![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I have heard that Toronto will be a host city, at BMO field. That comes directly from Kevin Pipe, at a press conference last year. However, I think it's much more likely that the USA and Canada will co-host. -- Scaryice 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess Kevin Pipe doesn't know what he's talking about. Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.149.144.34 ( talk) 02:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the flag of Guadeloupe to the French flag since Guadeloupe is a French colony. The local flag is unofficial and here WP we have to be neutral and attempt to be precise. Brudder Andrusha ( talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Local flag for the Guadeloupe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.28.36 ( talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
--:In football terms, Guadeloupe use their own flag. For national teams, France's flag represents one team - France. This isn't a list of countries/governments but rather football teams. They represent the island, they should have the island's flag. Would Puerto Rico use the American flag on wiki articles about Caribbean World Cup qualifying? themodelcitizen ( talk) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine. Choose the flag you think is right. It will almost certainly be the tricolor, which I still disagree with, but since no one seems willing to respect the previous consensus, and since that is the basis for my main argument, there doesn't seem to be much point continuing the discussion...especially when I'd just be giving Brudder an excuse to continue displaying his lack of observational and critical thinking skills. Sorry to deprive you all of THAT entertainment... --
74.192.30.231 (
talk)
01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume that the flags are brought out and the anthems played before the games. Has anyone checked to see what flag they used at the games for the anthems? That is the flag that should be used on this page. Aardhart ( talk) 04:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else find User:74.192.30.231's style of argument, insistence, rudeness to other contributors, and failure to distinguish between his opinion and the concept of consensus curiously familiar to those who have had dealing with one Grant Alpaugh? Just wondering.... Kevin McE ( talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please use the local flag. For instance, when the Faeroe Islands compete, they use their local flag, not the Danish flag. Same principle here. ALSO, I have seen an image (which I have to dig up on the internet) where Guadeloupe held the convention for the Caribbean Football Union and the backdrop was the huge local flag of Guadeloupe, not the French flag. The supporters also wave the local flag. French flag looks incredibly awkward for a tournament in the Americas. Thanks for listening. AngeliqueGarneau ( talk) 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Since all of the games are going to be played in the United States, might I suggest that we express all of the times in terms of Eastern Daylight Time? That's easier to read for everybody (wherever you live) than expressing everything in terms of local time and being forced to perform a time conversion for some of the games and not for others. MrArticleOne ( talk) 06:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed but don't want to change myself Nlsanand ( talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The times for the semifinals on the current page are wrong, so I'm going to fix them. They are listed as "19:00 UTC-5" and "22:00 UTC-5", whereas they should be either "19:00 UTC-4" and "22:00 UTC-4" or "18:00 UTC-5" and "21:00 UTC-5". For consistency with the rest of the page, I'm going to stay with local time, rather than Eastern Daylight Time, but don't let that stop anyone from changing the whole page (and the Group Stage page) to all be in Eastern Daylight Time instead. Incremental Improvements ( talk) 15:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Group rankings next to the teams in this article is unnecessary, and is rather unclear as to what it means in the form it's being added in. Apstockholm ( talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Undoubtedly this will be relevant in due time, but at this stage (each team has played one match) it is entirely meaningless. We do not know who will occupy the third spots (at this moment, every team is a potential occupier), how many points they will amass in doing so (could be anything from 1 to 4). Remove, and return when it has some meaning; I would suggest after the games on 10th July, when the target for groups B and C will have been set. Kevin McE ( talk) 06:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, are we inserting scenarios for this or no? I would like a group consensus. it is used to be articles put scenarios prior to final matchday. However, there seems to have been elimination of the previosuly agreed consensus that they should be inserted. This was basically by some dillholes who kept reverting it, despite a convention to include them. By the time the edit war was finished, there was no need to keep the scenarios. I would prefer to insert them as it provides timely information on the tournament, but will leave this open til tomorrow, and will insert depending on the reactions we see here. Nlsanand ( talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, I don't think we need to repeat that a team has qualified when this would already be indicated