I believe the continental federations should be in alphabetical order (now Asia is before Africa and Oceania before Europe). There is absolutely no logic to the current order: both regions and acronyms are out of order. M&m89 (talk) 06:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the regions, but have no opinion about the above section. I have restored the alphabetical order for the regions. Frietjes (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Order based on confederations name, not regions. --Aleenf1 06:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. If you want to order it by confederation name, then that should be the group label. I reverted your last sequence of edits, since (a) discussion is in process and (b) you mangled up the color coding. Frietjes (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm also disagree, the Americas simply name because it is Pan America, it start with P, and not A, Frietjes, please have a look again. You change last time also also did not wait until the end of discussion process! What a reason! --Aleenf1 23:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

fyi, that was your fourth revert. I will provide formal warning on your talk page, since this could potentially lead to a block. Frietjes (talk) 16:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that this was not a WP:3RR violation, because the three-revert rule only applies when all the reverts are done within 24 hours of each other, and each of Aleen's reversions was on a different day. However, the broader definition of an edit war isn't restricted by time, and people can be blocked for edit warring even if they don't breach the three-revert rule. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

• Guys, is this really worth the edit war? It's how things are listed. It's not the difference between who won a championship. Think about the other side of the argument for a second, would it kill anything (it's an expression) to have it the other way? -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 21:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

  I agree the whole thing seems rather silly, but if there is a choice, I would vote for keeping it in alphabetical order (Africa, America, ...). Let's continue to discuss rather than edit warring. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 01:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

As i'm refer to few international sports navigation templates, they are no mandatory call for alphabetical order, sorry it can't be accepted if only vote for one template to be in alphabetical order only, more comment needed. I'm believe football project set a very good example that allow me to follow, not others. --Aleenf1 12:04, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Taking into consideration that the Olympics and the World League are more important tournaments and give more ranking points to the winners than the Champions Challenges, I propose to change the order of the tournaments in the template. First the World Cups, then the Olympic Games, then World League, then Champions Trophy and at the end the Champions Challenges. I think this is better, to sort then by order of tournament relevance: World Cups give 750 points as well as the Olympics. World League gives 400 and Champions Trophy 200, Champions Challenge 1 gives 130 and Challenge 2 gives 85.--M&m89 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree nearly. The Trophy is more known than the world league so that would be my only argument to place the CT ahead of the WL. Kante4 (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree with that, but I think that people´s knowledge of the competition is something difficult to meassure, therefore sorting according to that is weird to me. The ranking criteria is based on the most official information we have of the competitions The fact it is a new tournament the WL doesn´t make it less important. Actually, the WL gives berths to the WC, while the CT is only a competition for selected teams. --M&m89 (talk) 20:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, i have nothing against that order. Just wanted to point that out that more people "know" the CT than the WL (because it's new maybe), as seen on the edit histories. Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 3 December 2012 (UTC)