Talk:2007–08 Heineken Cup pool stage

Possible ouctomes in next round

These sections are inappropriate for an encyclopedia, and should not be included. Although the math can be easily verified, the statements must firstly be referenced to a reliable source. Secondly, they are not definite outcomes, but possible outcomes if a specific event happens. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (see

Wikipedia:CRYSTAL). This sort of information is appropriate for rugby fan sites, or even the Heineken Cup official page, but not an encyclopedia. In three weeks the information will be irrelevant, and will need to be removed anyway. Nouse4aname (talk) 11:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

In my opinion, commenting on what specific results teams will have to achieve to progress isn't a great deal different from commenting on the fact that certain teams cannot progress, whatever they do (or must progress, whatever happens) - which this article does. However, in this specific case - where there is acutal interaction between every single team in the tournament for the runners-up spots - such speculation is far too complex for now, and probably will be even after round 5 is complete. Rawling4851 16:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is slightly different. A team cannot qualify if the maximum points they can gain from their remaining fixtures is less than the difference between their current points and those of the group leaders (or second place for best runners up). If it is not possible to acquire the necessary points from the remaining games, then these teams are definitely out. No assumptions are made about future results in these cases. Nouse4aname (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaky writings

I've seen several articles which make claims about certain teams being out or in the quarter finals that don't hold up - for example Sky Sports claiming that Saracens are guaranteed a place as of now when they can quite possibly come second in their group and be beaten by other runners-up, and even ERCRugby claiming before the two late matches today that Leicester had been eliminated (when they could still conceivably have placed second in the group and had enough points to qualify - although this is no longer the case). Unless I've missed something... don't start putting these in the article, anyone, I guess :-p Rawling4851 21:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thankfully the ERC site doesn't claim Saracens are guaranteed a place, but both the ERC and Saracens say Biarritz are now out - when they're quite capable of getting to 18 points, and the other runners-up could score nothing in the last round... odd. Rawling4851 21:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again..

...even though they are now sourced, they are still not appropriate for an encyclopedia. This is not meant to be a fan site, a forum, or a prediction / forecaster. it is an encyclopedia. It records facts about events. It does not record predictions about future events.Nouse4aname (talk) 11:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP Crystal: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Properly referenced, therefore appropriate. Rawling4851 12:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly believe that this is completely opposed to the essence of an encyclopedia. Inclusion of such predictions amounts to nothing more than what a fan site does. In two days it will all be deleted anyway. Nouse4aname (talk) 12:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes. Given that it will be deleted soon as irrelevant, and also given how the format of the tournament makes such speculation less useful than in other pool stages, I don't really care either way. But citing a WP guideline as reason for deleting something when the guideline pretty much specifically says the opposite doesn't make much sense to me. Rawling4851 12:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the guidline does allow such referenced material to be used. I was referring to cystal ball point 3, and had obviously not properly read the lead section to that guidline. My arguement is against the guidline, rather than with you, or any other editor! As you have correctly pointed out the guidline does allow for such predictions, so I'll leave them stand. Nouse4aname (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let you look forward to taking them down as the pools finish over the next three days :-D Rawling4851 13:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha Ha! Yeah, if someone beats me to it, I'll have to add them back just so I can take them off again! Nouse4aname (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]