Talk:2016 World Cup of Hockey

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

Venues[edit]

According to the NHL.com article that is cited in the article, all games will be played at Air Canada Centre. Ricoh Coliseum will not be used. There is one venue -- ACC will host two games per day.20:27, 22 July 2015 (UTC)Djob (talk)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015[edit]

Remove TBC in Groups A–B,and write A1-A2-A3-A4 and B1-B2-B3-B4 95.110.36.93 (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Qed237 (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2015[edit]

Add flags to Team Europe and N.A Youngstars 95.110.36.93 (talk) 18:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done They have no flags, for example Team Europe does not represent European Union. Qed237 (talk) 18:37, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rankings table and tie-breakers[edit]

Curious why the tables are reflective of a IIHF world championship group when the web site states that the tournament will use NHL rules. Not a challenge to the creator, a straight forward question really as to whether there is any concrete information about the structure of group play.18abruce (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Currently of the tables are similar to NHL regular reason. Maybe they have been amended. However the game format section of this page claims a regulation victory awards 3 points like in the IIHF rules but the current table templates only give 2 points for a regulation win. There isn't a source for the game format section. -Ristipiste (talk) 11:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I amended the tables to my guess of what "NHL rules" implied. And I just now removed the format section because there has been nothing supplied by the NHL to support some of the conclusions there.18abruce (talk) 13:07, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed there is a more complex standings table being used on the official site now. Don't know why you need all the extra columns with so few games when the rules are listed below. Full rules are listed there as well now, I will get around to it if someone else dosen't in the next couple of days.18abruce (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-tournament matches[edit]

