Talk:2007 Louis Vuitton Cup

Structure of Louis Vuitton Cup 2007 results[edit]

Which structure is the best:

Teams and Round-Robin Rankings - Semi-final - Final - Rounds robin 1 and 2 results => Actual

or

Rounds robin 1 and 2 results - Teams and Round-Robin Rankings - Semi-final - Final => Previous

or

Final - Semi-final - Teams and Round-Robin Rankings - Rounds robin 1 and 2 results

My mind is that the second one is the best one. The actual one is without any doubt the best one if you care about Vuitton Cup 2007 but for someone who doesnt know anything about this subject it can be quite difficult to understand I think.

from Thaimoss talk:
- Noticed your edit which changed the sequence of the article to run backwards from the final. The books which will get published reporting this event will not report the events in reverse chronological sequence. It is illogical way to document sequential linked events. Would we write an article on a boxing event starting at round 15? etc etc Please see the 'discussion' page of the Louis Vuitton Cup 2007 and update us on your reasoning. Thanks Boatman 14:02, 28 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

- Boatman, moved your inquiry to my talk page, as opposed to my user page. My reasoning really followed on the discussion of April 29 of Minnesota1. Additionally, I'm thinking more like an article, arguably "newspaper like" in that I was focusing on putting the most relevant facts up front. I don't challenge the comprehensiveness of what you have there, which is outstanding by the way, but wonder what (when it is all said and done) will be more relevant to the reader: the complete sequential rundown of the postponed Round Robins, or the end result with supporting detail. True, you wouldn't "start" covering a boxing match with Round 15, but you would open with Guy A beat Guy B in x rounds, and then fill in the details from there. (American) football coverage, and numerous other "bracket" playoff our tournament systems do, actually, tend to present the story of how the champions got where they are in reverse chron order. In historical perspective, Flights 1 and 2 of RR 1 just won't be the information most folks would look to first. They'll want to know how did this challenger come to be in the America's Cup, which will be answered up front, and then can scroll down for additional detailed history. I recognize that you've been the dominant contributor to this article, I just think this layout reads better. - Thaimoss 00:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thaimoss, Thanks for the response. The main problem with the article is the presentation of the round robin results which are not concisely presented. Originally the information was even longer. I want to reformat this section( not sure when!). eg I am not sure that details of the postponements are needed. eg If the results were in one chronological table they would be much shorter and easier to read and follow the progress of each team. If the round robin event is shorter then I think the article is better structured as RR/Semi finals/final with a statement of who won at the start of the article. Lets see how itlooks when the round robin format is better. Boatman 06:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Mrpouetpouet 14:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree so (as the user who did the original change) I have reverted the article back so that the structure is as before (ie the second one above) Boatman 20:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User Thaimoss has reversed the sequence of events starting at the final. Requested clarification from the user Boatman
The new layout of the Round Robin results is a noticable improvement. Good thinking Boatman. If I can offer one suggestion: I think the more continuous the table the better (such as the string of May 4th to May 9th in RR2). This gets disrupted by the notation about the weather delays. How about pulling the table together, and then footnoting the delay? Then you'd have two nice continuous tables and a short list of five footnotes at the end of the article indicating why the as-raced dates might differ from the as-scheduled. Good work. - Thaimoss 23:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment Thaimoss. Also thanks for your suggestion of one table, a good idea. We are away on vacation for a while so I will edit when I am back. I am also midway through getting the 'yellow'and 'blue' columns side by side. Thanks again, Boatman 07:32, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

The results presented seem a little excessive. Maybe they can be summarized? Or maybe they should be presented in single table with who beat who. Minnesota1 19:34, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. In fact, I moved the countries and standings above the individual flight results since those accumulated results pressed the more informational summary information too far down the article. A tabular summary of the Round Robin results, perhaps with a separate article for the individual results? I think the Louis Vuitton page of the America's Cup web site, itself, has the best model for a single table like you're suggesting. See the America's Cup website - Thaimoss 21:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same here but It will be an easy job to move the results in a new page and just put the table like on America's cup Web Site, for each robin round.--Dionysostom 15:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Work has been done to make the results more readable plus additional narrative. 148.87.1.170 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+39 Challenge has been nominated for deletion. Someone with more knowledge should take a look at it and make the notability clear. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subsequent vote re Keep versus Delete was to keep the article 148.87.1.170 11:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The score column in the table[edit]

The score column after todays race reads 0-1 but when you compare it to the rest of the line for the first race NZ was team 1 and Italy was team 2 so it seems to read as though Italy won. Is the score column always going to consider Italy as the first score and New Zealand as the second because Italy won the coin toss? Or is it going to switch each race to match the way the yachts are listed in the first two columns? I am sure that this makes sense to the editor who created it and to those who follow yachting regattas all the time, but, I feel that I am not the only one (though I could be wrong - I have been before) who finds it a little confusing. Perhaps a brief note could be added explaining how this column is to be read in relation to the rest of the table. Thanks ahead of time to any editor that can help.MarnetteD | Talk 18:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I scanned down the page I found the answer to my question in the semifinals table so I am altering the entry made for todays race based on the fact that the semis table listed it by team 1 v team 2 and switched depending on which yacht was which. It is still slightly confusing to the novice. Enjoy the next few weeks of racing.MarnetteD | Talk 19:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it was my stupid error in entering the result the wrong way round. Boatman 21:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates[edit]

Hey Guys, Added some templates to the team pages - hope you like. Mattlore 03:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

rename page Louis Vuitton Cup 2007 -> 2007 Louis Vuitton Cup[edit]

I propose to put the year first, rather than last, in the article title. 132.205.44.5 23:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The article itself says "2007 Louis Vuitton Cup". E ddie 01:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]