Talk:2012–13 UEFA Champions League

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 June 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

	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.

Macedonia/FYROM

About the association rankings table: May I ask if there is a wikipedia policy that supports the use of Macedonia over FYROM at "ALL" times? Because as far as UEFA and the EU are concerned there is no Football Federation of Macedonia, but there is in fact a Football Federation of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia.[1] Similarly there is no country called Macedonia for the European Union, hence I find it is not appropriate for this article to list said country by that name. Since this may be a hot topic I won't change the article right away, but I want to hear others' thoughts on this. Klinthar 23:07, 6 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klinthar (talk • contribs)

unsourced assumption

The arrival of the announcement of the venue for the final saved to article from deletion, but the fact remains that the majority of the content is based on assumption that the tournament will be run in the same way as it has been in previous years, an assumption that UEFA has said nothing to justify. Suggest that the opening paragraph is the only secure sourced information. The table of co-efficients (but not the column about how many teams' participation that secures) is probably accurate, and I wouldn't argue too hard for removal of that, but it is a private calculation, and not a RS. It seems remiss of UEFA not to have let us know the format, when some qualifying events are already underway, and all will be soon, but that does not give us grounds to make unsupported assumptions. Kevin McE (talk) 08:51, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

done Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, please edit 2018 FIFA World Cup and 2022 FIFA World Cup articles, which states that Russia and Qatar have qualified as hosts, based purely on the unsoruced assumption that the "hosts will qualify automatically" rule will remain the same in these future World Cups as the regulations have not been published. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

England note

I'm going to remove the note on Manchester United already having qualified. If they finish 4th and Chelsea finish below them but win the 2011–12 UEFA Champions League - a remote but still mathematically possible outcome - they will not qualify. Guest9999 (talk) 20:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia note

For details on why FC Zenit Saint Petersburg qualified already, see Talk:2011–12 Russian Premier League. Geregen2 (talk) 19:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 26 April 2012

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

If Chelsea wins the Title Holder spot but then qualifies 4th in domestic league competition (therefore going into the group stage and eliminating the 4th place England postion in the playoff round (non-champions) two teams are moved up from the third qualifying round (non-champions) to the playoff round (non-champions). On the surface this doesn't seem to make sense (using two teams to replace one eliminated position).

The reason is that if only one team were to move up from the third qualifying round (non-champions) to replace the vacated 4th England spot it would leave only 9 teams in the third qualifying round (non-champions). Since normally the winners of the third qualifying round (non-champions) - 5 winners from 10 - are drawn with the 5 teams entering at the playoff round (non-champions) an even number of teams must be maintained in the third qualifying round (non-champions) for the draw. However, since the third qualifying round (non-champions) is the first round where non-champions enter the competition, a team from an earlier qualification round cannot be moved up to maintain an even number of teams in the third qualifying round (non-champions). Instead two teams are moved up to the playoff round (non-champions) in order to maintain an even number of teams in the third qualifying round (non-champions). This results in 4 winners from 8 in the third qualifying round (non-champions) being drawn against 6 teams entering the competition at the playoff round (non-champions).

Mlangner (talk) 00:44, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but none of this is sourced. Please provide reliable sources for your recommended changes. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Italian qualified teams

Milan and Juventus willwoosh end up in The first 2 positions of The serie a, therefore they are already qualified to the group stage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.51.236.184 (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are already listed there, they both listed since Sunday.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 17:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 30 April 2012

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

Porto are champions and benfica are qualified for the group stage

84.91.129.168 (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Porto are indeed Portuguese champions; this has already been added to the article. As for Benfica, they can still be caught by Sporting Braga; hence they have not been listed as qualified for a specific round. However, they have already qualified for the tournament, as you can see at the bottom of section 1.3. Therefore, there is no need to further edit the article at the moment. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FC Bayern Munich

IMHO there is a certain Wednesday in November, where the FCB can't play a home game. --84.61.149.75 (talk) 20:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about seeding

Hi, I was wondering about the seedings for the qualification round. The article says that, for example, in the third qulification round the winner of the match involving Basel will be seeded; let's suppose that in the second round Basel plays against Ulisses from Armenia and looses. Would that mean that, depsite having one of the lowest coefficients of the participating teams Ulisses would be seeded due to the fact that they left out a team with a higher coefficient? or would the original coefficient be respected and the worst ranked teams would remains on the unseeded pots?--Pencho15 (talk) 00:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your assumption is correct: "Unseeded teams in the 2nd qualifying round that qualify for the next round take effectively the coefficient of their opponent in the next round. The reason for this is that the draw for the 3rd qualifying round is made before the results of the 2nd qualifying round are known. " -Koppapa (talk) 10:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rangers

