Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup

Goalscorers section

I'm wondering if anyone has the time to revert the Goalscorers section to its original state, that of all the players who scored being listed freely, and not one just showing the "top" goalscorers. That format has NEVER been used for ANY international tournament, and it's not very informative or professional looking. Thanks.--Shadowrouge99 (talk), 12:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 173.86.41.169, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the opening paragraph, it should read, 'Italy is the defending champion,' not 'Italy are the defending champions.' 173.86.41.169 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The current version is correct in British English; see WP:ENGVAR. Algebraist 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another user has made the change requested above. I have reverted it. Bevo74 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This all depends on whether Italy is seen as an entity ("Italy is the...") or as a conglomeration of individual entities ("Italy are the..."). Either way, I think whichever form is chosen, it needs to be kept consistent throughout the entire page. XJ3N0V4x (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Why has this been changed to 'Italy is the defending champion'? The entire article is written in British English, and it ought to remain consistent throughout. We're talking about the Italian football team, which is a group of players, and is therefore coupled with the plural form of the verb 'to be' in this case. ericxpenner or User Talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

current tag

per WP:CET (and the protection level given for that reason) "used optionally to warn the editor or reader about the great flux of edits and the fast-changing state of the article, due to the fact that current events tend to get the most attention from editors." The # of edits has gone up and will go up in the next few days and weeks.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The current tag is for little watched articles that might be receiving hundreds of edits an hour due to an incident like the death of a celebrity etc. There are plenty of editors watching this article, and even now, with the tournament in progress and a game ongoing right now, it is getting about 5 edits an hour. It is wholly innappropriate for this article, and should not be used, even when games are in progress. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just cited the reference from the wikipedia guideline itself that warrants its inclusion. On what such basis do you think it shouldn't the reasons above seem like simply the opinion of an individual editor, nowhere is the mention of "hundreds of edits and hour" or any such measure. (of course today is the first day with 3 matches, there are also 4 match days to come

Im not going to revert the edit, i look to you do that because the revert was rather quick. Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

From Template:Current#Guidelines:

• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters, the death of celebrities, or other breaking news.
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.

Even using the watered down wording of WP:CET, there is no way on earth anybody would classify the edit rate to this article as a "great flux" or "massive editing attention" or describe it as a "fast-changing state". It is at best, getting a few numbers changed three times a day. There is no need for the tag, it does nothing for readers, editors don't need it, and to cap it all off, on such a high profile article, it looks bloody stupid. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The number of points of South Africa are wrong, it says 5 points while it should say 4 points! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.117.138 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the tag pending consensus that it's unwarranted. There are more than "a few numbers changed three times a day". --Elliskev 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea is that a very small section of this article gets changed often...the matches section. The other edits are minor. So if any template is on this page it should be the section specific one and it should be put on the Matches section. Chris1834 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call the matches section "a very small section". It's kind of the core of the article. --Elliskev 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So. It's been removed again with a per talk edit summary by MickMacNee. I don't get it. What talk? --Elliskev 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New additions (vuvizulas, betting odds etc)

some section on the vuvizulas (sp??) and the controversy would be nice, boy that thing it loud especially when south africa are playing ;)

Also some info on the special appearances as in Felipe Calderon (and the more to come (apparently joe biden tonight)) and the pre-kickoff concert with attendees (singers) could be added here. It is encylopaedic reference after all. And 1 more suggestiong was to expand a section for the booking favs to win. Ive added the section, but someone can expand it further.Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the spelling is "vuvuzela", not vuvizula... XJ3N0V4x (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• I too would like a section that has the pre-tournament bookmakers' odds. Surely, a good source on this exists. kabbelen (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)kabbelenkabbelen (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

favourites section

this edit [1] was removed because "inappropriate speculative opinion. different places give different opinions of who is favourite and one persons opinion is not notable" However, unlike the debate at the schedule page this edit firstly cites the view of a manager as such, which is not speculate and newspaper articles (as opposed to specific agencies) giving a summary of popular opinion/collated odds more generally. Furthermore, the first link may well have been from a specific outlet (although corroborated by the media link), but when removal can be improved on then why not keep it or fact tag it? Nothing is stopping and editor from adding more cites.

Im not going to restore it just yet, but can objection be discussed here? After all various cites were removed because of an undiscussed issue on 1 sentence.Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening ceremony

Could a short paragraph on opening ceremony be added? This is one of the prerequisites to get the article back on ITN. --Tone 14:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

it should, add a section and some info with an "expand" tag is need be.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable/controversy

[2] this was certainly a notable event, and backed by sources, to say why Mandela didn't attend, sources also say the expectations for so were high. the editor first removed it saying "individual is free to attend an event or not as he/she wishes: why should it be controversial that an elderly infirm person, mourning the loss of a relative, does not attend" i responded saying "his absence was notable" he returned saying "if there were an article on the Opening ceremony, it might be notable in that, but it is not a WC controversy" so rather than an edit war we can discuss this. as i said its his absence that is notable not the fact that an "individual" is free to attend. Mandela doesn't count as one of the 60,000 spectators, his presence adds the value as the sources said.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

His absence from the opening ceremony was listed as one of the competition's controversies. I cannot believe that many people see it as such: a disappointment, perhaps, but not a controversy. I note that in preparation for the event, no-one had thought it important enough to record his expected presence at the opening ceremony, so why is the inclusion of his absence (for entirely personal reasons) imperative? While there is nothing on Wikipedia about the opening ceremony, the absence of Mandela from the ceremony is going to be out of place wherever (with the possible exception of his own article) it is posted. If there is extended reporting of the ceremony, then of course it would be appropriate within that context. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the source statement of the expectations generated, but anyways, we can come to an agreement the section just above deals with the opening ceremony, so would you agree that its suitable there?(Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor readded this already, so I enhanced the edit to clarify the details. Hope its better, if not then edit it or say what should change.

Yes, I re-added per edit summary - seemed to be enough mention of it to justify inclusion if there was a suitable space for it, although I agree with Kevin McE that it wasn't really a controversy--ClubOranje^T 00:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The expression "ex-South African president" is nonsense! Mr Mandela is no longer president but he's still South African so it should be "former president of South Africa". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.243.91.229 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Goal Scorers section

The goal scorers in the "Scorers" section are currently sorted by the order in which their goals were scored. This is not the proper way to sort them, they should be sorted alphabetically by country, and then by name (similar to previous World Cup articles). When the "scorers" section becomes more populated it will become cluttered with players in a seemingly random order. It is more organized to have it alphabetically. 1joe60 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also in this section, an editor has pointed out, quite correctly, in an editnote that flags should not be used without text, and so replaced the flagicon template with flagathlete: an editor has now placed himself in breach of 3RR by undoing that change after three different editors had applied it. In defence of the editwarrior, a young and inexperienced editor, such sections appear, using flagicon in articles for previous events, but should we continue, knowingly, to flout WP:Flag? Kevin McE (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that flags only had to be accompanied by text for one of their usages in an article. Since the flags are accompanied by text in the group tables, I don't see any problem with leaving out the country name in the goalscorers section. – PeeJay 15:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the order, shouldn't they be in a sortable table with columns for country, player name, number of goals and then if space permits details of who they were scored against? Default order I would think would be number of goals, country, name. I don't know how to create such a table... Tomcrocker (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Typically, we have listed every single goalscorer in the tournament in that section, and I don't think that such a table would be very conducive to the large number of players that would need to be listed by the end of the tournament. – PeeJay 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why a list is better for displaying a large amount of info compared with a table? Tomcrocker (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the 2009-10 UEFA Champions League#Statistics article has a similar table. Tomcrocker (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has changed it back to flagathlete and stated that "the flagathlete template should be used here according to WP:MOSFLAG". Where in WP:MOSFLAG does it say we have to use flagathlete instead of flagicon? We have used the flagicon template for every other major international tournament including 2006 FIFA world cup and Euro 2008 so why should it now be changed? What is wrong with the flagicon template? 1joe60 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Green line in group tables

What exactly is the function of the green line in the group tables? I noticed that in the first few tables, it sits between the top two and bottom two teams, thereby representing who would advance and who wouldn't. But on group C, there are two lines, above and below England and the US, and on Group D there is no line at all at the moment. Since it's not obvious to me where the green line *should* be, perhaps someone could explain so we can make sure it's in the right place... TIA. ScottLeibrand (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What the line is, is the line that shows that the top two go into the next round. England should be above the USA though. See Group C Clyde1998 (talk · contribs)

I like how not only does Clyde site to the BBC of all institutions, but on the very page he linked to, the US is listed first. On FIFA.com, http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/standings/index.html, US is listed in 2nd. Where exactly is the controversy? Bds69 (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)bds69

If there is no key, the line should not be there at all. Wikipedia is not meant to be a self-serving resource for the cognoscenti, and readers should not have to guess about our symbols. Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree here. Wrongly placed green line can be misleading. --Tone 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The USA and England are even through all tie breakers and are currently tied for second place in group C. Many sources will change the order of the two (most likely depending on which side of the pond you are on). I don't think the green line should be included in any of the standing boxes. With the group stage just having begun and the minimal results in each group, the line is rather useless. Instead, a color backgrounds should be used to signify when a team has secured a spot in the next round (perhaps blue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.58 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is england/usa even an issue? When the teams are tied it goes on which Pot they are in, england should be second because they are in pot A. See the placing of other groups who are all tied because no games have even taken place yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.40.31 (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is of course, rubbish. The sides that have drawn are completely equal at the moment - any ordering of them on the FIFA website is entirely down to whoever updated the table - same with the BBC results, or your local newspaper (which probably done by AP or something) and even this page. If they put USA first, then they put USA first. If they had listed England first, then England would be listed first. Regardless, neither is ahead of the other - you just can't put both teams on the one line. The ordering before the group started is entirely down to a convention of listing them by the A1, A2, A3, A4 etc designation given in the draw. They could equally have been ordered alphabetically or by FIFA rankings or by GDP or anything if that had been the convention. Jlsa (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The green line indicates that the top two progress, not that the current top two will progress. Just like these league tables for next season don't profess that the bottom four alphabetically will be relegated! As for the Eng v USA thing - Jlsa is entirely correct, this is a non-issue --Pretty Green (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants a possible reason as to why FIFA have ranked equal teams the way they have (and this works up to Group E I think)- it is the team that plays its next game first that appears higher on the list. That could just be a coincidence however. Jlsa (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Like my own guess in an earlier section, this guess was quickly disproven by FIFA. All teams are tied in group F after two 1-1 matches. FIFA lists Paraguay, Italy, New Zealand, Slovakia. The next match is Slovakia-Paraguay. If your guess had been correct then there would still be the question of which team to list first when two tied teams play eachother. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed? The green line has been removed in Group A, although it is not of much use but still it looked good. 1Nikhil9 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

North Korea

Staying classy as usual. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6649440/Kim-Jong-il-bans-World-Cup-coverage-unless-North-Korea-win.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.255.111.236 (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Haha, wow. That's hilarious yet inappropiate to add in my opinion.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

They did win. Lugnuts (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to inject a bit of reality into this discussion, the north korean coverage of their first match is here.

Algebraist 13:22, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

>implying any news outlet other than KCNA isn't reality.

Nation next to flag

I've been reverted twice now, so I guess I should take this here. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons)#Flags states, under Accompany flags with country names

The name of a flag's country (or province, etc.) should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag icon, as not all readers are familiar with all flags. Nearby uses of the flag need not repeat the name, although first appearances in different sections, tables or lists in a long article may warrant a repetition of the name, especially if the occurrences are likely to be independently reached by in-article links rather than read sequentially. Use of flag templates without country names is also an accessibility issue, as it can render information difficult for color blind readers to understand. In addition, flags can be hard to distinguish when reduced to icon size.

