Talk:2011 UEFA Champions League final

Football: England / Spain / Manchester United Low‑importance

	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.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Spanish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as Low-importance).

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wembley double-booked

TimesOnline article Not sure if this is relevant to this article or just the 2011 Football League play-off articles (not yet created). --Jameboy (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly is relevant to this article, I reckon. I'll see what I can get written about it. – Pee Jay 21:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Final referee

Who is the referee for the final? Velociraptor888 15:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? The match isn't even going to be played until May! We won't know the referee until a few days before the final! – Pee Jay 01:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time zone

This article deals with a single match being played in Britain. For that reason, I think we only need to display the kick-off time in the British Summer Time time zone. – Pee Jay 10:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy to not display the time of other time zones or is it just tradition? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not policy, it's just unnecessary. We can't put in different time zones indiscriminately, so where do we draw the line? I would say that where there is a definite association with a specific time zone, there's no need to mention any others. – Pee Jay 15:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The remainder of the articles display Central European time so I think it's just for the sake of consistency that it be added here. However I agree with your position that if one time is displayed that another doesn't need to be. I always pref displaying local time. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The thing about the other Champions League articles is that they cover events that took place all the way across the European time zones, from Iceland to Turkey, and it would be a bit confusing to keep changing the time zone the kick-off times were given in, so we settled on the neutral Central European Time zone. – Pee Jay 16:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded lead?

Some issues:

The kick-off time is irrelevant to the lead section.
If the referee has not yet been decided, why even bother mentioning that fact? The referee only needs mentioning once he has been selected.
It is irrelevant to mention that the winning team will receive the European Champion Clubs' Cup as that trophy is awarded every year. It's not like a different trophy is being awarded this year.
The venue of the 2009 final is irrelevant to an article about the 2011 final. In fact, even the scoreline is a bit OTT. We only really need to mention that Barcelona won it. Save the details for the main body of the article.
The same goes for each of the finalists' opponents in the knockout stage. Those details are not required in the lead section. I'm in the process of writing the "Road to Wembley" section now, so be patient.
Finally, is it really worth mentioning - at this stage - that the two teams are on top of their respective leagues? Why not wait until the weekend (or tonight if Barcelona beat Levante) and just say that both teams go into the CL final as champions of their respective leagues? Oh, and it's even more irrelevant to say that neither team won any cup competitions this year. Why bother? The omission of that fact should be enough to suggest that no cup competitions were won. – PeeJay 17:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's hardly a major intrusion to the flow, and see below on the general principle.
- Why waste the time of readers who might be coming here to find out who the ref is, and were not finding anything at all? It's simply good practice to affirmatively note he hasn't been named yet, given the way Wikipedia works, until he's actually named.
- It's the whole purpose of this game, to decide who gets that trophy. Why wouldn't we mention it? Why wouldn't we link to the trophy article? I cannot get my head round this logic at all
- It's hardly a major intrusion to the flow, and see below on the general principle.
- I don't see a very minimal list of the 3 teams they beat in the knockout stage as an unreasonable level of summary of the main section on the route to the final. The lede is there to summarise all major parts, and that's a major part.
- See below on the general principle. On the domestic cups, I can't say I'm fussed. If people agree it's so unnotable, it can go. I thought it was worth noting given prospect of the double/treble always surrounds these matches.

