Talk:2014–15 UEFA Champions League group stage

Problem with UEFA source tables

Group E lists Man City as being bottom of the group - UEFA website page linked as source shows CSKA Moscow in last place. UEFA rules indicate that CSKA beat Man City based on superior head to head record, but perhaps UEFA only apply this after the final round, as it is a tiebreaker? Either way, table on wiki page does not match the source.. Other media sources are mixed. 151.224.193.46 (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thought about it a bit more, read the regs (correctly quoted on the page here) and found they only mention that the tiebreaker rules are applied on completion of the group stage. However, while they don't specify that the group table is ordered under any rules, they are clearly applying some basis to the table. Or, it's an error on the UEFA website? 151.224.193.46 (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

UEFA changes the way they list the teams on same points, often they list after total goal differential, but sometime I have also seen teams are simply listed alphabetically, this since the rules and regulations are only used when group stage is finished. However, we have on wikipedia decided to put tables according to tiebreaker rules during group stage as well as it is easier to understand (otherwise two teams may change place after last round even if they both lost 1-0 last game) and as I said UEFA is not consistent. QED237 (talk) 12:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Seems that the table is indeed in alphabetical order again, as UEFA have the team names as AS Roma, Man City, and PFC CSKA Moscow. Is there a discussion archive somewhere showing this concensus? While it makes sense to some degree, it is illogical and a breach of verifiability to have a source that is different from the wiki page, with no explanation on the page? Also, while it may seem logical to apply the tiebreak rules now, the rule does state after the group is complete, and until all teams involved in a tiebreak have played each other there is no balance to the outcome, and the teams concerned cannot finish on the same points they have after 5 games, so the current tiebreak is actually meaningless in any event, and UEFA is at least consistent in how they order the table, even if it isn't obvious from the shortened team names. 151.224.193.46 (talk) 16:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Letters and colors

The letter designations (Q), (A), and (X) make the table labels look cluttered. They are superfluous and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CCA4:C6F0:F958:A3F6:776D:AE4B (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Surely, with only THREE (albeit slightly inconsistent) listings of the advancement criteria on the one page the problem is not superfluousness but too much brevity. There are probably trillions of people (at least) still confused by the whole thing; maybe we could add in a little paragraph explaining who advances to what (just to make it clear). Also, it it states that (A) means "advances to a further round" - which is apparently a "phase" while (Q) means "qualified to the phase indicated" - when no phase is actually indicated (it just says - "Europa League"). Apparently qualifying is different to advancing - personally I would have thought the top two teams "qualified" while the third "advanced". I'm assuming the usual wikipedia thing of "adding in stuff to post my post count is cool but why even bother actually sitting back for ten seconds and looking at whether what I have added actually makes this thing any clearer or better or anything that it useful, or is even actually vaguely internally consistent" is the key reason these tables are expanding relentlessly - it is happening all over the place now. Used to just be "colours mean something", now its "colours mean something, but we need to spell out what the colours mean every time they might possibly appear and then put a textual device on top of the colours (which isn't even actually consistent with the colours anyway) to fill up the white-space. I think what I am saying is that multiple statements of the same thing start to get a bit pointless (and even annoying) after a while, especially if the whole point could have been made in a much simpler way. Also, a lot of these notes on the tables are redundant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.159.131.34 (talk) 23:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014–15 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/20150423073606/http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2015/competitionformat/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/season=2015/competitionformat/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed 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 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) 07:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)