Talk:2016 FIVB Volleyball World League

Slovenia in the 2016 World League?

I couldn't see any evidence indicating that Slovenia has qualified for the 2016 FIVB World League. I suggest that we should remove Slovenia from the list until the Group 3 schedule and teams are fully announced. Ivaneurope (talk) 20:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Slovenia has alreday qualified for the World league. Like I told you, you can see in twitter, but I know FIVB retweet so many content. So, please use #EuropeanLeagueM in twitter. Or, from CEV see here. One more source: here. the local news shows it's qualified. Noncommittalp (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

FIVB website has announced it too: http://www.fivb.org/en/Volleyball/viewPressRelease.asp?No=56201&Language=en Tomcat313 (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

About group 3, conflict of references should removed teams from group 3 until FIVB confirm?

The FIVB news didn't have any information about teams and venue. It had only competition date in group 3. But there are the news from Some national federations show the 8 remaining teams from 2015 edition will qualified. From, Finnish, Spanish, and montenegrin news. Before FIVB declared teams in 2016, CEV released the news Slovenia will play in 2016 by winning the 2015 European League like Montenegro and Greece in 2014 Europeam League. So, many confusing now.
You can see the ref from Montenegro show what teams which it will play in WL. It look like the same teams as Slovenia ref, but Slovenia replace Mexico. I think the teams from group 3 should be removed until FIVB comfirm. Please see the situation, and tell me your opinion. CEV news, Finnish news, Spanish news, Montenegrin news, and Slovenian news Noncommittalp (talk) 23:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Group 3 hasn't been defined yet - while it was annuonced that 8 teams will participate, Slovenia's case may cause another expansion - to 36 teams with 12 teams in each group. In 2015 Group 3 was with 12 participants. Ivaneurope (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please, the competition is next year. We can wait for the official group 3 release from the FIVB. Until confirmation of how many and who will play, I propose to hold on this matter. Osplace 14:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Why Montenegro is not in Group 2?

As we know Egypt qualified for Group 2 via the Group 3 Finals in 2015 and was suposed to replace Portugal, but due to the new rules Portugal remained in Group 2. Group 2, like Group 1, is consisted of 12 teams and all Group 2 teams (minus France, Bulgaria, Belgium and Argentina) plus Egypt will contest in Group 2 in 2016. Normally the remaining 3 slots should be filled by the other Group 3 finalists (Montenegro, Slovakia and China), but for some reason Montenegro was omited and replaced with Turkey (25th in the overall ranking with Spain and Greece). Now I understand that Montenegro may failed to meet the FIVB promotion criterias. Should we add in the Qualification segment an explaination regarding this case (if article is found)? Ivaneurope (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

The news from Montenegro section above in my opinion show Montenegro can pay register fee to play in group 2. And I agree to create a section "Preview" to show what happen before the competition begin. Noncommittalp (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Montenegro didn't want to pay the fee to play in Group 2 so they remained in Group 3. I am more surprised why Turkey was invited and not Spain as Spain finished ahead of Turkey. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Pool composition

The other competitions denote World Ranking(WR) becuase WR seed teams to each pool by serpentine system. And separate non seeding to groups for draw. You can see host country didn't denote WR, because all competitions seed host at the top position of serpentine system. This World League did not be the same. It like last 2 edition of World Grand Prix and also in 2016. You can see the original pool composition had the format to change pool in each weeks. Week 1 was the same as draw of lot. Week 3 first row not change, second row move to left, third and fourth rows move to right. Week 2 had the difference change, but the teams were drawn in first row usually unchange.
So, I think show the original pools composition will give more information for the readers of this encyclopedia.
And, please give me a reason why teams will order by WR number is more important than original if you still disagree with me.Noncommittalp (talk) 06:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