Would it be worth noting the pre-tournament matches? https://www.nhl.com/news/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-schedule-announced/c-778411 Dashed (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are just friendlies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qed237 (talk • contribs)
I do think it is worth mentioning them, this is a short tournament, and while they are pre tourney games, they are being played at a high level, and all are broadcast on TV. I don't know how much detail to bring in, but I think it is worth talking about them. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely needs to be part of this, as it's part of the tournament. Historically important. Jmj713 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a pert of the tournament, it is friendlies before the tournament. For the same reason we don't add all friendlies played ahead of IIHF World Championships. We don't add pre-season matches to NHL season, and so on. Qed237 (talk) 00:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is very much part of the tournament. It's the same teams playing under the same umbrella wearing the same jerseys and shown on TV as part of the event. And yes, pre-season games are also listed for NHL teams. Jmj713 (talk) 00:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To compromise, could we have a separate article on the pre-tournament matches? Dashed (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is a rather unusual event with a lot of coverage of the pre-tournament games. I think some discussion of them belongs in the article until such time as the main article gets too big. Just my opinion but I think notable events from the games rather than summaries would be most beneficial.18abruce (talk) 01:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I only suggested a separate article since Qed237 is adamant on not including them into this article. Dashed (talk) 01:31, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think Qed is looking at this through a European soccer angle. (Looking at editing history). I don't mean this in any pejorative way BTW. These games, while they seem like soccer 'friendlies' are a tad different as they are organized by the tourney, and are all televised etc as a few of us have noted. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, pre-tournament matches are not notable and should not be added. They are friendlies and do not count to the tournament, which this article is all about. Kante4 (talk) 09:00, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter what angle you look from, they are not a part of the tournament. It does not matter that they are on TV, a lot of pre-season matches are. Qed237 (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to find a comparable event in hockey that had exhibition games. The closest I can come is the 1972 Summit Series. The games vs Sweden and the Czechs are listed in our article there. Yes I am well aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF. I have posted at the hockey project, hoping for some input from others. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:05, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The pre-tournament games absolutely belong here. They are very clearly under the umbrella of the tournament, considering Team Europe and Team North America are also participating. -- Earl Andrew - talk 13:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said it very well, it is pre-tournament and not a part of the real tournament. A couple of rows that pre-matches exists is fine but we don't need the match detail for training matches. Qed237 (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always on the side of more information, not less, so I don't understand why this does not belong in an article when it clearly does. While exhibition and ore-season games may be ephemeral by nature, I still find them interesting from a historical viewpoint. In fact, I even created articles about NHL teams playing exhibition games it Europe. Information is not easy to come by, especially for the Detroit/Monteal series in the 1930s, so while we have this wealth of knowledge and information, why not preserve it? Jmj713 (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There can a sentence or two about those games in the prose but in no way should the matches be presented like they are. Kante4 (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Jmj713 (talk) 15:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because they do not mean anything to the tournament. Kante4 (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very subjective opinion. They may not matter in the standings, but that doesn't mean they don't belong here. Hockey is not soccer, "friendlies" in hockey are much more attached to the succeeding tournament. Plus, you wouldn't have Team Europe or Team North America just play in random friendlies. Those teams were created for this tournament alone. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You said it. For the tournament. I can't see a good reason why they should be included and have yet to hear one... Kante4 (talk) 16:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, well tournament and the pre-tournament I guess? Since they are playing in both. I fail to see how the pre-tournament is so unrelated to the main tournament that it warrants exclusion from the article. You say you yet to hear a good reason why they should be included, but I can just easily say the opposite. Throwing out subjective statements like that is not going to help your case. It's not like this decision is up to you alone to decide. We're not trying to convince you to change your opinion, as clearly it is set in stone, so who cares if you have heard a good reason or not to have it included. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no pre-tournament. It is a random list of fixtures. You want it included so you must provide a good reason why and there is none so far. Kante4 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is objectively incorrect. It is literally called the pre-tournament. Source: https://www.nhl.com/news/2016-world-cup-of-hockey-schedule-announced/c-778411 The onus is on you to provide a good reason to exclude the pre-tournament results. We have provided a good reason to include them; as I said you are not the sole arbiter to decide whether or not we have provided a good reason or not. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to be sensitive and say i am not the person who decides. That's correct but a discussion is held and different opinions are presented. I still say they should be excluded. We have to wait and see what other editors have to say/offer. Kante4 (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they should not be included as they are not a part of the tournament. They could be mentioned, yes, but there is no notablility for match details. Qed237 (talk) 22:08, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No notability for the scores? That is demonstrably false. Every game has had significant news coverage by national media, CBC, TSN, CBS, NBC, various newspapers, etc. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbrodbeck: As I said, a few lines of sourced prose is fine. Like for example "Team North America (consisting of under-23 players from Canada and the United States) showed strenght before the tournament winning all three matches..." But we do not need match detail in the boxes with what people scored and when the goals was scored. That is irrelevant. Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The weight of the article should be on the main tournament, not what happens before. Qed237 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ancillary things like pre-season or exhibition games should be listed, and we do list them for team season articles. I wish earlier hockey exhibition games were covered in more detail, because sometimes these provide some unusual circumstances. This is what led me to research and create the List of international games played by NHL teams. There were many exhibition games played in the early history of the NHL but these have not been documented as well as regularly scheduled pre-season games now. And this is a shame, because it's all part of the history of the game and these players. And by omitting these pre-tournament games we would also be hiding available information. Jmj713 (talk) 22:44, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You guys realize that Wikipedia is not paper right? Nothing wrong with more information. It's not detracting from the article in any way. -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:46, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This pretty much sums it up for me. Above someone mentioned they weren't notable, but wikipedia's definition of notable is were they covered by multiple sources, and they clearly were so they belong. -DJSasso (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hide the pre-tournament games[edit]

  • My proposition is to hide (collapse) the pre-tournament games. See [1] 95.133.211.190 (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hello, I don't know if there's widespread support for this yet. We have decided that there is not enough support to remove the games all together, so that is not an option. If there is widespread support for "hiding" the games, then we can do so. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:08, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that hiding (collapse) article content (as opposed to footers and infobox sections) isn't allowed in the WP:MOS. In any case, we have other solutions, we can just split it off into a subarticle. A list of matches for the 2016 World Cup of Hockey would remove clutter. We would just leave a summary of the finals match, and a table of games for the other games (like a sports page season totals). -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk pages are not article pages. The MOS does not apply to non-articles. Also, I did say that footers and infoboxes used it. Main text and navigation footer or the infobox summary are separate things. I don't see how there's a notability issue, since its the collective notability of all the matches, and their televised airings. This would be similar to the notability issues of episode lists. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll point out right from the documentation of {{collapse top}}:
-- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 05:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:COLLAPSE: Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if it simply repeats information covered in the main text (or is purely supplementary, e.g. several past (years of) statistics in collapsed tables for comparison with a table of uncollapsed current stats). 95.133.211.190 (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
did you read what you copied? The stuff you want to collapse isn't repeating other material, it is the primary material in the article. This is the exactly the same restriction as the collapsing of infobox summaries, which repeats what is in the article. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 04:04, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No they aren't qualifiers. The teams were picked for the tournament by the NHL and NHLPA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Flags[edit]

