Talk:2011 Copa América

Estadio del Bicentenario
The picture shown as "Estadio del Bicentenario" is wrong. That picture is actually Estadio Francisco Sánchez Rumoroso in Coquimbo, Chile.


 * I see it has been corrected. Now it's ok. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.90.219.122 (talk) 13:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Draw
The article says the draw will be on 11 November 2010 right. But ...
 * What time of the day will it be held?
 * Will it be broadcasted like the 2010 FIFA World Cup draw was last year?
 * Are there any seedings? Like it would be silly if Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay all got grouped together.

Thanks in advance! Copaamerica2011 (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The answer to all three question is: don't know. But, in time we will. Patience is a virtue. Digirami (talk) 20:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the being the only one to answer. So the 3rd question is answered. What about the only 2 questions? Do we have data on that yet now the draw is only days ahead? Thanks once again. Copaamerica2011 (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't know. 2) I don't know, but it wouldn't hurt to check your local listings. Digirami (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It will be broadcasted by the Argentine public TV (Canal 7). If you're not in Argentina you can probably watch the channel via internet. The time is 5 o'clock (Argentine time). Fache (talk) 11:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Changes discarded...
Well sorry if I wanted to be more international by putting the dates of matches the international way, as they are in all other English pages of the same kind on Wikipedia: day month year. If you want to stay American American it's ok and I'm not surprised! but Wikipedia is supposed to be international and not American... Concerning the UTC time ok, I grant you that it's not necessary... For the denomination of stages, it's true that the official denomination with CONMEBOL is 'First Stage' and 'Final Stage', but if you want to be truly accurate it's 'Final Stage' singular and NOT 'Final Stages' plural! I was just using the 'Group Stage' and 'Knockout Stage' denominations which are used on all other Wiki pages about international football results and are the most common denominations for this kind of competitions (UEFA: Group stage / Knockout phase)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafa1985 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your comment on the date format shows that you lack some knowledge on the way Wikipedia works. Despite the fact that this website is international, regional variations have to be considered in the article. If a region such as South America uses American English (which they mostly do; I can't think of a place where British English is taught more so than AmE), then articles concerning that area of the world should use American English.
 * While other articles do use denominations should as "knockout stage", such denominations also have to be accurate. If everything after the first stage was officially considered a single round, using "stage" would be fine. But it isn't one stage; it is three. That's why it is plural ("stages"). Additionally, did you ever consider that UEFA articles use "group stage" or "knockout phase" because they might be officially called that (they are not for the knockout phase, but you get the idea). Digirami (talk) 08:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * it is true that regional variations should be respected. it is not true that "a region such as south america uses american english". in argentina, for example, british english prevails, more than anything because of actions taken by the british embassy here. if your counter-argument is "well, elsewhere it isn't", then please give us a reference because i have never heard of such thing. whatever solution you may choose, please bear in mind that the article in its entirety should stick to one or the other. cheers.--camr nag 18:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Japan and Spain
Should it now be mentioned Japan have withdrawn, and that (according to the Independent) Spain have also rejected the invitation? 86.181.37.62 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The matter has resolved itself. Digirami (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why are Brazil and Argentina shown as the finalists?
The games haven't started yet and the writer speaks as if they were through and why do Brazil and Argentina appear as the finalists? It is inappropriate.


 * Fixed -- Magicart pro  18:11, 24 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? Simple: vandalism. Digirami (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Mexico and Costa Rica
Is it worth mentioning that Mexico and Costa Rica both selected U-23 squads strengthened by 5 overage players? I think it is significant that they consciously decided not to send their full teams (in fact, Mexico's Copa América squad played a friendly match v Colombia on 22nd June at the same time as the main team was defeating Honduras in the CONCACAF Gold Cup semi-final - just to show how completely different the teams are. FIFA decided not to include this match as an A-international (as well as their previously friendly with Venezuela and subsequent friendlies against Ecuador and Bolivia) - clearly not recognising this as Mexico's A-team.  The fact that they will, however, include their Copa América matches (played by exactly the same players) is perhaps illogical given their previous decision not to include their buildup matches. Mcruic (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Schedule
Shouldn't there be one? 1969 (talk) 01:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Perhaps not. The tournament isn't has large where the schedule can't be easily established from a quick glance at the article. Digirami (talk) 18:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Broadcasting
In the list of Broadcasting Iceland is missing. The broadcaster is Stöð 2 Sport 2