As a volleybal fan, I can't see any logic and I find your order confusing. I don't think people will want to see or care about how the teams came out of the drawing of lots. Who cares if France was drawn first or last ? It is the rank that will put more order to the pools, and it makes them less confusing and better for the eye, so people can see exactly how the teams are ranked amongst one another in each pool. That's why it should stay, based on rank, as the drawing of lots is just a drawing of lots, and nothing more - it is random. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I really like the ranked way. Teams for every pool are there. Everything is there and seems tidy. Osplace 13:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Random? If it random, why the pool in WGP 2014-2015 WL2016 G1andG2 had a same format in week 1 and 3. Moreover, if you consider the pools in week 2 you can see the format in every composition. Many fans in my country want to know it, but who can they told? They can find from where? More information is good, isn't it? Someone told me ^^.
Another thing I want an answer. If teams should show by rank order why we denote the host country team with "host" why didn't denote it by rank numder and drop it to the position follow the ranking. Is it the same?
Thank you for your opinions. I will not revert anymore, but I want an answer. And, happy to see the bulgarian ip address discuss in the talk page. Noncommittalp (talk) 00:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I couldn't see the logic behind the drawing of lots, I couldn't see how the groups were changing based on the drawing of lots. The drawing of lots, by itself, is random. But the teams just appeared to be randomly put into the groups without any particular reasoning. If you can tell me how they change, I will be happy to know. I looked at the WGP pools and I couldn't see any reasoning in their order either. At least, if they are ordered by rank, you can see how they rank amongst one another and it looks tidy and nice. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

An evident I found. Sport regulation section 7.2 page 20. Pool composition effect competition schedule. FIVB used a berger table to match up the competition schedule. You can see in World grand prix the schedule didn't match up by World ranking. So, it's not a tidy thing I think. FIVB used the serpentine system for seeding teams in every tournament except WL/WGP, and use berger table to determine schedule. We can see why all volleyball competition pages which showed World ranking denoted host team as (host) not their ranking. Because it depend on FIVB regulation in order to reserve top position of seeding teams to the host. So, I think keep position from drawing of lots is better. Noncommittalp (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I never said the groups were not based on drawing of lots. I just said nobody cares about which team was drawn first or last. You can see the others would like to see it look more tidy and clean with the teams ranked in order. Who cares if France was drawn first or last ?94.155.238.11 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We did't improve our encyclopedia with information, do we? If it's not important why FIVB specify that I mention in the FIVB sport regulation? This is an information how important pool position is. Why don't we follow the reference. You said people want to see tidy and clean thing, but You don't think people who see non-tidy and non-clean thing can wonder why? and give them an information. Noncommittalp (talk) 18:33, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

If people, as few as they are, want to see this information, they can see it on the FIVB website. It is not important as to transfer it here. They have explained it on their website because everything has to be explained - these are the rules. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

