Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)

message: Couldn't help but notice the edit conflict. I hope  will settle it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group Super-Structure 

message: Hey man, I saw the website, and yes, I missed the first sentences, I apologize for that. JC 09:00 28 March 2008 (PST)
:NP, just in the future rather than making a whole bunch of effort only to be reverted (something I have plenty of experience at myself), you can probably bring it up in talk and get the whole thing sorted out a lot easier. 
Would it not be apropriate to mention the controversy in the draw dates used for CONCACAF seeding. Some countries (such as Canada) were heavily punnished because the results used for WCQ seeding was taken before the Gold CUP, Canada was seed in the 3rd pot, but was, in reality a first pot team as of the date of the draw. CONCACAF is the only federation to conduct seeding in this fashion, unless I am mistaken  
--  Grant.Alpaugh 17:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would only be appropriate to mention it if you can find reliable sources.  The AFC does the same thing - Australia is seeded first in 2010 WCQ because of their 2006 WC performance, even though they were knocked out at the quarterfinals of the Asian Cup in 2007. -- Chuq (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Groups 

message: I've changed the headings in the second round to refer to the third round rather than semi final. The third Round is listed as such in its own section of this article, in the template, and in its own article, and the term "semi-final" suggests two teams playing off for one position, which isn't the case with the third round. Grutness...wha? 06:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is fair enough. Last time around (and in the early Concacaf drafts of the format) the rounds were named Prelim-1, Prelim-2, Semi-final and Hexagonal.  The FIFA website uses First, Second, Third, Fourth however and we should stick to those for consistency. Jlsa (talk) 06:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third Round, not Semi-final 

message: According to the US Soccer site, provisional sites and game dates have been set for the US home games, provided the US wins the present series vs. Barbados (first leg: 6-0 to the US after 82 minutes).    I would presume that dates are also set for all games (pending the actual second round winners).   Also, some of the larger countries such as Mexico or Canada may have announced provisional sites.    At what point and in what format is it legitimate to include this information?  - PhilipR (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends what you intend to put down.  You could probably already put down generic dates (as per the matchday list) and have USA/BRB v GUA/LCA etc set out - CONCACAF have probably already done this draw - but only a couple of countries have set out their proposed schedules.  Then as the teams are confirmed by Round Two results you could add in venues and times (and actual dates).  Someone will eventually do this - it's just a question of when.  And, unless it's done badly it will probably stand.  However (since the US venues are known) I would hope they aren't put into the table until the US has officially advanced.Jlsa (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To avoid issues of crystal balling, I think it would be best to wait the week required for everything to be official.  I know everyone's excited, but that's no reason to get ahead of ourselves.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 15:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semifinal round matchups/sites 

