Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Official Song & Official Anthem

The Official Song is by Shakira (Waka Waka), but the Official Anthem is from R. Kelly feat. The Soweto Spiritual Singers (Sign of a Victory)

http://www.r-kelly.com/ & many other Websites 84.135.163.12 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently, the Official FIFA World Cup 2010 South Africa Anthem is "K'naan - Wavin' Flag".[1] 86.178.213.43 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, Wavin Flag is not Official, is the Coca Cola song. But Sign of a Victory is the Official Anthem & Waka Waka the official song. 84.135.163.12 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

I moved the whole section to 2010 FIFA World Cup controversies, as this page was already intended to be created, looking at the template. There is an extra link also in the "See Also" section, just as happened for the 2006 FIFA World Cup article. So please at controversies there and help improve that article.

Question: are the relocation rumours to be put there too? Or shall we leave those on the main article page? Pelotas^talk 01:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say definately move the relocation rumours off the main page to the controversy page. They all amounted to nothing and weren't truelly founded. Oh, and if you remove it, be sure to leave a "controversies" heading with a link to the controversies page under it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. There is no consensus for this, and the material is not unduly large. MickMacNee (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to revert? ;) Sorry but the amount of controversies will only increase as the matches get played and the referees make 'dubious' decisions. I promise you the section will get too big, for an example see the 2006 World Cup controversies article. But I'm not starting an edit war, so do whatever you like, it'll end up at the controversies page in the end anyway. :p Pelotas^talk 22:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's just wait until the tournament begins, we do not expect many more controversies before that and it is easy to make a separate article then. By the way, I think the FR:IRL paragraph should be trimmed down, it's really long here while it's extensively covered by a separate article already. --Tone 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no doubt that there will be more controversies, but it is a pretty bad move to copy paste the entire section into a sub-article, before that even happens. The proper method is to create the sub-article when the content actually gets too large and not before, and then summarise that new article here, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Not text dump it into a new article and treat a template link as the summary, leaving zero evidence that the content ever existed, as happened with the version you left it in. There is no sense in pointing to the 2006 article as an example of best practice, as that has just the same flaws as you created here, and has failed to be listed even as a GA. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the copy-pasting might not ideal as the article needed more expansion (I did add a short intorduction and split it into paragraphs by the way), in the same way that a basic redirect of the controversies page back to the main article is not ideal (At least redirect it to the controversies-section!). Both with good intentions however. About the version you cited at version, I believe that it is a perfectly good version. I don't need an empty section "controversies" saying click here for controversies when there is a link in the "See Also" and in the template already! Also, for me the content is too large (but maybe that's just me), the relocation rumours are no longer valid and some controversies are also getting outdated, especially the France vs. Ireland part. As much as I would have loved to see the Irish win, the game is over and it should not be on the main World Cup page but has more to do with the qualifying/playoffs, also it already has a seperate article! The controversies page is therefore a good compromise... Pelotas^talk 16:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know where you got this idea that whole sections of articles can simply be removed if there is a See Also or template link, but that is not the way things are done. Irrespective of whether things become out of date, or the material is too long, they are all still controversies directly associated with this article, and as such, a mention in a Controversies section is, and always will be, justifiable. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe 'whole sections of articles can simply be removed if there is a See Also or template link', but it is done because the page is, or will be, too large and the section is just an addition and not the core of the article. Then seperate template links and a reference in the "See too" is sufficient for me instead of an empty paragraph. I keep feeling that the controversies section should ultimately be removed and that most of the controversies don't belong in the main article. Just like you claim that the 2006 article is not perfect and therefore the 2010 should not be the same, I claim that any difference with the imperfect 2006 article is therefore not the ideal solution. But it doesn't seem like we're on the same wavelength here about something relatively small, so let's do what Tone says: just wait. The controversies section will be removed in a few months anyway. But maybe we should indeed trim the FR vs IRL section down? It has a seperate article already... Pelotas^talk 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly matter what is sufficent for you if you are not aware of, or are not going to follow, what is standard practice - and the 2006 article is not standard. If and when it expands, the section will not be removed, it will be summarised. That is standard. MickMacNee (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And anybody is free to trim what they like from the Ireland section, but it already contains the main points of summary that are relevant to this World Cup. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Told you, we just differ in opinion :) I could also say you suffer from main article fixation. Sorry 'bout the trouble anyway. Pelotas^talk 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I can live with the fact that your opinion comes from an essay, while mine comes from a guideline. There is a difference. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: I note there is no mention of the additional US$100m (£67m) which has recently been injected by FIFA to ensure the host country is ready on time. I would have thought this is of interest for inclusion in this Wiki article. Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8674024.stm Any thoughts? (Apologies if this in the wrong section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosema (talk • contribs) 08:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Schedule

