text:
Talk:UEFA Europa League

Comments
Should the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup winners be added to this article, or should there be a new article on this?

Club badges
I've reverted the addition of national flags and club badges to the table of finalists, because:
 * 1) The club badges generally possess white, not transparent backgrounds and look quite ugly on the blue background.
 * 2) Because only some clubs have their badges on wikipedia (aside - is this OK copyright-wise?) it looks weird when mixed up with national flags, as if clubs are playing against nations.
 * 3) Some badges are wrong - e.g. the modern-day Leeds United badge, which was used on this page, is not the same was the one the club used in the 1960s . There may be other examples too.

Qwghlm 14:02, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

 * I honestly don't see a problem with club badges or national flags being displayed, in an international competition it seems obvious to show which country the clubs came from, changing the format of this display from that of the champions league doesn't make any sense. But in answer to the specific questions above;
 * Deleting all the badges because they do not possess transparent backgrounds was uncalled for, a request for someone to change the badge type would have been more prudent. If that was not possible the badges should have been left as they are, not everyone finds them ugly.
 * The emblems and logos of the clubs are used in their individual pages, they can be used under the 'fair use' system. It shouldn't pose any problem.
 * It seems logical to use the badges that were present at the time the team was playing, in a similar way to the flag of yugoslavia is being used when noting red star belgrade's victory in the champions league.

 * The only real issue is whether club badges and/or national flags should be used. The champions league format uses just the national flags and i suggest following its example (it'll also solve many of the problems discussed above).  The logos and history of any logos can easily be included in the individual club pages.  If anyone wants to replace the national flags in line with the champions league page go ahead.

 * Fine, I wasn't arguing against badges/flags per se, just that as they stood they looked ugly. National flags like the UEFA Champions League page would be fine to put in, in my opinion. Qwghlm 21:54, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Re-reading my post i might have come across as being a bit too aggressive, i didn't mean to be.

Qualification
Is it possible to add the exact qualifying data for a country from the UEFA ranking ? Thank you

7th-8th place

If Liverpool where to win the Europa League this season and finish 7th...allowing them to automatically qualify as Title holders....What happens to the "Spare" Europa league place...? does this go to 8th place in the League...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.32.195.163 (talk) 15:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There would be no "spare" qualifying space. If Liverpool win the Europa League and finish 5th, 6th or 7th, only they and the other two teams in those positions would qualify. Thank goodness for Sky Sports News! – PeeJay 16:25, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Past Winners
Why is there no table of past winners as per all of the other football tournament articles? I know there is a past finals list, but this is not quite what I mean, and why is it on a different page anyway, when it is far more fundemental to the article than alot of the other information on here. Philc TECI 22:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Completely wrong
This article is completely wrong, the Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup are completely different, chech UEFA's official website to see this (http://www.uefa.com/Competitions/uefacup/History/index.html). As an example, check Barcelona's official trophy count (http://www.uefa.com/footballEurope/Club=50080/competition=1/index.html). As you can see, there are no UEFA Cups, nor Fairs Cup, as this was an unofficial competition. I think the article should be completely changed and only talk about the UEFA Cup. Then another one on the Fairs Cup could be done. Robert King.

Image Caption review
The captions in this article have been reviewed and meet the criteria for good captions.

--Epolk 16:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC) - (Writing Captions WikiProject)

15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)~

I agree with the above, the competitions are different and listing Fairs Cup winners on the UEFA cup entry only serves to confuse.

To do list
(copied from article improvement drive nom) This article was submitted to FAC last week, but isn't really ready yet. Some of the objections included: Oldelpaso 16:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Too list-heavy / some of the lists need converting to prose
 * Most lists moved to UEFA Cup records and statistics. Conscious 07:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Insufficient lead
 * Too short
 * "Trivia" section should not be there
 * Moved out. Conscious 16:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Tone too informal.
 * It'd be good to add something about significance of the tournament. Conscious 16:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO the description of English qualification is too long. Conscious 16:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, qualification should be described in a manner which isn't country specific. Oldelpaso 19:59, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Fairs Cup / UEFA Cup
Is it really fair to say that the Fairs Cup was "renamed" the UEFA Cup? It seems to be that the UEFA Cup is treated as a new competition, REPLACING the Fairs Cup. - fchd 17:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the official version. See, specifically "Name change" section. Conscious 19:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Qualification Information
"the UEFA Administration may, at the request of the association of the club concerned, admit this club to the current UEFA Cup competition. Its participation will not be at the expense of the contingent of its association."

Are you sure this is correct because I know that for the Champions League, for example, the winner of the cup will get into the competition along with the team that qualified for the last place in the cup. If having both clubs in the competition causes too many clubs from the same country to be in the competition then the holder of the cup will get in ahead of the last qualifying club (the one who finished the lowest out of all the clubs that qualified). Too many clubs, for the Champions League for example, is five clubs (four is the max and therefore a problem is created when a club outside the top four wins the Champions League and UEFA has recently changed their rules to completely address this sort of situation after the Liverpool-Everton debacle last year). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yonatanh (talk • contribs)

I need an aswer quicly pls
UEFA Cup 2005/06 – won by Sevilla

Other participants: AEK | Anorthosis | APOEL | Aris | Artmedia Bratislava | Austria | Auxerre | AZ | Baník | Basel | Beşiktaş | Bolton | Braga | Brann | Brøndby | Club Brugge | Cork | Crvena Zvezda | CSKA Moscow | CSKA Sofia | Debrecen | Dinamo Bucharest | Dnipro | Domžale | Espanyol | Everton | Feyenoord | GAK | Galatasaray | Genk | Germinal Beerschot | Grasshoppers | Groclin | Halmstad | Hamburg | Heerenveen | Hertha BSC Berlin | Hibernian | København | Krylya Sovetov | Lens | Leverkusen | Levski | Lille | Litex | Lokomotiv Moscow | Loko Plovdiv | M. Petah-Tikva | Mainz | Malmö | Marseille | Metalurh | Middlesbrough | Midtjylland | Monaco | MyPa | Osasuna | Palermo | PAOK | Partizan | Rapid Bucharest | Real Betis | Rennes | Roma | Rosenborg | Sampdoria | Schalke 04 | Shakhtar | Široki Brijeg | Slavia | Sporting | Steaua | Strasbourg | Stuttgart | Teplice | Thun | Tromsø | Udinese | Vålerenga | Viking | Vitória Guimarães | Vitória Setúbal | Willem II | Wisla | Xanthi | Zenit | Zürich

Here's the answer. Conscious 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Club 'rankings'
excuse me for being a liverpool fan and thinking that since liverpool hvave been to 3 UEFA cup finals and lost none, should be ranked higher than Juventus whoe despite being to 6 finals, have lost half of them. What is success anyway? Isnt it not defined principally by winning! Juventus obviously have a high failure rate in UEFA Cup finals and should not be called 'the most successful club in UEFA cup history' on the baisis of finishing second best 3 times! Who are more successful at uefa cup finals, Liverpool 3 out of 3 or Juventus 3 out of 6 'finals'? If this is not just about the final game itself and the whole tournament, then it gets even more complicated, we may need to start looking at all results, games played, won, tied and lost, goals scored and conceded etc like a league.

Success is measured by winning and when teams are tied for number of wins, how can failur to win and finishing second best, be placed above not loosing at all? granted we need to give credit to Juventus for getting to the final the most times but, getting to the final is not succcess, winning it is. Failing to win is failure, its as good as getting knocked out in earlier rounds!

 * I agree with you. Being a defeated finalist means nothing, only winning does and Liverpool have a perfect record in finals compared to Juventus, plus they both have the same amount of trophies.  Having a section called "Most Successful Club" is completely subjective in this regard.--Largo1965 15:59, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * No, reaching the final is much better than losing in the first round, both for the fans and financially. I'm pretty sure Liverpool considers last years Champions League campaign a success despite losing in the finals. It's not like liverpool only tried 3 times, they just didn't make it to the finals the other times. In short: 3 finals victories + 3 finals losses > 3 finals victories + 3 first round losses. 89.246.20.77 11:58, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

 * It says "Most succesful club", that means one club. Juventus have been won the Title 3 times just like Inter, Barca, etc but Juventus have also been to the finals 6 times in total while Barca and Inter have only been to 4 in total. I can see if Barca, Liverpool and Inter have been to the finals 6 times, yes then put them in the list but since Juventus have these 3 other appearances this makes them the most Successful club. I am not a fan of the English league or the Italian league, so I do consider my self un-biased.

