Talk:2013 World Men's Handball Championship

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

Reason for removing the prod tag[edit]

No confirmed info? If you look at the source you can see that it's confirmed to be held in Spain. Further information will be given by the IHF when the championship is approaching, so I remove the tag again - according to Wikipedia:Prod#Objecting I'm allowed to do that myself.
- Sarrus (c • t) 19:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weltrangliste[edit]

Was ist denn das? http://ihf.info/TheGame/RankingTable/tabid/98/Default.aspx?month=1&year=2013&teamCatID=2 ist das die offizielle Weltrangliste? Warum sollte Deutschland an 1 stehen? Siehe auch IHF-Weltrangliste. -Koppapa (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sicher, das du in der richtigen WP bist? ;) Aber auf der Startseite wird DEU auch an 1 geführt, vielleicht ist die IHF.info Seite (mal wieder) nicht aktuell. Ich seh bei deinem Link nickes nebenbei. Kante4 (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmm, ja, sollte eigentlich in die deutsche. Falsches Fenster. ;) -Koppapa (talk) 17:52, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance[edit]

Where do editors get the attendance figures? I have seen some of the matches live and the figures doesnt add up. For example; the article says that Slovenia vs Saudi Arabia game was viewed by 3,000 spectators while in reality it was 300 (or even less). Similar number of spectators was on the game Croatia vs Australia (the article says 2,500). Those are only two examples that I have came up with it (I havent seen all the games but I guess there is a similar story there as well).Ratipok (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check the given report officially released by the IHF, so we go by that. They may count the tickets sold, even though some people may just come for 1 game or so. Kante4 (talk) 22:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

why is Macedonia qualified and Iceland not?[edit]

If Iceland wins the last match they will have 6 points, and if Macedonia looses they have (as now) 5 points, so the tie-brak criteria are not used... also they won the direct match! -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.245.147.81 (talk) 09:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Four teams qualify. If Qatar wins against Iceland, then Qatar is 4th and qualified, Iceland only finishes 5th. Macedonia can't finish as 5th place. -Koppapa (talk) 09:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Placing[edit]

I've always been under the impression that head-to-head records count towards placement when two teams (or more) finish with an equal number of points. That being said, hasn't Germany won their group? Why are the tables arranged according to goal difference like in association football? finval (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the IHF does count the GD until the group stage is over, we do that aswell. When a group is finished they and we cound the H2H record, so wait until MNE-BRA is finished and GER will be top. ;) Stupid rule, but a little wait should be ok... Kante4 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointless to revert over this. UEFA Champions League has the same ruling, but it's always sorted by head to head. There would be so much reverting if not. :) -Koppapa (talk) 21:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other way around some IP's and users revert that, so... What to do? I would add H2H right away. Kante4 (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed... Until the end of the MNE-BRA game, the official website was showing FRA above GER. They changed it just now that group stage for Group A is over: http://www.handballspain2013.com/en/Competition/PreliminaryRound
Minutes ago they were placing SER above POL, but if you look there now they just changed their places and the group stage for Group C is not over yet. I'm lost here... LOL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.27.35.130 (talk) 21:35, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. I would just stick to the H2H tiebreaker and leave it like it will be at the end, does not matter what IHF shows now and then changing it still! Kante4 (talk) 21:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final ranking[edit]

Could someone add one sentence of text above the ranking explaining how teams losing in the Round of 16 and QWuarter-finals are ranked? Thanks. -Koppapa (talk) 08:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find regulations on official website, and a matching tournament-format in the regulations at IHF website. -Koppapa (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Icelandic newspapers reported Iceland in 11th place, based on performances in their group. Why is Tunisia above them, especially since they finished 4th in their group? finval (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone changed the ranking, not using the tie-breaker above. -Koppapa (talk) 08:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After more googling, the tie-breakers mentioned here were outdated, only group stage games against 1 to 4 count towards the ranking. Thus Iceland is confirmed 12th. -Koppapa (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was reported in Icelandic newspapers today, they admitted they calculated it wrong. finval (talk) 19:43, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date templates in infobox[edit]