The Schedule is wrong. Match 45 is between Portugal and Brazil. Match 46 is between Korea DPR and Cote d'ivore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxzsh (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FIFA in 3D

2010 FIFA world cup will the first world cup to be broadcast in 3D. I think this should also be added in the article

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/marketing/releases/newsid=1143253.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.66.121 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

below is a list of the scheduled games to be in 3d, you will find that all the games in soccer city, ellis park and durban will be shown in 3d. the only other games scheduled to be in 3d are the quarterfinal and semifinal games in cape town. it is possible for any team to get at least 1 match in 3d if they advance, but 10 teams will not get a 3d game in the 1st round, 15 will get 1 game, 6 will get 2 games and Brazil will get all 3 group games in 3d! Lucky! ~00Kevin

http://www.hdguru3d.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=299:2010-fifa-world-cup-3d-schedule&catid=35:hdguru3d-news&Itemid=59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.85.4 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Sony is specifically carrying this 3D program out for the World Cup as they are a partner of FIFA. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

anthem?

The official anthem for the World Cup is "Wavin' Flag (Celebration Mix)" by Somali-Canadian singer K'naan. Where should this be added?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/archive/2009/11/26/k-naan-s-waving-flag-named-official-anthem-of-the-2010-fifa-world-cup.aspx

there are many other sources in case someone wants them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.32.5 (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

that's for Coca-Cola's commercials, not the official anthem. 71.240.173.132 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Official Music and Anthems of the World Cup

Perhaps a reference to some of the Anthems's and songs that have been produced for the world cup? E.G. Wavin' Flag by K'naan which has accompanied Coke adverts and FIFA world cup game ads? ([2]) Charliebaudry (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)charliebaudry

"Wavin' Flag" was mixed for Coca-Cola and their World Cup campaign. It is not the official song of the World Cup per se. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Charities & Non-Profit organisations associated with the world cup

For example, [3] ~ ~ ~ ~charliebaudry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliebaudry (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Official song

What is the official song of this time? Who'll sing it? 64.255.164.24 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And I love her by the Beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.24 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Official song will be Waka Waka (This Time for Africa), performed by Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll and South African group Freshlyground. Newone (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Errata

Since we can't edit the main article, I'm started this column. The correction should change the sentence "Italy are the defending champions" to "Italy is the defending champion". Italy, used in this context, is singular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.64 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. "Italy" in this context refers to the Italian football team, which is plural as the team is made up of several people. – PeeJay 08:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually in American English, it would be is, but in British English, it is are. Its a weird quirk that Im almost used to by now. I would probably side with BrE because they started the sport and have more material on it. Also, the article started that way so theres no need to go back and forth.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

List of injuries?