Champions League
Neither here not at UEFA Champions League have I found a concise explanation of the difference between the two. The other article simply says "not to be confused with the UEFA Cup". Could someone add a brief explanation please. 172.173.125.174 12:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

 * They're two different competitions, one for teams who finished top or very high in their national domestic league the previous year, and another one for teams who didn't do as well, but still finished near the top or won a domestic cup; if you're American, think of it as being similar to the difference between the NCAA March Madness basketball tournament and the NIT. 84.92.8.221 14:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

One Club Per City Rule
The Fairs Cup article mentions that the one club per city rule was abolished in the early 60s when Edinburgh and Barcelona had two teams in the competition, however, the UEFA Cup article states that the rule was in effect until 1975 when Everton challenged it. I also know that Clyde FC were prevented from competing in the 1967 Fairs Cup because of this rule. So my question is, does anyone know when the rule would have been reinstated or perhaps it wasn't an official rule until some time after the early 60s?--Largo1965 15:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

UEFA Cup title-holder
Are there any cases in which the UEFA Cup title-holder will not start in the first round proper of the UEFA Cup? --88.77.227.25 12:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The most frequent case is that the holders qualify for the Champions League. Conscious 12:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Are there any other cases in which the UEFA Cup title-holder will not start in the first round proper of the UEFA Cup? --88.77.227.25 12:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The club may be disqualified, cease to exist, or refuse to participate. Conscious 20:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Protection
Due to the long-running edit war, I have protected this article and three others where the same UEFA Cup/ Fairs Cup dispute is occurring. Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (see The Wrong Version). As for all four articles the dispute is identical, I suggest discussion ought to take place on one page to help keep track. Talk:European football records seems the most suitable place, as there is already some discussion on the matter there. Oldelpaso 18:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Finals Tables
Useful table showing the finals but the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup Finals aren't UEFA Cup, they ought to be removed like http://www.footballdatabase.com/index.php?page=competition&Id=18&type=ICLUB&ln=UEFA_Cup I'd do it myself but the article's protected. StuartFreeloader 12:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Qualification Possibilties
What if Bayern Munich won the uefa cup and the bundisliga? would they be placed in the uefa cup or uefa champions league. Whould the losing finalist be placed in the First Round? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.234.148 (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

They would be placed in the Champions' League as the German champions, with the first round U.E.F.A. Cup berth going to the U.E.F.A. Cup runner-up, I believe. Heracles2008 (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Totally incorrect statement
"While the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is considered a pre-cursor to the UEFA Cup for records purposes..."

This is factually incorrect, and I recommend that it should be removed. U.E.F.A. itself specifies that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup does not count as part of a club's U.E.F.A. record, nor is to count for "records purposes". I propose that this erroneous statement should be removed, and that the list of most successful clubs be updated to exclude F.C. Barcelona (who have never won the U.E.F.A. Cup) and Valencia C.F.(who have only won the U.E.F.A. Cup once) - their Fairs Cup wins do not count as U.E.F.A. Cup wins! Heracles2008 (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree. Inter-Cities Fairs Cup was a forerunner to UEFA Cup, but that doesn't mean they are the same, mostly because UEFA Cup is run by UEFA and Inter-Cities Fairs Cup weren't. UEFA Cup records don't include Inter-Cities Fairs Cup winners, as show here in the official site.--ClaudioMB (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree whith you (Heracles and Claudio). Fairs Cup is not recognised as official to UEFA, and it´s a big mistake to mix the Fairs Cup records with the Uefa Cup records. I think that it´s a supporters inventions, who have interest in remake history... This is an encyclopedia...

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As i said, it's already been discussed and consensus ruled For it's inclusion, and the matter was settled.

i've already proven and showed numerous statements proving it was just a name change from uefa.com and other sources. Here is the main source: I QUOTE FROM THE OFFICIAL SITE http://www.uefa.com/Competitions/uefacup/History/index.html

"Name change

The was in 1971/72, won by Tottenham Hotspur FC, and the first to be known as the UEFA Cup. The change of name was recognition of the fact the competition was now run by UEFA and no longer associated with the trade fairs" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 12:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I don´t deni that Fais Cup is the Uefa Cups precursor, this MUST figure in the article, I don´t say the opposite thing. But we can´t even deni that one was unofficial (Fais Cup) and the other IS official (Uefa Cup). It´s a terrible mistake to mixing both tournaments in one article. ¿Why doesn´t UEFA.com includes Fairs Cup champions into the Uefa Cups records? Answer that, please. I answer: because there were two different tournaments. One official and the oter UNOFFICIAL. This is an encyclopedia!

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * We've been through this a number of times over the years - virtually all statistical works treat the Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup as basically the same, just a change of name. The fact that UEFA took over running it at the same time does not make it a different competition. UEFA.com is not a secondary source. - fchd (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * NO no. If you read carefully, the uefa.com says that many rules werw changing with the years... ¿A Uefa Cup with London XI? ¿What club is that? ¿A Uefa Cup that lasts two or three years? ¿A cup were you have to live in a city with fairs to participate? ¿Which is the simil? One cup was finished and another came to replace with the Uefa´s support. It´s the real history. ¿Why doesn´t Uefa include the Fairs cup in the Uefa Cups records, and you do that? Fairs Cup records by a hand and Uefa Cups records by the other. I Think that would be correct.

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 20:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * So there were some rule changes over the years. Most of the ones you pick up on where changed years before the competition changed name. There was no difference between the last Fairs Cup and the first UEFA Cup other than the change of name. - fchd (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I think fchd has hit the nail on the head, firstly he's right virtually all statisical records pair both comps together, i recall i mentioned several in another discussion page. UEFA took over the competition in 1971 and changed the name, and your incorrect none of the fairs cup seasons lasted 2 to 3 years, that's false. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * 1)The first Fairs Cup lasted 3 years: and the second two:
 * 2)¿Why don´t we accept finally the Uefa´s official statistics? The Fairs Cup by one hand, with all its champions, and the Uefa cup by the other with all its champions... It´s so simple... Nobody is saying that Fairs Cup is not the precursor of Uefa Cup. I think that it´s real, and it MUST figure in all the articles related with Uefa Cup. But it´s a different thing to say that both cups are the same thing. If we see that one is official and the other in not considered by the "mother institution of european football", and this insitution doesn´t include on the "palmares" (record) of Uefa Cup, it´s all said and all the words are useless... If they were the same, UEFA should have made a table as Fadiga says. But it doesn´t figure neither in Uefa.com nor in Rsssf.com and.

 * Thanks to Saudi for your cooperation.

 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultracanalla (talk • contribs) 23:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The only record that counts is the official one, from UEFA. As anyone can see in the UEFA site, they only consider winners from 1971-72 season. That excludes Fairs Cup winners (before 1971-72). So, anyone who defends the inclusion of Fairs Cup could show an official record including it? --ClaudioMB (talk) 05:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Look above at my link which proves uefa.com saying it was just a "name change" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, I wouldn't disagree that the only difference between the last Fairs Cup and the first UEFA Cup was the name, but I would object to clubs' victories in each competition being listed together. For example, Valencia won two Fairs Cups and one UEFA Cup, not three UEFA Cups. The two competitions should be listed separately. – PeeJay 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Yet you were keen to have the Premier League 2006-07 article show as Manchester United's 17th (or 18th or whatever) title when there is at least as much in common between the Fairs Cup and the UEFA Cup and the Premier League/Football League. - fchd (talk) 13:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Am I not allowed to change my opinion on things? At the minute, I would probably say that the Premier League articles should all be changed to reflect the fact that the Premier League was established as a totally separate competition from the Football League. – PeeJay 13:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As it says it's just for record purposes why they are put together, it gets described as "3 UEFA CUPS" because the Int. C Cup is defunct now, and as it has been re-named to the UEFA Cup it gets classed as 3 UEFA Cup's. That's all it is, as it's been said many times before for record purposes the records are collated and have been for years, to suggest there's some supporter bias is ludicrous, this discussion renders my team in no way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 13:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

