just put 4-6 teams in X or Y pots and the rest gonna be vague .

Adnan (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

UEFA will issue the access list in June, somewhere between this season's Champions League final on June 6 and the 1st and 2nd qualifying rounds' draw, so we must wait. The Replicator (talk) 17:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I want just to point out that the calculations for the seeding is not always Original Research. Bert Kassies itself has a link (http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/seedcl2015.html) with the known seeding so far, mixed with assumptions about who will advance in the qualifying rounds. And Bert Kassies is a very valid reference for many issues regarding this article. See the references section:

• "UEFA Access List 2015/18 with explanations" (PDF). Bert Kassies.
  
• "UEFA Country Ranking 2014". Bert Kassies.
  
• "Preliminary Access List 2015/16" (PDF). Bert Kassies.
  
• "Access list 2015/2016". Bert Kassies.
  
• "Qualification for European Cup Football 2015/2016". Bert Kassies.
  
• "UEFA European Football Calendar 2015/2016". Bert Kassies.
  
• "UEFA Team Ranking 2015". Bert Kassies.
  
• "Seeding in the Champions League 2015/2016". Bert Kassies.
  

Tykyheg (talk) 09:23, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tykyheg: That is very true, but right now it is very preliminary as teams may still be moved to other rounds. We should wait until accesslist is determined. Qed237 (talk) 11:25, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
The "possibility of teams being moved to other rounds" is not a reason to avoid filling other sections of this article (First qualifying round for instance). Eight teams start in this round. If the title holder spot in the Group Stage is not used, then this section is modified to make it six teams starting from this round. Why don't you revert the introduction of teams in that round until acceslist is determined? Tykyheg (talk) 13:11, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

From the scenarios listed above and the fact that we know EL winner will take the CL winner spot in a straight switch, no changes in the accesslist will be needed. With this in mind and the fact that only one team is missing (Polish champions) I have done the seeding calculations and will put them up at my sandbox. Just letting everyone know so that you dont do the work when it already has been done. I am planing to add the seedings as soon as the last team is decided (wednesday or sunday) if no one opposes (I know some editors want it fast). Since the winners of Poland only affects second and third round, I can actually add seeding already now if that is everyones wish, otherwise you can look at my sandbox until then. For Europa League it can not be added until Swiss Cup is decided on Sunday 7 June, but I plan on having that update on that day or the next day as well and I will have that to at my sandbox until it is time. Qed237 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I just realised that some teams will have coefficient TBD until Saturdays CL final, so we should wait until then? Here is the current seeding. Qed237 (talk) 12:00, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think the Polish league would be done by Sunday also..So maybe we can wait until we have all teams ready ? Also for 3rd round of qualification..If a seeded team loses to unseeded team in the previous round , the unseeded team going to stay unseeded if they have some team with higher coeff..right ? if that the case maybe we shouldn't put the unseeded teams names there yet because it is very vague..what do you think ?and great work on the whole thing bud thank you Adnan (talk) 14:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
The Polish league could be decided on Wednedsday, but will most likely be finished on Sunday. Yes I agree, lets wait until all teams are ready. The darw for second and third round will be made before the previous round has been played, so if an unseeded team win they will use the coefficient of the seeded team they won against. That is why we can know the seeding of third round already. Qed237 (talk) 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

When worikng with seeding, there are now some linebreaks due to "Coeff" instead of "CC" when seeding in 4 columns in Group stage (as last season). I have modified the column widths (total is still 100%) but should we go back to CC? Qed237 (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

"Coeff" sounds better for me . Adnan (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

All teams now decided and both me and another user has checked the seeding so there are no errors, so it has now been added. It was CC, because text got to wide, but note to explain has been added. Qed237 (talk) 18:10, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Monaco 3rd in France 78.66.241.245 (talk) 20:55, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

  Done Fixed by another user. A little patience please, match ended seconds ago, and it will all be updated in due time. But thank you for letting us know it should be updated. Qed237 (talk) 20:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Apoel champions in Cyprus. Will go into 2 round. 78.66.241.245 (talk) 16:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 16:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/soccer/2015/05/24/apoel-wins-24th-cyprus-league-title-completes-double/27882829/ Tykyheg (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

