Sorry, I didn't think through all possible outcomes in regards to Norway. It was an honest mistake by me and a nice catch on your part. Ho-ju-96 (talk) 16:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of this thank you for correcting my mistake. Eh Oh Canada (talk) 04:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. In order to win gold in 1987, Canada would have had to win that game by five or more goals. They were assured of a medal - bronze if they lost, silver if they won by four or less - but had the potential to win gold still. That is explained in the article in the first paragraph of the game summary section. Cheers! Resolute 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I see now what you are saying. Certainly there is one permutation that would have allowed Canada to win gold with a four-goal win, however most sources have simplified the requirements to "win by five goals", and the article reflects those sources. Thanks, Resolute 22:57, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, i think they will add it later or just "forgot" to add it or think everyone knows who is promoted and so on? Kante4 (talk) 23:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poland to IV, Estonia to V and Belgium to IV if they demote Estonia for not participating. Maybe none of the IV teams will be demoted? Kante4 (talk) 00:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, if you update the standings and further rounds, why not add the results of the played matches? Kante4 (talk) 20:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the results for the next time. ;) Kante4 (talk) 21:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... was working with no problems for me the whole time. Kante4 (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, was wondering and thanks. You are invited to help. ;) Kante4 (talk) 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the comments on the talk page i assume? Kante4 (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that comments were pretty odd. If you find small or even big mistakes go ahead and edit to make the articles even better. Kante4 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you want to edit, send them over to me to babysit and you have time and room. ;) Kante4 (talk) 00:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources provided only say when it will be decided, nothing about the points system at all. Therefore, the article is not needed until more information is released. Trust me when I say this I like they way you formatted the article, but its better to keep it hidden until we know more information. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True, I just did not connect the dots. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, is it just hockey or do you do other sports as well and other multi sporting events such as the Pan American Games? Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, for the qualification tables I think we should include every country, to show which ones were eliminated. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 20:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we need to include the top 30 teams, in the standings, but for example Serbia was 30 after this year but 31 next year we remove Serbia, basically we just show the top 30 (for men). Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I said top 30, because number 10-30 go to the qualification rounds if you are wondering. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 21:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup thats where I got it from. If I can ask would you be interested in helping put up the results for the 2011 Pan American Games in 2011? If so please list your name here of editors that want to help during the Games Intoronto1125TalkContributions 01:20, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I had a look at the Direct Qualification section and the only problem I could see was when you described the section on how the World Ranking is calculated is a bit confusing. Maybe it doesnt need to be described and you could simple have "as calculated at the conclusion of the 2012 IIHF Men’s" or something similar or maybe it will work if it is described more clearly

"IIHF World Ranking is determined through a linear decline of 25% for every year, for example the 2009 World Championship points will be valued at 25%, the 2010 World Championship and Olympic points at 50%, the 2011 World Championship at 75%, and the 2012 World Championship at 100%".

Or something similar. Im not very good at clearly wording stuff so this is probably not the best choice but I hope it helps. Salavat (talk) 05:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Head to head rule could only be applied when both home and away games are played. Until then, goal difference rule is applied. Eddie Nixon (talk) 15:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it is all right now, i checked it. France have one more game then Italy/Israel e.g. Kante4 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did and let´s see: Group A: Portugal wins both games and has 7, Lithuania loses all 3 and has 7 too but they have beaten Portugal already, so no chance, same for Great Britain. Same applies for if Turkey loses all three. Group B is the same scenario... Kante4 (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah you got it right, thanks. For the ranking: I would say the team with the better "stats" should be 9th and the other one 10th. Cuba 10th, Paraguay 9th but maybe they release a final ranking? Kante4 (talk) 16:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah it was already a mess with the standings of the preliminary groups of the eurobasket with IP editors changing this and that and doing all wrong. Kante4 (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but his name here is Al Horford, so what to do? Check the name in the wikipedia search if he has an article. Kante4 (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you get to the website it says Al Horford and everywhere is Al and not Alfred, and i never heard Alfred ever when refering to him.

