Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)

Group Super-Structure

Couldn't help but notice the edit conflict. I hope [1] will settle it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groups

Hey man, I saw the website, and yes, I missed the first sentences, I apologize for that. JC 09:00 28 March 2008 (PST)

NP, just in the future rather than making a whole bunch of effort only to be reverted (something I have plenty of experience at myself), you can probably bring it up in talk and get the whole thing sorted out a lot easier.

Would it not be apropriate to mention the controversy in the draw dates used for CONCACAF seeding. Some countries (such as Canada) were heavily punnished because the results used for WCQ seeding was taken before the Gold CUP, Canada was seed in the 3rd pot, but was, in reality a first pot team as of the date of the draw. CONCACAF is the only federation to conduct seeding in this fashion, unless I am mistaken -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would only be appropriate to mention it if you can find reliable sources. The AFC does the same thing - Australia is seeded first in 2010 WCQ because of their 2006 WC performance, even though they were knocked out at the quarterfinals of the Asian Cup in 2007. -- Chuq (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third Round, not Semi-final

I've changed the headings in the second round to refer to the third round rather than semi final. The third Round is listed as such in its own section of this article, in the template, and in its own article, and the term "semi-final" suggests two teams playing off for one position, which isn't the case with the third round. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fair enough. Last time around (and in the early Concacaf drafts of the format) the rounds were named Prelim-1, Prelim-2, Semi-final and Hexagonal. The FIFA website uses First, Second, Third, Fourth however and we should stick to those for consistency. Jlsa (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Higher Ranked teams to the left

I feel that moving the higher ranked teams to the left helps to show upsets correctly. It removes no information as the matches are still shown in the correct order.

72.42.134.253 (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't show the draw correctly though. Information about which team is higher ranked is elsewhere on the page if anyone wants it - but information on the draw order isn't, which is why that is the standard way of showing these matches (and not just on this page - it's standard for all similar pages). It is important to note which of the two teams plays at home first, which the draw order determines - losing that info... well, it loses info. Please don't change it! Grutness...wha? 08:51, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then could we had a sentence to the page explaining which teams played at home first, those on the right or those on the left?

72.42.134.253 (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What - you mean go completely against standard football practice? Why would anyone want to do that? Grutness...wha? 21:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explain something on an encyclopedia? I agree. It's ridiculous. 99.251.246.204 (talk) 22:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

if all you're doing is adding something that is already well-known standard practice, yes. As I said, all other pages are done this way for the simple reason that this is how football draws are written. You don't need to explain this. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying and actually agree with your conclusion, but the way you get there and your explanation simply does not hold water. You're arguing that something is common knowledge and this is why it should not be in an encyclopedia. That position is untenable and frankly a little disturbing. Common knowledge is not a criterion for NOT including something in an encyclopedia. Check out this entry: Walk My goodness, why is that there? Who in the world doesn't understand what Walking is? Let's vote to remove it. /sarcasm 99.251.246.204 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I suggest that an article on how sports draws are written is needed, if it doesn't already exist at some esoteric title? Certainly that would make far more sense that cluttering up every single article on an event where this sort of draw is listed, which would be the logical inevitable conclusion of the information were added to this article. Grutness...wha? 01:21, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah yeah. See, I agree with that 100%. Much better than the old explanation. Plus, if that other page ever does get created, it would contrast to how other sports are mentioned such as hockey games where it is written in the opposite order of football (soccer). In hockey, the home team is always mentioned last (from historically stating that the game is Toronto AT Montreal for example). So it's not a moot point if you want to know who's the home team or not.99.251.246.204 (talk) 02:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be an elegant solution to a problem that doesn't exist in the first place. Aheyfromhome (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The difference in standard has nothing to do with what sport it is, it has to do with whether the sport uses the North American format or the international format. In international tournaments we use the international standard and in North American domestic (and by "domestic" I mean the US and Canada) competitions we use the North American standards. Since this is an international tournament we list the home team first and we follow the conventions of the draw. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:46, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And one would know this how? The fact that you mentioned it means that you felt it was useful and warranted. If not, then delete you message. Otherwise, you just proved my point. Vorlath (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the conversation at talk:2008 Major League Soccer season, which I was a major part of. Not everything in every article needs to be enumerated. Often we can just use convention without having to explain it. By looking around the encyclopedia this will be made more than obvious to you. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My 2 cents: If the aim is to simply show which teams are more favoured to win or not, commentary or analysis of the rounds will cover this which could mention the upsets are unexpected victories/losses. Just changing the traditional fixture style does not seem like a logical option. For example, look at UEFA Euro 2008 Group C note their summary at the top in addition to simply listing the points tables or scores. It does seem like this is missing from the CONCACAF WCQ articles as they all look fairly generic and don't really give readers a commentary on how the WCQ plays out. Rasadam (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that adding one sentence that says "Teams that play at home first are listed on the left" would solve this.72.42.134.253 (talk) 06:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - there's no reason not to explain this. (I don't find the arguments by Grutness above very convincing. They seem to be that "everybody" knows soccer draws take this format, which is patently wrong, and therefore that simple explanations are clutter. This is an encyclopedia, and should always err on the side of clarity, rather than on the side of stroking the ego of soccer intelligentsia to make people feel like they possess insider information.) Create a simple, unobtrusive template that we can add to the bottom of the tables. Then use that template everywhere there's a tournament draw that could benefit from this explanation. - PhilipR (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When every international football draw is listed in this way, it should be fairly obvious. Just because we use the Away-Home format in the US doesn't mean that we're not one of the only countries to do so. This is by definition and international football tournament, and so we use the international format without needing to justify it. I agree that clarity is important, but not everything has to be explicitly enumerated in every article. Every international football tournament is listed this way without justification, and this should be no different. -- Grant .Alpaugh 23:08, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"it should be fairly obvious" - but plainly it's not, because we're having this discussion. The only possible reason to oppose a small explanatory note at the bottom is for those in the know to keep others not in the know. That's unencyclopedic and not in keeping with the mission of WP. WP doesn't exist exclusively to inform those who already know the conventions of int'l soccer tournaments. (Not that it matters, but I have been aware of this convention for some time; I just don't believe in withholding information without a good reason.) I'm not proposing this as a variance for CONCACAF or other US-related competitions; I think it's a helpful addition no matter who the participants.

