This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to the2007–08 UEFA Cup article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofAssociation football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Yeah, I think it's about time we added some tables for seedings and geographical region. It'd shorten it up a bit and include more info. I have an exam tomorrow so I can't do it right now. :DAheyfromhome22:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the CL article I originally put them in order by country ranking, but they were changed to seeding order by another user, it may not look very nice but I realised it's more informative. In any case, if you insist on ordering them by country, shouldn't the countries be in order of country ranking rather than alphabetical? -MTC18:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be clear which teams have won on away goals and NEEDS to be stated which teams won on penalties. Just having (a) or (p) next to the overall result does not say which teams progress. OK, you can work out who goes through on away goal rule, but it not clear for teams progressing on penalties--Fridge4618:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK 80 clubs will be playing first round on the knock-out basis and the remaining 40 will form eight groups with five teams each.84.28.167.7016:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)LeftMaestro[reply]
2 UEFA has expelled Partizan from UEFA Cup 2007-08 due to crowd trouble at their away tie inMostar, which forced the match to be interrupted for 10 minutes. UEFA ajudged travelling Partizan fans to have been the culprits of the trouble.[1], but Partizan are allowed to play the return leg while appeal is undergoing.[2] However, Partizan's appeal was rejected so Zrinjski Mostar qualified.[3]
They lost the Scottish Cup final to Celtic last season, which gives them a UEFA Cup place as Celtic are in the Champions League. -MTC05:21, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They will be the last runners up to participate in the Uefa Cup from Scotland as the Scottish FA will in future award this place (if the winners have already qualified for Europe) to the next highest placed team in the Premier League following the dissapoiting performances of The Pars this year, Gretna last year and other SFA Cup runners up in years gone by.Statto7411:51, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the winner of the domestic cup qualifies for the UEFA Champions League, the domestic cup runner-up may qualify for the UEFA Cup.
Note it say "may qualify", not "will qualify", this implies it's the decision of either the SFA or the cup runner-up. The SFA are assuming it's their decision. -MTC05:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We'll have to see what teams from the CL group stage come to the play-offs here, but if you only go on fame and old glory Munchen ofc feels like the strongest team. But there's bound to be some upsets ;)Chandlertalk12:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The UEFA Cup has always been a hard comp to win as essentially the clubs have under performed the year before, as Bayern have here, also they have spent very heavily to make sure they don't fail to qualify for the Champions League the next season.Statto7413:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"under performed" is not the right words especially not for the lower ranking leagues, maybe for top teams of Europe its a disappointment to miss the CL, but its everything but a disappointment for some teams just to get to the Group stages here.Chandlertalk13:56, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the number rounded? On soccernet and bbc.co.uk it says it's 10,000 on here it says 8,000. Is there no source for the correct attendance?Govvy13:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand whyAheyfromhome removed the explanation about the thick green lines - I can't see them either. I was going to remove that explanation myself once, but I saw the source code and understood that they should be there. They show up fine onOpera, butInternet Explorer, the browser I usually use, doesn't show them for some reason...Artyom (talk • contribs)08:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The name of the club in the template{{UEFA Cup 2007-08}}. It should be Crvena Zvezda according to notable English language news media and the official UEFA competition site.
