![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I'm not sure about three changes in the mens current ranking. Firstly, Slovakia who are placed 9th have scored from 2620 to 2635. Secondly, France currently ranked 14th have scored of 2325 from 2340. And thirdly, Azerbaijan are new to the mens world ranking in 47th with a score of 160 points. Can someone give me proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.134.168 ( talk) 13:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wonder, whether formula for ranking calculation should be provided. In my opinion it should. Exuwon ( talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The latest ranking I can find at IIHF's homepage is this one [1]. If there's a newer official ranking we should of course use it, but otherwise we should go with the official one. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone's started adding the results from the Olympics, and calculating a 2014 'post Olympic' rating. I too find that interesting, but at this point I'm not sure it's useful for those visiting this page. The 2014 world championships seeding is based on last year's ranking, and the 2015 world championship seeding will be based on the ranking after this year's world championships are complete.
If we want to show what next year's ranking should be, we need to add a column for 2014 world championship (and fill in 'least values' there for starters), and, of course, remove 2010 world championship and reduce the value of 2011-2013 championships by 25 percentage points each.
I'm not sure it's worth doing at this point though, I think most people checking this page are more interested in last year's ranking than a tentative ranking for next year.
Note that there's a major difference between men's and women's ranking on this because the top division for women isn't playing world championships this year - so the "post olympic" ranking is in effect the 2014 ranking.
If we really want to add early values for next year, we need to give it a major rehaul anyway, since as it stands, the numbers listed are (majorly) flawed since the values of previous years' results haven't been reduced, and the importance of the upcoming world championship isn't shown. -- Lejman ( talk) 19:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That's all there is to it in the title. IIHF lists a 2010 post-olympics ranking, and 2010 ranking (presumably post-WC). To exclude this period is incorrect, as it is a time where Canada was ranked 1st overall, Russia 2nd. The same issue will happen this year as rankings will change twice (after Olympics and again after WC). 70.73.141.146 ( talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The women's ranking should include the 2014 world championships, it has apparently been out of date here since april. 18abruce ( talk) 21:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I find the recalculation of the World Ranking while the event is still ongoing a questionable practice, since it doesn't reflect what the current ranking actually is. Nevertheless, it is interesting information. In any event: the value given for Czech Republic is just wrong. By my math, their score should be 3210, not 3300. MrArticleOne ( talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
We're starting to run out of room on the previous years' rankings. Should we either:
And we'll just have to move a year from chart to chart each year. - JamesyWamesy ( talk) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I recommend that we do not do a 2018 table (or modify past results) until the IIHF produces their "pre-tournament" ranking leading up to the olympics. The question of how they will modify the 2014 women's results is still unresolved, and it would be better to know for sure what they will do. Additionally it should be noted that they maintain that Russia is competing in men's and women's, and rene fasel has numerous times voiced his disagreement with how the IOC is handling the issue of russian participation. That implies that the IIHF will not modify their 2018 results (as was the case in 1948), regardless of what the IOC does, but we will see (and we should wait on the IIHF). 18abruce ( talk) 16:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Compared to the other sports rankings, this article is long. The other ranking pages typically track only #1s from previous years. Split and keep content as is but in forked articles? Or simply keep #1s in this article and delete the rest of the detail? Alaney2k ( talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the points and ranking will be allocated to North Korea and South Korea respective women's teams when they played as a unified team in the Olympics? OhanaUnited Talk page 00:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know why France has plus 40 points in the ranking? And also no team under France in the ranking has a bonus. Thank you. Mhusek ( talk) 16:25, 7 June 2021 (CEST)
"A dash in a tournament column indicates that the country did not participate." However, Russia and Belarus did not participate 2022 WC, but they still have points from that. Something is very wrong there. 109.240.96.112 ( talk) 06:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This is just brilliant. If the points were to be believed, Russia got silver in the 2022 olympics, and joint bronze in 2022 and 2023 Worlds... 46.132.75.217 ( talk) 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
According to the IIHF Sports regulatations ( https://blob.iihf.com/iihf-media/iihfmvc/media/downloads/regulations/2023/2023_iihf_sport_regulations.pdf) the points awarded for the Gold Medalist has been increased to 1600 points with the same falling scale as before.
