Talk:UEFA Champions League 2006-07

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	The article on UEFA Champions League 2006-07 is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football (soccer) related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 "Round of 16" 2 Separate Group Articles 3 this years "visual identity" 4 Valencia 5 Who tops? 6 Match information 7 Bracket 8 Date formatting 9 Links to teams 10 Knockout round info 11 About the winner of the year 12 Name of AC Milan

[edit] "Round of 16"

As far as I can see, the "Round of 16" refers only to the World Cup second round - on the UEFA Champions League page here it calls it the "First knockout round" - does anyone object to changing the article to match? "Round of 16" doesn't even make much sense in English (the language of this article) QmunkE 12:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

It does make sense in the English language...it is the round of 16 teams. I agree it is a very bad term. In the Champions League it is known as the first knockout round and in the World Cup it is called the Second Round (Round of 16 is an Americanism). DJDannyP//Talk2Me 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

In the past it's always been called the Round of 16 (see here), but I'd have no problem changing it. - Pal 23:16, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly don't think either is wrong. I think both are acceptable. Kingjeff 23:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

From the UEFA's information, the term "Round of 16" is not accepted. The reason why the phase called First Knockout Stage is there is no many teams in Round of 16. Round of 16 means the elite ones. How come to call those 16 teams are elite from all 73 teams? That's not meaningful. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 09:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate Group Articles

Should we create articles for each group with detailed results etc. á la 2008 UEFA European Football Championship qualifying? Archibald99 18:51, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I did create a seperate article for the group stage. I say it should depend on if the article becomes too big. Kingjeff 21:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of ones like this with the same detailed match information, which let you have full details on each match and don't take up much room. Archibald99 21:37, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I think a page for group a to d and another one from e to h. Kingjeff 21:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Since this page now exists, can the information in the Group stage section be removed as unneccesary duplication? QmunkE 12:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the tables ought to stay at least, for people wanting a quick overview. Sam Vimes | Address me 13:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Let the table and at least the results stay to centralize basic information. then, if people want detail, they go to the main article and that's why it exists. Leave the table and the results, please. --Serte 13:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, leave the results in a basic form and the table on the main article but put detailed match information (example below) as well as the table in separate group articles.

September 2, 2006 15:00 BST
	Scotland	6–0	Faroe Islands	Celtic Park, Glasgow Attendance: 50,059 Referee: Egorov (Russia)
	Fletcher 7' McFadden 10' Boyd pen 24', 38' Miller pen 30' O'Connor 85'

Archibald99 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But that information already exists on UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage standings & results, why duplicating it? I think things are ok as they are now. This article as basic info, this one has goalscorers, hours, ref, and such. Either I can't really understand what you mean, or I think it already is as you say.--Serte 15:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be duplicated. We would change that page to one of the pages we would need and create a new page. Kingjeff 15:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Basically, UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage standings & results will be far too big after a few matchdays. Archibald99 15:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Group Stage standings & results should become UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Groups A - D standings & results and the other page should become UEFA Champions League 2006-07 - Groups E - H standings & results. Kingjeff 15:56, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I still think they could be too large, but we'll see what the general consensus is. :) Archibald99 15:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Consensus will probably be to keep the article as is now. But I think we should go my route before yours. Kingjeff 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] this years "visual identity"

UEFA released it today, should it be posted with this article since its this years 'symbol'? link- http://www.uefa.com/competitions/UCL/news/Kind=1/newsId=477054.html

[edit] Valencia

Why does Valencia secure first place with a win or draw in game 5? 70.24.95.4 20:30, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who tops?

Who tops group F is Man Utd and Celtic both win their next matches? Would it be Celtic because they scored two goals in Manchester? Just so that i don't make a mistake.

You are correct, Celtic would be ahead of Manchester United based on the away goals tiebreaker. - MTC 06:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Match information

I noticed the FA Premier League results pages (FA Premier League results November 2006 etc.) use templates for goal and cards, would it be possible to use those on this article? Archibald99 19:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bracket

I wonder if a tournament bracket is appropriate for this article, at least starting at the quarterfinals? --Howard the Duck 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I though about that but I don't think so, because this is a two legged competition and we would still need to have tables for the results of both legs.--Serte ^{[ Talk · Contrib ]} 10:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

How about displaying the aggregate score? The 2006 NBA Playoffs had series sumarries and a bracket too. --Howard the Duck 12:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

But, the current page says that after every Knockout round there is a draw to decide the next round of matches. This method is not a straight forward bracket where, the progression path is decided on the first round of matches -- Tirupraveen 03:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

There are no more draws from the quarterfinals onwards, although those drawn from the round of 16 are different. So all those drawn on March 9 are permanent. --Howard the Duck 07:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It is. But we'll need scores for both legs. We can get the entire table set up once the draw for the quarter-finals are done since the semi-finals and final are more or less set in stone. Kingjeff 14:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the aggregate scores are enough. --Howard the Duck 07:01, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm assuming that the bracket table would replace the current one. Kingjeff 15:05, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

