Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup

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 [1], 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)

Amazing work by user:Knepflerle. Removing tables and replacing with prose. Speeds up page load just a bit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

26 billion people are expected to watch the WC, not 2 billion !

{{editsemiprotected}}

In the "Broadcasting" paragraph, it is said that the expected audience is more than 2 billion people (I quote: "Hundreds of broadcasters, representing about 70 countries, are transmitting the Cup to a cumulative TV audience that is predicted by FIFA officals to reach more than 2 billion people."). This is wrong, according to the referenced article (http://knightcenter.utexas.edu/blog/?q=pt-br/node/7444), it is expected to be more than 26 billion people.

Abdouni1 (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Quite simply, there are not 26 billion people in the world, in fact their are over 6 billion (See: World population). -- [[ axg ◉ talk ]] 18:05, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's 26 billion expected tune-ins ("expected cumulative television audience of over 26 billion"), as opposed to 2 billion individuals. --Illythr (talk) 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Illythy is right. For now, I've just changed this particular reference to "citation needed" until someone finds a reference that includes the total number of distinct viewers. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly what I meant. The Wikipedia article says "Hundreds of broadcasters, representing about 70 countries, are transmitting the Cup to a cumulative TV audience that is predicted by FIFA officals to reach more than 2 billion people.". So no need for "citation needed" because it is the right article, just the wrong number.

Okay, I have done the deed. Might've chosen a clearer name for the section, though. :-) --Illythr (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

It's the same type of math in play as with the attendance: 2.5 million bodies have come through the gates to see games, but they aren't necessarily 2.5 million unique people. Likewise, adding up the TV audience worldwide for each game, the total across all games is expected to exceed 26 billion. —C.Fred (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

At first I saw this and also thought this was impossible, since there are only about 6 billion-ish people in the world. But if you read the link, it specifies "cumulative" viewers to be 26 billion. So why doesn't someone change it to say "nonunique" viewers as to not copy the website and infringe their copyright?Mistershnerples (talk) 20:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I think he is including the galaxy as well. I heard that planet Fomalhaut b from the constellation of Piscis Austrinus are still trying to get broadcasting rights of the final over ESPN...Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be stated that 26 billion tune-ins are expected. "26 billion people" is nonsense, because as someone before me stated only roughly 6 billion people live on the planet. The phrasing is just too inprecise/incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.87.147.223 (talk) 21:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

If I could address the person in front of you I would, but since they're hiding behind you, please pass this message on. While there may be only six billion people in this world, and not every one of those people will have a means of accessing the television feed I believe that the number represents the cumulative number of viewers across the sixty-four matches. That means about 400 000 000 (400 million, or the combined populations of Canada and the US) per match. I suspect that fewer watch the group matches than the this stage, but I have no references for the per-game numbers. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And to address the original question, 2 billion people around the world will likely watch part of a match. Only a small percentage of those will be watching at my house. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Other languages

Are there any names of the World Cup in the rest of the official languages of South Africa, and could they be added to the infobox, like what has been done here or here? --Магьосник (talk) 03:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. There are 12 official languages in South Africa.216.165.126.12 (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The languages are there now. I wonder if this is really necessary but if they stay, it would be a good idea to make them collapsable since the top of the template is now too crowded. --Tone 15:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

11, rather than 12, languages is what is mentioned in relation to the design of the ball, and 11 languages are now showing. But it would appear that all that it says in most of those is the name of the country and the year: that is not the name of the tournament. I'm not sure how this adds relevant knowledge to English speakers wanting to know about a football tournament. Is the Xhosa version of the name any more official than the Portuguese or Thai translations? Kevin McE (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that this is the English Wikipedia I think it is fairly pointless to have all 12 languages in the infobox, when it is most likely that anyone reading this article will only be able to read the English and won't be able to understand any of the other 11, making them irrelevant Jenks24 (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the logic of having all the african-language names of the cup is that the South Africa article also has them. I'll make them collapsible.Rodface (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Dont really oppose, but do the previous articles have native languages? Metallurgist (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there any source supporting that these names are official or used at all in those languages? I Googled 4 of them with quotes including the year and the only hits were our article and, for some but not all of them, freesporting.com or freesporting.us - apparently a private website not affiliated with FIFA or South Africa. The names were added by User:Jamen Somasu.[2] Earlier in the day he was unblocked after an indefinite block on 3 June for disruptive editing but I haven't exmined the details. The only WikiProject on his user page is for Costa Rica and the only mentioned languages are English and Spanish. I wonder whether he knows South African languages or just saw the names for the country in the infobox at South Africa, removed the word corresponding to "Republic" (but maybe not always the part corresponding to "of"?), and added "2010". I think it would be original research to smack a country name and year together in a bunch of languages and claim it's official tournament names. Do we even know whether those languages use Arabic numerals, a calendar where we are in 2010, and a grammar or practice allowing such country-year combinations? I have posted to Jamen Somasu but his contributions don't show edits at this time of day so I'm not objecting if somebody removes the languages now. PrimeHunter (talk) 04:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I added every single translation of "South Africa 2010" (the most common way to refer to this tournament). My source was Wiki itself. It is here; it is just time-consuming to find it. Go to South Africa's language page and you'll see for yourself. Jamen Somasu (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have Googled all 11 names now. Several had our article as the only hit. The only with more than 7 hits were "South Africa 2010" (80,400,000 hits) and "Suid-Afrika 2010" (237,000 hits but 0 at the official FIFA or host country site). Based on the above I have removed the names from the infobox, except "South Africa 2010" which was there originally. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have stated where to find the sources. It isn't that hard. Don't be lazy. Go to South Africa's language section and see for yourself. If you have a problem with it, I have an admin that can help you. There are a lot more research tools other than google. Have you tried yahoo? search.com? etc? Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is pure assumption that a translation of "South Africa 2010" is an official, or even common, name for the tournament in those languages. Remove as OR. Kevin McE (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jamen Somasu added them again and I have removed them again. The burden of evidence is on you and you have to show not only that this is the country names but also that the names together with 2010 actually refer to the 2010 World Cup in those languages. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA Sokker-Wêreldbekertoernooi is the Afrikaans name. Considering one of the venues is in Afrikaans plurality (44%) Cape Town, it should be added, just like the other FIFA world cup articles. Major languages such as Afrikaans, Zulu and Xhosa are vital, but one must not just ´translate´ the English name to another language. Other languages have different ways of saying it. But Afrikaans is a certain name, so please add it. --90.215.150.172 (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

`

Lastley please refrain form saying all '11' languages, South Africa has 11 official languages of which one is English. We only need the other 10 translations, don't understand where people are getting 12 from though? --90.215.150.172 (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