You are actually in favour of keeping seperate records for the Premier League and Football League? That's laughable, which makes your opinion on this totally defunct. That's going way too far actually having seperate records, having Man Utd top with 9. Everyone and i mean everyone collates the English records. User:Fadiga09User talk:Fadiga09 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * No, that actually makes sense. The Football League continues as an organisation. All you need to do is to watch 15 minutes of Sky Sports to see that according to them football only started in 1992! - fchd (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * My opinion is defunct? What the hell does that even mean? The Premier League was founded as a completely separate entity from the Football League, so why should their records be listed together? As far as I am concerned, Liverpool hold the record for the most Football League titles, as well as the most English titles, but Manchester United hold the record for the most Premier League titles, and are in second place with regard to overall top flight titles. Anyway, this is beside the point. The Fairs Cup was not, is not and never will be the same as the UEFA Cup. The UEFA Cup is a different competition, but it is the continuation of the Fairs Cup in everything but name. – PeeJay 14:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As you say yourself it is the continuation of the Fairs cup, it changed its name because of a different commitee taking over the competition, and it is common practice to collate the results, i really have nothing new to add, i said everything i had to say when the voting was taking place couple of months ago and now. User:Fadiga09User talk:Fadiga09 15:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So technically, when the Fairs Cup was replaced by the UEFA Cup, the Fairs Cup was discontinued, and a new competition with the same structure was established by UEFA. As I said before, they are two separate competitions run by two separate organisations. Effectively, the UEFA Cup is only the "spiritual" son of the Fairs Cup. – PeeJay 15:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Completely agree whith PeeJay2K3. The UEFA Cup is only the "spiritual" son of the Fairs Cup. Don´t start to put thoughts or feelings on the articles. This is a serious encyclopedia and if the UEFA separates those competitions officially, we all MUST follow this separation. We are not here to "interpretate" or "codificate" what institutions say. We are here to include all the official things. And Fairs Cup is not official by Uefa and not figures at their records as UEFA Cup.

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Again, for those who believe that Fairs Cup winners are UEFA Cup winners, look the [official UEFA Cup site] to see the records. It's not a matter of consensus, it's a matter of source, there are no source for that. If the owner of UEFA Cup doesn't consider them as UEFA Cup winners, they are not. It doesn't matter what Wikipedia editors think. If there are other non official sites considering them as UEFA Cup winners, that could be explain in the article. So, please, stop adding them as UEFA Cup winners.--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, it was just a name change and the comepetitions are the same, so i suggest you stop deleting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work backing up your statement there, mate. By the way, that last bit sounded a bit like a threat there. Anyway, most of the evidence supports the fact that the UEFA Cup and the Fairs Cup are two different, yet linked, competitions. – PeeJay 21:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Fadiga09, before you accuse anyone of doing anything, please, check the article's history. As you can see, I was not the one who deleted them. This discussion didn't finish yet, so, any editing about this on the article will just trigger a editing war. Also, I shouldn't have asked to stop adding Fairs cup there, because this discussion started with them already there. --ClaudioMB (talk) 03:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems like there's bias involved here, i wasn't the one who first "suggest someone stop adding them" and i'm not the only one edit warring here, don't think i should be seen as the bad guy here, seeing as you guys are going against what this was, seeing as the fairs cup as far as i know has been part of the uefa cup's articles ever since wikipedia began. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 * It's not a matter of being against of what it was before. It's a matter to fix a mistake in the article. I consider that Fairs Cup was the base to UEFA Cup but not the same cup, because Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup have different owners, and the owner of UEFA cup doesn't consider the records of Fairs Cup.
 * Now, compare the records from UEFA Cup with the records from Champions League. Champions League's records consider the time it was call European Cup, even though UEFA was not the owner of the tournament. So, why they don't consider Fairs Cup years? Another example, Premier League doesn't consider the previous years of English first division.
 * This article is not about an informal event that some people believe on some thing and others believe on a different thing, it's about a formal event, with formal records. So, please, show facts, show source to defend that Fairs Cup is UEFA Cup.
 * By the way, the article right now is ambiguous. Shows that UEFA cup was funded in 1971, states that "It began in 1971 and replaced the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup." and "The UEFA Cup was first played in the season 1971-72, with English team Tottenham Hotspur F.C. being the first winner", but on "Most successful club", it considers Fairs Cup winners.
 * --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I think this matter won´t be fixed in this discussion. Fadiga doesn´t want to ear or see the official way that UEFA shows. He bases in "thoughts" or "feelings" and not with the common sense. I also I consider that Fairs Cup was the base to UEFA Cup, but NOT the same cup, because Fairs Cup and UEFA Cup have DIFFERENT owners, and the owner of UEFA cup doesn't consider the records of Fairs Cup. It´s so simple... I think that we should call some "wikipedia´s authorities" to this discussion, because it hasn´t end... The 6-3 votation taht Fadiga talks (I didn´t see where it is) doesn´t represent a masive opinion, and I think that is not valious... I don´t know how can we fix this problem.

 * Bye, --Ultracanalla (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

 * OK, I'll give my input as an "authority" (I'm an admin and a member of WP:FOOTY): fchd/Fadiga09 are right; the Fairs Cup and UEFA cup are commonly grouped as one competition for the purposes of record keeping. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  19:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Your opinion is very welcome, but, here, everyone's opinion has the same value. So, please, don't try to disrupt this discussion trying to put yourself in a superior position. Please, focus in the discussion. About your opinion that they "are commonly grouped as one competition for the purposes of record keeping", that is based on what? You need a source for that. I already asked for those who thinks like you to show a source for their positions, but, so far, nobody was capable to bring it. This article is not about what Wikipedia community thinks about UEFA Cup. This is an encyclopedia, and any information needs a source. This should be a very simple matter: the source says "A", then Wikipedia also should say "A". For those that don't agree with "A", they should write an email to UEFA and tell them they are wrong about their own records. Who knows? Maybe they are. If they change their records, I'll be the first to defend Wikipedia to follow them.--ClaudioMB (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly not trying to disrupt the discussion - Ultracanalla noted above that (s)he thought that "wikipedia´s authorities" should be called. I was merely noting my credentials to measure up to this.
 * As for a source, I can give you the News of the World Football Annual 2007-2008. See page 416, where winners of 3 trophies in Europe are listed - European Cup, Cup Winners' Cup and Fairs/UEFA Cup - they include winners of the Fairs Cup in the UEFA Cup list. They do the same on Page 418 with list of heaviest defeats of English clubs in Europe - Fairs and UEFA cup are listed as one.  пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  21:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of that annual. But, I believe you. So, now, we have 2 sources:
 * 1) UEFA.com, the official web site of the owner of the UEFA Cup that doesn't include Fairs Cup winners;
 * 2) A football annual that includes Fairs Cup.
 * Which one is more important, reliable and official? The list from the owner of UEFA Cup? Or the list from a football annual?
 * I'd like to say this encyclopedia is for everyone, not just for those who are used to that football annual or any other source. Also, there is no room for interpretations, UEFA Cup is a formal competition with formal owner, regulations and records. So, the only source that counts is the official one. And I have to say that until UEFA change their records, that magazine had made a mistake. As I said before, if anyone is 100% sure that your source is right and UEFA is wrong, write an email to UEFA explaining their mistake. If your magazine is right, they will change their web page and so we change this article. Until there, the article should use the official source and could mention that some sources (with references) consider Fairs Cup as UEFA Cup. How about that?
 * By the way, this article has versions in other languages, some consider Fairs Cup, some don't. What a mess! For example, Spanish article doesn't consider Fairs Cup and there is an independent Fairs Cup article.
 * --ClaudioMB (talk) 04:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Totally agree with Claudio. As I said, only in a poor encyclopedia could figure those wrong records as a few users want to show. Official records are the UEFA´s ones. It´s so simple!!! Why can we complicate the simple things? Rsssf.com, a very serious page that treats all the statistics in football history, follows the official UEFA´s announcement too , with a CLEAR separation of records... 1955-1971 for Fairs cup and 1971 to the present for Uefa Cup... Thoughts or feelings are wrong here. This is an encyclopedia and we must show ONLY official things...

