Talk:2011–12 UEFA Champions League qualifying phase and play-off round

	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.

Europe

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Attendance figures

Since the UEFA site, which is official source for this page does not have the attendance figures, the attendance figures given on this page are unsourced and will be deleted. Is there any reason why they should stay on the page without a valid reference? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Match reports

The convention for this page (and all UEFA competition pages) has been to use official UEFA match reports as the links used in the report field in the match summaries formatted by Template:footballbox, such as Report for the 2011 UEFA Champions League Final:

28 May 2011

19:45 BST

Barcelona	3 – 1	Manchester United
Pedro 27' Messi 54' Villa 69'	Report	Rooney 34'

Wembley Stadium, London

Attendance: 87,695

Referee: Viktor Kassai (Hungary)

However, User:Sven Manguard is saying that any reliable third-party source is acceptable as match reports, citing a "consensus" reached (this thread on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and this WikiProject Football post), and has been reverting edits by at least three different editors (User:Tomcsy, User:Kante4, and me) in the last 12 hours when they replaced the links he put in with official UEFA match reports ([1], [2], [3]). So I would like a discussion and vote on this matter. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both of the RSN links above are about club sites, and are therefore not relevant for this as UEFA.com is not a club site. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the forest for the trees, the issue is about forcing one source over others. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed from "Acceptable" to "Preferable" below, as otherwise you could easily support both. Third-party sources are *acceptable*. The question is what we should use. :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Having two opposing proposals seems to have confused some people here. Should we remove one? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Svens disruption worked, people clearly have no idea what they are voting on, judging from the comments. --OpenFuture (talk) 14:54, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what I'm getting is that anything you disagree with is "disruption"? A majority of people commenting are active on football related pages, and know what they're commenting on. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because you are disruptive and I disagree with you doesn't mean everyone I disagree with are disruptive. It's just you. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vote

Please note before you vote: This is not a vote on whether to use UEFA sources or third-party sources as all sources in this or other similar articles. This vote is only on what links to use in the Report field in the match summaries formatted by Template:footballbox, as shown above. Chanheigeorge (talk) 10:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use UEFA match reports for all matches