If you didnt know Crvena zvezda means Red Star before you read it, you wouldnt understand, so i think Red Star should be used so everyone understandsChandlertalk09:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Crvena Zvezda should stay. Because, for example, by the same logic Turkish club Galatasaray stays as it is, and is not translated to Galata Castle. And Beşiktaş playing in Champions League is not translated to Cradle Rock.Artyom (talk • contribs)15:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't translate "Galatasaray" to "Galata Castle" or "Beşiktaş" to "Cradle Rock" because those clubs' English websites use the names "Galatasaray" and "Beşiktaş" respectively to refer to the teams. However, we probably should moveGalatasaray S.K. toGalatasaray S.C., as the club refers to themselves as "Galatasaray Sports Club", and last time I checked, "Club" didn't start with a "K". –PeeJay00:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same BBC Sport site you listed has Bolton playing Red Star Belgrade (instead of Crvena Zvezda) in theirUEFA Cup Group F match preview, though. I would think that they probably put it there for clarification sakes, but I'm not one to argue as to whether a team should be listed under the names they go under in UEFA cup competitions.Miss kat (talk)20:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What's the common name in english? This is the standard. Bayern Muenchen are called Bayern Munich in english, Sporting club of Portugal are called Sporting Lisbon, Eintracht Frankfurt are called Eintracht Frankfurt. In this case, I think it's Red Star Belgrade.Kingjeff (talk)21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think so? Now there are a majority of notable English language sources (given above) that are using the proper name now, as well as UEFA? Maybe in the past Red Star Belgrade was more widespread, but even Google is showing Crvena Zvezda getting more hits than Red Star Belgrade. //laughing man23:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
None of this debate even matters. The Wikipedia naming conventions for sports teams were laid down this week, and they say that we should use the name that the club uses on the English version of their official website. In this case, the club calls themselves "FC Red Star (Belgrade)", as you can seehere (the inclusion of Belgrade in the club's name is debatable, but either way the club don't call themselves Crvena Zvezda in English. The only reason that UEFA calls them Crvena Zvezda is because clubs register with UEFA in their own (transliterated) language). –PeeJay00:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me. I believe we should move the article, and refer to the club as "FC Red Star" as "Red Star Belgrade" is clearly not being used. //laughing man22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doesnt Crvena zvezda only mean Red Star, not hard to get some extra hits on that. If you only Search for "Red Star" at google youll get more hits. But the thing still is, Red Star is the common name that i would say most non-Serbian speakers know it by.Chandlertalk08:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link to uefa.com doesnt show any details of the tournaments leading scorers. I cant find any details of leading scorers in the uefa cup on the uefa site. so where did whoever created the leading scorers table get the info from? and how can we update it?Willy turner (talk)22:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because they became 3rd in Spanish Primera last season and thus qualified forUEFA Champions League, which is a higher-class club football tournament than UEFA Cup. Sevilla has subsequently finished top of Group H and advanced to the Champions League knockout stage, which will start in February 2008.Artyom (talk • contribs)21:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the Round of 16 table, do people think it is better to have Club X/Club Y or Winner Match Z? Personally, I think Winner Match Z is better as it creates a bit less clutter in the table. –PeeJay23:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss the first round here. Someone made it as a redirect page - well, as I said, First Round is compolsory for every teams and it is not included into qualifying rounds.RaymondGiggs16:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
UEFA contradicts themselves on the first round. If you lookhere, on the side the First Round is a qualification round. But under Altered format, they call it the "first round proper."Kingjeff (talk)16:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is it. If it is a qualifying round, why don't they called "First Round" as "Third Qualifying Round"? Also, the draw of the first round is heldafter the CL's draw. Everything seems that First round is not a qualifying round. However, on that page, uefa.com cannot find any format to fix on it, so they put that into qualifying round. I think that is their meaning.RaymondGiggs11:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's get this straightened out. The UEFA Cup first round is anomalous. Some would say it is a proper round, i.e. not a qualifying round, and I wouldn't disagree, but it is the only knockout round between the qualifying rounds and the group stage. Having an entire article for a single round of UEFA's second-tier club competition seems preposterous to me. At least in the group stage there are eight different groups, each with ten matches to comment on, while the knockout stage covers five whole knockout rounds. You can argue the toss with me about this until you're blue in the face, but I still don't believe that the UEFA Cup first round is notable enough to have a whole article devoted to it. –PeeJay11:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In what respect? For the purposes of Wikipedia, I would probably agree with you, but as we have proven, the first round is not a qualifying round. Anyways, that's immaterial right now. What amuses me more is that KyleRGiggs still hasn't replied to my comment above. –PeeJay10:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not in terms of statistics though. Basically, if the first round was a qualifying round, it would be called the Third qualifying round, not the first round. TBH, I think this whole business shows that even UEFA don't know what the hell they're doing. –PeeJay15:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of that page. However, I still think that if it really was a qualifying round it would be called the "Third Qualifying Round". Either way, it's not worthy of its own article. –PeeJay19:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the round itself is not notable enough to have an article all by itself. I'm happy to have been proved wrong that most of the teams are notable, but I really don't think it's appropriate to have an article on one round of the competition, especially when said article would not expand on the information inUEFA Cup 2007-08 that much. –PeeJay10:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's count the games numbers