All of informations did't come from FIVB website, right? We made volleyball competition page base on information, source, and evidence, didn't we? Now, we didn't think the same in this topic. So, I found information from the main source and showed to you. How about you, guy? Nothing. You claimed people blah blah blah, but nothing support your opinion. I can't accept. Noncommittalp (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The thing is that nobody cares about your information because it is absolutely useless here. This is the end of the story. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Many volleyball competition pages have the section "Pools composition". The pages like World championship denote host country's team as "hosts". Why? It is the pools composition format. The reason as you said for tidiness why we put the host team by their ranking? Why we denoted the team with "hosts" not their ranking? And, why didn't we use alphabetical order? It was because the "regulation". FIVB sport regulation version 2015(I have a link in my opinion above) section 7.1 page 19-20 specify host team could be the top position of serpentine system. So, we denoted "host" and remain the top of pool A not by their ranking. Also in European championship regulation the top position of pool A and/or pool B is host team(s) pool C, D and/or B come from host selection. 4 ranked teams from previous edition are drawn next. So, you can see the volleyball competition pages didn't use ranking order. In addition, Asian championship also didn't use ranking order. My information absolutely not useless.
Why does the pools composition be important? It effects match schedule by using "Berger table" can see in FIVB regulation, European champ regulation, and Asian champ regulation. You can see the 2015 edition of World grand prix didn't match up by ranking but by pools composition. Some people told me that the volleyball pages lack of text to describe how it come. I tried to improve the new volleyball pages with information. I didn't think it must to be like my opinion, but I want a reason which made me clear why I could not edit like my opinion. You think for others, and yes me, too. So, we had to find the information support our opinion. Until now, you show nothing to make me clear and can accept your opinion. Noncommittalp (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The host is denoted right above the actual pools composition. It can be seen clearly. The way you showed it, the host doesn't get known. But as I said, you can see it right above that. How are the pools composed based on your information ? I can't see any reasonable structure or way for them to be composed. If you can explain to me how they are made, I can accept it. But right now, to me, it just looks like some random order, and as I said, nobody cares which team was drawn first or last. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Now, The point is how pools composition come? you did't answer me why we didn't keep original pools composition in WGP and WL while other competition page keep it. It's a format of pools composition of both tournaments like other competitions are. At least, I am the one who cares the teams were drawn before or after. I don't think this is the acceptable reason for discussion. You said "nobody cares which team was drawn first or last." What different between original composition and ordering by ranking, because nobody cares which teams was first or last. And, the question "How are the pools composed based on your information ?" The answer is the reference of main page point it. And another question for you, The World ranking as of what date use to denote and order the pools composition? The positions in pools composition was change at least 3 times. Why? Because the World ranking doesn't relate anything in this pools composition. unlike other competition

If you want to see the structure of pools composition, I will show you later when I am free. But, I point you why just one time drawing of lots can make no 2 teams play against each other more than 2 times. Why the top position of pool A ,B , and C are the same as pool D, E, and F, also pool H, I, and J. But, I don't want to use this topic to support my opinion anymore. I wan to use the information from official source.Noncommittalp (talk) 03:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is how the teams were drawn. But, what I want to know is, what system did they use to put the teams in 2nd/3rd weeks etc. ? Because that is where I can't see the actual system. What is the format for 2nd/3rd weeks ? 94.155.238.11 (talk) 13:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, I can see it, but I still see some discrepancies, with teams in Italics switching positions with other teams. If rank isn't important, why don't we just remove it, if you want to use this system ? This way it will be much tidier, and still based on the actual system. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I have had this problem, because 2013 and older WGP pages have shown pool composition which FIVB announced, not World ranking order, not alphabetically. So, I really didn't understand why I can't use the same way. This question has nobody answer me. Why the historical format was ignored and replaced by tidiness.Noncommittalp (talk) 15:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Because the historical format didn't have the rank. If you remove the rank in brackets, sort them alphabetically. As long as the rank is there, they should remain sorted by rank. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 13:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The question is about original pool composition not alphabetically order anymore. So, if the World ranking is removed, like historical format, the original pool compositions will be accepted, right? I will be change all pages of 2014-2016 edition to original.Noncommittalp (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Original format means alphabetical order or draw order ? Yes, if world ranking is removed, then it shouldn't be based on rank. If you do that, you can change previous editions, too (remove world ranking). 94.155.238.11 (talk) 15:23, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I mean draw order, because WGP pages show the pool composition this way. Exception, only 2 latest edition (2014-2015). And, I think the format should be the same for all pages. So, if most pages use draw order, all pages should be the same. Like, we change Youth and Junior competition pages to U18, U19, U20, U21. Noncommittalp (talk) 04:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it doesn't make much sense for them to be alphabetical. They can be based on draw order, and we can just remove the rank. I don't know why the rank was even added to the pages to be honest. The official website doesn't show it. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Pools composition format

Here is the format of pools composition in year 2016. You can compare with FIVB source in main page. Note: * mean alternating between two teams which one of them is host of pool. So, I think it can understand why 6 positions of 120 position don't like the format. The first table on the left is the position of drawing of lot result.

