Talk:IIHF World Ranking

	This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Ice Hockey This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ice Hockey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ice hockey on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ice HockeyWikipedia:WikiProject Ice HockeyTemplate:WikiProject Ice HockeyIce Hockey articles

I'm not sure about three changes in the mens current ranking. Firstly, Slovakia who are placed 9th have scored from 2620 to 2635. Secondly, France currently ranked 14th have scored of 2325 from 2340. And thirdly, Azerbaijan are new to the mens world ranking in 47th with a score of 160 points. Can someone give me proof? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.142.134.168 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just wonder, whether formula for ranking calculation should be provided. In my opinion it should. Exuwon (talk) 02:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest ranking I can find at IIHF's homepage is this one [1]. If there's a newer official ranking we should of course use it, but otherwise we should go with the official one.Jeppiz (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you hit the next link above the february ranking (aka 2010 ranking) you will find that is the latest ranking derived from after the World Championships. Salavat (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's started adding the results from the Olympics, and calculating a 2014 'post Olympic' rating. I too find that interesting, but at this point I'm not sure it's useful for those visiting this page. The 2014 world championships seeding is based on last year's ranking, and the 2015 world championship seeding will be based on the ranking after this year's world championships are complete.

If we want to show what next year's ranking should be, we need to add a column for 2014 world championship (and fill in 'least values' there for starters), and, of course, remove 2010 world championship and reduce the value of 2011-2013 championships by 25 percentage points each.

I'm not sure it's worth doing at this point though, I think most people checking this page are more interested in last year's ranking than a tentative ranking for next year.

Note that there's a major difference between men's and women's ranking on this because the top division for women isn't playing world championships this year - so the "post olympic" ranking is in effect the 2014 ranking.

If we really want to add early values for next year, we need to give it a major rehaul anyway, since as it stands, the numbers listed are (majorly) flawed since the values of previous years' results haven't been reduced, and the importance of the upcoming world championship isn't shown. -- Lejman (talk) 19:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I noticed it too and updated it after yesterday's results (figured if thats really what we are doing it should be up to date). But yeah, its premature and borderline original research. TerminalPreppie (talk) 14:41, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IIHF.com will probably issue post-olympic rankings as they did in 2010 (http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/championships/world-ranking/mens-world-ranking/2010-ranking-feb.html). The values from Feb 2010 used the same calculations I am using here. I was just getting a head start on having these facts available. Why did you have to destroy all my hard work? It's no more original research than editing a game's score half-way through a game. The progressive update was done last year with no comment, so I thought there would be no problem to do so again this year. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with progressive updates when they are reliable. I like your updates on the women's ranking because it's evident what formula is being used. IIHF ranking points are (according to their formula) based on 100% of the points from this year, 75% from last year, 50% from two years ago, 25% from three years ago. The current rankings doesn't follow that formula. Have you found any sources on what they use to determine their post olympic formula?

I do find your data interesting to see, I'm just doubting it's what people visiting the site are looking for at this point.

Like you say the data is still useful for the future though. One solution could be to move it here for the time being until we know if they're planning to post post-olympic points again. -- Lejman (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "source" I use for my calculations is based on the calculations for the 2010 Olympics on the IIHF website. (Link above) Since there have been at least 3 other people who have helped edit the page since I started the 2014 ranking, I think people do want to see it. I think it should remain until we have at least a few people against it. The new rankings should be listed tomorrow anyway. Shall we wait one more day? -JamesyWamesy (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know when the rankings were posted in 2010? I'm surprised they're that fast. I'm okay with waiting a few days, I just don't want to wait til May to get something to refer to. -- Lejman (talk) 19:36, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The women's rankings were posted the day of the gold medal game this year. I would think it would be no different with the men's rankings. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's all there is to it in the title. IIHF lists a 2010 post-olympics ranking, and 2010 ranking (presumably post-WC). To exclude this period is incorrect, as it is a time where Canada was ranked 1st overall, Russia 2nd. The same issue will happen this year as rankings will change twice (after Olympics and again after WC).70.73.141.146 (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't been listing post-Olympic rankings. They are mostly intermediary until the final rankings in May. Perhaps we should have a discussion on whether post-Olympic rankings should be added to the ranking list and the graph. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:50, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given the ranking has existed since 2003, we'd still be missing the 2006 post-Olympic values.