PeeJay2K3, I think you need to take a step back and realise this article is written for all readers, not just people with a pretty good knowledge of football. While a complete lack of football knowledge is not assumed (would be daft), as a general rule, any article is pitched at a level of assuming ignorance of the topic directly below the level of the article - therefore in this case, the competition itself. And that applies to the lede every bit as much as the main. In the lede, we assume people don't know things like the fact the venue moves country every year (especially if telling them its a repeat of a previous final), or that it's an evening game, or that they are playing for the European Cup, etc, etc. It's the same logic behind the reason why we don't start the article off with The 2011 UEFA Champions League Final is between Man U and Barcelona on ....'. In addition, Wikipedia is a live resource. People are reading it now. It does absolutley no harm to affirmatively note the real time current situation like league standings, the referee, etc, and it's the basic functionality of the wiki that if/when these things change, they can be updated. MickMacNee (talk) 18:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, remember that this is a guaranteed ITN link, and as such, it's not safe to assume people come here from related articles at all. If people click here from the Main Page and find that they have to go opening 5 or 10 other articles just to be able to understand the lede, the supposed accessible summary of the main detail, then Wikipedia is not doing it's job properly. MickMacNee (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a candidate for ITN soon, but that's no excuse to add every single fact you can find to the lead section. The lead section is supposed to be a summary of the entire article, and to my mind, the kick-off time and each team's entire progression through the tournament belongs lower down in the article, not in the lead. By all means mention who each team played in the semi-finals, but to list their R16 and QF opponents as well just seems OTT. After all, there will be other info to include in the lead once the game has been played. At this time, it seems like you're just adding stuff because you think the lead seems a little light on content. – Pee Jay 20:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding it because it's fair game summary and/or key contextual material for readers not overly familiar with the topic, imho. I think for example that in the knockout phase, the R16 opponent has just as much chance of stopping them reaching the final as the SF, so cannot image why you'd only mention one as a significant summary of the path to the final main content (while of course the group/seeding aspect makes the group opponents less significant and justifiably not worthy of mentioning). But let's see what anyone else thinks.... MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Score updates removed

I, and other editors, were trying to update the article with accurate, verifiable facts.

This was removed with false claims re. WP:RECENTISM - which is not a policy, not a guideline, but an essay. Even then, 'recentism' talks of;

Articles overburdened with documenting controversy as it happens - a score is hardly 'over-burdened'
Articles created on flimsy, transient merits. - not applicable, of course
The muddling or diffusion of the timeless facets of a subject, previously recognized by Wikipedia consensus. - not applicable

There is no disputing that RS exist to verify the score right now.

Is there some objection to editors wishing to add verifiable facts to Wikipedia?

Please reinstate the current scoreline of 3-1, with {{mip}} to denote an ongoing match. Ref, if necessary, e.g. [1]. Thanks. Chzz ► 20:19, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a longstanding policy in the Wikipedia Football group to not update scores live, but there are a handful of editors, such as yourself, who don't wish to follow this policy. If you want to follow it live, there are sites for that. Wikipedia should not be one of them. Save it for fulltime. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show me this policy, thanks. Chzz ► 20:26, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the archives at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And in what way is that a policy?

I really don't understand any rationale behind this. Recently (haha), Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) updated the article on Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge the very moment she said "I do" [2] - and was widely congratulated for doing so.

Why are you able to invent your own 'policy', which seems to contravene core policies regarding the removal of verifiable information with a reliable source - even going as far as to call it 'vandalism' ? Chzz ► 20:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't invent the policy. Sorry that you didn't read the comment in the archive. It directly related to this situation. Match is over. Move on and understand what the football group is trying to achieve rather than imposing your own opinions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please either show me where a policy supports your actions - or, apologize, accept that it is not policy, and state you will not repeat it in future.

