Talk:2015 AFC Asian Cup

Logo

I think the logo on the page should be removed. The AFC have not made a logo for the 2015 Asian Cup. Roo101 (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)Roo101

Why would the AFC make a logo when it's the organizing commitee who decide? Druryfire (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I mean no one has made an offical logo for the 2015 Asian Cup

Docklands Stadium

The picture of Docklands Stadium is actually in fact Brisbane's Suncorp Stadium.

It is Docklands Stadium. You can see the Coventry Stand clearly signed. Marngrook (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)MarngrookMarngrook (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Robina stadium

The picture for the Robina stadium currently shows a game of rugby. Not ideal for this article. Can we find one with association football being played? LukeSurl ^{t c} 00:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose that 2015 AFC Asian cup National Anthems performances be merged into 2015 AFC Asian Cup. I think that the content in the 2015 AFC Asian cup National Anthems performances article can easily be explained in the context of 2015 AFC Asian Cup, and the 2015 AFC Asian Cup article is of a reasonable size that the merging of 2015 AFC Asian cup National Anthems performances will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. Oddbodz (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Quarterfinal Draw

The current presentation in the article and as supported by:

http://www.afcasiancup.com/i/AsianCup/img/pdfs/AFC_Asian_Cup_2015_Ticketing_Guide.pdf (page 12)

shows that the quarterfinals 3 and 4 are in Canberra and Sydney respectively.

However the following documentation:

http://www.the-afc.com/en/component/jdownloads/finish/75-asian-cup/94-australia-2015-match-schedule.html

http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/site/_content/document/00001214-source.pdf (page 15)

shows the inverse being that the quarterfinals 3 and 4 are in Sydney and Canberra respectively.

So the question is does anyone know which quarterfinal draw format is the correct one? The official website doesn't appear to show anything directly other than the aforementioned press releases.

Transaction Go (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the current version is correct, as shown in the ticketing info: http://tickets.afcasiancup.com/individual-prices/. --2nyte (talk) 08:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ri Sang-chol suspension

Does anyone know why Ri Sang-chol of North Korea recieved a three match suspension for this tournament? Supposedly he has only made two appearances for North Korea, both in the 2015 EAFF East Asian Cup Preliminary round 2, and he was not formally cautioned in any of the two matches he played in. Does anyone know?--2nyte (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I find a number of articles that confirm his suspension, but none list a reason. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 15:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I added a ref saying Sang-chol was suspended for the three group stage matches but I can't find out why either.--2nyte (talk) 23:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It was reported that a player was suspended for failing to complete (though not failing) a drug test but I can't remember if this was Ri Sang-chol. A suspension for 3 games sounds to me like a drugs thing that has yet to be decided. He may be contesting the results or providing reasons for his refusal. However, with North Korea, it could be something truly bizarre like him trying to defect, which might explain why there are no reasons given. 116.212.247.8 (talk) 05:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Just checked my sources and the suspended player from the quote above is Ahmed Hayel of Jordan. Still nothing on Ri Sang-chol. 101.103.9.210 (talk) 06:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Ri Sang-chol was suspended for four matches by committing an unsporting conduct towards the referee during the second round of 2012 London Olympics qualifier which North Korea against UAE on 23 June 2011. The first match suspension has served on 6 September 2011. The rest matches were supposed to carry over to North Korea's next official matches in the same age group (for Ri's case was Under-23 match) . Since North Korea didn't qualify for the third round of London Olympic qualifying, and Ri is more than 23 years old, the remaining matches were carried to North Korea's higher age group official matches: 2015 AFC Asian Cup. No news report on it, but I can provide FIFA's suspension report. --Alexchen4836 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Alexchen4836, it would be very helpful if you could provide FIFA's suspension report.--2nyte (talk) 09:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's a news report that describes the incident, but not the suspension. I'll keep looking, now that I know what to look for. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, he played in at least one match in the 2015 EAFF East Asian Cup qualification, scoring twice. Perhaps it's a ban from AFC matches, but not from EAFF matches? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

EAFF East Asian Cup qualification is a regional tournament and is deemed as international friendly match by FIFA.--Alexchen4836 (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

How come he didn't serve his ban at 2012 AFC Challenge Cup? Is it also considered as friendlies by FIFA? -BlameRuiner (talk) 16:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

2nyte, picture of Ri Sang Chol's suspending decision on the right.

