Talk:2015 IIHF World Championship

IIHF World Championship

Please don't make this article a re-direct to 2015 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships, as this article deals only with the championship round of the entire tournament. See previous IIHF World Championship articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Canada still can regelate with 10 p.

I`ve found scenario with Canada relegating. Czech Republic cannot relegate, so IF CAN finish with 10 points in three way tie with Denmark and Italy, it is still possible to relegate from 7th place and 14th place overall. --CZMajkl (talk) 21:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

not possible, would have to be a seven way tie, and they cannot be last in that tie because the nations who would have to beat sweden would be behind them in head-to-head points.18abruce (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

my apologies I see how it could be possible if CZE finishes last and avoids relegation.18abruce (talk) 22:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

latvia can still be relegated with 9 points

if latvia finishes in 7th with 9 points (which is still possible), and the Czech Republic finsihes in 8th in their group with the 7th place team having 9 points (which is still possible), then Latvia could be 14th and be relegated.18abruce (talk) 18:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I get where you are going with that, but can Pool B have 2 teams regulated? TerminalPreppie (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the rules state "the overall bottom ranked two teams will be relegated" so if the Czechs are bottom in their group it would be the nation ranked 14th regardless of the group.18abruce (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Splitting

Hey, i'm thiking about splitting the article in group stages and knockout stage and leave "blank" results in here. The article gets long and takes ages to load when some of the games are played and information put in. Like the FIFA world Cup, FIBA world cup... Any input? Maybe i go ahead later on and see what the reaction is. Kante4 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, seems like it makes it easier to update game summaries with less conflicts.18abruce (talk) 23:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, will see what i can do. Kante4 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Done. Kante4 (talk) 11:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Tables

I don't think it's a good idea to have a team's line be colored in green until they have actually clinched qualification, not just are currently positioned to be. I would suggest putting a green line between 4th and 5th position in both tables to visually indicate that's the cutoff point. MrArticleOne (talk) 22:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

If a team advances a (Q) will occur and then be removed once the group stage is over. For more, see here. Kante4 (talk) 00:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good approach. The problem is that there's no reason to know that a "Q" is coming to provide further information. Initial review would leave a viewer thinking that teams with filled-in rows have already clinched advancement. (This early in the tournament, not so much, but after we've played a few games, I think it'll be confusing.) I think this is a flawed implementation. MrArticleOne (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Still, that's the common table system which is used. There was a big discussion how to use it and improvements were made and consensus was reached to use it across most sports. Kante4 (talk) 10:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

This table system is horrible. I really hate it. And editing? It's like a datasheet of a nuclear plant, not a hockey table. We want the old system back.
Maiō T. (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Who is "we"? Open a discussion at the link given (the talk page there) to discuss. Kante4 (talk) 15:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. "done" – see Module talk:Sports table. Maiō T. (talk) 17:40, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with MrArticle, and there is also a major flaw in the table presentation: they are incorrect. I apologize for not bringing this up earlier, but it is hypothetically possible for both relegated teams to come from the same group, as discussed above in the Latvian 2014 case. Until Russia assures themselves of not being last, the tables are wrong as presented. Applying a note to the group that the future host plays in may be all that is needed, but I think we should not be misleading about the rules.18abruce (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not understand the argument that it is harder to edit, you still have to update wins, goals for, goals against in the same way as the old tables and then move some lines to correct position. Also I think the parameter names are easy to understand. The changes was made based on several reasons, there was a request for more "consistency" as many different tables loooked in different ways and now League tables look the same as tournament. Also there are rules about not showing color without text due to some readers being colorblind which is the reason for the column explaining the colors. I believe it is a period before readers get used to the new format but that it will be better. QED237 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

About the issue 18abruce brought up there are two ways that I can see as solution. The first is a note as 18abruce suggested above which might be enough just to explain it may not be last placed team only. The second alternative is to add "Possible elimination" and a new color (bronze or yellow) for the two teams above elimination but I dont think that is needed. I will add a note for everyone to see for know. What do you think? Do we need a "possible elimination"-row? QED237 (talk) 10:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hidden bracket

To avoid unnecessary edit warring, I'll explain my edit. I hid the bracket with <!-- --> because it contained no content. It could only be replaced by TBA, which is empty content. This was also an issue with 2015 Stanley Cup playoffs: example one, example two, example three and example four. The bracket on 2015 IIHF is merely empty content with no teams. It only contains the name of the rounds. The braket is a perfect example of Final Ranking (which I hid as well) here (after my edit) and (before my edit). This is what I mean by empty content: 1. It's nothing but empty content. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

The bracket explains what teams will met in the playoffs and are very useful. For example it shows that A1 will mett B4 (and not A4 as in previous tournaments). You have now reverted 4 times against different editors in a content dispute and are edit warring. Wait for more comment before reverting again or you will be reported. QED237 (talk) 23:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

To add to QED, not one single user was removing or questioning it. You have been reverted by two editors, so you are the only one which has a problem with the "empty" bracket, which isn't empty as explained above. Kante4 (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You are going overboard with edit warring. This (manually done) is my first revert. Then this is my second revert. Back to the subject, just like the 2015 Stanley Cup playoffs, A1/W1/etc. is not sufficient for content. The rest would be nothing but TBA. It's still considered empty content. It's like adding a table with Round and Names as the sole content. That's empty content and the bracket of 2015 IIHF follows the same thing. It needs the names to be enough, such as Canada at the very least. But no. All it has is the rounds and the B1, A1, etc. That's considered empty content. Callmemirela (Go Habs Go!) 23:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

You tried hiding the bracket One, Two, Three and Four times within five hours. Is that edit warring? Yes it is. About the content I disagree. QED237 (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)