Here is the schedule on their homesite if a source is needed. http://www.stod2.is/ithrottaefni/beinar-utsendingar/framundan-i-beinni/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.19.224 (talk) 09:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

In the list of Broadcasting Armenia is missing. The broadcaster is ArmTV — Preceding unsigned comment added by Albert mkrtchyan (talk • contribs) 13:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Suri - The Mascot
Why this article has no reference on 'Suri' - the mascot and also no image of the mascot ? Anish Viswa  01:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Because no one has added it yet. Feel free to. Digirami (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether to include scenarios
User Digirami and I have a conflict about if and when it's appropriate to include "next day" scenarios for teams who can either clinch their spot in the next round or be eliminated. Both of us have now violated WP:3RR and we should have brought this to the talk page before now, but here we are now. The point I've made in my edit summaries up to this point is that there is apparent consensus in favor of including scenarios by the repeated use of them in other articles, thus a valid precedent exists (Other_stuff). For a couple of examples in currently active articles, see discussions here, here, and here. The first two examples are not even about whether to include scenarios (it's assumed they will be) but instead are about making sure they are complete and only extend to the next match day. Particularly notablbe (IMO) from the one that is about whether to include is this comment by one user: "What this all comes down to is should the scenarios stay or go. This encyclopedia is a collaborative effort and things are decided by consensus. Both sides have made the same argument numerous times and no one has changed there mind. All but one individual sees merit in the scenarios (and even that individual says that they are useful, just only when they think they are useful). That means the scenarios stay, unless someone can come up with a new reason, not already listed that gives validation to removing them and changes peoples minds."

It seems to me we have valid style precedent in the past use of scenarios in similar articles, but it seems now it needs to be discussed again. LarryJeff (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll add one more comment of my own regarding the compromise offered by Digirami to wait until the last matches in each group and then add scenarios: (paraphrasing another user's comment in another discussion)  Why is clinching or being eliminated in the 2nd match any less valid than it is in the 3rd?  I added the scenarios one more time, so I could get an edit summary pointing to this talk page. LarryJeff (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We had the same discussion at the 2011 FIFA Women's World Cup where one user was against having them in the article but in the end it is just right to have them in the article if a team can advance or being eliminated on the second matchday. Why shouldnt it be included? If a team can advance or fail to advance there will be no scenario, it will just be there if something can happen. This gives users a better overview. Kante4 (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

For Group A there are scenarios for three of the four teams, but Bolivia can still advance with a win, so why is there no scenario listed for them? Off the top of my head, if they win by 4 goals and ARG/CRC draw, Bolivia will win the group. There are other scenarios where they can advance as 2nd place, etc. If you are going to include scenarios, you should include them for all teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 13:53, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Not sure why incomplete scenarios were put in. Anyway, I updated it to show all 4 teams how they could either clinch or be eliminated on next match day. LarryJeff (talk)

Nice page
Congrats guys, I love the pics, tables, schedules, scores, etc. Very informative. Gracias! Likeminas (talk) 01:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Qualification of teams as of 7/11/2011
These have been changed back and forth several times now. The worst case scenario for Venezuela, Chile, and Peru is to finish 3rd in their group with 4 points. No team can end up in 3rd place of group A with more than 3 points. This means, at worst, Venezuela, Chile, and Peru will advance as a top 2 third-place team. Therefore, they have all qualified for the quarterfinals.