If we can't reach consensus to add some sort of explanation, I plan to refer this for mediation; I think a less soccer-informed POV might be helpful. - PhilipR (talk) 00:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, most people wouldn't wonder why teams are ordered the way they are. Second, most of the people coming to this article understand that it is about an international football tournament, and that there are conventions about international football and international football articles. This is why we don't necessarily have to have a key on every football article explaining what Pts, GD, etc. stand for. This is along those same lines. And finally, if they are for some reason curious, they will check the article about a particular round as well, in which it is clearly shown which nation is home in each game. If they aren't able to deduce that unless there is a footnote explaining the exceptions the Home team is listed first in all of the articles, then chances are they aren't able to put their pants on in the morning, let alone access the internet. I really think you're creating a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was no reason behind which side was listed first. I think adding a sentence to the article would be beneficial for people like me who simply don't know all the conventions. I wasn't curious about the home teams, but being able to see which teams are at home in the article would have increased my understanding of this competition, which is the point of this article. I also fail to see any harm in adding a sentence. I'm in favor of it. Oh, and by the way, I can put my pants on just fine.72.42.134.253 (talk) 07:46, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teams are ordered at random, but the team that comes out of the hat first is given the first game at home. -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm understanding correctly, you're arguing vehemently that Wikipedia should try very hard NOT to present clear information. I fully understand not wanting to "dumb down" WP's soccer coverage for those who aren't its most intensive users (I'm obviously speculating, based on what seems to me the most compelling argument for not presenting this info), but I think the nature of an encyclopedia is to err on the side of abundant information. And yes, IMO a small legend explaining GD and other such terms would be totally appropriate; conversely, as suggested above, it might be better organized to include an article that spells all this out with a small link in the table footer. Either solution is far preferable to just leaving these assumptions unstated.

As to solving a problem that doesn't exist -- someone already spent their time making useless edits because of this lack of clarity, so I think the problem does exist. I'm open to discussing its magnitude, but I'm not open to withholding information just so we can keep Wikipedia soccer articles mysterious and the province of the soccer-savvy.

I don't really have time to advocate for a mediation process but I may do it anyway, because I feel it's critically important that this site not creep into SoccerSnobpedia. - PhilipR (talk) 16:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, the reason this problem arose was not because someone misunderstood the way the draw was organized. Rather, someone took it upon themselves to try to update the article to "better show upsets," something that is both unnecessary and OR. You are overrepresenting the ammount of confusion about the article. If you take a look at the talk:UEFA Euro 2008 page, you'll see a similar situation. Because that is a UEFA run tournament (as opposed to FIFA) Head-to-Head result is given presidence to GD in breaking ties. Because of this so-called "irregularity" teams like Switzerland and Greece were mathematically eliminated by the end of the second matchday and Portugal, Croatia, Netherlands, and Spain were all mathematically confirmed as group winners at the same time. There was a mass (and by this I mean several hundred more than what we've had here) of good faith edits removing the red color from the tables showing teams eliminated or removing teams from the knockout bracket or removing text explaining why they had been mathematically eliminated, etc. As a result, several editors were requesting a not unreasonable line of explaination about this tiebreaking "change," but there were a number of editors who correctly pointed out that as far as this tournament goes it has been this way for at least 12 years and so noting the deviation from the "norm" would give credence to the idea that there was in fact a norm. This is a similar situation. This article is no different than the thousands of other articles that detail football tournament draws, and it is unwise to treat the viewers of this article as any less capable of understanding convention. This has nothing to do with snobbery or not erring on the side of clarity, it has to do with treating all articles consistently, even the ones that might be viewed by Americans who know next to nothing about soccer. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:28, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But I'd argue all such articles should have explanatory footnotes; whether they are or aren't likely to be viewed by nationals of a particular country has nothing to do with anything. However, I don't care enough to invest any more thought in it. - PhilipR (talk) 05:24, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just add a footnote and save wasting even more time on this. Rasadam (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semifinal round matchups/sites

