Talk:Copa América 2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on Copa América 2007 is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Drewvkamp 15:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC) Can we get a better map of venues on this page? This map assumes that most of Guyana belongs to Venezuela, a claim dealt with on political pages but not appropriate on a sporting page.

I created a new map, hope this is fine with you. SportsAddicted 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
Great job, thanks. Mariano(t/c) 12:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] group draw

When will the teams be placed into groups —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.139.19.189 (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

February 14, see here. --Gabbec 22:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ciudad Guayana / Puerto Ordaz

I know that the cities are close but within the page we're being inconsistent. Can we find out if it should be CG or PO and consistently use that name throughout the article? The intro identifies the venue as "Ciudad Guayana" but all the match schedules refer to it as "Puerto Ordaz". Which one is it?

Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:25, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I checked the CONMEBOL web page, and the venue is referred there as "Puerto Ordaz". I made the change myself but maybe somebody could change the map as well. Thanks! Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:28, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Ciudad Guayana is the name of the conurbation of Puerto Ordaz and San Félix. there is no contradiction as Puerto Ordaz is a part of Ciudad Guayana. JRSP 10:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible Suspension?

"The Copa América 2007 will be most likely suspended due to the political situation of the students manifestations."

So far, the suspension of the Copa America in Venezuela is still considered a rumor. Are there any sources for this yet? Somebody please post one for this article if possible. Vic729 June 1st, 2007, 23:31 (UTC)

That was added by a new user who has only edited this page and created another, it's most likely vandalism, so I'll remove it. - MTC 05:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is not vandalism, and it is very authoritary of yourself to delete other people information, since the re are strong petitions to cancel this tournament. Anyway it what you deleted, only stated as possible suspension. If you are so sure about this tournament, then why you do not inform yourself about the student movement that is happening in Venzuela and check sites like www.megaresistencia.com or www.noticierodigital.com ? It is very easy to make statements about Venezuela when you are not in contact with it's cojuncture. If you do not understand Spanish it is not an argument to discredit other's information. The student movement is launching a warning, since any tournament played in Venezuela during this dictatorship will be declared against venezuelan interests, as stated in such pages and after speaches in the UCV, UCAB, ULA, URBE, LUZ, USB, UNIMET and other universities. Venezuelan student movement will take actions to hinder the development of this tournament. If you are nout still sure about the civil unrest and the repression of the state, then check the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, website and the detention of minors and university students. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Titan006 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 2 June 2007

Well if you have online sources for this addition then why didn't you add them to the article? You can't expect every reader to go find out for themselves. Statements like that often get deleted on Wikipedia if they are unsourced, the solution is to add sources. - MTC 14:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)


You can go to this link: http://www.noticierodigital.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=198849&highlight=copa+america

Blogs and internet forums are not usually reliable sources. Neier 21:05, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I also live in Venezuela and I'm aware of what's going on with the student protests. However,we need an official source from CONMEBOL in order for this to be confirmed.They haven't said anything yet. Vic729 22:07 June 2nd, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] teams

An Anon wanted to include the roasters; that would be probably best in a separate 'squads' article, properly formated. This was the content I removed:

Brasil

Goalkeepers: Doni (Roma-ITA) e Hélton (Porto-POR)

Wings: Maicon (Internazionale-ITA), Daniel Alves (Sevilla-ESP), Kléber (Santos) e Gilberto (Hertha Berlim-ALE)

Defenders: Juan (Bayer Leverkusen-ALE), Naldo (Werder Bremen-ALE), Alex (PSV Eindhoven-HOL) e Alex Silva (São Paulo)

Middlefelders: Mineiro (Hertha Berlim-ALE), Fernando (Bordeaux-FRA), Gilberto Silva (Arsenal-ING) e Josué (Sâo Paulo)

Attacking Middlefelders: Elano (Shakhtar Donetsk-UCR), Diego (Werder Bremen-ALE), Anderson (Porto-POR) e Zé Roberto (Santos)

Forwards: Robinho (Real Madrid-ESP), Afonso (Heerenveen-HOL), Vagner Love (CSKA-RUS) e Fred (Lyon-FRA).

