Talk:2018–19 UEFA Champions League
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018–19 UEFA Champions League article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 60 days  |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Defending champions
[edit]PeeJay2k3, what is the issue with my edit? Why do you feel it's okay to highlight content about the previous winners who had become largely irrelevant to this year's competition? Ae245 (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Because the fate of the defending champions (usually the favourites going into the following season's competition) is indeed relevant. Why do you think it is necessary to add information about the semi-finals to the lead section? – PeeJay 08:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- The semi-finals were a big part of this competition and it's not written anywhere else in this article so might as well put it in the lead. Keeping the info about the defending champions overshadows the fact about the current champions which makes this article not impartial. The sentence about the final is another thing, it's about the final not the winners. I think a part about the winners should also be written if we're going to keep the Real Madrid part. Ae245 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- How does it overshadow the winners of this competition? It's a single sentence at the bottom of the section, whereas there is a whole paragraph about the winners of this season's competition and the consequences of their win. Yes, the semi-finals were a big part of the competition, but so were the quarter-finals, the round of 16 and the group stage; where would you draw the line, and how would you justify that decision? Anyway, I've had a play about with the lead section, which was indeed in a bit of a state. – PeeJay 09:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- It looks better now and I added the semi-final thing to stabilize the article so it wouldn't look like the top section is all about the final, but I don't mind if it's not added. I didn't add the quarter-finalists because they were too many. Anyways I don't see any harm in adding a small sentence about "Liverpool becoming champions" (right before Real Madrid so it doesn't appear that Real Madrid's past achievements are more significant than Liverpool winning it this time), I understand you may think the part about the final incorporates that but why not add another for something like this that is very important? Ae245 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- Because we have to assume that the reader is going to read the full section. What you're suggesting would read to me as something similar to "Liverpool won the title. Oh, by the way, did you forget, Liverpool won the title..." – PeeJay 15:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- It's just you because writing about the final and the winners are two different things. But whatever, it's not that important. Happy new year and decade. Ae245 (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- The "decade" starts a year from now (there was no year 0). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- While there may not have been a year 0, this is still the first day of the 2020s, which makes it a new decade. It just means the decade including 1–9 AD had only nine years in it. H2H. – PeeJay 09:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- By your definition, I could say that 1964–1973 was a decade and be correct as well then. Yet it is not. Just because people like to to think that zeros should start a new decade does not make it so, even if the media have promoted that idea. By definition, a decade has ten years, a century has one hundred, and a millennium has a thousand. But this is not on-topic for this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's called the 2020s. Yesterday we weren't in it, today we are; let's leave it at that. Cheers. – PeeJay 18:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand that it is incorrectly called that. The 2010s ends at the end of 2020. Just because it has a 20 in it has clearly confused you and billions of others. No year zero and all that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've heard some nonsense from you during our time on this website, but that's pretty close to taking the cake. Thank you for a hearty belly laugh on this cold morning. See 2020s. – PeeJay 07:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is not nonsense. I've heard some ignorant dismissive nonsenese from you, and this is par for the course. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're labouring under a misapprehension (likewise, par for the course). How can 2020 be in the 2010s? It doesn't make sense. If you were talking about the 202nd/203rd decade since the change from BCE to CE, you might be right, but we're talking about the 2010s/2020s. The 2010s ended the moment the clocks turned to 00:00:00 on 1 January 2020. Your argumentum ad absurdum above regarding the "decade" between 1964 and 1973 doesn't change that. – PeeJay 12:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- You've consumed the opiate of the masses while I am using an accurate, although unpopular calculation. Die happy (if not ignorant) my friend. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- I simply don't understand how you can be so wrong and not realise it. Oh well, mind how you go. – PeeJay 18:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- Not wrong, just opposed to the common misunderstanding. Oh well, enjoy the Kool-Aid. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- I simply don't understand how you can be so wrong and not realise it. Oh well, mind how you go. – PeeJay 18:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- You've consumed the opiate of the masses while I am using an accurate, although unpopular calculation. Die happy (if not ignorant) my friend. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- You're labouring under a misapprehension (likewise, par for the course). How can 2020 be in the 2010s? It doesn't make sense. If you were talking about the 202nd/203rd decade since the change from BCE to CE, you might be right, but we're talking about the 2010s/2020s. The 2010s ended the moment the clocks turned to 00:00:00 on 1 January 2020. Your argumentum ad absurdum above regarding the "decade" between 1964 and 1973 doesn't change that. – PeeJay 12:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
- This is not nonsense. I've heard some ignorant dismissive nonsenese from you, and this is par for the course. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've heard some nonsense from you during our time on this website, but that's pretty close to taking the cake. Thank you for a hearty belly laugh on this cold morning. See 2020s. – PeeJay 07:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- I understand that it is incorrectly called that. The 2010s ends at the end of 2020. Just because it has a 20 in it has clearly confused you and billions of others. No year zero and all that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's called the 2020s. Yesterday we weren't in it, today we are; let's leave it at that. Cheers. – PeeJay 18:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- By your definition, I could say that 1964–1973 was a decade and be correct as well then. Yet it is not. Just because people like to to think that zeros should start a new decade does not make it so, even if the media have promoted that idea. By definition, a decade has ten years, a century has one hundred, and a millennium has a thousand. But this is not on-topic for this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- While there may not have been a year 0, this is still the first day of the 2020s, which makes it a new decade. It just means the decade including 1–9 AD had only nine years in it. H2H. – PeeJay 09:23, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- The "decade" starts a year from now (there was no year 0). Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's just you because writing about the final and the winners are two different things. But whatever, it's not that important. Happy new year and decade. Ae245 (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
- Because we have to assume that the reader is going to read the full section. What you're suggesting would read to me as something similar to "Liverpool won the title. Oh, by the way, did you forget, Liverpool won the title..." – PeeJay 15:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- It looks better now and I added the semi-final thing to stabilize the article so it wouldn't look like the top section is all about the final, but I don't mind if it's not added. I didn't add the quarter-finalists because they were too many. Anyways I don't see any harm in adding a small sentence about "Liverpool becoming champions" (right before Real Madrid so it doesn't appear that Real Madrid's past achievements are more significant than Liverpool winning it this time), I understand you may think the part about the final incorporates that but why not add another for something like this that is very important? Ae245 (talk) 09:34, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- How does it overshadow the winners of this competition? It's a single sentence at the bottom of the section, whereas there is a whole paragraph about the winners of this season's competition and the consequences of their win. Yes, the semi-finals were a big part of the competition, but so were the quarter-finals, the round of 16 and the group stage; where would you draw the line, and how would you justify that decision? Anyway, I've had a play about with the lead section, which was indeed in a bit of a state. – PeeJay 09:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
- The semi-finals were a big part of this competition and it's not written anywhere else in this article so might as well put it in the lead. Keeping the info about the defending champions overshadows the fact about the current champions which makes this article not impartial. The sentence about the final is another thing, it's about the final not the winners. I think a part about the winners should also be written if we're going to keep the Real Madrid part. Ae245 (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Record of Ajax
[edit]Ajax (18) recorded APOEL (16, 2011/2012) Metufit (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2022 (UTC)