According to the US Soccer site, provisional sites and game dates have been set for the US home games, provided the US wins the present series vs. Barbados (first leg: 6-0 to the US after 82 minutes). I would presume that dates are also set for all games (pending the actual second round winners). Also, some of the larger countries such as Mexico or Canada may have announced provisional sites. At what point and in what format is it legitimate to include this information? - PhilipR (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends what you intend to put down. You could probably already put down generic dates (as per the matchday list) and have USA/BRB v GUA/LCA etc set out - CONCACAF have probably already done this draw - but only a couple of countries have set out their proposed schedules. Then as the teams are confirmed by Round Two results you could add in venues and times (and actual dates). Someone will eventually do this - it's just a question of when. And, unless it's done badly it will probably stand. However (since the US venues are known) I would hope they aren't put into the table until the US has officially advanced.Jlsa (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid issues of crystal balling, I think it would be best to wait the week required for everything to be official. I know everyone's excited, but that's no reason to get ahead of ourselves. -- Grant .Alpaugh 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorers

For those coming late to the fun: Goal scorers for this qualifying contest are to be ordered, first by number of goals scored, second by nation, and third by alphabetical order within squad. Only the top ten scorers, plus ties, are to be listed in the table. All scorers for qualifying will be listed, however. Please keep track, if moving someone down off the table or up to the table, of what goals they have scored and in which rounds...this information is listed for each player not-included in the table, though invisibly. Thank you. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor and applaud your effort to move things forward. Vorlath (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could we please not update the date at the top of the goalscorers section until ALL of the matches for that date are included in this section? Or cite the matches left to update for that day and remove them as they are updated. The update date is for the date of the matches, NOT WHEN YOU EDIT THE PAGE! Vorlath (talk) 00:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder: goalscorers are arranged first by goals scored, then by country, then alpahbetically by last name. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's how it used to be. Now someone screwed it all up. I'm gonna have to find out how to revert the goalscorers section. Why in the world would anyone mess it up this badly? Vorlath (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vorlath, no sweat. I've taken care of it, complete with explanation. Because I'm just that awesome. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vorlath, what the heck? I had it taken care of, with the players back in the correct order! (Mostly, I think.) What gives? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing, I just reverted it and noticed you had made some changes earlier than I did. Besides, I put it back the way it was. Let's just keep it this way. I'm more than happy to update that section as I've been doing for the past while since it's always the last section to be updated. Vorlath (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scorers listed in the table should be ranked alphabetically based on ties. The team name should not be used when a flag icon will do just fine. As for those outside the top 10, they should be lumped all together with flagicons used again and only be seperated by goals scored. That is the way every other article is done. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:04, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted by author in the hopes to get a more positive dialogue.) Vorlath (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maintainability should not trump the presentation. If you want to be able to accurately update the article FIFA.com or CONCACAF.com will do just fine. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted by author) Vorlath (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a project page, it's an encyclopedia article. There is no reason you can't use the source information to update the article, it's what we do at 2008 Major League Soccer season. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted by author) Vorlath (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way, but aparently you don't understand that you don't WP:OWN WP. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted by author) Vorlath (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grant, you are wrong. That is not the way every other tournament does it. Your basic design is fine. Your ordering is wrong. Vorlath was quite right to tell you so. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