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

For anyone interested, there is a survey on Talk:European_football_records about this subject.--ClaudioMB (talk) 06:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

 * This source made official by UEFA WOULD open the "blind" eyes of people who see only the things they want to see... More clear than that, IMPOSSIBLE:
 * "The UEFA Cup replaced the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the 1971/72 season. The list of finals from that competition are listed below, but please note that the Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record"

 * See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Seeking a resolution
Optimistic title perhaps, but we shall see. This diff is typical of those in this edit war. The crux, of course, is whether to include Fairs Cup results. The Fairs Cup was a precursor to the UEFA Cup, but how closely entwined the competitions are is a bone of contention. I don't think anyone will dispute that in 1971 UEFA took over administration of the Fairs Cup, changed the entry criteria and relaunched it as the UEFA Cup. UEFA does not currently include the Fairs Cup in its records, but there are sources/statisticians who list them together.

Now, addressing the text changes in the edit wars directly:
 * The "most successful club" entry in the infobox is changed to add/remove Fairs Cup winners.

Infoboxes are not suited to situations like this where the answer is dependent upon the definition. Removing it from the infobox and putting a fuller explanation in the prose is a better option. Something like ''Inter, Juventus and Liverpool have won the UEFA Cup three times. If the precursor of the UEFA Cup, the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, is also included, Barcelona and Valencia each have three titles.''

 * The Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record alternates with While the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is considered a pre-cursor to the UEFA Cup for records purposes, this does not apply to the Cup Winners' Cup.

Each version seeks to assert primacy, when the talk page shows that things are not necessarily so simple. I think both views could be incorporated. Something like: UEFA records list the Fairs Cup as a separate entity to the UEFA Cup, though some sources list both competitions together as a continuous entity. - with references for both parts, of course. The Cup Winners Cup part relates to the text above it, it probably makes the passage harder to understand, if anything, and I think that part should either be removed or reworded.

 * The link to Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadium is altered.

I'm sure that this change is merely incidental, and not the reason for reversion, but anyway... The article is currently at Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadium, where the article has resided since its creation. Requests to change that should be taken up at Talk:Şükrü Saracoğlu Stadium or WP:RM.

 * A list of Fairs Cup finals is added/removed.

Less room for manoeuvre. However, the same content is listed on UEFA Cup finals, and I see little point in duplication. Either that article should be merged here, or the table should be removed entirely.

Constructive comments welcome. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Hi, Odelpaso. You are welcome in this discussion and I appreciate the fact that now you are involved in this "problem".

 * 1) Nobody denies that Fairs cup is the precursor of Uefa Cup. I think yhat this phrase must figure on the article. But by the other hand, I think we MUSN´T include unofficial records in wikipedia. This is a serios encyclopedia, and if UEFA -with its OFFICIAL sources- doesn´t include Fairs cup records into the Uefa Cup records, we must have common sense, and recognize that the official sourse must be the right one...

 * 2) I didn´t invent this phrase: "The Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record". This phrase is literatly took from me from the official UEFA´s source . And it´s real, my God! If you see European records of teams that have won Fairs Cup, those titles don´t figure (VALENCIA CF, FOR EXAMPLE )... why? Beacause UEFA doen´t include them, because they are unofficial... It´s very simple. Apples with apples and potatoes with potatoes... Fairs cups records by one hand, and Uefa Cup´s records by the other, as UEFA SAYS... Must we deny the official record? Will we replace them with thougths or feelings? I think that if we do that we´ll be wrong!

 * 3) If serveral users doesn´t want to see the official way, I invite them to see the Records Statistics Foundation (RSSSF.com) -and ULTRA serios site about the whole statistics history of football- and see how it separates both tournaments and . Apples with apples and tomatoes with tomatoes... Why can must complicte things?

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 22:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think my proposed text asserts anything it shouldn't. My aim is to reflect the policy on neutral point of view, which states When reputable sources contradict one another, the core of the NPOV policy is to let competing approaches exist on the same page, and The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one... ...Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions. I do not make a claim about what is "right" or "official", merely state that UEFA do things one way, and certain sources do it another. Alternative wording could be UEFA records list the Fairs Cup as a separate entity to the UEFA Cup, as does the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation. Some sources, such as the News of the World Football Annual, list both competitions together as a continuous entity.'' On a side note, it might be worth checking out how the Association of Football Statisticians do things.

 * The full text of the paragraph you refer to in 2) reads The UEFA Cup replaced the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the 1971/72 season. The list of finals from that competition are listed below, but please note that the Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record. The page includes a list of Fairs Cup finals, yet is being used as a rationale for removing a list of Fairs Cup finals, which strikes me as odd. UEFA did not adminster the Fairs Cup, so it is correct to state that it is not a UEFA competition. Another (albeit clunky) way of phrasing it would be but please note that the Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their record in UEFA competitions.

 * I think one possible way to end this edit war would be to move the table of finals to UEFA Cup finals, and rename that article UEFA Cup and Fairs Cup finals, which is currently a redirect. In effect, making the presentation similar to that at, and therefore consistent with UEFA. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 * I think several things:

 * 1) At UEFA Cup article: Must figure ONLY Uefa Cup´s records and NOT Fairs Cup (as figures at this moment). One competition is Fairs Cup with its records, and another is UEFA Cup, since 1971/72. It´s clear.

 * 2) The same way at Valencia CF. They haven´t 3 Uefa Cups, as it states on the beguining of the article!!! They have ONE Uefa Cup (as it figures in the Uefa´s site) and 2 Fairs Cups!!!... See Valencia´s records at Uefa.com!

 * 3) It´s NOT correct to put -for expamle- that Spain has 11 Uefa cup title´s. They have 5... We mustn´t include Fairs cup´s records in the Uefa´s cup records.

 * 4) And if we are going to include "feelings" or "thoughts" above the official things, we have to say that in the first 3 editions of Fairs Cup, ONLY teams from a few cities could participate on this new "serious" torunament... And it lasted 3 years (the first edition) an 2 years (the second)... Not serious... Not the same thing.

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 03:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
 * At the moment it is only this article I am concerned with, for simplicity's sake. Others can be dealt with once the impasse has been sorted at this one. We have diametrically opposed camps here. One camp taking the position that the Fairs Cup must be included no matter what, and the other that it must not, with equal strength of feeling. Both camps have supplied reliable sources to back up their position. In such cases the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy stresses the importance of not taking sides, so this cannot be resolved simply by decreeing that one side is "right" and banishing the other. Policy is to display both schools of thought, clearly attributing each position to the cited sources that verify it. This way Wikipedia is not advocating a position, but letting the reader decide based upon the sources given. Nothing is based upon feelings or thoughts, it is based upon material in existing published sources.

 * Providing a more extensive description of what changed when the Fairs Cup was turned into the UEFA Cup is a good idea. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

 * OK. But i answer: Why should we add records to clubs that the mother institution of european football (UEFA) doesn´t include officially? See all the official european records of the teams which have won Fais Cup at the UEFA´s site...   (Valencia, Newcastle, and Barcelona, for example) Why must we include Fairs cup´s records (where there are not), giving the back to UEFA´s official records? The same fact with the countries... Spain has 5 Uefas´s titles, not 11. The same for England and another countries...

 * Another SUPER serious site, RSSSF.com -as UEFA-, doesn´t mix both tournaments, and separates their records... Can we compare those two sources with an Annual Sports magazine?

 * See you, --Ultracanalla (talk) 23:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

 * PD: I think we must mention that the Fairs cup is the precursor of Uefa Cup, but we must NOT include their records and their finals on the Uefa Cup´s article, and in the other articles that are relationated with Uefa Cup... A mention is ok, but we don´t have to mix records that don´t exist... --Ultracanalla (talk) 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Many sources collate records, it's common practice. What makes RSSSF.com more important than the many sources than collate the records? Anyway i wouldn't take the UEFA.com information to literal, why would they collate the records when they weren't part of the Fairs Cup which is a DIRECT tournament to the UEFA Cup, the collation of the records is more than necessary and don't make out that your sources are more worthy, both sides of the argument have reputable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

 * First of all, perhaps you don´t know what the Records Statistics Foundation is. It´s an organization that archives and actualizes (I don´t know the specific word "get actual") ALL the football´s history of any league in the world! That means that it has a huge worth, over of those sources that collate records...

 * Second: I didn´t see any source that collates records. Plase show them.

 * Third: if they exist, they don´t have the value of:

 * 1) The UEFA´s Official source

 * 2) The Rsssf´s source.