Proposal to merge "2010 FIFA World Cup event effects" into this article

I think that the article "2010 FIFA World Cup event effects" should be merged into this article since the effects are caused by the World Cup. I also think it should be merged because it would be easier for the viewer to read if all the world cup information is in one place. Anyone else have an opinion on this matter?--Bobby122 (talk) 05:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Wikipedia:Merging. The resulting article is too long or "clunky". In addition the information in the "Event effects" sub-article adds no context to this article. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 05:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The split was proposed here: Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Event_effects_proposed_split.--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 05:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support Despite saying it about a million times, someone has simply gone and done a split by simple cut and paste, leaving jack shit here at all. This is idiotic, and should be reversed immediately. Simply moving it and placing 'expand' tags in the now blank section is the height of laziness, and makes the article look totaly shit. And for the millionth time also, stop invoking the 2006 article as a template to follow, it represents nothing in terms of peer-reviewed quality. Infact, it is frankly pathetic that this article now has around 5 sections which simply state - See main article xyz. Totally crap. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That someone was me. --Elliskev 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Frankly pathetic that this article has 5 "See main article" leads? There are featured articles (e.g. Dartmouth College) with 7 of them. So, it is not totally crap to have 5 of them here. What needs to be done is to write a small summary of what's included in that article where the expansion tag is currently located in this article. Also, that someone was me as well. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 21:54, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I've expanded my opposition in a new section below before I saw this. Dartmouth College has no empty sections with just a 'See here' link, not a single one, precisely because it is an FA and thus is not pathetically crap. People have spent more than 5 minutes on organising its content and sub article content. Yes, the sections do need expansion into a decent summary, I'm glad you at least realise that, others haven't at all in the past when attempting this. But are you working on that? Because the media section has been tagged with expand for, oh, a month now? I predict that nobody is working on it right now, which is why I always opposed going ahead with this section blanking approach of size reduction (without even any load speed beneifts it seems), unless or until someone demonstrated they had a solution going forward with no intermediate stage where the article became this crap version we see now, for an unspecified amount of time. MickMacNee (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

And on the general brilliantness of just sticking an expand tag in and leaving it, we now have a Greece vs. Nigeria section in the brand new controversies article. It has absolutely no content, nothing at all, just a header, asserting that something controversial happened, and it must be worthy of mention in Wikipedia. And people see that after having got all the way to the empty section in this article and followed the 'sod off' link to the controversy section with it's brilliant one line lede. It's beyond rubbish. Why this is even a merge discussion right now is beyond me, it should have simply been reverted as you would any edit that instantly tumbled an article several places down the Quality Scale. MickMacNee (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I had moved the material out to a recreated controversies article cut and paste word for word - see here. This article was getting very long and unfocused. My move wasn't well-received based on the response on this talk page. I guess my attempts at improving it were unreasonably chaotic and reckless shit edits. So, yeah, I disagree that it be brought back. --Elliskev 21:16, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support The removal of the prose from here achieved nothing in making this article load faster or making it much shorter. Get rid of the game material and goal scorers which already have very valid separate articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment If we can get rid of the 32 participating teams as well as all references to the country of South Africa we might have plenty of room to expand on a section on the physiological effects of Vuvuzelas as well as the economic and sociopolitical impact caused on Blikkiesdorp. Readers much rather read about the poor people of Singapore who had to fork out $68 USD to watch the games on TV than reading how many goals Podolski, Muller, and Klose scored in the group stage for Germany. Brilliant! --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 01:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support I was the editor who combined all the previous even WORSE pre-Jun 15ish criticism and consequence section into a hopefully non-biased event section. I am really bothered that so much CITED text has been offloaded into an unread sub page without any mention in the main. I don't care how many sentences are used to discuss phenonmenon like Blikkiesdorp, but to refuse entirely to connect the new settlements with their genesis in the FIFA choice, is so disengenuous as to be frightening. PS I will be adding in mentions from the sub, to the main, on my login acct in case anyone is wondering. This is absurd. 66.220.101.210 (talk) 07:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unless admin can actually guarantee that this section will be heavily monitored in order to prevent POV, this section should not be added. Just read the Vuvuzuela section to see how heavily lopsided the POV is in there (POV causes psychological damage? LOL) Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

i disagree entirely that the vuvuzela section is POV. Yes there is certainly implied POV due to the actions and statements of football notables and TV stations which are complaining and filtering the sound... however thats the thing, this is all implied from referenced text which is pretty neutral in reporting facts. And the pro-vuvuzela side is perhaps well enough represented again by the IMPLIED pov that so many of the horns keep showing up at all the games. So really its a wash and it concerns a plastic musical instrument.

However I do remember seeing some other pro-vuvuzela cites from other notable footballers a while back. I haven't seen that text in a while but if someone knows where it is, I don't think there should be a problem in adding a sentance or two. 66.220.101.210 (talk) 19:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support It does no good to split the sections and just tell the reader to follow a link. The article is not too long, just full of template formatting. Reywas92^Talk 17:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose or Delete Unnecessary clutter, POV, article length, no precedent. Delete perhaps because it is POV. Metallurgist (talk) 10:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure those of us working to make that section better would love to hear what is pov about it. mostly I see lots and lots of RS cites, which is kind of the opposite. And I am also wondering what other large events wp you have seen which do not have a social/cultural effects section of some sort? 66.220.101.210 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Octofinal

Why do you call the round of the last 16 clubs in this tournament "Round of 16" and not "Octo-Final"? In Germany we speak from: Achtelfinale (Octo-Final), Viertelfinale (Quater-Final), Halbfinale (Semi-Final) and Finale (Final). The description: "Runde der letzten 16" ("Round of the last 16") is also used, but not for headlines or in charts. I would recommend a similiar approach in this and other articles. Michael Belzer --MBelzer (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Round of 16 is what fifa calls it here. I have never heard Octo-Final before (but it does sound cool). --Boy.pockets (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally in English it's referred to as the round of 16 or last 16. I can't say I've heard Octo-Final before but I like it! Definitely a good reflection of the hideous eight-legged creature that it is. 94.173.100.191 (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In Spanish we call it the Octavos de Final, or "Eighth Finals", but "Round of 16" appears to be the common English usage.Rodface (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am hispanic by origin, I have been a fan of this sport since I was 5, paid attention to it in Spanish, English, Italian, Portuguese and German and this is the first ever time I have heard of the "Octofinal" LOL Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have heard the expression "eighth finals" used on occasion in the US for similar stages in other knock-out competitions; in the NCAA basketball tournament it is often referred to as the "Sweet Sixteen", but Octofinal sounds to me like their letting that German octopus decide things. Wschart (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reactions to the world cup

It would be nice to have a section (called something like "reactions to the world cup") where the (media's) reactions to the world cup are summarized. If you go the the fifa web site (fifa.com), the news is pretty tame. There are no mentions of things like;

• the number of fouls,
• simulation by the players,
• the empty seats that I keep seeing when I watch a game (in the group stages)

I have looked through the other WC2010 articles and can find not much. There is the controversies article, but that is more a list of controversies. --Boy.pockets (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

This section should be carefully monitored by admin. This will stink of POV i.e. the Vuvuzuela section (I love Vuvuzuelas!).Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Goalscorers

