Talk:2015–16 UEFA Europa League

Israel
Not sure how to incorporate it in the chart or add a note, but it appears that since the cup final in Israel is between first place Maccabi Tel Aviv (66 pts) and second place Hapoel Beer Sheva (58 points, +25 GD), who are both mathematically qualified for European football since the current 4th placed team (Beitar Jerusalem) is 13 points behind (45 points) with only 12 left in play, the team ultimately ending in 4th place in Israel will enter in the first qualifying round. (Third place Hapoel Ironi Kiryat Shmona, also on 58 points, +15 GD is also mathematically qualified to at least the Europa League.) Dawindler (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have looked at it and it is a special situation, I will add the fourth placed team and a note to explain. QED237&#160;(talk) 23:03, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I altered the wording to match the Belarusian situation. Do you agree? The Replicator (talk) 00:45, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I made some more changes, we should mention league directly after runner-up so readers know and not think "runners-up of what?". Also there might be a WP:OVERLINK issue if we link to the same article more than once per note. QED237&#160;(talk) 12:52, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good for me. I'll undo the overlinking in the other notes. The Replicator (talk) 13:12, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Inverness Caledonian Thistle
Hi, not a real problem but the team name seems long, do we need the whole name? Other teams are piped sometimes and I see UEFA uses only "Inverness" in their list of matches and BBC Sport uses "Inverness CT". Also the inverness article say "also known as" with many different shortenings, one of which is Inverness CT. There is no real issue with consistency since they have not participated in Europe before (what I can see), but we might want to shorten them in the league table for the scottish league also if we shorten them here (league table has full name). <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 16:24, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Inverness CT and I found no European record from them, so it seems they are qualifying for the very first time. The Replicator (talk) 22:47, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw now that on Scottish cup article fro this season they are also listed as Inverness CT. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

2014–15 Primeira Liga
I saw your last revert and I know 6th is guaranteed. But Vitória de Guimarães can still mathematically end in 6th place, hence the (4th/5th/6th). So they still may be that 6th-placed team and the team missing can be the 5th. The Replicator (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just looked quickly at the table and I cant see that vitoria can be 6th? How could that happen, if I am not wrong they would win on head-to-head against the teams below? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * My bad it was a calculation error, they can be sixth if (and only if) they all end up on same amount of points (otherwise they are better than both teams on head-to-head). <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the point. If there's a three-way 50-point tie, it will be Paços de Ferreira 5th, Vitória de Guimarães 6th, Belenenses 7th. Thanks. The Replicator (talk) 12:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Display of possible cup winner
I would like to discuss how we display when we have teams that can qualify both through league and cup. In my mind "FC Barcelona (CW/5th)" would be okay (in this example) but not only "(CW/5th)". In the first example we say Barcelona have qualified as either cup winners or fifth-place while in the second alternative we dont know if 5th will qualify or the cup winner. To me it feel like CW should be left alone until we have a team in front of it and not mix. Your opinions? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I see your point, but in my opinion, when there's no team and (CW/nth) at a given spot, that should mean the possibilities for the team that will occupy that spot. Taking the example of Azerbaijan, the first spot will be taken by the cup winner if Qarabağ win the cup and fail to be league champions, or by Inter Baku if Qarabağ win both league and cup, hence the (CW/2nd). The second and third spots will be taken by Gabala and Neftchi Baku, depending on their final league positions, except if Neftchi win the cup, in that case, Neftchi takes the first spot, but at the moment Neftchi are only confirmed through league. Now, if we keep the CW spot alone, we would have to use "or"s like in the Portuguese and Belarusian situations and I think that would be more confusing, although I admit my solution is far from perfect or ideal. The Replicator (talk) 23:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No solution is perfect, there are many factors to fit in one table and we have to do what we can do display it as good as possible. We would not have to have "or" for azerbaijan in my example we just have "(CW)", "Qarabag (2nd/3rd)" and "Neftchi (CW/2nd/3rd)". But I can see and understand your argument, it depends on how you choose to look at the table. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">QED</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 23:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Romania
Hi, just like last years there are some problems with license for Romanian clubs so thought I should bring it to the talkpage.

First information came from UEFA that CFR Cluj and Astra Giurgiu will be banned in the next UEFA competition they qualifies for unless they made som delayed payments before 31 January. Then I have seen no further information from UEFA if the teams have paid (same for the two teams not from Romania), but I found info at Astra own homepage that say That's because, in a Friday meeting of the Appeal Commission for a license, the club Astra received a license to play in Europe (with google translate), so it seems like Astra can play next season.

