Jump to content

Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup Group B

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk | contribs) at 03:28, 18 January 2024 (Implementing WP:PIQA (Task 26)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Chile v Australia

[edit]

It would be good if someone could add a match summary for this match. I would do it myself, but I didn't watch it, and I'm not great at adapting match summaries purely from reports. - 97rob (talk) 14:43, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Livescores and live updates

[edit]

Hi everyone.

As I believe we will have a lot of problems with livescores and live updating I thought I should bring it up here so everyone knows about it.

Based on Wikipedia policies and guidlines we should not provide livescores and live updates. This is according to WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live scoring and it has also been discussed at other time periods. This also applies to live updates to tables and list such as top goalscorers, squad statistics and other match info, which you can also read about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live updates (again). Please wait until matches are finished before adding the scores and statistics. Wikipedia is not for livescoring and should wait for update until sources are updated. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 21:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

[edit]

Chile is wearing white socks vs. Spain not blue as is shown right now — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.70.122.82 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - seems to already be the case?

Next day scenarios

[edit]

The "next day scenarios" are not to be inluded after consensus at WP:FOOTY. The consensus can be read at WT:FOOTY Archieve 82 (link to section) and the consensus was confirmed afterwards at WP:ANI after a editor still continued with the edit, which can bee seen at WP:ANI archieve 821 (link to section). The insertion of these scenarios has also been at Dispute resolution noticeboard where it was decided "Resolved against inclusion of the material" which you can read at DRN archieve 54 (link to section). So as I said no "next day scenarios" unless new consensus at WT:FOOTY. Older discussions like this discussion follow the same line. QED237 (talk) 23:11, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. This has been decided by a bunch of non-footy fans who forced some weird bureaucratic rules to prevent evidently useful info from being included in these articles. Sometimes we must live with these useless decisions for the greater good. Nlsanand (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute statements are easy to disprove.
I have been actively involved in editing soccer and football articles for several years. My name is all over WP:FOOTY. Therefore, I believe I would qualify as a football fan. Well, soccer fan because I live in Canada. I even got tired of Nlsanand edit warring about language on a Toronto FC article.
I have voiced my objection to the scenarios. They usually focus on one or two teams, not all four, and they're usually quite biased. For the most part, they're very obvious as well. Ultimately, they serve no encyclopedic purpose that I can see and they're better suited for a newspaper that is trying to increase circulation than with an encyclopedia.
Therefore, your absolute statement here is not correct.
As for non-football fans, I have seen very little of Nlsanand on football articles since that exchange so I don't know what sort of position Nlsanand has to determine who is and is not a football fan. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was your illogical edit war with me on Toronto FC that basically turned me off actively editing. You first dismissed a clearly factual edit, and insisted on including inaccurate information because the MLS website had mistakenly written it. When proved wrong, you were first intellectually dishonest, then proceeded to deny that you had agreed with the MLS website's erroeneuos claim and were simply enforcing WP:VERIFY. Basically, you're one of those nerds with more interest in enforcing made up rules (with no basis in logic)on this site than providing accurate information. I'm not trying to re-litigate, but if you're opening the door, we can discuss on how this info is useful. Many people like having a source for the clear facts on last game situations, as media outlets (like ESPN) often misstate it. People like you try to claim it's a matter of opinion, when it's clearly just a matter of math. But as was shown in our edit war, math wasn't your strong suit. Nlsanand (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you still have hard feelings. Please no personal attacks and stay on-topic. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I think there has been a clear deliberate misapplication of the rules inb order to back up what they already fealt. BUt then that's common among registered users. They always assume that good faith edits by IPs like me are deliberate vandalism rather than trying to help. This used to be a "anyone can edit" encyclopedia. now it's "only the elite editors who make up the rules to fit their opinion can edit" 213.104.176.176 (talk) 08:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, you've missed the mark. You may edit, but as time has progressed consensus has formed around certain areas of editing. Providing verifiable and reliable sources is one of those areas. Next-day-scenarios is another one of those areas. You may still edit, but we'll remove edits that go against consensus. No implication that there is vandalism, or at least there shouldn't be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
consensus can change. Also, it's very probable that people are not aware of consensus, but Users often assume that everyone is, and often just revert without explaining why (WP:HUMAN, WP:BITE, WP:NOCLUE). 213.104.176.176 (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus hasn't changed though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2014 FIFA World Cup Group B. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_B&oldid=1196662192"