Hi, can someone please update the info in Goalscorers section? Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.208.73 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you think needs updating? FIFA's page is at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/players/goals.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, some examples, just looking to the top of that same table: David Villa - 3 goals; Luis Suarez - 3 goals; Landon Donovan - 3 goals; Tiago - 2 goals —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.208.73 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Where are you seeing the page that needs updating with this? 2010 FIFA World Cup#Goalscorers transcludes {{2010 FIFA World Cup Goalscorers}}. The page history shows that ever since before your first post, all the examples you mention were correctly listed with that number of goals.[3] Maybe you have to bypass your browser cache to the current version of the article. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how was that even possible, since my browser is set to clear all the private data every time it closes, but you were right about it. And apparently it was really old. Thanks a lot mate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.83.217.159 (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi, pls some body edit the number of goals scored by David Villa. It shows only one goal where as he has already scored 3 as on 29.06.10 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaperon05 (talk • contribs)

Where are you seeing one goal by David Villa? 2010 FIFA World Cup#Goalscorers transcludes {{2010 FIFA World Cup Goalscorers}} which has said 3 goals since it was created 25 June (and the article also said 3 before that [4]). PrimeHunter (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is it "Fabiano" and not "Luis Fabiano"? Fabiano is not his surname, just like Carlos is not surname of Roberto Carlos. Brazilian names like Luis Fabiano and Roberto Carlos are artist names, not first names and surnames.109.108.6.50 (talk) 09:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Being from mexican ancestors, I have to defend my countrymen. Javier Hernandez, from the Mexican team actually scored two goals, one vs France and the last one vs Argentina. The goalscorers section shows him with only one goal. Can someone update this? Cheers! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergeidave (talk • contribs) 20:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hernández was already updated to two goals during the Argentina match where he scored the second goal, 2 days ago: [5]. I wonder why we keep getting these false reports about lack of goalscorer updates. Are the reporters just failing to bypass their cache or is something else happening? PrimeHunter (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Empty sections and other general crapness

I was off Wiki for a couple of days, and I come back, and this article now has four totally empty sections, Opening ceremony, Event effects, Disciplinary record, Controversies, which effectively just say 'nothing to see here, fuck off and go and look at this other article' instead. And there are countless other sections with notional {Main} links, but with no prose in the sections they supposedly expand on. And I'm only talking about Level 1 sections here, there are even more sub-level sections that are just as poor. This crapness is even extending to the content spun out, such as 2010 FIFA World Cup controversies, which has a one line lede section, and instead of improving the quality of that article or this one, has just made this one deficient, and meant that instead of paring down irrelevant info in the sub article, that now gets expanded with any old irrelevant or POV stuff, because it's now just a pathetic backwater, out of sight, out of mind. Similarly for the effects sub-article (has anyone yet figured out the difference between an event controversy and an event effect btw? The articles are no use at explaining it), and we have even had someone PROD that material as soon as it was split, text that had been on Wikipedia in this article for months if not over a year. This is all so far below good article development practice it's unreal, people can look at the other hundred sections on this talk page where I've explained this in detail, I really can't be bothered to repeat it any more. And why people think the 2006 article is a template to be following is beyond me, it has never passed a peer review, and in Wikipedia terms, it was written in the information dark ages. This WC was the first chance to show Wikipedia could grow what was always going to be a huge article with many child articles, organically and sensibly, in a controlled fashion, per the well developed and understood content and procedural rules we now have in 2010. Instead, it still looks like the utter chaos and screw the reader/article model, and the only difference from 2006 seems to be that some people want the article turned upside down for easy viewing on mobiles. All I can say is holy jebus to that tbh, but at least nobody has tried to boldly do that yet, I hope. I'm not going to bother figuring out the why's and wherefore's of this latest slash and burn episode, let alone attempt to reverse it, but this is a bloody disgrace of a situation to end up in, while the tournament is still ongoing no less, for an article being viewed by thousands of people a day. It's bad enough that people think in 2010 that this article is supposed to have no prose at all, just a bunch of pretty flags and stats, but this is just as worse frankly. P.S. as a final thought, I fully acknowledge the article needed reducing in size, and lord knows I said a million times how that's supposed to be done when people chimed in to point this out, without ever doing anything constructive about it, but I do find it very odd now that huge sections have been copy pasted out of here, the mythical 'ten seconds to load' still seems to be true, at least for me. And I'm on a fast cable connection. I'd laugh my ass off if the delay is down to all the fancy templates for holding flags and stats, it certainly isn't for downloading quality images that add to the article. Someone even removed the image of the ball it seems, wtf is that all about?. The delay certainly isn't the use of {cite web} template as some people often allege, I know of an article with ten more refs that loads in around 2 secs. Infact, the edit window says that particular article is 80kbs, which is even larger than this is now after shrinking, at 73kbs. MickMacNee (talk) 22:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the removal of the game ball image. That was me. At least I did at one point. I don't know if was re-added and re-removed... I removed it because it doesn't need to be here. The section that held the image has a link to an article about the ball with an image of the ball. This article was lacking focus. Why does it need a picture of the ball? Does it need a picture of every referee? Of a vuvuzela? what about a picture of Nelson Mandela? Do we need to add an image of Germany's kit? What about a video of Maradona singing? How about the orange girls? I'd like this article to have as many pictures of the orange girls as possible. --Elliskev 01:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We also need a picture of Sepp Blatter. Let's not forget Shakira who very graciously composed and interprets the official anthem Waka Waka(TM). I also think we need a section on the aerodynamic properties of the Jabulani(TM) as well as a picture of Fabio Cannavaro holding the 2006 trophy... and what about a section titled the "Mick Jagger effect" which would expand on why both the United States and England lost after the singer rooted for them in the round of 16? Why don't we just go ahead and move all football references to an article titled 2010 FIFA World Cup actual football shit and maintain this article a place where non-football related manners are deeply analyzed and criticized? What the hell, at this point football is a secondary matter on this article. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you just quit it with your sarcastic bullshit? Believe it or not, what you think is best contained by this article is not necessarily what everybody else thinks, and as you keep dismissing content that has been added to and read by hundreds of people over months as simply uneccessary, you simply sound like an arrogant twat right now. MickMacNee (talk) 02:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop? Stop the sarcasm? --Elliskev 02:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The sarcasm. Stop it. Get your brains into gear, and realise the last two posts you made were utter hysterical nonsense. I can think of nothing more daft than to suggest that someone saying the image of the ball is relevant here, means they must want images of all sorts of other bollocks to be included as well. Jesus, I bet the actual number of people who saw that image there before you and didn't comment once how it made the page 'lose focus' (seriously, wtf is that even supposed to mean? not visual focus surely, but the implication is there if it's fixed by removing an image), probably runs into the millions. MickMacNee (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with MickMacNee. This article is a joke and the perpetrators continue to make it worse by throwing out sarcasm and personal preference instead of a single useful idea on how to improve it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense? Hysterical nonsense? --Elliskev 02:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll be serious from now on, I just couldn't resist... well.... nervermind. Listen Walter we have to start somewhere and we need to draw the line at some point. First and foremost this is an article about a football tournament; hence, the main subject of discussion should be football. We all agree that the importance and size of the event gathers so much interest that it spills over to non-football related areas in the social, political, cultural and economic realms. Walter has said in previous occasions that we shouldn't look at the 1930 version of this tournament, which is a featured article, on the basis that the tournament is larger now. There is some logic in that line of though; however, I disagree that the difference between a 13-team tournament (then) and a 32-team tournament (now) is monumental to completely overlook a featured article as such. I've also been looking at articles under Wikipedia:Featured_articles#Sport_and_recreation to have an idea what editors included there and they all seem to focus on the sporting aspects while briefly acknowledging other non-sporting incidents rather briefly. Examples of this include 1923 FA Cup Final, 1926 World Series, or 2009 Giro d'Italia to name a few. Thus far, and unless there is a catastrophic even such as a terrorist attack, this article's main notability is that its winner will be crowned football world champion and remain, or join, a select group of 7 nations which have won the tournament in the past. Not the Vuvuzela, not the Jabulani, not Waka Waka, etc. So, let's remain focused and give more weight to the footballing aspects of the tournament.

