Talk:2011 Nations Cup

ROI
1. The name of the football team from the 26 counties is Republic of Ireland. 2. Given the context of the article, i.e. about both parts of Ireland, and about separate football jurisdictions, use of "Ireland" is ambiguous, unnecessary and unclear. Mooretwin (talk) 22:49, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree - when it is referring to the country then it should called Ireland.--Vintagekits (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First, your edit was referring to the team. Second, why should it be called Ireland in an article in which Ireland is ambiguous? That makes no sense when there is a perfectly fine and unambiguous alternative. Mooretwin (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The official name of the independent UN and EU country that exists in the south and north east of the island of Ireland is "Ireland" NOT the "Republic of Ireland". Suggesting that a country's official name is "ambiguous" strikes me as at best condescending and at worst racist. Factual (and sensitive) disambiguation should use" Ireland" to refer to the UN/EU member state, "Northern Ireland" to refer to the UK province and "The Island of Ireland" to refer to the whole.AlwynapHuw (talk) 01:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Translation?
As the tournament is to be held in the republic of ireland, should't only native alternative languages be used? ie. Irish. Welsh should be used if and when the contest is held in Wales. see Euro 2012 (Polish and Ukranian) x — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gogleddcymru (talk • contribs) 01:21, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd agree, and want to see some confirmation that the Irish title is actually in use. We've also had undue enthusiasm for unofficial translations at the main Nations Cup article.

The Welsh term used by S4C and BBC Cymru whilst referring to last night's game was "Cwpan y Cenhedloedd" I don't have any links to prove the point – just reporting what I heard on the channels! AlwynapHuw (talk) 01:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

"Edition"?
I understand that this is an American term for different tournaments. As this is not an American tournament, why would we be using it here? More to the point, what does the use of the word add to the article lead? --John (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As to your second point: that it is the first competition involving these 4 teams would belong on the overall article, not the year specific one. As to the former, having lived in the UK for all but 2 of the last 47 years, I hear this application of the word frequently, in all sorts of UK based media: I have never had reason to consider it an Americanism, and my dictionary does not indicate it to be one.  Does yours?  Kevin McE (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My dictionary does not list this meaning of the word, hence my edit. "I hear this ... frequently" isn't the best reason for adding things to Wikipedia. Can you come up with a better one, or properly answer my question, or self-revert? Thanks. --John (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On BBC Sport (I trust we can agree that this is UK English) within the last 4 weeks:, , , , , , , , . Suggest you ask for a new dictionary for Christmas.  "I hear this ... frequently" applies to most phrases of contemporary English that appear in Wikipedia: this is a forum in which we use language.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Boom! Well said, put a petty argument to bed. Gogleddcymru (talk • contribs) 02:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of these do not relate to football though. "Edition" sounds stupid. --John (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You urgently need that new dictionary: 5 out of 9 fulfills the definition of most in my one. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right enough, that's true. I still think it sounds daft; there's no need to be sarcastic, by the way. If it's just you for (and the BBC coverage of certain African matches), and just me against, let's take it to project space and see what other folks think? --John (talk) 06:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

FIFA recognition?
In what way did FIFA recognise the tournament? In each team's fixture history, it is listed as a friendly (eg here)], not part of a tournament. FIFA recognise the matches as A internationals, which is why they contribute to rankings, but essentially, they do that because they are informed by the teams that they consider it a full international. Kevin McE (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No substantiation of the claim, or rebuttal of the evidence provided above, in a week: claim has been removed from the article. Kevin McE (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Subs not used?
Why the last two matches' subs not used information is missing? Can anyone provide such information or where to check them? Celtic Angel (talk) 16:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not in there for any of the games; why should we change that just for the last two matches? – PeeJay 22:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I was focusing on this page everyday during this event processing. The subs not used information was in there for the first four matches. However, when the fifth match took place, all the subs not used information for even the first four matches and current and later matches was edited to cancel. So I mean where can we check the subs not used information? Celtic Angel (talk) 04:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge?
This article is essentially a duplicate of Nations Cup (football). Articles should be merged. Which article title is better? Personally I think "Nations Cup (football)" is preferable. --HighKing (talk) 16:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't describe it as a duplicate at all. This article is about the matches, table, venue, scorers for the 2011 event: that isn't on the general page for the article, nor should it be: that is about the background history and overview.  This is the pattern for all recurring tournaments: it is to be assumed that this competition will recur, as is the intention of its participants.  If that does not come to pass, it can be reviewed then. Kevin McE (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Nations Cup (football)
The tournament was discontinued after the first edition, and therefore there is no need for two article about the same thing. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - I agree Armbrust, as there is little to no likelihood of this tournament being revived in the future given the first one was dogged by awful attendances and political problems. Stumbling upon this I was surprised to see there were two articles. Andygray110 (talk) 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 Nations 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090329115847/http://www.faw.org.uk/news/1299 to http://www.faw.org.uk/news/1299
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fai.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=101465%3Acarling-nations-cup-announces-broadcast-partnership-with-sky-sports-3d&catid=1%3Asenior-men&Itemid=8

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) 09:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)