--Mariano(t/c) 12:25, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree that it belongs in a separate article, like 2004 UEFA European Football Championship squads and others. Neier 12:43, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colors for group boxes

What exactly do colors mean in the group boxes? Does red mean cannot make tournament, yellow will make at least third place, and green will be at least first or second? There was some confusion at 2007 Gold Cup and I just would like it clarified. Bornagain4 13:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions

Does anyone know CCC/Telefutura/Galavision and/or Fox Soccer Channel is broadcasting all of the games in the US? like they are the Gold Cup?

& Is the bracket correct? The best 3rd place team is facing a 2nd place team with the winner playing Group A's winner or a runner up...while two first place teams are facing runners up and then each other perhaps? I see the official website has the same thing, but am I the only one that think it seems rather unorthodox and against logical thought? Theasfl 08:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

According to soccerTV.com, all games will be shown live on Univision/Telefutura in Spanish and on GolTV in English. About the bracket, it looks like it's correct, I haven't seen a conflicting source yet... but yes, it's incredibly absurd, especially because it's better for a Group B team to come in 2nd place (face a 3rd place) than win the group (face a runner-up)... it looks to me like they wanted Venezuela to avoid Argentina and Brazil for as long as possible (assuming the seeds win all 3 groups), also handing the Group A winner the easier road to the final with both 3rd placed teams in their half of the bracket. Not to mention it being by far the weakest group, with the bottom 3 from the past World Cup qualifying... I hope they realize how ridiculous the bracket is and correct it, but I wouldn't expect it from CONMEBOL. --Gabbec 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Full list of broadcasters from the official website of the tournament. http://copaamericavenezuela2007.terra.com.br/inc_cobertura.asp --Numberwang 17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

Which infobox are going to be use? {{Copa América summary}} or {{Infobox Copa América}}. The first one is use since the first edition, but the second one is just created few days ago (19 June). That is confuse! --Aleenf1 14:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] United States

Would someone please fix the template for the United States? It directs to a disamb page. It should direct to United States men's national soccer team. ludahai 魯大海 09:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been working hard to change this. I have edited the template:usaf (for right side) and template:usaf2 (for left side) so that they can be used here and throughout. Look at Group C, and when you click on the United States, it will redirect you straight to the United States men's national soccer team page. Please use this template from now on for the United States.(Modelun88 21:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC))
Thank you. ludahai 魯大海 14:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Match can be edited for scores and scorers while the game is still in progress, it has been done in other soccer events. Please do not say wait till end of game for editing. Bladesofhalo 23:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Check Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editing live events. It's not because it was done in other articles (and I can cite many were it wasn't done that way) that people should keep doing things that aren't well seen by Wikipedia policy. Garavello 15:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in use tag has been implemented. Bladesofhalo 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That is how some people, including myself, check scores on my cell phone. There is no reason to not allow the matches to be updated during the match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.229.192 (talk • contribs) 02:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There are perfectly valid reasons why matches are not edited live, as has already been explained. Also, wikipedia is not a live results service. I am sure there will be other sources where anyone could find live match scores on their mobile phone (cell phone). ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

No, actually there are not. Wikipedia is a service that gives the most up to date information on a topic. Because of the fact that it is possible to continuously edit it, and make the formal changes at the end of the match, there is no reason why not to allow it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.229.192 (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you check, rather than just saying there are no valid reasons, you will see that it has been discussed and that the decision was made for various perfectly valid reasons not to edit during matches. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps if you realized that any reference to your "reasons" that you have made is not accessible with your previously mentioned "as have-not has-already been explained", I would not be questioning the policy. It would probably be easier to take time out of your schedule that obviously revolves around searching around on football sites on wikipedia, which for some reason seems to be a little bit odd, and explained the reasons to responses; it would then be a non-issue. However, with your infinite wisdom, and references to links, such as the Check [[Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editing live events] - which does no good seeing as it is no longer in dispute, I know only by seeing what other insolent comments you have made on other sites one minor reason for doing this. But, it is nice to hear your kind words after a serious concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.229.192 (talk • contribs) 18:58, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ignoring the insults and sarcasm, you are directing your concerns at the wrong person, I have only answered you because you asked, to suggest you check, as they are valid reasons. It was not me who made the decision, nor me who proposed it, nor was I involved in the process of it being agreed. And when I first saw it I didn't agree with it, but after it was explained I understood why and ended up agreeing with it. They are though not "my" reasons. And if you check the messages above, it was another user who mentioned in here to check the Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Editing live events back on 27 June and not me. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hey

hey I have a question. Shouldn't you be awarded 2 points for a win, 1 point for a draw, and 0 points for a loss???? Because Peru now has 3 points when they should two. Anyway I'm just wondering because do you do it the way most people do or is it you get points for a every single goal that you make??????????????????????????????????????????????


