Talk:2010 Copa Libertadores

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

I submitted the page before I added the actual details. Just give me a couple hours. Stich09 (talk) 21:17, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format[edit]

Given there are two additional teams (the Mexicans) and they are going straight to the last 16, is it certain how the rest of the tournament will play out. As stated, it must be that the best 6 runners-up only qualify for the last sixteen, otherwise either there will be fewer qualifiers, or more teams will have to start in the preliminary rounds (if there were to be, say, 7 groups only). Are there any references setting out how the tournament will deal with these two additional teams Jlsa (talk) 02:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. CONMEBOL will post the regulations some time later this year... and the revised format for this year will be in there. Digirami (talk) 03:16, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So why is there an implied format in this document? Jlsa (talk) 07:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't. How do you see that? Digirami (talk) 07:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because it states categorically that 12 teams (and a very specific 12) will enter in the preliminary stage - 26 very specific teams will enter in the group stage and then 2 (even more specific sides) will join at the r16 stage. It even says "Corinthians are guaranteed a spot in the second stage, regardless if a Brazilian team win the 2009 Copa Libertadores" so that's very certain. So that implies that 14 teams have to advance from the group stage (or else, how will there be 16 teams in the round of 16) and therefore we can't have the same rules as last time - when 16 teams advanced. Do you have a source for the entry of these teams at these stages? You can't say "this is how it was last time" because last time no-one was exempt to the round of 16. Jlsa (talk) 09:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the only thing we have for certain is who qualifies, to which rounds, and by what methods. That information is made available to us from the confederations' season regulations, not CONMEBOL regulations (except for the two teams who are already in the Round of 16; that was an agreement between CONMEBOL and FMF after the H1N1 fallout). But nowhere in this article does it state how the tournament is going to be run for this year given the fact we have two teams already in the Round of 16. When we know that, it will be posted. Digirami (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be saying that 1) the tournament will be run differently from 2009 (because of H1N1) but 2) the tournament will be run exactly as the same as 2009 (because everybody else will enter at exactly the same stage). This appears to be contradictory. You DO state how this tournament is going to be run, because you have a great big table of when each team will start. That's what the table is - a list of how the tournament will be run. If asked for a source for this table (the table that says the tournament will be both exactly the same as and different to last time), could you provide it, or are you just taking two bits of information you have and putting them together without any idea of what is going to happen (ie, are you just making it up). Basically, it looks like you have 2+2=5 here. Jlsa (talk) 23:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because there is a table with a list of teams that will enter in the Second Stage doesn't mean that the format for the Second Stage will be the same as last year. It just means they will start the tournament in the Second Stage (the same would apply to the First Stage). There is nothing in this article that discusses, implies, or states how the tournament will progress, especially given the fact two teams enter in the Round of 16. For that, you're going to have to wait for CONMEBOL to released this year's tournament regulations. Digirami (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what's the source that says they WILL enter at that stage (in fact, apart from the sides that have qualified, what is the source for anything here - for example is there a source for the Mexico info?). By your argument, if I change this table completely (saying all the Venezuelan sides will enter in the 2nd group ,for example) then you would have to say that I am not claiming anything about the format. If we have to "wait for CONMEBOL" why is this table here? Jlsa (talk) 06:48, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sources would be the season regulations from the various leagues. For example, the Brazlian Serie A 2009 season regulations has the qualification criteria for Brazilian teams... and so on for the rest of them. Digirami (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I'm really confused. First you say the regulations will be published later by CONMEBOL but now you say they've already been published by the countries! Which is it? Jlsa (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The allocation of berths (including to which rounds) and the general structure of the tournament is determined by CONMEBOL. The qualifications to each berth is determined by the individual countries. The only thing we are missing at the moment is the structure of the tournament, especially in regards to the second stage and who advances from it. Digirami (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protection?[edit]

