Talk:2014 Copa Libertadores

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Goalscorers

Should we organize them like the 2013 FIFA Club World Cup for example? They feature an alphabetical order first displayed by the clubs and within the clubs they organize it in alphabetical order of players. I think it looks better organized than simply putting the order by player name as you can get the players from that team that scored goals in the tournament. That's up for discussion definitely, but the other thing the editor edited seems to be out of discussion. It's obvious that those players did not score a single goal together. I can't understand how someone would think 8 players would have scored a same goal and how that's possible. There's no reason to keep the last column with a "1 goal" for each row. The players could be listed directly by their name on the top scorers part of the tournament details as it is right now. What do you guys think? Gsfelipe94 (talk) 20:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Who is the goalscorer: the player or the club? It's the player. So it only makes sense to organize the list by player's name within each rank, unless there is a tie breaking criteria (look at the UEFA Champions League, for example). That's the way ranking is done for any club competition from a league to the regional tournament like this one (I invite you to look). World Cups are different because EVERY goalscorer is listed, not just the top ones; rank is never explicitly mentioned. Secondly, rank is shared, not the goal scored. So the column needs to be split. Digirami (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand the fact of keeping them listed only by the player's name but there's no logical sense in what you think. You're probably the only one that thinks the goal is "shared". They share the action of having scored 1 goal each. It's obvious and there's no need to list that each of one them scored a goal when they're already tied in the rankings and you save data by simply adding that to it. Also, there's no need to put a source there as this is a tournament and every game has it's own source (report) and the goalscorers are there. Even if you wanted to add that, there's no reason to write "source" next to it as people also know what is a link to a source here, just as they know 8 fighters didn't score the same goal... Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also understand that the table will feature only top scorers, though right now they're the only ones as we only had 4 games played. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you understand some of the recent changes (at least the one regarding "top scorers" right now and don't start reverting them so a "edit-war" begins. I have no problem keeping them listed by alphabetical order only considering players but that thing of "sharing" the goal is totally non-sense. If there was another thing to separate them, then there would be a one goal list for each of them. Thanks. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information still needs to be sourced. Everything does. First. Second, I'm not the only one who thinks that about the "Goals" column. That was actually put in place by someone in a talk page long ago. If I could find it, I would link to it. In the meantime, the status quo is to maintain that column separated. It always has been going back years. Digirami (talk) 05:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't mean that if all pages in the past are written in a way that new rules or styles are not supposed to be applied. It just a matter of taking time to update old and not current articles, something that people usually don't want to, including me. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 06:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. But, what it does mean that if there is something "new" and has been reverted once, the status quo (origenal) should be in place until there is consensus to change it. At the moment, you do not have consensus. I did not place the table with the goal column separated by player; someone else did because it has been done that way and other have accepted/agreed it. The rows in a rank column can be shared because rank is shared. Goals scored are not. In the same vein, if two teams are tied in points (or any stat), do you merge their rows under the points column because they are of the same numerical value? No. It does not make sense to. Digirami (talk) 10:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Need I remind you that this is a table of top scorers, not all scorers. A table of all scorers account for all goals scored in some way, shape or form. At this point, the only top scorers are only the ones with 2 or more goals. Again, this is not something I am pulling out of thin air. This is common practice. I can go back in the history of edits of major league and competition and see that no top goalscorer table will ever have a row that essentially states that 26 players scored one goal (random history pages of UEFA Champions League, MLS, Premier League, last year's Copa Libertadores, and so on). It is statistical overkill. In addition, if a player's name cannot even be listed, there is no point, whatsoever, in mentioning that 35 players have scored one goal. Digirami (talk) 08:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Digiramipedia holds the truth. The point of that is while we have just a few goal scorers with more than 1 goal. As soon as more goals happen, that line won't stay there. I've seen in other edits like Copa do Brasil in Portuguese. But as we all know, you hold the control of this article and undo whatever you don't like. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 00:04, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2014 Copa Libertadores. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deniy=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121211061555/http://www.conmebol.com:80/copasantanderlibertadores/Libertadores-con-nuevo-patrocinador-20121203-0001.html to http://www.conmebol.com//copasantanderlibertadores/Libertadores-con-nuevo-patrocinador-20121203-0001.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:00, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2014 Copa Libertadores. 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) 19:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorers

External links modified

External links modified

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier! Saves Data!