Support As UEFA is the organization responsible for the matches, their sources have the most authority in matter such as disuputed goalscorers and goal times. Plus other reasons such as uniformity and reliability. Chanheigeorge (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support UEFA has reports on all matches, and it will be hard to find any other sources that has that. We'll end up using some UEFA reports anyway, so for consistency we might as well just use UEFA full stop. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Every !vote above is textbook WP:UNRELIABLE !vote. See the first line of the section: "Wikipedia's general notability guideline requires that in order for a subject to be notable, it must be sourced by multiple reliable sources, independent of the subject.". -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This has nothing to do with notability whatsoever. And we are not using any sources in those !votes, so they can't be unreliable. And you put this in the wrong section. And you haven't gotten your facts straight, and you revert against consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Forcing the use of one website for a source, when other sources with comparable information exists on other reliable sources, because 'it's always been done that way' or 'it looks pretty (face it, that's uniformity), makes no sense to me. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sven, is it ethical of you to vote twice? ;-) --OpenFuture (talk) 08:07, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Vote? No, I'm expressing my support of one position and my opposition of another position. If you add a third option, I will support or oppose that. This is a discussion, not a vote. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Voila, I've added a third position. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are just disrupting this poll in an effort to hide that you have neither arguments, nor any support. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly that's what is going on. Clearly I'm not trying to find some way of resolving this using a middle ground. I've had enough of this, it's 4:30 in the morning, I'm going to bed. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, clearly. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - UEFA organises the competition and is therefore the authority on the information in the {{footballbox}} template. I have no objection to other sources being used for other facts in the article, such as a prose account of each match, but UEFA reports should be used in the match summary box. – Pee Jay 08:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Mainly per PeeJay2K3, it´s from the UEFA so we should use the official UEFA report. – Kante4 (talk) 12:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Stong Oppose We shouldnt be just using Uefa a mix of sources should be used given the large volume of independent reliable sources that are available. Warburton1368 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. But only technically. As the organiser of the competition, UEFA is the primary source for information relating to the matches, and alternative sources differing from their information are (ignoring typos) wrong. So before adding an alternative reliable source, we ought to be checking its accuracy against the UEFA report, because however reliable a source may be, it's not much use if it's inaccurate. And if we're going to check against UEFA for accuracy, we might as well use UEFA and save the bother. If an alternative reliable accuracy-checked source adds additional information such as the match attendance, which otherwise would have to be verified separately, then I'd have no problem with that source being used instead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Echoing Struway2 completely. Wiffleclaw (talk) 17:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Struway2 said it 100% perfectly. Captain Courageous (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Semi oppose - Although I would prefer to use the UEFA Match report I find it deficient in providing attendance information soon after a match. UEFA does provide the attendances in pdf format much latter in the season but that is just too late for our editors who want to update the page almost immediately with the information is available elsewhere. Another problem that I have seen and it is much more serious is when UEFA massively changes the URL for the match report and thus instantaneously providing a whole page of dead links. This has been done by UEFA in the past. Also while we are focusing on the 2011–12 season, if one were to look at the 2007–08 season there are no reports at all and only a scattering of attendances. And I'm sure those reports existed sometime. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Here you are talking about the stability of the external links (whether they will become dead or not), but that is basically predicting the future. Yes, many sporting organizations change their links to their results when they update their database or redesign their webpages, but often the results will still be somewhere available on their website (for example, very easily I was able to find a UEFA.com match report for a first qualifying match in 2007-08: Report). I do not see how the "dead link" problem is avoidable by simply using a third-party website. If we use Yahoo, maybe a few years later, they will think the 2011-12 match reports are not interesting anymore and delete them from their website. If we use Soccerway, maybe the website go broke in a year and all links become dead. Who knows? In fact, if 50 years later I would like to find a 2011-12 match report, the place that I would first think of visiting would be, UEFA.com? (Assuming we still use the Internet at that point.) Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A solution which I have used in other areas of WP which interest me, in particular with news media sites is Webcitation archival. This approach will eliminate dead links, unless of course if there is apprehension that UEFA will block such archival storage. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 14:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - The main purpose of the report is to read the summary of the game, i.e. the words about what happened in the game. Attendances, referee names etc. are secondary. If the official report lacks such information, a reference to an external source can be provided for that particular section, e.g. the use of soccerway.com for the attendances. To reiterate, the main purpose of the report is not to list all the information that is within the template.Syjytg (talk) 10:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use non-UEFA reliable third-party match reports for all matches

Support as a second choice to using either. I dislike the idea of forcing one source and only one source to be used. There are actually better sources out there. The source we use for attendance (which UEFA dosen't list) has all of the information contained in the UEFA source, so it might be better to just use that, so that each match has one source instead of two, 90% redundant to each other, sources. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As per above. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Sven. Nothing wrong with 3rd party sources. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nothing wrong in using UEFA sources either. It's ridiculous to demand one or the other. Sources don't have to be independent, unless they are there to support a subject's verifiability. As this is not in question for these matches, then the sources do not have to be independent. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on pragmatic grounds. As outlined under option 1, UEFA is the primary source for information relating to the matches, and alternative sources differing from their information are (ignoring typos) wrong. So what would be the point of enforcing the use of an alternative source that either says the same as the UEFA source or is wrong? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Struway2 said it 100% perfectly. Captain Courageous (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use either UEFA or a third-party match report

