Talk:2010 FIBA World Championship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fair use rationale for Image:FIBA 2010 Logo.gif

Image:FIBA 2010 Logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:11, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

About Serbia

I think it's not correct to say Serbia participated previously in 3 World Championship. In 2002 they participated as Yugoslavia and in 2006 as Serbia and Montenegro.

Gonzaka 13:56, 19 Sep 2009 (UTC)

FIBA recognizes Serbia and Serbia and Montenegro/FR Yugoslavia as one team. The SFR Yugoslavia is a different team altogether. –Howard the Duck 12:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Protection

I propose that we get some protection for at least the article, if not the standings templates. As these international tournaments progress, anonymous editors almost always start editing the standings tables and/or tournament bracket before the games are over. This makes for a unique nightmare on the standings tables, because you are trying to add up the PF, PA, and PD, and if the standings result has been entered without the points, it can be hard to tell and a real headache to work on. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And then I went and did just that when I missed the "Preview" button and hit save instead for Group D. Sorry about that, although I undid the mistake immediately. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

And now I did it again when I looked at the end-of-3-quarters score in GRE vs. CIV game and thought it was a final. Whoa, what a blowout. I guess I will stop editing this since I am making way too many mistakes. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

On that subject, someone jumped the gun and listed Ivory Coast as eliminated when they are not. It is still possible to have a three way tie for fourth, and if Ivory Coast wins their final game by more than 12, they could advance. If they win by 12 and score less than 86, they would also win the three way tie breaker, leaving China and Puerto Rico out.174.90.234.66 (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would like to have a semi-protection on the page as some IP Users put some results up before games ended or vandalism... Kante4 (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Clinched/Eliminated

Australia and Angola have now Clinched, Germany and Jordan are now eliminated, Ivory Coast is not eliminated yet. I do not know how to edit these pages, could someone please do these.174.90.234.66 (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I edited Germany in group A. Only Jordan is still not eliminated. If they want to pass they need to win against Argentina tonight and Australia tomorrow. We should probably wait for a few an hour to officially eliminate Jordan.  :) Nightfall87 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry nightfalls, but you are wrong, Jordan cannot possibly advance, even if they win their remaining games, they will be tied for fourth with either angola or australia, and they lost to both of them already. And it looks like by the time the ivory coast blunder is corrected, they might be eliminated by a puerto rico win over turkey174.90.234.66 (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, mine bad. Sorry. I thought Jordan is playing last match with Australia. Nightfall87 (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

---

France is not definitely second in their group, as illustrated in the brackets by their flag. They could lose to New Zealand and end up 3rd or 4th overall, in a three-way tie with Spain —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.188.48 (talk) 20:03, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, with a loss to NZ by 11 or less, France will be 3rd, 12 or more 4th. NZ needs a win by 29 to come 2nd (by 28 if they score more than 83)174.90.236.174 (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

FIBA Broadcasting rights

I dont know who reverted the edit of Kosovo on FIBA Broadcasting rights section, if you see in the official FIBA website http://turkey2010.fiba.com/pages/eng/fe/10/fwcm/p/tv_broadcasters.html Kosovo is listed among other countries by name and Kohavision (a Kosovar private TV channel licensed by Kosovo Independent Media Commission) is placed in its country Kosovo, not Serbia. Is there any other need of proof more than FIBA official website? Digitalpaper (talk) 20:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Try citing the table, if it's removed one more time it can either be semi-protected or the guy removing it may be blocked. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW, what is Kosovo's TLA? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Table is [1], I'm going now to update and place Kosovo on it. In Kosovo passports RKS, sometimes KSV is the TLA but yet ISO did not decide yet, also in Wikipedia is not any template, in this case we can add full length names of all countries.Digitalpaper (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest just use the plain country names without flags if we're just going to ditch the TLAs. As per citing the table we need an external source such as FIBA's website. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I just updated the entire table with country names and flags. Here is the source from FIBA website [2]Digitalpaper (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You better add that as a reference. If someone removes it (including the reference) it'll be easier for an admin to either block or semi the article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) There is the possibility of a double standard here. Given that while the FIBA reference website lists England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland (northern?) as all being on ESPN UK (except for Wales which is missing the K) and on the article we are combining all of them into one entry, the fact that Kosovo is split out *is* choosing to view it as independent. (While the relationship between the pieces of Serbia isn't quite equivalent to the Nations within the UK, there are some similarities.) Having said that, the IP editor is definitely guilty of gross incivility as the block of the IP says. -- Naraht (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

i have no problem splitting up the UK. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

problem

We are listing teams that go on after four games, yet there is one more game left. That's wrong. (LAz17 (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2010 (UTC)).

If there is no possible way that those teams will fail to qualify why not list them as qualified? Kante4 (talk) 20:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Technically there is a possibility. For example, germany wins the last game by a big margin and angola loses their last game by a big margin. By point differential germany goes through, right? It's not likely, but it is in theory possible... for others too, like Iran, or Lebanon? (LAz17 (talk) 21:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)).