????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.126.185 (talk • contribs)

3 points for a win, not 2. It's been this way for a very long time. Dlong 17:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Since a long time ago, every tournament organized under FIFA rules (which means any official tournament) states that a win is worth 3 points (no matter the score). It's also stated in the Copa América 2007 regulations. Garavello 17:54, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
User:71.135.126.185 - please do not edit the points for a win to 2 simply because you think it should be 2 points. 3 points is the standard throughout football for a win and is absolutley correct. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:34, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
It's been 3 points for a win (and 1 for a draw) at all tournaments since 1994, starting with that year's Fifa World Cup. 142.59.34.112 02:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC) York City Fan

[edit] "In use" tag

I seem we can make a change there... We can:

  1. Put the "in use" tag just before the game, not the article, after all many people won't bother seeing the top of article sometimes
  2. Let the "in use" tag for both games played that day, instead of taking the tag out between games.

What do you guys think? Garavello 00:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking there! When I removed it after the Chile v Ecuador game, I realised that it probably wasn't the best move! And yes it is best to remain on there for both matches each time. I have added in specific game detail into the tag for this game (which can always be amended each game), and yes maybe is best to move it to just above the game.♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
And the page has been semi-protected, so that should offer some relief. Bladesofhalo 01:02, 28 June

2007 (UTC)

I've moved the tag as Garavello suggested to above the specific game. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:08, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
OK I have added the tag already for todays two matches. I realise it is early but just thought it best to get it on there ASAP! I will leave it there until after the second match. However, once the first match has finished, (Paraguay v Colombia), the tag just needs the match changing to Argentina v USA. Hope this helps today to prevent at least some "in game" edits! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the tags for in use. It is accessible from mobile phones to get updates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.229.192 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See the answer to your comment above. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:39, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

For the anonymous user who keeps adding the same link under different IP addresses to a geocities website. Please see these pages -

♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 02:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] dash

According to Wikipedia: Manual of Style #En dashes, the score should put like this: 2–0, not 2 – 0, any point for this? --Aleenf1 07:12, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Graphics by goalscorers' names

Is it really necessary to have the little soccer balls (fine, footballs) by the goalscorers in the scorelines? It's not that way on the 2007 Gold Cup page, and I'm relatively confident it's not that way on the Euro 2008 Qualifying pages. I mean, it's not as though we don't know why those names are there. IMO, it makes the page more cluttered. Kingnavland 22:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC):

They were only added about 25 minutes or so ago by PeeJay2K3, maybe you could ask them? I must admit I don't really mind them being there as when hovered over it shows "scored after xx minutes" which I suppose can be beneficial. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 23:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
If they're going to be there, at least make the PK goals have a distinctive mark. Neier 23:42, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I was using the goal template originally but it was removed, and I didn't think it was critical to re-apply it. Since someone else has, I think it's worth keeping for consistency of presentation and appearance. I'll make sure the goal template is applied appropriately for penalty goals, such as goal|xx|penalty. Jogurney 01:41, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Best regards.
I don't like them either. They are a little too "cutesy" and agree that they make it look cluttered. Alexf(t/c) 11:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm changing my stance from "don't care either way" to "don't like". Robinho's hat trick is painful to read, with all the interleaved balls. Neier 00:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Attendances

The attendances that are being added do not add up. The venue for the Ecuador v Chile and Brazil v Mexico games is listed as having a capacity of 42,000. Yet the attendances for these two games has just been added as 45,000 and 40,000 respectively. And all the attendances added thus far very conveniently are xx,000. These are clearly estimates and not exact numbers. In addition the 45,000 attendance given the capacity is listed as 42,000 - there is clearly something wrong there. Plus surely there were more at Brazil v Mexico than Ecuador v Chile? I watched both games on TV but it was 24 hours ago and I can't remember now exactly but I seem to recall there being more for the Brazil v Mexico game. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 01:13, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to add that I have removed three attendances as two were higher than the official stadium capacity. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 16:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualification scenarios