Support I'm not opposed to the use of UEFA, I'm opposed to the use of UEFA to the exclusion of all other sources. If someone gets there with a UEFA source first, then it should stay with UEFA. If someone comes with a non-UEFA source first, then it should stay with the non-UEFA. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This discussion is about if we are going to use UEFA for the match reports or something else. That we are going to use either UEFA or something else, is self-evident. This entry is therefore superfluous, but a vote to support this will probably be interpreted by Sven as a vote against using UEFA. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - UEFA is clearly a reliable source, but I don't see why it should have a monopoly on Champions League match reports. Reliable third-party sources sometimes provide more detail, e.g. compare these reports on Rangers 0-1 Malmo: BBC, ESPN, UEFA. Deserter1 13:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There are plenty other independent reliable sources especially the BBC we shouldn't limit it to one Source. Warburton1368 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Any reliable, verifiable source should be fine. No reason for special rules here. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rationale as per option 1 above. As the organiser of the competition, UEFA is the primary source for information relating to the matches, and alternative sources differing from their information are (ignoring typos) wrong. So before adding an alternative reliable source, we ought to be checking its accuracy against the UEFA report, because however reliable a source may be, it's not much use if it's inaccurate. And if we're going to check against UEFA for accuracy, we might as well use UEFA and save the bother. If an alternative reliable accuracy-checked source adds additional information such as the match attendance, which otherwise would have to be verified separately, then I'd have no problem with that source being used instead. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Struway2 said it 100% perfectly. Captain Courageous (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Sven Manguard said it 100% perfectly. Mentoz86 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I do agree with some of the statements made. After looking and using Soccerway in the references for attendances, I'm almost positive that that organization is getting its information from UEFA. I find that a bit puzzling because UEFA has all the information but it seems that they do not want to release all information. Which make me think that there is a business decision why they are withholding some of the information. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Wow, how incredibly ethical of you to vote in this thread, revert my edit claiming this thread as consensus (despite only having two votes and being opened for a tiny amount of time), and hitting me with a 3RR. My vote is per this thread on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.
You have violated 3RR. I'm just warning you so you can get blocked the next time you do it. The RSN links are (as mentioned above) about using official club sites as sources. EUFA is not a club, so they are not relevant. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. There must be 4 reverts in a 24 hour period to constitute a 3RR violation. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There *is* 4 reverts in a 24 hour period. [4], [5], [6], [7] --OpenFuture (talk) 07:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone's saying there's anything wrong with third party sources, but I don't see the problem with relying on UEFA reports for the official match facts such as goal times, attendances, etc. – Pee Jay 08:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, but Sven is trying to make a joke out of this whole discussion. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF please. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 09:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do, until proven otherwise. If Sven (and you) would try a bit harder to engage in constructive debate this would change. But svens arguments for not using UEFA was referring two two discussions about using Club sites. Since when is UEFA a clb site? Are you seriously saying Sven thinks UEFA is a club? I don't believe that. He also claimed a consensus when being alone against four other editors. Sorry, that's not serious, and based on that he violated 3RR. Then he says that I claimed consensus based on two !votes in the poll, despite the fact that I made the edits before the poll existed.

Then you come in, make the same statement that I claimed consensus based on two votes when I did a revert BEFORE the poll existed. Make an incomprehensible reference to WP:NOTABILITY, claim that two votes who make no source reference as all use unreliable sources, and claim that Sven hasn't violated 3RR without checking first if he has or not.