Now, MOSFLAG does also state that repetition of country names next to flags is not always necessary, but I tend to agree with the reasoning presented in this passage. Plus, I just don't see the downside. So what is it? Nosleep (Talk · Contribs) 20:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but its clear some people don't since its been changed again this morning. Such fun... Argyle 4 Life^talk 08:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the most recent editnote, we don't use flagathlete because football articles don't use flagathlete. Well there's a well defended position! Poor habits within a project (and the desire of editors on football articles to litter articles with flags is extraordinary, and resistant to any limitation) might excuse not thinking of doing something in the first place, but not refusal to accept policy once it is pointed out. What purpose, beyond decoration, do the flags serve that the undecorated name of the country do not? What proportion of readers know immediately, going by the flag alone, whether Winston Reid is Australian or a New Zealander, or which of Vittek and Birsa is Slovenian? (there again, with flagathlete, which country does SLO refer to, and why should English speakers be expected to know the Spanish for Spain?)Kevin McE (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela in the lead

I added a sentence about the vuvuzela to the lead, because I think it's an important pop-culture phenomenon that crosses cultures and reflects the impact of the WC on the public consciousness. The reversion comment stated, "this will not be of long term high importance in the consideration of this event". I happen to disagree, but that's beside the point; speculation of future views on an issue beyond the obvious aren't really consistent with Wikipedia philosophy (e.g. WP:CRYSTALBALL). Moreover, if people in 2010 consider the vuvuzela a notable part of the WC then that should be sufficient to establish notability. In my view pop culture is interesting, notable and helps break up the necessary dryness of a summary of a sports tournament. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Moreover, if people in 2010 consider the vuvuzela a notable part of the WC then that should be sufficient to establish notability." See WP:Recentism for an explanation of why this is not true. It's an encylcopedia article, not a news article. Coemgenus 19:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, that's an essay, not a guideline or policy. It also has to do with proportion and balance, but I don't think one sentence in the lead about a contemporary pop-culture phenomenon is out of proportion. (Galvão Bueno is an article that's out of proportion, IMO.) But it's a fair point about recentism and my point about present views versus future views was overstated. I don't think I'm engaging in recentism, but given different views on the transcendence of the phenomenon, I would suggest erring on the side of reflecting contemporary importance. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

While mention of the vuvuzela in relation to the current event is widespread, it is not a relevant or historically important element of the tournament. I don't question the notability of the wretched racket or its inclusion in the article: I cannot believe that it is considered today, or will be seen in the long term, as of such key importance to the event that it merits a place in the introductory paragraph. This is indeed of key importance, as the appeal to policy made by PhilipR is invalid in this case: Crystalball restricts what we include, not what we exclude. So the decision as to whether it belongs in the lead is, as I said in that editnote, a judgement as to whether the vuvuzelas are "of long term high importance in the consideration of this event". Kevin McE (talk) 19:29, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely the vuvuzela became known to a fairly wide international audience at the 2009 Confederations Cup: I would challenge the veracity of the current phrasing in the lead. Kevin McE (talk) 17:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't even see the word vuvuzela in the present revision of the 2009 Confederations Cup article, and I suspect you'll have a hard time finding sources discussing its cultural impact on any scale remotely approaching that of 2010. Nevertheless, at this point I don't really care too much about this one sentence in the lead. I wish some consensus would emerge in one direction or the other rather than the two of us stalemated, though. Maybe we should ask for a 3rd opinion? - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 06:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

"Cultural impact" seems something of an overstatement, I can't imagine it remaining a widespread topic of conversation for long after the competition is over. Googling "vuvuzela confederations cup" gives 111,000 returns: [3], [4] and [5] are just the first three non-wiki/non-youtube examples. Kevin McE (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here's a third opinion, then. The vuvuzela is, the football aside, the biggest story of the WC. Some are even bemoaning the football for interrupting the vuvuzela concert. Of course one sentence about it should go into the lead. Ericoides (talk) 16:03, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You have a source for that? If people prefer a poorly tuned B Flat to watching football, there must be other places to find it: let them buy a plastic tuba at their local hardware store. Kevin McE (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll suggest that to them. Ericoides (talk) 05:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that that was a story in the onion? Hilarious if people took it seriously. http://www.theonion.com/articles/south-african-vuvuzela-philharmonic-angered-by-soc,17625/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.52 (talk) 16:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Irony is wasted on some. Ericoides (talk) 20:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Official Stadium Names

I would just like to mention that "Greenpoint Stadium" refers to the stadium that was demolished to create an open area to build the "Cape Town Stadium". There are still too many references to "Greenpoint Stadium" as the official name. I have already corrected these mistakes, but they keep being reverted back. The stadium is OFFICIALLY known as the "Cape Town Stadium". If you don't believe me, go check these articles:

http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Pages/Nameournewstadium.aspx http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?sf=2833&set_id=1&click_id=13&art_id=vn20091029125829121C477523 http://www.sport24.co.za/Soccer/WorldCup/TournamentNews/CT-names-2010-SWC-stadium-20091030

XJ3N0V4x (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, we tend to go by the names used by FIFA for the stadia. That said, we should probably change that policy, as we no longer follow it for the Champions League or other UEFA competitions. – PeeJay 21:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

It is possible we should have a wider discussion about which information should match the "official" source (ie, the FIFA match report or equivalent) and what information can vary. For example, the goal scorer's identity is probably going to have to be as per the report, but not necessarily the spelling. Similarly, with the location of the match, both the stadium name and the "town" as often this can differ depending on source - sometimes the confederation will call a location something different to FIFA (for example, Manama in Bahrain or Madinat Isa and so on, Tunapuna/Macoya and some of the WC venues). Jlsa (talk) 23:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

I've already sent an official request to FIFA to stop them from using "Greenpoint Stadium" in reference to "Cape Town Stadium", a request I am yet to receive a reply for. Their usage is wrong. Full stop.

The name "Greenpoint Stadium" refers to something that no longer exists. Full stop.

FIFA should get their facts right. Full stop.

Wikipedia (specifically this page) is designed to contain sourced FACTS. Above are my sources. Official ones. The owners/managers of the stadium in question. FIFA is not the official source nor do they have any reason to call it "Greenpoint Stadium". Fact.

XJ3N0V4x (talk) 09:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Incredibly sorry

I was tinkering around with languages in the infobox and it kinda broke. -- hello, i'm a member | talk to me! 18:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Venues location data

I don't see the point of displaying the location data (in it's current form) in the listing of venues. Most people who read the article don't dont have any use for it anyways, and it takes a lot of space. I suggest that it is either removed, or written in some form that is easyly understood by normal people. --JonasMeinertz (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Tie-breaking criteria

Tie-breaking criteria

For the World Cup tournament, FIFA uses the following criteria to rank teams in the Group Stage.[71]

  1. greatest number of points in all group matches;
  2. goal difference in all group matches;
  3. greatest number of goals scored in all group matches;
  4. greatest number of points in matches between tied teams;
  5. goal difference in matches between tied teams;
  6. greatest number of goals scored in matches between tied teams;
  7. drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee.

Replace the points 4-6 with the uniqe point: the result of the match between tied teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.179.145.66 (talk) 21:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

It's possible for a tie to be among three teams, however, in which points 4 through 6 would be applied, in turn, to see if the tie was broken at one of them. —C.Fred (talk) 21:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I was confused by that at first, until i eventually figured it out and then read the above twice. Maybe it should be stated in the article to avoid confusion. Bobbymozza (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2010 (BST)

References in random place in article

The reference list currently appears between the Group A table and Group A fixtures, but can't see how to fix it. It also replaces Group A in the table of contents. Quite odd... - JVG (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I was unable to fix it either. Chris Martin (talk) 10:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem. References are listed section number 19 and don't break anything in my browser. Can you look at previosu versions?--Tikiwont (talk) 10:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody added {{reflist}} to {{2010 FIFA World Cup Group A}}. It was removed 21 minutes later in [6]. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

national teams are playing

not Chalsea and Barcelona CorvetteZ51 (talk) 13:08, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That is mentioned in the article, but from your edit[7] I understand that you're asserting it is the premier international association football tournament for national teams (only), are you? But it is is the most widely viewed sporting event in the world as far as I know.--Tikiwont (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose 'association' is correct, but the term os confusing CorvetteZ51 (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Refereeing Controversy

Should something be added about the number of controversial refereeing decisions made at this World Cup then eh?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan Willford (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Certainly. There should be a controversies section and article. Its linked in the infobox at the bottom and I swear I saw it a few days ago, but now its gone.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

It was renamed 'match effects', a less accurate title, I think in a bid to avoid the word 'controversy'. Christopher Connor (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just saw that. "match effects" is a very poor choice of words. I propose putting it back to "match controversises" unless someone can come up with something better. Oh... and I also support Jonathan's idea of adding refereeing controversies to this section. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:42, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe that in an effort to trim this article (see: ARTICLE SIZE), the "controversies" section was deleted. To trim to the extent of cutting out useful information is not the best idea. --Autocat (talk) 13:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

ARTICLE SIZE

This article is way too long and needs consolidation of the sections. 2006 FIFA World Cup can serve as a model. --Metallurgist (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is a lot of recentist cruft which needs trimming. --John (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Guess Ill work on it since there is a lot of obvious redundancy.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I did some less radical trimming now. Work in progress... At least, when there is a separate article, we don't have to repeat all the info in this one. --Tone 16:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I honestly dont think it is radical what I did. There is a lot of clutter on the page (opening ceremonies, symbols, etc) that could really be moved off page. The 2006 article is 77kb. This is 107. I had it down to 94.--Metallurgist (talk) 00:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Before removing a major section (even with a link to the main article) could we just start a new section here "PROPOSED SECTION DELETION: Opening ceremonies" or similar. Yes, 2006 FIFA World Cup does not have a "Discipline section", but it finished four years ago, while 2010 is going on and players are getting suspensions almost every day. After the group stage is over, we could move the table contents to the disciplinary article and clear the table on the main page, except for active suspensions. Facts707 (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I dont recall having one then and its just unnecessary clutter. This page is far too big, even for a current event.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:27, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The referee in question

Koman Coulibaly

I think it is important to include refereeing that is not on the level of the sporting event. The decision of Koman Coulibaly is probably on the biggest upsets of the World Cup so far. The footage of the game reveals how unjust the decision was. It seems that our goal was just taken away for no reason. There were so many fouls in clear range for the referee to see but he simply decided to call a foul on Edu. I think this should be seriously reconsidered because each game in the World Cup counts and therefore the 3 points that were taken away really hurts the USA team.

170.140.165.128 (talk) 20:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

What was the call? Was it a foul or was it offsides? Was listening to the Univision coverage in Spanish, but didn't hear "faulta" so I assumed it was offsides. wasn't there an edict that the officials would be using signals to indicate what was called on the field? Raul17 (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

ESPN put up an "offside" graphic, but as they did not show the linesman I could not tell if he was holding his flag to indicate offside or not. I believe the announcer (Adrian Healey?) said the linesman was holding up his flag but did not signal offside, meaning he had signaled for a foul. Replay footage showed Edu barely touched anyone, and was definitely not offside. ESPN's studio analysts (Alexi Lalas and Steve McManaman, I think, for that particular show) later looked at the replay and concluded they had no idea what the referee had seen, and that he appeared to be blowing the whistle as Edu was making his run, before he touched the ball. Thankfully, Yahoo Sports reports that Coulibaly will be "excluded" for the rest of the Cup. Xenon54 (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The NY Times story on the game says: "Donovan said the Americans never received an explanation. Numerous times, the United States players asked Coulibaly “in a nonconfrontational manner” what the foul was and whom it was called on, Donovan said later at a news conference. “He wouldn’t or couldn’t explain it,” Donovan said. [...] Several Americans said they did not see a foul. Coach Bob Bradley said he had heard several versions of what might have happened, none of them definitive or satisfactory. [...] In perhaps every other sport, an explanation of such a decisive play would have been provided. But Sepp Blatter, the president of FIFA, has ignored calls for video replay and has decided against putting additional referees on the end line. He has said that he likes the debate that follows matches, believing that uncertainty and subjectivity boost the sport." In my opinion, Blatter's quote is idiotic and the call was vile, but then I'm an American, so I would think that. Languagehat (talk) 00:51, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

You could also include, if indeed it happens, that he may be removed for the rest of the tournement for his performance. His meeting with FIFA scheduled for june 19th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brc2396 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that would bring the event to the level of significance that it would warrant being mentioned in the article. The problem is, FIFA will probably not admit, if it happens, why it happened, so it will be hard to verify that he would be suspended as a result of that call.