In addition, I'll not address MickMacNee directly since he or she stated in the previous post "you simply sound like an arrogant twat right now". If he or she was addressing me; I may be disappointing him/her but I'm not a homosexual. Attacks on persona using racist, homophobic, or xenophobic epithets are signs of a narrow mindset and I try to stay away from that sort of people in my life. One thing is to make fun of ones stupidity by using a sarcastic undertone and a much different one is to use hateful remarks on matters of personal choice. If he or she had slightly more creativity he or she could have turned the sarcasm on us. Who am I kidding? Creativity is always scarce in a narrow mind.

--Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not about the matches alone, it's about everything that surrounds the tournament. Those are the big rocks. The matches are all covered elsewhere. That makes them the little rocks that can be fit in if there's room. That makes your references meaningless until you understand what this article is for. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got a clue what you are on about, but it just sounds like more of the same arrogance tbh. 'I'm not going to address you because you called me a name'. In my language, which happens to be the language of this website also, 'twat' is simply a slightly ruder way of saying idiot, and trust me, you are acting like a real idiot to me with your hysterical over-reactions and 'I am the reader' attitude. If 'twat' means 'homosexual' in whatever language sphere you reside in, then I'm sorry, but that is an interpretation that is entirely news to me. Infact, this is a very serious allegation, had I actually made such a slur in the way you think I have, it is a blockable offence. And while this idiocy may be infuriatingly stupid, it is not worth getting blocked over. MickMacNee (talk) 04:06, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the slang word you used. The word still happens to reside outside conventional English but I have heard it used with a homophobic undertone in Los Angeles, California. Perhaps you should also point out that in your version of the English language "crapness", "infact", and "blockable" are also actual words. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think that long after the average viewer forgets the winner of the tournament, if you ask them what they remember about this World Cup Finals they will likely say the vuvuzelas, although they may not remember the name. It has been a staple of news coverage and the announcers that I hear. Pretty much every set-piece there is a mention of the jabulani. Just as in Germany four years ago, the ball is most certainly a discussion-piece. Now if the moppets were here I'm sure Fozzy would mention the Waka Waka, but unless you are making a racial slur, you might not want to use phrases like that. If you think they just want to know who the winner is, why do we need the lead-up to the winner? Just post that in twelve days. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In either case, the name calling should stop. The facts are simple. This article shouldn't be used to update the scores or blow-by-blow elements of the matches. It should be a birds-eye view of the event. An interesting thing happened while being blocked. I discovered that for some strange reason, the article loads a whole lot faster if you're not signed-in to Wikipedia, or at least have no ability to edit the article. So in the end, what matters is the end-user of the article not editors of the article. May I suggest that we focus on what should be and should not be in the article. Using past articles and similar events' articles as a benchmark is not reasonable since this isn't those other events. How can we make this a good article? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

One event that doesn't appear on the lists is 2010 Winter Olympics. It also takes forever to load but it has many sub-articles with a table of contents of related sub-articles on the right-hand side of the article, right at the top. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We should remove all these blank sections (Opening ceremony, symbols, media, effects, controversies, discipline, referee controversies) and link them in see also. I can see maybe keeping the vuvuzela as it appears to have now become (much to the chagrin of the old boys club) a part of international footballing culture and we may wish to note where it started. We should keep the match details we currently have displayed, as per enormous precedent and obviousness. Further details can be in the child articles. Also, change statistics to Scorers like previous articles and put the statistics link in See Also.

• 2010 FIFA World Cup:
  • Controversies
  • Discipline
  • Effects
  • Media
  • Opening ceremony
  • Statistics
  • Symbols

Metallurgist (talk) 10:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

links to biased fifa match reports

Folks, we are linking to FIFA match reports but they are not unbiased - they make no mention of the controversies in the match, such as the disputed goals in ENG-GER and ARG-MEX are simply glossed over or even ignored. Should we be linking to these?

--ti 22:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's been the Wikipedia standard for as long as I can remember, there are a LOT of articles which give match reports here. Yes, FIFA reports are not going to criticise FIFA, but that is a rather more obvious fact than, say, a British newspaper might be subtly biased in an England match report, or an Irish newspaper might spend more time laughing it's ass off than neutrally covering any of France's 3 dismal matches. I doubt anyone would agree which news source to replace FIFA with was unbiased and neutral for any and all national match combination. MickMacNee (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes we should be linking to them since they are the match reports, but only for the match data. If you want to discuss the controversies, then link to a WP:V source that discusses them. But I don't think the individual matches should listed here at all so it's a moot point for this article. Go discuss it on the match articles. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The FIFA match reports (example: Germany–England) seem like neutral facts in a completely standardized format listing goals, officials, squads and statistics. There is no prose or individual content whatsoever so there is no mention of any reactions or positive or negative things. I don't consider this biased and support their inclusion. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The match reports are far from biased. They report factual information; date, time, goals, players, cards, venue, etc. Remember that FIFA's position is that the ref's decision should be final and any disallowed goals and stuff like that is the biased information. This kind of information should go in a controversy section. --MicroX (talk) 13:57, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Shall we include an image of the ball?

So, should we include an image of the Jabulani ball in this article, or does it make the article "lose focus" [6]? MickMacNee (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. It's a no brainer. Beyond obvious. MickMacNee (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Would prefer a better image without the packaging. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The article is about football so an image of the football that is used every match is appropriate Jenks24 (talk) 06:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Support. The ball IS part of the competition. Who would suggest otherwise?! Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Not so much oppose as don't see the point. The ball has its own article which includes an image. I do appreciate the total lack of civility though. --Elliskev 12:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
• Support. From talking with non-soccer following americans where I live the ball seems to have a higher profile than the tournament itself. There are numerous RS containing discussion of the ball design, so picture of what they are talking about, is again a no-brainer. Lets not forget also that wp is not just meant as a tool for the literate. 66.220.101.210 (talk) 19:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

• Neutral. I'm not fond of subtle product placement on Wikipedia, but I must say it makes more sense including the image of the ball used during football matches, than the image of someone demonstrating how to operate a blowing horn or a "Blatterville" slum. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 23:52, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose upon reading Wikipeterproject's opinion I agree that soon after the World Cup is over readers will care less about the ball used and rather be interested about the development of the tournament's sporting aspect. --Marco Guzman, Jr (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no point. It is more unneeded clutter. Previous articles do not have their balls. Metallurgist (talk) 10:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not a big deal, but the ball is linked and the link has a picture of the ball. I am sure that in future, when this tournament becomes a memory that anyone who is really interested in what the ball looked like will click on the link. The tournament is identified by the tournament logo, not by the match ball and the logo rightly is featured in the article. There are plenty of other official FIFA-endorsed products used in the tournaments (admittedly not as high-profile as the ball), but we could easily clutter up the whole article with pictures of 2010 FIFA World Cup paraphernalia. By the way, the section about the match ball is so far into the article that it's hardly feels like part of the article at all - rather one of several "afterthought sections" that feel (and read) like clutter. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:01, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

We need citations for the soccer stadia

Currently only three have citations. Rather than add {{Citation needed|date=June 2010}} to the other entries, which would wreck the layout, I'll post it here. For some reason, the English-language FIFA site has a different capacity for Soccer City than the others.