 * Conclusion: any discussion here is impossible to hold. We must follow the official records, and those records are UEFA´s ones. --Ultracanalla (talk) 21:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Be serious please, if UEFA not recognize the Fairs Cup as UEFA competition, Wikipedia don't have include it like another thing! RSSSF is a project like wiki for football, so it's not a primary source, UEFA.com IS! --Dantetheperuvian (talk) 22:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

 * OK. THere is a difference between "UEFA" competitions and "European" competitions. For instance, at Valencia CF I've included the Fairs Cup victories in the European trophies section, but they're clearly not UEFA Cup wins, so I've left them separate.  I don't see any way that this is wrong now.  Does anyone disagree? Black Kite 23:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * BK, seriously, this issue is now only being fought between these two users, and interestungly in Ultra's case, which Soanish speakers he can recruit on wiki (asking a user Dan the Peruvian for assistance in this edit war in Spanish). MickMacNee (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Black Kite. We can´t mix Fairs cup records with Uefa Cup records. In the list of champions, it must figure separate. One tournament is official and the other is NOT.

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultra all my sources there's 5 of them are in the talk page of EUROPEAN FOOTBALL RECORDS and not to mention the other sources provided by other members on my side, check them out and as far as i'm concerned RRSF or whatever they are called it just a website just as my sources suggest and there is no way the RRSF holds more repute than mines why should it? so as i say again we both have reputable sources so i would suggest to stop edit warring (again) Also Dante, just to add of course UEFA.com aren't going to collate, why would they? They weren't invovled and are obviously taking the higher ground, but the roots of this competition is the Fairs Cup and is recognised by most as that, barring UEFA because they weren't involved, but the fact of the matter is they can't deny to took it over and just added the term UEFA to make it theres, but it's the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The contributions of this IP are almost the same than the user Fadiga09 ... It´s very suspicious and someone MUST investigate that. It would be a HUGE CHEAT... PLEASE: AN ADMINISTRATOR MUST INVESTIGATE THAT!!!

 * --Ultracanalla (talk) 13:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I am for the inclusion of the Fairs Cup, i have many books at home from the history of football and about 70% of these books have it included. (Matrixbucra (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC))

 * Look - I don't think we can look any further for a reliable source than UEFA themselves. Just to recap, the official UEFA website, linked in the article, says "please note that the Fairs Cup is not considered a UEFA competition, and hence clubs' records in the Fairs Cup are not considered part of their European record."  Given that, I do not believe you can do anything else except separate the two tournaments - we can hardly say that UEFA themselves are wrong, can we? Black Kite 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Totally agree with Black Kite. Of course, we can´t. We mustn´t say that UEFA is wrong... I don´t know the interest that several users have to this theme. --Ultracanalla (talk) 21:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Interesting, but surely the neutrality of Wikipedia must be used here as one of the members above states? When two sides of an arguments are being fought and with both sides showing sources i think more needs to done, it's all in accordance to Wikipedia and it's philosphys. (Matrixbucra (talk) 22:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
 * I'm not sure what you're saying. We have a reliable source here - UEFA itself.  Unless it can be established that UEFA's own website is wrong and the UEFA Cup and Fairs Cup are the same competition, I don't see how we can alter the current wording.  Oh, and Matrixbucra, removing sourced information (the link to the UEFA website in this case) is usually seen as tendentious, so please don't do that again. Black Kite 22:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't removed anything and for that matter don't accuse me of doing something i haven't, until then i wouldn't do so. If you can show me what i've removed then fine, but until then... As said above many reliable sources have been shown from both sides, seeing as your an Admin you should be familiar with the neutrality of Wikipedia, yes? Until both sides have been discussed with both showing reliable sources, the said article cannot be reverted, surely you know of this procedure? I would say look at this again NPOV I think Wikipedia policies should be taken into account first. (Matrixbucra (talk) 23:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC))
 * You removed the UEFA web page source . Black Kite 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking of sockpuppets
After a further checkuser, I have blocked User:Matrixbucra, User:Barryisland and User:Forza Deano as sockpuppets of User:Fadiga09 and informed him that any other use of accounts other than the main one will result in an indefinite block. Black Kite 00:49, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

European Cup 3?
Is it still called European Cup 3, and the derived names, now that number 2 (the Cup Winners Cup) no longer exists? Jess Cully (talk) 19:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.97.223 (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mistake regarding "won on 2-1 aggregate"
I think a mistake has been made regarding that phrase in some particular cases. When a team ties a match and wins the other, the phrase "won on aggregate" does not apply. They did not win because of the aggregate tally of goals. They won because they tied one game and won the other, that is they had 4 points (or 3 before the change to 3 point wins) and the other team had 1 point. Perhaps we should change that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.135.20.3 (talk) 14:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, that's not true at all. Combined goals over the two legs has always been the result quoted. - fchd (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge UEFA Europa League
User has this morning split the UEFA Europa League information from this page into a new UEFA Europa League article, which currently looks like this. I don't think this was justified, it's not a new entity in so far as we are going to split all information about the two competitions, and without the infobox and lead para, there is not enough unique info to justify an article fork based on size alone. The presence of two articles just creates reader confusion about what information belongs where, and unneccessarily duplicates other info. I say this split should be reversed and merged back here, and we then rename this article to UEFA Europa League when the first ball is kicked in the new format. (obviously requiring a GFDL history merge for the current fork) MickMacNee (talk) 15:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * I agree that the articles should be merged there is not separate articles for the European cup and champions league and there was not another article written when the old/current group stage was introduced. Poly87 (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Support per nom and this Ban  Ray  20:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Support As per above. The articles should be merged in the same way that European Cup & Champions League aren't seperate. As of next season the article should be renamed to UEFA Europa League to reflect its (then) current title  DJDannyP // Talk2Me  00:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose Uefa Cup and the Uefa Europa League are different. Yes the Uefa Cup is being renamed but the competition is being totally revamped. Its not the same anymore. Its not a simple name change as it appears. Its the Uefa Cup completely reinvented to improve the competitions prestige and popularity. Merging the two articles would be a false move, you might aswell bring the UCL and the Europa league together while your merging things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.210.64.214 (talk) 13:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Support As already mentioned above.--Froztbyte (talk) 21:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Support, I feel this should be handled like European Cup / Champions League. — chandler — 00:20, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Support it's the same competition, the same trophy will be used, etc. It's exactly the same as the change the European Cup underwent in 1992. There's no seperate article for the current UEFA Cup and the pre-1999 edition, which featured much more significant changes in format. As for the guy above who referred to the change in format (i.e. it being "totally revamped"), that announcement was made nearly a year ago, well before the change of name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.97.223 (talk) 12:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

 * Oppose, You cannot merge this two articles (FOR NOW) because it is not yet clear if UEFA is going to count these titles as a plus to the UEFA Cup titles as they did with the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup. The reason that there are only 1 article for the European Cup and The UEFA Champions League is that UEFA recognise both titles as the same meaning just that they change the format of the competition. It doesn´t matter if it is the same trophy if the governing body doesn´t recognise both titles as the same —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.8.149.154 (talk) 21:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