For the record, here: I also raised this concern (re. calling this 'vandalism', abuse of rollback) on User talk:Walter Görlitz [3] but that was disregarded [4]. Chzz ► 20:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see the policy, go to the football group and ask for it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a live scoreboard, and should not be used for that purpose. People who instantly add any goal should seriously consider if an encyclopedic project is the right venue for their particular type of motivation. I wouldn't even argue with WP:RECENT, it's just a matter of course. Big children who treat an encyclopedia like a live scoreboard should not be tolerated. --87.78.51.122 (talk) 20:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with anon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please show a policy, or at the least, guidelines, to support your claims. Thanks. Chzz ► 20:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult me by trying to wikilawyer your way out of this. Just acknowledge and accept that keeping live scores is a childish pastime, far removed from any truly encyclopedic ambitions. --87.78.51.122 (talk) 20:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely disagree, and I recent the accusations that I am childish. Discouraging users from editing Wikipedia, in adding verifiable, reliably-sourced information, is against our "encyclopaedic ambitions". You seem unable to cite any policy or guideline to support your stance - I suspect that is because there is none. So again; I ask you (both) to accept policy and guidelines, and acknowledge that removal of the information was an error, was not in line with policies and guidelines, and will not be repeated. Thanks, Chzz ► 20:59, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want the policy, go to the football group and ask for it. I showed you the discussion where it was claimed that the policy exists. Someone must know. It's either written or informal. In either case, those edits are against the groups consensus and if you wish to change that, you should bring up valid reasons at the project page, not here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to seek consensus to refute a policy which you cannot show exists. Chzz ► 21:05, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 52#.22Live scores.22 or not.3F "Scoreboard-like updates are usually discouraged per WP:RECENT, however this policy is hard to apply in this case because of too many people, usually IPs, following the match(es). So unless semi-protection is applied, there is not much we can do about it." Take it up with WikiProject Football. If you can't or won't, I can't help you. If you think my actions were incorrect, report me. If you think the policy is bad, take it to WikiProject Football. I will not bring the project here to debate you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above - WP:RECENT is an essay, not a policy. Chzz ► 21:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion. As stated above, take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football if you have a problem with it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rooneys goal was hardly in the corner. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.203.45.254 (talk) 12:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barcelona formation misshap

The image shows Villa in the centre with Pedro on the left wing and Messi on the right. The correct positions are Messi in the centre, Villa on the left (right from image perspective) and Pedro on the right (left from image perspective). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601andrew (talk • contribs) 22:21, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil Broadcast

In Brazil the game was broadcasted by Rede Globo.--Marceloml (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rivales importantes de Europa

Hola Soy Sebastián Alfaro de la República de Chile en Santiago de Chile, yo pienso que el F.C. Barcelona y el Manchester United Football Club son unos de los equipos históricos de sus ligas como el FC Barcelona uno de los maximos ganadores con el Real Madrid C.F. y el Manchester United F.C. uno de los máximos ganadores superando al Liverpool, pero el equipo de España FC Barcelona cada vez se caracteriza de ahora de mañana en el fútbol europeo. 190.160.213.10 (talk) 04:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background

The sub heading 'Background' is misleading, as it is not the background to the Final, which is what this article is about, but backround of Wembley Stadium. Surely the info contained could be put in the 'Venue' section, or re name the section 'Venue Background' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.32.135.162 (talk) 08:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fans Man of the Match

Is this for real? I can't find any information about it on the UEFA website or through a quick google search, and I find it hard to believe Rooney would have won it if it did exist. I'm not removing it because the UEFA man of the match doesn't have a reference either and I assume that's legit, but I think the Fans one definitely needs verifying. BulbaThor (talk) 12:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references for both MOTM awards, except it turns out that Messi was the player rated the highest by fans. Unsurprising really, since most fans tend to vote for the player they like the best, not the player who actually played the best during the game (which was Xavi, IMO). – Pee Jay 13:58, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester's second kit

I would like to ask if someone knows why Manchester played with their second kits (white shirt, black pants). In football matches in neutral venues (such as this final) where teams are neither 'local' nor 'visitor' the rule usually applied, as far as I know, is that the oldest team keeps its first colours. Manchester United was founded before FC Barcelona, so it's strange to me that they played in white. Any idea? 138.100.210.52 (talk) 18:46, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

During the draw for the quarterfinals and semifinals, UEFA holds a draw to determine which team (“winner of semifinal 1” or “winner of semifinal 2”) will be the home team for ceremonial purposes, including kit colours, in the final. 76.183.58.192 (talk) 17:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 UEFA Champions League Final. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111018191329/http://www.ekta-led.com/news/itm/527/ to http://www.ekta-led.com/news/itm/527/

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 UEFA Champions League Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1993 UEFA Champions League Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]