The other thing that could make it significant is the amount of coverage it's receiving in non-US papers. If a major British newspaper was making the same criticisms—especially since England is in direct competition for advancement against the US—then that would suggest that it's a more significant issue than the average questionable call. —C.Fred (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA has said that they're going to make a statement about the referee's decisions on Monday.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-world-cup-notes-20100620,0,2528281.story

-- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Drawing lots

Tie-breaking criteria: 7.drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee. Just out of curiosity,has it ever happened ? VIV0411 02:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by VIV0411 (talk • contribs)

It happened in 1990 FIFA World Cup Group F to determine second and third place, but both teams advanced due to 1990 FIFA World Cup#Ranking of third-placed teams. I don't know whether there are other World Cup cases. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The only drawing of lots our article Penalty shootout (association football) mentions that decided a knockout place were:

• Euro 1968 semifinal: Italy 0 - 0 USSR after extra time; Italy won the coin toss (USSR called incorrectly), then went on to draw the final with Yugoslavia and win the replay.

• Football at the 1968 Summer Olympics quarterfinal: Bulgaria 1 - 1 Israel; Bulgaria won the unspecified drawing of lots.

I don't know of any other incidences in group states that required separation by drawing of lots. Such a situation could occur in this World Cup, if the Group C matches finish, for example, USA 0 - 0 Algeria and England 2 - 2 Slovenia. In that situation, since England and USA are tied on points, goal difference, goals, head-to-head points, and head-to-head goals, a coin toss would be required to decide whether England or USA advance. Xenon54 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Are there any details as to the exact procedure? Is there a specific coin used, who gets to attend the toss, and who makes the call ? Juve2000 (talk) 21:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The official regulations are not clear, only specifying that drawing lots is the final tiebreaker, and if time allows it may be replaced with a one game playoff at the discretion of the FIFA Organizing Committee. I assume that if the situation arises the committee will make a decision then regarding procedure. The only concrete details come from the 1990 World Cup, where the coin toss happened immediately after the game because the two tied teams, the Netherlands and Ireland, had just finished playing each other. I can't imagine what would happen should England and USA or Slovenia and USA require the drawing of lots, because they are not playing each other. Xenon54 (talk) 01:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Play-offs are only a possibility in the "preliminary competition", i.e. the qualification for the World Cup (where there is more time to settle a tie). PrimeHunter (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I certainly don't expect a coin toss for this. Coin tosses can be used for on court decisions between playing teams. "Drawing of lots" implies drawing something. That's how other off court decisions like group composition are made. Three or four teams may be tied and then a coin toss wouldn't be enough. Having different procedures for two teams and more than two would be strange. The 1990 draw is described in [8]: "And last night another hand, belonging to Monique Furica, an assistant with the world soccer group, dipped into what looked like a brandy snifter for King Kong and made a blind draw". That source is the only Google web hit on "Monique Furica" so I'm not sure the spelling is right. Google News Archives [9] gives one other hit I don't have access to. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:09, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

For the mathematically inclined, there is a question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics#World Cup group stages - how likely is it that drawing of lots would be required? It asks for the prior possibility (i.e. not from where we are now but from the beginning of the tournament). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The draw process has been announced, and it would indeed be a fishbowl-style draw, in similar process to the group draw. It's slated to take place one hour after the matches finish (approximately 13:00 EST/17:00 GMT) if required. Soccernet. Xenon54 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Discipline section

Do two yellow cards in seperate matches really make a red? That's what it shows on the pictures and i don't think it's right.

It's makes it look like Graham Poll is back and the players got two yellow cards and then got sent off. It's two yellows, then a suspension. Bobbymozza (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A player can be suspended for two yellows in the preliminary round, whether it's two yellows in separate games (e.g., Craig Moore v. Germany and then Ghana) or two yellows in the same game (e.g. Miroslav Klose v. Serbia—who was sent off for the remainder of the game after the second yellow in addition to for the following game). A straight red also leads to a suspension from the following game (e.g., Tim Kahill v. Germany). —C.Fred (talk) 20:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What i was reffering to is, on the pitures in the discipline section it looks like it shows two yellow cards and then a red. Thanks, but i know how the suspensions work. Bobbymozza (talk) 21:36, 19 June 2010 (BST)

I had a look at it again and asume they got 1 yellow in the first match and a yellow and a red in the second. OR actually, it must be two yellows (in a match) makes a red. Got it, duh.

See this is why im never taking one of those IQ test thingies. It wouldn't measure my intelligence correctly, im different. Bobbymozza (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (BST)

Format

Why are the results of the group matches reported in such a poorly formatted way? Why can't we use the standard "footballbox" format for all the games? I understand there are separate pages for each group, and that includes full lineups and formations, but all group matches should be reported like this.Avman89 (talk) 20:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

19 June 2010

20:30

Cameroon	1 – 2	Denmark
Eto'o 10'	Report	Bendtner 33' Rommedahl 61'

Loftus Versfeld Stadium, Pretoria

Attendance: 38,704

Referee: Jorge Larrionda (Uruguay)

This is to keep the article shorter. It is huge already and this would make it even longer. --Tone 20:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

It really wouldn't add much, and would look a lot more professional. No one expects the main page for a major sports tournament to report scores like it does now. It wouldn't involve any real editing, with the code just copied from the group pages. After the tournament one could figure out ways to make the article shorter, such as moving the Disciplinary records box to its own article, listing only players who have scored, say, 3 or more goals (instead of 1 or more), etc.

The article suffers from being too long due to its many sections. However, the decisions regarding the sections seem to have been poorly thought out. For example, why is there TWO sections for venues? And why do we have 2 or more maps of South Africa with the locations of the stadia, when they essentially repeat the same info? And why does the section on the mascot have so much extraneous information, e.g. "Zakumi's birthdate coincides with a day known and celebrated as Youth Day in South Africa and their second group match. The first non-racial nationwide elections in South Africa were in 1994. Zakumi turned 16 in 2010.[43] Andries Odendaal, from Cape Town, created the original character design. Zakumi's official motto is: "Zakumi's game is Fair Play." The motto was seen in the digital advertisement boards during the 2009 Confederations Cup, and it also appeared at the 2010 World Cup". Who cares what the "birthdate" and "age" of a fictional leopard is? The "social", "economic" and "match" effects sections are also far too long and read like a personal essay? Why don't we let people improve the article instead of semi-protecting it? It seems like we are more concerned with the tournament's effect on South Africa than on the actual results of the matches.Avman89 (talk) 21:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, the article can be trimmed considerably. Regarding the protection, it is sensitive to let it until the championship is in progress. Otherwise, the article would immediately become a vandalism target and you don't want to see how bad this can get ;-) --Tone 22:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request on Construction strike

The strike that was going to go into 2011 according to the article and they need to change it as the strike ended after one week: http://www.sa2010.gov.za/en/node/2429

Also the transport section indicated that the Gautrain was meant to be finished for the World Cup but in fact only part of it was meant to be finished which was the Sandton to Airport link which finished ahead of the original schedule. The simple fact is that the Gautrain was not built for the world cup but schedule for the Sandton Airport link was moved to accommodate the world cup. This is applies to the "Preparations" section. Also the BRT was not introduced for the world cup despite what the current article says. --Tanka8 (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a reference for the Gautrain not being built for the world cup and to show the airport link was not scheduled to be open for the world cup: http://www.mg.co.za/article/2006-10-11-no-guarantee-gautrain-will-be-ready-for-2010 Also can be found on the Gautrain page. --Tanka8 (talk) 19:41, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Add to filming

Considering there is a section of filming someone could talk about the spider cameras they are using. Know it is nothing new but they are still quite interesting. This is their website: http://spidercam.org/ and here is a picture of the one a soccer city. Not sure on what stadiums have them but know Soccer city and Ellis Park have them. Here is a picture of one: http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/17062010/8/photo/general-view-camera-soccer-city-stadium.html The ones I have are not good as I did not have my zoom lens but they go right down onto the field at soccer city (half a meter off the ground) and film the players running out. Also get nice and close to the crowds would be nice if someone could write a section on it. Just some more info if any one wants to write it: http://translate.google.co.za/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.spidercam.net/&ei=QUMdTJ3BEc___Aa56ey-DQ&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CDcQ7gEwBQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3D%2522spider%2Bcam%2522%2Bat%2B%2522soccer%2Bcity%2522%26hl%3Den and http://www.daylife.com/photo/0cc1gGW1hK6k8 --Tanka8 (talk) 22:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening Ceremony Image

Surely there should be at least one picture of the opening Ceremony at Soccer city? --Tanka8 (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Host Selection

Something should be added about South Africas 2006 bid which failed by one vote in the 3rd round of voting which was marred by a hoax bribery affair which even led to calls for a re-vote. Here is the info taken from the 2006 FIFA World Cup page: "The success of Germany's bid was marred by a hoax bribery affair which even led to calls for a re-vote.[5] On the night before the vote, German satirical magazine Titanic sent letters to FIFA representatives, offering gifts in exchange for their vote for Germany. Oceania delegate Charlie Dempsey, who had initially backed England, had then been instructed to support South Africa following England's elimination. He abstained, citing "intolerable pressure" on the eve of the vote.[6] Had Dempsey voted as originally instructed, the vote would have resulted with a 12–12 tie, and FIFA president Sepp Blatter, who favoured the South African bid,[7] would have had to cast the deciding vote.[8]" Might not be relevant to 2010 on its own but is relevant to how South Africa got the bid to host the 2010 World Cup --Tanka8 (talk) 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Subordinate clause, with a wikilink, inserted into the host selection section. Kevin McE (talk) 13:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Non soccer content

I understand that the content is not going to get removed but after glancing over the 2006 SWC page I just wondered why there was so much non soccer content; most of which is found under "Event effects" Just seemed like an odd and large change from the 2006 page. --Tanka8 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzelas

I find a huge problem with Reference 114 linking to a hugely opinionated and biased opinion column. It is also untrue that the Vuvuzelas drown out the crowd as you can clearly hear chants and cheers by spectators during goals and exiting moments. Also in one match you could clearly hear the beat of a drum echoing around the stadium. Often the sound of the ball kicked is also heard so I think the "Others watching on television have complained that the ambient audio feed from the stadium only contains the sounds of the vuvuzelas and the natural sounds of people in the stands are drowned out.[114]" comment should be removed; along with the 114 reference. --Tanka8 (talk) 23:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC) Sorry it keeps changing as people edit. The reference is the one to the New York Post. "Valenti, Elio (13 June 2010). "Buzz off, vuvuzelas!". New York Post. http://www.nypost.com/p/sports/more_sports/buzz_off_vuvuzelas_FPa9BYlmlRWJMsF1W65cyJ?CMP=OTC-rss&FEEDNAME=." --Tanka8 (talk) 13:12, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Surely this: "Portuguese telecommunications company, Portugal Telecom, announced on 16 June an offer an alternative audio feed, which the vuvuzela sound is edited out, to the customers of its Pay-TV service called MEO. Per-Erik Jonsson, a sound technician at the national Swedish radio broadcasting company Sveriges Radio explained how to get rid of most of the noise by filter out B flat (233 Hz) and its overtones (466 Hz, 932 Hz and 1,165 Hz) with an equalizer. Another option to filter out the vuvuzelas is to create a counter resonance by listening through a lamellated tube, such as a plastic vacuum cleaner hose of a a length that matches the frequency.[126]" Should rather go under the Vuvuzela page and not the WC page? --Tanka8 (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

ENGLAND has been the only games so far where the fans drown out the vuvuzelaz.86.185.205.110 (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Stadium Capacity

The stadiums capacities mentioned on this page should only be the capacities provided by FIFA.com. However, Soccer City capacity is wrong on the English version of FIFA.com, but is correct on other languages (French, German). So if anyone is going to change that section please use only FIFA.com as a guide. --Eduardm (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Soccer City Image

The outside image of soccer city with the multi coloured tiles and light shining out as well as the rounded design to look like a calabash. I feel something like this would be better: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Stadiumsoccercity.jpg or maybe an aerial view during the day. --Tanka8 (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 98.228.224.97, 20 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

In section 12 "Matches" , Group B has Argentina advancing (Green) and Nigeria out (Red). This is not true. If you click on the link to see section B, it even states there is 1 scenario in which Argentina will not advance. I understand this one scenario is unlikely...but still, it needs to be corrected for accuracy.