• Format

Pool A	Pool B	Pool C
1	2	3
4	5	6
7	8	9
10	11	12

Pool D	Pool E	Pool F
1	2	3
12	7	6
11	8	5
10	9	4

Pool G	Pool H	Pool I
1	2	3
5	6	4
9	7	8
12	10	11

• 2016 World Grand Prix

Pool A	Pool B	Pool C
USA 2*	Brazil 1*	Russia 3
Thailand 4	Italy 5	NED 6
Germany 7	Japan 8	Turkey 9
China 10	Serbia 11	Belgium 12

Pool D	Pool E	Pool F
Brazil 1	USA 2	Russia 3
Belgium 12	Germany 7	NED 6
Serbia 11	Japan 8	Italy 5
China 10	Turkey 9	Thailand 4

Pool G	Pool H	Pool I
Brazil 1	USA 2	Russia 3
Italy 5	NED 6	Thailand 4
Turkey 9	Germany 7	Japan 8
Belgium 12	China 10	Serbia 11

• 2016 World League Group 1

Pool A	Pool B	Pool C
France 1	USA 2	Serbia 3
Italy 4	Brazil 5	Bulgaria 6
Australia 7	Iran 8	Russia 10*
Belgium 9*	Argentina 11	Poland 12

Pool D	Pool E	Pool F
France 1	USA 2	Serbia 3
Poland 12	Australia 7	Bulgaria 6
Argentina 11	Italy 4*	Brazil 5
Russia 10	Belgium 9	Iran 8*

Pool G	Pool H	Pool I
France 1	USA 2	Serbia 3
Brazil 5	Bulgaria 6	Italy 4
Belgium 9	Australia 7	Iran 8
Poland 12	Russia 10	Argentina 11

• 2016 World League Group 2

Pool J	Pool K	Pool L
NED 1	Japan 2	Canada 3
Portugal 4	Korea 5	China 6
Turkey 7	Finland 8	Egypt 9
Slovakia 10	Cuba 11	Czech 12

Pool M	Pool N	Pool O
NED 1	Japan 2	Canada 3
Czech 12	Turkey 7	China 6
Cuba 11	Finland 8	Korea 5
Slovakia 10	Egypt 9	Portugal 4

Pool P	Pool Q	Pool R
NED 1	Japan 2	Canada 3
Korea 5	China 6	Portugal 4
Egypt 9	Turkey 7	Finland 8
Czech 12	Slovakia 10	Cuba 11

• 2016 World League Group 3

Pool S	Pool T	Pool U
Slovenia 1	Mexico 2	Kazakhstan 3
Tunisia 4	Spain 5	Greece 6
Venezuela 7	Montenegro 8	Chinese Taipei 9
Qatar 10	Germany 11	Puerto Rico 12

Pool V	Pool W	Pool X
Slovenia 1	Mexico 2	Kazakhstan 3
Puerto Rico 12	Venezuela 7	Greece 6
Germany 11	Montenegro 8	Spain 5
Qatar 10	Chinese Taipei 9	Tunisia 4

Noncommittalp (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Greenwich Mean Time UTC±00:00 instead of Local Time

I don't understand why the article is using Greenwich Mean Time for every match instead of the Local Time as in the previous editions and virtually every sport event in the wikipedia. Can someone explain why? We should change that. Arielslytherin (talk) 16:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I changed the times, because the FIVB World Leagues and the FIVB World Grand Prixs were played in many zone times in a single tournament. And, the volleyball competition articles have showed specific zone time, except World League and World Grand Prix's intercontinental round. That is a good thing which I did not see in other sport article. It's easier for readers to compare their own time and didn't spend time to found anymore.
For the World League and World Grand Prix, there were many zone times, and the zone times didn't show in the articles. So, I think using the GMT is better to compare the readers' time. The GMT also is the international standard. Unlike other sports, I've never seen what competition use various zone times. Moreover, the official website also put the GMT in the schedule.
I think using GMT is better than "All times are local." Noncommittalp (talk) 17:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand your intention of making conversion for readers as convenient as possible. But for the sake of consistency,if you are to pursue the GMT time zone format, you should also put the times of matches from the previous editions to GMT zone.
Also, if you look at the 2014 FIFA World Cup and the 2015 FIFA Women's World Cup, the venues were spread out at different time zones but local times were still used.
And lastly when you say,