in the table. Nlsanand ( talk) 04:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone confirm the tiebreak criteria? I used the 2007 one, but I haven't been able to source a new tiebreaker. Would like confirmation if possible. I really want to avoid not having that info in the article, as everyone must realize that it will eventually be important. Nlsanand ( talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if one team in a three-way tie is eliminated, do the other two start over from the beginning or do they continue from whatever tiebreaker eliminated the previous team? It could make a difference if Jamaica wins 1-0 and Costa Rica loses 2-1 to Canada; in the three-way tie for second Jamaica would be eliminated on head-to-head goals scored. If the two remaining teams start over, El Salvador would get second on head-to-head; if not, Costa Rica would get second on overall goals scored. The regulations cited above aren't clear on this point. PiGuy314 ( talk) 04:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
By my math, if MEX defeats PAN this evening, CAN and USA can be shaded as having clinched Quarterfinal berths; in that case, CAN and USA could do no worse than falling into 3rd place in their respective groups on tiebreakers in a 3-way tie at 6 points, and the 3rd-place team from Group C would have no more than 3 points (winner of PAN/NCA). MrArticleOne ( talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please remember WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTOPINION. In other words, I don't care about how awful Mexican fans supposedly are, or whether or not Aguirre was actually trying to stop the ball, or how Panama was supposedly wasting time, except as those topics are relevant to the article. The question is, should there be a section for the Mexico-Panama controversy? It's not every day a manager gets sent off, and this article on the Gold Cup website indicates that the disciplinary committee will be getting involved. Kingnavland ( talk) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Is there an example somewhere that I could look at? Kingnavland ( talk) 19:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's where teams will finish within Groups B and C, assuming I understand the tiebreakers correctly:
Group B:
Note that Haiti are guaranteed a top-three spot, so all they have to do to qualify is avoid a three-goal loss (so they stay ahead of Jamaica).
Group C:
This should help with figuring out scenarios, which I'm working on in more detail at the moment. PiGuy314 ( talk) 05:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
For now, I'm not including scenarios for Group B or C that are dependent on results in the other one on the main page (too complicated). But here they are, in case consensus is to include them: Group B:
Group C:
PiGuy314 ( talk) 06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Dude, learn math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.33.71 ( talk) 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to make .svg images of the starting lineups a la UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 11:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
[bangs head on table] --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Readers are invited to check out the game reports. My response is, "What the !@#$%%^&* ?" First, if you use Firefox and deploy cookie control, you'll notice that it takes approximately 13 cookie transactions for the report to appear. Beautiful. The report form is confusing and difficult to navigate. This is unnecessary. The standard FIFA game reports are more than adequate, they're the best sports reports in existence. Warning: from here on this post is speculation, and not friendly speculation. This report smells like it's connected to Jack Carter--it's symptomatic and it doesn't smell good. Did CONCACAF pay too much $ to someone connected to Carter to program this inferior game report? If so it's typical. How did a sleazy entrepreneur from a small economy of our zone get control of our regional soccer confederation? Why doesn't someone get in Uebermandarin Blatter's face and say enough? Tapered ( talk) 04:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
....okay. Apstockholm ( talk) 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Will there not be a match between Honduras and Costa Rica for third place? If so why do they not play third place matches anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.133.49 ( talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does it say this is Mexico's eighth title? This is the fifth time they won the CONCACAF Gold Cup. I'm going to correct that. Someone please respond to me explaining why it's the eighth title if you care to change it back. 72.219.227.230 ( talk) 11:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but the sentence originally stated that Mexico won its fifth Gold Cup, and eighth overall. Grammatically the sentence is ambiguous as it indicated that they had won five titles AND eight titles. I made a slight edit to the sentence to read that "Mexico won its fifth Gold Cup and eight overall CONCACAF Championship." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.42.247 ( talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Reliant stadium houston.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 CONCACAF Gold 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on 2009 CONCACAF Gold 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
