Jump to content

Talk:2011 FIFA Club World Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoax

[edit]

This is a hoax, because there is no official announcement yet after signature contract with UAE in 2009 about this FIFA Club World Cup, but this is Wikipedia the place to do whatever you want. That's sad.--Futbolero (talk) 06:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've said this before, but the pages are referenced, so whats the problem? Druryfire (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CONCACAF Champions League

[edit]

Why my edits were changed, it follows CONCACAF seeded berths?. See official CONCACAF Champions League site

The Mexican berths were allocated since the first Champions League. Mexico1 is Apertura09 champion, Mexico2 will be Bicentenario champion, Mexico3 is Apertura09 runner-up, and Mexico4 will be Bicentenario runner-up.

Nicaraguan and Belizean berths were relocated to top 2 Central American leagues, due both leagues failed the stadium requirements. See Motagua and San Francisco get CCL berths

The cosmetic changes that i relized were similar to the UEFA table. Please dont changed it, table is accurate to the linaments.

CONMEBOL participants

[edit]

The all-Mexican final of Copa Libertadores is possible so the CONMEBOL participant may not necessary be "the other finalist". There is no rule that prevents such final at the moment and splitting the teams from the same federation actually serves the opposite: if we conclude two Mexican clubs made it to the semis and were split, it's perfectly possible that both of them would win their respective ties and proceed to the final. And not forget that we have three Mexican clubs in the competition and there is a possibility that all of them will reach the semis. This is a pure theory of course but you have to consider everything while doing such statements. —WiJG? 12:26, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three points 1) You obviously don't understand the Copa rules. If, say, two Brazilian teams make the semis they are paired - so one will be eliminated. This is what happened in 2007 (to prevent a repeat of 2006s all Brazilian final, which I believe prompted the rule change). 2)while it is couched as a specific case, the 2010 regs noted that they would prevent this situation by having Mexican quarter finalists (if there were 3 or more) play each other to ensure that only a limited number could reach the semi finals. This is, to an extent, documented. 3) There is actually NO source provided for what would happen in the case of the 3 Mexican semifinalists and the all Mexican Final. You are basically assuming that they would take the other semi finalist. It might be a realistic assumption, but it is still just that, a guess by you. To be honest, all we can write is "If a Mexican side wins the Copa, Conmebol will choose someone else as the representative for the World Club Cup". While you say me must "consider everything" you are actually trying to "cover everything" (which is, unfortunately, a distinction that is often missed on wikipedia) and hence are really making up stuff to fill in the blanks. If it isn't sourced, you have to be clear and state as much Jlsa (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I have to re-read the rules – didn't remember of the 1) and 2) you noted. —WiJG? 05:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

teams in contention

[edit]