Since Rangers no longer exist, should they be referred to in the past tense here? Unreal7 (talk) 22:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they still exist or not, and in what form is trying to be established in other bits of Wikipedia. I don't know what precisely you mean by "no longer exist" as that is a little ambiguos. But if you are interested in being part of the discussion you can contribute at the Rangers F.C. or Newco Rangers talk page, or at Talk:WikiProject Football in the relevant threads. Thanks Adam4267 (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paris Saint Germain

How is it possible for PSG to end in pot 4 for the group stage draw? As I understand it, that would only happen if all the 7 teams with a higher coefficent than them manage to qualify for the group stage. But that is not possible since 5 of the teams are competing in the non-champions path, where there are only four tickets to the group stage. Hence, it is mathematically impossible for Braga, Kyiv, Panathinaikos, Copenhagen and Spartak Moscow all to qualify, and therefore PSG are guaranteed a pot 3 seeding? Regards Maracana (talk) 07:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with "there are only four tickets to the group stage"? That's not true. All five winners from play-off round will advance to the group stage. So, if Kyiv, Panathinaikos and Copenhagen all win their respective third round ties, then there is a chance of Braga, Kyiv, Panathinaikos, Copenhagen and Spartak Moscow to play in different play-off ties and therefore to qualify for the group stage.89.7.243.236 (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Location map

What about adding a location map of clubs participating in the group stage on this page or 2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage? I have made one with groups A to D and one with groups E to H in my user sandbox. --Starkmania (talk) 11:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template

Yesterday and this morning I started to create some Template for all the groups' standings and all the matches of this edition of CL. Someone on my talk said that it is used in the past and why start now, someone said that for him is ok to do 3 edits instead of 1 and the CL is a annual championship instead the Olympics are no. So I can't understand neither reason because why we can't improve Wikipedia with new tools? What is the problem to create this template every years? If you update this with one edit you can update something else with the other two edits? So there is someone that think the template will be useful?-- Stigni (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with those templates as they allow to make just 1 edit instead of, like mentioned. You don't need to update every page then with a goal/result added, just do it once and it's ok. So, i have yet to see a valid reason against it... Kante4 (talk) 17:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me to use templates.Jowaninpensans (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The templates for the group tables were really useful, so I think they should be kept. Not sure if any other templates were in use, but I don't think there should be; stick to the group tables. – Pee Jay 19:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then, why not? We are talking about those, who can be edited there and show up on the group stage and the two team articles without editing it on those 3 pages, too. Kante4 (talk) 20:12, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The footballbox template shouldn't be used on club season articles, that's why. – Pee Jay 20:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But it is, or? Any why should it not be used? Kante4 (talk) 20:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's ugly and provides more information than it needs to. We don't need to provide every single piece of info on every page, and the club season articles should be kept specifically for stats and info relating to the club. See 2012-13 Manchester United F.C. season. – Pee Jay 13:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right because it is the standard form for a club season but a it miss a lot of useful info like who is booked, the referee, penalty miss or the progression of the score. If for anyone is a problem I rebuilt the standings' template and we continue to discuss about the matches' template.--Stigni (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The standings template should be back for sure. Maybe some other editors can express their opinions of the matches template? Kante4 (talk) 21:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the template linking to the season articles and not the club itself. -Koppapa (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is not the AC Milan playing the 2012-13 CL but it is the 2012-13 AC Milan, so I would prefer to link the team season; it isn't the history of the club of play but Ambrosini &C. in 2012-13. So I think we would change all the link to the the AC Milan to 2012-13 AC Milan season except the table of the qualify team. But if you think I'm wrong I will change the link on the Template Stigni (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Think I'll weigh in my with opinion here. These templates are completely pointless. Yes they may save time updating the tables, but come December they will be obsolete. So, is there really any point in having them when they are not solving any issue and will not be used after December? NapHit (talk) 21:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tie-breaking criteria

The tie-breaking criteria are applied consistently in a wrong fashion in the group phase tables. E.g. Donetsk should be ahead of Chelsea in group E. They have equal points in matches between each other (3), have the same goal difference in matches between each other (0), have shot the same number of goals in matches between each other (4), yet Donetsk has shot 2 goals at Chelsea while Chelsea has shot only 1 goal in Donetsk. This makes Donetsk the group leader. The total goal difference simply does not enter at this point. Similarly, Munich should be on first place in group F since they have beaten Valencia. Goal difference is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.2.61.74 (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One can argue both ways. The UEFA regulations state specifically tie-breakers are only applied after completion of the group stage. In the end it doesn't matter anyway. -Koppapa (talk) 19:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attendances

