Talk:List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League finals

Edition number column

I think that this article really need edtion column. Because European Cup and UEFA Champions League have so many editions.

We can't count the number of edition intuitively.

If European Cup and UEFA Champions League have just 10 editions. We can count the number of edition intuitively.

Of coures, I also think that edition column is not needed. But in the future, European Cup and UEFA Champions League have 100 editions more. Edition column is necessary criteria. Footwiks (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is it necessary? There are barely any reliable sources that refer to the competition by edition, almost all of them refer to it by season. Adding it in because we can't count how many there are at the moment is a very weak argument. NapHit (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Per above, it's not necessary because we've never included this in any of the similar lists. This isn't the Super Bowl or something where editions are the most important part of information. And no one would really mention something like "Chelsea won the 57th edition of the CL", but rather "Chelsea won the 2011/12 edition of the CL", so completely unnecessary. Snowflake91 (talk) 16:49, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

NapHit and Snowflake91/ How do you explain attendance column in the table? Also, We can check out detailed information about the attendence in main article. Also generally no one would remember attendance of final match and mention something like "Chelsea won CL with attendance 62,500". In your logic, Attendance column are not necessary. So Do you agree that I totly delete attendance column?

I think that edition information is a really basic information in all competition articles, even if generally many people would not mention the edition information. If there is edition column in all competition articles, This is very useful function. Firstly We can intuitively recognize that the number of edition until now. Also We can intuitively recognize the many additional information. For example, Which season is 20th or 30th anniversary season, Within 10th Edition, Which club is most successful or Within 20th Edition, Which club is most successful and so on. In conclusion, Edition column can provide convenience to readers. Please consider in terms of functionality in the table instead of mentioning edition number in press or football fans

Honestly, If table have so many item colums, So we have to choose really necessary item column . I can understand your opinions. But current table only 5 item coloums: season, winnres, runners-up, venue, attendacne. If edition column added in the table, Do you really think that table is very caotic and confused? Please take it easy. Let's keep an eye on the table with edition column. If edition column cause problem. I directly delete at that time.

Footwiks (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Using whataboutism regarding the attendance row to further your point isn't going to work. Simply put, almost no reliable sources, newspapers, sports broadcasters etc. refer to these competitions by edition, they refer to them by season. This isn't American sports, where that is more common. Adding an edition row, adds nothing to the table and is completely unnecessary. You have two editors here who disagree with you, and your arguments are tenuous at best. NapHit (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

OK I really understand your point, I reckon that you also really understand my point. It seems to be a parallel argument. Until now, There are just three editors in this discussion. And two editors who disagree with me seems to be editor who specialize in association football. Especially you seems to be misunderstood that to add edition number column in the table is imitate American sports style and that hurts association football's pride. I'll say it again. Please consider in terms of functionality in the table, Edition column can provide convenience to readers

Therefore I would like to hear various sports article editor's opinions. I newly created the discussion page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports and arranged my opinion and your opinion. Please visit and polish your opinion. Let's hear other user's opinions and discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports,Footwiks (talk) 08:03, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

It's nothing to with pride, convenience or anything else, it's simply that the row is unnecessary. As I keep saying, we refer to past seasons or even years, not editions in football. Saying that they do x in American sports means we should do it in a sport that doesn't follow that convention is ludicrous. The functionality of the table is fine as the season is the main identifier almost everyone will look to. You're essentially trying to fix something that isn't broken. NapHit (talk) 10:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

We can read the below phrase in 2022–23 UEFA Champions League and 2021 Copa América.

• 2022–23 UEFA Champions League

The 2022–23 UEFA Champions League is the 68th season of Europe's premier club football tournament

• 2021 Copa América

The 2021 Copa América was the 47th edition of the Copa América,

Every association football season articles have upper phrase. Ordinal number of seasons or editions is also important information to association football competition

You look misunderstood that Ordinal number of seasons or editions is only important information to American sports.

So Like you delete my contribution, Do you really want to delete these phrase in every associaition football season articles?

I don't understand you. Every association football season articles have phrase about ordinal number of seasons or editions.

So Just I added this ordinal number to the table.

Why do only main article have ordinal number of seasons or edition information?

I really can't understand it logically.

17:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC) Footwiks (talk) 17:34, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Because there is a big difference by stating that x season is the x edition of a competition in the season article, as opposed to listing them all in this list, when we refer to the editions by season. If I want to reference a past edition I'll use the season not the actual number. You raised the issue at WT:SPORTS, two more people opposed your proposal, that makes a total of four. There's no consensus for your changes, whether you think it's logical or not. NapHit (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Order

Interestingly this list should be the other way around. I understand that historical articles have a tendency to be in chronological order, but everyone reading the article would be looking for the most recent finals first. 31.21.223.74 (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

No, it's commonplace for historical articles on here to be chronological order which means earliest to latest. NapHit (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winning managers which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:47, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Performances in finals by nation with additional clubs column

In the "Performance in finals by nation" table you could mention the clubs for the specific nation with their performance. So here is my suggestion with an additional column if there are no objections.

Performances in finals by nation

Nation	Titles	Runners-up	Total	Clubs (Titles/Finals)
Spain	19	11	30	Real Madrid (14/17), FC Barcelona (5/8), Ateltico Madrid (0/3), Valencia (0/2)
England	15	11	26	Liverpool (6/10), Manchester United (3/5), Chelsea (2/3), Nottingham Forest (2/2), Manchester City (1/2), Aston Villa (1/1), Arsenal (0/1), Leeds United (0/1), Tottenham Hotspur (0/1)
Italy	12	17	29	Milan (7/11), Inter Milan (3/6), Juventus (2/9), Fiorentina (0/1), Roma (0/1), Sampdoria (0/1)
Germany	8	10	18	Bayern Munich (6/11), Borussia Dortmund (1/2), Hamburger SV (1/2), Bayer Leverkusen (0/1), Borussia Mönchengladbach (0/1), Eintracht Frankfurt (0/1)
Netherlands	6	2	8	Ajax (4/6), Feyenoord (1/1), PSV Eindhoven (1/1)
Portugal	4	5	9	Benfica (2/7), Porto (2/2)
France	1	6	7	Marseille (1/2), Reims (0/2), Monaco (0/1), Paris Saint-Germain (0/1), Saint-Étienne (0/1)
Romania	1	1	2	Steaua București (1/2)
Scotland	1	1	2	Celtic (1/2)
Yugoslavia	1	1	2	Red Star Belgrade (1/1), Partizan (0/1)
Belgium	0	1	1	Club Brugge (0/1)
Greece	0	1	1	Panathinaikos (0/1)
Sweden	0	1	1	Malmö FF (0/1)

Miria~01 (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Unnecessary complications, all this can already be seen in the table above. And there is no point to have sortable row like that, if you try to sort it would just display "Ajax" first. Snowflake91 (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Column can be set as unsortable, that's no problem. I have a different opinion because the information content (which clubs contributed to the nation's performance) is accessible at first glance rather than filtering it out in the other table. –table edited with unsortable column after Snowflake91's reply– Miria~01 (talk) 21:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)