What should it supposed to replace? Also, we can also add the round of 16 to the bracket, but it won't be connected to the quarterfinal matchups, just as what they did at 2006 NHL Playoffs. --Howard the Duck 16:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Date formatting

2-legged fixtures seem to cause a problem over how to prevent the scheduling, but some of the results look frankly ugly: "were played on 11 July and 12, 2006" ; " will be played on 20 February/21 " bear little resemblance to written or spoken English. I would suggest that it is far better to de-wikify dates than to have this linguistic bastardisation. Any objections? Kevin McE 21:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

There's an option like February 20 and February 21, 2007, or even February 20, 2007 and February 21, 2007. Conscious 21:09, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Time to add bracket?? 91.103.40.211 04:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to teams

For the knockout stage, teams don't need to be linked anymore since every team is already linked at least once in the article. Kingjeff 06:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed, the teams are 'redundantly' linked in all football competition articles, are you proposing changing all of them? - MTC 06:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Kingjeff 07:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I've a problem with this. It's just a lot easier to click the team page I want right then and there, instead of having to scroll up and look for it. --Snojoe 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'd agree. Although I don't follow many of the team links, I think repeating the link each time is a more user-friendly solution. - fchd 17:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That just seems like laziness. Kingjeff 16:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lazy or not, it's still the simple and definitely makes it more user-friendly. --Snojoe 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

and a total turn off to most users. Kingjeff 20:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A turn off to most users? Lets take a look at what you are proposing:

This is what we have now…

Team #1	Agg.	Team #2	1st leg	2nd leg
ND Gorica	0-5	Steaua Bucharest	0-2	0-3
Levski Sofia	4-0	Sioni Bolnisi	2-0	2-0
FC Zürich	2-3	Red Bull Salzburg	2-1	0-2
Djurgården	2-3	Ružomberok	1-0	1-3
Debrecen	2-5	FK Rabotnicki	1-1	1-4
Cork City	0-4	FK Crvena Zvezda1	0-1	0-3
Fenerbahçe	9-0	B36 Tórshavn	4-0	5-0
Mladá Boleslav	5-3	Vålerenga	3-1	2-2
Sheriff Tiraspol	1-1(a)	Spartak Moscow	1-1	0-0
Liepājas Metalurgs	1-8	Dynamo Kyiv	1-4	0-4
FH Hafnarfjörður	0-3	Legia Warszawa	0-1	0-2
F.C. Copenhagen	4-2	MyPa	2-0	2-2
Ekranas	3-9	Dinamo Zagreb	1-4	2-5
Hearts	3-0	Široki Brijeg	3-0	0-0

…and this is what you are proposing…

Team #1	Agg.	Team #2	1st leg	2nd leg
ND Gorica	0-5	Steaua Bucharest	0-2	0-3
Levski Sofia	4-0	Sioni Bolnisi	2-0	2-0
FC Zürich	2-3	Red Bull Salzburg	2-1	0-2
Djurgården	2-3	Ružomberok	1-0	1-3
Debrecen	2-5	FK Rabotnicki	1-1	1-4
Cork City	0-4	FK Crvena Zvezda1	0-1	0-3
Fenerbahçe	9-0	B36 Tórshavn	4-0	5-0
Mladá Boleslav	5-3	Vålerenga	3-1	2-2
Sheriff Tiraspol	1-1(a)	Spartak Moscow	1-1	0-0
Liepājas Metalurgs	1-8	Dynamo Kyiv	1-4	0-4
FH Hafnarfjörður	0-3	Legia Warszawa	0-1	0-2
F.C. Copenhagen	4-2	MyPa	2-0	2-2
Ekranas	3-9	Dinamo Zagreb	1-4	2-5
Hearts	3-0	Široki Brijeg	3-0	0-0

…I think your proposal (the second example) would be more of a turn off. - MTC 20:32, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about only the knockout stage. Kingjeff 20:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, your edits like this one suggested otherwise. - MTC 20:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I've changed my mind since that edit last night. Kingjeff 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I think editing and removing all the links for teams post-knock out rounds is still unnecessary, it's still so much easier to keep them linked, especially for people directed right to a knockout round, they don't have to scroll to get to a teampage, you know? Just keep it as it is, linked. --Snojoe 23:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Knockout round info

Is anyone going to supply the details regarding the knockout round results, for example, the score for each leg, the scorers, which minute, etc.????? this would be very informing to those who missed some of the matches —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.26.202.237 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC).

I plan on doing a page fro brackets and game info. Kingjeff 19:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the winner of the year

Why don't add the stuff like that?