Why is the page protected? --MicroX (talk) 01:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A user (Jamen Somusa or something) keeps removing the statement that the winner of this tournament will be in the 2010 CWC (unless they are Mexican, which is noted). We now need to get a consensus vote on whether this information (which is on ALL THE OTHER FREAKING CONFEDERATION TOURNAMENT PAGES) can be put on this page, because ONE EDITOR doesn't like it for reasons he doesn't care to share with anybody. So, lets pretend this process isn't an utter waste of time and have a vote. I vote for noting that the winner of this tournament (if they are not Mexican) will play in the 2010 FIFA CWC. Jlsa (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His official reason is that "The Copa Libertadores is TOO IMPORTANT to be a 'qualifying tournament'. The Recopa and CWC are just add-ons. That is why the UCL doesn't have it either, you ignorant fool." (see the history for his statement). It's a lame argument because we should not base the inclusion of content based solely based on other articles. I say we keep the information. There is no good enough reason to delete information that is not only ture, but has been there on the page since the page was created (the same applies for the 2009 Copa Libertadores, which he edited too). Digirami (talk) 04:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC) Digirami (talk) 03:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is even more fun because of:
Actually, his argument works rather against himself. —WiJG? 18:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't compare those mentioned above to the Copa Libertadores...now you are talking crazy. The level of "prestigue" (if you can even call it that) of those competitions is so low that the organizers actually REBRANDED them to be called "Champions League" (it doesn't take a genious to figure out after what it was rebranded). The most recent and GREAT example was CONCACAF's tournament.
The Copa Libertadores is too important and prestigous to EVER be a cheap, plastic copy of the UCL (in which the 4 above-mentioned basically are). In short, that is like comparing a Ferrari to a pinto with some remodelation.Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are just your personal opinions. And Wikipedia is not your personal army. —WiJG? 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And what part of what I said is not a fact? Go check yourself. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All these "TOO IMPORTANT" phrases. They're opinions, not facts.
Opinions? Go ask any South American, ANY South American, and we will see how stupid you sound when you think this is not "too important". That is what makes a tournament "prestigious". If no one cares about it, then it is not prestigious. We care about it deeply enough to place it first and foremost above anything else.Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have vultures here that provide no help besides being vultures.Jamen Somasu (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a valid reason. Besides, you're guilty of doing the same thing. Digirami (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Starting your wiki experience from edit wars and personal insults over a minor subject is not very ladylike. —WiJG? 18:04, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I propose we include the information but exclude the word qualifying. It really isn't a qualifying tournament. Something like "the winner (or champion) of the 2010 Copa Libertadores is eligible to play (or participate) in the 2011 Club World Cup". Eligible because, I think, the winner can decline to participate. --MicroX (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something like "The winner of the 2010 Copa Libertadores (unless it is a Mexican club) will represent CONMEBOL in the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup" should be fine. I do not even think "eligible" is needed. Throughout the history of the FIFA Club World Cup, no club from any confederation has declined to participate even though they probably can (just like any club from any country can probably decline to participate in continental tournaments if they feel like it). Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the edit dispute has concluded and that the protection can be removed? I find this discussion silly. --MicroX (talk) 02:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's silly, but the usage of the word "qualify" can sound awkward, kind of like "the winner of the Premier League will qualify for the Champions League". So I suggest using the same sentence for every continental tournament page (yes, even for the UCL page): The winner of the (insert tournament) will represent (insert confederation) in the (insert year) FIFA Club World Cup. This can be added to the intro, or right after the winner box (the one that said "Xth title") at the end of the page. Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the word "qualify" is in doubt, we can also say "earn a berth", which is true. Digirami (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Earn a berth" sounds good. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate to wear the Captain Obvious mask, but please pay attention to these facts. The last section of the most used template for national leagues — {{fb cl header}}'s — is named "Qualification and relegation" and no one ever had protested against this word. There are entire sections named "Qualification for European competitions", both in Premier League and La Liga articles. In Serie A there is a paragraph "Since Italy is currently rated as one of the top three European countries in terms of club football ratings, the top four teams in the Serie A qualified for the UEFA Champions League. The top three teams qualify directly to the group phase, while the fourth-placed team enters the competition at the third qualifying round and must win a two-legged knockout tie in order to enter the group phase. Teams finishing 5th and 6th qualify for the UEFA Europa League Tournament."
I might continue this list to infinity but the simple thing to say is: top teams from every national tournament do QUALIFY to the international competition and the word "qualify" itself is the best way to describe this process since it was invented specifically to describe the process of qualification. Sheesh, how on Earth it may sound awkward? —WiJG? 08:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well! If you really think so, go put "qualify" on the UCL and let's see how long it lasts in there. Like they say: the proof is in the pudding. Jamen Somasu (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't need to put it because the phrase is already there. "Between 1960 and 2004, the winner of the tournament qualified for the now defunct Intercontinental Cup against the winner of the Copa Libertadores of South America. Since then, the winner automatically qualifies for the FIFA-organised Club World Cup with other winners of continental club championships." — a direct quote from UEFA Champions League article. —WiJG? 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because I don't see it. Ah! In the history section (are you kidding me? History lol)...conveniently, it wasn't in the introduction (which everyone sees). I added a little something similar to the Libertadores. Watch and see how fast it is taken down.Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, this entire situation looks like a fat trolling to me. The guy rushes the page, makes some edits with no valid reasons provided, says insults ("you ignorant fool" is the quote) and when the page is locked he disappears, letting us maintain the discussion with obviousness level almost reaching stupidity. B& is what I'd vote for. —WiJG? 08:23, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The honest answer would be you're probably right. The FIFA page even uses the word "Qualifiers" [1]. The words "qualify", "earn a berth", "will participate in as a result" basically mean the same thing, although the word "qualify" can be interpreted as advancing to a higher-level competition (I guess nobody would say "the UCL winners qualify to play in the Super Cup"), so there may be some people which object to "the UCL winners qualify to play in the CWC", since those people object to the "idea" that CWC is a higher-level competition to the UCL. Finally, I must add that the edits of this person is quite ironic, as he/she's also been editing about the history of the Copa Libertadores. One of the reasons for the creation of the Copa Libertadores is actually so that CONMEBOL has a champion to play in the Intercontential Cup against the European Cup winner! Chanheigeorge (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are quite wrong in that sense.
The Copa Libertadores was created in order to provide some competition AWAY from the Copa America. The "interest" was around since the 1930's. But it wasn't until the late 1950's when people actually got serious about it. The administration side of Peñarol made HUGE contributions to the creation of the Copa de Campeones de America (now known as the Copa Libertadores). That is why many people consider Peñarol winning the inaugural tournament to be historic justice.
However, what many people don't know is that the Copa Libertadores recieved little to no attention in 1960 and 1961 and was sort of a side-note in many South American newspapers. It really wasn't until Pele and Santos won the thing in 1962 that it gained some really good press.
As far as the tournament created just to have someone play Real Madrid back then...lol yes, it was ONE of the reasons why the competition came to be. But mind you...it was FAR from being one of the most important. Most Europeans will have you think otherwise (for a simply ego boost). The Intercontinental Cup, ironically, was created by the same Europeans that now simply frown on it due to Manchester losing to Estudiantes in 1968. Although no Englishman would ever admit it openly, that loss was a huge blow as many expected Manchester to win the IC. From 1971 until now they managed to take the prestigue the Cup used to have in order to boost their own. That is what some people here don't get.
The Copa Libertadores is TOO IMPORTANT to be a qualifying tournament. Have it like "Estudiantes are eligible to enter the semifinals of the FIFA CWC" or something. But never use "qualify" or "earned a berth". The CWC earns from our teams BEING THERE, not the other way around. Can you imagine the current CWC being played now without Estudiantes? Why would Barcelona even bring half of their starters then (although, to be honest, that team is simply way too overhyped)?Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you see the difference between "the winner of the tournament qualifies to another tournament" and "this is a qualifying tournament"? I pointed a lot of examples above: national tournaments like FA PL or Primera are not qualifying tournaments for the UCL and many supporters consider their domestic championship more important than continental–but none of them will deny the fact that top teams from all these championships do QUALIFY to the Champions League. —WiJG? 14:37, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who cares about the FA or FE or whatever it is called? Don't bring national level competitions in this. That's them. Our national leagues serve as qualifiers for the Copa Libertadores. But that is it...everything else is like the CWC and the Recopa are the cherries on top of the ice cream. Hell! The Recopa is actually given MORE IMPORTANCE since the teams participating on it actually go out to win it (which is not the case for the UEFA Super Cup in which it is not unusual to see teams not fielding their best sides) and nvm the CWC.
Personally, they should just kill the CWC and let it die like the IC. I have no interest in watching my team playing primadonas who think they are 10x as good as they really are. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So that's all about your personal dislike of CWC? I LOL'd. Where are the administrators? —WiJG? 16:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hate the CWC but it has nothing to do with this. Nice try putting words in my mouth, though. That is why I put "personally" right next to what I said.Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then please answer the question I asked earlier — if every other case of a team qualifying from one tournament to another higher-ranked but independent tournament (so there is not the "qualifying tournament" case) is named "qualification", why Copa Libertadores should be an exception? Just because you think it's the top of the ice cream? —WiJG? 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I said "ONE of the reasons", right? When did I say it was the most important reason? Anyway, I won't waste any energy on this topic. Again, my proposal, "The winner of the 2010 Copa Libertadores (unless it is a Mexican club) will represent CONMEBOL in the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup", should have no problem accepted by everybody. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When you only state ONE REASON it really is hard to tell. Either way, "The winner of the 2010 Copa Libertadores (unless it is a Mexican club) will be eligible to enter the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup" would make everyone happy.
Dear Jamen Somasu, in my previous message, I wrote: "The winner of the 2010 Copa Libertadores (unless it is a Mexican club) will represent CONMEBOL in the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup" [2]. Then you came in, not only reply to my message, but actually edited my message to: "The winner of the 2010 Copa Libertadores (unless it is a Mexican club) will be eligible to enter the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup" [3]. History difference: [4] I guess you're now putting word in my mouth, huh? Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I edited it. We don't earn those berths...we become ELIGIBLE to play in that CWC. Apart from that, you will never find ANYONE claiming that anyone that plays there are representing their nation (much less the confederation). This isn't something of national pride. That is why you will find some hinchas or torcidas would want a club to succeed or fail. The rest don't even pay attention to the the tournament.
It seems you are trying to make it seem like we take this CWC into a big deal when the truth is really something else. Just stick to "The winner of the 2010 Copa Libertadores (unless it is a Mexican club) will be eligible to enter the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup". Jamen Somasu (talk) 20:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why then it "seems" only to you and to no one else of the editors and readers? The words "qualifies to" are absolutely neutral, you know. —WiJG? 20:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Better yet...why is everyone bombarding our page? Go do that at the UCL and see how much backlash you will get. I have already explained myself. If you don't get it, that's your problem. Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did it for you! Now watch...Jamen Somasu (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one is bombarding this page. All the people in this discussion actively edit or watch this page. So they have some vested interest in how it turns out. Furthermore, the reason it is happening in this page is because you deleted that statement in this page for no good reason and against consensus (by default of it not being deleted), thereby locking the page from future edits.
The consensus is strongly in favor of keeping the statement in the page in some way, shape, or form. Can someone please unprotect this page already? Digirami (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And 500 years ago, the consensus was that the Sun and the planets rotated around the Earth. Not only were you shunned if you believe otherwise but one often got killed by saying what is right...really, it's true. Don't try that BS here with me...please. Do find someone dumber than you to make that work.
Just because one thousand idiots say the moon is green doesn't mean it's makes it true. You or anyone else have yet to provide any good reason as to why one page gets so messed with but the other one isn't.Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We are not disputing what is true and what is not since we don't do that on this site. So your analogy is incorrect (both of them). If anything is discussed, it is the inclusion and display of data. The consensus is to display (mention) this fact on this page. Therefore, it is to be displayed. Digirami (talk) 00:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you or anyone else STILL have yet to provide any good reason as to why one page gets so messed with but the other one isn't. Consensus don't mean crap. All it means is that 100,000,000 people say the Earth is flat and the other handful says it is round.Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Still going with that bad analogy? Oh well.) We (the consensus) know why we wanted it kept: it is relevant information. The burden to prove why it shouldn't be kept is to you. Since consensus is to keep, it should go back on the page. Digirami (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you or anyone else STILL have yet to provide any good reason as to why one page gets so messed with but the other one isn't. Consensus don't mean crap. Either you can't read, can't think, both of the before-mentioned or something else. It doesn't take a lot of ingenuity to get it.Jamen Somasu (talk) 03:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're making no sense whatsoever since you're being vague and non-specific. Consensus means everything. Massive name changes don't happen without consensus. Article deletions do not happen without consensus. Improvements happen because of consensus. If you don't get behind the idea of having a consensus when it comes to (possible) disputes, your time in Wiki-land is going to be difficult. Digirami (talk) 04:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jamen, you seem more like a troll than a willing contributor. Refrain from the insults. On-topic: It is relevant information. Don't look at the article as something part of a personal collection or something that belongs to you. Imagine that you are a random person who has little to no idea of South American football. That person would greatly benefit from the information being disputed here. Coincidently, I was that person once back in 2004. I had little to no idea of South American football. I had knowledge of the Intercontinental Cup pitting the South American and European club champions. I then realized (at that point in time) that I had never heard of a similar competition between the Copa America and Euro champions. I found no information of such a match or competition on articles. For sometime, I was led to believe that a competition or match that pit the South American and European continental champions did not exist or of a similar tournament. About 2 years later I found out about the Confederations Cup, which pit not only the Copa America and Euro champions but all the continental champions around the world. However, that piece of information was absent from many articles, which led me to a fallacious conclusion. Therefore, I ask that the information regarding the qualification/participation/berth/WHATEVER of a team to the CWC be included for the benefit of the reader seeking information. The whole point of Wikipedia is to ease the access of information. --MicroX (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is getting even worse. "And you or anyone else STILL have yet to provide any good reason as to why one page gets so messed with but the other one isn't." Man, the answer is simple: this very page got messed because of yours zealous deletions — so why do we should find a reason for it? ALL other national championships and continental tournaments pages contain the disputed or similar phrase and everyone else but you seem to have no problems with it. Yes, even the UEFA Champions League. —WiJG? 07:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm a troll...lol wow. An Argentinian trolling Copa Libertadores jajajajajaja Now I know why you like hashing our pages. None of you are South American jajajajajajaja well, vultures will be vultures. Jamen Somasu (talk) 10:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now I am looking at what kind of people we have having "opinions". Digirami and MicroX AT LEAST make contributions to the improvement of CONMEBOL pages. But we have two that have little to nothing and all of a sudden everyone is supposed to take them seriously in anything regarding our football (yes, Chanheigeorge and WiJG?...I am looking at you). Some "consencus" lol Jamen Somasu (talk) 11:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I missed the issue totally, excuse me. Jamen Somusa is right. The spot of the CONMEBOL is determined by the best team in Copa Libertadores outside Mexico, which made the protection happened. I know that the winner of the Copa Libertadores would qualify for CWC, but not Mexican team, so what Jamen Somusa did is avoiding contradiction. Now I request all editors refer to UEFA Champions League article. Those articles did not mentioned that the winners would qualify for CWC. I think it is the best method to avoid contradiction. Raymond "Giggs" Ko