98.228.224.97 (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

At the moment of writing, this has already been fixed. --Tone 18:00, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

And since Tone's comment, someone has re-greened Argentina...no doubt an overeager Albiceleste booster. For future reference, in case anyone refers here before editing -- if Argentina lose to Greece, and South Korea defeat Nigeria, then all teams but Nigeria have 6 points, and we have a three-way tie that must be broken by goal differential. If Greece and South Korea were to win by enough each, then THEY would be the ones out of the group. So although qualification is very very very likely for Argentina, it is not a mathematical certainty. That being said, would someone take the green off Argentina, and monitor it for what I'm sure will be an ongoing situation? --74.192.25.188 (talk) 18:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

The table is transcluded from Template:2010 FIFA World Cup Group B which is not protected. And yes, the situation continued with the latest wrong edit 35 minutes ago surviving for 16 minutes. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Total goals scored

The total goals scored at the 2010 FIFA World Cup is currently 53 after 28 games, not 51 as stated. The average goals scored per game is 1.9, not 1.89. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.179.159 (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

At the time of your post it said 51 goals in 27 matches. The count had not been updated with the latest 1–1 result a little earlier. 53/28 = 1.89285714... 1.9 and 1.89 are both valid roundings. FIFA only gives one decimal at [10] but I think two are OK. It ensures that every goal makes a difference in the average. With one decimal it would have been 1.9 for any of 52, 53 or 54 goals in 28 matches. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Um, group stage

2 groups have the "elimination" and "go to 16 rounds" signs, adn we're not done with the group stages. Can you correct this? I'm an IP user. (DO NOT SIGN, SineBot!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.170.216.184 (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Two teams (Brazil & Netherlands) have already secured progress to the second round: one team (Cameroon) can no longer gain enough points to reach the second round. Kevin McE (talk) 07:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

but both teams might go to 2nd place in their groups and would have to play a different match in the Round of 16(e.g. Brazil: 29 June – Cape Town instead of 28 June – Johannesburg) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.72.83 (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody claims otherwise. "Key to colours in group tables" says for green: "Countries that advance to the Round of 16". Eventually there will be two greens in each group. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It's premature to colour code these teams; I appreciate the strength of the mathematics, but until all the games for each group have been played, this is premature. What would happen if for example Brazil were completely disqualified from the tournament? It's not correct to declare eliminations etc until it's formally done by FIFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.235.10.210 (talk) 13:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Posted minutes after the games without cites it seems to be orIginal research as its finest;)--Tikiwont (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There are fixed rules and it would be easy to find reliable sources to say which teams are certain to advance or not advance. It doesn't have to be from FIFA (but it can be: [11]). Before the matches there are also many reliable sources saying things like "If A wins then they advance". I think that when editors agree on the maths, Wikipedia:No original research#Routine calculations is enough to not require sources for simple things like teams certain to advance or not advance before their last match. Even FIFA can make no absolute guarantees about the future. For example, a team might be disqualified because a problem is found after FIFA had announced their advancement, or the whole tournament might be cancelled due to a disaster, or lots of other theoretical possibilities. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Here is a FIFA source for Brazil advancing: [12]. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was only half-serious. Still it seems that Wikipedia editors now beat any reliable sources to the punch considering also the pregame scenarios. On the other hand for routine calculations (in the eyes of a mathematician?) there seem to be a lot of errors and corrections in the group articles. Anyways...--Tikiwont (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ivory Coast is shown as eliminated from group play before the final match. This is premature since a HUGE victory against North Korea could send them to the Round of 16.L3kn (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any revision that had Côte d'Ivoire shaded in red. They may be listed below the green line to show they're currently not going to advance, but they're shown as still in contention. —C.Fred (talk) 19:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because they're below the green line. This will all sort itself out shortly. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Map

Shouldn't we switch the map over now from one showing which countries qualified/which did not to one showing into which stage each of the already qualified countries advanced (similar to this one from the 2006 article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2006_world_cup.svg)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lieftastic (talk • contribs) 21:58, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

It seems early now. The only team with known end result is Cameroon which doesn't advance from the group stage. Two other teams are currently known to at least advance to the round of 16. Nothing is known about the 29 remaining. In 2006 a result map was added after the group stage had completed.[13] PrimeHunter (talk) 01:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite Prime Hunter's eminently sensible contribution and reference to precedent, a map with no key, indicating the "worst possible result" for each team, was added. The last currently appropriate version is no longer at 2010 world cup.png, so map deleted until something worth showing at this stage in place again. Kevin McE (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The addition replaced a map which only showed the qualified teams.[14] I have readded that map.[15] PrimeHunter (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I already reinstated the qualification map yesterday. The map with no key, which I removed yesterday is inappropriate for severalrerasons. It is badly formatted as East Asia and Oceania are truncated on my display. The colour scheme advocated for the fully developed version of that map contains two shades of green and one of red and therefore is not user-friendly for people who have the most common form of colour-blindness. This problem has already had to be fixed once so people should not reintroduce it. The map in any case appears in a section on qualification. Therefore the current map which has information about qualification is relevant. The proposed match which is to do with things that happen after qualification does nto belong there. So please make sure that this is not reinserted in the current location and that if it is inserted anywhere that the serious probalms with it are fixed first.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the reasons you put forward, as far as I can see, there's no different between the formatting of the two maps; they appear to use the same base map. The color scheme is the same as is used in every other World Cup article, as is the placement of the map in the qualification section. Lieftastic (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. There are millions of Wikipedia readers who have difficulty in distinguishing colours and effort should be made to help them see that e.g France and Belgium did do rather differently in Germany 2006 as did Germany and Ukraine. As for map size, the 2006 map does fit so it maybe that the two editors who have tried adding the map here have both edited poorly.--Peter cohen (talk) 10:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Prose summary: include or not?

MickMacNee added a summary of key events so far: I tweaked it slightly; Jlsa deletes it on the grounds that the 2006 article lacks such prose, and minor points of phrasing that could be discussed and tweaked. Without wishing to editwar, and wanting to avoid at this stage getting into the minutiae of every possible link and element of phraseology, should there be a prose overview or not? Is the degree of detail with which it had been started too much, too little, or worthy of having been composed for goldilocks by baby bear? Kevin McE (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It is probably better to include a short group summary for each group once this stage is finished. I'd say the proposed summary was a bit long. --Tone 10:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how excruciating minutiae can be confused with a summary. Also the writing is ridiculously bad - it actually said "All seeds won" and then lists how 3 out of 7 didn't. It's like expecting some sort of approval for something like "Eveybody survived the crash, apart form the pilot, co-pilots, and the aircrew, everyone in rows 1-35 and 200 people in an apartment on the ground". In addition, what (if any) significance is there is each of the "series" of games, it doesn't matter how you get the points, only how many you get. This article is already massively bloated, and now we should add another 30-odd lines of text for each series of 16 matches. And then presumably there would need to be AT LEAST as much detail on the knock-out phases, probably each phase. Who is searching a SUMMARY article of the world cup for this information? I think this is the sort of stuff that the term "cruft" was invented for. Jlsa (talk) 10:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. And because you think it so, nobody would disagree right? If all we have as justification for the entire removal of this material is this one charming editor's opinion that what he thinks people want to read is simply what all people want to read, then I respectfully request it be reinstated. It can be reworded if necessary, given his equally charming appraisal of my writing ability, maybe making it less stat-ish, but this wholesale yanking was simply ignorant vandalism. I happen to think it is bloody ludicruous that at this stage of the tournament, the reader of this article has no prose, not a single word, detailing how the groups stages have gone. Wikipedia is not an almanac, this article is not supposed to be a mere collection of tables and bare stats. I couln't give a monkeys what is in the 2006 article, it's not even a GA at present. I present the whole section I added below for comment. I did come here to update it on this morning's match, but I obviously didn't count on the presence of Jlsa. I don't know what his knowledge of WC football is, but if he honeslty thinks that there is no difference between Netherlands qualifying with one game to spare, but Italy drawing their first two games and then (maybe) scraping, then who am I to argue? It's patently absurd to call that trivia or cruft, and it is ridiculous to suggest it doesn't even warrant a summary. And I really shouldn't have to point out the revelance of relevant rankings etc should I? What I wrote isn't even 10% of what the news focusses on every day, the idea that it was all cruft is frankly laughable, I don't know why he wasn't just summarily reverted it's so absurd a claim. Still, if the goal is for this article not to say anything at all, not give the reader the slightest indication of how the group rounds progressed, what the stand-out results were, how the seeds fared, etc, etc, then so be it. It will be perfectly useless to anybody but the people who like pretty tables and lots of numbers, which isn't your average encyclopoedia reader. And he is dreaming if he thinks summary text is not included, both the 2002 and 1998 articles have very long prose sections for summarising the group stages, and even that crappy 2006 article has small paragraphs located in each group section, but they are about as usefull to the reader as a chocolate teapot, seeing as all they do is pretty much repeat parrot fashion the contents of the tables and stats you are already looking at above it. Still, thank you Jlsa for reaffirming my belief that it is an inherently pointless waste of time ever trying to improve this junk of an article. It should be patently clear to anybody that this article is hopelessly innacessbile to a non-football savvy reader, and frankly, as someone who knows about football, this article would be way down on my list of required reading if I was ever wanting to look back and read about the events of the tournament. It fails on both counts, miserably. Still, it's very pretty I guess, and somewhat accurate when people get around to agreeing what green lines mean. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

my original summary, not perfect, but not irrelevant to the article either. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Group stage In the first round of 16 group matches, 25 goals were scored, 10 teams won while 6 games ended in draws - two as goal-less, the other four as 1–1. No team scored more than two goals in any match except Germany in a 4–0 defeat of Australia. In addition, only two other games, Korea Republic 2–0 Greece and Netherlands 2–0 Denmark, were decided by a scoring margin of more than 1 goal. In five games, a lower ranked team managed to beat a higher ranked opponent – the Korea Republic over Greece, Slovenia over Algeria, Ghana over Serbia, Japan over Cameroon and Switzerland over Spain. All of the seven top seeded teams won their first game except Italy and England who could only draw their games, and Spain, with their defeat by Switzerland. Notably, the lowest ranked team in the competition North Korea managed to score a goal against 5 times champions and 1st ranked Brazil, albeit losing 2–1, while the next two lowest ranked teams by far, South Africa and New Zealand, both managed to draw their opening games 1–1 against teams far above them in the rankings. Of the African teams, only Ghana won their first game. Ivory Coast and South Africa drew their first games, while Algeria, Cameroon and Nigeria all lost. In the second round of 16 group stage matches, the final standings in Groups A to D, and F, remained undecided until at least the third and final group game. In Group E, Cameroon became the first team to be unable to exit the group stage after defeats against Japan and Denmark, and because of their second defeat, the Netherlands also in Group E became the first team to qualify for the knockout stages after two wins against the same teams earlier. In Group G, Brazil became the next team to qualify after just two games, after wins over North Korea and Ivory Coast.

