Wikipedia

Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF third round

Latest comment: 7 years ago by InternetArchiveBot in topic External links modified
Learn more about this page

Templates

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Why are the templates gone? I foresee a whole lot of Fail when people try to keep the tables here and on the main Concacaf page updated equally. Jlsa (talk) 13:51, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

We don't need several templates for updating 2 articles. Good ole' copy and paste will work just fine. -- Grant.Alpaugh 13:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
Which doesn't explain the "only appear on one page" reference I saw. And why are these tables different from all the other confederations? (And, indeed, the templates that are still connected to the discussion page - or about 10 cms above this point). Jlsa (talk) 14:07, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
The templates work fine for UEFA, CAF, and AFC articles. Why not keep it consistent? -CWY2190(talk • contributions) 17:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ludicrously small towns

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

(Attempting to build consensus rather than a classic Wikipedia two-person battle of endurance.) The status quo is silly IMO. No one outside of a few US soccer fans has any clue where "Bridgeview" or "Commerce City" is. I would have thought Commerce City was Commerce, California if I didn't have other soccer-specific knowledge. Standardization is useless if the standard only serves to obscure and hide useful information, as in this case. Other countries don't play WCQ's in unknown little suburbs.

To be clear, I'm proposing the following standard, which IMO is just common sense: Where the city is well-known, e.g. Toronto, Madrid, or where no good geographical clarification exists, e.g. Paramaribo, Port of Spain, one name is fine. Where a clarification is both needed and an easy one exists (state in US, Brazil, Mexico; province in Canada; prefecture in Japan; county in England, etc.) then it should be added to clarify.

If we're at an impasse I'd be happy to list this at Wikipedia:Third_opinion. - PhilipR (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

IMO, the way it is now is fine. It is totally correct to list the game as being played in Commerce City because.... wait for it.... IT IS!! If people don't know where the game will be played they can click on the link to the stadium's article where the stadium's location can be better contextualized. It is simply inaccurate to say that the game will be played in Denver or Chicago or wherever. The stadium's article will show that the stadium is X miles north of wherever, etc. I really think accuracy is the key. -- Grant.Alpaugh 04:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
FIFA had no problem calling the 1994 sites "Detroit" and "Boston", but that wasn't my suggestion. My suggestion is to add state information for countries where that info would be helpful. This is exactly the style used by the Associated Press and other national and international media to refer to US places. I'll leave it in its uninformative state in deference to majority opinion for now, but two people don't constitute much of a consensus. Why even bother listing the cities/towns if not to inform? People would rather blindly apply an existing standard than think about why that standard exists and when it makes sense for the standard to evolve. Typical Wikipedia. - PhilipR (talk) 13:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Also, why does Washington, D.C. get an exception? Standards above clarity! Shouldn't DC be forced to into the same mold as the little towns? - PhilipR (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
First, the standard is because despite what YOU may think is reasonable, it is much easier to "police" (for want of a better word) a blank standard policy of "just name and nothing else" than a "clarity-based" rule. What would be the criteria for where we stop? Your opinion? My opinion? A vote every time some smartarse decides to add all the German Lander or French Departments or Mongolian whatevers to the venues? Sure, that's a somewhat selfish argument - I don't want to delete crap like Saitama Stadium, Saitama, Saitama Prefecture, Kantō (and believe me, once you start putting stuff in Wikipedia, it spreads like Pattersons Curse, just look at the "venues" for European groups - some clown went through and added their take on big grounds in each country, without any idea of where games might actually be played) - but selfish arguments aren't bad because they are selfish. On the Washington DC question, the fact you referred to it as "DC" is your answer. If you find other towns regularly referred to by their regional descriptor, you'd have a strong case for another exception (which, in its own way suggests it's not just being blindly enforced, but is flexible where reality necessitates). Jlsa (talk) 15:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
Point taken about Patterson's Curse. I don't think there's any reason why we can't set objective standards though (sites less than 500K population and not the most populous city in the country) if it becomes a problem. At this point I appear to be the only person unhappy with the status quo though so never mind. I'm happy that Washington is following the same standard; Washington is more immediately recognizable as the US capital and a large city. There's no reason to disambiguate from US states because US states aren't being used in that table, so I'm glad standards are being applied across the board. - PhilipR (talk) 18:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Washington should have "DC" on the end to differentiate the city from the state or any number of other towns called Washington. As far as I am aware, there is only one Commerce City. – PeeJay 16:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Reply

Qualification scenarios

edit
Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I added qualification scenarios for the next match-day. If someone would review them to make sure I didn't miss anything, that'd be amazing. Thanks! Kingnavland (talk) 15:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

You do realise that these scenarios are already on the CONCACAF main qualification page (where they are in the standard set up). We generally leave these scenarios on that page (see AFC, CAF, OFC etc) rather than on the page that lists all the individual match results. This is primarily to prevent duplication, and (as in this case) two different formats of the same information (which implies it needs to be updated twice rather than once). It also limits the chances of errors. Jlsa (talk) 22:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I would argue that this information is important enough to be included twice. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:36, 19 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
"Twice" would imply the same information. What is presented here is a different, cut down version (which may, or may not be consistent, it's not abundantly clear to me on a brief read). Jlsa (talk) 00:36, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
So, as noted in earlier discussions, if you want something to appear "twice" (or more than once), it goes in the template - as had been done. I have updated the template by 1) making the descriptions the same as we usually use (slightly more info than presented)and 2) separating out the "scenarios" as an option (so, users can choose to have this in or not). In fact, they could just have the scenarios appear with the simplified table(as I shall put below). Jlsa (talk) 04:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sample:

Pos Team
 Pld Pts
1   Honduras 6 12
2   Mexico 6 10
3   Jamaica 6 10
4   Canada 6 2
Source: [1]
Nope, didn't realize it. Thanks for the heads-up. Kingnavland (talk) 03:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 36 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Third Round. 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) 20:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

  1. ^ "FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) 2010, football - table and standings". soccer365.me. Retrieved 9 April 2024.
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification_–_CONCACAF_third_round&oldid=1196566039"