✅ Ban  Ray  00:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Article name
Will the name of this article be changed next season or will a seperate article be created, I just wonder whether I should change UEFA Cup links to UEFA Cup, when I happen to editing. Darryl.matheson (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Good question, but I think I can generate an answer that the article "UEFA Cup" would be moved to "UEFA Europa League" when this season finished according to the practice in CONCACAF Champions League. Raymond Giggs 06:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Move for UEFA Europa League
When should we move the UEFA Cup article to UEFA Europa League? As we did to the Champions League, the UEFA Cup article should have be renamed into the new format name. I've already merge the season templates, but when would be move the article? Raymond Giggs 09:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Um, probably after the final tonight? Why wait any longer? --Berntie (talk) 12:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too against the Europa League having a separate article. Although circumstances are not entirely comparable, the article split between Football League First Division and Premier League serves both quite well. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!  12:30, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I think the situation is the same as with the rebranded European Cup. The Champions League has no article of it's own, and I don't see why the Europa League would deserve one. Only the competition name and format have changed. --Berntie (talk) 12:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * I started a discussion without which didn't really take off here. And I agree that the article should be moved, not split. To keep in the style of the European Cup, and as mentioned above, CONCACAF's similar case. chandler ··· 12:35, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * According to the UEFA statement released in September 2008, the tournament will become known as the UEFA Europa League from the start of the 2009–10 season. Since the 2009–10 season doesn't actually begin until 1 July 2009, I would propose that we don't rename this article until then. – PeeJay 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * It should really be moved at some point before the draw for the first qualifying rounds of the Europa League, which takes place on 22 June. That point could be straight after the final or it could be on the morning of the draw. My personal choice would be 1 June. MTC (talk) 19:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Berntie, don't make me laugh please. How come moving tonight? Raymond Giggs 13:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As long as this redirect is not deleted the article cannot be moved. --Berntie (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, it doesnt have to be moved before the competition starts, second don't speedy tag redirects which shouldn't be deleted.... when it's moved its moved over its redirect. chandler • 14:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to be, but what's the point in waiting longer? And I tried to move the page over the redirect—it didn't work. Is there a special procedure for that? --Berntie (talk) 14:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Moved. Teh redirect I have moved to UEFA Europa League/GFDL archive to preserve the history, as the tow pages sere merged at some point. Rich Farmbrough, 15:25 22 May 2009 (UTC).
 * Do we need to change the old UEFA Cup article into a article of trophy, as we did to the European Champion Clubs' Cup? Raymond Giggs 15:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if UEFA has specified that the trophy will still be called the UEFA Cup, currently I don't think we have a article of the trophy? chandler • 15:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "A full-size replica trophy, the UEFA Europa League winners trophy, is awarded to the winning club". Compared to last years "A full-size replica trophy, the UEFA Cup winners trophy, is awarded to the winning club." chandler • 16:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like the trophy actually had a proper name, only that it was referred to as the "UEFA Cup winners trophy" so that it could be identified in the tournament regulations. – PeeJay 18:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I must add now, I checked the Champions League regulation and it says "A full-size replica trophy, the UEFA Champions League winners trophy, is awarded to the winning club." not "the European Champion Clubs' Cup" so it might perhaps not indicate there's no name. chandler • 03:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Who said the trophy has no name? The words "Coupe of UEFA" are at the bottom of the trophy. Raymond Giggs 03:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I meant (worded awfully) that the name might not be indicated in the regulation (as its not in the CL regulation) chandler • 04:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Number of teams
It says:

Number of teams 	48 (Group stage) +8 clubs join after Champions League group stage[1] 160 (Total)

48+8 does not equal 160. Can someone please explain that for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.116.254 (talk) 01:02, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The 48+8 bit indicates the number of teams that participate in the competition proper (i.e. from the first round onwards), while 160 refers to the number of teams that participate in the entire competition, including all qualifying rounds. – PeeJay 09:10, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

UEFA Cup article should be about the trophy
A suggestion here. From what I've heard and seen so far it looks like the old silver "UEFA Cup" trophy will most likely remain the trophy of the Europa League. I'm not sure if it's been confirmed officially by UEFA but if it happens (and it most probably will) in the near future I suggest that the UEFA Cup article (that is currently a redirect to UEFA Europa League) should be about the trophy, the same way the European Cup article is. That is: Formerly the European Cup was the name of both the competition and the trophy, then the competition was renamed to "Champions League" and from that point onward the "European Cup" refers only to the trophy itself while "Champions League" is the name of the competition. I believe the same just happened with the UEFA Cup/Europa League (if UEFA confirms it of course and the trophy while retaining it's physical appearance doesn't change it's name). IJK_Principle (talk) 19:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Found a proof: The UEFA Cup / Coupe UEFA remains the competitions trophy so either Coupe UEFA or UEFA Cup (or ideally both (one a redirect to the other that is)) should be an article about the trophy. Should I go ahead and start it? Of course the "Otheruses4" template would be used on both articles (competition and the trophy) so that readers don't get confused. IJK_Principle (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another way would be leaving UEFA Cup to redirect to UEFA Europa League, creating UEFA Cup (disambiguation) where links to UEFA Europa League and UEFA Cup (trophy) would be. This way it would be the same as it currently is with the Champions League. IJK_Principle (talk) 13:21, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The link you gave only says "The UEFA Europa League trophy" indicating a name change of the trophy to me. chandler 13:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's been discussed before in here. The European Cup is also called simply the UEFA Champions League trophy (see here) on the UEFA website although the cup itself has Coupe des clubs champions européen engraved on it. The same goes for the UEFA Cup/Coupe UEFA. IJK_Principle (talk) 13:41, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. UEFA Cup (trophy) is fine as a name for the trophy article, if that article is even needed. UEFA Cup, much like European Cup, should remain redirected to the competition articles, as 99% of people typing in UEFA Cup in the search box will be looking for this Europa league article, and will not be looking for details about the trophy itself (the European Cup article is actually at European Champion Clubs' Cup, not European Cup). The page UEFA Cup (disambiguation) is not needed at all if using a refined dab hat on this page, so I've prodded it for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Anthem
The competition's anthem was unveiled. Should there be an article about it (similar to the Champions League one) or at the very least a mention in the Europa League article itself? How about uploading the sound file from the UEFA website to Wikimedia Commons? IJK_Principle (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's a direct link to the file. Could it be uploaded? IJK_Principle (talk) 14:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly can't be uploaded to Commons as it is copyrighted. Might get away with uploading it here under Fair Use, but only at a stretch. – PeeJay 19:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 seconds is too little (10% from the original 30 second recording). I guess I'll leave it text only. IJK_Principle (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone should probably read through those 2 new sections I made (Trophy; Europa League anthem) for typos and awkward formulations (English isn't my first language). IJK_Principle (talk) 23:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Many clubs per city
I removed this unsourced statement: ''The 'one club per city' rule, inherited from the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, was dropped in 1975. English club Everton had finished fourth in the English league and could thus qualify but were barred from entry because city rivals Liverpool had also qualified by coming second. Everton appealed, saying the rule was an unfair anachronism, and UEFA agreed to overturn it.'' The phrase seems to be completely invented. Both Barcelona and Espanyol played in 1965-66, Atletico and Real in 1971-72, Espanyol and Barcelona in 1973-74, Juventus and Torino in 1974-75, Dinamo and Spartak Moscow in 1974-75. Maybe, it was a rule decided by the FA for English clubs only, but I don't see any reason for a similar decision.--Civitatem (talk) 23:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Officially Inter-City Fairs Cup by FIFA

 * Good evening, I note that the FIFA recognizes the Fairs Cup trophy as specifically as you can see on the FIFA website, here are the sources with the links: http http://es.fifa.com/newscentre/news/newsid=1040575.html : / / es.fifa.com / classicfootball / clubs / club = 44217/index.html http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=44217/ http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/ clubs / club = 32847th / How obvious it is official pages of the Site where FIFA official honors in Barcelona, Valencia and Arsenal, both in English and Spanish, the Fairs Cup is included in Palmares officer with the words (now Europe League). UEFA FIFA as part of the unknown. Stanley Rous became President of FIFA in '61 true at giorganizzata Fairs Cup, but '55 was the President of FIFA Executive Commettee (as well as the powerful English FA); http://www.storiedicalcio.altervista .org / coppa_fiere / coppa_fiere_introduzione.html then proceeds with the restoration of the version of article previously deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.152.22.126 (talk) 19:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

where will fulham go if they win 2010 europa?
currently (as of may 1, 2010), fulham is sitting in 13th position in the premier league, and can not finish any better than 10th, obviously meaning they wouldn't qualify for any european competitions in a normal fashion. but what happens if they win the europa league title in a few weeks? will they be granted a spot in europa next season as the holders? does the europa winner get a spot in the qualifying rounds in the champions league? i've only really started to follow european football (specifically the EPL and UEFA/europa) in the last year or so, so i'm doing a lot of catch-up as to who qualifies for what and how. - 68.183.33.220

-- HonorTheKing (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC).
 * The winner of the 2009–10 UEFA Europa League will start at the group stage next season as the "Title Holder".

Prize money section
The prize money section was without sources, so I have added some information from these sources:

The Partizan Belgrade source may not be 100% reliable. The only other source I was able to find was this:, but it seems the payment amounts were increased from this.