Thank you! Finally someone understands!Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you realize that he doesn't. He seems to think the discussion is about the accuracy of the data (which it is not) or some kind of contradiction (which there isn't). Digirami (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Raymond, you seem to be missing the point. The discussion isn't disputing facts; it is disputing the inclusion of facts. The statement in dispute is: "The winner will earn a berth in the 2011 Recopa Sudamericana and the best-placed non-Mexican team will earn a berth in the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup." That is factually correct. Jamen wants it deleted, period. The consensus is to keep the statement in the page. Consensus rules in this case. (Additionally, may I remind you that every continental club article is not supposed to be a carbon copy of UEFA. There are things done on this page that is differently from the UCL page. The UCL should serve as a good example, at the least.) Digirami (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the information. I finally know what's happened. But I think this sentence is too copious. The original concept is "The winner will earn a berth in the 2011 Recopa Sudamericana and the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup." However, this sentence does not include the situation when a Mexican team win the Copa Libatadores. Why don't we rephrase the sentence to solve the argument? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We did do that. The sentence before the protection happened was "The winner will earn a berth in the 2011 Recopa Sudamericana and the best-placed non-Mexican team will earn a berth in the 2010 FIFA Club World Cup." That statement does include the situation if a Mexican team wins. It still didn't appease Jamen. The inclusion of any version of the statement will not appease him. To only way to include that statement will be to have a good consensus in favor of inclusion (which we have so far, but more wouldn't hurt). Digirami (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Chanheigeorge and WiJG? have been editing this article (and many other South American related) since the beginning. So revise your statements, yet again. Digirami (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I say we forget this guy and include the facts. --MicroX (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't add what you feel like without a good reason.Jamen Somasu (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you can't delete/remove what you feel like without a good reason either. Lack of good reasons from Jamen, thus I ask for removal of protection and re-addition of previously stated relevant fact. --MicroX (talk) 07:10, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I second that. Besides, there is clear the majority of users are in favor of the inclusion of that statement. Digirami (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel there is information that should be added, consult first and then uniform everthing else.
Ah! Again, consencus don't mean crap. Pick up a history book and see for yourself. Jamen Somasu (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consult Wikipedia:Consensus. It'll help your time here because you are seemingly disregarding a basic tenet of this site. If you choose to disregard the idea of consensus building, your time here in Wikipedia is going to be difficult for you.
We, the majority, feel the information should be added as it was, except you. Therefore, it should be added. Digirami (talk) 14:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consencus isn't even a word. I have no idea what a history book has to do with anything. Can you elaborate on this? No, you know why I think you don't want the inclusion of the CWC in the Libertadores article, because an Argentine club has not won it yet. That is why you look down upon it. Quit the bias and let us get on with our business. --MicroX (talk) 19:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the sentence doesn't actually call the Libertadores a 'qualifying tournament' I think that it's stupid *not* to have it. The winner *does* qualify for the CWC, that is a fact, and one that is both verifiable and notable. Although if it's the word "qualify" that's causing an issue, maybe we can just rephrase it to "the winner of the 2009 CL enters the 2010 CWC in UAE" or similar. The idea that it should be left out entirely, though, is ludicrous. Nach0king (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can the protection be taken off now. The page will need to be updated in the next little while once the Colombians finish up their final. I can't see how anything more can be achieved by continuing this attempt at achieving consensus. One person disagrees and they will not change their mind. Jlsa (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top-scorers list[edit]

