Talk:2015 Copa América

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change of avenue[edit]

The 2015 Copa América will be held in Chile. More info in: http://redgol.cl/2012/3/chile-sera-sede-de-la-copa-america-2015/ --201.246.171.63 (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Japan[edit]

Didnt CONMEBOL confirm that Japan is participating in 2015 when they withdrew in 2011???--Cheetah255 (talk) 23:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TV Broadcasting rights for Czech Republic and Slovakia[edit]

Broadcasting rights for Czech Republic and Slovakia http://www.sport1tv.cz/Zpravy/cs-CZ/2015/06/11/Fotbal-CopaAmerica-OV

|  Czech Republic | Sport 1/2 | |-


|  Slovakia | Sport 1/2 | |-


Thaischumi (talk) 00:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stickee (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table format (officials)[edit]

The table format was based in below articles:

Is more accurate and don't make confusion between the referees and the countries ( El Salvador, Jamaica). Why revert the older version of the referees table? --IM-yb (talk) 23:08, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@IM-yb I see what you mean. I put in the table thinking it was the accepted format since it was that way on the 2015 AFC Asian Cup page. Right now, there seems to be no difference between our tables, except that mine identifies countries w/flags and yours identifies countries w/lettering. I think it depends what other users would rather use as a table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teddy5288 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 AFC Asian Cup has not referee and assistant referees from other countries. All the triplets are from the same countries. 2015 Copa América has referees from the CONMEBOL and CONCACAF. That not referenced. This format ( El Salvador, Jamaica) flag with letters and flag without letters, i never seen before, in other similar articles. --IM-yb (talk) 22:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2015[edit]

Peru-Venezuela it's not on 19 June, but 18. 186.50.87.42 (talk) 22:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to reliable sources and you maintain a neutral point of view - Arjayay (talk) 19:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Qualify for the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup[edit]

I suggest that:

change that:

  • The winner of the tournament, or the best placed CONMEBOL team if Mexico or Jamaica win the tournament, will qualify for the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup.

with that:

  • The best placed CONMEBOL team, will qualify for the 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup.

To avoid confusion. --IM-yb (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When Jamaica are inevitably eliminated, we can change this to a much simpler "the winner". '''tAD''' (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discipline[edit]

The discipline chart is treated as indicating current suspensions. Doesn't this fail WP:NOTNEWS, and it will be relevant from the end of the tournament until the end of civilisation? Surely it should indicate every suspension made in the tournament, and if that gets too long, make it a new article '''tAD''' (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Group C[edit]

Why is Brazil ranked above Peru and why is Venezuela ranked above Columbia since they are tied in every respect? 108.162.157.141 (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because Braziol won against Peru and Venezuela won against Colombia. Qed237 (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

Although both Argentina and the UK claim the Falkland Islands/Islas Malvinas as their territorry and both might have good arguments for or against a claim (I don't want to raise a discussion about that, god beware!), the islands internationally are seen as a part of the UK, which is why the map should be changed (there, they are not grey but blue, as a part of Argentina). Please, leave politics out of a football event! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:34D7:D140:6899:546F:A345:D326 (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it was updated in the time between you and I seeing it, but they look grey to me. Thanks for your concern, good to keep neutrality '''tAD''' (talk) 00:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it has been changed now. Thanks! --2A02:1205:34D7:D140:5856:D442:15AB:900E (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ecuador aren't out yet![edit]

According to the regulations, if Brazil lose to Venezuela by three goals or more, they exit, not Ecuador! '''tAD''' (talk) 21:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, lets just wait until the match of BRA vs. COL finishes and lets then put the info. --TL22 (talk) 21:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, how? If Brazil lose they are last and Venezuela win the group. Ecuador is eliminated no matter what! The Replicator (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Third placed team in group C will have at least 4 points so Ecuador is out. Qed237 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The Replicator (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I knew I chose right by not continuing maths past 16 '''tAD''' (talk) 01:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Match Report external links[edit]

This is always the problem on wikipedia, you click to go to match reports for a tournament more than 5 years old and you get a 404 error. Try looking at match reports for this tournament for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_UEFA_European_Under-21_Championship

Now, for this tournament, we have URLs like this:

http://estadisticas.conmebol.com/html/v3/index.html?channel=deportes.futbol.copaamerica.215747&lang=es_LA&theme=copaamerica

Now, you see that URL still working in 5 years' time? No, neither do I. As someone more important than me said, "Cool URLs always work". That URL above is a great example of a URL that will break the next time that site (over which wikipedia has no control) decides to change their "site policies". Match reports should always be linked to sites that have sensible policies that mean URLs are available even decades later. e.g. BBC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.175.198 (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, ALL the match reports for the 2011 Copa America are already giving 404 errors, for example this is the final:
http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99089.html
Fantastic. My prediction is that the 2015 ones will all 404 in 12-18 months' time. What is the point of doing this? I think wikipedia policy should change on match reports and use stable news sites and not stick to a policy of using official federation sites that change their URL structure every 2 years.