I have heard that Toronto will be a host city, at BMO field. That comes directly from Kevin Pipe, at a press conference last year. However, I think it's much more likely that the USA and Canada will co-host. -- Scaryice 03:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess Kevin Pipe doesn't know what he's talking about. Sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.149.144.34 ( talk) 02:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reverted the flag of Guadeloupe to the French flag since Guadeloupe is a French colony. The local flag is unofficial and here WP we have to be neutral and attempt to be precise. Brudder Andrusha ( talk) 01:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Local flag for the Guadeloupe! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.187.28.36 ( talk) 16:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
--:In football terms, Guadeloupe use their own flag. For national teams, France's flag represents one team - France. This isn't a list of countries/governments but rather football teams. They represent the island, they should have the island's flag. Would Puerto Rico use the American flag on wiki articles about Caribbean World Cup qualifying? themodelcitizen ( talk) 04:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Fine. Choose the flag you think is right. It will almost certainly be the tricolor, which I still disagree with, but since no one seems willing to respect the previous consensus, and since that is the basis for my main argument, there doesn't seem to be much point continuing the discussion...especially when I'd just be giving Brudder an excuse to continue displaying his lack of observational and critical thinking skills. Sorry to deprive you all of THAT entertainment... --
74.192.30.231 (
talk)
01:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I assume that the flags are brought out and the anthems played before the games. Has anyone checked to see what flag they used at the games for the anthems? That is the flag that should be used on this page. Aardhart ( talk) 04:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone else find User:74.192.30.231's style of argument, insistence, rudeness to other contributors, and failure to distinguish between his opinion and the concept of consensus curiously familiar to those who have had dealing with one Grant Alpaugh? Just wondering.... Kevin McE ( talk) 06:22, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please use the local flag. For instance, when the Faeroe Islands compete, they use their local flag, not the Danish flag. Same principle here. ALSO, I have seen an image (which I have to dig up on the internet) where Guadeloupe held the convention for the Caribbean Football Union and the backdrop was the huge local flag of Guadeloupe, not the French flag. The supporters also wave the local flag. French flag looks incredibly awkward for a tournament in the Americas. Thanks for listening. AngeliqueGarneau ( talk) 14:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Since all of the games are going to be played in the United States, might I suggest that we express all of the times in terms of Eastern Daylight Time? That's easier to read for everybody (wherever you live) than expressing everything in terms of local time and being forced to perform a time conversion for some of the games and not for others. MrArticleOne ( talk) 06:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Agreed but don't want to change myself Nlsanand ( talk) 23:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
The times for the semifinals on the current page are wrong, so I'm going to fix them. They are listed as "19:00 UTC-5" and "22:00 UTC-5", whereas they should be either "19:00 UTC-4" and "22:00 UTC-4" or "18:00 UTC-5" and "21:00 UTC-5". For consistency with the rest of the page, I'm going to stay with local time, rather than Eastern Daylight Time, but don't let that stop anyone from changing the whole page (and the Group Stage page) to all be in Eastern Daylight Time instead. Incremental Improvements ( talk) 15:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Group rankings next to the teams in this article is unnecessary, and is rather unclear as to what it means in the form it's being added in. Apstockholm ( talk) 02:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Undoubtedly this will be relevant in due time, but at this stage (each team has played one match) it is entirely meaningless. We do not know who will occupy the third spots (at this moment, every team is a potential occupier), how many points they will amass in doing so (could be anything from 1 to 4). Remove, and return when it has some meaning; I would suggest after the games on 10th July, when the target for groups B and C will have been set. Kevin McE ( talk) 06:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay, are we inserting scenarios for this or no? I would like a group consensus. it is used to be articles put scenarios prior to final matchday. However, there seems to have been elimination of the previosuly agreed consensus that they should be inserted. This was basically by some dillholes who kept reverting it, despite a convention to include them. By the time the edit war was finished, there was no need to keep the scenarios. I would prefer to insert them as it provides timely information on the tournament, but will leave this open til tomorrow, and will insert depending on the reactions we see here. Nlsanand ( talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Hey guys, I don't think we need to repeat that a team has qualified when this would already be indicated in the table. Nlsanand ( talk) 04:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Can