Anyone want to change the list format of the top-scorers from the wikitable to the list format (used in the World Cup articles)? I am suggesting this because it is easier to manipulate the list than the wikitable format. When something changes on the wikitable, there is a good chance you have to modify the rowspan values. However, using the list, the changes that only need to be made is the number of goals scored. Also, the list is eye-user-friendly when it comes to editing --MicroX (talk) 05:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything that looks good and makes it EASIER to update. I'm for it.Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:58, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm partial to the table format. Digirami (talk) 19:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why? --MicroX (talk) 01:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list is limited in what it can display neatly. With a table, positions can be displayed better, names would go neatly in columns (same with teams and goals), plus we can add more columns for goals per round to any player in the top-ten. Digirami (talk) 02:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the football competition articles use extra columns to show "goals per round". Also, it isn't that hard to read the following.
8 goals
7 goals
I never said it was hard to read. I said tables are easier to read, mainly because the grid made by rows and columns cleanly separates the information. Also note that in the list format, there is no rank and it takes up more space. The table format offers more initially and can be expanded should it have to be. That's why it is used in every competition in South America (except the Peruvian Primera, which you edit and would be the reason why you are pushing the list method), and the vast majority of major competitions and leagues in Europe and around the world. Lists, by and by, are used when you want to list every goalscorer, such as done in World Cup (including qualifiers), Club World Cup, and Copa America articles. Digirami (talk) 03:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the list does take up more visual space than a table, however, in the Peruvian Primera article, I added this format because the list take up less KB space than a wikitable does and the Peruvian Primera uses several tables as it is. I also saw that the Bundesliga was using this list format. --MicroX (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tables still display the information better, which is of more importance than KB space. Digirami (talk) 06:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KB space is important. Wikipedia recommends less than 30 KB. Of course, it is only a recommendation. --MicroX (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And in this article, less than 30 is going to be practically unachievable. The 2009 edition is 49.3KB in size. This one can easily surpass it. Digirami (talk) 23:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule[edit]