I checked the IIHF site, and found this tidbit: The IIHF World Ranking will be released following each IIHF World Championship and the Olympic Ice Hockey Tournament." Source I take that to mean it's an extra ranking being produced, rather than a temporary ranking. -- Lejman (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IIHF posted this near the start of the olympics. That should clear up any disputed information I hope.

18abruce (talk) 15:08, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I shall work on adding the post-Olympic rankings then. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The women's ranking should include the 2014 world championships, it has apparently been out of date here since april.

I find the recalculation of the World Ranking while the event is still ongoing a questionable practice, since it doesn't reflect what the current ranking actually is. Nevertheless, it is interesting information. In any event: the value given for Czech Republic is just wrong. By my math, their score should be 3210, not 3300. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The total given for Czech Republic is correct: see here (2150, which is confirmed by adding the totals from this page) + 1060 from this year.

18abruce (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, it's correct now. When I posted that, Czech Republic's score was being listed as 3300, which is obviously way off from 2150+1060=3210. I have no idea where the 3300 number came from. MrArticleOne (talk) 18:10, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oh I see, my apologies.

18abruce (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

What bothers me is that not all nations are updated; If CZE, DEN, FIN, and USA are given updates then SWE, CAN, GER, and RUS should all be changed as well. It should either be up to date, or left alone until it is all complete. And now it has been, not my day I guess.

18abruce (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

The whole thing is a mess. I mean, if you want to know what the current World Ranking is, you can't even consult Wikipedia, because the current ranking is whatever they computed after last year's World Championship. This in-progress ranking, while interesting as a status update, is neither this year's nor last year's, but a weird hybrid. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The last listed ranking is here though. Instead of looking at the current year, you just need to scroll down to previous years, and last year is listed at the right end of that chart. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're starting to run out of room on the previous years' rankings. Should we either:

• limit this page to the previous 8 years (2009-2016), then start a new page just for all the past rankings which will currently be 2 charts for each sex, or
• create a 2nd chart on the same page, one for the previous 8 years (2009-2016) and one for earlier years (2003-2008), until that reaches 8 years, then create a 3rd chart, etc?
  

And we'll just have to move a year from chart to chart each year. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:47, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that we do not do a 2018 table (or modify past results) until the IIHF produces their "pre-tournament" ranking leading up to the olympics. The question of how they will modify the 2014 women's results is still unresolved, and it would be better to know for sure what they will do. Additionally it should be noted that they maintain that Russia is competing in men's and women's, and rene fasel has numerous times voiced his disagreement with how the IOC is handling the issue of russian participation. That implies that the IIHF will not modify their 2018 results (as was the case in 1948), regardless of what the IOC does, but we will see (and we should wait on the IIHF).

• Definitely should be a wait and see as to what the IIHF do. Modifying Russia's results is purely speculative and shouldn't be done unless the IIHF say otherwise. Salavat (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In addition it should be noted that even if by some chance this tournament is not used for ranking the russian national teams, precedent is that disqualified or absent teams receive last place points for the tournament they qualified for. That would be at least 900 for the men, and at least 1000 for the women. I could live with the modification to the women's, even though I disagree completely with it.
    18abruce (talk) 01:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I guess I should have checked the format, anyone in the Olympics can finish as low as 8th in women's unlike the Worlds. I will make that change Jamesy.