I have the following idea: a list of notable injuries. For followers of football, this is important information. It will affect a team's perfomances. The injuries get a lot of press, therefore there will be many sources. It is important for the readers of this article to know which notable players will NOT participate in this tournament. Everyone expects the "world bests" to play here, so we need information about which ones don't. Tropical wind (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone already suggested this further up the page, and we all decided it wasn't a good idea. – PeeJay 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Sorry for being completely blind and not noticing it was already discussed! Tropical wind (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Update

The following quote appears in the 'Preparations' section: "five of the existing venues are to be upgraded" and this is in the 'Legacy' section: "The following stadiums have all been upgraded" (my emphasis). Of the two, I would say with less than a month to go before the tournament starts, that the first quote needs attention; maybe something like: "five of the existing venues were upgraded". What do others think?
RASAM (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC) This issue is still not adressed. The WC is ongoing but the 'Preparations' section reads as if the WC will happen in some distant future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.207.192 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Altitude

The fact that some of the matches will be played at moderate altitude (1500-2000m) has had an important impact on several teams' preparation plans, and is of considerable interest because of the physiological effects on the players and the modest physical effects on the flight of the ball. There is much written elsewhere on wikipedia and extensively referenced about altitude already, but I think a short section identifying the highest venues and describing the likely effects would be of value. What do other think? I'd be happy to get it started but don't want to put too much work into it if it is not a popular idea. Empyema (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I think this could be really interesting. I don't know anything about it though. Is it really that important? Footy chicken (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a brief section under venues Tomcrocker (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

What about the Iraq vs. Qatar game where Iraq lost in the qualifying stage when Qatar played a player from a different country. FIFA rejected their claims and let Qatar advance to the next qualifying stage when FIFA rules clearly state that it should be changed to a loss for Qatar and a win for Iraq which would have put them in the next round of qualifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.113.233 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the World Cup in South Africa with 32 teams and no Iraq or Qatar. There are other articles about the qualification. The Iraq vs. Qatar game is mentioned at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)#Group 1. Note that Wikipedia should keep a neutral point of view. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and be WP:Bold and add this to the list of controversies during qualification. The section of Ireland, Uruguay, etc already exists.Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Referees

The paraguayan referee, Carlos Amarilla, isnt going to perform at the WC because of an injury. The uruguayan Martín Vázquez is going to take his place. The following link is from an article on a uruguayan online news webpage, that summaries the situation in spanish: http://www.ovaciondigital.com.uy/100526/mundial-490980/mundial/martin-vazquez-arbitrara-en-el-mundial

Cheers Nuno93 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Host selection

I am a librarian and we have gotten the question wondering when it was announced the South Africa would host the event. I was hoping you could add the date Saturday, May 15, 2004 Source: MILLWARD, ROBERT. "Sports." Daily News, The (Batavia, NY) 15 May, 2004, Sports: 5B. NewsBank. Web. 26 May. 2010. Thanks! Mleigh6 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the article; read the section Host selection, which clearly states: After one round of voting, the winning bid was announced by FIFA president Sepp Blatter at a media conference on 15 May 2004 in Zürich. Mindmatrix 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

article size

for the results section there is a listing of matches and tables AND another spin-off page. The point of the spin-off is to decrease the size of an already large page. We --dont need the details of every match here AND on its own page. The schedule table below is good enough, or maybe just the tables instead of result.Lihaas (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The results section is no more detailed than that of any other World Cup article. Just like the Champions League articles, the results of the group matches are given, except with the dates and venues added, which seems fair as the World Cup receives far more exposure than the Champions League. It is for the same reason that the {{footballbox}} template is used for the knockout stage matches. Ipso facto, it all seems fine to me. – PeeJay 23:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this argument ("it's the same as other World Cup articles") is that it is not true because the articles have grown because wikipedia is growing so fast. Obviously the WC90 (for example) page was all written well after the event, so there is nowhere as much "stuff" in the article. This is really the first WC of the wikipedia age - so it is in many ways a new type of article that is being created. To help, I would suggest a sensible pruning of the results section. For example, we could tweak the matches section quite easily. For a start, get rid of the massive intro (a link to a tie-breaker note from the general WC page should suffice), remove the "3 points for a win" section. (I mean, really, if we need to define the 3 points thing, we probably also need to note what "win" means). We could then possible tweak the group template tables - add in a "minifixtures" option, which we only use on this page, and which produces the following table (note also the temaplates have a "fixtures" option which is probably not as appropriate in the current context):