Screenshot of Ri Sang Chol's suspending decision by FIFA

--Alexchen4836 (talk) 10:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Is the document available electronically, for example as a PDF or a web page, to be more suitable as a reference? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 10:31, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

None...I can only provide the screenshot of the document. --Alexchen4836 (talk) 10:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. At least we now have something we can source. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 11:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for clearing this up. Much appreciated.--2nyte (talk) 13:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Remove superfluous info

Why do we need the A, H and E Designations in the group tables? They seem totally unnecessary. We all know Australia is the host it is detailed a number of times throughout the article so you don't need the H. The green background colour highlights that the team has qualified for the knockout stage so you don't need the A and the background of the lower two teams could be coloured red to indicate the team has been eliminated. Does anyone have any issues changing this? Anderch (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparantly it's the new format, but I don't mind it's removal and just keeping the green highlight.--2nyte (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

A and E will go, once the group stage is finished. -Koppapa (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine with me.--2nyte (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Fine but I still don't see the logic of even having it now.Anderch (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

You have the A and E during group stage to visually indicate definite advancement or mathematical elimination. After group stage is complete, those letters are moot. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 08:52, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's face it - the section in the box - QUALIFICATION is just stupid, I don't know why people decided to change these boxes from last years, they were great. Now there is information that country "Advance to knockout stage" which is usually untrue since they have matches to play, the same is on Euro 2016 qualification. But still the most stupid is A and E in brackets, since there is ADCANCE TO KNOCKOUT STAGE" info why we need another one? And what was wrong with the system that RED is eliminated, GREEN advenced and when team still has got hope it's WHITE. Why someone changed a very good system??? Moreover this new system has got mistakes - how can country advance before start of the tournament? - In conclusion we have reduplications with logical mistakes and boxes are unreadable because some strange people have changed something which was very good. And one last thing - if we can't use colors because of colourblind people I am voting for deleting A MAP (there are many colours on the wualification maps) because it is unreadable for blindcolour people!!! If you disagree it means that you are hypocrite and I will write a formal complaint to Wikipedia. User:TigerTatoo 13:23, 16 January 2015

Yeah. The usual green and red was better. And that "Advance to knockout stage" is not necessary. The second sentence in Group stage is enough, it says everything needed.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

How about in leagues: like the Premier League, you hate box there too? Change was made to have not two different systems. I can understand your points though. -Koppapa (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This system would be great in all kind of tournaments but only when the box "Qualification or relegation" will be added after the qualifications not when there are 0, 1 or 2 matches. User:TigerTatoo 15:00, 16 January 2015

What textual changes would you suggest that would clarify this in your opinion? CRwikiCA talk 15:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Just delete "qualification" box and "qualification or relegation box" and use onlu colours like it was in the past and after all qualifying matches put these boxes back because only then they will be logical. User:TigerTatoo 17:50, 16 January 2015

That wont happen as colors should not be used without text. And you say "as in the past", well it has never been like that for league tables and we should really have consistency. You dont seem to understand that the colors/qualification text shows what happens on those positions and the statusletters tells if the team has qualified or not. QED237 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I really do understand the interest of keeping the old format, I am also often reluctant to changes, but in this case we wont go back because we need to follow the guidelines and this new format has recieved much good response due to the fact that it is easy to update and makes consistency between all tables and is spreading outside football into other sports. However if you have good constructive things you want to change, perhaps other wording?, you are more than welcome to suggest changes. When you do please keep a good tone, not calling others "hypocrite" (as I have told you before), and discuss. QED237 (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't like this style either. Exactly who made these changes? Smarkflea (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

