Talk:2008 Canadian Championship

Is there any reason that CSL teams aren't involved in the tourney? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.106.43.238 (talk) 21:36, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a link but I am pretty sure that CONCACAF decided that the three teams competing were the only teams of high enough caliber to be allowed to compete for a berth in the champions league. NeilCanada (talk) 06:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Champions League?
Where is this news release regarding the name Canadian Champions League? Kingjeff (talk) 18:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Here it is. http://www.broadcastermagazine.com/issues/ISArticle.asp?id=84703&issue=05232008 Lucky Strike (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Lckystrke

football box
does it get too cluttered with the subs? I was looking at the Euro 2008 details, UEFA Euro 2008 Group A, of the games and it looks really sharp. Coppercanuck (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the addition of the substitutions you made to the footballbox I don't think its too cluttered at all. However, the example of the Euro Group A looks much sharper, and I would say that putting in the subs without the full lineup might not be very useful. Let's see how the expanded version looks. NeilCanada (talk) 17:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Just added the line ups and subs and I think I like it. Not as good as some of the others but it gives you some good info at a glance. Coppercanuck (talk) 19:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I changed it to a more comprehensive version, although I am unsure of the positions of some impact players ( I will go back and check with your edit and make appropriate changes). Also, I'm going to find out how to do the picture with the formations on it. Do you know what formation the impact used? The CSA match tracker lists them as 4-4-2, but the Impact match tracker lists them as 3-6-1???? Also, I changed the yellow card in the 50th minute from Phelan to Harmse. Impacts match tracker listed it as Harmse, I think CSA was wrong as listing Phelan as yellow as they he didn't even get in to the game. NeilCanada (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Why not something more common, like WP:Football tends to use most often? Here's how the typical format would look here:

What's the difference between the format you did for the Vancouver @ Montreal game and the one in the article for the Toronto @ Montreal game? NeilCanada (talk) 04:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well this one is a bit simpler, as it comes as a straight template that simply needs filling in. It also avoids the need to include the substitutes that were not involved in the game. Overall, it cuts down on space in terms of the actual page length itself as well as the bandwidth size of the page. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

-- Vancouver disqualified --

Vancovouer has no more chance to get qualified, because even if they win both of the game they have left, they will have equal number of points with Montreal. However, due to the tiebreaker, Montreal will win because they have won both of the meetings between the two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.197.107 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, they are not yet mathematically eliminated. If Vancouver wins both games against Toronto, and Montreal beats Toronto then all three teams will be tied at 6 points. Also, according to CSA http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/media/viewArtical.asp?sub=1&Press_ID=3107 the tiebreakers are in order 1. goal differential 2. most goals scored 3. most away goals. 4. drawing of lots. So Vancouver is by no means eliminated, they can theoretically still beat Toronto 6-0 both games and then if say Toronto beats Montreal 1-0 then they will still win the tournament. NeilCanada (talk) 01:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Cards table
Should a table for the yellow and red cards be added? Similar to the goal scorers, but a quick reference to see any suspensions. -Coppercanuck (talk) 15:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Nutrilitecc.jpg
The image Image:Nutrilitecc.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --07:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)