So the scores in the WC2023 column should be updated accordingly. 193.183.61.34 ( talk) 07:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
According to this Georgia was relegated not Iceland inferring that they were disqualified. It would explain the difference in the points, but there is nothing to say why for sure it happened. 18abruce ( talk) 21:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I have doubts about using the {{ Increase}} template in those two ranking tables. For example, currently Canada "increases" from 2 to 1. Hover over that green arrow and a tooltip will appear (incorrect word in my opinion). It would be better to use the {{ Rise}} template – Canada rises from 2 to 1. Maiō T. ( talk) 20:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
I'm not sure about three changes in the mens current ranking. Firstly, Slovakia who are placed 9th have scored from 2620 to 2635. Secondly, France currently ranked 14th have scored of 2325 from 2340. And thirdly, Azerbaijan are new to the mens world ranking in 47th with a score of 160 points. Can someone give me proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.134.168 ( talk) 13:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I just wonder, whether formula for ranking calculation should be provided. In my opinion it should. Exuwon ( talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The latest ranking I can find at IIHF's homepage is this one [1]. If there's a newer official ranking we should of course use it, but otherwise we should go with the official one. Jeppiz ( talk) 18:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Someone's started adding the results from the Olympics, and calculating a 2014 'post Olympic' rating. I too find that interesting, but at this point I'm not sure it's useful for those visiting this page. The 2014 world championships seeding is based on last year's ranking, and the 2015 world championship seeding will be based on the ranking after this year's world championships are complete.
If we want to show what next year's ranking should be, we need to add a column for 2014 world championship (and fill in 'least values' there for starters), and, of course, remove 2010 world championship and reduce the value of 2011-2013 championships by 25 percentage points each.
I'm not sure it's worth doing at this point though, I think most people checking this page are more interested in last year's ranking than a tentative ranking for next year.
Note that there's a major difference between men's and women's ranking on this because the top division for women isn't playing world championships this year - so the "post olympic" ranking is in effect the 2014 ranking.
If we really want to add early values for next year, we need to give it a major rehaul anyway, since as it stands, the numbers listed are (majorly) flawed since the values of previous years' results haven't been reduced, and the importance of the upcoming world championship isn't shown. -- Lejman ( talk) 19:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
That's all there is to it in the title. IIHF lists a 2010 post-olympics ranking, and 2010 ranking (presumably post-WC). To exclude this period is incorrect, as it is a time where Canada was ranked 1st overall, Russia 2nd. The same issue will happen this year as rankings will change twice (after Olympics and again after WC). 70.73.141.146 ( talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
The women's ranking should include the 2014 world championships, it has apparently been out of date here since april. 18abruce ( talk) 21:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
I find the recalculation of the World Ranking while the event is still ongoing a questionable practice, since it doesn't reflect what the current ranking actually is. Nevertheless, it is interesting information. In any event: the value given for Czech Republic is just wrong. By my math, their score should be 3210, not 3300. MrArticleOne ( talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
We're starting to run out of room on the previous years' rankings. Should we either:
And we'll just have to move a year from chart to chart each year. - JamesyWamesy ( talk) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
I recommend that we do not do a 2018 table (or modify past results) until the IIHF produces their "pre-tournament" ranking leading up to the olympics. The question of how they will modify the 2014 women's results is still unresolved, and it would be better to know for sure what they will do. Additionally it should be noted that they maintain that Russia is competing in men's and women's, and rene fasel has numerous times voiced his disagreement with how the IOC is handling the issue of russian participation. That implies that the IIHF will not modify their 2018 results (as was the case in 1948), regardless of what the IOC does, but we will see (and we should wait on the IIHF). 18abruce ( talk) 16:55, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Compared to the other sports rankings, this article is long. The other ranking pages typically track only #1s from previous years. Split and keep content as is but in forked articles? Or simply keep #1s in this article and delete the rest of the detail? Alaney2k ( talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know how the points and ranking will be allocated to North Korea and South Korea respective women's teams when they played as a unified team in the Olympics? OhanaUnited Talk page 00:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Does anyone know why France has plus 40 points in the ranking? And also no team under France in the ranking has a bonus. Thank you. Mhusek ( talk) 16:25, 7 June 2021 (CEST)
"A dash in a tournament column indicates that the country did not participate." However, Russia and Belarus did not participate 2022 WC, but they still have points from that. Something is very wrong there. 109.240.96.112 ( talk) 06:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This is just brilliant. If the points were to be believed, Russia got silver in the 2022 olympics, and joint bronze in 2022 and 2023 Worlds... 46.132.75.217 ( talk) 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
According to the IIHF Sports regulatations ( https://blob.iihf.com/iihf-media/iihfmvc/media/downloads/regulations/2023/2023_iihf_sport_regulations.pdf) the points awarded for the Gold Medalist has been increased to 1600 points with the same falling scale as before.
So the scores in the WC2023 column should be updated accordingly. 193.183.61.34 ( talk) 07:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
According to this Georgia was relegated not Iceland inferring that they were disqualified. It would explain the difference in the points, but there is nothing to say why for sure it happened. 18abruce ( talk) 21:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I have doubts about using the {{ Increase}} template in those two ranking tables. For example, currently Canada "increases" from 2 to 1. Hover over that green arrow and a tooltip will appear (incorrect word in my opinion). It would be better to use the {{ Rise}} template – Canada rises from 2 to 1. Maiō T. ( talk) 20:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)