So, honestly, what am I going to think in that situation? What would *you* think if two people comes in, at the same time and makes several contra-factual or nonsense statements? Sure, I can assume good faith and just blame it on incompetence. I don't have any problem in assuming the people doesn't know Wikipedia policies usually, but you are an Admin. I can hardly go around assuming that Admins are incompetent and doesn't know about basic Wikipedia policies, can I? --OpenFuture (talk) 09:28, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We Shouldnt be using just Uefa there are plenty of other extremely reliable sources. Im not saying we shouldnt use uefa at all just that to stop from using other sources is wrong. Warburton1368 (talk) 13:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warburton, what makes you think any other sources have the authority to assign goalscorers or define the minute in which a goal was scored. Other sources may be reliable, but if they don't match with the UEFA report, they're incorrect. Therefore, we should revert to UEFA reports wherever possible. – Pee Jay 14:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The infos from the other sources are taken from the UEFA so that´s why we should just use the UEFA report in the template. Kante4 (talk) 14:46, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, the ultimate authority to decide on who score a particular goal lies in UEFA, so the UEFA source is the authoritive source in this matter, and citing it for every single match would resolve all dispute in tabulating goalscorers. Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly the point I was trying to make to Warburton1368 earlier. By and large, there is nothing wrong with other reliable, third-party sources, but if we can go to the source (i.e. UEFA.com), why shouldn't we? – Pee Jay 15:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the decision, I don't see why a dispute about sources for reports should prevent this article from being updated with information that is not in dispute (such as matches scores).--Nitsansh (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A point on the sources added by Sven Manguard. Those Yahoo sources don't include the referee's name, e.g. [8], where the corresponding UEFA sources e.g. [9] do. Whatever the merits of the sources under discussion, insisting on retaining a source which verifies some of the information in the match result template in preference to a source which verifies all of it, strikes me as a little POINTy. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- By that logic we should not use UEFA either, as it does not verify attendance. The source soccerway.com example is the only one I've found yet that has all of the pieces we use. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - No: by that logic we should either add additional sources to verify any information not covered by the main source, or use a main source that covers all included information. If attendance is included, it should be verified, and if an editor replaces a source that doesn't verify the attendance with a reliable one that does, that new source is an improvement. If the referee's name is included, and an editor replaces a source that doesn't verify it with a reliable one that does, likewise that new source is an improvement. Is that not how WP:V works? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:51, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - UEFA - Missing attendance, lists four officials
    - BBC - Has attendance but only lists the head official, not all of them (but then, so do we)
    - Yahoo - Lists neither, but updates scores closest to real time
    - ESPN - Won't load for me
    - Soccerway - Has all officials, attendance, and club performance histories, which no one else has
  - If everyone is using the same numbers/names for goals, should we not use the one that provides the most additional information, or at the very least, the all the information we use on our templates? That would mean BBC and Soccerway. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BBC has been notorious for inaccurate attendances, especially the champions league, hence Soccerway is better for attendance. However, it is best to use UEFA.com for the report as it is the official report. Syjytg (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree entirely that for each match, we should use a reliable accurate source that verifies all the information filled in on that match's template. I've !voted accordingly above. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this not basically what we have been doing in this page? We list the UEFA.com official match report as the primary source of each match, as it already provides almost all of the necessary information beyond dispute, i.e., date, time, venue, names of officials (even before the match is played), lineups, goalscorers, goal times, substitutions, yellow/red cards, and final score (immediately after the match ends), that we expect from a match report. The one piece of information missing is attendance, so for each attendance figure we also provide an additional source (mostly from soccerway, sometimes from club sources). I am not saying that a match report from another site is necessarily deficient, but if any dispute is raised, naturally we are just going to check it against the primary source, i.e. the UEFA.com official match report. So why not first include the primary source, and then work it from here to see if anything is missing, or if UEFA is indeed shown to have made a mistake after editors have provided evidence, we can address the issue by providing additional sources. What exactly is the problem with something that works for every match, and agreed by almost all editors that have worked on this and other similar pages? Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is *exactly* what has been done before, yes. Before UEFA was used for the reports, and generally soccerway for the attendencies. Sven added reports to something else, and once the UEFA reports was available somebody updated this and he got angry and started edit warring, hence this useless discussion which is confusing loads of people. This discussion is *not* about which source to use, but *only* about which link to have in the match report link. That's all. --OpenFuture (talk) 05:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ever since there has been a discrepency on the attendances and also that the official UEFA report does not provide it all attendance figures have been sought with a reference. It would be nice to combine this information within the report parameter provided by the footbalinfobox. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 21:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, the attendances for the play-off round have been included in the UEFA press kits. – PeeJay 21:48, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that is the source of the attendance figures for the play-off round there should be a reference. Currently, there no references for the second leg games. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 22:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wanted to add in the source yesterday for the attendance but the page is blocked.Syjytg (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, those folks that are blocking the page should either unblock and let WPs like you update the source, do it themselves or remove the attendance while this debate is on going. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 03:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        An edit request has been made to update the page based on the last round of matches. Please see below. I guess after this final edit, this page can stay locked forever and it would not really matter! :-) Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This has certainly been an interesting debate. While I generally don't edit articles relating to European competition, I felt the need to comment on this since I have a feeling that there will be ramifications to the other continents. So here is my two cents... Use the official UEFA report for consistency, official information, etc. And really, so what if it doesn't have the attendance figures. That sort of information sorta falls in that category of trivia. Everything that is truly relevant to the match is in the official report. The UEFA report provides the same information as the official CONMEBOL reports (everything sans attendance). But, unlike UEFA games, Soccerway doesn't provide attendance figures for CONMEBOL matches. So no big deal. Add them later should UEFA or CONMEBOL publish them in another document, or a truly reliable third party. Digirami (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        This has ramifications to everything sports related, such as FIFA World Cup matches or Olympics results. I think using official reports are the best because if the authorities make a ruling to overturn previous results, they are usually very quick in updating their records. For example, recently FIFA made the ruling to overtun the Syria v Tajikistan qualifier, and once FIFA made the ruling public, their official reports were very quickly made to indicate that Tajikistan "won" both legs 3-0: [10] and [11]. On the other hand, I do not think other third-party often bother changing their results, e.g. Soccerway: [12] and [13]. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned results