Is there any reason that the scenarios addressing each teams' qualification for the next round have been deleted? On almost every soccer/football wiki page, including the World Cup 2006 page and the Copa America 2007 page, when there are only a couple of matches to go, qualification scenarios are usually posted. This is to help those who might not follow soccer/football so that the tiebreakers and situations are set up, especially in tournaments such as these where not only being one of the top two in the group can get you advanced, but the best thirds advance too. Wjmorris3 20:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Same thing for tomorrow, as a reminder. If Argentina and/or Paraguay win, they will qualify for the knockout stages. Wjmorris3 01:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soccer blog/site. I never saw such things in many competitions like Copa Libertadores or UEFA Champions League. What you said was done in articles for each group, not in the main article. Garavello 16:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third qualifiers

There is kind of contradiction in the article, where it is first stated that best third will face 2nd of group B and 2nd third would face 1st of group A in quarters and below its stated that both best thirds would not face any team of their same group in quarters? --81.210.237.88 23:05, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

יאללה בית"ר!!!!!!!!!

The official schedule states that will be the winner of Group A against the second best third place, and the runner-up of Group B against the best third place. Garavello 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

A bit weird, I think it's already sure that nor the USA nor Colombia will go to the quarters, because if one of them wins, they have 3 points. But the other two "third-placers" have both 4 points, so it's useless.

[edit] Mexico already listed as group winner?

Why has Mexico been filled in the knockout stage as the Group B winner already? I know they have qualified for the knockout stage, but with a Chile victory over them, Chile and Mexico would have 6 points (and possibly also Brazil). I'm not sure of the exact tiebreakers for this competition, but head-to-head or goal difference could still result in Mexico finishing 2nd or 3rd in their group. Or am I wrong about this? Ricecloudnine 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, Mexico didn't secured the 1st place yet. The criteria for tie-breaking is:
  1. Goal difference
  2. Goals scored
  3. Head-to-head
I already changed the info. Garavello 16:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
THE green stuff is for qualified teams, not group winners. mexico is a qualified team and therefore should be green. 17:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


Sorry but that is not right as pointed out by the user above, the colour coding did not show that Mexico have already won the group at all. It merely showed that they have already qualified, no matter what position they finish in their group - 1st, 2nd or 3rd.

Teams qualified for next phase Teams knocked out at group stage

that quite clearly states teams qualified for next phase'. It does not state teams who have won their group, and using it to show that Mexico have qualified does not imply that they are already group winners, it just quite simply states that they have qualified. There is therefore no reason why Mexico should not be shown as having already qualified, especially when they have qualified, no matter what position they end up finishing in the Group. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Just for more clarification, the info Ricecloudnine was talking about was in the knock-out section, the 71.114.146.103 IP address edited there putting Mexico as Winner Group B already (see here and here). It has nothing to do with the Group Stage section, which Mexico is qualified. Garavello 19:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah hah then that would explain it, I was though basing it on the previous users comments plus your earlier removal of the colour code which seemed to co-incide with all this. However, with so many edits going on during the tournament it is at times easy to miss edits and confusion arise. Glad to see that you have now reverted the removal and added Mexico back in as qualified. I need a lie down!! ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 19:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Red Cards

Why are we listing players who got a red card along with the scorers? From what I see, it is not really needed. Bladesofhalo 19:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

It is. Red cards are very importent for the following matches. 84.95.107.74 12:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think Red cards are worth it, you should put the yellow cards as well. Those are just as important because consecutive bookings will also eliminate you from playing the following game. I know you are trying to state that red cards show at which point a team went down by one player, but if you really want to be complete, be complete!