[edit]

About the logo, the ball should be slightly higher like this image. --IM-yb (talk) 10:23, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2015[edit]

NOT MENTIONED that Messi refused to accept the BEST PLAYER of the tournament . 116.203.72.78 (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done that was an unofficial media report, as stated here, not an official statement - Arjayay (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament table[edit]

The Almightey Drill, so if a source says Team XYZ won 2 games in group stage and a game a piece in the group 16 and quarter-finals, we need a source that says they had 4 wins in the tournament? How do you think most of these goals are determined per footybio? We take sources that say he has X amount of goals and another that says X amount of goals in following year, and commuting this is original work? Please. Show me where this is original research. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research that you organise the teams in this way. Does CONMEBOL do so? Do they have an official release with the teams in this order? Why was there a 3rd/4th playoff if the places are sorted this way? Uruguay, Bolivia, Colombia and Brazil reached the quarter-finals, there is no way in which they have been ordered for any to be in any position higher than the other. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Almightey Drill it actually doesn't state that Uruguay, Bolivia, Colombia or Brazil came in ANY placement. It states their result was "Eliminated in Quarter-finals". Regards to the position, they have to be sorted in some type of way and by the rules, this is how they are sorted. Chase (talk) 22:24, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay true to a certain extent. Paraguay for example has less points than Brazil but is in fourth place, why because they went further in the tournament so far as to losing in a third place match. Even if there wasn't a third place match, the points would automatically determine it.
In this year's Copa América Centenario, if there was no third place match, as far as points are concerned, the US would have been in third, not Colombia who was able to do so with winning the third place match.
We need a source to mention a team coming in third place? Each group had a point system carrying on into elimination. If this is the case then ALL of our tables on each national team page is a no-no. These were all tallied up. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know they were sorted in this way? Show me when CONMEBOL said this. You made up this yourself, no competition organises quarter-finals into an order. This is the very definition of original research. '''tAD''' (talk) 22:29, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is on YOU to prove that CONMEBOL rank the teams this way. Not for me to put up a maintenance tag for someone to find references for something that doesn't exist. If you are so zealous, you will search for the elusive references that teams are given points for their performances in knockout rounds '''tAD''' (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Tiebreakers will first be decided on goal difference, which is the number of goals a team scores subtracted by the number they allow. The second tiebreaker will be is goals scored. The third will be head-to-head results. And if still tied then lots will be drawn. " [1] Chase (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These are the tiebreakers for groups in the first round, this rule has nothing to do with a final ranking!--84.138.43.189 (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Almightey Drill is completely right in his assertion that this is WP:OR. What needs sourcing is firstly that there is an official ranking system that ranks all competing teams. The source given by chase above clearly relates solely to individual group standings not the tournament as a whole and is the standard method of determining qualifiers for the next phase of competition. Secondly what needs sourcing as well is the notion that there was an official points system to determine the ranking tthroughoutthe whole competition.