• http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/destination/stadiums/stadium=5007759/index.html = 88,460
• http://de.fifa.com/worldcup/destination/stadiums/stadium=5007759/index.html = 84.490
• http://fr.fifa.com/worldcup/destination/stadiums/stadium=5007759/index.html = 84 490
• http://es.fifa.com/worldcup/destination/stadiums/stadium=5007759/index.html = 84.490
• http://pt.fifa.com/worldcup/destination/stadiums/stadium=5007759/index.html = 88.460
• http://ar.fifa.com/worldcup/destination/stadiums/stadium=5007759/index.html = 94700 (the size for non-soccer events)

So what about the other venues? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The Fans Photo

Can someone change the caption under the fans photo unless this is true? It currently reads "Models superimposed on a photo of Camps Bay, Cape Town, South Africa" whereas the picture info reads "Fans celebrating the upcoming 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa (Camps Bay, Cape Town)". I somehow doubt that this is a fake image, but confirm/deny/change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.36.191 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done

I made that, admittedly cheeky, but true, edit, based on previous discussion here, the file talk, and looking closely at the pic in large display. I considered posting "Models superimposed badly on a photo of Camps Bay", but that could have been considered POV. The previous, and now restored, text is by no means verifiable: how does the editor requesting this, or acting on that request, intend verifying that these are fans, that the World Cup is the cause of their celebration, or that they were at Camps Bay? If we don't have a true caption, we would be better without the photo. Kevin McE (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. They could be models. They could be fans. They could be CGI. We have to assume good faith in the person who uploaded the image though. I do see the PhotoShop halo on the full-size image and the images were staged because there are additional photos from the same session shot sometime in 2009:

• http://www.opusarte.com/en/newsandfeatures/footballclassical/
• http://www.the-esa.org/news/-/major-initiative-to-green-the-fifa-world-cup-kicks-off
• http://www.thefeeherytheory.com/2010/06/11/friday-musings/

Despite all this, they do represent South Africans, wearing South African colours, set in a South African setting. It seems to be a good use of the image. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

In which case a suitable caption would be what? "Staged photo of people wearing South African colours, and a background showing Camps Bay"? Is the word of an editor to be considered a Reliable Source? Kevin McE (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

You're an editor. Do you, in good faith, assume you're a reliable source? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect my own assertion to be accepted unquestioningly, especially when there is evidence that it is flawed and there is potential for conflict of interest: would you? Kevin McE (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Good faith assumes that I am acting without malice or deception. Bad faith assumes that I am trying to be malicious in some way. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

And WP:V insists on independent reliable sources for any claim that can be reasonably contested. Do you think someone who considers that "there are artifacts that suggest PhotoShop was involved" should take the contents of the photo for granted? Kevin McE (talk) 23:14, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But WP:V is met when copyright holder uploads the image and writes "Fans celebrating the upcoming 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa (Camps Bay, Cape Town)". That was easy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That section of WP:V does not leave one to deduce that anyone with a camera is to be considered infallible; it is assumed so long as "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity". Why are you so determinedly defending an image about which you have admitted suspicion? Kevin McE (talk) 06:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I have suspicions about how PhotoShop was used. It could have been used to burn-in the subjects. All of the other images taken at this time have the same information as to location. In short, there is nothing wrong with the photo. If you don't like the photo, have it deleted. Until then, it fits the subject of the article and should be used here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

One more thing: if you think there is something fallible in the image, ask the image uploader to explain. Until then or until it's deleted, it's fair to use here and it fits the subject well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That may be your opinion. I, and others such as the 84k+ edits admin you reverted this morning, all those participating in the previous discussion here, and all those commenting at the photo's own talk page, seem to think otherwise. It is questionable whether the people were at the claimed site: more importantly, it is highly questionable as to whether they were fans celebrating spontaneously rather than carefully made up people, very possibly recruited for the purpose of the photo, in a posed and staged shot. We are under no moral obligation to include a photo merely because it has been submitted, nor to retain it because it has been placed in the article: we are under obligation to provide the best information that we can, and this caption does not meet that standard. Kevin McE (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

(after edit conflict): I'm several hours ahead of you: invited him into the discussion already. I make no accusation against the photographer: it seems perfectly legitimate to give the artistic intent of an image, rather than the circumstances of its creation, as its summary, but it is naive to believe that the two are always the same when writing a caption. Kevin McE (talk) 06:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it; it looks fake (as in, visibly photoshopped) to me and seems in any case like decoration rather than illustration. I think a lot of the comments here on another of the uploader's images apply to this one as well. I don't think it adds to the article. --John (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it looks fake or not. Stop deleting the image. The maps look fake. Delete them too while you're at it. The Lukasrand Tower looks contrived. Delete that image. Half the stadium images are crap. Delete them. The map of South Africa that displays the cities is terrible. Why display rivers in it. Delete it! I could go n, but there's nothing wrong with the image as it is approved for use on Wikipedia and as such this is the perfect location for it to be used. I restored your personal preference delete and have changed the copy to something more neutral since your deletion refers only to the copy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:20, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Left on my talk page:

Why are you so keen to retain it? It looks terrible and is a fake. --John (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look terrible at all. Its composition is great. It's not a fake. It's taken with a real camera. If it were entirely composed, or rendered, it would be a fake. For all I know you're as real as the subjects in the photo. Have the image removed from Wikipedia commons if you don't like the fact that it's been slightly modified, but stop applying your personal opinion on the article. I'm sure it will suffer the same results as the related image. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be one person arguing for the retention of this image, and he seems determined to ignore consensus. Many good reasons for lack of confidence in the image and its accompanying caption have been given. There is no assumption that something has the right to remain once posted if it does not enjoy the support of the consensus. Removing the pic. Kevin McE (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be two people arguing for the removal of this image and they seem determined to ignore consensus of several other editors and their talk. See the archives. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If those editors don't "like", and that's all it amounts to: a personal preference, the image have it deleted from the Wikicommons. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

To reiterate the arguments that is opposed to the image:

1. It's photoshopped.
   • That's not a reason to remove it.
2. It looks stagged.
   • That too is not a reason to remove it.

