This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Ice Hockey B‑class 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 B This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Finland Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Finland 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.FinlandWikipedia:WikiProject FinlandTemplate:WikiProject FinlandFinland Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Sweden Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sweden, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sweden-related articles 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.SwedenWikipedia:WikiProject SwedenTemplate:WikiProject SwedenSweden Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Russia: Sports & games Start‑class Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force.

Something wrong with the cites: third goes to U-18 women's world championship scores and fourth has a 'no news_id given' text there. Don't know what is the point with the fourth cite, as the groups are already on the second cite. 82.141.119.195 (talk) 03:27, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan is not yet eliminated from advancing (although it is unlikely to happen). If KAZ win all their remaining games and CAN, FIN and SWI win all their games left after that, the standings will be

• Can 16
• Fin 15
• Swi 15
• Kaz 9
• Svk 6
• USA 5
• Fra 3
• Blr 3

With four games left; USA-Blr, Svk-Blr, Blr-Fra and Svk-Fra. One way those games can end that will end with a KAZ advancement is

• USA 3p vs BLR
• BLR 3p vs SVK
• BLR-FRA: FRA wins in OT, 2p to FRA, 1p to BLR
• FRA 3p vs SVK

Which would lead to this final table:

• Can 16
• Fin 15
• Swi 15
• Kaz 9
• USA 8
• Fra 8
• Blr 7
• Svk 6

So KAZ can still qualify.Lejman (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia is not QUITE certain to qualify yet. They can still end up in a three-way tie on 12 points with Czech republic and Germany, where each team has 3 points in their meetings (Rus beat Germany, Czech republic can beat Russia, Germany can beat Czech republic), which would then get decided on goal difference. - Lejman (talk) 21:20, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is my fault, sorry. I don´t understand, why I didn`t see this possible three-way tie. Thanks for correction.--CZMajkl (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Russia will be qualified if CZE gets 3 points against Italy. Am I right? --CZMajkl (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don`t see any scenario, where Russia can be eliminated now. Russia can be only tied with Latvia or Norway or can be in three-way tie with GER and LAT. Russia has maximum number of points from matches against LAT, GER and NOR, so I think is qualified now.

Sweden can be eliminated eg. in tie with LAT or three-way tie with LAT and GER because SWE didn`t play against LAT yet. --CZMajkl (talk) 16:58, 11 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the tie-breaking rules within a division?Juve2000 (talk) 03:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. points against all other tied teams (in other words, head-to-head, if it's two teams) 2. goals for/against difference overall . . . eventually, if nothing else can break the tie, it's IIHF ranking.

But anyway, somebody has already slated Canada into 1st place in the Helsinki group and into the 13:00 quarterfinal game. Though that's likely where they will be, it's not a guarantee. Firstly, USA could still finish 1st--they won the head-to-head game with Canada and therefore hold a tiebreaker, and in fact they could still beat them in points if Canada loses in regulation against Belarus. As well, no matter what happens, Finland will play in the 3rd quarterfinal game. Though their chances are playing Canada in the quarters are remote, they are possible if Canada finishes 2nd and Finland 3rd OR Canada finishes 1st and Finland 4th (Finland would lose a 3-way tie with USA and Slovakia on goals for/against difference). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.208.128.117 (talk) 05:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tie breaking rules are explained in detail here18abruce (talk) 09:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. The tie-breaking rules should be posted either in the main page IIHF World Championship or this year's page 2012 IIHF World Championship. Juve2000 (talk) 17:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

By the way.....from what I was reading, I agree that the first tie-breaker is points, but the second tie-breaker is goal difference within the tied group, not goal difference overall as stated in the first answer above. I was discussing the 3-way tie-breaking procedure with my buddy, and we were not sure how the ranking would go in the following example......Teams A B & C all finish with equal points. A beat B, B beat C, and C beat A, all in regulation, so all have 3 points in the mini-group classification. Regarding the goal difference within the mini-group, Team A is +2, Team C is 0, and Team B is -2. We all agree that team A ranks ahead of the other teams. Who would be ranked second? Team C based on goal differential, or Team B since it beat Team C in head-to-head? The website states that we revert back to head-to-head results once only two teams are tied, but in my example, Rule 1 leaves all three teams tied, while Rule 2 leaves NO teams tied.Juve2000 (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the case that you cite, A would be first, C second, B third because the same step broke all the ties, so the rule did not reduce the group to two. If A was +2 and both C and B were -1, the game between C and B would break their tie, not overall goal differential (which would have been the next step).18abruce (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In fact I believe Group B in 1992 illustrates exactly what you saying18abruce (talk) 19:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should we list the tie-breaking rules in the article? I think we should but will not do it if most other editors are opposed to the idea.Juve2000 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They should be, you can go ahead if you want. Kante4 (talk) 09:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't Slovakia be ahead of Finland now in their group? Slovakia has +8 DF, Finland +7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.128.56 (talk) 15:30, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FIN defeated SVK. Kante4 (talk) 15:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kante4, why you don't permit info about playoff games until games are over? It is definite who will play playoff with who and where so why people must compute it from other records? Jakub Horky (talk) 16:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The USA have a game left, how can we be sure they play against Canada? If they win they face Slovakia. Or which info do you have? Kante4 (talk) 16:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I overlooked it. Thanks Jakub Horky (talk) 16:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Btw if they win, shouldn't they play against Finland instead? I think they will face Slovakia only when they win in overtime. Jakub Horky (talk) 16:38, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, i meant Finland. As it is 2 vs. 3 and 1 vs. 4. Kante4 (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While Canada clinches the Helsinki group; Finland, Slovakia and the USA are the other three teams in.