68.97.115.26, sorry about the earlier edit. I hadn't seen it. AFAIC, Grant can have his table. You'll have to fight him on your own if you want the changes you speak of. I'm willing to help out and in the past, I have edited hundreds of wikipedia pages (not under this account) and had my edits changed and even deleted, but it's simply not worth my time if I have to fight just to get information on the page. Vorlath (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but this nonsense about me having an ego trip really is absurd. I really think it's time for WP:TEA, Vorlath, don't you? I'm more than willing to accept your order, however. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vorlath, I understand. I do that sometimes too, and I have no hard feelings toward you. Grant, Vorlath is just frustrated because he knows how these international goal tables are supposed to be done, and you were fighting him on it. The design isn't as important, in this case, as consistency of information presented. Come on, guys, we're all football fans here, right? No need to be so rancorous when we're all surely reasonable people. Can't we just have Grant's design with Vorlath's preferred presentation? Pretty please? Wouldn't that be an acceptable compromise? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely we can be reasonable. I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean by "international goal tables?" There's not a single World Cup or Euro article that lists goalscorers explicitly by team, everyone is just listed with a flag. I don't see why we even need a table in the first place, but it seems the Asia article is that way as well. No matter which table is used, they should both be listed in the same manner as consistency is important. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a CONCACAF article do? Take a look at the scorer's listing for the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup. You'll find the players laid out first by goals scored, then by country (not listed; flags only shown), then alphabetically. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, no I'm not contesting that. Just the presentation. I'm all right with rowspanning the goals for the ties, but there's simply no reason to include the whole team name when the bloody flag will do. I'll get to work on the AFC article tomorrow, but I'm to bed at the minute. I think we're very much on the same page though. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good. So hopefully that fight is over. Vorlath, would you care to weigh in? Is this alright with you? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only wanted the round number for 1 goal scorers as they are the only ones where it is not indicated. That's it. That's all I was pushing for, though the table WAS messed up. The round indicator in the 1 goal section makes it easier to update too because when you add these goal scorers for their second or more goals from a recent match, you know right away how to update the table. It doesn't take up space. It doesn't alter the presentation as Grant incorrectly suggested. And since I was updating that section anyways, I was all to happy to maintain that info if no one else wanted to. I even suggested that it could be taken out after the qualifiers are over. As to the format of the table, I couldn't care less. I actually like that the 1 goal section is shorter. In fact, I really like it. I then saw your comment and that you suggested the exact order that was there before for the table (and the format that I've seen in other places). So you (and then I without knowing you had already done so) put it back. I still don't understand what Grant is all about though. I've edited hundreds of pages on here and never had this kind of problem. (edit: I'll not be updating that section anymore, so do what you all think is best for wikipedia readers.)Vorlath (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's why you were restoring the original edit. I missed that. I understand now, and apologize. Round numbers have been restored for all single-goal scorers. Please don't leave. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love when people resort to the "I'll get my way or I'll take my ball and I'll go home" argument. Exactly what problem is it that you were having? People changing things that you've edited. If that's really what's upsetting you, then I seriously doubt you've been involved with WP for that long. As for the round numbers in the list, I really have to contest that info's inclusion. Here's why: as the qualifiers progress, there will be more than just 1 goal scorers in the list, as the table is only supposed to handle the top 10 scorers. When that happens, you will get the situation where someone with a long name has 4 goals scored, and you'll have to have something after their name saying (R1), (R2), 2(R4), which will create a problem with the collumns. There is no need to keep this information in the article. What would be appropriate would be hiding that information with  markers so that the information is included in the code, but not in the article. Please quit your temper tantrum and continue editing the article. Your contributions are highly valued by this community. -- Grant .Alpaugh 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Grant. Remember me, the person you said was so reasonable yesterday? The person who just added in all the rounds for the one-goal scores, which you then deleted and blamed on Vorlath? That was me, and I spent a great deal of time restoring that information. Look, there's nothing anywhere that says the table is only for the top ten scorers. Why don't we just make the table for all multiple-goal scorers, since we already have the provisions to do it by round? --68.97.115.26 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See your talk page about the info being "deleted." The brief summary is that that info is available to assist updaters, but not available on the article. I guess after the tourney is over we could unhide the round info as long as it doesn't affect the collumn widths. As for the table, if you look at every league or tournament article, the table of scorers only include the top ten scorers. Normally no one else is included at all, but at articles like the World Cup or Euros every scorer is included without a table of any kind. Since this is kind of a hybrid, I think that including the table for the top 10 and the list for the rest would be appropriate. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I thought that was gone. Good to know it isn't. I still have some issues about the way this is being handled (because I have cited twice on this page a tournament article that does indeed include every scorer), but I agree that we can put off discussion of it to a later time...say, after the qualifiers are over, or at least after this round is completed. --68.97.115.26 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my position is: include every scorer (like the article you quoted), but only include the top 10 plus ties in the table (like every other article I've mentioned). I think we agree on everything, our communication is just what's lacking. -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(deleted by author) Vorlath (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are taking this way too personally and some WP:TEA is most definitely in order. Nobody else in this conversation is anywhere near as upset as you are. Take a chill pill, man. -- Grant .Alpaugh 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(snip) BTW, I went and looked around and the other World Cup qualifier pages for other regions do it the way it was before. Go see the page for CAF and AFC. (snip) Vorlath (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, take your own advice and stop trying to make me sound like I'm angry just because you are. What happened to WP:GOODFAITH? Seriously. Stop with the drama. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted my comments in the hopes to have a more positive dialogue. Vorlath (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Third round order