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

RB Salzburg champions in Austria. Goes into 3rd round. http://m.diepresse.com/home/sport/fussball/4738727/index.do?from=rss 78.66.241.245 (talk) 17:46, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Just be patient, these updates will be made in due time. Qed237 (talk) 23:06, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Remember in 2005 there were problems with Liverpool getting their automatic berth to the champions league? So in the group stage draw they were not drawn as an "English team", and didn't get the country protection. What's gonna happen with Sevilla this year? Now, they got their group stage berth normally as UEFA gave it to them as a Europa League winner. If there will be 5 spanish teams, does it means they will be able to be drawn with Sevilla? if not, it increases the chances to see an "English-Spanish" fight... --OrGW1899 (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The draw procedure has not yet been announced. Qed237 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
It was stated explicitly about country protection on the qualifying and the group stages in the 13.04 and 16.01 paragraphs of the new CL Regulations.Pahtakor (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
rules have changed anyway, liverpool being allowed entry was an exception anyway. it wasn't intended initially that the winners would qualify automatically for the next season back then. this time it was intended that sevilla qualify, and the regulations for 15-16 still say "16.01 Match system – group stage: Once the play-offs have been completed, the 32 remaining clubs are drawn into eight groups of four in accordance with Paragraph 13.05. Clubs from the same association cannot be drawn into the same group." unless this changes there won't be two spanish teams in the same group. chelsea have a 50% chance of drawing a spanish team (if valencia qualify). the others have a 25% chance (1/8 for barcelona and if they don't draw barcelona, 1/8 for sevilla). (of course there's a correlation between multiple english teams drawing spanish teams because teams are split across match days, blue group/red groups). 92.196.58.242 (talk) 10:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi, thought it is time to bring this subject up since tournament starts today and there is risk for live updating (against consensus at WP:FOOTY). Does anyone oppose using {{Livescores editnotice}} that was used last season and on other article like 2014 FIFA World Cup? I recently got "template editor"-rights so I can add it where needed myself without having to go through request process. I am planning on doing this on related articles when that article is "in progress", but wanted to open a discussion first to see if anyone has something to say first. Any comments? Qed237 (talk) 11:49, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

It is a good idea thank you :) Adnan (talk) 19:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Best regards /EriFr (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

109.228.83.231 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)==Shakhtar== Should their pog be placed on Lviv, given that that's where they play all their games? We have no idea how long their 'exile' will be, it could be permanent like Anorthosis Famagusta. EamonnPKeane (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

The caption below the map states: "Location of teams of the 2015–16 UEFA Champions League group stage." Shakhtar are not located in Donetsk due to the ongoing war. This is the second season in which they have been based in Kyiv for day-to-day training and Lviv for home matches. As such, the location of Shakhtar should be changed, or the caption should be reworded. (109.228.83.231 (talk) 16:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC))

FC Astana has qualified for the group stage, and as far as I know, this is the first time a team from Kazakhtan has qualified for the group stage. It feels bad that they cannot be included on the map, or does anyone have an simple solution? I know this is not important, to say the least. If you do not care, that is perfectly fine with me. /EriFr (talk) 21:22, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

I have tried but there is no map over Europe with Kazakstan included or any way to add the kazakstan map on the other map (for example in top left corner). Qed237 (talk) 22:37, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
I've followed the example of Guernsey F.C. at 2015–16 Isthmian League#Division One South - I think it's a bit neater and the Asia map is not particularly informative given its size. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Maybe like that? Schnapper (talk) 17:59, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I think it looks great. /EriFr (talk) 06:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