Personally, I'd rather be (brutally) honest rather than tip toe around the fact that the text is meaningless and poorly written. I would also suggest this is not "prose" either - it's just a list without formatting. It fails to summarise (basically because you still need a summary after the thing to explain what on earth has just been put there), add to, or improve the article. I'm sorry if you want people to somehow think that bad stuff should be included just because it took a long time to write, but eventually it will have to go and this is just an honest way to get rid of it (the alternative is to just revert without comment)Jlsa (talk) 14:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well we've established what you think of it, and how highly you rate your own opinion, but I was rather hoping for outside comments. I would have had no problem with removal without explanation, it happens a lot, and the next step is well understood by every experienced editor. But as for your approach, there is being brutally honest, and being a prick, and you were frankly a prick, and still are. If you can't not be, then kindly stay out of the discussion, and if you are as brilliant as you think you are, the discussion can't fail to come to a ringing endorsement of the outcome, if not the method, can it? But if you want to stop me from challenging your removal simply because it was 'bad stuff', then it's a no from me. MickMacNee (talk) 14:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There's lots of stuff I find bizarre or weak here, some of which I probably wrote. If explaining why something fails spectacularly makes me a "prick" as you so charmingly put it then so be it. Jlsa (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

It really does, and you have even managed to carry on being one in this comment while pretending to be offened at being called on it. It's quite bizarre behaviour, but at least you are being consistent. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you gentlemen. To be honest, when I asked the question, I already knew that Mick was in favour of the section, and the Jlsa was against it, so I was hoping to find out what others thought. Thank you to Tone for his reponse.

Returning to the principle of whether to have a summary and its desirable length:anyone else? Kevin McE (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would just add w.r.t. Tone's reply that the group summaries in the 1998 and 2002 articles are way bigger than my proposed entry would ever have stretched to, and is similarly much smaller than what you would get if you consolidated all the little paragraphs in the 2006 article into one section, even though they are not altogether covering the same info as 98/02. MickMacNee (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Do I accurately understand this discussion? Are we actually debating whether Wikipedia should contain prose about the 2010 FIFA World Cup matches?
MickMacNee is exactly right when he notes that this is an encyclopedia, not an almanac. That we lack prose describing one of the most popular athletic competitions on the planet is downright embarrassing, and it saddens me that MickMacNee's attempt to rectify the situation was simply tossed out (instead of fixing the perceived flaws).
I don't know enough about the sport (or sports in general) to comment on what information should or shouldn't be included, but the idea that we should have no prose about the matches is preposterous.
If the concern is that this article is too long, feel free to split out a separate article. We have a Chronological summary of the 2010 Winter Olympics article, and there's no reason why we couldn't have a Chronological summary of the 2010 FIFA World Cup article. The point is that Wikipedia should offer such prose somewhere. —David Levy 07:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with a prose summary. It should just be prose, and a summary. It would also make more sense to wait until the group stage is over to summarise it - otherwise it can be nothing but disparate facts without some coherent "story" behind them. Your point about the "chronological summary" page seems odd - isn't that more like an almanac anyway? Dunno. Still, a separate page would be a separate issue and you are welcome to create one. Jlsa (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

1. What do you mean by "a coherent 'story'"? Why not summarize the individual matches and current ramifications thereof (updated as the tournament progresses)?

2. My point about the Chronological summary of the 2010 Winter Olympics article is merely that it exists in addition to the 2010 Winter Olympics article. I'm not advocating a particular format.

3. As noted above, I know very little about this sport (and sports in general), so I'm not in a position to set up a new article on the subject. My point is that your belief that "this article is already massively bloated" is not a valid reason to exclude content from the encyclopedia. —David Levy 13:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Flagathlete or flagicon

I changed the flagicon template in the goalscorers list two times already into the flagathlete template, because WP:MOSFLAG requires this. This has been reverted twice. The note on the last revert was that the flagicon is used because it is used in all football articles. Consistency is great, but in my opinion the consistency across Wikipedia is more important than the consistency among football articles. The Manual Of Style (MOS) says that country names should accompany the flags, and if wikipedians do not agree to this, fine, but they should go to MOS and change it there. I know it would take too much time to change all the flagicons in all football articles to flagathlete templates. But is that a reason to stick to the old wrong habit? I don't think so. But I will not change it on this article anymore, two attempts to improve this article are enough for me. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 10:22, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

While it would obviously be annoying, I don't see why this point shouldn't be debated more broadly because it does have merit. Even to the extent of a Flagfb code (or something) - possibly a player flag that links to the national federation if clicked Jlsa (talk) 10:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, seems odd to use icons without country names but use country names as first sortkey. That may be clear to editors who see the source but hardly to readers. --Tikiwont (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree entirely: there seems to be a tendency to provide a flag recognition quiz rather than a service to readers at times. I have tried to remove this element from the discipline section.

Unfortunately, Flagathlete is only slightly better, as its abbreviations are of limited use; which country does SLO refer to? So lets admit that we do not need a riot of colour to be informative, and simply have:

3 goals

• Gonzalo Higuaín(Argentina)

2 goals

• Elano (Brazil)
• Luís Fabiano (Brazil)
• Asamoah Gyan (Ghana)

• Tiago (Portugal)
• Diego Forlán (Ururguay)

etc. Why not? Kevin McE (talk) 16:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all, no country is referred to as "SLO", Slovenia is "SVN" and Slovakia is "SVK", second. Both of these systems of writing out the names are just unnecessary and takes up unnecessary space. What I presume people think the names are needed for is under mosflag the "Accompany flags with country names", well, all flags are already shown next to the name of the teams on multiple times in the articles already. And as I remember it because the alt text of the images is the country name that would be sufficient for screen readers for the blind or people who don't know the flags of teams. If it is to go in here, there should really first be a discussion on WP:FOOTY, where (or it was perhaps on the MOS talk) I'm sure I remember a discussion resulting in accepting that flagathelete wasn't needed to be used because of the alt-text among other things. chandler 17:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

One other point, why would {{flagicon}} exist if it wasn't allowed to be used? chandler 17:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ahem: Fred Bloggic (SLO)

What is all this space going to be used for otherwise? Why is it at such a premium?

By the same token as your last question, despite an uncited WT:FOOTY opinion, why would {{flagathlete}} exist if it were redundant? (not that I'm proposing it here, my suggestion is text only for country names)

Although flags are accompanied by names elsewhere on the article, they are not available on the screen at the time: why should we be testing readers' memories rather than simply giving them appropriate information? Kevin McE (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fred Bloggic (Slovenia). Flag and full country name. And if you remove anything, remove the flag, because the name of the country is easier to read. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 18:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree that the name of a country is easier to read than just looking at an image. chandler 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"SLO" is not a FIFA country code. chandler 20:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I never claimed that SLO was a FIFA code: I was aware of it as a flagathlete code that is ambiguous, but that is not really the point. It might be easier to "look at" an image than a word, but an encyclopaedia is written for the literate, who will usually find it easier to recogniose a word than an unfamiliar flag. I agree with Edge: remove the flag. Kevin McE (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Country name (in smaller font, e.g. -2) followed by flag, for both goalscorers and referees. A good compromise that shows the country names first in alphabetical English language order (this is the English language WP) but also shows the country flags. Personally, for flags I know well and are easy to spot (e.g. Japan, Switzerland), I prefer to just scan quickly for the flag to find the country I'm looking for. For flags I don't know, I could just read down alphabetically to find the right country (right now I have to hover my mouse over each flag to see what it is). It's also easier to read the text than look at flags when just browsing to see who's scored and who hasn't. Facts707 (talk) 18:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Kaka's red card

It was against Cote, not Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.51.107 (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

-- Sorry, read that table wrong, ignore this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.39.51.107 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Add Italy to teams struggling in introduction

If England is there, so should Italy be. They both have 2 ties and are facing criticism for their failure to defeat worse-ranked opponents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.183.250 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversy

Why is their not a controversy section just like the other World Cup pages? All of the talk about the Vuvuzela, the ball, and others can be included in one section. BridgeBlues (talk) 19:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Kudos

Kudos to Wikipedia for an excellent page which is far superior to the official page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.118.237 (talk) 13:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Speaking of the quality of the official site, I have noted an odd image currently displayed under the heading "Ke Nako. Celebrate!" on most pages, for example [16]: A floating black and white distorted Nelson Mandela head on the stomach of a colorful vuvuzela player. The left side of his face, especially the eye, looks rather creepy, probably due to some image manipulation to make it appear partially behind a vuvuzela, but apparently stretching it and making it lighter in the process. Is it just me or does this look like a bad school kid project and not the proper way to portray the former president and most respected figure in the country all over the official site of the world's most viewed event? PrimeHunter (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Would actually disagree with the image manipulation it just looks like it was on the shirt and that was how the pick came out. That's my opinion at least. --Tanka8 (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Major sections "Tournament" and "Pre-tournament"

Many of the sections here are about things during the tournament itself, and many are about things leading up to the tournament. Right now the sections are mixed together, with many things relating only to the tournament itself mixed in with things primarily about preparations and qualifications.

I think now that the tournament is well underway, the pre-tournament stuff could go below the "tournament" section, since many millions more people will be looking for the match info at this point.

E.g.:

1 Tournament
1.1 Matches (with existing subsections)
1.2 Venues
1.3 Opening concert and ceremonies
1.4 Symbols (with existing subsections)
1.5 Squads
1.6 Referees
1.7 Prize money
1.7 Club payments

2 Pre-tournament
2.1 Host selection
2.2 Qualification
2.2.1 List of qualified teams
2.3 Final draw
2.4 Preparations
2.4.1 Construction strike

3 Event effects (with existing subsections)

4 Media (with existing subsections)

(then "See also" and other usual entries)

For future World Cups, the "Pre-tournament" section could come first until the tournament actually got underway, at which time it would be moved below the "Tournament" section.

What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 17:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

As for controversies, there could be one section in Matches ("Controversies" - during the matches themselves), and one under Event effects - a "Controversy" subsection about controversy surrounding the entire 2010 World Cup. Facts707 (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the order of the section should go chronologically (i.e. pre-tournament stuff first, followed by the matches). It's usually the way football competition/match articles are structure and it works well. Digirami (talk) 05:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be matched up with the 2006 article and previous ones. Most importantly, the article should be well below 100KB...75-90 at most. Metallurgist (talk) 16:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreeing that it should be moved back to the way it's always been, you begin with qualification or host selection and go on to the tournament. Just look at former World Cups chandler 20:38, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Scenarios

I wonder, would be worth keeping the possible scenarios before third round somewhere on the group articles to see what were the possible outcomes? This is interesting from historical perspective, I think. --Tone 18:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Add more tournament statistics

I think it's a good idea to add more tournament statistics. And make a seperate paragraph for statistics. Instead of only,

• Matches played
• Goals scored
• Attendance
• Top scorer(s

I suggest, add the following to the top right box:

• Matches Played x
• Goals scored x (x.xx per match)
• Yellow cards x (x.xx per match)
• Red cards x (x.xx per match)
• Top scorer(s) name (goals)
• Top scoring country country (goals)

And change the title '2010 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record' to '2010 FIFA World Cup statistics' with the previous stats mentioned above and some extra statistics: For example:

• Number of draws x (% of total group matches)
• Penalties given/scored x/x (%) excluding penalty shootouts
• etc.

