Talk:2019–20 UEFA Champions League knockout phase

Football Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Europe Low‑importance

	Europe portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Number of countries[edit]

Is this the lowest number of countries ever represented in the "C"L last 16? Might be worth mentioning if a source can be found. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:21D1:2D51:91F6:80F3 (talk) 20:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. It is also the first time since it was expanded to a Round of 16 to include teams only from the top five country in coefficient. La Fuzion (K lo K) 13:15, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Match order[edit]

Why are we ordering the matches in this way? We always did it chronologically at least up until my recent memory, so why change? It doesn't help any reader to see the matches presented in the draw order. The draw order may be preserved in the table, but the list of matches should be done chronologically so people can actually find a particular match without having to use some sort of mental gymnastics. – Pee Jay 15:28, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to a few seasons ago, matches were divided by first/second legs, not ties, so chronological order made most sense in that case. With matches now divided by tie, I think it makes most sense to have them ordered the same as in the overview table, which uses the draw order. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have the same S.A. Julio's thought.--95.234.98.93 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good as it is now. There was a discussion back than to use the way we do now. Makes the most sense. Kante4 (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In what way does it make sense though? I'm not saying it doesn't, I'd just like it if people could back up their assertions, especially anonymous editors. – Pee Jay 22:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems more intuitive to maintain internal consistency by having one method of ordering the ties within the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:13, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]