Finland 15(3-Head to head win vs SVK)
Slovakia 15(0-loss to FIN)
USA 13 (16 with regulation win)

USA with a win (OT):

USA 15
Slovakia 15
Finland 15

USA defeats Finland, Finland defeats Slovakia, and Slovakia defeats USA. The next step is goal differential among the tied teams, NOT the overall goal difference. All games ended in regulation, so all three teams earn 3 points.

USA +3 (+5 vs FIN and -2 vs SVK)
SLV +1 (+2 vs USA and -1 vs FIN)
FIN -4 (+1 vs SVK and -5 vs USA)

If USA wins in regulation, they face Finland. Overtime win will have them face Slovakia. Otherwise they face Canada, and Slovakia and Finland face each other, regardless of seeding.

Great50 (talk) 18:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think, Switzerland final ranking is eleventh place. They have better score than Latvia but were at 6th place in their group, while Latvia 5th. 1)Position 2)Points 3)Score 4)Goals scored 5)IIHF ranking. f. e. look at 2008 IIHF WC, where CZE was 5th, while USA 6th (with better score, but worse position, after both teams were defeated in quarterfinals). And look at rules for Vancouver 2010 preliminary table too. --CZMajkl (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.. its here http://www.iihf.com/sk/competition/272/homeiihf/format-rules.html TerminalPreppie (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kante4: Aleš Hemský is our player who is really spelled with diacritics. First, it is inconsistent to keep some of the occurences of his name with diacritics and enforce some other occurences without the diacritics. In my opinion, it should be named everywhere either with the diacritics, or without. Second, you say that title of his own WP article is spelled without the diacritics, but even in the article itself he is referred to with diacritics everywhere in the text. Third, WP is tertiary source and I can show you hundreds of secondary sources where he is named with diacritics. Of course, there are also plenty sources without the diacritics, but it is result of common name crippling in sport, commonly caused rather by inability to treat the name right way than an intention. Btw, please don't break WP:3R (which you just did). Jakub Horky (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His article here is without diactrics, i know he can (should?) be spelled that way. But his article is without and so we should link to that i say. So that there is not a redirect, which should be avoided. Go to the talk page of the article and discuss it here, i have no clue why HE is written without diactrics. I have no problem and would even support to move it to the suggestion you have (which is the right one). Sorry for the 3R, if that happened. Kante4 (talk) 16:58, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need for a separate article for one hockey game, since it is part of the tournament, and can be adequately covered in this article. Further, most of the Final article just replicates information that is here, or has information that should not be in the Final article, but in the tournament article instead (like the road to the final). 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, it should be on a seprate page as more info is added for that specific match and would make this one too big. Kante4 (talk) 14:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kante, a single significant event that would make the current page too big. Also has a history of being a separate page, continuity should matter I believe.18abruce (talk) 03:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some users are saying that Russia won their 26th title, not their 4th. This is not correct. Although we usually refer to Soviet Union when we say "the previous Russia", they are two different countries. And if we should note Soviet's prior medals as well, why not do the same thing for Czechoslovakia's medals as Czech Republic and Slovakia (separately) capture bronze, silver, gold etc? I don't see any difference. HeyMid (contribs) 15:47, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Russia won their fourth title, that's it. We should not counting the one from as Soviet Union too. Kante4 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the IIHF recognizes Russia as the continuation of the Soviet Union. Likewise the Czech Republic is Czechoslovakia which was originally in the IIHF as Bohemia. I'll look for references (I thought they had that on their website somewhere, I vaguely remember stumbling upon it recently). TerminalPreppie (talk) 16:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

TerminalPreppie may be correct. First of all, the Russia men's national ice hockey team article states that the team "is recognized by the IIHF as the successor to the Soviet Union Hockey Federation and have passed it's ranking on to Russia" (although without reference). Also, the IIHF's article about the final game says "Russia now boasts 26 gold medals all-time, four in the post-USSR era". I don't know why the IIHF counts Slovakia and Czech Republic separately from Czechoslovakia, maybe it's because it was split into two countries while the Soviet Union split some countries and kept the "main" part of the country. But if we too should consider Russia a continuation of Soviet/USSR, why not merge the Soviet Union national ice hockey team article with the Russia one? HeyMid (contribs) 16:41, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The official encyclopedia of the IIHF does not add the medals of Russia to the medals of the USSR, same for CZE and TCH. However, it says "Russia replaced Soviet Union on May 6, 1992" whereas (for instance) "Belarus joined on May 6, 1992". Conversely, "Czech Republic and Slovakia replaced Czechoslovakia on April 28, 1993." The Czech situation and the Russian situation are not quite the same, and should be treated individually. Additionally note though that CZE and SVK did not begin as equals, CZE took TCH place in all championships, but SVK had to start in Group C. This whole discussion has been done extensively here, with some measure of consensus, perhaps have a look before anything gets changed.18abruce (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Double-line issues with Template:IceHockeybox. HeyMid (contribs) 19:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 IIHF World Championship. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iihf.com/home-of-hockey/news/news-singleview/article/2012-worlds-schedule-official.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110805005107/http://www.iihf.com/en/home-of-hockey/championships/world-championships.html to http://www.iihf.com/en/home-of-hockey/championships/world-championships.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523043828/http://www.iihf.com/competition/272/news/news-singleview-2012/recap/6990.html to http://www.iihf.com/competition/272/news/news-singleview-2012/recap/6990.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110429063313/http://www.iihf.com/en/channels-12/iihf-world-championship-wc12/home.html to http://www.iihf.com/en/channels-12/iihf-world-championship-wc12/home.html

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) 21:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]