There doesn't seem to be any numbers available for the 2010/2011 season yet. Tropical wind (talk) 10:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

list of broadcasters
some list like the one for champions league would be a good thing. is there any interest in this? 91.15.150.183 (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Final 2013
Does it make sense to have a page Final 2013 which redirects here? --Edroeh (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

name
why not UEFA Europe League,I know this is no the official name ,but this is english wikipedia.--EEIM (talk) 01:58, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, English sources use UEFA Europa League, and that means the current name is correct per the naming policies of Wikipedia. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

2015 Europa League Winners get Champions League berth
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/22640095 24 May 2013 UEFA confirmed the 2015 Europa League Winners will qualify for the following season's Champions League, irrespective of their domestic league position. This may be seen as some as a method of raising the profile of UEFA's secondary tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.30.108.84 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Criticism (Article needs balance)
At the moment it reads like an advert for the competition. There has been criticism of the format by clubs, managers and press and there should be a section to reflect that. 213.114.8.206 (talk) 10:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What criticism are you referring to? You're going to have to provide sources. – PeeJay 15:20, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * There no shortage of criticism!!! This competition is a pointless drag -cClubs are wearing themselves out playing the endless fixtures and then big teams are parachuted in and take the competition over. Total nonsense bring back the UEFA cup!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.200.227.209 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, you need to provide sources for this criticism from reliable, third-party media outlets. You simply saying "I don't like the way football is going" isn't going to get you anywhere. – PeeJay 10:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Club with more goals
Benfica has scored 65 goals and it's the club with more goals in the history of Europa League. 85.246.163.63 (talk)

Qualifying match format
In the third qualifying round, Esbjerg drew 2-2 with Ruch Chiorzow: However, the BBC simply states "Ruch win the tie". Why? I assume it is on away goals but it would normally say "Ruch win on away goals", so was hoping this article might explain! --TBM10 (talk) 18:39, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

New logo
Since July 1st, 2015, the UEFA features a new logo. Is there any way to update the article in order to reflect that change? JDamanWP (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have any source for the new logo? I am not to sure about logos and copyright, but there is probably someone that can fix it. Qed237 <b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 18:31, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's been changed, but I can't find a clean digital representation of the new logo. I'll keep looking though. Hopefully UEFA will update their media resources page. – PeeJay 21:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * PeeJay2K3, UEFA as just updated their Facebook pages and profile pictures to the reflect the changes in logos and sponsors. Check the UEFA Europa League page on Facebook and see if the representation available as a profile picture would be good enough. JDamanWP (talk) 20:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The logos have been released here by UEFA. --Rashinseita (talk) 12:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems there is also a new anthem . No information from UEFA yet. --Rashinseita (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Contradiction
The History section says "The winners keep the trophy for a year before returning it to UEFA. After its return, the club can keep a four-fifths scale replica of the original trophy." and the Trophy section says "A full-size replica trophy is awarded to each winner of the competition." They can't both be right... Stifle (talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I've removed the former as unsourced. According to Europa League regulations (p18), the original trophy remains in the possession of UEFA. Fuebaey (talk) 22:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Going back over it, I think the part in History section may have been for back when it was the UEFA Cup. According to their regulations, the winners could keep the cup as stated. I've reinserted that, but moved it to the Trophy section. Fuebaey (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Europa League Fair Play Places no longer applicable
UEFA no longer grants a qualifying round one place to Fair Play League winners from 2016/17 because prize money is now awarded instead. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Respect_Fair_Play_ranking

Could this be amended as soon as possible?

GamersUnite (talk) 14:18, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Map
Given what has happened today, this article now needs a new map.

However, before it is updated, I just wanted to bring up something which I originally mentioned on the talk page for the UEFA Champions League article.

Basically, I think that the map is just coloured in green to such an extent that it doesn't really serve a purpose anymore. There isn't any differentiation between the vast majority of countries. After today, this issue is now even more prevalent.

What I suggested for the UEFA Champions League map was to have one colour for countries which have provided winners, another colour for countries to have provided losing finalists as their best result, another colour to denote semi-finals, and so on. I think that this could work here, too. It might end up making the map a bit more useful than having just two colours, especially when most of the countries are just one colour.

You can see the map section on the talk page for the UEFA Champions League article for more of my thoughts on this issue. Red v  Blue  18:53, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2018–19 UEFA Europa League. Hhkohh (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Unai Emery League listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unai Emery League. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed,Rosguill talk 17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

UEFA Europa League and UEFA Europa League 2
how is it possible thet in the gruop stage of UEFA Europa League in 2021/22 played 32 teams including UEFA Europa League 2 holders before this compation start yet?

YANIVST1 (talk) 05:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * UEFA has to announce the access list for its competitions years in advance so teams know how they can qualify. They don't just start up a new competition and say "okay, now u guyz get 2 play in da eruopa leeg". – PeeJay 09:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

URLs updated as previous links broken (due to change in UEFA.com urls)
I work for UEFA, and I am updating broken links to our website (as our urls have all changed - this is also the case for match reports on the season pages (have updated then for the first few European Cup seasons) UEFAlinks (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Inconsistent with other article
1981 UEFA Cup Final says the league was second tier and here it says third tier, until 1999 and that article is for 1981, and so one of them needs to be fixed, and User:The Rambling Man has said to start a discussion here, so can anyone help? 174.77.115.26 (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Look at the actual RS. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 01:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The reference is https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2018/feb/14/europa-league-is-back-more-than-ever-competition-to-savour-round-of-32-arsenal (reference [1]) it does not use words second or third tier, but it does say "But then the Champions League got bigger and, in 1999, the tournament below was mashed in with the one below that – the Cup Winners’ Cup – to create something wholly unsatisfying." Which seems like this would be second but doesn't say that directly. 174.77.115.26 (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, so I'll stick with the current sourcing for the Ipswich article.  Cheers.  Good luck with working it out elsewhere. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 01:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

New logo
When is it a good time to change the logo on the article? The new logo for next season has already been confirmed in UEFA media but they also continue to use the old one on their site. -StraightOuttaBoston (talk) 7:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I see someone's already changed the logo - cheers to whoever's done it then

-StraightOuttaBoston (talk) 5:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is it called the third qualifying round?
It's clearly the first. - 37.164.229.4 (talk) 02:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? – PeeJay 09:32, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

list of winners table
Is it really in the best location? It effects the page alignment and it's in small text, doesn't MOS:ACCESS not ring bells anyone? Govvy (talk) 10:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Group Stage being replaced by league phase in 2024-25 competition
Please incorporate this change in the article.

https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/news/0268-1213f7aa85bb-d56154ff8fe8-1000--uefa-announces-new-format-for-club-competitions-to-be-introd/

Taking the total number of teams from 32 to 36 in the UEFA Champions League, the biggest change will see a transformation from the traditional group stage to a single league stage including all participating teams.

…

Similar format changes will also be applied to the UEFA Europa League (8 matches in the league stage) and UEFA Europa Conference League (6 matches in the league stage). Subject to further discussions and agreements, these two competitions may also be expanded to a total of 36 teams each in the league stage. Eric Nelson (talk) 12:39, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Flag (UEFA Europa League trophy)
Why is there a Canadian and a Mexican flag in the UEFA Europa League trophy? Canada & Mexico are not in Europe (UEFA), They’re in North America (CONCACAF) 113.178.81.152 (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

 * Not to mention also the Brazilian flag (not a UEFA member, but a CONMEBOL member.) 113.178.81.152 (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

UEFA Cup vs Cup winners Cup
Hi, I was wondering if it correct to call the UEFA Cup the third-tier competition from 1971 to 1999 when the way of qualifying for the uEFA cup and cup winners cup were completely different. Firestar47 (talk) 23:18, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Image of Trophy
The image of the trophy used in this article is quite clearly wrong. It contains flags of countries that are nor part of UEFA like Brazil or Canada. Other images contain different flags, including ones on the official UEFA site, for instance here. So I think the image should be removed and if possible replaced a different one. MrBurns (talk) 20:57, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

 * I didn't get a response so I removed it for now. MrBurns (talk) 05:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * https://www.footyheadlines.com/5977851431271740604/
 * Article logo is outdated also. Someone upload/prevent fact removal. 93.140.172.248 (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Your link doesn't work. ––MrBurns (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

https://www.uefa.com/uefaeuropaleague/draws/

Confirmation. It had to be changed soon as draw made....... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.140.172.248 (talk) 02:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:UEFA Europa League


text:
M-26 (Michigan highway)

M-26 is a 96.355 mi state trunkline highway in the U.S. state of Michigan, running from 2 mi east of Rockland to its junction with US Highway 41 (US 41) in Copper Harbor. It generally runs southwest-to-northeast in the western half or Michigan's Upper Peninsula. The northernmost segment, which closely parallels the shore of Lake Superior on the west side of the Keweenaw Peninsula, is highly scenic.