No reason these shouldn't be used. Standard across all high quality articles in Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:29, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, i don't think i own this article or i want to, as no one does with a article. So, that comment was childish and not smart. Secondly, why change the date in the infobox to the template? It makes the infobox bigger and it's the first time at a sports event where this was used, and i worked on many. The other one was simple and just had the month and year once, that more than enough... So, the "standard" does not seem to be the "standard". Kante4 (talk) 20:30, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly undone edits on this article without explanation, e.g. removing legitimate tags asking for sections to be referenced. They still aren't, despite you claiming you would do that. That's why I suggested you believed you owned it. You should explain your edits. Most good quality sport articles with infoboxes follow the templated date approach. Also, care to explain "says the guy with 2500 edits after the tournament is over and changing everything" in your edit summary directed at me?? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was just simply my answer to your "owning the article" comment towards me. ;) Sorry that i was at work the whole day and could not add any reference, will do it when i have time today/the next days... Some users just go to articles and add the tags (Armbrust comes to mind) and that just frustrates me, because sometimes it takes a while to add them or you just forgot them. Not saying you do, but i see it often. And i have yet to see a sport article with that template. FIFA 2010, Euro 2012, 2012 Olympics, just to name the last 3 "big" ones or even the last Handball Championships... Kante4 (talk) 20:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't make 2500 edits, maybe 25, and all to try to improve the article since it was inevitably going to feature on the main page. I tagged the sections without any refs, I could have just tagged the whole article with a {{ref improve}} but the individual tags were added so someone could decide whether or not those sections were actually useful. Note that tagging a section for needing refs is one thing, adding those refs is another, it's not up to the reviewers to add citations. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it was not 2500, was just a bit "mad" because you said i would like to own the article. And sure, everyone can add those tags and has no responsibility to add those sources, you are different than other users (i mentioned). They come to articles they have no interest in and just tag because they like to tag... After asking why they don't add refs instead they answer "this does not interest me", but so much that you can tag it? That's why i'm sceptical with those "editors" at times. ;) Kante4 (talk) 20:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And about the template i'm still curious... Kante4 (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're right, I was mistaken. I'm so used to seeing full date ranges including the year that I was expecting to find this way of doing it across most articles of this nature. Turns out I'm wrong wrong wrong. Sorry about that. But perhaps you could ask the contributing editor (User:Pigsonthewing) what his/her rationale is for changing the date format? I think having the year in there isn't so bad, many tournaments will cross two years. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:23, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, i can live with the year. But having the month/year twice seemed a bit too much for me. Kante4 (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added some references. I agree with Kante4 on the date format issue. The article's title and infobox' title both start with "2013" in big letters and right below it there's a big "2013" on the official logo. I find that "2013" added totaly unnecessary and redundant, but, as Kante4, I can live with that. But, as Kante4 again, I find the first form, repeating "January" and "2013" twice, just too much.187.35.198.84 (talk) 09:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the templates, before seeing this discussion. Such templates are standard across all our infoboxes for dated events, and make the dates machine readable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But i did not see one sport article with that kind of date format so it's not "common". And two other people here agree, so i don't see a reason for including it. Kante4 (talk) 21:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What advantage has machine readability here? -Koppapa (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See Help:Microformats. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:35, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See ArenaBowl VI & 2010 European Mountain Running Championships for examples; and the RfC where it was recently agreed to roll this out to all such articles, as soon as we can get a bot to do the job. Note that there are already over 107,600 transclusions of {{Start date}}. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for those links. -Koppapa (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2013 World Men's Handball Championship. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 09:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 85 external links on 2013 World Men's Handball Championship. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 13:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_World_Men%27s_Handball_Championship&oldid=1196649979"