How about results overturned by the authorities? Recently FIFA awarded the World Cup qualifiers between Syria v Tajikistan as 3-0 "wins" for Tajikistan. FIFA was very quick to update their reports (on the same day the ruling was made public):

On the other hand, Soccerway never bothered changing the results:

This is similar to Olympic results, where medals are often reawarded due to doping violations, sometimes even months or years after the competition, yet the Olympics authorities will update their record to reflect the changes. On the other hand, third-party sources often do not do it cos they simply cannot bother to. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Our WP editors are quick to update such information with Notes: and references for changes such as overturned results. How many overturned results are you going to see in a season? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned results are generally widely reported in third party sources as well as FIFA/UEFA, e.g. for Syria-Tajikistan see ESPN Reuters Fox News. I agree with Brudder Andrusha that the use of an explanatory note is preferable where this happens, as has been done in the 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) article. I'd question whether the above FIFA examples are of much value as match reports, given that the 'goals scored' still show Syria won 6-1 on aggregate and there is nothing to say this was later overturned. Deserter1 10:17, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is not about whether to use third-party sources. Everybody accepts that they should be used. It is about what match reports to be used as primary match reports in the match summaries. Some people are suggesting maybe use Soccerway, yet they are also fallible to errors. The UEFA reports are basically beyond dispute, so what is the problem of consistently using them for UEFA competition matches? Chanheigeorge (talk) 10:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I'm not misunderstanding the discussion, which is about whether to use match reports exclusively from the relevant football competition's governing body, or whether those from reliable third party sources are also acceptable. In my reading of your earlier comment, you argued that exclusive UEFA/FIFA match reports are preferable because they update their match reports with overturned results. For me, that isn't a strength; the above FIFA examples now state the aggregate score is simultaneously 6-0 to Tajikistan and 6-1 to Syria. This is confusing for those who aren't aware of the circumstances; so I think including a match report for the original scoreline, along with a referenced note to explain FIFA's later overturning of the two results, is the best solution. Deserter1 11:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the current setup at 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round#Syria v Tajikistan, with notes and all. I do not see any confusion. I also do not see where the FIFA reports says the aggregate score is 6-1 to Syria. You simply infer it by thinking that final score = total goals scored. However, the final score of a match is under the authority of the organization, as outlined by the regulations of the competition. Any match report that reports a final score different than the one stated by the organization, is simply, wrong. Chanheigeorge (talk) 12:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we are in agreement that a referenced supplementary note is necessary, that the match reports in themselves are not sufficient in themselves to avoid confusion on the final outcome of these matches. That was my argument; whether you link to the match reports from FIFA or Soccerway, a referenced explanation is required. Deserter1 talk 13:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The debate seems to have cooled down. Let's do a proposal to see if we have consensus. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I propose that:

Any reliable source can be used as a source for any information in this article. This specifically does not include the websites of the football clubs, and it specifically includes UEFA.com as the primary authority.
We prefer to use UEFA's official match reports for the match report links, if available.
We prefer to use soccerway for the attendance, if available, unless UEFA publishes attendance that differ from soccerway, in which case we use UEFA.