You think the Importance of the article needs changing? It's up to you to show why it's worth changing. The article is definitely not of Top or High importance by any means, it's barely even Mid importance. Individual seasons of club competitions are never more than Mid importance unless something extremely noteworthy happens. Please see Wiki: WikiProject Football/Assessment#Importance scale for an explanation of WP:FOOTY's assessment scales. – PeeJay 20:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: So why you are not writing it as "mid"? How it is of "low" importance by any means? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  20:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Because I still don't believe it is Mid. As I said, the WP:FOOTY assessment department's importance scale states that all season articles should be considered Low importance unless something particularly noteworthy happens. I understand your point about the Champions League being a more important competition, but the Importance scale isn't about the number of page views, it's about the relative importance of the article to the football WikiProject. What happens when the season is over and nothing particularly eventful happens? Do we drop the season's importance down to Low then? It doesn't work that way; importance levels don't go up simply because the event is happening right now. – PeeJay 21:14, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: Champions league is not only one of most prestigious Football tournament but also a one of most prestigious sport tournament in the world, also one of most watched sport event. In world of Football it is obviously top level competition. If we are tagging it as "low importance" which is lowest importance level we can have then what is difference between such prestigious tournament and hundreds of other seasonal tournaments happening in world in every nation??. Do you know there are how many Football clubs or Football players in the World? Its in millions!!. Regarding competitions you can see List of association football competitions which lists some major competitions. We can take one example of 2015 Cambodian League. 2015 season of Cambodian League is obviously "low" importance, if we are tagging 2015–16 UEFA Champions League with "low" importance then what is difference between importance of 2015–16 UEFA Champions League and 2015 Cambodian League?? Season of Champions league should have some higher importance level than others. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  21:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That is not for us to decide. If you think that Champions League seasons should have a higher Importance level than WP:FOOTY recommends, you should start a discussion at WT:FOOTY to gauge the community's opinion. Right now, it should really stay at Low importance due to the fact that there is nothing notable about that season other than the fact that it is happening. – PeeJay 22:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: You should read what is written in "High" level assessment scale, Top-level leagues, awards and competitions. "Top level competitions" can have "High" importance level according to Wiki: WikiProject Football/Assessment#Importance scale. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  22:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
No, you should read more carefully. That refers to the main article of each competition, i.e. UEFA Champions League, not the individual seasons. As you can see under the description of "Low" importance articles, that includes all season articles. – PeeJay 22:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Please, read it. You are saying "high" level importance is for UEFA Champions League, ok. But it is mentioned that "Top-level leagues, awards and competitions". "Leagues" and "competitions" are mentioned separately. Why you picking things selectively? --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not. Leagues and competitions are the same thing, or rather, a league is a type of competition. Season articles for those competitions are dealt with entirely separately, as you can see under "Low-importance". – PeeJay 23:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Guidelines clearly mentioned "leagues" and "competition" separately, we can't add our perception regarding this. Moreover, don't stretch this issue much. Seasonal articles should be marked as "low" importance but "top level competitions" among those should be marked as "high" importance. I was compromised on "mid" as "status quo" but after reading guidelines provided by you now I'm back to "high". And you please don't revert it. You have already made 4 reverts. I have not reported you in good faith or in sportsman spirit. But this spirit will not last long. Or better we can wait for others to comment. It seems that bilateral talks between us will not work. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  23:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Look, I can tell English isn't your first language, so I'm going to assume this is just a misunderstanding. You have misinterpreted the guidelines. Season articles should all be Low importance unless something especially notable happens during the season. High importance is for the main articles of any competitions (including leagues and cups), not the season articles. – PeeJay 23:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Kindly mention, "competitions" mentioned in "high" section are which competitions? According to your English "league" and "competition" are same word. So you should raise this issue at talk page WP:FOOTY to merge these 2 words written in "high" section. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  23:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
That's nothing to do with this discussion. As I've said to you, the page makes it explicitly clear that all season articles are supposed to be Low importance by default, with exceptions made only for seasons that were particularly notable/important. The poor wording of the "High" section has no impact on this page, and I suggest you put it out of your mind. For the record, "leagues and competitions" means the main articles of any football competition, e.g. the Premier League, the FA Cup and the UEFA Champions League articles, not their individual seasons. – PeeJay 08:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Error in group E table. ARS used in table heading instead of ROM.