The schedule is out, in case anyone wants to take the initiative and start adding dates. I'll add some, but 108 dates and then the two sub articles is a lot of work for just me. Digirami (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Starting round[edit]

Is the teams' starting round really necessary? It seems like it is only taking up space. Maybe we can incorporate it into the qualifying method table? --MicroX (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digirami, you said "problem is, it is not exactly clear what Berth 1 is for a country. its assumed, but not actually stated. the table still helps to reinforce the text". Berth 1 for any given country would be the first team to appear in the qualified table. After all, before the competition even started and clubs were still not qualified for the tournament, the spots would appear as Brazil 1, Brazil 2, Chile 1, Chile 2, etc. in that order. The teams' starting round table is just over-stating and over-linking the clubs that have qualified. In addition, it's just an imitation of the table used in the Champions League; they use that type of table because the teams in that tournament qualify in nearly the same manner (champions, runners-up and third-place, etc). However in South American, the qualification for all South American countries is completely different from one another. Therefore the Qualified teams table is used in this article because of this situation. --MicroX (talk) 07:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still an assumption since there is nothing explicitly written that says "Brazil 1 = Corinthians" (or whatever) in the qualification table. One may know that if they keep track of the article since before qualification. But if someone were to look at the table once all the qualified teams are in, it wouldn't be 100% clear. That why it should stay: just in case. Digirami (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tables for two-legged tie...[edit]

On CONMEBOL's website, there is a page that shows tables for two-legged ties that, in my eyes, really brings to light how CONMEBOL advances a team after a two-legged tie. I was wondering if we should incorporate this in the articles where appropriate (First Round, knockout stages)? Any thought? Digirami (talk) 05:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly not common practice. Jlsa (talk) 06:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CONMEBOL's rules are not common. Digirami (talk) 06:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True. However, there are probably three reasons not to. First is that I don't think people see these as groups - they are ties. Second is that the presentation in the detail pages generally matches the main page - so if the prelim and knock-out pages show the ties as "groups" then the main page will have to - and that would make the page very long (eg in the octavos stage the 8 knock-out ties in a single table take up far less space and 8 separate groups with titles and heading etc). Third is that the Copa Lib. regulations define the stages differently as "Llaves" and "Grupos". I'm not going to claim I know the difference between the two as I don't speak Spanish - but there does seem to be a difference between them. Jlsa (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no translation to "llave" that makes sense, but it refers to a tie. "Grupos" is groups. Regardless of what they are called, the tournament rules say that teams advance in the tournament by earning points for wins and draws regardless of stage, obviously. So, it is a bit "odd" (for lack of a better word) that we only show this via a traditionally table in only one stage, when it could and should be done for all stages. There is a benefit to having the table for all stages (tables are not restricted to ties/groups of three teams or more). The principal benefit is that it could deter editors (IP users mainly) from changing the points column in the existing table to aggregate score (something I remind to any new user reading this is not taked into account in CONMEBOL tournaments). Sourcing it properly should provide sufficient support.
Granted, if tables go in the First Stage article, they should appear in the main (ditto for the Round of 16, Quarterfinals, and Semifinals page). But, if there was a way to do that that wouldn't take up an extremely greater amount of space or an equal amount, we should look into the possibility of giving it a try.
One a side, but similar, note, it is curious as to why CONMEBOL decided to have tables for two-legged ties now. Digirami (talk) 10:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On your last point. They have (IIRC) sometimes presented the results in this way in the past - not too recently, say 5 years ago I sort of remember it (because it was odd). On the IP editors point, I don't think anything will deter some people from edits against their set ideas - although tables would at least deter some via the complexity involved (if you can't convince them, at least confused them !!). Jlsa (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why the "blue" version is wrong[edit]

Among a number of reasons, the crucial one is that teams currently sitting first may have secured advancement to the next round as EITHER a group winner OR one of the best 6 runners-up, but MIGHT NOT be assured of winning the group. In this case you have no way of indicating that they are advanced. The key point is that all teams that advance enter the same next stage - unlike say the UEFA WCquals where (some of) the runners-up went to the playoffs but the group winners went straight to the WC finals. In this case, separate colours are appropriate. The yellow colouring in this version is (in a sense) unneccessary, but it is not inappropriate in the way the blue colour would be. HTH Jlsa (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The yellow color is in some sense unnecessary, but there are likely going to be people who adds the green color to a team which are certain to finish in the top two but not certain of a round of 16 place, so I consider this as a color to say, "no, they are not there yet, even though you may think so". Like the red color, it is "temporary" and should be removed at the end of group stage. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have it wrong (and/or not complete). We add the colors at the end, as has always been done. Teams with a green background will be those that have 1) secure the top spot in their group. Because they have secure the top spot in the group, they advance (as you may well know). But you can't do the same for teams that have secure the 2nd spot in the group because finishing 2nd does not guarantee advancement to the round of 16. That's why they should have and need a different color: blue. All finishing 2nd does it say they have the possibility of advancing. Only after they are ranked against other teams who finished 2nd in their respective groups do they know if they advance. Giving teams that finish 2nd and advance to the round of 16 the same color as the teams that finish 1st assumes that their advancement process is equal (group placement alone). It is not. Digirami (talk) 12:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sorry, but no. Teams can be advanced quite early, even in 2nd place, because there are always limits on what other possible 2nd place teams can get. For example, one group may have 1st and 2nd with W5L0 and W4L1 and a game against each other left, two other groups might have some games to play, but all the teams having (in one case) 5points. The teams in the first group can finish 1st or 2nd, but have both have 100% secured advancement. Being 2nd doesn't SECURE advancement by itself, but a 2nd place team may have secured advancement early anyway, just because of their (and other groups) results. Jlsa (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, wrong. The same color for both the 1st and 2nd place team would lead any reader to think that their group standings alone advances them to the round of 16 because that is what it implies. That is inaccurate. While the situation you describe is possible, it still doesn't negate the point I provided in the previous statement. Teams that finish 2nd need a different color to show that 1) they finished 2nd in their group, and 2) were then ranked. Digirami (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How does "The same color for both the 1st and 2nd place team would lead any reader to think that their group standings alone advances them to the round of 16 because that is what it implies"? 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) uses the blue color for the eight runners-up which advance to the play-offs, none for Norway. What does that "imply"? It implies that the eight runners-up advance to the play-offs, and Norway doesn't. That's not determined by their group standings alone, I think? For simplicity (more colors in general confuse readers) and for reasons already stated by Jlsa, teams which advance to the same round should use the same color, no matter whether this is a direct result of their own group standings or by comparing against other groups. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Quite simple. Same color would imply same process within the tournament, and the same process from previous editions. If you want, I would support highlighting the 6-best second-placed teams in the group standings, but with a lighter shade of green. But something to show they had to go through a different process, even if it is a minor one. Digirami (talk) 05:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your "this implies that" argument is simply unproven. We use the green color for advancing in all kinds of tournaments, even though every tournament have different advancement rules (not to mention every round in a single tournament can have different advancement rules). It has been generally accepted and is the easiest to process and conveys the most important information, i.e. which team advance from each group (without the users consulting another table, which of course, they are entitled to in order to check the reasoning behind it). The legend already says that the runners-up have to be compared against each other. It is basically impossible to convey this piece of information using colors only, regardless of whatever color scheme we use. Lighter shades of colors are hardly distinguishable and are difficult for the users to fathom without checking the legend. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3–3 (2–3 gd)[edit]

