Talk:2012 World Football Challenge

Flags

WP:MOSFLAG states "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." I would contend that the fixture lists are exactly a place where the nationality of the clubs is pertinent, and that they should therefore be shown. The website for the event refers to the nations that the non-MSL teams come from, so it can be considered pertinent information: the very title of the event shows that the organisers have thought it important to attract participants from multiple countries. By the same token, flags are not appropriate to lists of goalscorers: the nationality of an individual player has nothing to do with the team for which he scored, and so that is not pertinent. One editor has frequently removed the flags, apparently because his interpretation of MOSFLAG is dominated by another clause of that policy that relies on representation. The fact that several editors have posted the flags would suggest that consensus is with my interpretation, revolving around pertinence.

Assuming flags are to be re-introduced to the article, the editor in question seems to wish to argue that Toronto should be indicated with the flag of the US. I would disagree, and apart from basic geographical common sense, would refer to the lead of that club's article: "Toronto FC (TFC) is a Canadian professional soccer club based in Toronto, Ontario ...The club are the current Canadian Champions, having won the 2012 Amway Canadian Championship, the team's fourth consecutive Canadian title," and the statement on the club's website, "We will work with the Canadian Soccer Association and Ontario Soccer Association to further develop the sport in our country."

I look forward to the observations of other editors. Kevin McE (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong place for this. You know that there's a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and quite simply you've misrepresenting the purpose of WP:MOSFLAG again.

Using Wikipedia as a reference is not permitted. TFC are a team based in Canada, but are not sanctioned by CSA. The only Canadian competition they play in is the Canadian Championship. CSA does not sanction the MLS nor does it sanction this tournament. USSF doesn't even sanction the tournament. The rules as to how teams are selected is not clear and in honesty, it's done by the MLS alone to promote the league and its teams in North America. This is why MLS teams only play once and the visiting teams may play in multiple locations. If this were a real tournament, there would be a balanced number of games and possibly even a playoff. However, all of the matches are scheduled before the games start. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

You posted a note at my talk page telling me to discuss here: don't be so hypocritical as to now tell me not to. Dsicussion at WT:FOOTY does not preclude specific discussion elsewhere.

The relevant nationality is that of the club, not the league they play in. It is evident from the club's website that they are associated with the CAS. They might play in the MLS, that does not make them a US club: see, for example the teams in group 1 here, or the appointment of a Toronto FC officer to the board of directors of CSA here.

Your other arguments appear to be based around the issue of representation, which is not the justification for the inclusion of flags here, and so are irrelevant. I asked you on your talk page to explain why you refuse to discuss the pertinence clause of MOSFLAG, but you merely deleted the request; I am not misrepresenting anything, I'm citing a part of policy that you are evidently unhappy with, and you are apparently unwilling to explain why. No-one is arguing that it is an important competition, or that it is not primarily commercial/promotional: that is irrelevant, unless you wish to use it as grounds for AfDing this article. Kevin McE (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

First, I didn't tell you not do discuss here, just that there was another discussion elsewhere, which is now closed. Sorry if you got the wrong impression.

That is simply untrue. I suggest that you don't post templates if you don't know what they say. Kevin McE (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

TFC is not sanctioned by CSA. Period. They do support them but they are not sanctioned by CSA. USSF has given them sanction. They are, technically, an American team along with Montreal and Vancouver.

CONCACAF disagree with your interpretation. I look forward to your providing a higher level of authority that states that they are not Canadian, or of any other nationality.

Your opinion that the nationality of the club is relevant, well, that's not clear. They're playing in a Canadian city in a league that's sanctioned by the US Soccer Federation.

And you have made no reasoned argument to suggest that in a multi-national event, nationality is irrelevant.

They are associated with the CSA and they do participate in the Canadian Championship, but this isn't the Canadian championship.

True, but the second clause is about as irrelevant as is possible to be. When Ryder Hesjedal won the Giro d'Italia, it was not the Canadian national cycling championships, but that made him no less Canadian.

You've missed the point. CSA did not sanction TFC to play in this tournament. There isn't even any mention of it on the CSA website. So they are either representing the MLS, the United States that sanctions the MLS, or they're representing their own financial interests.

Or we simply acknowledge that it is irrelevant whether they are representing anyone at all here, as I have consistently maintained, because the relevant clause of MOSFLAG makes no mention of representation.

And your presence here is argument that this is an important competition. If it weren't, you'd be ignoring it. On the other hand, you could have ulterior motive for being here.

It's the holidays: I'm bored. Nothing ulterior here as far as I am concerned, although I can't speak for you. What a patently illogical argument.

As for your interpretations as to what is and isn't relevant, I can only say are just that: interpretations. The last time I checked, you are not an official source on what is and isn't right. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are, but you have made this a matter of principle rather than simple of discernment. As to the judgement of whether flags are relevant here, a simple review of the article history shows that at least 11 editors have been adding flags, one has been removing them. So despite your claim in an editnote, you do not seem to have any consensus for the opinion that they are not. Of course nither of us are "an official source": in Wikipedia, authority rests with consensus, and consensus, although not explicitly expressed here, can be identified in edit history. Kevin McE (talk) 08:46, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think no reason for deletion of flags. NickSt (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So who won?

Does anyone have any idea?--Carrowconor (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no winning team. It's not a tournament. It's a chance for the MLS to draw fans in to see European clubs and hopefully hold on to them during the remaining MLS season. It's not an international tournament. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Then why does it use the word Tournament in the second sentence of the article eg. The tournament opened on July 18, 2012??--TinTin (talk) 00:51, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Good question. It shouldn't. It's a series of friendly matches related only by the name. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Further to this, Real Madrid played four matches, Chelsea played three, Paris Saint-Germain and Milan each played two while Sounders, TFC, Liverpool, D.C., LA, Santos Laguna and Celtic each played one match.

The schedule was determined before play began. This wasn't an elimination tournament. Why else would Celtic play only the final match and none leading up to it? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

This edit, which was made while I was writing the information above, makes it seem as though this was a tournament, which I just explained was not the case. I reverted for that reason. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact, the Top goalscorers section should probably be removed due to the unbalanced nature of the event. Any player for Real Madrid had four times the opportunity to score when compared to any of the teams who played only once. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do think equal number of games is necessarily? It's a special tournament with special rules, see for example 2011 World Football Challenge#Table setup: One point for each goal scored (up to three). NickSt (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a tournament. All matches were scheduled before the exhibitions started. What proof do you have that it was a tournament? 2011 was different. There was no tournament this year. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:59, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Please supply official standings from the tournament organizer or FIFA, not WP:OR as you are doing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This standings is unofficial as tournament unofficial also. See pt-wiki, es-wiki also. No reason for deletion of standings. NickSt (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't a tournament. I do look at them often, and they get lots of things wrong. They include flags in infoboxes, we don't They include crests and logos on jerseys, we don't. No reason for us to include what's wrong just because someone else has included it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring over a LANGVAR issue

This is a sport being run in Canada and the US where the sport is known as soccer. It should be called soccer and link to association football. It should not be listed as association football. The previous year did this. The article did this for years. The tournament that replaced it uses this convention. I plan to restore the wording based on that logic and WP:LANGVAR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

And further, the only reason to use linking is to link to terms that may not be known and so linking to the article is the best solution if the term would be confusing, which it isn't, since every English speaker in the world already knows that North Americans call the sport "soccer". Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:22, 13 February 2016 (UTC)