To give you an example what kind of extra statistics I'd like to see, please visit this page http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2006/5060036.stm

I'm not able to edit the page but hopefully someone will add this information —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajax football (talk • contribs) 21:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Section moving/clearing

Significant sections have been moved to other articles in the last few hours without section-specific discussion in advance. These include:

• Discipline (suspension of players info)
• Opening concert
• Opening ceremonies

While I agree the article is rather long and needs some reorganization, it would best if the particular sections could be discussed here first before clearing. See the talk section (three sections above here): Major sections "Tournament" and "Pre-tournament".

I am going to reverse the removal of the above mentioned sections in an hour or so unless they are restored before then. Facts707 (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

For now, I restored the "Discipline" section but left the opening ceremony and celebration as is (just a link to the full article). I left a note on the editor's talk page requesting discussion here first when major changes are considered. Facts707 (talk) 22:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Before removing a major section (even with a link to the main article) could we just start a new section here "PROPOSED SECTION DELETION: Opening ceremonies" or similar. Yes, 2006 FIFA World Cup does not have a "Discipline section", but it finished four years ago, while 2010 is going on and players are getting suspensions almost every day. After the group stage is over, we could move the table contents to the disciplinary article and clear the table on the main page, except for active suspensions. Facts707 (talk) 22:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

There was some discussion and no dissent. Precedent was used. I dont see what the big deal is except to a bunch of process folks who will end up at the same result anyway. Meanwhile, back in Cluttersville... Metallurgist (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Current information vs. history vs. general info

I think what we are all trying to move toward here is an article that highlights current information as the tournament proceeds, because it is a long tournament (a month) and has so many viewers and interested parties, while keeping the history and general info available but not in the most prominent locations (i.e. the top sections). I think an overall summary in the lead section would be good (e.g. South America doing well, Europe not as well thus far), along with a little updating commentary such as which teams have qualified for the next round, etc. The "Matches" section needs to be first and I am going to move it there sometime today if no-one objects. Facts707 (talk) 22:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I moved the "Matches" section to the top of the article while the tournament is underway. Sorry if I offended anyone, I just couldn't stand scrolling down anymore every time I want to see what's happening. Facts707 (talk) 23:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I couldnt endorse this more. Savidan 03:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats illogical and this wouldnt be a problem if all the clutter were reduced.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite ridiculous: this is an encyclopaedia, not a score ticker, and so it is far more logical to place the preamble and preparations before the event. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; while many may choose to use this as their ticker (myself included), it is an encyclopedia in primary function. Once Germany-Ghana and Australia-Serbia are over and all edits finalized this section should be moved back to its original place. Discuss before doing something like this again. Rodface (talk) 20:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

NEW SUMMARY PARAGRAPH: This is a high volume page and is often accessed by mobile devices

• This article had over 230,000 views yesterday and over 2,600,000 so far in June 2010.
• Also many of the tens of thousands of readers of this article around the world access this article via mobile devices such as cellphones.
• For such a large number of views for an ongoing event with daily but not minute by minute chnages, it makes sense to have a small summary paragraph in the lead section for users who just want a quick update on the countries advancing to the next round. Thus there is a new summary paragraph in the lead section.

Please discuss here before moving or deleting the summary paragraph due to the high volume of daily views of this article. Thanks! Facts707 (talk) 04:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You'd think if they were after anything it would be scores. Are you sure you are not just trying to justify something have added? Jlsa (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I come here for match updates and scores. Also I access it with my cellphone and have no problems getting to the match section to look up that info, especially since it is at the top now. All increasing the summary section does is move the match section further down. I think once group stage is done we should move knockout stage to the top of the match section until after the cup is over. Chris1834 (talk) 05:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, is that why the order of the paragraphs keeps changing? On my mobile, it takes me a while to find the updates as the section on matches seems to move around every day. Not handy. Archphil (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Teams and World Champions as plural

The lede read "Italy is the defending champion". This is horrible for two, possibly three, reasons, so I've changed it to "Italy are the defending champions." Ericoides (talk) 09:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Its horrible to British ears, but perfectly normal to Americans and Canadians. Id prefer to go with my native way, of course, but I think it started in British style and the sport is more British than American (not that thats really a reason). A lot of people on both sides of the pond dont realize this little difference in our dialects and think its an error. --Metallurgist (talk) 16:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Match ball quotes from notable poeple

The match ball has been criticized by an unprecedented number of high-profile/notable players at the world cup, and thus a link to the wikiquote article should be provided to ensure WP:NPOV. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Jabulani —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.100.64.12 (talk) 09:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Name/Language inconsistency: "Côte d'Ivoire"

Ivory Coast (Côte d'Ivoire) is mentioned in French, while Japan, Brazil, Spain and all other countries (teams) are mentioned in English.

Leonardo Custodio (talk) 12:20, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Been discussed before, the government of Ivory Coast supposedly "declared" their name should be Côte d'Ivoire in all languages. It's stupid, and I'm sure no English speaker regularly refers to Ivory Coast as Côte d'Ivoire (how many people regularly talk about Ivory Coast anyway?) but it is the official name of the country/team per FIFA, which is ultimately the reason it is used as such on this page. LarryJeff (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The country article is also at Côte d'Ivoire. There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Côte d'Ivoire#Requested move about moving it to Ivory Coast. If it's moved then you may consider a requested move of Côte d'Ivoire national football team. Interlanguage links show that many other Wikipedias use a name in their own language. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But just because other InterWikis do it, doesn't mean we do. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a first source of information, it is supposed to collate information from other, official sources, and represent the information as fact. "Ivory Coast" is not the name of the country as per, amongst others, that nation's government, the United Nations, FIFA (relevent to this discussion) and I assume ISO...I would suggest that both Côte d'Ivoire and Côte d'Ivoire national football team stay exactly where they are doktorb _words^deeds 12:55, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The country names are taken straight from FIFA (cited at the bottom of the section) and should remain the way they appear on that site. This is an encyclopedia not a place where we list whatever we want. We can not change factual information for any reason or the source becomes invalid. Chris1834 (talk) 13:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

That's the strongest point: it's the country name as used by FIFA. Had France's last qualifying game gone differently, we would have had a team named the "Republic of Ireland" for competition purposes—even though that is not the (current) name of the country. Therefore, leave Côte d'Ivoire's team styled "Côte d'Ivoire." —C.Fred (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, according to FIFA the name is not "Côte d'Ivoire." It's "Ivory Coast." Now, that's not the country's actual name, but it is the name used for the competition. I actually favor calling Côte d'Ivoire by the name the Ivorians prefer, but for purposes of this article, shouldn't we really be calling the country by the name FIFA uses? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrfeek (talk • contribs)

FIFA sources in English may occasionally say Ivory Coast in passing but they usually say Côte d'Ivoire, especially in more official places. http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=civ/countryInfo.html says "Country: Côte d'Ivoire. Country (official name): Republique de Cote d'Ivoire". FIFA sources in other languages than French and English often say a name in the used language. For example, Elfenbeinküste in German, Costa de Marfil in Spanish, Costa Do Marfim in Portuguese (all three contain the local words for Ivory and Coast). PrimeHunter (talk) 00:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Republic of Ireland" is the current name of the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Not according to the constitution of the country it isn't! Nor is it called that by the UK Foreign Office or the Dept of State. But it is what FIFA call it, and so what we would have called it for the purposes of this article, had the situation arisen. The one that getsa me is the clunky sounding and ungrammatical "Korea Republic". Kevin McE (talk) 22:25, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

English language variant for FIFA World Cup 2010

Does anyone know if there is an "official" or "recommended" English language regional variant for FIFA World Cup 2010?

• I can't find any reference on FIFA.com for a preferred language variant
• FIFA.com uses both "Argentina are" and "Argentina is" in news stories (not just quotes), e.g.
  • "Messi relief for anxious Argentina ... 22 May 2010 ... Argentina are training at the national football centre at Ezeiza..."
  • "Rajevac: Essien vital to African finals ... 26 May 2010 ... Argentina is going..."
• The host country is South Africa, which uses South African English (more similar to British English than American English)
• Speakers of American English outnumber speakers of British English (about 2/3 of native English speakers live in the United States)
• On the other hand, football is much more popular in the United Kingdom, Ireland, South Africa, etc. than in the US
• Although, England will probably not make it to the Round of 16, while USA probably will

Probably we should try to adhere to WP:ENGVAR#Opportunities for commonality and try to word things so they aren't too odd to native speakers of other English language variants. For example:

• "Argentina are playing Mexico on Sunday" could be "Argentina will play Mexico on Sunday"

I'm not lobbying for any particular English language variant, but for such a major international event that brings so many people from around the world together (in peace!) we should probably try to at least be aware of some regional and cultural differences when appropriate.

Enjoy the Cup! Facts707 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the host country is the most relevant (meaning that the article should be written in South African English). —David Levy 14:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDASH

Should be "1–0" and not 1 – 0". Same for the group stage articles. –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 15:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Either "1 – 0" (spaced en dash) or "1—0" (unspaced em dash). Either way consistency is required! Personally, I think the spaced en dash option looks better for a result! TINYMARK 05:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSDASH requires an unspaced endash. Ergo, "1–0". –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 09:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Samuel Eto'o

In the goal scorers section, Samuel Eto'o is not written in bold text, yet he is still active in the World Cup: Cameroon have been eliminated, but still have one more match to play. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.24.179.159 (talk) 17:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been fixed. He is currently bold. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:13, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are some goal scorers in bold and others not? 86.185.205.110 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It's explained at 2010 FIFA World Cup#Goalscorers: "Bold indicates that the player is part of a national team that is still active in this World Cup". At the time of your post the explanation was right after the goal scorers and said: "Players in bold are still active in the competition. Players in italics have been eliminated from the competition, but still have a match remaining." [17] PrimeHunter (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Knockout Section Grammar

The grammar in the knockout section is wrong.

• Not "runners-up of Group D" but "Group D runner-up"
• Not "winners of match D" but "Match D winner"

This rule should be applied to the rest of the tournament bracket contents... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.155.79 (talk) 17:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Is it worth dealing with for a couple of days? The spots will get filled in shortly. It's an artifact of WP:ENGVAR and how collective nouns are dealt with in American v. British English. —C.Fred (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is worth dealing with. I would be willing to do it if the page was not locked. The issue is actually not grammar, but accuracy: there is one runner-up and one winner, not plural of both.70.176.155.79 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Just looked at the main page view statistics. Today the page, so far, has had almost 300,000 views! I think it is definitely worth it to watch grammar.70.176.155.79 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

But in British English a team is considered a plural thing (ie. Italy are the defending champions), so would that not trickle down to this also meaning that plural is correct as written. Chris1834 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No in English it should be "runner-up", singular. It's only plural runners-up (runner-ups in American English) if you're talking about more than one team:

"Mexico and Korea were runners-up in their group."