message: For those coming late to the fun:  Goal scorers for this qualifying contest are to be ordered, first by number of goals scored, second by nation, and third by alphabetical order within squad.  Only the top ten scorers, plus ties, are to be listed in the table.  All scorers for qualifying will be listed, however.  Please keep track, if moving someone down off the table or up to the table, of what goals they have scored and in which rounds...this information is listed for each player not-included in the table, though invisibly.  Thank you.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 23:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor and applaud your effort to move things forward. Vorlath (talk) 02:44, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Just a reminder:  goalscorers are arranged first by goals scored, then by country, then alpahbetically by last name.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's how it used to be.  Now someone screwed it all up.  I'm gonna have to find out how to revert the goalscorers section.  Why in the world would anyone mess it up this badly? Vorlath (talk) 04:45, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vorlath, no sweat.  I've taken care of it, complete with explanation.  Because I'm just that awesome.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Vorlath, what the heck?  I had it taken care of, with the players back in the correct order!  (Mostly, I think.)  What gives?  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, I just reverted it and noticed you had made some changes earlier than I did.  Besides, I put it back the way it was.  Let's just keep it this way.  I'm more than happy to update that section as I've been doing for the past while since it's always the last section to be updated.  Vorlath (talk) 05:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: (deleted by author in the hopes to get a more positive dialogue.)  Vorlath (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maintainability should not trump the presentation.  If you want to be able to accurately update the article FIFA.com or CONCACAF.com will do just fine.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 05:11, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (deleted by author) Vorlath (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't a project page, it's an encyclopedia article.  There is no reason you can't use the source information to update the article, it's what we do at 2008 Major League Soccer season.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 05:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (deleted by author) Vorlath (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry you feel that way, but aparently you don't understand that you don't WP:OWN WP.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 05:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (deleted by author) Vorlath (talk) 05:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Grant, you are wrong.  That is not the way every other tournament does it.  Your basic design is fine.  Your ordering is wrong.  Vorlath was quite right to tell you so.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 05:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 68.97.115.26, sorry about the earlier edit.  I hadn't seen it.  AFAIC, Grant can have his table.  You'll have to fight him on your own if you want the changes you speak of.  I'm willing to help out and in the past, I have edited hundreds of wikipedia pages (not under this account) and had my edits changed and even deleted, but it's simply not worth my time if I have to fight just to get information on the page.  Vorlath (talk) 05:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine, but this nonsense about me having an ego trip really is absurd.  I really think it's time for WP:TEA, Vorlath, don't you?  I'm more than willing to accept your order, however.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 05:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: Surely we can be reasonable.  I'm sorry, but what exactly do you mean by "international goal tables?"  There's not a single World Cup or Euro article that lists goalscorers explicitly by team, everyone is just listed with a flag.  I don't see why we even need a table in the first place, but it seems the Asia article is that way as well.  No matter which table is used, they should both be listed in the same manner as consistency is important.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 05:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would a CONCACAF article do?  Take a look at the scorer's listing for the 2007 CONCACAF Gold Cup.  You'll find the players laid out first by goals scored, then by country (not listed; flags only shown), then alphabetically.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 05:53, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, no I'm not contesting that.  Just the presentation.  I'm all right with rowspanning the goals for the ties, but there's simply no reason to include the whole team name when the bloody flag will do.  I'll get to work on the AFC article tomorrow, but I'm to bed at the minute.  