UEFA Champions League 2006 Winners
Barcelona Second Title

kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 09:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of AC Milan

Why don't we make a more easy name as Milan, AC Milan still too long. kYLE RaymonD GIGGS 03:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Because "AC Milan" is the clubs' name. -- Arwel (talk) 02:34, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Internazionale Milano is a club name but we still call it Inter Milan. I've heard AC Milan be called just Milan. Kingjeff 02:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

There are two clubs in Milan that have Milan in their name. I think that for the average soccer fan, there would be confusion if we called one of the clubs "Milan". Also, I don't understand, kYLE RaymonD GIGGS, why you consider AC Milan to be too long, it only has seven letters. Please explain it to me. Johnn 7 22:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's only because we're trying to fit everything in a small box. FC Bayern Munich is shortened to "Bayern" and Manchester United is just "Man United". In this case, I see no reason to put the full name of A.C. Milan in the box when other team names are shortened and there's only one team from Milan still in the tournament. There should be no confusion. Especially since the quarterfinal matchups are just inches above this box. Also, I previewed the full name and it makes the box look weird. This is a temporary placeholder anyways. We'll know the actual teams playing by April 11 and then we can put full names.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 00:15, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

:I think that if you are as lazy as these guys (too lazy to add like 2 letters) then maybe you shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. In my opinion, putting only "Bayern", or "Milan", or even "Man. United" looks stupid, you only put those when you are too lazy, you should just put their full name, because IT IS their name. The thing with Internazionale is that most people actually know Internazionale as simply "Inter", because it is shortened so often (I know I thought it was just "Inter" for some time when I was younger) that people only know it as "Inter". However, when I see Milan, I think of the city, so I would vote on using the "AC", but then again guys like "kyle ramond giggs", "kingjeff", or "littleman" would rather make the article not look "weird" by not using the teams' actual names. I for one don't even care about Internazionale, I would just use it like that if there is any confusion about the name "Inter". But then again you guys will only revert it back and call it vandalism and ridiculous. --- Efil4tselaer (talk • contribs) 16:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

But this a soccer related article. So I think people would think of the team. I think Inter or Internationale has always been to tell the difference between the 2 Milan teams. I don't know about you, but here in North America, the city usually has been understood to be the team when talking about sport teams. Kingjeff 21:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that it takes more time to type [[A.C. Milan|Milan]] than just [[A.C. Milan]]? So how is that lazy? Articles on Wikipedia frequently abbreviate names of all different types of proper nouns. In order to make the article read or look better, we abbreviate. Some of us happen to think that the article looks better with the abbreviated names in the box. When the actual teams are determined, then the full names can go in, but we think it looks better this way. If you disagree, you can just say so here. The way not to go about it is accusing well-meaning editors of causing some revert war that hasn't even happened yet and insulting us by assuming we won't discuss the issue (which is what we're doing...) and that we'll just revert something 'cause it doesn't agree with our opinion. Maybe you should take a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. By the way, your "IT IS their name" argument falls apart when you apply it to people or really anything, even Manchester United (abbreviated "United" in their article) or FC Barcelona (abbreviated "Barca" or "Barça"). Another aside, changing it now probably will get reverted because we're discussing it and normally you leave it as is until a consensus is reached in the discussion.--Littleman_TAMU ^(talk) 21:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

:Yo Littleman, when I said you guys are too lazy to write it, I was assuming that you guys weren't gonna put the name in these things [[ ]]. I live in North America, but you know what Jeff? This article is about soccer, EUROPEAN soccer, I understand that instead of calling Detroit Pistons by their full name, you may call it Detroit, but then why don't we call the European teams by what cities they are from? In Europe, it doesn't always work like that, see, what are you gonna do if you decided to call the London teams from the Premier League simply London or whatever? Also, I don't really care if it LOOKS better (you are assuming that every single Wikipedian agrees with you), because I guess you care more about how it looks than calling the team by its actual name. Why would I wanna look at Civil? I never said anything uncivil, I just said the obvious, there's like 3 arguing for calling the team Milan, and one (me, because the other guys don't seem to care that much) for calling it AC Milan, and I don't think I'm gonna waste my time here much longer. All of you are saying that it looks "weird" if you put two letters, AC, in front of Milan (instead of putting AC Milan), so you're obviously gonna use Milan. By the way, maybe we should use Manchester United in their articles instead of United, we are not saying this to people, like saying United won the other day, this is an encyclpedia. --- Efil4tselaer (talk • contribs) 22:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

:::Oh I'm sorry, I didn't see the part where you said "Some of us", nevermind about where I said that every single Wikipedian agrees with you. However, you said that you guys think it looks better, and you said this is until a consensus is reached, but then why are you already using it? Even if it is only until April 11? --- Efil4tselaer (talk • contribs) 23:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind everything I said, this discussion just bores me too much so forget I said anything. --- Efil4tselaer (talk • contribs) 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)