Talk:2012–13 UEFA Champions League group stage

Seeding list background colors.

OK, green ones have qualified, red ones have not qualified yet, and white ones are unsure which seeding list they'll be in, right? If this is correct we should probably write that, unless I had followed last years article I'd never have figured that out. :-) Also Red is usually used for FAILING to qualify, maybe we should switch to blue or something? --OpenFuture (talk) 07:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop the nonsense.

Articles do not start with "This article details the something" or "This article is about", with the exception of lists, which need to explain what the list actually lists. So please everybody: Stop adding that text back. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

stage and phase

Forgive my ignorance but why are the articles called group stage yet knockout phase? SirJibby (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Scenarios

Dr. Vicodine, is there a particular reason you have removed the scenarios for next matchday? Mill2093 (talk) 19:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Next match day scenarios are not referenced and are a violation of WP:NOR. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you, but see this. Stigni (talk) 22:11, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

That's only because nobody wants to deal with it. But if I go changing endash between scores or dare to touch something UK, there would be dozen of them with some policies to counter it. This is original research and does not belong here. Dr. Vicodine (talk) 22:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. It's purely mathematical, it does not require references, as anyone can calculate and correct it themselves. E.g. 2+2=4 is not a statement that's original research or would require references either. They're fun, harmless and remove themselves over time, anyway. 87.212.203.152 (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you if you said that is math, but it is not simple math. I study math at University, and if some one ask me what is simple math what I have to answer? If I say that some ODE is simple someone can argue that is not, but for me is not too hard. For this calculation you have to see all the matches from now to the end, valuate the tiebreaker criteria, look when a team is qualify or not, so the math beyond it is "simple", is only sum, but all the working with that is not, in particularly the hth criteria. So it is WP:NOR, and there also the problem of WP:CRYSTAL: Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. And how you can tell that a section that start with On the next matchday is not a extrapolation, speculation, and "future history"? Stigni (talk) 09:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Heaven forbid the site have useful information. 68.44.73.17 (talk) 14:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Being a useful information is not quite for Wikipedia standard. If is not a verificable data it will not be put on any article. Stigni (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's quite easily verifiable. As said, it's basic math. It's just that the additions aren't referenced from an outside source. To me that seems taking policy way too literal and applying it for the sake of application. 87.212.203.152 (talk) 20:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:OR#Routine_calculations What about this? I really don't see why the next matchday sections have to be removed now. They've been there for as long as I can remember, and technically they are just basic additions. They also provide an easy way to look up the various scenarios for all the groups and teams. I say we have a vote on this. Motsjo (talk) 17:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Disagree too. I love Wikipedia's football related articles for their clear and good loking information and particularly for the next matchday scenarios. I spent a lot oftime to make the scenarios which were unashamedly deleteted today. Where is the respect? Those are scenario calculations based on official sources (the tie-breakig rules) so everything is verifiable. Show some respect to the authors!! Schnapper (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have reverted the change back. You cannot simply ignore long held practices because you don't like them. Get consensus first if you're going to do something like that. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

And Dr. Vicodine, this is inappropriate. While it's good that you finally seem to have realized that the policy on edit warring does in fact apply to you, replacing one battleground behavior with another one isn't going to spare you any grief from the rest of the people that have to deal with you, indeed it will only make you look more intractable and reduce people's willingness to tolerate your presence on the project. Sven Manguard Wha? 23:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted it on Football project and no one answer it as I said on my first comment here, so don't tell me that i have to reach a consensus when no one answer to my post on WP:FOOTY. It is not the first time that is said that is against the WP:NOR, indeed on all the league is always deleted, why this practice is accepted with CL and not on the Leagues' pages? The basic arithmetics is what can do my grandma with a calculator; not if you have to think about it and do all cases, this is NOT basic arithmetics!! And verificable means that exist a third part article that said this, so usually you can find ref for the LAST matchday scenario, and so it is ok, but if you cannot find a ref, any kind of it, it is not verificable; see also WP:GNG. I am a mathematician so I also like the next matchday scenario but Wikipedia is not the place for that. Stigni (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This is borderline ridiculous. If the simple math that is adding three, one, or zero points to a tally is considered original research, then there would have to be a lot of other practices discontinued. You couldn't pronounce a soccer team as the winner of a league, for example, before every game had been played. Yet this is done on every league page on Wikipedia, using the very same rules that are being discussed here. Motsjo (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes but it has ref or anyway you can find a ref without any problem... Can you find ref that say exactly what you try to put on this article? It is simple math say that Man Uni is first to his group, with 12 pts and the second at 4 pts with two match to be played, and there is also a lot of ref (e.g. [1] [2] [3] and so on). Stigni (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well if you insist on being so pedantic, I guess you better remove the coloring indicating Europa League qualification too. I don't see how your grandma with a calculator can figure out that, say, Barcelona are qualified for the Europa League as it stands in group G at the moment. Motsjo (talk) 00:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

If they are simple math it is ok... In the case of Barca they are not, because they have 9 pts and there was a draw in the group (CEL-BEN 0-0) so it is at least third, because in total there is 35pts that it is less then 9pts for each team (35<36=9*4). So simple math, it isn't OR so it is ok. I open a topic on Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Stigni (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

These are clearly WP:CALC given that the scenarios are often sourced. Inclusion in articles of mathematically provable shouldn't depend on whether someone has chosen to print it. It is simply a question of whether it's accurate and whether it's relevant. Also, the default should be to include it, since it's typically been included historically. The onus should be on anti-scenario people to prove their point that WP:CALC does not apply. Nlsanand (talk) 03:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Here's a reference for matchday six potential outcomes: http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1895780.html -AlasdairShaw (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

If there is a ref there is no problem on add it on the article, and no one can negate that uefa.com is a good one. So I have no time to add it, but if someone do with a correct inline citation for me is ok. Stigni (talk) 23:12, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Equal points

The tie-breaking criteria are applied consistently in a wrong fashion. 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) 07:12, 8 November 2012 (UTC)