These changes were made after various discussions over several months at WT:FOOTY. All of the pertinent discussions have been archived. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 03:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Would instead of qualification "on completion of group stage", "after group stage", "eventual result", be any better? -Koppapa (talk) 11:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

<QED237 you are the only person who likes these changes! On every discussion there are only your positive opinions about changes, none of us likes it and since I am a teacher I see a luck of logic and sense in it. It's amazing that you still can't see this. Info in these boxes is a lie - Poland didn't qualify yet in Euro 2016 neither Irak in AFC 2015 so there can't be such information. Moreover the guidelines is the same for years so what happened that during 1 month someone suddenly decided that we have to start followng it? Why hadn't been it followed till December 2014? User:TigerTatoo 11:47, 17 January 2015

As said several times, this was not my idea and has gone through voting, discussions and consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football with several users agreeing to the new format (actually noone opposed at "the vote"). I have not even touched the coding and I am only one of several users converting articles. I am actually a mathmatician (who have sideworked a bit as teacher) and I have no problem seeing logic. The text says what happens on those positions and statusletters say if team has secured any of those positions. It is very clear , but as we said do you have any proposed changes that may help improve the new format, feel free to letting us know but stop blaiming individual users, it is project consensus. QED237 (talk) 15:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not logical it is confusing because when I am opening webside and see green it means for me and not only for me that these countries qualified so if the box with QUALIFICATION is necessary I think that green colour should be aded after the team qualifies not from the beginning. Letters could be also added. I think that such a consensus would be very good for people who are used to the old system. User:TigerTatoo 17:27, 17 January 2015

I would like to see that VOTING, there should be results. I just can't stand that when I open the webside I see green and it doesn't mean that the country qualified? So when there is a green colour? As u can see nobody but you likes it so another question? Who was voting? Snow White and 7 dwarfs? User:TigerTatoo 13:45, 18 January 2015

The latest vote can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Implementation_proposal and you can actually read the entire section Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 91#Implementation of Lua-module for table building. You can also search through the FOOTY archieves to read several other discussions regarding the new format. Also now there are more users insterting the new table than those participating in "vote" and consensus is not only voting and there is definately consensus. QED237 (talk) 12:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why no one asked users about proposed changes and as I can see everything is around you, your proposals, your votes, your thoughts, your everything. Most people don't like these new things but the most important is what the totalitarian king wants. So farawell, will just stop sending money for Wikipedia because not only can't we edit anything but our requests are nothing for editors. User:TigerTatoo 14:23, 18 January 2015

I don't mean to come across as being curt or impolite when I say this, but users were asked about proposed changes in the appropriate venue. Since the change was proposed to be implemented across the whole of WP:FOOTY, the pertinent discussions and consensuses (consensi? consensae?) took place at WT:FOOTY. I heartily suggest following those pages, even if you do not "officially" join the WikiProject, so that you are aware of any proposed changes or other discussions. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 00:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

TigerTatoo, for someone that claims to like logic and input so much, you are very quick to ignore Koppapa's question. Change in wording is easy to accomplish, but despite several questions of this nature, you refuse to participate in any constructive discussion. The old system was extremely confusing for people not intimately familiar with it, the tables need to be self-explanatory (which they are now). You might want to read up on WP:CIVIL as well before continuing your rants. CRwikiCA talk 16:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I just hope that one day people from the US and the UK become wiser and stop changing something good into something stupid. "The old system was extremely confusing for people not intimately familiar with it" - bullshit - this system has worked for many years and suddenly became confusing? What is confusing?? Red means that the team is out, green that the team is in another round. Is this webside for totally stupid people? Now it is confusing - dude! there is information that Iraq advanced to next stage + green color which informs the same and Iraq can still be eliminated. I am leaving u all, hope one day the logic will knock to your door. May the force be with you and may wisdom find you. User:TigerTatoo 19:37, 19 January 2015

You seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that Wikipedia is consensus-based and note based on what TigerTatoo wants. Despite your proclaimed desire for logic, you don't seem to be able to correctly place peoples locations. I can assure you that I posses a healthy dose of wisdom, which others agree on based on my positive h-index. Besides WP:CIVIL, a concept which you don't seem to have grasped up to now, you might also want to read through WP:CONS as well. CRwikiCA talk 19:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Unbeliavble! Why these letters in the boxes disapeared? How should I know that the group stage is already finished???? It looked exactly like before matches! Is there anyone intelligent? Hello!?!?!? During qualifying stage there shouldn't be gree colour in the background because it is confusing. There were green colour, letters and advance to the knockout stage box and after everything is over you deleted letters? LOL. Who created this? What school did you finish? Kindergarten? I can't stand these stupid changes. Delete the green colour during qyalification because it is CONFUSING!! + are the possitions necessary since inteligent people know that one the team is top it means it is first? To many aditional information, green color appear even when the country can be eliminated, can someone explain me this logic? Where is the old crew, these people were amazing and very clever. User:TigerTatoo 14:01, 20 January 2015

May I remind everyone to be polite and to avoid personal attacks. In addition, bear in mind that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not for general discussion about the subject of the article, nor are they a help desk for obtaining instructions or technical assistance. Please stay on topic. Discussions should be made on the relevant talk pages. Material unsuitable for talk pages may be subject to removal per the talk page guidelines. Thank you.--2nyte (talk) 13:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Dude! I am talking about "how to delete irrelevant information from the webside" - this is totaly in the subject of this discusion. These people act like "all of u are idiots so you need a lot of aditional and unnecesary information" so it's normal that I am pissed off. Still I really apreciate their work and think that they are clever because can do more things than me but they don't listen to others. User:TigerTatoo 21:22, 20 January 2015

So, why no one replied on my request? Can't we just delete the green background and add it after a team qualify? It is confusing when you have to search for a single letter to know if the team qualifies or not User:TigerTatoo 00:16, 24 January 2015

The group stage has since finished. If you would like to make a request can you please do it directly at WT:FOOTY. Things would move a lot faster there and you will be able to get an appropriate response/resolution.--2nyte (talk) 23:46, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

China Group B winner

I just wanted to bring this up on the talk page because we keep going back and forth on this. As far as I'm aware China will progress through to the knockout stage as Group B winners, irrespective of the results in the final two games of the group. This is due to the tiebreaker rule, where if tied by points the teams will first be rank according to their head-to-head result. As China has won against both Saudi Arabia and Uzbekistan they will stay as group winners, even if they are tied on points (potentially tied on 6 points with either Saudi Arabia or Uzbekistan).--2nyte (talk) 10:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This actual page we're commenting on says the tiebreaker rule is goal difference, not head-to-head. Where are you getting this head-to-head stuff?? I mean, not that it's going to matter in twelve hours, but still -- tie-breaker is not head to head, China have not won the group yet. 207.38.251.213 (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

See the tiebreakers section in the article, tiebreaker is head-to-head, and not for the first time at the Asian championship!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhhhhh... okay, re-reading it and I get it now. It's just... not worded very well -- easy to miss or misunderstand. 207.38.251.213 (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No, it's not easy to misunderstand, I think it's clear.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true. -Koppapa (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

What about Japan? GTVM92 (talk) 11:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Japan can end up 3rd in the group and be eliminated, e.g. by a 0-2 loss to Jordan and a Iraq win.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Palestine aren't out yet

In the article, the table under "Team Base Camps" shows that Palestine's last match is on the 20th of January but they could still qualify as Iraq and Jordan can both lose their final match, as confirmed by the lack of an elimination "(E)" in the group D table. I realise that the tiebreak rules would require an 11-goal win for Palestine but because it has yet to be confirmed then both tables should reflect this, or at least be consistent in eliminating Palestine. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 12:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

That was just an IP-edit: [1]. I reverted.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I do believe they are out, they cannot get higher than Jordan even if Jordan loses to Japan due to the tie-breaking of number of points obtained between teams concerned, it would still go to Jordan due to their win over Palestine. 24.145.129.38 (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

