Talk:2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:14, 29 June 2013

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Football C‑class Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Group articles

Will be there group articles like in Euro 2012 or AFCON-2013? Andrey Tsyganov (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that there is no importance to group articles.--Uishaki (talk) 22:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification box

A few weeks ago, the design of the qualification box was changed to show the teams that had qualified, as well as their best attempt whilst at the U20 World Cup. This was then removed, with the qualification box we see now still up. I propose that we re-instate this design (you can see how it looks, as it is used at at the 2013 CONCACAF Gold Cup page). IanCleverly (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and think we should revert the qualification box to that of 06:03, 27 February 2013.

I like that version. It combines pretty well both formats. Parutakupiu (talk) 11:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the last one, before the format changed, and I think that format was better than the one we are using now. Volvov70 (talk) 02:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, go for it. -Koppapa (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know how to change. But at this point El Salvador is not yet eliminated. It has mathematical options to advance if thirds of groups E and F have world record (it´s difficult, but not mathamtically impossible)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 [[User:Volvov70|Volvov70]] ([[User talk:Volvov70|talk]]) 02:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 ::Yes, go for it. -[[User:Koppapa|Koppapa]] ([[User talk:Koppapa|talk]]) 09:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
+I dont know how to change. But at this point El Salvador is not yet eliminated. It has mathematical options to advance if thirds of groups E and F have world record (it´s difficult, but not mathamtically impossible)