Talk:2013 Copa Sudamericana

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Untitled

It should be mentioned that the Brazil berths are to be taken by those clubs finishing 5th to 12th in the 2012 Brazilian League, *excluding* those teams who will be playing the 2013 Copa do Brasil round of 16, which means that clubs finishing 13th or much lower will probably be playing the 2013 Copa Sudamericana. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.115.100.220 (talk) 02:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TwoLeg start template

Anyone want to return to the Template:TwoLeg start? The current one we are using is redundant with all the tie breakers and we are only making it more tedious to edit. It is technically correct but if every source covering Copa Sudamericana (and Copa Libertadores) is reporting the matches on aggregate scores, it is pointless to continue this practice per Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Continuing the current table will only confuse the reader. --MicroX (talk) 01:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I am in favour of using aggregate score, for the following reasons:

It is mathematically exactly the same as the rules laid out by CONMEBOL, i.e. they give you the same winner. It is not like CONMEBOL is playing a three-game series.
People and media in Europa, Asia, Africa etc. understand aggregate score, and when reporting on CONMEBOL matches, use aggregate score. Even if the matches are played in South America, we do not only use sources by CONMEBOL or those from South America, as per Wikipedia standards, we should use a variety of sources. Granted I do not know very well how sources in South America report on these matches, but I suspect they also understand aggregate score, since they watch UEFA Champions League matches etc. Even the Spanish (http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Sudamericana_2013) and Portuguese (http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copa_Sul-Americana_de_2013) versions of Wikipedia use aggregate score, which I suspect have more South American editors.
Even CONMEBOL reports and their twitter feed use aggregate score, for example, here: http://www.conmebol.com/es/content/emelec-con-fehaciente-contundencia-no-dejo-dudas, and here: https://twitter.com/SudamericanaCSF/status/365317614299398145.

Although there is one thing I need to point out. In the previous CONMEBOL table, the team listed first host the second leg, while the team listed second host the first leg. In the usual aggregate score table, it is usually understood that the team listed first host the first leg, while the team listed second host the second leg. So we need to reverse the teams if we change to a different table format. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary stages

The first and second stage of the tournament are under the title Preliminary Stage. "Preliminary" implies it is not part of the tournament. If the Round of 16, Quarterfinals, Semifinals and Finals are the "Final Stages" then the Preliminary stages should be renamed "Initial stage". --MicroX (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, Conmebol refers to the first and second stage of the Copa Sudamericana as Fase Eliminatoria, or Elimination Phase in English. --MicroX (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on 2013 Copa Sudamericana. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 08:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]