Pitdood (talk) 16:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the clarification. I had been defining "qualified" as "qualified, and final group placement determined".  However, your definition of "definitely will pass on to the next round" is definitely a better definition. Chelos (talk) 17:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: Best Third Place Teams
As of this point in time, Group C is guaranteed to have three teams in the quarterfinals, as either Uruguay or Mexico will have at least three points and a better goal difference than Costa Rica no matter the result. I believe it is feasible to tentatively shade the box of the group in the third place table, to indicate this fact. Wjmorris3 (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree, only because it could be interpreted as indicating that Uruguay have already clinched a spot. Of course, it would have been my preference all along to only put teams in the 3rd place table after they locked up 3rd place in their group.  If we did that, I would go along with shading the "Group C" line with no team name, and a note indicating that whoever finishes 3rd in the group will advance. LarryJeff (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My preferred version of the table as of now (following final match in Group A)
 * {|class=wikitable style="text-align:center"

!width="20"|Group !width="165"|Team !width="20"|Pld !width="20"|W !width="20"|D !width="20"|L !width="20"|GF !width="20"|GA !width="20"|GD !width="20"|Pts
 * - bgcolor=#ccccff
 * A||align=left|
 * 3||1||0||2||2||4||−2||3
 * B||
 * - bgcolor=#ccffcc
 * C||
 * }
 * C||
 * }
 * }
 * }


 * Perhaps we should hide it or use the table above without the colors. Digirami (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but here is how I see this right now: Peru is through as the third place team from their group AND whoever finishes third in Group B will be higher than Costa Rica, so they will also advance. Now, this is what I'm not sure about... isn't it set up like the Gold Cup where third place teams will not play the winner of their own group in the quarterfinals? If this is the case, then that means Peru will play the B1 team and the B3 team will play Colombia. I've edited the page to indicate Peru's position on the bracket with this assumption. Or is it possible that B3 will play B1? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.33.1.37 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From the official site of the Copa América (http://www.ca2011.com/jogos_todos.php), Colombia _ - _ Mejor Tercero   S1 - 16/07/2011 - 16:00 (19:00 GMT) - Córdoba (Colombia will play the BEST 3rd placed team, which will be Peru, regardless of the Brazil v Ecuador result). Mcruic (talk) 01:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Costa Rica is not out. If Venezuela wins their game today, Costa Rica advances by virtue of points over Paraguay and anything Ecuador or Brazil (whoever has the least amount of points between the two) will sum up with at the end of their game. Once the two-best third-placed finishers are determined, their opponent will be as well. Peru will either play the winner of Group B or Colombia those teams will play one of the third-placed finishers. If Costa Rica advances, Peru will play Colombia. If Costa Rica does not advance, Peru will most likely play the winner of Group B... but that depends on the outcomes of tonight's games. Digirami (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Updating tables before matches are completed
Would users please refrain from doing so. The league table reflects COMPLETED matches. A team is not awarded points or a Win/Draw/Loss UNTIL THE MATCH HAS BEEN COMPLETED. Even if it seems very likely the result will remain the same, we do not know for sure until the final whistle. Mcruic (talk) 02:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Showing "in progress" matches in the report section is one thing, but absolutely the table should only be updated when the match is completed. LarryJeff (talk) 12:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This has been the de-facto standard in all Footy tournaments as far as I know. -- Alexf(talk) 12:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Notice placed in edit page. -- Alexf(talk) 12:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Correct. But I don't think we'll have that problem anymore. Any matches that would affect a table are completed. Digirami (talk) 15:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Flag of Peru
CONMEBOL seems to be using the state flag of Peru in their website and television broadcasts and what not, instead of the regular variant. I'm thinking we should use the state flag as well. Any opinions on the matter? Digirami (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The Peru national football team is organized by the Peruvian Football Federation, a non-government agency. Only government agencies are allowed the use of the state flag. All else use the civil flag. Back in the day (not sure how back), the state and civil flags were the same, but now a difference exists.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 16:11, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