Group A

Main article: 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A

Standings Team Pld W D L F A GD Pts South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uruguay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 France 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fixtures 11 Jun Match 1 Match 2 16 Jun Match 17 17 Jun Match 20 22 Jun Match 33 Match 34

with links as required (and better formatting on the second part). Just show the bracket for the knockout (not a bracket and then a detailed matchlist here as well).Jlsa (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is still pretty slow to lead, another page already exists so whats the harm in moving the results there? The tables can stay. Perhaps other articles werent as long in the first place (before kick off)Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely we should keep the results and farm off all the other crap, such as 'match ball', 'mascots', 'official song' and 'controversies'?--Pretty Green (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with PeeJay on this one. The article length and level of detail seems fine to me. The tables and match results don't have much context unless shown together. Without the results the reader has no idea where the table came from, and without the table the reader doesn't know what happened because of the outcome of the games. As for the "other crap", it is very much a part of the event and deserves to be mentioned. To a lot of people, the world cup is a big deal, and to me at least it's not surprising that this article is and should be longer than average. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup football is a big deal. Mascots, songs and official match balls are FIFA-cash cow exploitations of a brilliant sport. But I suspect that's not a NPOV ;) --Pretty Green (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, along the lines of Pretty Green the other stuff doesn't warrant a split as such its part of the world as itself, the results summary is here (which is the point of a split to leave a summary here), the requisite page on the details is there and a link is provided right above. One doesnt need the tables and scores, and scorers, etc to be listed twice. As it stand the article almost 100k, imagine when the results are added and the tables added and a possible "controversies" gets expansded. itll be well over. The summation of the tables seems short enough as that doesnt "expand" it only gets changed.

I like Jlsa's suggestion. (Lihaas (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Records and milestones?

I feel there should be mention of any records and milestones that have been reached / could be reached during the 2010 finals. The fact that Africa hosts the tournament for the first time is the first one and it is already mentoined.

However I'm not sure there are many significant team or individual marks being reached. I know Thierry Henry and Fabio Cannavaro being on the squad for their 4th time deserves a mention. Maybe so the possibility of Maradona becoming a champion coach and equalling Beckenbauer who is the only person ever to win the world cup as the captain of the team and as the coach. I don't think any individual records are going to be touched, or will they?

Surely there are records related to the qualification process and records related to TV broadcasting, etc.

Maybe we can compose a good list here and then incorporate it into the article either by means of a separate section (if worth it) or in different appropriate places throughout. --ChaChaFut (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion we should embed notable milestones into the already existing sections and into the current prose. If there are enough milestones, I would support creating a separate article for these. Tropical wind (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi - for what it is worth I'd love to see a list of the important milestones that might be reached. Maybe a table in this article? Thanks for creating a really great article on the world cup. Footy chicken (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that wikipedia has a policy against speculation, I would suggest we leave out any records until they are actually set or broken. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Golden & Silver Goals???

Will there be any golden or silver goals rule during extra time in matches in the knockout phase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heruur (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, these were dropped some years ago. --Pretty Green (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Match Times

Shouldn't we put in the times of the matches in the group stage at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.119.2 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What for? They are already on the individual group articles (see 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A, etc.) – PeeJay 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As are the venues etc. Why the difference? Why not leave just a table or very simple table and results? Jlsa (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguate

considerign this is about to be a highly viewed page it makes sense to redirect 2010 World Cup here, but about a week or so after it ends then the disambigatution page ought to be be the first point because other tournaments may very well be sought.Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New section/Apartheid

there has been numerous reference to South Africa's emergence from Apartheid and the repercussions thereof. This doesn't seem to have an inclusion of the said matter. I've added a a section on this, feel free to move it where appropriate, though the content is relevant so i dont see a reason to remove without discussion.Lihaas (talk)

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)

Group D

Australia GF is set to 1337. I cant edit, so can someone else get that?