Why is any of this there? Most football articles that have match reports have goals, and just that. All this other crap looks ridiculous. Che84 16:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

agreed, i think red cards is bad enough but the amount of yellows just completely clutters up the area that should only (IMO) be used for goals and scorers. i'm not saying yellows are irrelevent, just them being displayed. user:mixed ham 00:27, 5 July 2007
I am going to remove this cluttered mess, no other football articles list them and if someone needs to know who got red cards and who got yellow cards, thats why the report is there. Bladesofhalo 21:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks whoever removed the bookings/sending off info. I just came specifically to look for it, and it's disappeared. There was nothing cluttered about it, and the article is now less useful than it was. Way to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.98.144.27 (talk • contribs) 12:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Umm, do you see the Report link under each game, they list yellow cards and red cards. If you had read what I said above, you might have taken notice. It looks much more organized without all that anyways, and no other soccer tournament has listed them. Just following precedent. Bladesofhalo 02:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, and since they list the yellow and red cards in the reports, why not list them here? That would be a sure indication that is important enough information. Sounds to me like our intermediate editor got a case of the over-edit bug--the best editors edit the least. You wiped out someone's hard work at the whim of a couple complainers. BAD IDEA. I want the cards back in. If you look back at the 2006 World Cup external match report links, THEY ARE BROKEN. If Wikipedia truly wants to archive the game information, the cards should be there. Otherwise that information could be lost when the match reports are taken down from the original hosting site. We can't always rely on that information to be permanent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.132.235 (talk • contribs) 05:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
"Sounds to me like our intermediate editor got a case of the over-edit bug--the best editors edit the least". Please, no personal attacks per [[1]]. its true, I do edit alot, but I do it to preserve the integrity of the article, not because I want to outedit everyone else. And if you can please give a strong enough argument(s) as to why yellow cards and red cards are so critical for this article, then I will be happy to integrate them back into the article. Because, from what I see, everyone is dying to know the players who got yellow and red cards. Bladesofhalo 22:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Venezuela not yet qualified

Venezuela is not yet qualified. In fact they could miss qualification if Uruguay wins against them, and Peru wins against Bolivia. I think. For Venezuela to be qualified they must win against Uruguay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcarini (talk • contribs)

  • Even if that situation does occur, Venezuela will still be one of the two best 3rd place teams and will advance. They already have 4 points and the team in Group C that ends up in 3rd will have a maximum of 3 points. Scottmsg 03:59, 3 July 2007 (UTC)


  • Yes, Venezuala have qualified , Scott is correct Neither Usa nor Columbia can finish above them as best third place. I will change the Wiki. Athosfolk 11:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Qualification scenarios

I would like people to check here for info about why putting qualification scenarios aren't a thing that Wikipedia needs. It goes against a policy stated in Help:Show preview, that is to avoid multiple saves.

We have a similar discussion in the past about editing the games "on time". We reached an agreement about that easily. here I propose we use the same criteria is used in the major competition, the FIFA World Cup: Qualification scenarios are used ONLY in articles about each group, not the main article. Garavello 16:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily feel that adding the qualification scenarios presents the same issues as editing the score during the course of a match. While the purpose of an online Encyclopedia isn't to provide constantly updated coverage of a live event like a soccer match, it is used to provide information about a tournament like the Copa America and would be a place where people might look to learn more about the potential scenarios for qualification of the participating teams. Unlike a live event which takes place in two hours, the final round of the Copa lasts over days and there will be significant occasion (such as all day today prior to the start of the matches, for example) for people to try to update themselves on the scenarios needed for quarterfinal qualification.