If Japan beat Jordan and Palestine beat Iraq, then Iraq, Jordan, and Palestine will all be tied on points with 1-0-2 group records. The first tie-breaker is head-to-head record among all teams concerned, but we would have the classic "rock-paper-scissors" circular logic – Palestine beat Iraq who beat Jordan who beat Palestine who beat Iraq who beat Jordan who beat (ad infinitum). Thus, we go to head-to-head goal differential:

1. Jordan has played both matches that would come in to play, so their total head-to-head goal differential is +3.
2. Iraq's current head-to-head goal differential is +1. If they lose, that will only go down.
3. Palestine's current head-to-head goal differential is -4. They need to beat Iraq by 8 in order to pass Jordan in goal differential. If they beat Iraq by 7, then they are tied with Jordan in head-to-head goal differential, in which case we go to tiebreaker #3, which is number of head-to-head goals scored. Since Jordan scored only 5 goals in the matches concerned, Palestine winning by 7 means they scored at least 7 just in the one match.

Therefore, a victory by Japan over Jordan by any amount and a victory by Palestine over Iraq by 7 or more goals means that Palestine will advance. As improbable as that is, it could still happen, thus Palestine is not eliminated from the tournament.

Similarly, Japan are not guaranteed to advance, as a loss to Jordan and a victory by Iraq over Palestine mean all three teams finish even on points. The same process would be followed, and large enough margins of victory by Jordan and Iraq would eliminate Japan. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 04:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Already said yesterday on my talkpage.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

AFC don't use their own rules

AFC don't use their own rules regarding ordering before group play is finished, I already saw it yesterday at the official AFC-page, that they don't use head-to-head in ordering group D. Yesterday I thougt: so what? But today we have a user, who is referring to the off. site, [2] and my talkpage. I want to bring the issue up here.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not read the rulebook but UEFA in Europe has "when group stage completed" in their rules so while group stage is played sometimes they just order teams alphabetically or by goal differential if two or more teams have the same points. Not sure what AFC rulebook says about this but on wikipedia we usually you the tiebreaker even during the group stage even if rulebook says it is only needed after it is finished. QED237 (talk) 15:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

They don't follow their own regulation at the moment, that's right. But it doesn't really matter. They'll surely get it right once the group stage is finished. -Koppapa (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

No draws

At 2012 Africa Cup of Nations#Group stage, it is annotated: "Notably, there was not a single goalless draw during the group stage". This tournament's group stage is now over, and there have been no draws at all, goalless or otherwise. It was even before the last two Group D matches that someone posted on Reddit that "The 2015 Asian cup is now the record holder for the most consecutive matches in a football tournament without a draw". Also, all groups finished with the same points tally (9-6-3-0). Should some mention be made of that? --Theurgist (talk) 14:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, User:GregorBungensheim had mentioned that just minutes before I managed to post the above comment. --Theurgist (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Bracket

What's with the giant play-off bracket? Another new standard, like horrible new group tables weren't enough? -BlameRuiner (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It looks like standard bracket for example used at FIFA World Cup {{2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage bracket}}. Could you say in more detail what is wrong? Yes it is a bracket based on module instead of having separate template, but it should look practically the same I think. QED237 (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a Lua module which will reduce server load, introduce consistency across all projects, and was produced to appear as close to the original {{Round[##]}} templates as possible with the same data entry format. Right now, Module:RoundN is in alpha phase (although I think it's ready for beta, but I'm not the one who created it), so it needs some "real-world" testing. Since this is one of the first football tournaments to take place since the introduction, it is being used here. As with the "horrible new group tables," a conversation is being held at WT:FOOTY, so any comments are more appropriately addressed there. — Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@BlameRuiner: Also I see no difference compared to the template last time at 2011 AFC Asian Cup so could you explain what is wrong? QED237 (talk) 17:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

