Some Wikipedia critiques

edit

In short, I don't like Wikipedia because it's a free-for-all where the most persistent, noisiest people get their way. It's typically dressed up in claims of NPOV, but NPOV is just another way of saying "majority wins." It claims a moral high ground it's not entitled to. More specifically:

Most tenacious wins

edit

I don't enjoy devoting time to Wikipedia because "consensus" is a euphemism for whoever has the most free time to argue everyone else into submission wins.


Wasting time on edits

edit

If I can't make a substantive edit without being prepared to spend hours defending it, then I just don't find it a good use of my time to continue making substantive edits. I might fix a comma splice or two.

This means that the people who are willing to spend hours defending their edits exercise disproportionate influence over the direction of the encyclopedia. (By disproportionate, I mean not commensurate with the quality of their arguments. In other words, they win debates by attrition.) Rewarding those who spend the most time editing with our esteem and gratitude is certainly fitting. Rewarding people who have the time to always get the last word in any debate by allowing them to always get their way seems counterproductive. However, I'd rather find another hobby than continue to argue about such picayunes just for the satisfaction of "being right."

Let no bad deed go unrewarded

edit

See discussion at Talk:Vitoria-Gasteiz. After a couple of years, we finally built consensus. The system worked -- slowly. The offender's page move was corrected -- slowly. But for multiple years, his unilateral move achieved the desired outcome.

That's not a consenus-based community, no matter how much self-deception you practice to tell yourself it is.

lolz

edit

[1]

Yeah, good call deleting that article.

Sandbox: Stupid stuff

edit

I might play with the colors below to get them like I would like them. :)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Principal
PhilipR
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

CONCACAF Champions League

edit

Qualification

edit

Twenty-four teams are expected to participate in the 2010–11 CONCACAF Champions League from the North American, Central American, and Caribbean zones.[1] Nine of the teams will come from North America, twelve from Central America, and three from the Caribbean.

Teams may be disqualified and replaced if they don't have a stadium for the tournament that CONCACAF deems suitable. If a club fails to meet the standards for its home stadium, this club must find a suitable stadium in its own country. If said club fails to provide the adequate facilities, it will run the risk of being replaced.[2]

  • Central America: 12 Central American clubs can qualify to the Champions League. If one or more clubs is precluded, it will be supplanted by a club from another Central American federation. The reallocation would be based on results from the Champions League 2009–10.

For the Central American representatives that qualify via split seasons, in nations that play a playoff to determine a national champion, the winner will gain the nation's top spot, and in nations that don't, total points over both seasons, followed by other tiebreakers, will determine which team gains the nation's top spot.

After having analyzed previous results, the CONCACAF Executive Committee approved a reallocation of berths compared to the previous two seasons, giving Panama one automatic place in the Group Stage while making both of El Salvador's qualifiers go through the Preliminary Round.[3]

Nation Club Qualifying method
  Mexico
4 berths
Monterrey 2009 Apertura champion
Toluca 2010 Bicentenario champion
Cruz Azul 2009 Apertura runner-up
Santos Laguna 2010 Bicentenario runner-up
  United States
4 berths
Real Salt Lake 2009 MLS Cup champion
Columbus Crew 2009 MLS Supporters' Shield winner
Los Angeles Galaxy 2009 MLS Cup runner-up
Seattle Sounders FC 2009 U.S. Open Cup champion
  Honduras
3 berths
Marathón Apertura 2009 champion
Olimpia Clausura 2010 champion
Motagua Clausura 2010 runner-up1
  Panama
3 berths
Árabe Unido Apertura 2009 champion and Clausura 2010 champion
Tauro Apertura 2009 runner-up
San Francisco Clausura 2010 runner-up1
  Costa Rica
2 berths
Brujas 2009 Invierno champion
Saprissa 2010 Verano champion
  Guatemala
2 berths
Municipal Apertura 2009 champion and Clausura 2010 champion
Xelajú Runner-up with most points in Apertura 2009 and Clausura 2010
  El Salvador
2 berths
FAS Apertura 2009 champion
Isidro Metapán Clausura 2010 champion
  Canada
1 berth
Toronto FC 2010 Canadian Championship champion
CFU
3 berths
  Puerto Rico Islanders 2010 CFU Club Championship champion
  Joe Public 2010 CFU Club Championship runner-up
  San Juan Jabloteh 2010 CFU Club Championship third place

1 Berths originally awarded to Belize (Belize Defence Force) and Nicaragua (Real Estelí), but both countries failed CONCACAF stadium requirements, so the spots vacated were awarded to Honduras (Motagua) and Panama (San Francisco) based on the performances of clubs from those countries last season.[4]

Format

edit

There will be a two-legged Preliminary Round for 16 clubs, with the eight winners advancing to the Group Stage. The other eight qualified teams will be seeded directly into the Group Stage. The clubs involved in the Group Stage will be placed into four groups of four with each team playing the others in its group in both home and away matches. The top two teams from each group will advance to the Championship Round, which will consist of two-legged ties. The Final Round, to be held in late April 2011, will also be two-legged. The away goals rule will be used, but will not apply once a tie enters extra time.