The discussion in Archive 3 Two editors are opposed to the photo. Three editors, including me, are in favour of keeping the image. Here, one additional editor is in favour of it and two are opposed. So John, if I count consensus correctly, that's a draw. You're comment stating that some editors not accepting consensus is not based in fact. Feel free to correct me if my math is wrong. Also, a simple poll isn't the way to achieve WP:consensus, it's through edits and discussion. Several other editors have restored the image after it has been deleted. In short, you'll need a better argument than the two above to convince me that the photo should be removed, particularly when it fits the subject so well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus isn't a headcount, the onus is on you to demonstrate a consensus to keep it, which I don't think you've done, and edit-warring isn't a good way to build consensus. What's so good about this photo, what unique understanding does it give to the reader, that we should ignore its many faults? --John (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The image has no "faults". The composition is good. The subjects are in the national colours of the host nation. The subjects are in a location associated with the event. The subjects are young and represent the race of the majority population of the host nation. The image represents more than a few minor concerns about why it's photoshopped or the motive of the photographer. Perhaps if you actually took the time to read the comments of those of us who want to keep the image you might understand. And I agree it's not a headcount. Several editors have restored the image after two editors keep removing it. An anonymous editor requested that the image be restored because the article is semi-protected. That implies that there is consensus to keep the image. You still haven't addressed the issues above about all the other bad photos and obviously "created" images so either you're not reading the postings of those you don't agree with or you don't have an answer to the questions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The issues as identified seem to be that it's clearly a fake, made by Photoshopping a posed shot of some elaborately made-up kids taken indoors onto a photo of a beach we are told by the uploader is in South Africa; and then also that as the photo was taken in 2007 (by two people, which is unusual), so therefore it is a promotional image rather than a genuine one of fans or whatever. I don't see this as a net positive to the article. --John (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

But it's not a fake. Plain and simple. As I have said before, the use of photoshop (or the GIMP) could have been simply to burn-in the subjects for better contrast. The other images in the series show unambiguously that the images were outdoors. So you have no proof that the photos of the subjects were taken indoors. You have no proof that the background isn't in South Africa. I have many friends who are photographers. Good photographers usually have assistants. Have you ever seen a professional shoot? The pair could be a photographer and a lighting specialist, make-up artists, grip, or have some other, related role. The pair could be simply a legal consideration: so that if one in the partnership dies, the second may continue to receive royalties for other works much like Lenon & McCartney. Not all works need necessarily be produced by both. I don't see a net negative other than in your assumptions. Again, you have as simple recourse: nominate the image to be delete from Wikicommons. I feel honoured and privileged to have a professional photographer grant us the right to use this image. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

One further point: at the thumbnail size, you can't even tell it's photoshopped. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no demonstrably true caption that can go with this image that is not open to a challenge, therefore there is no meaningful caption that can go with the image, therefore the image should not be on the page. If you consider this to be a professional shoot (which I don't think anyone doubts), you acknowledge that the people featured are not primarily there as fans celebrating. I don't think anyone has claimed that the background is not in South Africa; it is questionable whether the people were at that particular location when the photo was taken. Your repeated argument that it should be removed from the server in order to be removed from the page is without foundation in policy or practice. If someone wants to use the picture to illustrate a wiki article on face-painting or use of Photoshop, we need not deprive them of the opportunity. It is disingenuous (at best) to say that there are only two editors requesting its removal: others have posted reservations about the image on your own talk page and other locations referred to in the course of this thread. You fail to understand the concept of consensus: it is a requirement for inclusion, it is not required for exclusion. And the fact that the image on the article is small enough that some people might not realise it is altered is scarcely grounds for permitting it: if a vandal posts an untruth that is plausible enough that many people take iot at face value, that does not make it less inappropriate.Kevin McE (talk) 15:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There is an overconcern here for the "truth" behind the photo. Art can be whatever we perceive it to be. If we say the image is of World Cup fans, then that's what it will look like and that's what it will be to our readers. We don't even have to say its world cup fans. We can just say "World Cup fans all over the world celebrated the event." This wording makes no truth statement about the actual photo. Wrad (talk) 15:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

If this were a Sunday supplement, I could agree, but this is an encyclopaedia: "truth" is the only thing that should concern us. The caption claimed that these people were fans, that they were celebrating, and that they were at Camps Bay: all three of those assertions are open to question. Kevin McE (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies: my comments, now struck out, were based on a previous version of the caption. The idea that people were celebrating, rather than posing, three years after the announcement and three years before the event still seems far-fetched. Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Your repeated argument that it should be removed from the article is without foundation in policy or practice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Patent nonsense: the determination to publish only that which is demonstrably true, and the removal of that which is questionable or untrue, is at the heart of responsible editorship. Kevin McE (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Patent nonsense: the inclusion of an image that 1) is suitable for publishing as represented by its presence in the Wikicommons, and 2) fits the subject matter is at the heart of responsible editorial decision. If this were a dictatorship you could impose your personal opinion on this article. Since several editors have given valid reasons to include the image you're tilting at windmills, or trying to stop the tide from rolling in. The image is not fake, which is your concern. It's a real image. The fact that some sort of image editing tool was used does not make it fake. If you could prove that it was fake: that the models were not wearing South African colours, or that they didn't even exist and were entirely digital creations, and that the background was somewhere closer to Bora Bora than South Africa might help bolster your case. However your flailing about looking for excuses to exclude the image is immature despite being couched in erudite terms and lofty ideals of truth. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to drop this childish attitude of responding by mimicking the phraseology of the comment that preceded it: it is neither mature not helpful to the debate. Neither of us know how much of the comment made at the summary on the picture file is true: I note you are no longer trying to defend the caption you earlier stood by. Your accusation of a desire for dictatorship is unworthy of editors here: you have ignored the evidence that tere are many editors querying the inclusion of the image. The burden of proof is on you: demonstrate that those people were at that location with the purpose of celebration, and not because they were recruited for a photoshoot, and I'd be happy to see it stay, but otherwise a promotional posed shot with a false claim might be OK for a brochure or a photgraphic/face-paining exhibition, but not a fact based encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• I propose replacing it with one of the non-faked ones from here. What do you think, Kevin? --John (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, yeah. If there are so many options, then we should use something more people agree on. Wrad (talk) 16:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Eminently sensible suggestion. Thank you. Kevin McE (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been involved in the debate so far but this seems like the most sensible option. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop inflating the importance. Many editors? Just as many have insisted on its inclusion. And John is the childish one insisting it's fake simply because it has been passed through image editing software. You cannot prove what was done to the image. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:23, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Either cite one instance on whioch I have used the word "fake" in relation to this image, or withdraw that comment. Add together the editors who have been critical of the image or its inclusion at all points referenced here, and tell us again that it amounts to two. Kevin McE (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to withdraw since the comment wasn't made about any comment that you made. It's not all about you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems odd, as John's only comment in the previous 12 hours+ was to propose an alternative image (which is scarcely "inflating the importance"), your accusation was not indented to suggest that you were replying to that, and I see no instance of John using the word "many", except in relation to faults. Kevin McE (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Many, and several other hyperboles, is yours. Fake is John's. Both of you were opposed to its inclusion and both of you are childish since you have no valid reason for its exclusion. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

So now we are to believe that you are addressing me in the first sentence, and then refer to John as "you" in the next sentence. Be honest, admit you have been caught out, and then read WP:Civil. Kevin McE (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