I understand this scenario lends itself to more frequent edits, but IMO the main reason for that is that editors don't necessarily post accurate scenarios and thus suffer frequent revision. Still, I believe the overall value of providing the qualification scenarios for the next round outweighs the harm caused by frequent edits. Ronnymexico 17:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I still maintain that, as cited in the link I pointed, that "Wikipedia is not a soccer site/blog". That kind of analysis is really somthing that is not needed in a main article. But yes, it generates more edits because at each round you gotta edit all the info. Just like yesterday, the results of Group C qualified Venezuela and changed the needs for Group A & B teams to finish at "best third places". I still do the proposal: qualification scenarios, just like the Fifa World Cup articles, are to be made in articles specific to the groups. Not in the main article. This is not a soccer site. This is an Encyclopedia. And a Encyclopedia doesn't deal with "can happen this or that", there's no place for speculation (because in concept, that's what qualification scenarios are). Garavello 18:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there are actually articles for each specific group though, are there? The World Cup had specific articles for each group, but since there aren't specific ones for the Copa, I don't think that necessarily applies. I realize that Wikipedia isn't a soccer blog per se and that seems reason enough to avoid real time updating of matches, but at the same time, this page is the first link that comes up in a "Copa America" Google search, and with that comes some responsibility of providing information, in my opinion at least. I don't see the qualification scenarios as actual speculation, they simply point out exactly what must happen for certain teams to advance rather than speculating on outcomes that might occur. In other words, it's simply stating, for example, "Chile needs to win, draw, or maintain a goal difference advantage over the U.S./Colombia winner" to qualify isn't the same as speculating as to all possible Chilean outcomes, seeding positions, and so forth. Ronnymexico 18:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Then why don't you guys create the articles for each group? I repeat: you're putting speculations. This is not a soccer site. Wikipedia has to provide information that is verifiable, secure and estabilished. Not to start analyzing a possible outcome of any competiition/game. Garavello 19:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think creating articles for the groups are necessary simply to outline the qualification scenarios. I guess I don't understand why you see the qualification possibilities as "speculation" rather than "providing information." The fact that certain outcomes are not necessarily required to happen doesn't reduce the scenarios to speculation, it would be speculation if the scenarios said something like "If they win their next match, the U.S. might qualify for the next round." By outlining the required scenarios, it is eliminating speculation and establishing concrete information regarding qualification. Ronnymexico 19:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
The qualification scenarios just seem to be too much information and too many edits to me. And as Garavello points out, it does go against wikipedia policy. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I guess I am just confused on the Wikipedia policy issue. The page Garavello linked had to do with using the preview funtion to avoid multiple or excessive saves rather than establishing a per se policy regarding avoiding frequent saves. Use of the preview function isn't an issue here so much as the question of whether the qualification scenarios is worthwhile, but even if preventing frequent page saves is an established policy I would still submit that it shouldn't override Wikipedia's purpose of providing information to the user. Ronnymexico 20:35, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
This line seems relevant from there though - "Saving the same article a large number of times in quick succession makes it harder for people to check what changed, and clogs up the page history." As that yesterday most definitely was happening as a number of editors kept editing with their own take on the qualification scenarios and it did get both confusing and too much in my opinion. Also and I hope this isn't taken as an insult to those who were doing the editing, it is just a statement, but some of the edits didn't unfortunately make total sense in English. And that wasn't providing information it was more confusion if anything. At times it just comes across as if there is a competition on wikipedia to get the information on here, when in reality it doesn't matter who puts the information here. It was discussed originally when some editors were editing the live match scores and that was stopped. The editing of the qualification scenarios was getting just as excessive yesterday, and probably even more so. Also there was a fair bit of vandalism going on yesterday mostly from anon IP addresses and tgether with all the other numerous edits within such a short space of time it made it quite difficult to notice the vandalism. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 20:46, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying. I definitely realize that some of the qualification edits were inaccurate, misleading or confusing. Like I said before, I see this info as a little different than the live match updates because qualification is determined over days rather than hours and users may want to find the information in the time between matches, but I can also understand that the frequent edits were causing issues with the page itself. Anyway, I've probably spent enough time stating my position on this, I understand what you guys are saying even if I don't necessarily agree. I think it's late in the process to start pages for each group for the sole purpose of outlining the qualification scenarios but that might be best place for that info in the future and can also serve as a place to add a little more detail on other matters pertaining to the specific groups.Ronnymexico 21:07, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Good point about future competitions and perhaps something that could be borne in mind too. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 21:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] peru bolivia red card

Just heads up. A peruvian player received yellow and later red card and isnt listed on the page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.230.89.124 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Current events/Sports

Hope someone from this page updates the portal too. Thanks. --Howard the Duck 16:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uruguay already marked as Best Third?