Group Stage
Pot A   Monterrey   Toluca   Columbus Crew   Real Salt Lake
Pot B   Saprissa   Olimpia   Municipal   Árabe Unido
Preliminary Round
Pot A   Cruz Azul   Santos Laguna   Los Angeles Galaxy   Seattle Sounders FC
  Brujas   Marathón   FAS   Toronto FC
Pot B   Xelajú   Tauro   Isidro Metapán   Motagua
  San Francisco   Puerto Rico Islanders   Joe Public   San Juan Jabloteh

Preliminary round

edit

The draw for the Preliminary Round and the Group Stage was held on May 19, 2010, at the CONCACAF headquarters in New York City.[5] The first legs of the Preliminary Round will be played July 27–29, 2010, while the second legs will be played August 3–5, 2010.[6]

Team 1 Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg
FAS
PhilipR
Full nameClub Deportivo Futbolistas
Asociados Santanecos
GroundEstadio Oscar Quiteño,
Santa Ana, El Salvador
Capacity15,000
LeaguePrimera División
Clausura 2010Primera Division, 7th
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1   Xelajú
PhilipR
Full nameClub Social y Deportivo
Xelajú Mario Camposeco
GroundEstadio Mario Camposeco,
Quetzaltenango, Guatemala
Capacity11,000
LeagueLiga Nacional de Fútbol
Clausura 20095th (playoffs) 5th (league)
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
July 29 August 5
Brujas   2   Joe Public July 28 August 5
San Juan Jabloteh   3   Santos Laguna July 27 August 4
San Francisco   4   Cruz Azul July 27 August 3
Los Angeles Galaxy   5   Puerto Rico Islanders
Puerto Rico Islanders
GroundJuan Ramón Loubriel Stadium
Bayamón, Puerto Rico
Capacity12,500
LeagueUSSF D2 Pro League
2009 (USL1)Regular Season: 3rd
Playoffs: Semi Finals
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  Current season
July 27 August 4
Tauro   6   Marathón July 28 August 4
Seattle Sounders FC   7   Isidro Metapán
Isidro Metapán
GroundEstadio Jorge Calero Suárez,
Metapán, El Salvador
Capacity8,000
LeaguePrimera División
Clausura 2010Primera Division, 1st
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
July 28 August 3
Toronto FC   8   Motagua July 27 August 3

Group A

edit
Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
  Real Salt Lake 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
  Árabe Unido 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 /  Match 4 winner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 /  Match 8 winner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Group B

edit
Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
  Columbus Crew 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
  Municipal 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 /  Match 3 winner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 /  Match 2 winner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Group C

edit
Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
  Monterrey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
  Saprissa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 /  Match 7 winner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 /  Match 6 winner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Group D

edit
Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
  Toluca 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
  Olimpia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 /  Match 5 winner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 /  Match 1 winner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