someone confirm the tiebreak criteria? I used the 2007 one, but I haven't been able to source a new tiebreaker. Would like confirmation if possible. I really want to avoid not having that info in the article, as everyone must realize that it will eventually be important. Nlsanand ( talk) 23:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, if one team in a three-way tie is eliminated, do the other two start over from the beginning or do they continue from whatever tiebreaker eliminated the previous team? It could make a difference if Jamaica wins 1-0 and Costa Rica loses 2-1 to Canada; in the three-way tie for second Jamaica would be eliminated on head-to-head goals scored. If the two remaining teams start over, El Salvador would get second on head-to-head; if not, Costa Rica would get second on overall goals scored. The regulations cited above aren't clear on this point. PiGuy314 ( talk) 04:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
By my math, if MEX defeats PAN this evening, CAN and USA can be shaded as having clinched Quarterfinal berths; in that case, CAN and USA could do no worse than falling into 3rd place in their respective groups on tiebreakers in a 3-way tie at 6 points, and the 3rd-place team from Group C would have no more than 3 points (winner of PAN/NCA). MrArticleOne ( talk) 02:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Please remember WP:NOTFORUM and WP:NOTOPINION. In other words, I don't care about how awful Mexican fans supposedly are, or whether or not Aguirre was actually trying to stop the ball, or how Panama was supposedly wasting time, except as those topics are relevant to the article. The question is, should there be a section for the Mexico-Panama controversy? It's not every day a manager gets sent off, and this article on the Gold Cup website indicates that the disciplinary committee will be getting involved. Kingnavland ( talk) 03:40, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Is there an example somewhere that I could look at? Kingnavland ( talk) 19:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Here's where teams will finish within Groups B and C, assuming I understand the tiebreakers correctly:
Group B:
Note that Haiti are guaranteed a top-three spot, so all they have to do to qualify is avoid a three-goal loss (so they stay ahead of Jamaica).
Group C:
This should help with figuring out scenarios, which I'm working on in more detail at the moment. PiGuy314 ( talk) 05:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
For now, I'm not including scenarios for Group B or C that are dependent on results in the other one on the main page (too complicated). But here they are, in case consensus is to include them: Group B:
Group C:
PiGuy314 ( talk) 06:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Dude, learn math. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.33.71 ( talk) 01:45, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone know how to make .svg images of the starting lineups a la UEFA Euro 2008 knockout stage? JohnnyPolo24 ( talk) 11:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
[bangs head on table] --hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 02:10, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Readers are invited to check out the game reports. My response is, "What the !@#$%%^&* ?" First, if you use Firefox and deploy cookie control, you'll notice that it takes approximately 13 cookie transactions for the report to appear. Beautiful. The report form is confusing and difficult to navigate. This is unnecessary. The standard FIFA game reports are more than adequate, they're the best sports reports in existence. Warning: from here on this post is speculation, and not friendly speculation. This report smells like it's connected to Jack Carter--it's symptomatic and it doesn't smell good. Did CONCACAF pay too much $ to someone connected to Carter to program this inferior game report? If so it's typical. How did a sleazy entrepreneur from a small economy of our zone get control of our regional soccer confederation? Why doesn't someone get in Uebermandarin Blatter's face and say enough? Tapered ( talk) 04:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
....okay. Apstockholm ( talk) 21:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Will there not be a match between Honduras and Costa Rica for third place? If so why do they not play third place matches anymore? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.133.49 ( talk) 16:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
Why does it say this is Mexico's eighth title? This is the fifth time they won the CONCACAF Gold Cup. I'm going to correct that. Someone please respond to me explaining why it's the eighth title if you care to change it back. 72.219.227.230 ( talk) 11:21, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but the sentence originally stated that Mexico won its fifth Gold Cup, and eighth overall. Grammatically the sentence is ambiguous as it indicated that they had won five titles AND eight titles. I made a slight edit to the sentence to read that "Mexico won its fifth Gold Cup and eight overall CONCACAF Championship." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.42.247 ( talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Reliant stadium houston.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 17:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on 2009 CONCACAF Gold 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on 2009 CONCACAF Gold 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)