I would have fixed myself. But how do i edit the tables of the group scores? I can only see a single line:

===Group E=== {{2015–16 UEFA Champions League Group E table|show_matches=yes|only_pld_pts=no_hide_class_rules}}

Thanks Jazi Zilber (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

UEFA uses ASR as short for AS Roma, so that is what we use. Qed237 (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the principle, per which you select which names of teams should be accompanied by names of cities? There are many Dynamos and (potentially) many Maccabis, so that's easy to understand. But there is only one Zenit and only one BATE, so this one is not so easy to grasp; the word "Saint Petersburg" is also rather long, which is another fault. On the official UEFA site, the name of Zenit is not accompanied by the name of its city, either. By the way, they say in some places "Olympique Lyonnais", and in other places just "Lyon": only the name of the city and no name of the team... All in all, I suggest to write just Zenit and just BATE, without the city names: the page that I quoted also uses this format. The same for other teams that are easy to disambiguate. But CSKA Moskva or Real Madrid could also be left with the names of their cities, because UEFA writes them so... Just for consistency. - Evgeniy E. (talk) 23:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

We use common piping, which is removing FC/FK/AFC or whatever the team uses from the article name where the team is at. The "Zenit" article is at FC Zenit Saint Petersburg, so we display "Zenit Saint Petersburg" (without the FC) and the same goes for the other teams. Qed237 (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Roma & Leverkusen are tied in points with 6 each, but the goal difference is positive for BA04 and negative for ASR. so Leverkusen should be second place, and Roma 32003:75:F6F:F517:D49F:5E5E:B32E:BBA2 (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Teams are ranked based on head-to-head results. Roma got more points in the matches between these two teams, so they are in second place. Kinetic37 (talk) 09:03, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not correct, take a look at the first 5 tie breaking points: 1.- higher number of points obtained in the group matches played among the teams in question; 2. superior goal difference from the group matches played among the teams in question; 3. higher number of goals scored in the group matches played among the teams in question; 4. higher number of goals scored away from home in the group matches played among the teams in question; 5. if, after having applied criteria 1 to 4, teams still have an equal ranking, criteria 1 to 4 are reapplied exclusively to the matches between the teams in question to determine their final rankings. If this procedure does not lead to a decision, criteria 6 to 12 apply; here is another reference explaining the tie breaking: http://www.thesirenssong.com/2013/10/24/4948168/uefa-champions-league-tie-breaker-group-stages

in the case however I am wrong, a re-wording of the tie breaking points could help.

just trying to help,

also, I don't think it is necessary that this article should be locked 2003:75:F6F:F586:BDF4:1491:8D01:690D (talk) 02:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

The first point says: "Higher number of points obtained in the group matches played among the teams in question." This means only the matches between teams that are tied on points, in this case Roma and Leverkusen. Roma got 4 points from these matches, while Leverkusen only got 1, so Roma are in second place. Kinetic37 (talk) 08:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Should FC Shakhtar Donetsk really be positioned in Donetsk on the map? The club has not played one single match in either the Champions League or the Europa League at the Donbass Arena. The club has so far played all it's matches at the Arena Lviv (as far as I understand). /EriFr (talk) 09:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess you can look at it in different ways. In my mind they are still a club from Donetsk and registered there even though their matches has been moved. Qed237 (talk) 09:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you. Shakhtar is a club from Donetsk, I think that is the most relevant. If we change the location for Shakhtar, then we would probably have more work to do. I am sure that there are clubs who have not played their European matches at their home arena, because it does not meet UEFA requirements. /EriFr (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Any note or advice. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:20, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2015–16 UEFA Champions 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2016/accesslist/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150810160506/http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/access2015.html to http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/access2015.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2016/accesslist/listofparticipants/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150427003339/http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/qual2015.html to http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/qual2015.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221150453/http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/calendar2015.html to http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/calendar2015.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151216172430/http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000635/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000635/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160318234142/http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000636/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000636/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510145703/http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000637/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000637/index.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:42, 21 June 2017 (UTC)