UEFA Champions League

edit
Group stage
  InternazionaleTH (1st)   Valencia (3rd)   Lyon (2nd)   CFR Cluj (1st)
  Chelsea (1st)   Roma (2nd)   Rubin Kazan (1st)   Benfica (1st)
  Manchester United (2nd)   Milan (3rd)   Spartak Moscow (2nd)   Bursaspor (1st)
  Arsenal (3rd)   Bayern Munich (1st)   Shakhtar Donetsk (1st)   Panathinaikos (1st)
  Barcelona (1st)   Schalke 04 (2nd)   Twente (1st)   Rangers (1st)
  Real Madrid (2nd)   Marseille (1st)
Play-off round
Champions Non-champions
  Tottenham Hotspur (4th)   Sampdoria (4th)   Auxerre (3rd)
  Sevilla (4th)   Werder Bremen (3rd)
Third qualifying round
Champions Non-champions
  Anderlecht (1st)   Zenit St. Petersburg (3rd)   Braga (2nd)   Celtic (2nd)
  Basel (1st)   Dynamo Kyiv (2nd)   Fenerbahçe (2nd)   Gent (2nd)
  Copenhagen (1st)   Ajax (2nd)   PAOK (P-1st)   Young Boys (2nd)
  Unirea Urziceni (2nd)
Second qualifying round
  Litex Lovech (1st)   Žilina (1st)   BATE (1st)   Levadia (1st)
background: #800000;Sparta Prague (1st)   Lech Poznań (1st)   Željezničar (1st)   Dinamo Tirana (1st)
  Rosenborg (1st)   Dinamo Zagreb (1st)   Debrecen (1st)   Aktobe (1st)
  Red Bull Salzburg (1st)   HJK Helsinki (1st)   FH (1st)   Pyunik (1st)
  Partizan (1st)   Ekranas (1st)   Sheriff Tiraspol (1st)   The New Saints (1st)
  Hapoel Tel Aviv (1st)   Bohemians (1st)   Olimpi Rustavi (1st)   Linfield (1st)
  Omonia (1st)   Liepājas Metalurgs (1st)   Renova (1st)   HB Tórshavn (1st)
  AIK (1st)   Koper (1st)   Inter Baku (1st)   Jeunesse Esch (1st)
First qualifying round
  Rudar Pljevlja (1st)   FC Santa Coloma (1st)   Birkirkara (1st)   Tre Fiori (1st)

TH Title Holder

Phase Round Draw date First leg Second leg
Qualifying First qualifying round 21 June 2010 29–30 June 2010 6–7 July 2010
Second qualifying round 13–14 July 2010 20–21 July 2010
Final 28 May 2011 at Wembley Stadium, London


First qualifying round

edit
 
 
 
 
 


Tre Fiori
150px|logo
Full nameSocietà Polisportiva Tre Fiori
Founded1949
GroundStadio di Fiorentino
Capacity700
ChairmanMarino Casali
ManagerFloriano Sperindio
LeagueCampionato Sammarinese di Calcio - Girone B
2008-09Girone B, 1st
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FK Rudar
150px
Full nameFudbalski klub Rudar
Founded1920
GroundStadion Gradski,
Pljevlja,
Montenegro
Capacity11,000
Chairman  Radovan Klačar
ManagerNebojša Vignjević
LeagueFirst League
2009–101st
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


Team #1   Agg.   Team #2   1st leg     2nd leg   Something else


Tre Fiori  | {{{3}}} {{{4}}} {{{6}}} {{{7}}}
SMR|1–7|Rudar Pljevlja|MNE|0–3|1–4


{{country data FC Santa Coloma|flag icon/core|variant=|size=}} AND {{country data Birkirkara|flag icon/core|variant=|size=}} 3–7 MLT 0–31 3–4

Second qualifying round

edit

The first legs were played on 13 and 14 July, and the second legs were played on 20 and 21 July 2010.

Team 1 Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg
Liepājas Metalurgs   0–5   Sparta Prague 0–3 0–2
Aktobe   3–1   Olimpi Rustavi 2–0 1–1
Levadia   3–4   Debrecen 1–1 2–3
Partizan   4–1   Pyunik 3–1 1–0
Inter Baku   1–1 (8–9 p)   Lech Poznań 0–1 1–0 (aet)
Dinamo Zagreb   5–4   Koper 5–1 0–3
Litex Lovech   5–0   Rudar Pljevlja 1–0 4–0
Birkirkara   1–3   Žilina 1–0 0–3
Sheriff Tiraspol   3–2   Dinamo Tirana 3–1 0–1
Hapoel Tel Aviv   6–0   Željezničar 5–0 1–0
Omonia   5–0   Renova 3–0 2–0
Red Bull Salzburg   5–1   HB Tórshavn 5–0 0–1
Bohemians   1–4   The New Saints 1–0 0–4
BATE   6–1   FH 5–1 1–0
AIK   1–0   Jeunesse Esch 1–0 0–0
Linfield   0–2   Rosenborg 0–0 0–2
Ekranas   1–2   HJK Helsinki 1–0 0–2 (aet)

Third qualifying round

edit

The third qualifying round will be split into two separate sections: one for champions and one for non-champions. The losing teams in both sections will enter the play-off round of the 2010–11 UEFA Europa League. The first legs are to be played on 27 and 28 July, and the second legs are to be played on 3 and 4 August 2010.