After that we have the issue with incolvency as many of the Romanian teams has filed for insolvency according to the 2014–15 Liga I, some of them sourced and some unsourced. Current third-placed team Petrolul and seventh-placed Dinamo Bucharest  are according to the sources not eligible to play in European competition, but I see no source for the other teams.

So how do we do when adding Romanian teams?

Now I also found new info from today about licenses, that I have hard time to understand when translating but it seems like 8 clubs get UEFA license? If so I think that is
 * Steaua Bucharest
 * Viitorul
 * Pandurii
 * Gaz Metan
 * Targu Mures
 * Botosani
 * Iasi
 * Astra Giurgiu

Can we use that last source to say that those eight clubs are the only one that can play next season? This might need discussion. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now I found text from the official romanian association that lists the 8 clubs able to play in Europe and that Craiova has appealed to CAS. Should we cout with them until appeal is approved or denied? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Again, in my opinion, original clubs until they fail their last appeal. The Replicator (talk) 17:36, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we should wait until last appeal reject also . Adnan (talk) 22:30, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Italy
Also in Italy there are license issues. Genoa (currently in EL spot) has not been given UEFA license as they filed paperwork to late. But they have appealed the ruling. What should we do in these cases? List clubs until appeal has been denied/approved or list an other club?.

you are regular editors on this page, what do you say about both this and the Romanian issue? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:24, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Error while ping so I contact User:Chanheigeorge and User:The Replicator again. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Now it seems like appeal might have been denied but I can only find one source <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I think we must maintain clubs until the final appeal. If those clubs fail, then we substitute them. The Replicator (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Sevilla
So since Sevilla doesn't enter the Group Stage, isn't the Swiss Cup winner qualified for the Group Stage? Because that's what the ESP footnote suggests. --Gbuvn (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Nothing has been confirmed (unfortunately) so we can not move around the teams just yet. But it is very likely that the Swiss cup winner will move to group stage, when a new accesslist has been confirmed by UEFA. Ideally UEFA would have had the scenarios printed out, but they dont and the accesslist will be modified later. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 13:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * All we have to go on is the note below the acccesslist in the rulebook (page 68) that states: If the access list needs to be adjusted once all the participants are known and admitted, priority for the UEFA Europa League will be given to the domestic cup winners (in accordance with the entry stage as per the access list). The adjusted list will be announced by circular letter.  We can not know the exact changes. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 14:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * What do you think as regular contributors, should we modify accesslist without UEFA confirmation? I see Kassiesa has modified the accesslist on that page. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 14:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I just found out it has been confirmed by the Swiss Fottball League: German, French --Gbuvn (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Edit: It is stated in that text that there is no UEFA confirmation.--Gbuvn (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of updating the access list. I don't think UEFA will change the rules at the eleventh hour. The Replicator (talk) 19:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * But they havent said exactly how the changes will be made. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 19:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, I think the Swiss CW will enter at group stage, AEK Larnaca will enter at QR3, and IFK Göteborg and the Bulgarian CW will enter at QR2. I doubt that UEFA will adjust the access list differently, but I will not insist on this matter as it is not official and there is no consensus here. If there was, I would support the change unconditionally. The Replicator (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Well since many editors have changed it during the day (since Sevilla won) and the only source we have under the section teams (Kassiesa) has made the changes I will fold under the mass and go ahead and change the accesslist and move the teams. Also we are very clear in yellow box above the teams list that it is waiting on official confirmation. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 22:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Live updates
Hi, thought it is time to bring this subject up since tournament starts today and there is risk for live updating (against consensus at WP:FOOTY). Does anyone oppose using Livescores editnotice that was used last season and on other article like 2014 FIFA World Cup? I recently got "template editor"-rights so I can add it where needed myself without having to go through request process. I am planning on doing this on related articles when that article is "in progress", but wanted to open a discussion first to see if anyone has something to say first. Any comments? <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 11:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on 2015–16 UEFA Europa League. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2015/accesslist/nextseason/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 ).

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 03:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 2015–16 UEFA Europa League. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season=2016/accesslist/listofparticipants/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150526132138/http://fc-tiraspol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1654 to http://fc-tiraspol.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=1654

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2015–16 UEFA Europa League. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season%3D2015/accesslist/nextseason/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150810160506/http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/access2015.html to http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/access2015.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season%3D2016/accesslist/listofparticipants/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150427003339/http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/qual2015.html to http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/qual2015.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221150453/http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/calendar2015.html to http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/calendar2015.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160202092315/http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000660/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000660/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160510084620/http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000661/index.html to http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/season%3D2016/draws/round%3D2000661/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)