There is a section on attendance records. When I first saw it I thought it was rather trivial. The values are referenced, but the section is making its first appearance in a UEFA Champions League article. Since it has been in the article for about two months and it has achieved consensus by silence. It's even gone unnoticed by some of those editors now wanting to remove it (see here as an example). I have no problems with its removal and would like to see some reasons given for inclusion or strong support to exclude them before making a decision on this topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:34, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See arguments at Talk:2012–13 UEFA Europa League#Attendances. Also, what are we trying to prove by including attendances? Isn't it just a back-patting exercise for the bigger clubs, or those with larger stadiums? The long and the short of it is, what do attendances have to do with the competition itself? By the way, the burden of evidence is on you if you want to put content in the article; please remove it until we come to a decision. – Pee Jay 22:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different opinion. I think, these data are useful. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just say you think it's useful without providing an explanation. – Pee Jay 15:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a different opinion because... these data are useful. This is the explanation. So, what explanation do you need? Also, sections of On this day... or In the news in the main page of Wikipedia is also useful and do not need more explanation. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is useful? What makes the information pertinent? – Pee Jay 01:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he can say that the data are useful without explanation, but it doesn't appear to carry any more weight than someone coming along with the weak counter-argument: "I think the section isn't useful." Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How can be possible that for 5 matches on 5 the Bayern had 68.000 attendance? For that number sound rounded so how we can do a average on a rounded, not sourced number? It is like "Highest attendance" on the League's pages (E.g. 2012–13 Fußball-Bundesliga where Bayer had sold out for 9 matches on 15 so that is the maximum. No one was sick? Illogic). That number say the ticket sold and not number of people in the stadium so is not the real attendance, but a realistic one. So we do an average on realistic numbers? So as I said I oppose these table. Stigni (talk) 07:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My (long) two cents: a statistic or a ranking should be included in a page if it is widely reported and used, otherwise we can regard this statistic as trivia. Top scorers of a competition (league or cup) is widely reported. Top assists, as long as it is collected by official sources, is also gaining popularity in recent years. Other stats such as passes completed, even though collected by official sources (e.g. UEFA), are not so much reported and used for various reasons. For example, we often see news reports saying something like "Xavi has 3 goals and 5 assists in this season's UCL", but not so much "Xavi has 3 goals, 5 assists and completes 3040500 passes in this season's UCL". As for attendances, in a league competition, a ranking of which team has the highest and lowest attendances are often reported, say Manchester United has the highest and Wigan Athletic has the lowest in EPL, mainly because the teams play the same number of home games and are somewhat comparable in size and background. In a cup competition, this comparison is rarely reported (of course any organization is well within their rights to make this comparison as long as they have official figures), because the teams play different (and also a relative small) number of home games, and have very different size and background, say in the FA Cup we have teams from Manchester United to Mansfield Town, so it kind of makes this comparison almost irrelevant. If editors are comparing the home attendances of Manchester United in league, cup, and Europe in the page 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season, I am okay with it because the three numbers are comparable, but I just do not see much to gain in comparing attendances across different teams in a continental competition. Chanheigeorge (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To answer Stigni question, they sold the tickets and that's how they count attendance. I also suspect that even if someone were to be sick, they would drag themselves to the match or sell the ticket. I doubt that a single seat would be empty. Many franchises that have sold-out their facilities have long waiting lists and a market for last-minute tickets.

It seems that consensus is to remove. Unless we have any further objections, the "statistics" should be removed by the weekend. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:23, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012–13 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%3D2013/accesslist/index.html
Added archive https://archive.is/20120710233725/http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/qual2012.html to http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/qual2012.html
Added archive https://archive.is/20121220104741/http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/seedcl2012.html to http://www.xs4all.nl/~kassiesa/bert/uefa/seedcl2012.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: 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) 06:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Finalists

On the #final section of the page, for some reason the home team is stated to be Real Madrid, which is obviously wrong - just 3 lines above you can read (correctly) that they were eliminated by Borussia Dortmund in the semi-final, not to mention there is a link to the official match report from uefa.com that verifies Dortmund were indeed the other finalist, and faced Bayern. The home team's only goal was indeed scored in the 68th minute and with a penalty - of course not by Cristiano Ronaldo (who played for Real Madrid), but rather Ilkay Gündogan. The page about the final itself also has the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyras (talk • contribs) 17:05, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the incorrect content was added earlier today. I've restored the correct version. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]