Talk:2015 IIHF World Championship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Ice Hockey (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
WikiProject Czech Republic (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Czech Republic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Czech Republic 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

IIHF World Championship[edit]

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.[edit]

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)
in 2015 IIHF World Championship italy don't compete!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viliam Furík (talkcontribs) 10:56, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Note is from 2014 relating to who was qualified for 2015.18abruce (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

latvia can still be relegated with 9 points[edit]

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)


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)


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)
Enough for me. Kante4 (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems good enough, I think I overstated that it was a major flaw. Thank you. I am not a fan of the way the new tables are presented but I am sure I will get over it, they are simple enough to edit.18abruce (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, are we going to have a symbol for "cannot be relegated", "is relegated", "cannot qualify for playoff" and "qualified for playoff"? Kante4 said we're gonna use (Q) for those who are qualified, but I think the other 3 "groups" are interesting enough to mention, what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHades (talkcontribs) 21:05, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There are some other symbols, too. See Module:Sports table/WL OT#Indicating status. If you need some extra more, you can use X, Y, Z. For example, code would be |status_DEN=X (for Denmark) and |status_text_X=cannot qualify for playoff. Here is a live example. --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 05:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Actually, for such tournaments (World championships, continental championships etc.) there should be defined such status letters (which DrHades mentioned – "cannot be relegated", "cannot qualify for playoff"). They are quite often used. You probably won't find them in existing articles, because they are used, when tournament is in progress. So I'm pinging CRwikiCA – maybe you could add it to your to-do list :) --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 07:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I just cleanup the status text, you can not modify the preset C, Q and so on. You can only modify X, Y and Z. The thing is that was can not predefine every situation as it varies from tournament to tournament and sport to sport. Some sport have direct qualification, some only playoffs and some has both. It would be to many letters, thats why we have X, Y and Z that can be modified instead. QED237 (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I notify Kante4, one of the main contributors, to this discussion to see if he has any comment about the letters. QED237 (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
To add my opinion I am not sure we need "can not be relegated" and "can not reach playoffs". Towards the end the table will be full of letters and just "Advances to further round" (A) and "Relegated" (R) might be enough. QED237 (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
There are the wildcard letters, additional "standard" letters could be added, the question is what letters and with which descriptions? CRwikiCA talk 14:11, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm not against using it, but i don't need them either. Just can't be relegated and can't advance are needed IF they are. Kante4 (talk) 16:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Hidden bracket[edit]

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)

Playoff round[edit]

Hey, i just created the playoff round article, so game recaps can be written if needed and wanted. I "left" the bracket, which should be enough and games can be linked through the bracket (when known). Kante4 (talk) 13:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Belarus locked into 4th place in Group B[edit]

Am I missing anything here? With one game remaining, Belarus is locked into 4th place, as they're 3 points away from either 3rd or 5th. So not only are they qualified, they're locked into B4 and up against Canada in the quarterfinals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NortonFord (talkcontribs) 17:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Winners get 3points (like everywhere in the world except north america) and if Slovakia wins they end up on same points as Belarus and Slovakia has better head-to-head as they won against belarus. QED237 (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Oh wow, didn't even come into my head that it was international and so 3 point wins were a factor. I am super wrong, thanks! NortonFord — Preceding undated comment added 17:22, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Austria relegated[edit]

Why did Austria relegate to Division I? Rules say "The overall bottom ranked two teams will be relegated to the 2015 IIHF Ice Hockey World Championship Division I Group A". What does word overall mean in these phrase? Austria has more points than Denmark, so the overall bottom ranked two teams should be Slovenia and Denmark. I saw news about relegation of Austria at official site, but I didn't understand, why did Austria relegate, but not Denmark? Dinamik (talk) 07:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Poor phrased i think. The bottom team of EACH group should be correct. Kante4 (talk) 10:19, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
The first rule for ranking is "higher position in the group" so Austria having more points than denmark is interesting trivia but completely irrelevent for ranking. Overall in this phrase means overall by their ranking rules.18abruce (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


No information on mascot-- (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any info supported by reliable sources? Also I am not sure it is worth mentioning. QED237 (talk) 14:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC),-bob-bobek!/ -- (talk) 15:07, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Not a must to have for me but if someone wants to make a SMALL section for it, go ahead! Kante4 (talk) 15:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)