I for one am glad the EU flag for Europe is gone and the US/Canada mashup one is gone. The Europe team doesn't rep the EU, and, the NA team is under 24 Americans and Canadians, so they don't rep their countries. (As an aside, I think of them as Team Millenial....) Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the EU Flag makes sense, it is used in the Ryder Cup after all, even though the Europe Team there doesn't "represent the EU". -- Earl Andrew - talk 00:24, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't think it ought to be there either then..... Alas, I'm not sure I could care less about golf in general. The Czech Republic is in the EU though, so if there were no other Euro teams I could see it, but not here I don't think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Probably off-topic, but it'd be nice to include the logos of team North America and team Europe as drop-ins. I'm unsure if this is possible without possible copyright infringement. Dashed (talk) 14:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You might be able to put them on their respective articles, but not here. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There was an article recently that I saw that they were going to be playing the EU Anthem for the Europe team so it does sort of imply they are representing the EU. -DJSasso (talk) 14:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wild. What are they playing for NA I wonder? Maybe just both the Can and US ones. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that they couldn't come up with an anthem for the European team (though, why not just play Ode to Joy?), and they were playing the Canadian and US anthems for Team North America. -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a source for that: http://www.sportsnet.ca/hockey/world-cup-of-hockey/world-cup-hockey-need-know-tournament-rules/ - SAD! -- Earl Andrew - talk 15:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh I think that article is newer than the one I read so looks like they decided not to go that way. -DJSasso (talk) 13:24, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Use map pictures instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.64.88 (talk) 20:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why not use the official tournament flags/coat of arms? Available here https://www.wch2016.com/info/teams and here http://www.eliteprospects.com/league_home.php?leagueid=65 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.33.85 (talk) 10:01, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
North America
Europe
or
North America
Europe
-- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, all other language articles about this topic on Wikipedia (except Russian) use the EU flag and the made up North American flag. -- Earl Andrew - talk 01:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the EU flag is a Flag of Europe also. 95.133.211.190 (talk) 08:40, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What was the reasoning behind not using "Europe Europe" and " North America"? -Uncleben85 (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the fictitious NA flag, it is directly listed as a violation of the MOS per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Icons#Do not distort icons. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:21, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TSN uses something similar, is their not a way to adopt what is being (notably) used in major media productions.18abruce (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well the Manual of Style states, "Do not modify or use non-generic icons in a way that is not notably used outside of Wikipedia." - so if we can agree TSN is notable... -Uncleben85 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 OAS doesn't seem right, (the recently added flag) since the OAS is all the Americas, not just North America -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 09:07, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the teams section is it appropriate to list the eight flags that are represented by team Europe. I only ask because the selection of the team was not restricted to those nations and am concerned that it is misleading.18abruce (talk) 20:20, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do people feel about using File:Logo of Team Europe WCH 2016.png for team Europe and File:Logo of Team North America WCH 2016.png for team North America. Auguel (talk) 01:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think thise logos are allowed per copyright rules. They are only allowed use on team main article. It is best to just skip using flags or logos for these teams. Qed237 (talk) 11:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Those logos are copyrighted and thus can't be used on any article except for the respective teams' main articles per WP:FAIRUSE. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 15:27, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, they aren't allowed to be displayed here, but the links to them can. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 00:17, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tables report false information[edit]

The tables with the standings for the groups currently report that the teams that happen to be in first and second right now have advanced to the next round. I tried to correct this by first removing the false information and then when another editor insisted on restoring it, I tried modifying the language in the box so that it clearly indicated that the top two teams at the end of the round, and not the teams that happen to be in the top 2 now, will qualify. The same editor reverted that edit saying that this is how Wikipedia always does things. So for now, Wikipedia is reporting information that is false. I can't be bothered to fight with such stupidity that will not allow the text to even be modified slightly so as to be more clear about the fact that no one has yet qualified. But if anyone else cares, it might be worth trying to change. 99.192.70.198 (talk) 03:13, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I do not quite understand the conclusions you are reaching but I acted poorly, sorry.18abruce (talk) 12:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You can just stop with this, because you're the one that doesn't understand how this table works. The standings just give information from which places (1st and 2nd teams are even colored in green) the teams will advance to the next round. There's a special parameter for the team when it qualifies or is eliminated. Next time try to read and see more similar tables before writing nonsense. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_World_Cup_of_Hockey&oldid=1196719096"