M-26 previously reached the Wisconsin border, but a section of the highway became US 45. Other changes on the northern end of M-26 incorporated highways that were previously numbered M-111 and M-206 in the Eagle Harbor and Eagle River area.

Southern terminus to Houghton
M-26 starts at an intersection with US 45 east of Rockland in Michigan's Ontonagon County. From there it runs through the town of Mass City to the junction with M-38 east of Greenland. The two highways join for a short distance before M-26 separates turning northeast to Winona across the Houghton County line. In Twin Lakes M-26 passes the shores of the namesake lakes and Twin Lakes State Park. M-26 passes through wooded, hilly terrain in western Houghton County. The segment of roadway in South Range was recently realigned to smooth out curves in the roadway. From there north, M-26 runs generally downhill on approaching the western business district of Houghton and the Portage Lake Lift Bridge from the west. It enters and runs through the middle of Dakota Heights before re-entering Houghton and continuing to approach the bridge.

Portage Lake Lift Bridge
The Portage Lake Lift Bridge connects the cities of Hancock and Houghton, Michigan by crossing over the Portage Waterway, an arm of Portage Lake which cuts across the Keweenaw Peninsula with a canal linking the final several miles to Lake Superior to the northwest.

As its name states, the bridge is a lift bridge with the middle section capable of being lifted from its low point of four feet clearance over the water to a clearance of thirty two feet to allow boats to pass underneath. The Portage Lake Lift Bridge is the widest and heaviest double decked vertical lift bridge in the world. The lower deck of the bridge was originally open to rail traffic, but this level is now closed to trains and is used in the winter for snowmobile traffic. Throughout the 1960s, 70s and 80s, the bridge was painted the same color as the Mackinac Bridge — cream and forest green — however, in the early 1990s, it was repainted in a cream and robins egg blue color scheme—exactly the same colors as the National Park Service's ship Ranger III—to some denoting Houghton as the "Gateway to Isle Royale".

Hancock to Copper Harbor
On the north end of the bridge, M-26 turns east while US 41 turns west into Hancock. M-26 passes through Ripley at the base of the Mt. Ripley Ski Area before turning north to Dollar Bay on the shore of the heavy polluted Torch Lake. Next are the twin communities of Lake Linden and Hubbell. M-26 forms the main streets of these as it passes north from Hubbell into Lake Linden. The highway then runs back to the west to rejoin US 41 in Calumet. US 41/M-26 connects with the northern end of M-203 on the north side of town before heading out to Keweenaw County. In the town of Phoenix, M-26 separates from US 41 one last time, turning west for a stretch along the northern shoreline of the Keweenaw Peninsula. It passes through the communities of Eagle River (county seat of Keweenaw County) and Eagle Harbor.

M-26 in Eagle River crosses the namesake river on the glue-laminated Eagle River Timber Bridge. The 152 ft bridge features two timber frame arches of 74 ft and 79 ft in length. The connecting work between the wood elements is steel. There are hinge points in the center of each arch. The deck is wood covered with an asphalt driving surface. Enough wood was used in construction to fabricate three or four average-sized homes. All the wood was pressure-treated, and the steel was galvanized and epoxy-coated. Reapplication of preservative and tightening bolts will be the routine maintenance required every three years.

Past Eagle Harbor, M-26 meets the highly scenic Brockway Mountain Drive. The northern terminus of M-26 is located in Copper Harbor. The terminus is just past the second intersection with Brockway Mountain Drive near the marina and the location of the Isle Royale Queen ferry to Isle Royale National Park.

History
Before it was a state highway, many parts of the original route of M-26 were used as a military road, connecting Fort Wilkins at Copper Harbor with Fort Howard at Green Bay, Wisconsin. From 1919 until 1934, M-26 was routed southward to the Wisconsin state line to a connection with STH-26 along what is now US 45.

The original northern terminus of M-26 was in Laurium at M-15 (now US 41); it was extended by 1927 along US 41 to Mohawk and then replacing M-83 to Gay. This extension would be reversed in 1933 when the Mohawk to Gay routing was turned over to Keweenaw County control. A second extension in 1935 along US 41 to Phoenix replaced M-129 between Phoenix and Eagle Harbor. At this time, M-206 was designated from M-26 to the Eagle Harbor light house. A rerouting of M-26 in November 1940 moved it between Phoenix and Eagle River, replacing M-111. The segment between Phoenix and Eagle River along Copper Falls Mine Road was turned over to Keweenaw County at this time.

In 1979, M-26 was rerouted through Dakota Heights, bisecting it. Park Avenue had formerly served as the main route from Houghton to Atlantic Mine, but this was replaced by the new route of the highway.

The Lake Shore Drive Bridge, which had carried M-26 over the Eagle River, was relegated to pedestrian use in 1990 after the adjacent Eagle River Timber Bridge opened for traffic.

In 2006, the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) opened a bypass around the southwest and southern edge of South Range in order to provide a safer route through the town. As of 4 October 2006, MDOT has transferred jurisdiction of the necessary pieces of roadway to complete the M-26 bypass of South Range.

M-111
After 1938, the M-111 designation was given to an old M-6 routing in the Keweenaw Peninsula that ran between Eagle River and Phoenix along what is, now, modern-day M-26 parallel to Eagle River. That incarnation lasted two years until M-111 was deleted and M-26 was realigned over it. The M-111 designation has not been used since being deleted in 1940.

M-206
M-206 was a state highway that served as a spur route from M-26 into Eagle Harbor and the Eagle Harbor Lighthouse in Keweenaw County in 1935.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: M-26 (Michigan highway)


text:
Talk:Federal Standard 1037C

Untitled
From cleanup :

January 26-31
Federal Standard 1037C. Too many links to pages that shouldn't be created.

Hmmm... can you be more specific? What, and why do you think this? Andrewa 19:10, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A lot of articles have only the definitions from this standard, in a form of stub. I have occasionally altered the articles so that the information from the standard is no longer in its original form, and more like a regular article. I hope this is ok. If you want the information in its original form, it should probably just be on this page. - Omegatron 17:09, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

Orphans section
A quick spot check leaves me unsure of the meaning of "Orphans" in this context. Maybe at one time these were orphans in the Wikipedia sense, but that doesn't seem to be true anymore. Does it mean terms that were uncategorized in the Standard? - dcljr 23:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Glossaries or lists?
Please see my comment on Category talk:Lists of terms about many pages called "Glossary of..." that are really just bare lists of terms copied from this page (for example, Glossary of fiber optic terms). - dcljr 23:51, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Lots of really sparse pages
The "what links here" pages might be used by a physicist as a "wikipedia TODO list", lots of things like Data signaling rate and a million others that aren't easy to read. Ojw 14:51, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Material moved to Federal Standard 1037C terms
The list of redlinks indicating possible articles to be made (and bluelinks for articles that have been made) has been moved to Federal Standard 1037C terms. See Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up for discussion of the disposition of the terms listed therein. BD2412 T 00:53, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

ANSI T1.523-2001
I've removed the "dubious" tag on the statement that ANSI standard T1.523-2001 is copyrighted. Unlike Federal Standard 1037C, ANSI T1.523-2001 is not a work of the federal government, and I can't find any evidence that it has been incorporated into statutory law. --Carnildo (talk) 05:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

 * Good. (The tag referred to http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-US-Codes-and-Standards-as-Statutory-Law.  Who authored the work is irrelevant, if it's been incorporated into statutory law as you know, but others may not.)  Your removal of the fact tag was unjustified, however, and IIRC there's a policy against that. --Elvey (talk) 04:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Federal Standard 1037C. 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/20051122063850/http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/projects/devglossary/ to http://www.its.bldrdoc.gov/projects/devglossary/

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) 05:59, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"Official site" is 404
The official site link is dead. --95.90.215.90 (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Federal Standard 1037C