Why not use "First/second place in Group _"? –HTD (ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens.) 03:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this discussion has ended, i will change it to the first suggestion "Group D runner-up" and "Match D winner" mltinus (talk) 10:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC+2)

The knockout section grammar is wrong again.. there are not "winners" for a match, but a "winner." Can we please correct this? Thanks. 108.0.112.20 (talk) 09:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is not 'wrong', as you say. This page is written in British English, and, as mentioned above, a team, being an entity composed of multiple people, is plural. There's nothing to correct here, as it already is correct in the English we are using for this article. Brazil are the 'winners' of Group G, Portugal are the 'runners-up' and North Korea are the 'losers' of the group (for example). --Ericxpenner

Ah, OK. Thanks for pointing that out. But it might be good to point out somewhere that we are using British English? Otherwise it can definitely be confusing. Thanks. 69.63.84.51 (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed controversy page

Considering this page will be growing in the upcoming weeks, it may be in its best interest to create a controversy page. This article currently doesn't contain controversies that have become rather notable, as well, and other FIFA World Cup pages have one. Currently, my proposed plan is here: User:WhiteArcticWolf/Misc. Admittedly, it's still in the working stages and is mostly copied from this article and a previous attempt at a controversy page from December 2009. I put everything in alphabetical order, rather than chronological, as well and the set-up might need to be shifted. It's more of an outline at this point. So, what would everyone's opinion on this be? And would anyone be willing to help me expand it? (also, feel free to add constructive edits to the page!) WhiteArcticWolf (talk) 23:23, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Fans celebrating the forthcoming 2010 FIFA World Cup Photograph

Right, I always thought that this photo looked pretty stage managed, more of a promo pic than actual genuine fans celebrating. But when you read the photo discussion it is pointed out that the photo itself isn't even genuine, but the three subjects have in fact been photoshopped into a fake background (which may not even be a beach in SA!).

So for this reason I think it should be removed from the article. Anyone disagree? JieBie (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Regardless of whether this was staged or photoshopped, it's a warm image that portrays the sense of celebration and happiness that the world cup is bringing to many South African football fans. It embodies the spirit well. Keep it; there's nothing wrong with it, regardless of its source or making. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.243.107.105 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I like the picture, but this is an encyclopedia. The picture should document something; not express a feeling. I think it needs to go. --Elliskev 16:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think it should be replaced. Chevymontecarlo 16:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I too like the picture and don't think it should be replaced until a replacement image has been vetted. It shows the colours of the host nation and since the section is about the fans, despite being staged, is related to fans. Again, show us with what you intend to replace the image before I agree to replacing it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request, 24 June 2010

Would it be possible to add the tie-breaker explanation under each group standings box. For example, under group A, "Note: Mexico advances over South Africa based on goal differential", and in group C, "Note: United States wins group over England based on goals scored".

We should simplify the knockout stage section

All of the material is included on 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. I think it should resemble the results and table in the group stages. Intricate detail is not required here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Compare with other World Cup main articles. This is what people actually want to see. Do not force them to go to a subarticle; they do not do that. Match summaries are not intricate detail. Reywas92^Talk 03:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is suffering from too much information and too many edits. If there's a sub-article, it should contain the majority of the information. If they want to see information about the knock-out round, they can easily go to that round. This article is about the general information related to the event, not specifics. You'll notice that the scores from the group stage are displayed as well as the standings, but not the line-ups or other details. The same should continue here. I have removed the details of th match and have left the ladder. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the page needs to be simplified, but not this part. The information like match effects, symbols, etc should go, not these key fixtures.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The key fixtures have their own articles. That's where the details should exist. Those articles are linked-to from this article. Why do they need to be added here? This article should contain overview information only. That is the role of general articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the match overview details are part of the overview information. Eighteen articles of precedent backs this up. Every single tournament article backs this up. You are not WikiGod. Stand down and await further discussion or I will file a complain.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Champions elimination

The article says " Italy were the third ever defending champions eliminated at the first round, after Brazil at 1966 and France at 2002" actually they are the fourth since Italy itself were eliminated in the first round of the 1950 World Cup, they were also the defending champions since they had won the previous world cup in 1938.

Pencho15 from the spanish wikipedia--189.216.103.206 (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Ranking of the eliminated teams in group stage

Is it really necessary or even relevant to rank the eliminated teams in the group stage, where they had played against different opponents? I think the section should be removed. Kiwi8 (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree, unless FIFA have already made it clear that they will consider placing worked out on such a basis to be official. If they have, it may be jumping the gun slightly, but it is a straightforward calculation. Strictly speaking, it is OR to compare the tallies of teams who have completed their 3 matches with N Korea, but that seems minor, and more over-enthusiastic than irresponsible. Kevin McE (talk) 21:45, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Keep the list, but remove points, etc. They mean nothing in comparison to teams from other groups. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well they produced this list (which took about 10 seconds to google) - it is consistent with the work put forward that has been deleted. Jlsa (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Rankings going into the tournament is one thing. Ranking after the tournament is the issue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The list Jlsa googled is an after-tournament ranking from the 2006 tournament based on the performance of the teams that played in that tournament.Kmbell81 (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

And if FIFA produced such a ranking for the 2006 World Cup, then it is proper that such a table exists at that article. But is there evidence that they have stated an intention to do the same for this World Cup? Until there is, it is OR. ("Here are the rankings that would apply if FIFA decide to do what they did 4 years ago, but we haven't got a clue whether they will" seems to be the current status of this section). Kevin McE (talk) 08:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Timing of matches

The third and last matches in each group were played simultaneously. For obvious reasons. But why were groups E and F still an exception? The last group matches for group A were played before those for group B. Same for C and D. Same for G and H. So why F before E??? 173.168.177.217 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I considered whether it could be considerations to important television markets for the respective matches, but it appears from http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/preliminarydraw/64/42/24/2010fwc_matchschedule_1103.pdf that those times had already been chosen by 31.10.2008, long before both the draw and the completion of qualification. Other matches have changed times. The preliminary 2008 source shows a Group D match at 13:30 Saturday 19 June, before two Group E matches as alphabetically minded people would expect. But http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/64/42/24/fifawc2010matchschedulefinalversion.pdf and http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/ show the Group D match (Ghana - Australia) was played at 16:00 between the Group E matches. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The first document states "Match numbers and provisional kick-off times will be confirmed in due course". Matches have been moved around to suit television demands in all recent world cups. Jlsa (talk) 04:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Mark Suter [email redacted], 25 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Replace the words "that will reach" with "that is predicted by FIFA officals to reach" at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Broadcasting because the subsequent "cumulative 26 billion" figure references a page from the University of Texas which itself explicitly links to a FIFA press release at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1223134/ using the words "according to soccer officials" as the anchor text. Reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources would suggest this reference isn't sufficient in that editorial control doesn't cover reporting a self-serving prediction by an unnamed FIFA official about the future actions of many third-parties.

121.44.238.162 (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. I've removed your email address, as there are evil robots that crawl the web looking for addresses to add to their masters' spamlists. See Address munging. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Colour in tables

The information given in tables only through the use colour shading needs also to be conveyed through symbols, to make it accessible for text-only browsers, black-and-white displays, the colour blind and page readers. Knepflerle (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What in particular? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Any information only given in colour - for example, in the first round group tables at the moment the qualifying and non-qualifying teams are indicated by shading alone, but this information isn't accessible to the users mentioned above. Over the sets of articles on this World Cup, I expect there are other examples. Knepflerle (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an additional text column to indicate when a team advances or is eliminated.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That would work. Knepflerle (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing Table Colours

Honduras should be put in red. It would need to beat switzerland 4-0 and have Spain lose to Chile, and I don't think that's happening.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Resitate (talk • contribs) 16:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about what you think but what's possible. Chile has been playing well so they may win, and Honduras may pull-off a major goal scoring run. I'm not saying it will happen but it may. We will leave it for a few hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Prize Money

Somebody please clarify the arithmetic for me. $1 million to all 32 teams just for showing up, that's $32 million. $8 million to the 16 teams eliminated in the Group Stage, that's another $128 million. $9 million to the 8 teams eliminated in the Round of 16, that's $72 million. $18 million to the 4 teams eliminated in the Quarter-finals, that's another $72 million. $20 million to the 2 teams eliminated in the Semi-finals, that's $40 million. $24 million to the Runner-up and $30 to the Winner. All tolled, that adds to $398 million, but the Article says that FIFA was awarding a total of $420 million in prize money. What happened to the other $22 million? Since there's going to be a separate match for third place, that might make sense as the third place award, in which case there appears to be a line missing. Dick Kimball (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The cited article was wrong; it's $14 million to the quarter-finalists, $18 million for fourth place, $20 million for third place. The $40 million payment to clubs is evidently included in the total fund. —Raven42 (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Who changed the prize amounts from Euros to dollars? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Order of the Matches Section

The other day I was very happy to see the matches section was moved to the top. But now I see this change has been reversed. I understand the reason for this but I feel the matches section should remain at the top during the world cup because many people check this page for updates on the match standings. Since this page represents a current event it should be as useful as it can be for people at this moment in time. Once the world cup is over the sections can be reordered in the way that Wikipedia likes it. Rukaribe (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If you want to see the matches, go to the schedule page, which is linked directly from the top of the article. This article is about the entire tournament, not just the current matches. It is and should be kept in a chronological order. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with what I want or the proper rules. It has to do with being convenient for users to access the information they are looking for at that moment in time. You adjust to the users not the other way around. Rukaribe (talk) 20:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

How rich. First you place the newest comments at the top of this which is not the normal procedure. Second, the results are on the results page, which is where they should be, and that's clearly linked at the top of the article. So if "users" (I assume you mean casual viewers) want the information, it's just a click away. I don't see a problem. If a viewer is looking for something on Wikipedia, they are not expected to find it on the first page they reach, which is the basic principle behind disambiguation pages. We are not obloiged to work the way some mythical viewer's mind should work. This is an encyclopedia and shouldn't be confused with anything else, not the other way around. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

You are the classic problem with everything technologically related. You create what I call geekware. It caters to your narrow view of how things should be based on some geeky rules that are not intuitive at all. The fact is if you search 2010 world cup you come to this page and the information most sought at that moment should be made relevant because this is a current event. You can continue to use your flawed logic but it only makes you look arrogant while doing nothing productive but making you feel smart because you feel you understand how a wikipedia article should be structured. Rukaribe (talk) 13:44, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

missing section

where is the eliminated teams section?