None of the images are as well composed and clear as the existing image. However since there is a childish dislike simply because digital enhancement has been used I don't mind replacing the image. image:Watching South Africa & Mexico match at World Cup 2010-06-11 in Soweto 6.jpg is fairly good and image:Watching South Africa & Mexico match at World Cup 2010-06-11 in Soweto 7.jpg also shows some of the venues and the fact that it's winter at the tournament. Any other suggestions? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

TV production

A lot of people have taken notice of the very high quality of the live TV production of the matches, in terms of slow motion details, instant and well-timed replays, and enough cameras to seemingly catch all incidents from all angles. Someone with factual information about the production should add it to wikipedia. --Kvaks (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

UEFA team failings

Under 2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stage, I think something should be added about how this is the WORST performance of all time by European teams in a World Cup. According to National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#UEFA_.28Europe.29, there has never been a World Cup quarterfinals with only 3 European (UEFA) teams. In 1970 and 2002, only 4 teams made it to the quarterfinals, which was the previous worst. 1930, 1950 and 1982 didn't have quarterfinals. In 1950, 6 European teams placed in the Top 8. In 1982, 10 of the 12 2nd round teams were European (and the semifinalists were all European). The inaugural 1930 tournament is a little trickier. Only 4 European teams entered. Serbia, then Yugoslavia, (4th), France (7th) and Romania (8th) placed in the Top 8, tying this year for fewest Top 8 placed teams. Belgium finished 11th in 1930, the other European entrant. However, there was no official quarterfinals.

I believe a statement should be added after "This is the highest number of South American teams in the final eight since the 1930 tournament". Something like:
"Only three European teams progressed to the quarter-finals. This is the lowest number of European teams in the final eight ever."
or
"Only three European teams progressed to the quarter-finals. This is the lowest number of European teams in the final eight since the 1930 tournament."

As I don't have the power to edit this, I hope someone will take this into serious consideration since it is making headlines everywhere and merits inclusion. Cheers!--Bru0017 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Teams from Europe generally don't do well outside of Europe and are knowen to do well inside Europe. Kingjeff (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that we ARE talking about how well South America is doing. Seeing as only South American and European teams have ever made the Finals, it is WELL worth mentioning that European teams have had their worst performance of all time in this World Cup. If we have information about all the other federations, and details on them, too, then there logically should be something additional said about Europe. Furthermore, the fact that their poor performance as a continent has been the worst ever is such an overwhelmingly obvious thing to add to this article, especially in light of the content of the rest of that section. Wouldn't rational people agree?--Bru0017 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#Results_by_confederation--Bru0017 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kingjeff, that's not actually true. European teams are know for not winning. But not known for not doing well. Just have a look at the quarter-finals in 1994. 7 European teams. But it's been steady with quarter-finals and semi-final and final appearances in the Americas and Asia. Last time a European team failed to qualify for the actual final was 1930. The last time a team failed to make the top 2 was 1950. chandler 06:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now: "South American teams continued their strong performance in the round of 16, with the maximum possible four out of five progressing to the quarter-finals (Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay won, while Chile lost to Brazil). This is the highest number of South American teams in the final eight since the 1930 tournament. Of the European teams, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain progressed; Germany's 4-1 defeat of England marked that nation's worst ever defeat at a World Cup finals. Ghana defeated the United States to become the third ever African team to reach the last eight (along with Cameroon in 1990 and Senegal in 2002). The two CONCACAF teams (the USA and Mexico) and the two Asian nations (South Korea and Japan) lost in the round of 16."

It's pretty obvious that a remark about the European teams' worst performance ever is very fitting for inclusion here. Perhaps right after "Spain progressed."--Bru0017 (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the tournament had the same structure in 1930 so it's no more correct to refer to that tournament than to say "to date". "Ever" is not correct since it includes the future as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Have many reliable sources made this observation? If not, it doesn't strike me as particularly notable. Knepflerle (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chandler, I was specifically refering to the fact that European teams not winning outside of Europe. I may be wrong about this, but isn't the only time a South American team that won inside Europe was in 1958? Kingjeff (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been in the article since before the original post in this thread. 2010 FIFA World Cup#Group stage said and says: "Only six UEFA teams progressed to the last sixteen, a record low in the 32-team era. Because those teams all had European opponents in the second round, just three UEFA teams made the last eight, another record low." We shouldn't repeat this in the Knockout stage section. By the way, UEFA was given 13 of 32 slots corresponding to 40.6%. 6 of the last 16 is 37.5%. They met in 3 matches so of course they also had 37.5% of the last 8. UEFA has done as one would expect if their number of teams was fair. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Referees dismissed

Several referees have been dismissed after the First Round. Should we make such a note? http://www.africanews.com/site/list_message/28831 Metallurgist (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That article says nothing about referees being dismissed, as far as I can see. Some of the first-round referees aren't used in the later stages, but this is entirely normal - three-quarters of World Cup matches are in the group stage. Knepflerle (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that selection for the knock-out rounds is based, in part at least, on performance in the group rounds. I suppose that is a bit of semantics as to whether or not certain refs are "dismissed" vs. certain other refs being "selected" for the knock-out rounds, but it just might be useful to indicate which refs did advance or go home. Wschart (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Colour in tables

(restored from archive, as not yet acted upon)

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)

Could someone have a go at implementing this? Knepflerle (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article already says the top two in the group stage advance. This information is not indicated by shading alone, it is indicated by the advancing teams being at the top of the table. The color is only for illustration. Reywas92^Talk 16:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"The article already says the top two in the group stage advance" - if that were sufficient, we wouldn't use the shading. All it needs is some sort of extra column, or an indicator in an existing column. When tables are used, users should be possible to pick out the relevant information from the table without hunting around the article for interpretation. Knepflerle (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

David Villa's goal

Why is David Villa's goal against Portugal listed as offside? It wasn't, and at the very least it wasn't as clear offside as the other Tevez goal. Please provide a reliable source conclusively proving that it was offside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.167.5 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Because too many editors work on this article and it's hard to keep track of information that shouldn't even be in this article. It looks like it has already been "corrected". While not a controversial as the other items, Villa received the ball after being in an off-side position that was not called. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Too much info on goalscorers

I don't think that every person who scores even one goal should be listed here. We already have a separate page for statistics. I think this main page should only list players who scored two or more or three or more. Wrad (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Statistics are recorded elsewhere as are matches, team rosters, etc. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thirded; I'd just mention the current top-scorers, and point to the full table in the statistics article. Knepflerle (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Very much disagree, it's not been any problems for previous World Cups or European Championships or Copa Americas. chandler 10:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: [7] - I am very disappointed in you, Chandler, for you know better than to act like this. Your opinion is still in the minority, even if there were only three people supporting scaling back (now four) - ignoring the other views above and bludgeoning through your opinion when you know that you are in the minority is really poor form. Can we have less of this, please, and instead try and get consensus for your arguments through discussion first?

