Talk:2012 U.S. Open Cup

Football: American & Canadian / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the American and Canadian soccer task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

First 2 rounds

I'm starting on the bracket if someone else wants to start filling in the match info. http://thecup.us/2012-us-open-cup-first-round-matches-unveiled-for-may-15-second-round-pairings-set/ --Trödel 21:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There was already a bracket for the whole tournament set up. What happened to that? Mtndrums (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bracket didn't look good even on large screens (and was not good on 1000px width screens) because of the team name wrapping. So I split it into two. It was proposed that we not have a bracket for the first three rounds since the bracket conveyed no additional information - the brackets still exist see {{64TeamBracketw7rounds}} for the full bracket and {{2012U.S.OpenCupBracket}} for the first three rounds. See comments re the change history. --Trödel 00:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI - There is a full bracket available here. --Trödel 17:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason the bracket was split in the past years was because designing a 40-team bracket was a near-impossibility. Secondly, who propsed having no brackets for the first three rounds? I sure don't see that anywhere on here. And conveyed no additional information? Considering that new teams enter in each of the first three rounds this year, I would say that is new information (especially if the adherence to home teams being on top is followed). Fixing the word wrapping is no problem, all you have to do is split the team info that isn't wrapped by adding a break. You also need to look at past years' OC pages to see how everything's laid out for consistency. putting a bracket in the middle of the box scores definitely does not fit that goal. THIS is why you need to bring things up in the talk section before making wholesale changes, because it usually ends up meaning a lot more editing for other people to fix the consistency, and I'm usually not too happy when I'm the one having to do it. Mtndrums (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify - I didn't make the changes but was trying to explain how they happened. See [1] for my proposed formatting] after there were objections to my abbreviations that I used here. --Trödel 21:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC) PS Also here was the discussion of the changes --Trödel 21:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency is good. However, you cannot compare this years to last year as the tournament has had major changes. The bracket having all 7 rounds across one screen was crowded even with team only in the 1st two rounds. With team names eventually added to the later 5 rounds, the bracket would have been insane. The bracket was then split by someone and that left the 1st three rounds with the straight across brackets. It was big and bulky still and doesn't really add anything to the page. I personally feel the current page is well organized and easier to follow then the page was a week or so ago. The format of the qualified teams is also different from last years page (last year was just a long list, this year a nice easy to read chart) - This is inconsistent with last years page but is a major improvement. If we keep the first three round bracket off, I think the current set up is easier to read. I reccomend leaving the layout alone. As I said, the tournament has changed, this is when it is easy to make changes to the formatting.Chris1834 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What does the changes in the tournament have to do with the layout? Nothing. The point is to have the page laid out similarly to the other Open Cup tournament pages. The only change needed was to the qualifying format, and that's still in the same place, just in a chart because of the number of teams and that the different levels now come in different rounds. The consistency NEEDS to be similar to other years, this was determined long before this year. Now, if you want to go ahead and change every other year to be similar to this one, then by all means, go ahead and change everything from 1995 on. I have to disagree with leaving the early round brackets off, because 1) that would mean cutting off the other brackets from previous years, and 2) the bracket maintains the flow as to who plays what. Without it, it's just going to look like random choosings of who plays who, instead of linear progression of the tournament. Also, you forget the point is not to make it easy for formatting, but easy for others to follow who aren't involved with the sport OR with formatting. If you want to split the brackets, fine, but the early round brackets need to be there (now if you want to design a cascading bracket for the first three rounds and use that repeatedly instead, that's fine), and the later bracket needs to be out of the box scores entirely, because it breaks up the flow of that section. The other alternative would be to entirely redesign the other 17 years of pro-era pages, which if you have that much free time go ahead, but I will warn you that it will take a lot of time and editing to accomplish. Mtndrums (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The most important thing is readability, simplicity, and accessibility to readers seeking the information. While I agree that in general we should try to be consistent for similar events, there is no reason or rule that they must be consistent. If the editors on this talk page reach consensus then that is good enough - if someone wants to go back and redo previous years, good for them, but there is no requirement that this must be done. --Trödel 11:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And therin lies the problem. The consensus was established years ago by the people who have been working on the project for years. Consensus does not mean coming in and changing everything to what *you* think it should be, which is pretty much what you did, if you go back and look at what has been done before. Mtndrums (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like consistency but that 60+ bracket was not easy to read or update. If you look at other articles like 2011–12 Copa del Rey, the bracket is not used until the Round of 32. La Fuzion (What's up?) 14:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you read above, I had already said that the brackets could be broken up, but that all of the bracket info needed to be there, whether in one bracket or split between brackets for the initial rounds, then a final 16 round bracket, and also needed to be above the box scores (not within them). Also, considering how different the Copa Del Rey is run compared to the Open Cup (we don't have a draw from pots, and obviously have geographical considerations), that's not particularly a viable comparison. Mtndrums (talk) 23:46, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Score Boxes

Just a reminder (as is posted right before the schedule) that the competition follows the American Standard of scoring where the visiting team is listed first and home team second, not European Standard. Mtndrums (talk) 00:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that. Is there a standard for the brackets - I have been being consistent with home team first for the brackets since that is what it started as. --Trödel 12:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Top Scorers Section is Incorrect

I couldn't help but notice that Freddy Adu is listed as having scored 4 times, where his team has only 3 goals in the entire tournament. I didn't check if there were any other errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.149.29 (talk) 02:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home team first

The "U.S. Convention" of listing the home team second doesn't really apply to soccer any more. Box scores for baseball, football, basketball and hockey still work that way, but soccer is different. I think Wikipedia reports on soccer matches for any domestic events should follow the template of the top tier in the United States. MLSSoccer.com lists the home team first. So should the Lamar Hunt U.S. Open.

? Mtndrums (talk) 22:22, 6 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeff kuta (talk • contribs) [reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. 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/20130516075122/http://www.ussoccer.com/news/lamar-hunt-u-s-open-cup/2012/01/2012-open-cup.aspx to http://www.ussoccer.com/News/Lamar-Hunt-U-S-Open-Cup/2012/01/2012-Open-Cup.aspx

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on 2012 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 16:37, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]