It was apparently eliminated. Was it needed for some reason? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious who has been eliminated, how many goals they scored and were scored against them from the Group stage section? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

no this section is made to show the final ranking of the teams who played in this tournament Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

done i created it again in 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 22:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I support its inclusion. --Elliskev 22:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Although, it would be nice to see in this article... --Elliskev 22:40, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

See discussion above: unless there is verification that FIFA intend publishing such rankings for this edition, it is OR. Kevin McE (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

the article become very long

The article is too long so it must be reduced so what do you think? Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 23:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

The Event effects section is entirely too long. It's a perfect candidate to be moved. This article should focus on the matches and their results. --Elliskev 23:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Same thing with the Venues section. --Elliskev 23:29, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

They should only be removed if the information is located elsewhere. You could make sub-articles. I think the matches sections are too long as they are all covered in longer, more detailed articles. Summaries are fine. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I said moved, not removed. --Elliskev 23:51, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I made some changes and made the article shorter than before Wael.Mogherbi (talk) 01:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It's looking better than before. --Elliskev 01:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you two please stop. You are making massive undiscussed changes, leaving all sorts of mess behind. It is not acceptable to simply move entire sections, you do not create valid sub-article by simply cutting and pasting content wholesale, the sub-article needs a decent lede, and decent summary needs to be left here too. Most of these issues have been discussed above, and I am pretty sure nobdoy has ever agreed to removing basic info like results. It is impossible to track and repair changes if you don't record what you are doing, and you aren;t even leaving decent edit summaries. MickMacNee (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to removing "basic info" like results, but I understand that I have extreme views on this. I appreciate the removal of List of qualified teams since they're all covered in the group stages. Not much else really changed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about (MickMacNee)? Can you be specific about your objections? What should stay? --Elliskev 01:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm still trying to work out wtf you two have done this past hour. What a mess. Even basic stuff like formatting is now screwed, let alone whether there have been detrimental content changes. Just stop, or at least list what you've done. I'm am seriously considering undoing the whole lot. There's bold and there's reckless. This page is getting hundreds of views an hour, it needs to at least make sense at all times. MickMacNee (talk) 01:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Infact sod it, I'm off to bed, someone else can try and make sense of it. I'll come back tomorrow and see what drama has resulted. MickMacNee (talk) 02:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

(reset indent) Articles change. That's the nature of a wiki. I hope that I didn't do anything to worsen the article. I did my best to note what I was doing with every edit summary. If you find the changes to be detrimental, sorry. --Elliskev 02:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You've noted some, but some don't make any sense without checking every single change, of which there have been many. Either of you acting singly tonight could probably have been handled, but both together? Madness. Articles change, but Wikipedia is not chaos. Anyway, it hardly matters now, as you are now edit warring over it [18], even though you clearly don't know what you are doing, and even though I pointed you to SUMMARY and LEDE, so I want no part of this now. We do not simply move information wholesale in a copy paste fashion, but I could care less. We'll see what disasters result I guess, what harm can come from having two copies of the same info, with unreadable navigation and zero context between the two. Why people are using the 2006 article as a guide, when it isn't even a GA, is beyond me. MickMacNee (talk) 02:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup group stage is a perfect example of the disasters tonight. An orphan article which was simply copy-pasted out of here, it has no lede, no context, no summary here, nobody knows how or where to link to it, and it has freed up barely any space here that others haven't given better and more though out examples of how to present the same info in a smaller space. We must have the match results of the groups stages now spread out among four aticles at least. MickMacNee (talk) 02:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Group stage NEEDS to be brought back to the main article! Who took it out? --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 02:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mick and Marco. I think too much was done too quickly and too bluntly with too little consensus. I honestly considered undoing many of the move/removal edits made in last few hours the because they were somewhat unreasonable, and would not oppose another editor doing such. For example, the qualifiers were deleted...they gotta stay (sorry, Walter; but they're the way they are like that in other WC articles). I agree with Mick that the group stage article probably shouldn't have been created in the manner that it was. If we need to pare down this article, we should do it with much more community imput, and maybe even wait 'til after the Cup is over. Purplebackpack89 02:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Also, I can't really trust you 'cuz you've got Uruguay beating the U.S. of A.

Good job Purplebackpack89! I like, and have grown used to, the format used for all other World Cup articles. There's no need for weird experiments at this point. I'm sure readers want to have information pertaining qualifiers and the group-stage handy as we are now set to move deep into the tournament. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

On the list of qualifiers, it should be removed since the other World Cup articles don't have them anymore. TacoTank69 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be here if it's in a sub-article. It is one of the few things that was here that really doesn't make sense as a sub-article. I'm glad it was restored. I think I have successfully tagged the child article with a speedy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

If that change was made in the other WC, it's my fault for not catching it. However, my point about messing with this article at its apex of viewing remains valid, and, for the good of the community, please hold off from making major unilateral changes 04:51, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, again, I apologize if I screwed anything up. I don't think anything I did was unreasonable or drastic. I'll just leave it alone. --Elliskev 14:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

New map colors

Hi!

I'm shocked by the new map colors. Till early today, the non-participating countries were in a neutral gray. Now they are in a very shiny yellow that makes it very hard to differentiate the other colors. Whoever did it, could you please put the old colors back?

Thanks. 190.55.191.246 (talk) 00:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about. File:2010_world_cup.png shows the history of the file and non-participating colours are not yellow. However someone decided to create File:Quarterfinals_2010_WC.png which has been rejected from the article since it adds no new information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It was pretty obvious what he was talking about. I removed the redundant image with the yellow. Please try not to be so bitey. --Elliskev 01:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Knockout Matches

Where did they go? We only have the brackets. This makes no sense. I agree that we need to cut down the clutter, but thats not where we should be cutting from, considering no other World Cup football tournament article is like that. Metallurgist (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

They are in main article about the subject. The key information—country and score—are still present. If you want more detail, that information may be found in 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. This is about the World Cup football tournament and no other tournament article had as much cruft as this one does so it evens-out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Every previous article has had the individual matches. We have the Group Stage matches. I want to see who scored the goals and now I need to click two links, which shouldnt be necessary.--Metallurgist (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Things change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thats not even remotely an excuse. Reverting.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Things change"? Wow, what a rude response. In any case, I do agree with Metallurgist that the reader might want to have that sort of information readily available on the main article. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I explained it more fully but you don't seem to understand that there is no guarantee that anything that happened in past articles will continue. Each article is unique. The simple fact is this is not an article about the details of matches. There are other articles particularly 2010 FIFA World Cup schedule and 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage that contain the information you're looking for. This article does not require that information since it is supposed to be a general article about the tournament. The fact that past articles on the tournament contained this information has no bearing on the state of this article or its related articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The precedent of EIGHTEEN articles of the same type and EVERY football article is a strong precedent. You are not WikiGod or WikiJudge. You can not just make up your own rules "things change". Things work by consensus and the consensus seems to favor putting them there. Once again, stand down or I will file a complaint. Await further discussion to achieve a proper consensus, per Wikipedia policy. Also, once again, I fully support cutting down article size, but not this part.Metallurgist (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The previous 18 articles didn't have all the cruft that's in here. The previous 18 articles didn't have the children articles with the details that are in here. The previous 18 articles aren't undergoing a sea of changes ever match. The previous 18 articles don't take over ten seconds to lead. Please file your complaint. I would like to see some admins come in and back what one us is saying. Also, please confine your discussions to the issues, not the editors as per attack. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The 2002 and 2006 articles received the same treatment of constant updating. Once again, I fully agree with cutting down the size. But this is not the way to do it. 2-1 against you and a report will be filed. Link will be posted ASAP. Metallurgist (talk) 17:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

great. Do they take 10 seconds to load? This is a general article. Please stop adding specifics that are covered in other articles until there is consensus to do so. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree about loading time. FULLY. But you are removing the wrong sections, without any consensus. You are required to get consensus before making your own aggressive editorial decisions. Please review WP:Consensus. Also, here is the edit war report. Metallurgist (talk) 17:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Walter, look at 1930 FIFA World Cup. It's a featured article and it has information on what Metallurgist describes as important as do I. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Does that article take over ten seconds to load? I'm not questioning what has happened in past articles. Please understand that this article is becoming too overloaded with details that are covered in other articles. While past world cup articles may have contained this sort of minutia, it is obviously time to stop and it's time to move forward with a wikified present. If you want the match details, they're covered in their own articles at the group stage and now at the knock-out stage. This article is a repository for the links to those articles. I see no other suggestions of what should be removed and placed in child articles only insistence that the information should be here because it was in the past. That's not a reasonable solution. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any point in having the group results in here without the similar knockout results breakdown included also (and yes, I know they are in the diagram). If people are really serious about making this a summary article, then I thing it would be consistent to recognise that just having the group tables is about the same level of summary detail as just having the knockout flow diagram would be, either include both or neither in terms of the actual individual result breakdowns. I've no objection to any other ttimming if done properly - namely by creating proper spinoff articles with proper ledes, and leaving a proper summary here, all of this is detailed in LEDE and SUMMARY, but all previous attempts have really just been hack jobs. And I really wish people would stop invoking the 2006 article as an example of anything, and just using it as a copy and paste template for this article. The 2006 article, while looking better in terms of prose than this one, it is not even a GA, it stands for nothing in terms of peer reviewed quality (infact it failed several reviews in the past). MickMacNee (talk) 17:31, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect support from MickMacNee, but thanks. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not invoke the 2006 FIFA World Cup which is not an example of perfection. However, do look at the featured article 1930 FIFA World Cup and you will see a group bracket AND a small summary of group results. I much rather get rid of the sub-article 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage than removing that information from the main article which has almost 300,000 visitors per day. Cut sections on Media , Social effects, Economic effects, Pharmacological effects, Philological effects, and other non-sense cluttering this article. Certainly NOT the group stage!-Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Let's not use any article in the past. You show me any past World Cup finals article that requires fifteen seconds, now, to load and you'll have a comparable case. Until then, this should be kept as a general article or all of the child articles should be removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We cannot compare the amount of teams and matches played at the first World Cup with nowadays tournament, which pretty much justifies why 1930 FIFA World Cup has all its (few) group stage and knockout round matches displayed in full, whereas this would just overload an already "busy" 2010 World Cup article. I don't see a problem in having a sub-page for the knockout round match results and other related data... this has been done for such a big and important competition like the UEFA Champions League, whose articles draw attention from many readers as well. for example, in the main article of each season, only the group standings and fixture results (in table format) are displayed for the group stage, with all the match specifics on the respective sub-article. The same goes for the ensuing knockout rounds... Above all—and here I agree with MickMacNee—what's important here is consistency: display the same level of content for all rounds. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps also because 1930 FIFA World Cup doesn't contain sections such as Symbols, Event Effects, and Media that take 36,000 bytes (over 35% of the current 100,700 bytes). In my opinion, that's the content that adds no context to a football tournament article and clutters the heck out of it. That's what should be comprised or removed altogether. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Of all those, Symbols are a must-keep, as it concerns the event itself. "Event effects" is much more focused on South Africa than the tournament, so if some content should be (re)moved, I'd start here. Parutakupiu (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

In fact, since all of the information from the child article is here, I am tempted to place a merge on both to bring the point to conclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It'd rather see the child article gone to be honest, but yes, let's see what other say. To be honest I was more of an end-user for this article as well as UEFA Champions League, Copa Libertadores, Copa America, etc until I saw the information I was always going after completely removed! That's what threw me off.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 18:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

One of the reasons this page takes longer to load is because it is actively being requested by thousands of users at once. The same cannot be said for previous articles. Also, previous articles have had child articles. I dont see why we cant have the scorelines and scorers listed here and a full summary on the child article, like all previous articles. Metallurgist (talk) 19:34, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Start by editing the atrilce. Copy it to your clipboard. Then go to your own talk page and edit it. Then add /test to the URL. Paste the contents of your clipboard into it. Get your stopwatch. Click Show preview as you start your stopwatch. It takes just as long to load there as here. The only difference is the number of previous edits is fewer. The reason it takes so long is because of the number of templates and tables that need to draw. --96.48.138.34 (talk) 20:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You are in violation of your block. In any case, if its the templates, then the same should apply to all previous Cups. Metallurgist (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Event effects proposed split

I agree that this article is too long. However, I disagree start trimming it down by removing information from strategic sections such as qualification, group and knock-out stage. I think the "Event effects" section serves as an ideal starting point. To those concerned about article length: what do you think? --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that event effects is somewhat unnecessary in this article. We should use the 2006 article as the base. I think people may be trying to act like this World Cup has been significantly worse than previous ones, when there really is little to support that (vuvuzelas aside). We shauld agree to a formal plan to determine what should be removed and put on other pages. Metallurgist (talk) 05:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree is as well. I browsed through the other WC pages and this one is by far the most 'negative' of all of them. Whether it is about attendance (which has been good). Even the social effects have been described negatively despite the fact that the media have been positive about the effects. So in short the Event effects needs to move out and secondly the Event effects needs lots of balance because right now it is biased. --Biscuit1018 (talk) 06:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If we're going to pare down the article (and I still say wait 'til after the Cup ends to do so); we can move sections on event effects and controversies to their own articles. For example, the ball controversy alone could have its own article Purplebackpack89 14:31, 27 June 2010 (UTC)