Shouln't the fixture boxes be in alphabetical order, like they are at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Third Round? Grutness...wha? 22:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they should. It will be fixed when all the matches are done. They will be moved to templates. Group 2 is already done. {{2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Third Round Group 2}}. Group 1 and 3 are in my sandbox waiting to know the teams. I'm waiting until everything is done to set them up.-CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group templates

The templates that are confusing as hell to understand how to use for the third round need to be removed. Replace the easier to use script that was there before —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocparty22 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either that or fix the flagicon's for group A. The templates are okay except for that

1,2,3 v A,B,C

Awesome. After these pages develop towards consistency across all confederations over 9 months, one guy turns one confed's pages into a trainwreck in one night. CONCACAF website DOES use A,B,C, BUT it also uses "semi final round" (see, for example, qualifing draw whcih also uses Stage 1 and 2 instead of First and Second Round). FIFA uses 1,2,3 and Third Round (see, for example, FIFA news here). Now, because someone notices half of the difference with another website, all the standardisation across the WC2010 qual pages (templates, naming conventions, goal scorer table structures) gets tossed out. Bravo. And another thiing, on templates, part of their beauty is that OTHER pages can also use them to keep related information up to date. For example, the page 2008 in Iraqi football can link directly to the latest standings in the relevant group WITHOUT HAVING TO BE UPDATED SEPARATELY. That is why we use templates, not because YOU can only think of one or two pages where the information might appear, but because using them allows HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE to present the same information on a consistent basis where it is relevant without all of them needing to update their pages. Removing the templates (presumably because they are a bit hard for you) effectively cripples one of the best features of Wikipedia. In conclusion. Stop. Jlsa (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There needs to be some serious intervention into the editing of this 2010 Qualification by an Administrator. Major changes are being made on an arbitrary basis, people are assuming they own the pages, etc. This is getting ridiculous. The culprit that changed the templates didn't even consider DISCUSSING it first, which it should have been. Rasadam (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all I really apologize for any problems I've caused by detemplating these articles re: the Third Round. That's still no reason to assume it is because I'm claiming ownership of the article or making changes on an arbitrary basis. (If you got that from the guy in the section above about scoring, please read the whole conversation as I think his remarks are a little off base.) I detemplated them because it's been my experience at the CONCACAF articles that people try to be too cute by half and template things that are only in one article, like the problem we had at 2008 Major League Soccer season, where all of the standings were seperate templates. In regards to the group names, I was unaware of the inconsistency between FIFA and other sites, so I made a good faith correction when I saw the discrepency. If there really are questions of whether I have any idea what I'm doing, you could let me know by dropping me a note on my talk page before throwing around things like "culprit." -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough (apology accepted). There is a lot of angst here (yet, admittedly, nothing like the MLS talk page - hooley dooley, that's a cat fight). The problem on my side came from trying to stop these changes but having more and more pop-up at 3am. I think the points on templates are important more generally however - even the best-2nd place stuff for CAF is a template. There does seem to be a whole lot of rubbish going on at the moment and tons of important changes being made without referencing etc. It doesn't take much - look at the WC finals page - lots of changes A1 -> RSA -> A1 -> RSA, people reverting stuff claiming its wrong and others just cramming it back. It took 2 minutes to look through the freakin' WC regulations to find out the true story (RSA will be team A1 in the finals). Come on people - It ain't hard. Jlsa (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my thing: we need a major standardization for the whole WCQ tourney from group names to goalscorers. I think that it is important to list all of the goalscorers on the main article, but only include the top 10 plus ties in the table. The group names aren't as big a deal, but consistency is what is important. BTW, don't UEFA use letters for theirs? I just wish we could figure this out before the next rounds get underway after the summer is over. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After summer???? I though we kicked off again in August. I'm not gonna be able to hold out til next year!!!!!!! UEFA does use letters for its tournaments, and FIFA uses letters for the finals. But the UEFA pots were Pot A-F and the Groups are 1-9. AFC fourth round groups are expected to be Group A and Group B (that expectation based on the fact we have Pots 1-4 in Friday's draw).Jlsa (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I meant the end of summer, i.e. August. So what have we decided about 1,2,3vA,B,C? -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care really. But don't move the templates. It causes a headache with the doc pages and stuff. I assume people can relate Group 1 with Group A and so on.-CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More on goalscorers

To assist in Vorlath trying to get this discussion back on track, I've started a new section (not that innocent old me was involved in the last time anyway).

IIRC, I created the first one of these detailed 2010 scorers tables with separate columns for different rounds (for the AFC I think, because the Uzbek guy scored a boatload in the first round and it seemed he'd always be miles ahead).