Support/Oppose

!Votes only, please, discussion below. Do *not* make new proposals or modify this proposal until we are done.

Support OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Kante4 (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Deserter1 11:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Brudder Andrusha (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Chanheigeorge (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sven Manguard Wha? 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Digirami (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Wiffleclaw (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Syjytg (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I support this as this is what has been done before, it is the current consensus and it is proven to be a working solution, and it is how the article looks now, so nothing needs doing. --OpenFuture (talk) 10:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As argued above, I don't agree that UEFA should have a monopoly on match reports, especially in circumstances where UEFA's report of a specific match lacks content and reliable third party sources offer a better alternative. Deserter1 11:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are really two sets of "reports" one can be talking about. One is basically the "raw information" report [18], i.e., date, time, venue, referees, lineup, goalscorers, goal times, substitutions, yellow/red cards, final score. The other is, I guess, some sort of "written" commentary of what happens [19]. If you are talking about the latter, of course the UEFA report is not the "definitive" source. However, if you are talking about the former, then I cannot see how another third-party source can be better. Chanheigeorge (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If UEFA's report actually lacks content, then it could be reasonable to use another one. Usually they don't, and they are also authoritative and neutral. The proposal therefore prefers them. So what in that don't you like? Should we prefer some other source? Should we have a one edit war per match? :-) --OpenFuture (talk) 12:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a free-for-all for match reports, then I click on the link for one match, out comes UEFA.com. Another match, out comes Soccerway. Another match, out comes BBC. To me that is absolutely nightmarish and amateurish. Why don't we just use different templates for each match, since one template should not have a monopoly? Chanheigeorge (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are better examples, but one I quoted earlier was Rangers 0-1 Malmo: BBC UEFA. Both are reliable, neutral sources. The BBC report includes all the raw data used in the article and an in-depth summary report with some analysis, all on one page. The UEFA report lacks one element of the raw data, the attendance, has a more basic summary of just over 200 words (under half the length of the BBC one), and requires navigation to several pages. So in that instance, if the BBC report was added to the article first, I don’t see why it should automatically be replaced with the UEFA report. I don’t agree that it is “nightmarish and amateurish” to use the source with the most useful/appropriate content. Deserter1 talk 13:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If a match report link contains information about the attendance, the attendance information in the footballinfobox will not need a reference. This will save many bytes of reiterated reference links which have ballooned this page and the Europa League qualification page to well over the WP recommended 50K bytes. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are talking about the raw, basic statistics of the match (those commonly found in report), again, nothing is better than the official. Rarely do we have to put a match in context. Let's be realistic... no one, if anyone, if going to insert a couple lines about a play-off round match, or any other match that isn't a final. But if you were, yes use any source possible to add context (prose). But, the match report link inside the footballbox would still the official report. Digirami (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely ignored what I've been saying. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. Have you ignored what WE have been saying? --OpenFuture (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I've heard you loud and clear. You've said (well not in words) that you're intractable and that the strong consensus at Use either UEFA or a third-party_match_report means nothing because it's not what you want. It's pathetic, it's sad, and this whole affair reflects poorly on you. I give up, I'm not going to make any headway, even though I have consensus behind me. Have fun pretending you won this. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:33, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion was not appropriate in isolation and falls under the auspices of WikiProject Football. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unlocking for today's matches

If an admin would be so kind as to unlock this page so that the results of the games that just ended can be recorded, that would be very nice.

I will not contest the use of UEFA sources while the discussion is ongoing, and won't touch the source/report section so there is no need to fear any edit wars.