Just realize that this is technically wrong, since it should actually be "3–3 (−1–+1 gd)", although that looks really ugly. Perhaps we should just use "3–3 (2–3 agg)"? Or other suggestions? Chanheigeorge (talk) 03:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using aggregate gives the false impression that it counts. We all know it doesn't. We could use tables like we do for the groups, like it is displayed on CONMEBOL's page. Problem with that, as mentioned in an above discussion, both pages should have a similar display of information. Displaying the tables in main page would increased the size. Unless no one minds that, we could that. But then we would get in a discussion on the section design. Digirami (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Disregarding how CONMEBOL presents these results for a moment, how does people or media in South America understand and present these results? Obviously UEFA (the aggregate system) and CONMEBOL (the points system) are exactly the same criteria-wise, and I would guess that people in South America would also easily understand "3–2 aggregate", no? (talk) 04:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are not the same, needless to say. Since CONMEBOL never takes aggregate into account, why mention it? We could just display the goal difference of the team that advances (+1 gd), or do a "(+/−1 gd)". But not aggregate score. Digirami (talk) 05:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not the same presentation-wise, but obviously the same as in applying whichever criteria results in the same team advancing. I'd guess that the South Americans would also understand what "3–2 on aggregate" means, since they also happen to follow European football. Anyway, perhaps we can just use "(gd)", since for away goals we also don't display something like "(2–1 a)". Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That could work, too. Use just "(gd)". Digirami (talk) 05:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having lived in Brazil for 8 years, and following the games extensively, nobody usies "points" for a home and away series! Just visit the spanish or portuguese pages for crying out load, everything is presented via GOALS not points. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.40.164 (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've lived all my life in a Latin country (not of Conmebol) and this is the first time I've seen this presentation. It's confusing and difficult to convey (redundancy at its best). Why not use normal why (where the global aggregate score is shown)? I see no difference in a 4-3 global score in favor of team A then seeing: 3 points for A and 3 points for B then if A scored 1 goal in first match and B scored 3 and if A scored 3 in second match and B scored 0 then it's 4-3 in difference. See what I mean? I just complicated myself, why not K.I.S.S. (keep it simple stupid)? 190.6.198.171 (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because (unfortunately) the Conmebol rules say that's not how it works. These aren't actually 2-team ties like UEFA (or anybody sane), they are actually 2-team groups (this is shown in the results page on the Conmebol website where each tie is given its own little group table with P-W-D-L-F-A-Pts-GD all shown). It is actually quite mad (especially as the result is exactly the same). But, that is how it works officially, and it is described that way in the rules. Personally, I wouldn't fuss is we used the normal presentation, but there is certainly a case for it, and that is what has eventuated (this table is actualyl a compromise from what would be an even sillier version). Jlsa (talk) 03:33, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is true, the popular way of seeing these ties is through aggregate scores. Even the Goal Difference that is being used is confusing readers (seriously, what is this +2:-2 when you first see it? A mess). A similar case to this is the La Liga discussion we had a while back. Despite the official name is Primera Division, the more popular recognized name is La Liga in the media and general public opinion. We see this in Copa Libertadores as well. Fox Sports and Brazilian broadcasters view the ties with aggregate scores; not points. It would confuse television viewers... which is what this article is doing by including the points system. --MicroX (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative proposal[edit]