What is more frustrating is that this was added back after two editors removed it for long term absence of sourcing. WP:BURDEN is a fundamental policy of enwiki. Content that has been challenged and removed should not be added back without a reliable source. It seems clear to me that there are reasonable grounds to doubt there is any official ranking for the tournament like this. It should not have been added back. As such Ihave removed it until such sources are found. Any editor who continues to engage in this edit war without providing a source will be blocked. Fenix down (talk) 06:21, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fenix down, in that case WP:BURDEN could then be applied to every national team's page in the competition record section. How do we then determine best results in this competition? Do we not tally up points and determine placement? Example: Brazil national football team. Someone has determined that they came in 9th place in the competition, obviously based on this point system set up in group stage. So you mean to tell me that we can determine placement on individual team pages and we cannot determine the same rank on the competition's main page. Are you serious?
All 12 teams, have both placement and points tallied up from this competiton (which you are saying is WP:BURDEN) on their respective pages, yet they are not being removed. I am completely floored by the logic. Absolutely floored. Pandora's box is now opened. Savvyjack23 (talk) 06:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are you talking about? All that is being asked is you provide a source which shows that CONMEBOL officiailly rank teams like this. Where is the evidence that there is any form of official "points tally" outside of the group stages? If this table is not OR then the table should exist elsewhere in another source. Where is this table reproduced in reliable sources? How this, then use that source in the article. This is simple referencing, I fail to see how you don't grasp this. You are right, where editors have claimed a placing where there is no specific match to determine that placing then a source needs to be provided to confirm that placing. For example, why would Jamaica be ranked below Mexico? yes they got fewer points but they played completely different matches in a completely different groups. their results are simply not comparable. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What I am talking about is: Chile is placed 1st, Argentina 2nd, Peru 3rd, Paraguay 4th ..... Mexico 11th, Jamaica 12th on their respective pages etc. That's what I am talking about. These aren't sourced either, these were tallied and determined by an editor based on the group stage point system. The "unsourced" section we are removing here is the same information given on these pages, just not in one big table. That's my point Fenix down. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, they have been tallied by an editor, they are therefore not official and are therefore OR. We seem to be going round in circles here, but I will reiterate what needs sourcing in this:
  1. The positions - where is it officially recorded that Jamaica finished last?
  2. The point tallies after the group stage, where are these officially noted.
As you can see here if you click on the "Teams" and then "Games" link there is a clear listing where CONCACAF have awarded points throughout the competition and so the table here is perfectly valid as a copy of an official record. What is not acceptable is for another editor to assume the same logic and create a table for historic competitions.
The question to you is: can you provide a source similar to that used in this years competition? If so, please do so and add back the table. If not, then it is OR and should be left out. Simple. Fenix down (talk) 07:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We aren't going around in circles, I fully understand your position that a source should be provided for the table. However, what CCamp2013 is saying is that we don't actually say so and so was in 11th or 12th place. We simply have a list based on results and include Eliminated in Quarterfinals etc. all based on the results that have been sourced with the top four being official. (First place, second place, third place, and fourth place mentioned). It just so happens that we tally them up and have them in numerical order based on GF, GA, which like I said we do throughout every individual national team page under competitive record that are also theoretically unsourced. So the argument for WP:BURDEN would be the same for these pages also. Do you not agree that this is also tallied by an editor? : Mexico national football team#Competitive record#Copa América. 11th place has been tallied on their page, while the same rhetoric is in countless other places. To say we can't bunch them up into one table that doesn't even specifically mention placement past fourth place just doesn't make sense to me. Please reread my argument need be. We are applying a double standard, that's my issue. Savvyjack23 (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just provide a source for your argument, that's all we ask you for!--84.138.43.189 (talk) 08:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:5F:3E0B:EF4E:E43E:5271:48BC:6404 (talk) [reply]
Exactly, there is no double standard. You have provided no evidence that there is either an official ranking given for every team, nor an official points tally given for total progress not just the group stage, unlike this year's competition where there is a clear, reliable source. The fact that rankings are shown on other national team pages is irrelevant, if they cannot be sourced they should be removed. Fenix down (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so we do have a reliable source for this year's competition? Please inform the sockpuppet who apparently has infinite IP addresses because he also believes that this doesn't count towards a second title for Chile.
So placements for this (2015) competition will be removed via WP:BURDEN on each national team page if a source cannot be found to satisfy this article. With that being said, I have to wonder how much more WP:OR placements there are in terms of World Cup etc. Savvyjack23 (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CONMEBOL don't count the Copa América Centenario as a normal Copa America, that is what you do not understand. "in terms of World Cup" that shows you have no idea, FIFA has a rule for placing teams in the World Cup.--2003:5F:3E0B:EF4E:E43E:5271:48BC:6404 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was saying for instance. By the way, how many accounts is this now? The previous three blocks weren't enough? Besides you have yet to provide a significant source. Savvyjack23 (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
<Reduced indent> I agree that this practice needs to be ended for tournaments other than the World Cup, where FIFA do rank teams 1-32 (and I believe have produced retrospective rankings for previous competitions). I suggest extending the thread at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football for a longer discussion on this assessment, however, as it clearly involves more than just the Copa. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Nintendo Chalmers: I agree wholeheartedly.
Yep, that makes sense. I agree also. Savvyjack23 (talk) 22:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015 Copa América. 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: 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) 22:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 Copa América. 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: 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) 06:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago?[edit]

These islands are marked on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.109.49.82 (talk) 13:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Messi: Best Player of the Tournament[edit]

Messi was awarded best player but didn’t accept it, shouldn’t I say this in the article but include he personally rejected it despite being given to him Francis1077 (talk) 23:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Francis1077: Is there a source from CONMEBOL confirming this? S.A. Julio (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There’s videos of him rejecting and articles about it by Marca newspaper and the telegraph Francis1077 (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the CONMEBOL source I see in the article does not list a player of the tournament award, so it is better to leave this empty in the infobox, the explanation in prose under the awards section suffices. S.A. Julio (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And “El Pais” it was the first and only Copa America without a MVP Francis1077 (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_Copa_América&oldid=1196683867"