Wrong: If Germany wins by any margin it does not matter because you get 2 points for a win and 1 point for a loss. Germany wins =7, Angola loses =7 but Angola won the match against Germany, so Angola goes through. I think you did not know that you get a point for a loss, right? Kante4 (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I am well aware that a loss equals one point, but I thought that the scoring +- difference is what matters? Am I wrong? (LAz17 (talk) 22:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)).

At the end of the preliminary round, any ties will be broken by the following criteria, ordered from the one that will be applied first to the last: 1. Game results between tied teams 2. Goal average between games of the tied teams 3. Goal average for all games of the tied teams 4. Drawing of lots So when points are equal the head-to-head results counts first. That´s why most groups are decided already. Kante4 (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Well then I guess group C should be fixed. China is labeled as going on (in green), which is quite weird btw. (LAz17 (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)).

I think here you can find an explanation why is China already qualified for the next round. Nightfall87 (talk) 18:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

China will get either 7 or 6 points in the end. If they get 6, they still win on the tiebreaker vs. CIV and PR. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 18:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Clearly my comment about China was made BEFORE the last round was played, before anything was final. Yet people said that certain teams do go on, while others do not. I therefore changed the colors on the score table to show that it's not yet known which of the three go forward. In the meantime all the games ended and I get these rude comments explaining why China went forward... that was not the issue. (LAz17 (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)).

China went forward when CIV won over PR, e.g. before their game vs. Turkey. That's it. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The table had them in last place, hence something was wrong. Is it that big of an issue to nickle and dime this issue? (LAz17 (talk) 15:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)).

Nothing was wrong; it was a consequence of FIBA's way of ranking teams, and how the games were scheduled. Teams that played more games will have higher point totals even though they all had losses. A team with a record of 0-5 has a higher ranking than a team with a 2-0 record. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Final Standings

"Teams that were 6th at their preliminary rounds are officially tied for 21st", Lebanon is a 5th place club ranked 21st, whoever did this edit please clarify the logic used or correct it please.174.90.246.253 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Attendance statistics?

Is there a citation for the attendance statistics? I watched the USA-Angola game and there is no way the arena had 15,000 people in it out of a max of 16,000. it appeared little more than half full, if that. Obviously if that's the "official" attendance then we have to go with it; that's the Orwellian world we live in, but I'm highly skeptical. -- InspectorTiger (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In the Official Reports the attendance is given and it is at 15,000 for every game at the knockout stage so far... Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree on that attendance at that USA/Angola game - half full would be quite generous...I watched the first half and would guess it was a third full at most. But FIBA has listed each game at 15,000, so we'll go with that for the game, although I wouldn't be opposed to adding a section about attendance on the page, so long as the empty seats are getting significant media coverage (I haven't seen much here, but it's not exactly front page news here). Bds69 (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish Flag not visible

There is a problem with the mini Turkish flag picture. It's not displaying. Can someone take a look at it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.132.209.45 (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It´s good for me... Kante4 (talk) 17:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Eight-Finals vs. Round of 16

Any ideas on a way to work this out with continually reverting each other?Naraht (talk) 13:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Since it is called Eight-Finals on the official FIBA site we should go with this. Kante4 (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Suspensions due to Acropolis tourney

Can anyone add this? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 17:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What to add? Kante4 (talk) 19:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Krstic who was suspended for 3(?) games for throwing chairs at the Greeks. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I wrote recaps on the group pages that discuss the suspensions for each team (2 players on each team were suspended)...do you think we need more or is that enough? Bds69 (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer on this article since they were not really suspended due to the prelim round games. Perhaps we can also add other suspensions too, if any. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't quite sure where to put it, so added it under the squads section - probably fits there best. Bds69 (talk) 04:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

too long

We should keep the top scorer/rebounded/etc. in the knockout stage and just let the quarter scores remain. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 01:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree, and I would even add that we could format them like the preliminary round. I'm sure that we copied the format from the 2010 FIFA World Cup, but basketball doesn't really lend itself to a small scoring format like the World Cup. Furthermore, the knockout stage page on the World Cup had a bunch of new information, whereas we were largely copying text from the main page. Thoughts on this? Bds69 (talk) 19:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer adding quarter scores and the attendance just to fill up two lines -- we're supposed to add some detail to games that are more important. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Still too long. We should probably move the stats stuff into a separate article. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 12:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

What about just showing the bracket? Kante4 (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