I think using GMT is better than "All times are local,"

you are only speaking for yourself. This is Wikipedia where everyone is allowed to have an input. Personal preferences should be put aside when it differ from general consensus. Respectfully,TjBison (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I think local time is less confusing to me. I am used to local time and I don't see any reason why it was changed. And if you are gonna change it now, you should change previous editions too. It doesn't make sense though. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 12:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@TjBison and 94.155.238.11: I don't think you get all of my idea. You show me the FIFA World Cup for example. You can see how different between FIFA pages and FIVB pages. Yes, the FIFA pages showed the local time with it Coordinated Universal Time, guy. It's like other FIVB pages which showed Coordinated Universal Time in each of sections or each pools,... . But, FIVB World League and World Grand Prix's intercontinental round didn't.
So, 2 ways It should be. first,

Pool A
Venue London, England
All times are Greenwich Mean Time (UTC±00:00).
Use this format in each pools with local times.
Second, display the All times are Greenwich Mean Time (UTC±00:00) once for intercontinental round section.
If you see most of competition pages, not qualification pages, you will see the second option. The 2 difference time zones displayed by a sentence like "All times in Bulgaria are ......... and All times in Poland are ....." So, that's why we use "All times are local". Did you think it was weird? Most of volleyball competition pages didn't use "All times are local". They was specified Coordinated Universal Time.
The old format, you have to find the local time of each pools' host countries, and compare your own. But, this format's already showed what time zone of this section. Is it easier? Is it common format of volleyball competition article? Noncommittalp (talk) 14:13, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Arielslytherin: brought up a good point that the GP tournament in Argentina goes for 4 days instead of the usual 3, because of GMT time, which makes it confusing. 94.155.238.11 (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, imho, the best possible option would be to provide the possibility to the reader to choose the time zone he wishes to see the times of the matches. Whether it will be GMT, local times, or the time zone of the reader - this will be his choice. Having the possibility to choose the time zone of the reader would be very convenient for i.a. knowing when to go to watch the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.135.30.129 (talk) 16:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

The Dream Team

Why Antonin Rouzier is declared as one of the two best outside hitters of the WL2016 while he's an opposite hitter? Isn't that corrected afterwards by FIVB? --Babak.k.shandiz (talk) 15:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Rouzier is 2nd best outside spiker. Youcan see in the official website. In my opinion, Rouzier register his position as wing spiker, Sheila Castro register as universal in World Grand Prix. Noncommittalp (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking that way at first but when I checked Wallace de Souza's profile on WL2016 official website (at here) he was declared as a wing spiker, too, while he is correctly named as an opposite spiker in the dream team. --Babak.k.shandiz (talk) 08:58, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Both OH and OPP are wing spikers, So wing spiker and universal can be OH or OPP or either. I think this idea is OK. Nowadays, we have Anderson, Zaytsev who play both OH and OPP. Noncommittalp (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Then what about serve reception? Can you really put Rouzier as a receiver on "The Dream Team"? Anderson and Zaytsev are exceptions. To be clear, I'm not talking about registered positions or logical explanations for exceptional cases, I'm talking about a well-thought team with players each being the best in their functionality in real performance. Therefore, I can't think of any way that puts Rouzier and Wallace in the dream team at the same time. I hope you get my point. --Babak.k.shandiz (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

You ask the question, so I answer. Why didn't you change your question to "Do you agree with FIVB that award best OH for OPP?" if you want that point.The last time FIVB awarded for best reciever as best OH is Murilo in 2014 WCH. After that, The best OHs determined by spike stat. Noncommittalp (talk) 19:52, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Template problem

I commented on the fact that the article is broken at WT:WikiProject Volleyball#Recent edits from 94.155.238.11. That might be the place to discuss possible solutions. Johnuniq (talk) 04:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)