Team 1 Agg.Tooltip Aggregate score Team 2 1st leg 2nd leg
Champions Path
Sparta Prague color: 800000     Lech Poznań 27 July 4 August
Aktobe     Hapoel Tel Aviv 28 July 3 August
Sheriff Tiraspol     Dinamo Zagreb 27 July 4 August
Litex Lovech     Žilina 27 July 4 August
Debrecen     Basel 28 July 4 August
AIK     Rosenborg 28 July 4 August
Partizan     HJK Helsinki 28 July 4 August
BATE     Copenhagen 28 July 4 August
The New Saints     Anderlecht 27 July 3 August
Omonia     Red Bull Salzburg 27 July 4 August
Non-Champions Path
Ajax     PAOK 28 July 4 August
Dynamo Kyiv     Gent 27 July 4 August
Young Boys     Fenerbahçe 28 July 4 August
Braga     Celtic 28 July 4 August
Unirea Urziceni     Zenit St. Petersburg 27 July 4 August

Play-off round

edit

The play-off round will be split into two separate sections: one for champions and one for non-champions. The losing teams in both sections will enter the group stage of the 2010–11 UEFA Europa League. The first legs are to be played on 17 and 18 August, and the second legs are to be played on 24 and 25 August 2010. Following a trial at last year's UEFA Europa League, UEFA have announced that in both this year's and the 2011-12 competition, two extra officials will be used - with one on each goal line.[7]

Champions

edit

The 10 winners from the third qualifying round for champions will play in the play-off round for champions.

Non-champions

edit

10 clubs will play in the play-off round for non-champions: the 5 winners from the third qualifying round for non-champions, and the following 5 clubs which will enter in this round:

Group stage

edit

32 clubs will play in the group stage: the 10 winners from the play-off round (5 champions and 5 non-champions), and the following 22 clubs which will enter in this stage:


temp temp

edit
Strong support The fundamental argument is that consistency is one of the five criteria for naming. Consistency with other sports articles indicates using officially-sanctioned nicknames. None of the other four criteria comes down clearly on either side (but see my last point below). Some other points of rebuttal:


1. One of MHawk10's sources is irrelevant. "Recent past" -- the supposed source refers to the 1990s. The nickname 20 or more years ago, and its use in an article about student-athletes from that era, is at best marginally relevant to this discussion. 2. In the absence of a large number of sources to the contrary, MHawk's argument has a certain circularity. Why name the article something different? Because that's allegedly common usage. Can we demonstrate how common it is with ngrams? No, because the team isn't referred to often enough. If there's not enough usage to generate a clear written record of preference, there's not much evidence to buck the actual nickname of the team specified by the institution itself. In theory there might be millions of people still talking about the Peahens but insufficient online sources to document said preference. In practice this is implausible.

3. Skarmory's argument seems dispositive to me. The nickname indicates in a sports team's article is viewed by readers as evidence of fact. Keeping a name contrary to their official nickname in there is lying. It's not incumbent on a reader to read an entire article to understand that the title is presenting "casual" or "unofficial" information when this is very much out of the norm for sports articles.

4. See Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Oakland Athletics for examples of marginal cases where one could apply MHawk10's reasoning to suggest WP gets it wrong. It's Unclear which option[s] are slightly favored in *spoken* English, but then it's unclear here too.

5. I doubt it's common parlance to say, verbatim, "Saint Peter's Peacocks and Peahens," or "Saint Peter's Peahens basketball," in that set phrase. If we're going to apply COMMONNAME somewhat legalistically, we need to


5. If you really do want to push the issue with WP:COMMONNAME, then we should be truly legalistic and borderline pedantic about pushing all Wikipedia standards to the limit, "the Peacocks and Peahens of basketball, swimming and volleyball" isn't useful to argue for the present name.

Saint Peter's women's basketball that I'll offer an exceedingly pedantic rebuttal. For that matter,

  1. ^ "Qualifying 2010/11". CONCACAF. Retrieved May 19, 2010.
  2. ^ "CONCACAF Executive Committee tightens stadium standards for next year's Champions League". CONCACAF Official site. 2008-11-07. Retrieved 2008-11-12.
  3. ^ "CONCACAF Executive Committee alters youth championships qualifying format". CONCACAF. 2009-11-23.
  4. ^ "Motagua, San Francisco get CCL berths". CONCACAF.com. May 18, 2010.
  5. ^ "Cruz Azul gets San Francisco for CCL Preliminary Round". CONCACAF.com. May 19, 2010.
  6. ^ "Cruz Azul to open CCL Preliminary Round". CONCACAF.com. June 9, 2010.
  7. ^ UEFA welcomes IFAB referee trial decision