18abruce (talk) 14:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Oops, I guess I should have read the talk page before I reverted your edit. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 00:35, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Compared to the other sports rankings, this article is long. The other ranking pages typically track only #1s from previous years. Split and keep content as is but in forked articles? Or simply keep #1s in this article and delete the rest of the detail? Alaney2k (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "forked articles", does that mean historical data become list articles linked from here?

18abruce (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, exactly. Alaney2k (talk) 14:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had posed the question whether to do this earlier and no one answered me, so I left it on the same page. It does look much better this way. -JamesyWamesy (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know how the points and ranking will be allocated to North Korea and South Korea respective women's teams when they played as a unified team in the Olympics? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 00:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It has already been officially done, South Korea received points for the 8th place finish, North Korea is ranked as not participating (they did not participate in qualifying). These values are reflected in the current tables on the main page. Whether it is fair or not, the only impact it actually has is seeding for the next olympic qualification.

18abruce (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Does anyone know why France has plus 40 points in the ranking? And also no team under France in the ranking has a bonus. Thank you. Mhusek (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2021 (CEST)

The IIHF used pre-tournament rankings, rather than seeding, for teams who were unable to play in a tournament. It affected the rankings for several countries but France's is noticeably peculiar because it ranks them amongst teams that played. It is noted and sourced at the bottom of the table.

18abruce (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops, it was also in error.

18abruce (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

"A dash in a tournament column indicates that the country did not participate." However, Russia and Belarus did not participate 2022 WC, but they still have points from that. Something is very wrong there. 109.240.96.112 (talk) 06:29, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is the explanation about 2022 not sufficient, or does the statement that you quoted need to include something that indicates that several non-participants in 2022 still received points?

18abruce (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

It is something indeed. Russia have points as they were third and Belarus have the same points as Kazakhstan... The question is, why did they get points if they are expelled? What are the rules of the ranking? 109.240.9.153 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Men's Rankings" read the paragraphs for your answers on all non-participants in 2020, 2021, and 2022. Specifically the fourth paragraph details what was done with Russia and Belarus. Why the IIHF did that is has been left to speculation. The only similar situation I could find was with the 1999 Yugoslavian team who were barred from playing for political reasons due to the war in Kosovo; they were not able to play because of their government (or arguably the Dutch government) but the team maintained their seeding place for the following championship and the 2002 Olympic qualification.

18abruce (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

This is just brilliant. If the points were to be believed, Russia got silver in the 2022 olympics, and joint bronze in 2022 and 2023 Worlds... 46.132.75.217 (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to the IIHF Sports regulatations (https://blob.iihf.com/iihf-media/iihfmvc/media/downloads/regulations/2023/2023_iihf_sport_regulations.pdf) the points awarded for the Gold Medalist has been increased to 1600 points with the same falling scale as before.

So the scores in the WC2023 column should be updated accordingly. 193.183.61.34 (talk) 07:32, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would use some caution here; does it mean the previous years are updated as well for the current ranking? The sport regulations seem to say so ("season 2 75% value 1200 points"). Just changing the 2023 column would unduly weight this year's championship. I think it would be wise to continue as we are until the IIHF publishes a pre-championship ranking. That way the rankings will not be any different, just the point totals will need to be updated.

18abruce (talk) 10:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

New rankings here: https://www.iihf.com/en/events/2023/wm/news/45434/canada_tops_world_ranking

Show that the points for previous years are not updated, total for leader Canada is 4150, indicating that they have received 1600 points instead of 1200. 193.183.61.34 (talk) 08:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Georgia was relegated not Iceland inferring that they were disqualified. It would explain the difference in the points, but there is nothing to say why for sure it happened.

Looks like it as they dropped 12 places. Weird to not have any info about that. Kante4 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have doubts about using the {{Increase}} template in those two ranking tables. For example, currently Canada "increases" from 2 to 1. Hover over that green arrow and a tooltip will appear (incorrect word in my opinion). It would be better to use the {{Rise}} template – Canada rises from 2 to 1. Maiō T. (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]