DInaxio (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget that, fixed.

76.30.39.50 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Colours on map of qualified countries

Using red and green as the main colours on the above map means that a lot of colourblind people will have trouble reading it. I've already posted on the talk page for the file on Commons, but I think more people who can fix it may notice a comment here.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What colors would you suggest to use? Black, white and gray?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No... read here http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/#select

Also, Photoshop has a function to let you see a picture the way color blind people see it. Go to View -> Proof Setup -> color blindness (2 types) --91.32.61.159 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, being colorblind (red-green and blue-purple) myself. Looking at the map, I found it very difficult to discern what countries were qualified and which ones weren't, especially the smaller European countries. I'm sure that you guys probably already know that the image causes a problem, but I felt it somewhat necessary to provide input from the view of a colorblind person. 98.235.217.244 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

First talk post - be kind! Since the changes mentioned above, the colors in the key of the map in the main article no longer reflect the colors within the actual map image (although those within the Description of the image at its wiki entry have been correctly updated). In any case, the color codes need to be changed from top to bottom to: #000cff, #ffb400, #000000, and #ababab. 94dgrif (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Card list?

Maybe make a list of players with yellow and red cards with "misses match XX"? Bahati (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite appropriate, although we did make a separate article for discipline at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, in which we listed every yellow and red card. – PeeJay 01:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not grounds saying it cant be "pioneered" here. But that said as per consistency an article liek that can be madeLihaas (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Group A rankings incorrect

Shouldn't South Africa be ahead of Mexico, since they were the first seed in Group A and the game with Mexico was a tie? They list SA first on FIFA.com. FIFA World Cup Standings . As well, Uruguay is listed before France on FIFA, unlike on this page...

Does it really matter? I doubt it. In years to come I really don't think people will remember who was third and fourth after one match. The BBC has it the same way, which I assume the table on here takes after. If I had to give a reason then I would say its based on the World Rankings; Mexico are higher than South Africa, and France are higher than Uruguay. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't really matter in the grand scope of things but another possible reason is that Mexico and France are first alphabetically. --SM1991 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is to know the actual tiebreaking criteria and to use sources. Kingjeff (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

True on the tie-breaking, but at this stage its really alphabetical with all things considered equal (as the table is with Mexico then South Africa and France then Uruguay)Lihaas (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So why the arguments here (the "does it matter?" well, YES it does) for what is an attitude of just being lazy. It doesn't take but a click to visit FIFA's website. South Africa currently leads that group, this is the simple fact. It is funny to read all the nit-picking anal-retentive discussions on Wikipedia to be correct and referenced, and then when someone points out basic errors: nothing. Kingjeff is the the only one that has a clue here. It IS about tiebreaking criteria and using sources; not a new Wikipedia World Cup Standings. Look, you have a user, Argyle 4 Life, completely making up things now, and Lihaas hasn't a clue. Sorry fellas...

Before you are so uncivil about things, you should be aware of the tie breaking criteria. The only listed criteria that could separate SA and Mexico, or France and Uruguay, at present is a "drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee", which has not taken place. Therefore either order is equally correct: two teams are joint top of the group, two teams are joint third. It might be that as a project we wish to be consistent, but that is a different issue, we could either be consistent in following FIFA's lead (although too many editors want to update within 4.37 milliseconds of the final whistle for that to be consistently applied), or alphabetical order. But in the absence of authoritative explanation of rankings, we have editorial freedom. Kevin McE (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful, we won't have common sense being spoken here, Kevin. ;) Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Uncivil" i think saying "don't have a clue" was more a WP:NPA. At any rate, re-read what i wrote. it was agreement with the post above that the criteria had to be known, the other comment was merely an attempt not to get into huff just yet. But if you have said source and rules then why not go ahead and edit on it. Youre not in the wrong, not even by a doubt. (said pretty "civil[ly]"?)Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The FIFA order of tied teams at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/standings/index.html is currently consistent with http://www.fifa.com/live/competitions/worldcup/finaldraw/index.html for all groups including those with no matches played. I haven't seen an offical statement from FIFA about how they list tied teams after they have played but I guess they follow the draw positions. This means that in case of a tie, the seeded teams (best 7 plus South Africa as host) are listed first (it was decided before the draw to give them all position 1). The others are listed by the position they received in the draw. Note that this position within the group was a draw and not based on other criteria like spelling, world ranking or pot number in the draw. After being drawn into group A, Uruguay drew position 3 in that group. When France was drawn from pot 4, only position 4 was left. This was by draw and not by design. All teams from pot 4 were last to be drawn into their group but they didn't all draw position 4. The position determined the playing order in that group. I don't agree with the tone or arguments of the unsigned editor and South Africa doesn't lead group A ahead of Mexico but if there is disagreement about the order of listing the teams, I think we should follow the draw as the closest we can come to something official. I personally don't care whether they are listed by FIFA's draw or other random criteria but if others care and we need something to settle a dispute then FIFA's draw seems suitable. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 12 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)