Why is Uruguay prematurely marked as best 3rd? Mathematically it is not so as it depends on the results attained by Brazil and Chile in Group B's games tonight. Technically if both Brazil and Chile win, that would make Mexico or Brazil as 2nd and 3rd, depending on goal difference, as Chile would have won over Mexico. Alexf(t/c) 16:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The USA and Colombia can only get a maximum of 3 points. The same with Ecuador if they beat Brazil. If Chile beats Mexico they will have six points. uruguay are already qualified with 4 points. the only thing left for them is to see who wins and loses in group b and c to see whether they are the best third place or second Gethomas3 17:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Uruguay is not marked as Best 3rd. It is marked as ONE OF THE TWO BEST THIRD-PLACE (and they have the spot, as there is no way the 3rd from group C gets more points than Uruguay.
To clarify, I added in the table the "rows" for the other groups. That way, when group B ends today, is just a matter of position their 3rd place in the right place. Garavello 18:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quarter Final Draw

Is it true that Venezuela face Uruguay, and Brazil face Chile in the quarter finals, both games being repeats of group matchups. Surely Venezuela v Chile and Brazil v Uruguay would make more sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.141.98.221 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The winner of Group A plays the 2nd best third place team in the Q/F - therefore Venezuela (winner of Group A) play Uruguay (2nd best third place).
    The runner up in Group B plays the best third place team in the Q/F - therefore Brazil (runner up in Group B) play Chile (best third place team). ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 14:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is true. There will be repeats of the group matches. Only Mexico and Peru get different teams. Even then, if Paraguay beats Mexico and Argentina beats Peru, there's going to be another "repeat" game. MarshalN20 11:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Will The Semi-Final be held at MARACAIBO, instead of beeing at CARACAS? Can you all chek it out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Akurero (talk • contribs)

Conmebol's site says one semifinal will be played at Maracaibo and the other in Puerto Ordaz. Garavello 20:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mascot

Anyone have any pictures or information on that bird mascot? The one dressed in venezuela colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.186.176 (talk • contribs) 23:32, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minute of silence before Saturday quarterfinals

What was the reason for the minute of silence observed before the kickoff of each quarterfinal on Saturday (Venezuela/Uruguay and Brazil/Chile)? --Mareklug talk 01:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

An official died, can't remember his name, though. I'll get back to you on that one. ==189.153.124.192 16:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Third Place Match

I don't see any option to edit the page, so what i want to announce is that the 3rd place match is going to be in Estadio Metropolitano de Fútbol de Lara, Barquisimeto. Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.208.130.155 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The article was semi-protected until the competition finishes due to constant vandalism. The official Copa América 2007 website still has the third place match as being played in Caracas. Do you have a link to an online article confirming the venue in Barquisimeto?♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 22:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
And the "announcement" it seems was competely inaccurate as the match was played in Caracas as intended. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semifinal Match Bra-Uru

I was looking at the match report for the semifinal match between Brazil and Uruguay, and some of the goal times do not coincide, anyone mind changing that, thanks. Chicharrín 00:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nery Castillo's goals

I've already corrected Castillo's scores, because as I can see, he scored only 3 goals instead of 4, but someone restored it back. Pls. let me know which is his 4th goal.
--Simy69 08:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nery castillo did scored 4 goals: 1 goal vs Brasil (23') 1 goal vs Ecuador (21') 2 goals vs Paraguay (5'[pen] & 38') Chicharrín 16:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Details of the penalty shootout

I noticed that the detailed information of the penalty shootout between Brazil and Uruguay aren't shown. Can someone please add that?--Kylohk 11:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time zone is AST not EDT

Venezuelan official time zone is AST, not EDT. Both times are the same in this part of the year (-4 UTC) due to daylight saving in EDT zone but the article should use the official time zome of the host country. In fact the group stage says "all times are AST" but the article switches to EDT in the knock-out stage. JRSP 12:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final standings

I have questions about final standings, what it is for? how do you sort them, you sort Brazil that has worse goal difference above Argentina who has better goal difference, also what significance is this section? It may misleads some people to think that the standings is how they determine the competition. on previous years' article they use 'Statistics' as the title, which is I think better suited than 'Final standings' which is not final and not official standings. 59.167.0.76 23:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that statistics would be a better heading. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
When I checked back it was clear that the way this article was formatted was not the standard. Both the 2004 and 2001 Copa América has this section under the heading of Statistics and not Final Standings. I have therefore amended the heading. In addition (and bearing in mind this is not the final standings, just statistics) the order is purely based on points won, and not what position a team finished, and so I have amended this too, (also in accordance with the previous Copa América). ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool, thanks for replying so quickly, now it looks much better. 59.167.0.76 00:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
No problem, hopefully it is easier to understand now, plus it is the way this was done for Copa América 2001 and Copa América 2004 so it does make sense to keep the same format. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)