I don't think the "precedent" argument is a strong one at all - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument, perhaps the other articles need changing too? When it comes down to it, we are an encyclopaedia not a statistical almanac - we're supposed to be giving our readers prose, not endless lists and tables. There's a clear link to the full table, and a summary of the most important information, per WP:SUMMARY. Perhaps you could suggest further additions to the prose summary instead - what information from that table is really important to the average reader of a World Cup summary article? Knepflerle (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OP. The exact same information is at the very top of the statistics page, repeating it in the main article is pointless. A summary regarding top goalscorers makes more sense and is more relevant to this article, in-depth analysis is much more suited to sub-articles. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with chandler. Goalscorers in such a huge event i.e. World Cup, Summer Olympics football tournament, Copa America, etc. are too important to omit. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not really been omitted - any really notable facts about the goalscorers can be included in the prose summary on this page, and the full list of raw statistics is just a click away. Are there any other particularly notable facts from the raw statistics that you think should be added to the prose summary? Knepflerle (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the goalscorers table was the best thing about this page.--77.233.84.111 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be the highlight of 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics, then. Knepflerle (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Wrad: the fact that Fabio Quagliarella (to take a random example) scored at WC2010 is relevant to his article, and possibly to this collection of results: if the focus of the article is the whole tournament, then the fact of goals, rather than the identity of every scorer, is relevant. Wikipedia is not an almanac. Kevin McE (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreed. It was one of the most useless pieces of information on this page. However, would you be willing to remove the match results in favour of including the redundant goal scorers table again? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter - maybe I've misread KevinMcE's comment, but I think he was agreeing with you (and me), and that the scorers of individual goals are more suitable for including in the statistics, players' and nations' articles - correct me if I'm wrong Kevin! Knepflerle (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like the goalscorers table then please go and remove it from all previous World Cups too. Let's keep some uniformity. --77.233.84.111 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no expectation of conformity. Previous world cups did not have statistic articles the way current ones do. If they did, then the section could be removed. Since they don't, it's important that the information be presented somewhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly is "uniformity" so important? Are we expecting that all readers of this article will go and read the whole set? And/or that they will be confused by a link to the table if there wasn't one in another article? The inclusion in this article should be judged by its merits at this article. Knepflerle (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, remove the goalscorers section or move it somewhere else. The article is already too long, and everyone who scored just one goal does not belong to the main article of the World Cup.--81.36.241.221 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Regions

This sentence "The last two North American and last two Asian teams were eliminated" in the group of sixteen is not quite correct. They're not North American but CONCACAF nations. Had it been a Caribbean nation or Honduras the adjective would have been different. I believe that it's a similar issue with calling them Asian teams. I believe the confederations are more appropriate, unless I've missed the discussion on this earlier. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Mexico and the United States are in North America, while South Korea and Japan are in Asia. The summary paragraph is the "jist" of what happened. If we say "CONCACAF" and "AFC" we may be slightly more technically correct, but the whole point of the sentence will be lost on a large number of readers. The ones that want to can look closely and see the finer details. Facts707 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA President apology during round of 16 should be mentioned

This information was apparently removed from the "Round of 16" section:

"The round was marked by some very controversial referees' calls, including: A disallowed goal by England in its 4-1 loss against Germany, where the ball appeared to touch the ground well inside the goal when shown on television broadcasts; An allowed goal scored by Argentina in its 3–1 win over Mexico, where Argentine striker Carlos Tévez appeared to be well offside when shown on television broadcasts. FIFA President Sepp Blatter took the unusual step of apologizing for both decisions, saying "Yesterday I spoke to the two federations [England and Mexico] directly concerned by referees' mistakes [...] I apologised to England and Mexico. The English said thank you and accepted that you can win some and you lose some and the Mexicans bowed their head and accepted it."[53] Blatter also promised to re-open the discussion regarding devices which monitor possible goals and make that information immediately available to match officials, saying "We will naturally take on board the discussion on technology and have the first opportunity in July at the business meeting."[53] Blatter's call came less than four months after FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke said the door was "closed" on goal-line technology and video replays after a vote by the IFAB.[53]"

This is probably too important to go only in the "Controversies" subarticle, since clearly the missed (or incorrectly allowed) goals in the Round of 16 have dramatically caused a change to FIFA's position on goal technology. Facts707 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (updated) Facts707 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather hyperbolic to claim that the "history of football is changed": concession to renewed discussions has been voiced, and that is only in relation to goal-line technology, therefore irrelevant to offside decisions. Kevin McE (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is "hyperbolic" (exaggerated). Clearly the controversy over the two goals has forced FIFA to not only apologize but to also basically pre-announce a reversal of their position against the use of modern technology to review goals in football. I would think that counts as an important milestone in football history and deserves at least a mention here.Facts707 (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (updated) Facts707 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No: Blatter said, "We will naturally take on board the discussion on technology and have the first opportunity in July at the business meeting.": that is not pre-announcing a reversal, or anywhere near it. The decision is not FIFA's anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the apology quote doesn't belong here. But we should insert a short summary of the controversies in the corresponding section. Tropical wind (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think we are all correct. The controversy section here should have a summary of the different controversies, and the round of 16 section here should have at least a mention of the two goals and the FIFA apology, with a link to the controversy section lower in the page. Facts707 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Match stats

I can provide match stats for all preliminary group articles, similar to what I did here: 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. The argumentation is that since we do not have much prose to describe the matches, the stats will give the reader a good picture of how the match proceeded (which is important). Do you agree with my idea? Tropical wind (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations or Country Names?

For the goalscorers list, should we use abbreviations or country names? Since there are flags too, personally I think abbreviations would be enough. Also, since WP:MOSFLAG requires adding some text to state the country name (either abbreviations or the full names), should we go ahead and use Template:flagathlete for the other World Cup articles too? --The does (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Flags are not visible/understandable to all users, including those using screen-readers, text-only browsers, monochrome displays etc. There is also no single standard, universally-understood set of abbreviations - see Comparison of IOC, FIFA, and ISO 3166 country codes.

Instead of having our readers play memory/guessing games with abbreviations and flags, why not just use the names everybody can just read? Why hope that most of our readers can guess what CMR or PRK means, when they can all read "Cameroon" or "Korea DPR"? Knepflerle (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add names of the country qualified for SF unless confirmed

Someone just put Germany in the SF spot. Please refrain from such endeavours.

Thanks, Kaushik Kdg81 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for first qualification?

Are the {{Citation needed}} tags really needed in the list of qualified teams? This info (Slovakia and Serbia's first qualification as independent countries) is easily verifiable through previous World Cup articles but not as easily citable. Do we really need to cite every little thing in the article? RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 21:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does the fact that this is Slovakia's and Serbia's first FIFA Cup even need to be mentioned? It just seems like irrelevant trivia. Either way I don't see the need for citation, looking at the wiki articles for previous World Cups seems sufficient. Hell Hawk (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The original text (which keeps getting erased) was that this was the first WC without any debutants - because FIFA regards Slovakia and Serbia as having retained the records of TCH and YUG/SBM. This was viewed as notable. However, that point has been replaced by the "first appearance as independent" note. The citation needed thing was probably put in because the statement that these teams are playing their first WC finals is technically false. Jlsa (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I presume the editor who added them did so because Serbia is the solve inheritor of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegros record and Slovakia are together with Czech Republic inheritors of Czechoslovakias record chandler 23:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)