2015 and 2011. See what I mean? Height is twice as big-BlameRuiner (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@BlameRuiner: Okay I see, to me it looks both the same when looking in Google Chrome, but your images say something else. It must be something with the way plattform displays different things. What platform are you using? QED237 (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's Opera (last pre-webkit version).-BlameRuiner (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

@Codehydro: You are the creator of the module used in 2015. Do you have any idea how this can be solved? QED237 (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Might I recommend relocating this particular discussion to WT:FOOTY to avoid split discussions? — Jkudlick ^tc_s 02:25, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

And we can see another person who hates the new group tables, and people are doing nothing to change them... Again... Why are you changing things which are good? User:TigerTatoo 21 January 2015, 11:29

• Oh boy, lots to respond to... please find you name below:

• @BlameRuiner: I believe I've developed a work around to the problem you described. However, using http://browsershots.org/ I did not see the 'giant' boxes that you described in Opera 12.02, which is what I understand to be the last pre-webkit version? Nonetheless, please take a look at the page again and tell me if my solution worked. (If so, then the problem was because old Opera ignores font-sizes smaller than 10px; my attempted solution was to add a div around the structural non-breaking spaces and set to the desired height and overflow = hidden). The screenshots were really helpful.
• @Jkudlick: Thanks for promoting this module! Yeah, weird compatibility issues like this are why this is in alpha. While it would be easy to merely duplicate the originals, they contain a lot of unnecessary 'filler' or inefficient html because non-modules cannot easily 'plan ahead' for empty parameters or skipped boxes. I strive to cut back on filler or inefficient styling in order to reduce download times/server stress, but it's often difficult to anticipate every non-standard browser's handling of the streamlined html.
• @Qed237: Thanks for helping diagnose this issue! You've literally saved me hours of work by letting me focus on coding —CodeHydro 19:17, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Qualification map

On the qualification map, those who qualified are blue, those who didn't are red, but East Timor is purple (which in contrast to neighbouring Indonesia's red looks blue).

Also, do we need the qualification map to show which teams did or did not qualify if we have another map showing where the qualified teams reached in the tournament? '''tAD''' (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed East Timor to black (there's a slight colour contrast) and I added a colour legend. Also, yes, I think we should keep the map. As you mentioned, we have another map showing where the qualified teams reached in the tournament but not a map specifically showing those teams which did not qualify. Some people may not know the other ~28 team that didn't qualify and the map gives a nice representation of them.--2nyte (talk) 02:17, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Australia became the first team to have been the champion of two confederations

I also posted this at the Australia national team talk page. I think this deserves a mention in the article. Some other national teams have participated in multiple continental tournaments as invitees, but none have achieved this. --Theurgist (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the info. It's been added to the records section and the opening.--2nyte (talk) 02:12, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2015 AFC Asian 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/20141023004129/http://www.the-afc.com/media-releases/australia-to-host-2015-afc-asian-cup to http://www.the-afc.com/media-releases/australia-to-host-2015-afc-asian-cup
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023000743/http://www.the-afc.com/media-releases/afc-asian-cup-australia-2015%E2%84%A2-preliminary-draw-results to http://www.the-afc.com/media-releases/afc-asian-cup-australia-2015%E2%84%A2-preliminary-draw-results
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141023004244/http://www.the-afc.com/asian-cup-2015/afc-asian-cup-draw-set-for-march-26-at-sydney-opera-house to http://www.the-afc.com/asian-cup-2015/afc-asian-cup-draw-set-for-march-26-at-sydney-opera-house
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140328212924/http://www.afcasiancup.com/news/en/afc-asian-cup-groups-decided/182xrxxa3z9ve1pbb6ddwncp5h to http://www.afcasiancup.com/news/en/afc-asian-cup-groups-decided/182xrxxa3z9ve1pbb6ddwncp5h
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.footballaustralia.com.au/site/_content/document/00001214-source.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140527214302/http://www.afcasiancup.com/i/AsianCup/img/pdfs/2015_Competition_Regulations.pdf to http://www.afcasiancup.com/i/AsianCup/img/pdfs/2015_Competition_Regulations.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)