Please note that this does not affect the ongoing discussion above, it's just that I'm concerned that we have the information up quickly, we can sort out the policy for future matches concurrently. Sven Manguard Wha? 20:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the edits to the two sections that should have been updated. I have made an edit request. If you do not have any problem with it, please co-sign it. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following two sections should be copied and pasted in full as replacements to the two sections labelled Teams and Play-off round respectively. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the sections a subsection of this request to clarify what is needed. These edits are non-controversial and can be comfortably added in. Note that you'll now have to remove one set of '==' from each heading. Cheers. --Pretty Green (talk) 11:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT FROM HERE:

Extended content

Teams

Below are the 54 teams (39 in Champions Route, 15 in League Route) involved in the qualifying phase and play-off round, grouped by their starting rounds.^[1] The 10 winners of the play-off round (5 in Champions Route, 5 in League Route) qualify for the group stage to join the 22 automatic qualifiers. The losing teams from the third qualifying round and the play-off round enter the Europa League play-off round and group stage respectively.

Key to colours
Qualified for the group stage
Eliminated in the play-off round; Advanced to the Europa League group stage
Eliminated in the third qualifying round; Advanced to the Europa League play-off round

Play-off round
Team	Coeff
League Route
Bayern Munich	118.887
Arsenal	108.157
Lyon	92.735
Villarreal	75.465
Udinese	27.110

Third qualifying round
Team	Coeff
Champions Route
Rangers	56.028
Copenhagen	51.110
Genk	8.400
League Route
Benfica	81.319
Dynamo Kyiv	60.776
Panathinaikos	57.833
Twente	41.025
Standard Liège	32.400
Rubin Kazan	31.941
Zürich	18.980
Odense	18.610
Trabzonspor ^†	12.010
Vaslui	10.164

Second qualifying round
Team	Coeff
Champions Route
BATE Borisov	23.216
Maccabi Haifa	21.400
Dinamo Zagreb	20.224
Rosenborg	19.375
Partizan	15.850
APOEL	13.124
Wisła Kraków	10.183
Sturm Graz	8.640
Litex Lovech	8.575
Slovan Bratislava	5.899
Viktoria Plzeň	5.170
Maribor	4.224
HJK Helsinki	3.793
Ekranas	3.541
Zestafoni	2.891
Malmö FF	2.825
Shamrock Rovers	2.741
Dacia Chişinău	2.549
Pyunik	2.516
Borac Banja Luka	2.324
Mogren	2.275
Skonto	2.233
Videoton	2.200
Bangor City	2.058
HB Tórshavn	1.783
Linfield	1.699
Tobol Kostanay	1.624
Flora Tallinn	1.508
Breiðablik	1.491
Neftchi Baku	1.233
Škendija	1.041
Skënderbeu Korçë	0.774

First qualifying round
Team	Coeff
Champions Route
F91 Dudelange	1.524
Valletta	1.483
FC Santa Coloma	1.200
Tre Fiori	1.183

^† Trabzonspor also qualified for the group stage after they replaced Fenerbahçe, which was suspended by the Turkish Football Federation on 24 August 2011 from participating in the 2011–12 UEFA Champions League due to the ongoing investigation into match-fixing.^[2]

Play-off round

Seeding

Champions Route		League Route
Seeded	Unseeded	Seeded	Unseeded
Copenhagen BATE Borisov Maccabi Haifa Dinamo Zagreb APOEL	Wisła Kraków Sturm Graz Genk Viktoria Plzeň Malmö FF	Bayern Munich Arsenal Lyon Benfica Villarreal	Twente Rubin Kazan Udinese Zürich Odense

Matches

Team 1	Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score	Team 2	1st leg	2nd leg
Champions Route
Wisła Kraków	2–3	APOEL	1–0	1–3
Maccabi Haifa	3–3 (1–4p)	Genk	2–1	1–2 (aet)
Dinamo Zagreb	4–3	Malmö FF	4–1	0–2
Copenhagen	2–5	Viktoria Plzeň	1–3	1–2
BATE Borisov	3–1	Sturm Graz	1–1	2–0
League Route
Odense	1–3	Villarreal	1–0	0–3
Twente	3–5	Benfica	2–2	1–3
Arsenal	3–1	Udinese	1–0	2–1
Bayern Munich	3–0	Zürich	2–0	1–0
Lyon	4–2	Rubin Kazan	3–1	1–1

First leg

16 August 2011