LG Player of the Game award
This is some new award from the 2011 tournament. I have taken this table from the Spanish version of the article. Not sure how to include it into the article (prior fix required), but it should definitely be included.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 22:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Is it notable? UEFA has a man of the match for each game but that isn't included here at wikipedia. How is it decided? Fan-Vote, Jury? I don't think it is needed.-Koppapa (talk) 22:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is just a fan-based vote on the Copa's website. -Koppapa (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is fan based. Listing the MOTM with each box score is enough (as has been done). A big table like that is not necessary. Digirami (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think it is notable, considering:
 * (1) The award is official, sponsored by LG (After the games they make a small reception for the man of the match award)
 * (2) This is the first time this kind of award is given at the Copa America
 * (3) It is part of the Copa America records
 * If the award wasn't notable, CONMEBOL wouldn't show it on their website.-- MarshalN20 | T a l k 01:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Attendances
Anyone has them? – H T  D  10:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope. But as I told someone on their respective talk page, my guess is that CONMEBOL will release them when the tournament is over since they did the same thing after this year's Copa Libertadores. Digirami (talk) 18:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah I see. Thanks. – H T  D  04:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Missing sections
Can someone add the details on these missing sections:- 1. All Star XI. 2. Post tournmant FIFA rankings (tabular form). 3. Tournamant Mascot (with picture). 4. Tournament Official ball (with picture). Anish Viswa  04:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) That's if there is an All-Star XI; 2) the final ranking is there; 3) & 4) that's if someone has picture and information on it. Digirami (talk) 04:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Only final positions are there, the change in FIFA rankings of CONMEBOL teams as a result of COPA 2011 is not there. Anish Viswa  09:15, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * That's important why? Digirami (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Table format (officials)
For the table format see:


 * 2014 FIFA World Cup officials
 * 2010 FIFA World Cup officials

--IM-yb (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Though those links show that your format is used in articles, they do not offer anything that says that you have to use that format. If you think that your format is better for any reason, please state why below.50.153.149.65 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

All match reports now giving 404 errors
As is usual on wikipedia due to an odd policy of only using official federation match reports, all those for this tournament are already giving 404 errors. If stable news sites were used (such as the BBC), those match reports would be available for decades, not two or three years.

This is supposed to be the match report of the final:

http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99089.html

Does that look like a URL that will still be available years and years later? No, of course it doesn't. And now it's not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.250.71 (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on 2011 Copa América. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110630020257/http://www.conmebol.com/copaamerica/Copa-America-fueron-nombrados-los-arbitros-para-el-torneo-20110606-0009.html to http://www.conmebol.com/copaamerica/Copa-America-fueron-nombrados-los-arbitros-para-el-torneo-20110606-0009.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723011802/http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99086.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99086.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2011 Copa América. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120203035517/http://ca2011.com/noticias_exibe.php?IdNews=a87ff679a2f3e71d9181a67b7542122c to http://ca2011.com/noticias_exibe.php?IdNews=a87ff679a2f3e71d9181a67b7542122c
 * Added tag to http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/sport/9126580/japan-set-to-skip-copa-america-after-disaster/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://espndeportes.espn.go.com/news/story?id=1267706&s=futbol%2Fcopa-america&type=story
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110725222521/http://www.ca2011.com/noticias_exibe.php?IdNews=a4f23670e1833f3fdb077ca70bbd5d66 to http://www.ca2011.com/noticias_exibe.php?IdNews=a4f23670e1833f3fdb077ca70bbd5d66
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522023810/http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99082.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99082.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722084050/http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99083.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99083.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720092756/http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99084.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99084.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722095709/http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99085.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99085.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723011802/http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99086.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99086.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723011855/http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99087.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99087.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110723012008/http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99088.html to http://df1.conmebol.com/copaamerica/fichas/ficha99088.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)