Even if maintainable, I would question the encyclopaedic value of such sections. Because the matter would affect more than one article, I have raised the subject at WT:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 00:53, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where opinion for the deletion of the section was unanimous. Kevin McE (talk) 23:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Would have been nice to provide a link to the discussion. Or is it just for you and your (three) buddies to decide policy? Jlsa (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find this discussion either. At least it's not at either WT:FOOTY nor at the talk for the competition article MoS.
Kevin McE, what discussion and "unanimous opinion" are you refering to? I can't find it from any of the page titles nor edit summaries from [Your user contributions] from that 2 day timeframe. Gecko G (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to note that this is also the time of year when this page is likely to be least active and watched given there are no matches in the relevant competitions between mid December and late January and no draws made either. Given that this table has been a consistent feature of relevant pages on the FCWC for at least three seasons with little obvious comment, the rush to delete it during the downtime appears more than a tad unseemly. Jlsa (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You frankly don't seem to have looked very hard. I said at 0053 on 24 Jan that I had raised the subject: at 0051 on 24 Jan, I had started a new thread at WT:FOOTY: that thread refers to "possible future competitors". Gecko G: you should be aware that new section creation does not allow a user written edit note. It seems entirely appropriate that a principle that affects several articles should be discussed centrally: I cannot legislate for how many people join in that conversation, but I am confident that many more people have WP:FOOTY on their watchlist than this article. I hadn't given any consideration to timing, I'll act when I come across articles (my attention was drawn to this one this week by Jlsa); besides, anyone interested enough in the article to have it on their watchlist will have it on their watchlist during "downtime". The discussion is not archived: it is still there if you have reason to argue against the contentions of editors (violation of guidelines, lack of commonsense, unnecessary reduplication of data better presented by links to the qualifying competitions, unhelpful expansion of the article and a principle at play that is not observed on most comparable articles under the project). Consensus is built on discussion: if having been invited to discuss, you decline the opportunity, do not be surprised if consensus is developed without waiting for your contribution. Kevin McE (talk) 11:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, your posts are timestampted as you say they are but in the user contributions they show up as being on the 23rd (the time period before I was looking in). Is something wrong with my time settings or on the user contribution thingy? anyway, that section title wouldn't of struck me as the one in question when I was scanning through that long ToC (though in 20/20 hindsight it does make sense), plus being so recent I figured it would be closer to the bottom (that page sure is busy!). I actually did spend several minutes looking around for it (of course on a dial-up connection everything takes forever), and no, I didn't know about the new section creation not allowing a edit summarry, so thanks for the heads-up on that. I'm just about out of internet access time for today, but maybe I'll have some time this weekend (or more likely monday) to drop over there and drop in my 2cents (though it looks like I'll be in the minority opinion), cheers! Gecko G (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A week on, and no attempt has been made to present an argument contrary to those given in the centralised discussion. Will delete presently per the unchallenged body of opinion on the project talk page. Kevin McE (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Killjoy, I do actually find the team lists useful to follow the tournament,if you don't like it then i suggets the page is deleted as it's pointless until December. Druryfire (talk) 17:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I never had the chance to respond (lack of internet time plus recent log-in problems) and now the discussion in question is archived. What's the proper ettiquete here? Start a new section (making reference to the archived section)? somewhow drag the whole thing out of archive storage (and if so, how?)? Since I seemed to be representing such a minority opinion I wasn't going to bother, but it sounds like at least two others (Jlsa and Druryfire) might share my opinion based on what they've written above (though note to Druryfire- name calling, if you meant it the way that it came across sounding, is neither helpful nor called for.) and thus so might others out there. Gecko G (talk) 22:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was never meant to call any offence to anyone. I'll keep it on here for now so it's in the open rather than delete and make people wonder what happened. I know wikipedia has rules, but i do prefer the lists, it makes it much easier to follow the competition. Yes, some people would say it doesn't happen elsewhere such as the World Cup, we don't have a count down as such, but personally, I'm interested in a quick list of who might make the tournament, i'm not interested in jumping from confederation tournament to tournament to find out who's left, these lists are very concise. If it helps, maybe it's worth moving the lists into the talk page so it's a discussion of events rather than a live list of teams which others don't like as they follow every rule going which not everyone is aware of. What really seemed to annoy members on here is the way the tables were removed, a simple discussion in here first would have been better rather than reporting it to an area of the site which not many of us go to, or when pointed in that direction we couldn't find. Druryfire (talk) 22:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to challenge the unopposed response at the project's talk page, do it there rather than insulting me here. It was entirely appropriate to raise it centrally, as the issue affects more than one article, and WT:FOOTY has a far larger readership than this page: forked discussions are usually to be avoided. Having drawn the attention of those watching this page to the discussion, I am not accountable for their failure to find it! You present no counterarguments to those provided at WT:FOOTY, no encyclopaedic argument for its retention. "I like it" is about as weak as a reason for retention gets: on that basis, nothing would survive an AfD. Kevin McE (talk) 16:50, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I like it and you don't like it, so thats my view point and your view point. So you don't like it, so will you do as I suggested and remove the page as it's totally pointless keeping until December. Druryfire (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No: there is no AfD proposal, and we normally post articles for forthcoming events. What we don't normally publish is an elimination list of potential competitors. That's what this discussion is about. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this discussion - if there is any consensus, it is to KEEP the tables. Only one person is deleting them - a number of people (at least 4 plus various IPs) are reverting, at least 3 have argued for the table here. That ignores all those who have edited the table over its existence - presumably with some acceptance of its validity. The original deletion message said "crazy addition: unencyclopaedic and unmaintainable". Two of these charges are patently false - the tables were by no means a new addition, have been here pretty much since the page started up, and have been readily maintained (actually an exceedingly systematic method has developed to do so - the only real disagreement being over the Mexican sides in the Copa Lib). The "unencyclopedic" charge is in the eye of the beholder. Given the actual charge, I question if the deleter hasn't just conflated this page with others - I am guessing the initial cut followed a new table being added to a different page - superficially similar tables in the Confederations Cup section. Those are NOT the same - as they include teams involved in separate qualification tournaments (which would be like these tables including all teams still contention for the UCL currently playing in the EPL or La Liga). These two different types of table appear to have been conflated in the WP:FOOTY (or is it WT:FOOTY). I suggest strongly that the two issues are separate. As such (and because everybody except one person here has argued for it) I have reverted the edit. Jlsa (talk) 11:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I bow to local consensus: it is a pity that those so determined on the matter here ignored the repeated invitation to join in with the discussion at the project page, which was the relevant and appropriate place to discuss the matter as it pertained to several articles. I can only note that no substantive rebuttal has been presented here to the concerns raised at WT:FOOTY. However, the inclusion was undoubtedly less inappropriate here than at the other articles that were under discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

[edit]

FIFA calendar has them: 8-18 December. http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/calendar/events.html 85.217.21.159 (talk) 11:14, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011 FIFA Club World Cup. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 09:05, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2011 FIFA Club World Cup. 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) 07:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2011_FIFA_Club_World_Cup&oldid=1196590343"