I found the official tie breaking criteria:

All ties after the preliminary round will be settled as follows (in order): The ranking of the teams after the round robin shall be according to the win-loss record of all the games played. All ties after the 1st round, 2nd round and finals shall be settled in the order of the following list. That is, if criteria (a) does not break the tie, then it is no longer considered the criteria capable of breaking the tie, and the next criteria (b) will be used. This logic continues through the list, in order, until the tie is broken: 1. The team that won the game(s) between the teams tied shall be given the higher position. 2. The team that has the best Team's Quality Balance (TQB). 3. The team that has the best Earned Runs Team's Quality Balance (ER-TQB). 4. Highest batting average in games between the teams tied. 5. A coin flip.

TQB appears to be the (ratio of runs scored to number offensive innings played) - (the ration of runs allowed to number of defensive innings played) between the games played between tied teams. The full regs with examples is available here if you are interested. Ravendrop 05:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem. Kante4 (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the reason. Many teams, players, staff, referees were ill. Something going around there maybe, they do not know now if and what. Kante4 (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They say now that the Carbon monoxide was too high in the arena because the ice machine was not working properly, fixed now. Kante4 (talk) 21:32, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, good one. They changed it now ==>SH goal. Changed it at the article. ;) Kante4 (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem and i was a bit stupid. Forgot that the format wasn't the one used on other tournament. ;) Kante4 (talk) 22:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, yeah something like yellow for the save teams. When they are known to not going to either, they can be coloured and after the round they are back without a colour. Kante4 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, using bold only for teams whose total points are final is a good idea, I like that solution. Lejman (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you've done a lot of work on that article! Nice job! Lejman (talk) 02:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is qualified with 100% probability, isn`t it?--CZMajkl (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All czech names on Rosters page are OK, only Ales Hemsky is Aleš Hemský with diacritics [Alesh Hemskee] --CZMajkl (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Part of the reason its weighted towards 2010 is because it's the most recent tournament, and nobody has had the chance to add stuff for 2014. I'm not entirely sure what it is you think needs adding. The section lacks info for tournaments before the '70s. Is that what you mean? Either way, you don't need my permission. You should add what you think needs adding, then I'll take a look at it afterwards. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 12:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for all your great work with the World Championships and Olympic Games. Hockeyben (talk - contribs) 17:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering creating separate articles for the combined European Championships from 1930-1991. I have the material necessary for creation from Stephan Müller's book. What's your opinion? --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 02:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after more thought, I think I'll just include the European Championship info on the World Championship pages. --Hockeyben ^{(talk - contribs)} 15:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, nope, found nothing. Maybe in the next weeks/months some more information will be published. Kante4 (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They will surely finish 3rd or better and they will have at least 13 points, and in group A and C 3rd team can not clinch more then 12 points, that's what said, and sure finishment in first 2 places also haven't BIH There it's oficial but don't see fins written here http://www.fibaeurope.com/coid_-t-DhN82IUMC4-0cA143k3.articleMode_on.html (78.45.69.148 (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

 In the group A, I took it that, they will not count the results versus last team as it written below, and due to there is no matches between those third placed I think its only choice (78.45.69.148 (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, i think they won't count the result against the last placed team. Kante4 (talk) 12:52, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The UEFA does it, too. Not that it has any meaning, just saying. ;) Those 3 are through. Kante4 (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Not sure if i like that but ok. Thanks for clarification. ;) Kante4 (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just a question. Why don't you update all at once, scorers and stuff? Kante4 (talk) 19:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, but even for the SRB-MEX you added the scoreres bit by bit afterwards. Then all at once would have been better than making 3-4 edits and adding just two goals Kante4 (talk) 19:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just one, but i was wondering. You can go back and submit the edit again after it failed. Works for me sometimes. Kante4 (talk) 20:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Still, you can go back and copy the text there and try again. My method which works everytime. Game pretty decided i say... Kante4 (talk) 20:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for your edits at 2012 Pacific-Asia Curling Championships. I noticed you added some incomplete scores for Draw 17. Please only add scores to the curlingboxes when the game is complete, as adding partial scores is confusing. Wikipedia is not to be used for live scoring updates. Thanks! Prayerfortheworld (talk) 03:34, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I took the last season as orientation. But its not a bad idea to just keep track of the first 30. On the other hand you lose data of the previous of someone who would enter the top 30 and you have to gather it from other sources.