First Round: 40*2=80
Group Stage: 1 Group=5*4/2=10, 8 Groups=10*8=80
Final Stages: 16*2(R32)+8*2(R16)+4*2(QF)+2*2(SF)+1(Final)=61
I still don't see an argument why the first round, as a single round all by itself, deserves its own article. The group stage article covers eight different groups, and is more conducive to its own article as it has regular breaks. The first round, however, would be split into "First leg" and "Second leg", and that's it. What's the point? –PeeJay19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop usingthis link please, you made me sick! Who the hell doesn't know there is some problems about UEFA. To check if it is a qualifying round, you can seeArticle 6.01 of the regulations. Qualifying phase only included first qualifying round and second qualifying round only. You are just arguing if the first round is a qualifying round only.PeeJay is arguing about another thing!RaymondGiggs10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finally I get what you mean. However, it is not very important to determine the first round. The group phase system is introduced since2004. Before 2004, there is no any group stage in the UEFA Cup phases. So what kind of article should be made before that year? I wondered.RaymondGiggs10:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps before2004-05, you should create one article for the early rounds (First Round, Second Round and Third Round) and one article for the final rounds (Fourth Round, Quarter-finals, Semi-finals and Final). The only problem with that is that the articles on the early rounds would be absolutely massive, which suggests to me that perhaps only articles on the later rounds should be included. –PeeJay10:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that the UEFA Cup is only UEFA'ssecond-biggest club tournament, right? Anyway, the main articles for each UEFA Cup season prior to 2001-02 should be sufficient, as UEFA.com has no records of goalscorers in each match from the 2000-01 season backwards. –PeeJay19:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, second-biggest club tournament. You are right. I don't think it is compulsory for makingany sub-article if it is not a biggest club tournament. I'd like to ask those contributors whocreated the sub-article s why they created them.RaymondGiggs10:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't really thought that suggestion through, have you? A bracket for 32 teams would be bloody massive, and would vastly overshadow anything else on the page. Personally, I don't think it's necessary. –PeeJay10:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to comment your opinion. I could say partly correct. A bracket for 32 teams and 2 legs would be too big. But it would be the best summary for the stages.RaymondGiggs16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have a question. If this Round of 32 template were to be created, where do you plan to put it? Themain page or theknockout stage page?
I'm just asking because both pages seem to have enough information about the matches in the round as is (more so in theknockout stage) without the template you are proposing (the tables and the reports from UEFA's official site, for one) and I would hate for someone to think that the template is just a waste of space on the page.Miss kat (talk)20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The brackets are currently incorrect. The Munich-Getafe winner plays the Leverkusen-Zenit winner next round. The semis are set up wrong.—Precedingunsigned comment added by76.115.125.244 (talk)19:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The UEFA Cup began in 1971-72 season, it was a new tournament organised by UEFA. It was based on the format of the later years of the Fairs Cup and the latter is obviously considered its predecessor, but it is not the same tournament - while many people assume they are the same tournament simply under a different name they are not, according to UEFA themselves. The Fairs Cup was endorsed but not organised by UEFA and is not even considered an official European tournament by them, let alone their own UEFA Cup under a different name. UEFA even assert that the Fairs Cup should not be included in clubs honours lists as part of their European record. UEFA's attitude towards this can be read about here[1]. While its reasonable to see the Fairs Cup as a forerunner of the UEFA Cup and you can personally consider them to be essentially one and the same competition if you like, it is UEFA who decide the official status of the competitions and they certainly would not agree that the Fairs Cup years are part of their UEFA Cup competition or that Newcastle United and Ferencvaros have won the UEFA Cup (before it even existed!). This is exactly what is stated on the mainUEFA Cup article on here and just about everywhere else relevant on Wiki so I don't see why this page is any different. Given that UEFA won't even allow these clubs to claim they have won a major European honour due to their Fairs Cup wins, there is no way we should be trying to make out in the opening paragraph that there have been 50 editions of the UEFA Cup rather than 37 when the organisers themselves say otherwise. It just makes us look silly to any knowledgable readers.MarkB79 (talk)00:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I came up with an idea of having an inter-wiki project for Champions League, UEFA Cup and UEFA Intertoto Cup. The idea is we can have match reports from Wikinews and use them on Wikipedia article for 2008-09 Champions League, 2008-09 UEFA Cup and 2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup. There should be no sourcing issues since there is a requirement of 2 sources per match report.
The standard NPOV will be in the match reports as required by Wikinews and Wikipedia.
There will be 213 matches for Champions League, 359 UEFA Cup matches, 78 Intertoto Cup matches for a total of 650 matches. Therefore, there will be a number of people needed to do this. If you're interested or have any questions or comments, you can ask themhere or if you would like to sign-up, you can gohere. Don't write how this is too big or a bad idea. This is to survey to see how viable this is. However, if you have some constructive comment or question, then feel free to add.Kingjeff (talk)21:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the official UEFA site started counting the goals scored in qualifying stages for the top goalscorers. Before, only the goals from the First Round onwards were counted, as all teams participated in those stages already. I think it's unfair for the players of the bigger teams, as they start in the First Round, while some smaller teams play in the qualifying rounds, where they can also score goals. I'm not sure why UEFA changed its way of counting the goals, but I think that we should still exclude the goals scored in qualifying stage, because the goals in qualifying stages never count towards the top goalscorers statistics in any football competition.ARTYOM18:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, sorry, but we're not do decide what counts and what not. UEFA decided that all goals are counted? Editors on Wikipedia wont decide what counts and what not. I could say that not counting what the players scored in the early rounds is also not fair, but i wont, and i will simply say thatwikipedians cant decide what is fair and what is not, and what UEFA decided is what will be here. You can call administrators and they will decide, or simply read the laws of Wikipedia.Shpakovichtalk22:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with you. UEFA does not count goals from the qualifying rounds in the Champions League towards players totals, so why have they started doing it all of a sudden in the UEFA Cup? I think someone just made a mistake. –PeeJay23:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of agree or disagree. UEFA decided something and we cant decide otherwise. Just read what Neil, an administrator, wrote down here.Shpakovich (talk)11:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only UEFA counts goals for UEFA Champions League and UEFA Cup. We, the editors of this page, maintain this page. If UEFA counts qualifying goals, then we count qualifying goals.Kingjeff (talk)00:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a solution that may solve our problem. I was wondering if we could add the template stats that keep records of the first round proper and beyond along with all the stats from all the rounds including qualifying.Kingjeff (talk)00:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(saw the thread onWP:AN/I) UEFA are the authority on this - if they say goals from the early round count, they count. If you believe otherwise, and don't want to include the early round goals, tough, I'm afraid.Neıl☎10:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, it's not a discussion. Neil, who is an administrator, clearly explained: "UEFA are the authority on this - if they say goals from the early round count, they count".Shpakovich (talk)10:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe administrators have the same power as normal editors in discussions like this, so Neil's opinion shouldn't be treated more than just a usual opinion. Regarding the goalscorers, I indeed believe that it was just a mistake on UEFA's behalf, and that the table will be corrected soon.ARTYOM13:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Artyom is absolutely right in one point - admins don't have any special power to decide content. I'm just chipping in as a normal editor, which I also am. If and when UEFA change their table, then by all means change this one, but til then, go with UEFA's table.Neıl☎18:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But thats the whole point, there is no argument on the content and there are no opinions. UEFA decided something? That's what says. If UEFA changes something, so are we. If not, then not. Neil gave you a link to the laws of Wikipedia. It's all written there.Shpakovich (talk)21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah and thats why now that's what's written here. But when i and Neil reverted you it wasn't. Actually, both versions are correct, the difference is since when you count. What enteres here is the offical version, and now it's what you supported and thats why it's here.Shpakovich (talk)18:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...UEFA eventually corrected the table, now the goals scored from First round onwards are counted, like before.ARTYOM17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have just modified 3 external links on2007–08 UEFA Cup. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set thechecked parameter below totrue orfailed 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
I have just modified 5 external links on2007–08 UEFA Cup. Please take a moment to reviewmy edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visitthis 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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.