That should be our very last resort. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:10, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Because everything else in in the seperate article, that´s why this was my suggestion. Kante4 (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As the "most important" part of the tournament we should give that "special" status. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more on the size, unless there's actually a barometer somewhere we're supposed to follow. We're coming in at about half the size of the 2010 IIHF World Championship, just over half the size of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, and about 20k less than the 2009 World Men's Handball Championship. It appears that we're on pace to finish at slightly less than the handball championship. You may like shorter articles, but I feel like we'd be doing a real disservice to basketball on wikipedia if we pare this down that much lower than handball. Handball, for crying out loud! If we do decide to move something, I would agree that stats are probably what we can move, but I think that would end up being a short and pointless article. Bds69 (talk) 17:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I somehow agree, but I'd rather have a lean and mean article (less tables and stats and more prose) than an article that wastes bytes on useless classification games. Also, more subarticles means that the article is somehow more important. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 00:50, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

9th-16th place

FIBA apparently decided to rank the 9th-16th placed teams: http://turkey2010.fiba.com/pages/eng/fe/10/fwcm/news/p/eid/4728/nid/44426/sid/4728/article.html. Anyone (Howard - this seems right up your alley!) have any idea why they ranked Australia ahead of Greece? Bds69 (talk) 16:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that the ranking conforms exactly to FIBA's group comparative ranking on the Group Standing page...I assume this is why it's ranked this way, but I'd hope someone can confirm this for sure. Bds69 (talk) 16:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's follow what FIBA says. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 23:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. My question is what FIBA is saying. I don't see anywhere that explains how they came up with that, and I was wondering if you were able to figure out where they got the tiebreaker from. Bds69 (talk) 00:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Maybe they didn't include the result from eighth-finals game?

In a somewhat related matter, although the 17-20 and the 21-24 teams will still be ranked on our final result table via tiebreakers, I'd be rowspanning 17-20 to "17th" and 21-24 to "21st" to serve the impression that they're all 17th and 21st. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 02:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We can come up with the same ranking order using the actual tiebraker used by FIBA: Goal Average. They ranked them by using the goal average in preliminary round. 66.50.212.246 (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

So they did leave out the eighth finals results. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 16:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Consolation Bracket on front page

Alright, we're just going back and forth so I'm going to open up the discussion on the consolation bracket being on the front page. Really, I don't feel too strongly about it, but I've already made my thoughts known on the length of the article - it's shorter than every other comparable sport, so I have no qualms about the length as it stands. However, HTD or anyone else that supports a shorter article, feel free to point out a Wikipedia or WikiProject policy that favors a shorter article (i.e. a KB size that we should be under); I'm unaware of one, so if this is personal preference, I'm leaning towards leaving it - adding four more games to our total of 75 on the front page is not going to make a very big difference at all. Feel free to way in, because it's getting rather old. Bds69 (talk) 18:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I just find it frustrating. It is in the way. There's no good way to display it without being kind of a stumbling block for the more interesting and useful information that belongs in a general survey of the tournament. The fact that other articles are larded with such information is (IMO) neither here nor there. I am not interested in the handball tournament so I have done no work on it, but if the people who are interested in that want to lard it up with extraneous gunk, that's their decision. I may consider it tacky, they may not, and we each kind of keep to ourselves. It's the nature of Wikipedia to some extent. I don't feel strongly about this either, but all things considered, I'd vote against including it. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Didn't see your comment earlier before I posted this Howard. It's a tough call, because this isn't like the other continental championships where they play for every position - there's only 4 out of the 79 games that are consolation. Up until about 2 days ago I would have agreed that the subpages were a good thing, except I've been updating large parts of both articles and noticed that the main page has been vandalized approximately 14,000 times while the subpages have been vandalized between 2 and 5 times. Like I said, I could go either way on this, but since the vast majority of people that keep putting the consolation bracket on the main page aren't reading the Talk page, I'm keeping it because I'm tired of deleting it.

As to MrArticleOne, my point on the handball, etc. was not that they're longer, but that we shouldn't shorten the article just for the sake of shortening it. I guess the main takeaway point from me is I wouldn't have it on the front page either, but it's only 4 games and I'm getting tired of it moving back and forth with all the people putting it back on. Bds69 (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Putting in games that won't matter on who will win is really bad. That's why subpages were created. Except for the third place game since they'd win something. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) 02:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Minor point

Someone keeps putting in the list of qualified teams a parenthetical comment for ESP that they're the '06 World Champions. This is highly misleading. The other 6 teams with parenthetical comments have those comments relating to how they got to this tournament: TUR is here because they're the host, USA is here because they won the '08 Olympic Tournament, and the other 4 teams are here because they're Wild Cards. ESP is not here because they won the '06 World Championship, and so putting a parenthetical comment there like the parenthetical comments for TUR, USA, and the wild cards is highly misleading. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:36, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

And that's not just speculative confusion; I counted and counted and counted and couldn't get the continental qualifiers to add up properly until I realized that Spain was one of the European continental qualifiers, and was not here by virtue of winning the '06 tournament. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Adding into the news section

Should finals of such events be mentioned "In the news" section of main page? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.0.16.224 (talk) 20:31, 12 September 2010 (UTC)