Talk:2013–14 UEFA Champions League group stage

Group order

Hi

Recent edits got me thinking how we should display the order in the group without any games played. In the draw the teams ended in the groups according to their coefficient, with pot1 on top, then pot2 team followed by pot 3 and 4. But actuallty they said several times that this is preliminary order and that final order in the group and also matchschedule will be drawn. This has now happened and the group looks like this. I think we should change the order to this final order by UEFA. Anyone agree or oppose? QED237 (talk) 15:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also the standings from UEFA has an other order then we display at the moment. QED237 (talk) 15:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by ip User:88.240.131.160

Hi.

I have noticed and reverted edits on 2013–14 UEFA Champions League group stage and 2013–14 UEFA Europa League group stage from an IP user, edits that I feel are disruptive, and now I am letting everyone know why. Feel free to answer me if you dont agree or have any comments or else I will start warning edits against this as disruptive. The reasons are:

We use the lastname for listing goalscorers, example everyone knows Mesut Özil as "Özil" and not Mesut.
The standings table are correct since the first tiebreaker is "matches amongst teams in question" (klick on tiebreaker above the table to see ful info). Therefore Basel is ahead of Chelsea, because they won against Chelsea.
Own goals are always listed as o.g. which is the shortening. What is kk?
As far as I know penalties has always been shortened pen. and I have never seen something else so why change to p?

Feel free to join the discussion and let me know if you agree or dont agree with me. QED237 (talk) 12:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Group Ranking

Arsenals group- should be arsenal top, then dortmund then Napoli. All 6 points. Head to Head Points all 3 GD among teams in question Ars 1 Dort 0 Nap -1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.149.177 (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Livescores

Hi. Based on Wikipedia policies and guidlines we should not provide live updates(based on WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus here).This has also been discussed many more times. If any editor add these livescores/liveupdates without any further discussion here will be considered disruptive and you may be blocked. Please wait until matches are finished. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the next match day (Group F)

According to the article:

Dortmund will be unable to qualify for the Round of 16 if they do not defeat Napoli and Arsenal do not lose to Marseille;

From what I can make out of this, it is incorrect. If both games on match day 5 are draws (Arsenal - Marseille, Dortmund - Napoli), Arsenal & Napoli will have 10 points, and Dortmund 7. If Arsenal lose against Napoli on match day 6, and Dortmund defeat Marseille, Napoli will win the group, and both Dortmund and Arsenal will have 10 points each. Dortmund should then qualify for Round of 16, as they scored twice away at Arsenal, whereas Arsenal only scored one away goal.

Is this correct, or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.250.0.82 (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are completely right (unless I am missing something to). I will correct this. Thanks for bringing this up on the talkpage first when you were not sure and letting other editors now something might be incorrect. QED237 (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Scenarios

Why are the 'on next match day' scenarios being removed? I appreciate they're coming from http://sportscenarios.livejournal.com/4999.html, but it's hardly a questionable source, surely? The information is academic and unquestionable if you're aware of the rules (paragraph 7.06 here: http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/Regulations/competitions/Regulations/01/94/62/34/1946234_DOWNLOAD.pdf) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.88.121 (talk) 23:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion on WT:FOOTY (you can read it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Next matchday scenarios) about this subject (and there are many opinions on the matter). The discussion is about wheter or not it violates some of wipipedia policies such as WP:OR, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS and so on. And about the source you mention it is´not a reliable source, it is just a blog edited by one person and history shows that this blog is not always correct. QED237 (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.88.121 (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013–14 UEFA Champions League group stage. 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/20131001141422/http://pfc-cska.com/en/news/?id=7166 to http://pfc-cska.com/en/news/?id=7166

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) 17:33, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]