I think we're very much on the same page though.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 05:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good.  So hopefully that fight is over.  Vorlath, would you care to weigh in?  Is this alright with you?  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I only wanted the round number for 1 goal scorers as they are the only ones where it is not indicated.  That's it.  That's all I was pushing for, though the table WAS messed up.  The round indicator in the 1 goal section makes it easier to update too because when you add these goal scorers for their second or more goals from a recent match, you know right away how to update the table.  It doesn't take up space.  It doesn't alter the presentation as Grant incorrectly suggested.  And since I was updating that section anyways, I was all to happy to maintain that info if no one else wanted to.  I even suggested that it could be taken out after the qualifiers are over.  As to the format of the table, I couldn't care less.  I actually like that the 1 goal section is shorter.  In fact, I really like it.  I then saw your comment and that you suggested the exact order that was there before for the table (and the format that I've seen in other places).  So you (and then I without knowing you had already done so) put it back.  I still don't understand what Grant is all about though.  I've edited hundreds of pages on here and never had this kind of problem. (edit: I'll not be updating that section anymore, so do what you all think is best for wikipedia readers.)Vorlath (talk) 06:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so that's why you were restoring the original edit.  I missed that.  I understand now, and apologize.  Round numbers have been restored for all single-goal scorers.  Please don't leave.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I love when people resort to the "I'll get my way or I'll take my ball and I'll go home" argument.  Exactly what problem is it that you were having?  People changing things that you've edited.  If that's really what's upsetting you, then I seriously doubt you've been involved with WP for that long.  As for the round numbers in the list, I really have to contest that info's inclusion.  Here's why: as the qualifiers progress, there will be more than just 1 goal scorers in the list, as the table is only supposed to handle the top 10 scorers.  When that happens, you will get the situation where someone with a long name has 4 goals scored, and you'll have to have something after their name saying (R1), (R2), 2(R4), which will create a problem with the collumns.  There is no need to keep this information in the article.  What would be appropriate would be hiding that information with  markers so that the information is included in the code, but not in the article.  Please quit your temper tantrum and continue editing the article.  Your contributions are highly valued by this community.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 18:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Grant.  Remember me, the person you said was so reasonable yesterday?  The person who just added in all the rounds for the one-goal scores, which you then deleted and blamed on Vorlath?  That was me, and I spent a great deal of time restoring that information.  Look, there's nothing anywhere that says the table is only for the top ten scorers.  Why don't we just make the table for all multiple-goal scorers, since we already have the provisions to do it by round?  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See your talk page about the info being "deleted."  The brief summary is that that info is available to assist updaters, but not available on the article.  I guess after the tourney is over we could unhide the round info as long as it doesn't affect the collumn widths.  As for the table, if you look at every league or tournament article, the table of scorers only include the top ten scorers.  Normally no one else is included at all, but at articles like the World Cup or Euros every scorer is included without a table of any kind.  Since this is kind of a hybrid, I think that including the table for the top 10 and the list for the rest would be appropriate.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 20:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see.  I thought that was gone.  Good to know it isn't.  I still have some issues about the way this is being handled (because I have cited twice on this page a tournament article that does indeed include every scorer), but I agree that we can put off discussion of it to a later time...say, after the qualifiers are over, or at least after this round is completed.  --68.97.115.26 (talk) 20:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, my position is: include every scorer (like the article you quoted), but only include the top 10 plus ties in the table (like every other article I've mentioned).  I think we agree on everything, our communication is just what's lacking.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 21:21, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