The format was intended to be set up as: Rank* - Name - Country* - Goals* - R1 - R2 etc as required. Over time the *'d columns have tended to cover multiple rows (which looks neater but is a bugger to maintain). Generally all those who have scored 2 or more goals have been included (at the start I hadn't though about how it might be limited, though some suggest only top 10 scorers, and looking at the CAF list I can see why).

The country name includes both the flag and the country name (unlike Concacaf does at present) because not everyone can discern the difference between a Turks and Caicos Islands and Montserrat and BVI etc flag from a quick glance.

There have still been changes. Someone reversed the '-' and 'x' in the key, which is probably an improvement (and the multiple rows thing was done by someone else).

This doesn't mean we have to use this set-up, just letting you know how I originally envisioned it. Jlsa (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would consistency with the other confederations that have multiple rounds (like CAF and AFC) be an important consideration? One concern is coming back in August and someone else starts changing the tables back. It's not so much the changes, but that this would lead to a lot of wasted effort (and arguments) that can be avoided. BTW, everything you've suggested is how it was before and I had no problem updating the entries. Also, there's no real point in a top ten at all. The South America confederation just lists scorers by goals (like the 1 goal section) if you want to see who's on top. It's easy to see who's had the most goals. But it lacks round information (which they don't have or need). The full table is useful in CONCACAF because you can see what rounds they scored, otherwise round info is useless in a top 10 table too if you consider that all goals should be considered equal. Vorlath (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one that attempted the major overhaul because there is really no reason to include the flag and name when the flag will do just fine (if you don't know what country it is, just mouse over it and your browser should tell you, or alphabetically in the lists they will be miles apart). As for the multirow thing, it gets to be way more than a pain in the ass when some of the collumns get to double digits and everything is not perfectly in line anymore. IMHO, it is far easier to tell if you are in the 5th row than it is to tell if you are in the 5th slot on a row of numbers and dividers. Also, the X for elimination seems to make more inherent sense, so I changed it. I really think that the table should be limited to the top 10 plus ties, as that is where people really start to care/distinguish themselves. Anyway, that's just a thought. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E/C - as for the issue of having a table only for the zones that have multiround qualifying, I couldn't agree more. When you're all in one round, it doesn't really matter just like the WC or Euros where they don't worry about what round the goals were scored in. I think that AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, and OFC editing communities should communicate with each other to work out a semi-consistent format for the way to list scorers. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where possible I think consistency is positive. Obviously in the case of UEFA (and CONMEBOL) it would be a bit pointless - almost all their goals will be in the group phase and the playoffs aren't until the end - so I wouldn't bother at all. The top 10 thing I think is a bit restrictive, although I can see that we might have a huge number of people on 2 goals in the longer run, which might say we want to make it a three goal minimum. I believe you added in the comments in the single goal scorers section to assist with dealing with them moving up to the table - that was a very good idea. I think it would be nice to have it look like the OFC/AFC/CAF versions - and I would be more likely to help maintain it if it were similar to the others. Jlsa (talk) 04:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the only reason to have a table is to show the ranking, and having a giant list of people who are tied in the table is pointless. That is why 10 plus ties is what is used in almost every article (league, cup, whatever). I will be more than willing to transition the other 3 to this format if you would support me in that effort. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree. People are interested in all the goal scorers, not just for the purposes of a broad ranking, but also to gauge how goals are distributed within a team. The World Cup is really a different beast to most other things like leagues and cups, the qualification is such a monstrous beast that can (quite frankly) become all consuming. I would hate to see the goal scorers list pared back on the confederation tables (although I think the individual round lists the say Concacaf Round Two are probably a tad too much). It's not like we're going to run out of space (and, because the lists are invariably at the bottom of the page, they don't cause problems in moving other information 'out of sight'. I still disagree with you on the flag thing as well. Just because we can mouse-over to get the information is not a substitute for additional clarity in my opinion. Jlsa (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree, people are interested in the goal scorers of their home country specifically. And about the name of countries, I've never even heard of Suriname and they're in the group stage. Certainly I'm nothing to go by, but there are a lot of countries in CONCACAF that are not well known, even by coaches as was demonstrated by the Canadian coach who indicated St. Kitts instead of St. Vincent and actually said he needed to do research. Vorlath (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, four countries being confusing is not a reason to throw away the whole system. There is no reason to include the name of the country when the flag will do just fine. It saves space, and it looks a million times better. The issue with the table/list hybrid is that there is no added benefit of adding all of the scorers to the table, other than creating an alphabetized list by country of all the scorers. The only thing is that in the list portion of the set up we currently have, that exact same thing is accomplished without creating a table that is way longer than is useful. Leaderboards denote rank, and when there are any more than a handful of people at a given rank (especially at the bottom) the rank loses meaning. I think the hybrid we have now works great, and would be all in favor of taking it to the other three minor confederations' communities to work on consistency. -- Grant .Alpaugh 04:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's clarify that it isn't only four countries.

Even if it is 10 countries that is 5% of the FIFA teams and not worth adding redundant information to clarify those situations.

It's CONCACAF, not the entire world. -Vorlath

We're talking about developing a system for CONCACAF, OFC, AFC, and CAF, but as I said, conceded. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was just explained why naming the country was better.

No. It wasn't. There is nothing that enumerating the team name does better than mousing over or clicking the flag if you're curious. I promise that people have more initiative when they're curious than you give them credit for.

Actually, you just mentioned what it does better. The written word requires no mouse over. -Vorlath

Conceded. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the hybrid table made sense (and it doesn't), it is still not consistent with the other confederations. That's a situation has to be solved. But this is a non-issue if we use the long table as it was before (or some variation like only list 3+ goals).

Kindly don't create strawmen or poison the well. As we were saying though, that can be taken care of once we deal with whether the format has merits. I promise you things like this have happened before (see my experience with W-L-T/W-D-L on talk:2008 Major League Soccer season.

When there are numerous wells that are poisoned, I think it deserves a little consideration compared to the benefits if all it does is look prettier according to one's asthetics. There has to be something more than just that. -Vorlath

What the fuck are you talking about!? -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was already explained that length is not an issue.

Leaderboards lose their meaning when they include so many ties. The difference between 4th and 5th has meaning. The difference between T-6th and T-32nd because of 20+ people being tied has next to no meaning. Those people would be best handled by a list as we are doing now.

As was said, if it was just the rankings, it would have been done like South America. That's clearly not the case here. -Vorlath

What's the difference between a set goal number and a set player number? The difference is that in every other article tables are limited to 10 plus ties

This should be about getting the readers of wikipedia the most information possible that would benefit them and help in readability.

As I said just a second ago, putting all those ties in the table makes the table look like poop, makes the information harder to digest, and gives the information less meaning.

It's questionable whether personal asthetics trumps display of information. -Vorlath

If the information is displayed in a way that gives it no relative meaning (i.e. what a leaderboard is by definition supposed to do), then the appearence has to be taken into account.

None of these are advertised as "leaderboards" they are list of goalscorers - and that's what their section are titled: goalscorers. The only leaderboard is the one on the overall qualification page. That one is limited to the top 10 - as it should be. Jlsa (talk) 06:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you think "Rank" is? Seriously, you're getting petty. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. The section is advertised as a list of scorers. There is also additional information placing them in order of goals scored (rather than grouping them by country or alphabetically or what) and providing some breakdown of the highest goal scorers to indicate those that may have racked up a lot of goals in early rounds against far weaker nations when others may have had byes (a situation that doesn't hold in UEFA or Conmebol). I'm not really sure what you want out of all this. Both me and Vorlath note that cutting the table off at 3 (or even more) goals rather than 2 makes sense (even if we didn't do it yet). What are you hoping the final outcome will be (apart from the flag thing which everybody else in this thread seems to disagree with you on)? Jlsa (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care what the goal cutoff is, I want the cutoff to be 10 players plus ties. You already accept that it is acceptable to cut the table off, so rather than pick an arbitrary number of goals, let's use the same arbitrary number of players that is used in every other football competition article. The section is a list of scorers, and every scorer is listed. We just also offer more information about the top 10 scorers, so we do both. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vorlath (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I think you mean "questionable" here - or perhaps not). Jlsa (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. TY Vorlath (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the liberty to intersperse my comments to your points directly. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that the "flag only" thing looks good in the CONMEBOL context - because there are only a few countries. The additional advantage of naming the countries explicitly is the ability to search for a nation and its scorers. This will be of more use in UEFA (once there are lots of goals) and other confederations already. However, I would pretty much concur with Vorlath on his points above. Jlsa (talk) 05:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've said in the past that I like the shorter section (1 goal), so I'm flexible on the flag thing though I prefer the full name just because it's an encyclopedia and there are many countries that are not well known. Vorlath (talk) 05:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we had to lose either the flag or the country name, I'd ditch the flags every time - both for reasons of accessbility and as mentioned above for searching. - fchd (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As soon as UEFA articles do the same to differentiate Serbia, Slovenia, Croatia, Russia, and so on, let me know. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Fuck it, I'm in serious need of sleep and in the mood to compromise. I'll support including flags and team names in favor of 10 plus ties on the table. Fair enough? If we get compromise, let's take this to the other confed articles to see if we can get standardization. -- Grant .Alpaugh 05:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So I say again, can we compromise? -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why you should compromise just coz you're tired. I mean, it doesn't need to be done now - and even it we did do it right now someone will come and wreck it later no doubt anyway. And I'm still not 100% on what you are suggesting. Do you want a "cut-down" top 10 only on the page, or a "cut-down" top 10 detailed table for the confederations deemed appropriate and then the rest of the scorers just with names and some sort of country indicator. Personally, I would not be unhappy with a "top 25" for scorers with detail and then the rest in a more simple format. Anyway, my personal recommendation is that you get some sleep. Jlsa (talk) 07:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proposing more or less what the page is like now. I'm saying include every goalscorer and have a table with extra info for the top 10 plus ties. 10 is a nice round number with the added benefit of not including too much information so as to lose the value of the table. -- Grant .Alpaugh 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think 10 or so is a reasonable number. - fchd (talk) 07:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest 10 is too few to be useful (as Vorlath suggests). 25 would probably be an upper bound - before the fluff effect starts to overtake the usefullness of the detailed list. It would make sense to check what the limits would imply based (say) on the last WC qualifying results and see how many goals we would be cutting out at. I would suggest an attempt to "comment out" some of the detail for the lower goal scorers as Vorlath has done in the Concacaf page. 08:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

10 is the number we use for every other article. Also, it was the IP involved in the earlier discussion who added the bulk of that info and me who hid it. -- Grant .Alpaugh 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should we get the people who update the other confederation pages into this? I doubt they'd be too happy with someone coming in and changing the layout when we can discuss it first. Vorlath (talk) 07:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We'll bring the other people in if/when we are able to agree on what we want to do. There's no need to propose this to a larger group until we know what we're proposing. In my experience all that does is lead to inertia. -- Grant .Alpaugh 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 tables are used when you don't show the entire list. In this case, clearly we're showing all the scorers. The full table is useful because it has round information for all scorers. If we're only displaying info for top 10, then it's useless and we can just do what South America does (ie. remove the table completely). Vorlath (talk) 06:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason that works for CONMEBOL and UEFA is that they don't have a multiround system like the other 4. Putting them all in a group is misleading for the other 4 because the US will play less games than say El Salvador could, so the leading scorer might have more opportunities to score against lesser competition. Obviously if you get eliminated that's the same thing. -- Grant .Alpaugh 07:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either we include round information which means it should be included for all goals. Or we don't, which means we should get rid of the table completely. The top 10 table makes no logical since we are listing all the players. If we were listing ONLY the top 10, then you'd have a point. Vorlath (talk) 19:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree with Grant here, more detail for the top scorers than the lower ones seems sensible to me. The one thing I'd change is make the text size of the 1/2 goal scorers up to "Normal" size. - fchd (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would counter the notion that all goals are equal. Vorlath (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to get cute. That's like saying that since national teams are all equal, England should have to cut its article size to the size of the one about Barbados. Obviously people care more about the people who are the best at what they do, hence more information about them is available in an encyclopedia. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from personal remarks. About the info that should be included, it's already been established time and again that status is not a criterion for what should and should not be included in an encyclopedia. Vorlath (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? We don't include tons of things because of status. Ever hear of WP:NOTABILITY? We limit footballers to those playing in fully professional leagues for exactly this same reason. Having a policy discussion with you is simply pointless, because despite my numerous attempts to show you policies to read, you obviously haven't done so. Anyone who makes the remark you just made should not engage in discussion on a talk page until they are more familiar with policy. Please, please, please know what you're talking about before responding to this or any other argument. -- Grant .Alpaugh 02:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop being contentious. That policy is about writing a topic. It has nothing to do about the current discussion. Every time you've mentioned policy, you've been wrong. Here are a few quotes from the policy you've mentioned as it seems you've failed to read it.

Notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity"

hence notability is different from status EXACTLY as has been established here by almost everyone with one 'notable' exception.

These notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles.

Please read policy before linking to them! Vorlath (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff goals

Just curious, should we include goals that are scored in the CONMEBOL/CONCACAF play-off in this article, as it seems it will be treated as a seperate phase of the competition on WP, as there is a seperate article for it? Also, if we do include them here, what should we put under that column of the goalscorers chart for players on teams that qualify directly? I was thinking that, if Jozy Altidore finishes in the top 10+ties table, and the U.S. qualifies automatically, we should put something like a "Q" in that section, to indicate that while the player didn't play in that round, it wasn't because they were eliminated before it was played, as using an "X" would seem to indicate. Thoughts? – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The CAF and AFC tables used a "-" for teams that skipped an early round because of a bye. But a 'Q' for Qualified would make some sense as well (as it is a bit different to miss the round because you have made the World Cup rather than just haven't started the qualification yet). Jlsa (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF). 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]