Talk:2008 IIHF World Championship

Fair use rationale for Image:WC 2008.jpg

Image:WC 2008.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

info to be integrated

From Canada V Latvia TSN coverage game May 4 2008...

Canada was supposed to host 1970 World Championships in Winnipeg. An agreement was worked out between CAHA and the IIHF whereby 9 minor-pro hockey players from Canada would be allowed to counterbalance the Eastern European players that were pro in all but name. The IIHF renegged on the agreement, and Canada pulled out of hosting duties, and all World Championships for the next decade, and the 1972 and 1976 Winter Olympics in protest.

70.51.9.170 (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No speculative and misleading information, please.

Please avoid placing speculative information. Do not place already known teams of Preliminary round, just because they are qualified, into Standings table of Qualification round, until these standings become known (Standings means places to stand in, determined by rank - otherwise it is NOT initial Standings for Qualification round), to avoid misleading. Groups E and F do not exist, neither ordering among the teams already qualified. Svmich (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as it starts it will be ordered by team points though... and those points can in some cases be determined. Sorting by 'wether they placed as A1, A2 or A3 etc is pointless and superficial, as that wont show the teams' standings in the group. Czech republic WILL have 4 points when they start in group E, for instance. Their game against Italy is completely pointless. (Cept for player high scores etc). I

I'm glad you decided to discuss it after changing it the second time at least. Lejman (talk) 19:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Standings/Results headers

Wouldn't it be best to remove the Standings & Results headers?
It is pretty obvious that the table shows the standings, and the game summaries show the results.
It will make it a whole lot easier to see which paragraph have been edited.
It will also shrink the page size. lil2mas (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Explanation on qualifying for knockouts

Just as a for the record, of why Canada cannot be left out.

Canada currently sits at 3-0-0-0 for 9. If Latvia were to tie them at 9, then Canada holds the tiebreaker (head to head). If Germany were to tie them at 9, they would ensure that the United States could not pass Canada and that Latvia could not tie Canada. Canada would be guaranteed to finish ahead of both the United States and Latvia. Of course, if Germany doesn't get to 9, then Canada would finish ahead of both them and Latvia. Wjmorris3 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

United States is now safe at 6 points, PROVIDING that Latvia loses to Finland tomorrow. If they were to lose out and stay at 6, then either Germany or Latvia could tie them at 6 (but not both.) Regardless, the United States wins the tiebreaker against either of the tied teams. Wjmorris3 (talk) 01:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible endings in group E, based on how many points Switzerland acquire against Russia tomorrow:

• Switzerland lose to Russia after full time (0 points):

1. Russia 2. Czech Republic 3. Sweden 4. Switzerland

• Switzerland lose to Russia after sudden death or penalties (1 point):

1. Russia 2. Switzerland 3. Sweden 4. Czech Republic

• Switzerland defeat Russia (after full time, or sudden death/penalties, 2-3 points):

1. Switzerland 2. Russia 3. Sweden 4. Czech Republic

No matter what, Sweden finishes third... any team can meet any team in the quarter final in that group! Lejman (talk) 01:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The current ranking is incorrect. In case three or more teams are tied, their ranking is based on difference of goals in games against each other. So Swiss team (4-7) is 4th, Sweden (7-7) is 3th and Czechs (8-5) are 2nd for now. But it all could be changed after Russia-Switzerland.--83.237.98.73 (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I've corrected the ranking but Swedes are anyway third indeed :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.237.98.73 (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Tie-breaking formula is not applicable to Swiss before their [first] game against Russia (they have one more game to play, some sort of advantage). Switzerland is 2nd in the official IIHF standings as well. Svmich (talk) 16:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Sweden has a lock on third... See the tiebreaker for 3 or more teams: http://www.iihf.com/channels/iihf-world-championship/home/format-rules.html ccwaters (talk) 18:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

redirects?

2008 IIHF World Championships doesn't exist, I think it should as a redirect here. And if any other year is missing such, they should be created... 70.51.10.58 (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia

Russia is the only legal successor to the Soviet Union (according to International Law). That's de jure. De facto history of Russia includes the time of USSR, no matter what aspect you consider (aviation and space history, for instance). But even more, Russia clearly and absolutely dominated USSR in ice hockey (players, coaching, domestic championships etc.) And IIHF may split the total and list USSR and Russia achievements separately just to provide more details, no problem. But when considering hockey history of Russia, it is common and correct to consider USSR history. And finally: numbers placed in a context are not just numbers — they have their meaning. And pointing that Russia is a newborn hockey power is clearly misleading. Svmich (talk) 09:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be common practice to list the Soviet Union and Russia separately when it comes to sport statistics. This is the case in All-time Olympic Games medal count as well as List of IIHF World Championship tournaments. And I do not understand why we should treat it differently here. Your concerns on the number of Russia titles being misleading is compensated with a footnote that explains that the 22 Soviet Union titles are not included. --Kildor (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, USSR and Russia achievements (when listed together) are often shown separately for details. Right. Now you can read many IIHF articles (as well as many articles across the globe) to see what people mean by Russia in ice hockey. And specified number should correspond to what is generally meant by most people when considering Russia in ice hockey (and in this sense 24 is true while 2 is not). A footnote about USSR titles is still in place. Regardless of attitude to the statistics in any other sources.

Kildor, please don't change unless your arguments are convincing.

Svmich (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you at least give any references that say that Russia has 24 world championship titles? I noticed that 2 other users have reverted your changes regarding this issue, so I am not alone with this opinion. --Kildor (talk) 13:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What exactly you think is wrong or doubtful among the statements I made above? I don't understand why you think the reference you asked about is needed. Svmich (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I contest that most people would consider Russia to have 24 titles. The sport statistics pages I have seen so far separates Russia and Soviet Union, and I therefore think it is more correct to say that Russia have 2 titles (rather than 24). This is also in line with other articles on Wikipedia. Except for your own opinion, do you have anythink (a link, a reference) that support your idea that we should say that Russia has 24 titles? --Kildor (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

When it comes to Olympic Games (in general), it is right to have USSR and Russia listed separately, because athletes of other Soviet republic contributed a significant number of medals and titles. In the case of ice hockey, however, USSR and Russia were practically identical and the contribution of other union republics was negligible. That's why it would be an unjustified distortion to except the Soviet era from the history of Russian hockey. Voyevoda (talk) 14:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I doubt Artūrs Irbe, voted best goaltender when the USSR won the 1990 IHWC, would agree about "negligible". Anyway, this kind of argument is not ours to make. If the official statistics record them separately, that's what we should do too. But obviously we should also mention the number that combining them will yield, as a very interesting number. -- Jao (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia doesn't have 24 titles. It didn't become an independant country until Decemeber 1991. We can't have the USSR & Russia treated as a country that simply renamed itself (which isn't the case). GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Russia does have 24 titles: 22 of them being within USSR and 2 later. Russia (political entity) existed and won before and now (whether or not as independent state). Btw., IIHF: No. 24 for Big Red Machine. But even this reference is almost nothing against the general perceiption of Russia in hockey. Don't worry, the footnote is there to resolve the formal issue. Svmich (talk) 20:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That article also states The precursor USSR won 22 gold medals before Russia took over in 1992, which clearly makes a distinction between the current team and the ex-Soviet one. That is precisely what I tried to convey in the infobox before you reverted it. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The USSR medals should definitely be included with Russia's and like the person above said, a note should be added that it played as USSR before. There is no reason why that should not be done. Also, Russia is the legal successor to the USSR it got it's debt, and its UN seat, as well as many other things. --76.68.68.186 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure most non-Russians would agree that it makes sense to list their achievements together, if a note explaining is present.--76.68.68.186 (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if Latvia or Belarus would've won the Gold; we'd include their medal with the USSR's total? GoodDay (talk) 20:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a Wikipedia consensus on that medals won in olympic games for USSR and Russia should be listed separately: Wikipedia:WikiProject Olympics/Olympic conventions. And medals won by East Germany does not count for Germany. There is really no difference between Ice Hockey World Championships and Olympic Games regarding this matter. In fact, these are coupled, since many World Championships and Olympic games have been combined for Ice Hockey. --Kildor (talk) 21:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. I've reverted the 24 titles edit, back to 2 titles. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.ihwc.net/english/article/news/index.ihwc?&artId=2690
  • In 2007 IIHF World Championship on 2011-05-26 02:50:23, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2007 IIHF World Championship on 2011-05-27 15:08:01, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2007 IIHF World Championship on 2011-06-15 14:29:10, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'
  • In 2008 IIHF World Championship on 2011-06-16 12:55:19, Socket Error: 'A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond'

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 IIHF World Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070517014351/http://live82.ihwc.net:80/english/article/news/index.ihwc?&artId=2646 to http://live82.ihwc.net/english/article/news/index.ihwc?&artId=2646

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008 IIHF World Championship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100215153608/http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/2010-olympic-format-decided.html to http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/2010-olympic-format-decided.html

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) 03:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)