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)

favourites section

this edit [4] 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)

External links

the link "2010 World Cup: Opening Ceremonies - slideshow by Life magazine" serves the article because, as per WP:EL, websites can be added to the "external links" section when "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

Additions do not simply have to be official pages (As in the past international football tournaments like 2006 FIFA World Cup. Said pictures are copyright violations to add here, and then show the opening ceremony on the relevant site, thus it is on EL.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)).

Why must we add a pointless external link when we could just as easily add free photos of the opening ceremony? Surely someone has uploaded some photos of the ceremony on Flickr by now! – PeeJay 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has done so: the link provides images that may well be of interest to readers of the article. It provides additional illustration relevant to, but not repeated in, the article: is that not what external inks are all about? Kevin McE (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Countries that did not enter World Cup"

In 2010 FIFA World Cup#List of qualified teams, the explanatory image caption needs a grammatical cleanup. --78.34.244.72 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Captions are often not written in complete sentences: that aside, what is unclear? A few countries are not FIFA members, a similarly small number are FIFA members but didn't enter this competition, the majority entered, but failed to qualify for the finals, and 32 teams are in the finals tournament currently underway. Kevin McE (talk) 13:11, 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

[5] 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)

"Matches" link to scored

seems rather cyclical on this page (As opposed to the schedule page) as the link comes right back to the same place. Someone may want to remove them. (except the final which has its own page)Lihaas (talk) 16:23, 12 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)

Edit request from Chazkim, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Colours for qualification map key are incorrect. Should be changed to match http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_world_cup_qualification.png

Chazkim (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What should happen is that people shouldn't edit graphics after months of use - particularly at a time when the page is likely to be edited a lot. Given the large number of revisions it is hard to track who edited the colours and when and why - hence when another user went to the page they saw the old picture (because they don't just magically recache when you open a page you often use, I am still getting the old colour scheme on a lot of pages) and thought the edit was vandalism - and they had little reason not to think that. That is why edits (and particular picture edits) need to be flagged precisely and we would probably need a comment on the page to note what has happened in a case like this. Jlsa (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the above; either fix the template, or request an edit to the template - not this page. Cancelled this request  Chzz  ►  06:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at this page. There is no template. It's a semi-protected page the guy probably can't edit. Jlsa (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Diski Dance

Can there be some small coverage of the Diski Dance, a dance specially made for this tournament by the South Africans, and used in Matt Harding's "Where the Hell is Matt in South Africa?" video. Thanks mezuu64 --Mezuu64 (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yellow card suspension rules

The rules for suspensions for this World Cup have been changed to avoid players being banned from the final by getting a yellow in the semi final like Ballack or Blanc in 06 and 98. Single yellows will be 'deleted' after the quarter finals [6]. I couldn't see where to add this, does anyone think it's relevant? Tomcrocker (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably, this could be mentioned if there is such a situation in the finals. It would fit into the finals section as a notice. --Tone 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)