Just to throw something out here. Suggestions and/or changes welcome. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team #1 Team #2 1st leg 2nd leg Pts GD AG Pen.
Team A Team B 1–0 1–0 6 : 0 — — —
Team C Team D 1–0 0–2 3 : 3 −1 : +1 — —
Team E Team F 1–0 1–2 3 : 3 0 : 0 1 : 0 —
Team G Team H 1–0 0–1 3 : 3 0 : 0 0 : 0 5 : 3
Hmm. Let do a side-by-side practical information size comparison, just in case. Digirami (talk) 05:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot to be said for this. I suppose one problem (and it's a fairly pedantic point) is that while not all games have penalty shoot-outs, all games have away goals and GD, but your "—" symbol could be interpreted as "didn't happen", which would be wrong. Jlsa (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that to mean "irrelevant", but your point is taken. Alternatively, we can include GD and AG even in cases where they are irrelevant, or use another marker for no penalties, like "X". I don't think group tables are the answer to this, since the CONMEBOL official table [5] doesn't even tell that Catolica has beaten Colon on penalties. Chanheigeorge (talk) 05:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jlsa, you bring up a good point. I guess a footnote is enough since we already have to mention which team played the first leg at home.
Generally speaking, this is how it would look like with the current results. The difference in size is 500 bytes (check the history). Digirami (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My only suggestions would be don't have the "—" if there is no penalty shootout, and (maybe) make the decisive factor bold (possible overkill). Jlsa (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looks good, with a little bit of tweaking here or there. We definitely need another format from the aggregate table 'cos people keep changing the pts column to aggregate score (I just reverted one an hour ago). Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First drafts always needs a bit of tweaking. Maybe if we put in a section that mentions the tie-breakers for the entire tournament, like we did in the 2009 edition, it would help out and possibly explain why there is an m-dash in some columns. Digirami (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This new table doesn't seem eye-friendly. I support the old format without the points. I know CONMEBOL officially looks at points in elimination rounds but the aggregate/1st-leg/2nd-leg table is the most comprehensible and simplest to employ. Things should be short and to the point. --MicroX (talk) 05:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Objection noted. But, what's the point of using aggregate when it is not officially used in this competition? This is the best way. All relevant criteria is there: points, tie-breakers, scores. Additionally, it will minimize the chance IP users will misinterpret the points column and put in aggregate score. Digirami (talk) 08:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aggregate score is basically combining the tie-breaking criteria a), b), and c) (section 5.1 of Libertadores regulations). The only thing being left out is points but points is minimal in head-to-head elimination. I know what the regulations say but we can't include every little detail from the regulations such as booking fines, how long the team is allowed to keep the trophy or stadium requisites. The player of the week is even pushing it. Back on the table: What more do you need? The reader looks and you have your two teams, Team 1 plays 1st-leg at home, you have both leg results displayed so the away goals are obvious, and then the aggregate score in the center to display who scored more goals. It's simple, short, and to the point. --MicroX (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But again, it's not the Copa way. The only details that really matter for this article is how the teams progress and scores. Aggregate score is not an official way to progress a team, so there is no reason to mention it, no matter how simple it. Digirami (talk) 03:40, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. This table is really forced onto us by the Copa rules. If you don't follow them, someone will always feel justified in reverting to something like this form (or the previous one that got edited all the time). And remember - this table is a compromise solution itself. The alternative is to put in a whole mass of 2 team group tables (which would then need to be additionally annotated with results based on away goals or penalties if required). That would be just ridiculously long. On the bright side, we've not had any "goals not points" edits since we changed the table over - so that's a victory in itself and a vindication of the choice. Jlsa (talk) 03:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest this then to keep the feel that the teams are going head-to-head. --MicroX (talk) 05:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Team #1 Pts Team #2 1st leg 2nd leg GD AG Pen.
Team A 6 : 0 Team B 1–0 1–0 — — —
Team C 3 : 3 Team D 1–0 0–2 −1 : +1 — —
Team E 3 : 3 Team F 1–0 1–2 0 : 0 1 : 0 —
Team G 3 : 3 Team H 1–0 0–1 0 : 0 0 : 0 5 : 3

Hey guys. I have a new recommendation. I saw that the 2006 Copa Libertadores article was kind of messy and decided to incorporate the new elimination round table into that article. I tweaked a bit a was wondering if you guys approve. --MicroX (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teams Scores Tie-breakers
1st leg home team Points 2nd leg home team 1st leg 2nd leg GF AG Pen.
São Paulo Brazil 1 4 Brazil Internacional 1–2 2–2 — — —
I think it is good as it is now. Digirami (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should replace GD with GF. GD is going to confuse readers--MicroX (talk) 22:40, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The regulation said it is GD - or should said aggregate. However, when I saw that +1:-1, my first mind is why a team could score a minus goal number? It really confuse. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 02:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any reason colons are used in tie-breakers instead of dashes? --MicroX (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To distinguish the numbers from actual match scores (either single game, aggregate on penalty shootout). It's probably a sensible differentiation. Jlsa (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Player of the Week section?[edit]

Conmebol has been publishing a player of the week for this tournament. Should it be included? Digirami (talk) 04:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know because now that I think about it, different teams play every week, in spite of it being CONMEBOL approved. --MicroX (talk) 00:32, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Enough people have kept it updated so it that meets approval by consensus. Digirami (talk) 03:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the player of the week citation, how did you get the exact link to the article that declares a player of the week? When I was scanning around the news section on CONMEBOL's website, I never get a direct link like this one http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/mainMedia.html?id=14260&viewpage='full'. Instead I just get http://www.conmebol.com/conmebol/mainMedia.html. I need this to properly cite the references section. --MicroX (talk) 19:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You usually have to get it when the article is published. There is another way, using search if I'm not mistaken, but I forgot what it is. Digirami (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I retrieved some of the links to the English articles, however, there were a few I didn't find in English.--MicroX (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivar eliminated?[edit]

Bolivar has 2 games left, with which they could get a maximum of 6 points. That would add up their score to 7 points. However, on the following game between Juan Aurich and Estudiantes, there is going to be either a victory or a tie. With a tie, Estudiantes would get a score of 8 points, which would put a complete end to Bolivar; while a victory from either side would also put an end to the story of Bolivar. As such, Bolivar, regardless of how they perform in the future games, are eliminated by this point and time even if they were to win both of their future games.--MarshalN20 | Talk 01:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About the quarterfinals[edit]

Hello, there's this text in the quarterfinals section: The lowest seeded team will face the highest seeded team. Should three or more teams from the same country reach the quarterfinals, the higher seeded team from that country will face the lower seeded team from the same country . But, in the file that is the reference, it says that will only happen if the teams are from Mexico...

There: 

3.5 Cuartos de Final

(...)

a. En esta edición especial de la Copa, donde participarán 5 equipos mexicanos, en caso de que 3 o más equipos de dicho país, clasifiquen para  
esta  etapa de Cuartos de Final, deberán eliminarse entre sí, y los enfrentamientos serán entre el de mejor número de ordenamiento contra 
el de peor  numeración y respetando el sistema de localía anteriormente descripto.

--GNozaki (talk) 05:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the official rules, it does say that. But in a recent article released by CONMEBOL (released Friday if I'm not mistaken), it says that rule applies to any country (here's the link). Perhaps they modified it a bit since all five Brazilian teams advanced and only one is guaranteed to be eliminated in the Round of 16. So I changed because of the article. Digirami (talk) 06:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think it still only applies to Mexico because if you read the text in that article it says:
caso de que 3 o mas equipos de dicho país clasifiquen a cuartos de final
in other words it was copied and pasted from the regulations. Originally dicho pais was Mexico. I think the author of the news article just made a mistake. --MicroX (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Development of this page[edit]

Just wanted to add a point about the things that have been happening to this page. Each of the steps that led to it probably made sense on its own - but frankly the combination of the changes adds up to a whole bowl of stupid. Basically it all flows from the Second leg home team being shown in the first column for no explicable reason. It is mad because 1) no one else does it (UEFA, CONCACAF etc) 2) it will be a nightmare when it comes to putting in actual scores (as you have to put them in backwards to everybody else) 3) it actually doesn't say why it has been done (the apparently reason is to show the "seeded" team in the first column - despite the fact that UEFA etc don't seem to have a problem with putting the seeds in the second column and - even more insanely - it actually doesn't even say WHY, as there is no mentioning of the seeding here). It is just silly - and it is the (unrequested) work of one person to completely reshape the draw in to match their own personal preferences. (At least a couple of previous seasons have been recently reedited - October 2009ish - to conform to this completely different structure - so it has never been entered during matches to this format). Why is the order reversed? Jlsa (talk) 13:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special circumstances. If you look at the 2008 and 2009 editions, you will see that the team that hosted the second leg went in the left hand column in what is "Team #1". The reason being that match-ups, as per CONMEBOL, were always seen as "Second leg home team v First leg home team" or "higher seed v lower seed" (however you want to call it). That's the reason behind it. I, for one, don't see why we should mess with that order just because UEFA or someone else doesn't do it that way. Additionally, "Second leg home team" or "Team #1" is a label, but at least the former options tells a viewer who hosted the legs, which will better tell you what the actual scoreline is (remember the scoreline for one of the legs in all confederations is always reversed to match the order of who is team #1 and team #2). Digirami (talk) 17:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this is some personal definition of "special" that only you are privy to. Tons of (probably most) competitions will have seeded teams playing the second leg at home - many will even say - "This tie is 'seed' v 'non-seed'" yet standard presentation in wikipedia would still put the team at home in the first leg in the first column for consistency. It seems you are (yet again) twisting the pages to suit your own personal views. This is not YOUR website - it is a collaborative effort. Think about it for a while. Jlsa (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we are going to adopt this then we have to remove the Winner A, Winner B, Winner C, Winner H, etc from the match-ups because Winner A won't necessarily be the 2nd leg home team in the quarterfinals should Flamengo advance. --MicroX (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is not my website. But it's special in that it's unique to the Copa Libertadores. I don't know how others came up with their order in UEFA or other competitions articles, but it seems arbitrary; there is no clear reason why. At least this article has a reason for this "2nd leg home team v 1st leg home team" order. Open up the rules and what does it say in the Round of 16 section? I'll tell you: Team 1 v. Team 16, Team 2 v. Team 15, etc. And guess what! Team 1 is the home team in the second leg. So, why should we deviate from that? Because people who edit the UEFA CL articles have it a different way? If that were the case, we'd have an aggregate score columns too.
And in the UEFA champions league the first knock-out stage is "In the last 16, group winners play runners-up" and in the CAF champions league the semi-finals are "The winner of group A shall meet the runner-up of group B and the winner of group B shall meet the runner-up of group A" and in the CONCACAF champions league the quarter-finals are "The four teams ranked first in the Group Stage (the Group Winners) will be drawn to play against one of the four teams ranked second in Group Stage (the Group Runners-up) in the Quarterfinal Round" yet everybody seems able to cope with the standard presentation. Jlsa (talk) 05:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we are coping with displaying "higher seed v. lower seed" the way we can: semi-independently (that is to say, with a common thread, but taking certain things into special consideration). CONCACAF rules don't states who Team #1 is, nor does UEFA rules, in the manner that CONMEBOL does. Digirami (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that things should be similar, but not carbon-copies. Each article is going to have certain variations to fit any different set of conditions. Let me tell you: this is a different set of conditions that merit a variation. Digirami (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's just that the 2nd leg home team - 1st leg home team header looks a little off. After all, we are all taught to read from left to right and when we read that header, it looks off. --MicroX (talk) 04:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then change the labels. "Team #1 and Team #2" works well. But you will then have to explain in prose who plays what leg at home. Digirami (talk) 07:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[[2010 Copa Libertadores knockout stages#Guadalajara v Vélez Sársfield|0–3]]
 - How utterly, utterly unthought through and ridiculous. Surely a candidate for dumbest thing on wikipedia. Jlsa (talk) 04:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The order of the score in the table goes accordingly to the order of the teams. All, and I repeat, ALL continental tournament do that. It doesn't even matter who plays what leg at home. Go take a look. Digirami (talk) 06:07, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly what I meant by having people who know NOTHING about CONMEBOL having "opinions" and whatnot (without trying to offend). Jlsa, in CONMEBOL series that involves two-legs the first team (Team #1) that plays at home in the first leg is listed to the left; the one that plays at home in the 2nd leg (Team #2) is to the right. That is exactly the sort of problem I meant: the same regulations and principles CAN'T be applied to CONMEBOL. It is simply too different. The other confederations are different: they are just cheap copies of UEFA's tourney. Jamen Somasu (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, educate yourself on the subject before commenting. Just because a few things are different in CONMEBOL does not mean everything has to be different. There is more than enough similarities across the confederations and subjects to merit a high level of consistency across them. Only slight variations should be made if it merits it. In CONMEBOL's rules for the competition, Team #1 is always the home team for the second leg. Take a look at page 4. That's why the order is as it is. If it wasn't for that, it would be the same as everyone else's. Digirami (talk) 01:05, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true Digi. My point is I don't think it is different enough to justify reversing the legs. This is based on the fact that other tournaments (notably CAF, CONCACAF) DO have stages where a higher "seed" (usually a group winner) plays a lower "seed" (usually a runner-up) with the "Higher seed" playing the second leg at home. They appear in the regulations as "group winner plays group runner-up" but we enter the table as "group runner-up v group winner". I suppose your point is that this is carried on in a very explicit way throughout the knock-out phase and your methodology tried to make this clear. However, given the tables now only say "Team #1 v Team #2" that's sort of hidden in the text (so, I think changing the table headings made them worse not better) - especially as it also says "Team #1 v Team #2" in the preliminary round, which is not seeded, but the tables are still reversed. Jlsa (talk) 01:15, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point and agree. --MicroX (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Player of the tournament[edit]

Who was it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.215.155.80 (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010 Copa Libertadores. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Copa_Libertadores&oldid=1196563913"