text: (deleted by author)  Vorlath (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are taking this way too personally and some WP:TEA is most definitely in order.  Nobody else in this conversation is anywhere near as upset as you are.  Take a chill pill, man.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 13:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  (snip)  BTW, I went and looked around and the other World Cup qualifier pages for other regions do it the way it was before.  Go see the page for CAF and AFC.  (snip)  Vorlath (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, take your own advice and stop trying to make me sound like I'm angry just because you are.  What happened to WP:GOODFAITH?  Seriously.  Stop with the drama.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 02:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've deleted my comments in the hopes to have a more positive dialogue.  Vorlath (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goalscorers 

message: Shouln't the fixture boxes be in alphabetical order, like they are at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Third Round? Grutness...wha? 22:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes they should. It will be fixed when all the matches are done. They will be moved to templates.  Group 2 is already done. .  Group 1 and 3 are in my sandbox waiting to know the teams.  I'm waiting until everything is done to set them up.-CWY2190(talk • contributions) 22:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Third round order 

message: The templates that are confusing as hell to understand how to use for the third round need to be removed. Replace the easier to use script that was there before  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blocparty22 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group templates 

message: Awesome.  After these pages develop towards consistency across all confederations over 9 months, one guy turns one confed's pages into a trainwreck in one night.  CONCACAF website DOES use A,B,C, BUT it also uses "semi final round" (see, for example, qualifing draw whcih also uses Stage 1 and 2 instead of First and Second Round).  FIFA uses 1,2,3 and Third Round (see, for example, FIFA news here).  Now, because someone notices half of the difference with another website, all the standardisation across the WC2010 qual pages (templates, naming conventions, goal scorer table structures) gets tossed out.  Bravo.  And another thiing, on templates, part of their beauty is that OTHER pages can also use them to keep related information up to date.  For example, the page 2008 in Iraqi football can link directly to the latest standings in the relevant group WITHOUT HAVING TO BE UPDATED SEPARATELY.  That is why we use templates, not because YOU can only think of one or two pages where the information might appear, but because using them allows HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE to present the same information on a consistent basis where it is relevant without all of them needing to update their pages.  Removing the templates (presumably because they are a bit hard for you) effectively cripples one of the best features of Wikipedia.  In conclusion.  Stop. Jlsa (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There needs to be some serious intervention into the editing of this 2010 Qualification by an Administrator. Major changes are being made on an arbitrary basis, people are assuming they own the pages, etc. This is getting ridiculous. The culprit that changed the templates didn't even consider DISCUSSING it first, which it should have been. Rasadam (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, first of all I really apologize for any problems I've caused by detemplating these articles re: the Third Round.  That's still no reason to assume it is because I'm claiming ownership of the article or making changes on an arbitrary basis.  (If you got that from the guy in the section above about scoring, please read the whole conversation as I think his remarks are a little off base.)  I detemplated them because it's been my experience at the CONCACAF articles that people try to be too cute by half and template things that are only in one article, like the problem we had at 2008 Major League Soccer season, where all of the standings were seperate templates.  In regards to the group names, I was unaware of the inconsistency between FIFA and other sites, so I made a good faith correction when I saw the discrepency.  If there really are questions of whether I have any idea what I'm doing, you could let me know by dropping me a note on my talk page before throwing around things like "culprit."  --  Grant.Alpaugh 03:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough (apology accepted).  There is a lot of angst here (yet, admittedly, nothing like the MLS talk page - hooley dooley, that's a cat fight).  The problem on my side came from trying to stop these changes but having more and more pop-up at 3am.  I think the points on templates are important more generally however - even the best-2nd place stuff for CAF is a template.  There does seem to be a whole lot of rubbish going on at the moment and tons of important changes being made without referencing etc.  It doesn't take much - look at the WC finals page - lots of changes A1 -> RSA -> A1 -> RSA, people reverting stuff claiming its wrong and others just cramming it back.  It took 2 minutes to look through the freakin' WC regulations to find out the true story (RSA will be team A1 in the finals).  Come on people - It ain't hard. Jlsa (talk) 03:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my thing: we need a major standardization for the whole WCQ tourney from group names to goalscorers.  I think that it is important to list all of the goalscorers on the main article, but only include the top 10 plus ties in the table.  The group names aren't as big a deal, but consistency is what is important.  BTW, don't UEFA use letters for theirs?  I just wish we could figure this out before the next rounds get underway after the summer is over.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After summer???? I though we kicked off again in August.  I'm not gonna be able to hold out til next year!!!!!!!  UEFA does use letters for its tournaments, and FIFA uses letters for the finals.  But the UEFA pots were Pot A-F and the Groups are 1-9.  AFC fourth round groups are expected to be Group A and Group B (that expectation based on the fact we have Pots 1-4 in Friday's draw).Jlsa (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I meant the end of summer, i.e. August.  So what have we decided about 1,2,3vA,B,C?  --  Grant.Alpaugh 04:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care really.  But don't move the templates.  It causes a headache with the doc pages and stuff.  I assume people can relate Group 1 with Group A and so on.-CWY2190(talk • contributions) 04:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,2,3 v A,B,C 

message: Just curious, should we include goals that are scored in the CONMEBOL/CONCACAF play-off in this article, as it seems it will be treated as a seperate phase of the competition on WP, as there is a seperate article for it?  Also, if we do include them here, what should we put under that column of the goalscorers chart for players on teams that qualify directly? I was thinking that, if Jozy Altidore finishes in the top 10+ties table, and the U.S. qualifies automatically, we should put something like a "Q" in that section, to indicate that while the player didn't play in that round, it wasn't because they were eliminated before it was played, as using an "X" would seem to indicate.  Thoughts?  – Football.Fútbol.Soccer 03:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The CAF and AFC tables used a "-" for teams that skipped an early round because of a bye.  But a 'Q' for Qualified would make some sense as well (as it is a bit different to miss the round because you have made the World Cup rather than just haven't started the qualification yet). Jlsa (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Playoff goals 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF). 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070610190624/http://fifa.com/worldcup/regulations/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/regulations/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614120346/http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1065516.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/media/newsid%3D1065516.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:10, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress