Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup

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

• Archive 1: Pre December 2009

FIFA's Contributions to Africa

Hello I was wondering if I could contribute to this Wikipedia page by demonstrating how soccer is more than a sport. It can be used as a medium for making the world a better place. The sport of soccer can do this because of its popularity amongst countries around the world. It is very popular; therefore, soccer can reach out to many diverse cultures by sending important messages. Within this year’s upcoming 2010 World Cup, FIFA will utilize this power through mass media to spread the awareness of Africa’s issues.The main focus of this year's World Cup is Africa’s problems. Through the Football for Hope movement they are building “20 centers for 2010.” These centers will be built all across Africa and will help to address social challenges in disadvantaged areas by developing the educational and health services. Part of the reason why Africa struggles in these areas of development is because of the amount of money, there simply is not enough. Therefore the Football for Hope movement will do wonders in improving the quality of life there. I believe adding this information could help to make your page stronger. Kaylanicole9 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an encylopedic article about the 2010 FIFA World Cup. I don't believe any of your issues are appropriate for the page. Perhaps you can create an article about FIFA's Football fo Hope program, and it could be linked to in the article. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

FIFA is sponsoring the "20 centers for 2010" through the 2010 World Cup. This is showing the humanitarian side to FIFA and this year's World Cup in general. So I was wondering why the issues I have proposed are not appropriate for this article? FIFA, the football governing body, is using this year's World Cup to help Africa through some of its problems. By FIFA raising money and establishing centers it is using the World Cup as a platform to promote awareness of positive social reform in Africa.Even if all of these ideas do not apply could some of it not be mentioned?Kaylanicole9 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding what your intent is. The focus of the article is on the Finals football tournament. There are other surrounding subjects, which are rightly mentioned briefly in this article (or at least should-be) for reader awareness but have their own articles elsewhere. The Football for Hope program sounds worthy of its own article, and because of its relevance to the World Cup, could be mentioned briefly on this article. I may have read too much into what it is that you are proposing, but I'd just like to say that having a fully explanatory section on Football for Hope in this article would excess to this article's focus. By all means it can be mentioned, but I think it would be best for Football for Hope and its good works to have its own article if the content is too volumous. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok that is all I was interested in. So would it be alright if I included a synopsis of the impact the 2010 World Cup will have on Africa's social and civil development?Kaylanicole9 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The page unlocks at 1914 UTC tomorrow. Aheyfromhome (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph was removed a few minutes ago by Frombelow. It was overly promotional in tone, contained peacock terms (words that tell us that something is important, rather than showing us why), did not hold a neutral point of view, and did not cite reliable sources to back up the claims that it made, meaning the information could not be verified. Wikipedia is not here to improve the reputation of FIFA. Xenon54 / talk / 16:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I can fix these errors. Could you give me some advice as to how to make what I am saying not sound as "promotional" as it seemed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylanicole9 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

First, read all of the linked pages (except Frombelow's userpage) and understand why the things mentioned in the pages are necessary for Wikipedia to survive. Then, apply those things to the paragraph you wrote. Most importantly, the material can not be added to Wikipedia without being backed up by reliable sources that, when correctly cited, serve to verify the information that is presented. These are most often news stories and such. Material from FIFA's website will not be considered to be reliable in this situation. Then, get rid of the flowery PR language ("do wonders in", "FIFA will utilize this power"...you get the point), and, if possible, add opposing viewpoints. Xenon54 / talk / 19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Coca-cola?

Why is it necessary to include Coca-cola in "FIFA/Coca cola rankings"? Seems unnecessary advertisement to me... 77.167.250.126 (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ι agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello I have done a lot of research on this topic of the upcoming World Cup. I was wondering how I could contribute to this wikipedia page because it is locked.Kaylanicole9 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The page becomes unprotected on the 11th December. Although it may be reprotected if the vandalism starts up again. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote

{{editsemiprotected}} A hatnote should be added along the lines of

"FIFA 2010" redirects here. For the EA Sports video game, see FIFA 10.

like in 2002 FIFA World Cup and 2006 FIFA World Cup. The reason for this is that while on non-FIFA World Cup years the most plausible redirect is to the EA video game's respective edition, for FIFA World Cup years the most plausible course of action is a redirect to the World Cup page, with a hatnote in that article. --87.79.52.63 (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Xenon54 / talk / 14:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --87.79.52.63 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Former Matches between National Teams

Is it possible create an article with informantions about former matches between these national teams in former World Cup with date, place, score and WC phase ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.254.144 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be very specific and would probably get deleted. Give it a try though if you want.Aheyfromhome (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm searching. For example: South Africa X Mexico 1st match Uruguay X France 6/2/2002 - 0x0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.254.144 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it's a little too specific for the article, even as often as I've heard the US team's record against its pool opponents on US TV. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In Group A, for example, the former matches in World Cup were: South Africa X Mexico: 1st match; Uruguay X France: 15-Jul-66: URU 2 X 1 FRA (1st Phase); 2-Jun-2002: URU 0 x 0 FRA (1st Phase); South Africa X Uruguay: 1st match; France X Mexico: 13-Jul-30: FRA 4 X 1 MEX (1st Phase); 19/06/1954: FRA 3 x 2 MEX (1st Phase); 13-Jul-66: FRA 1 x 1 MEX (1st Phase); Mexico X Uruguay: 19-Jul-66: MEX 0 x 0 URU (1st Phase); France X South Africa: 12-jun-98: FRA 3 X 0 RSA (1st Phase). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.254.144 (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely too specific for the article, but wouldn't it fit perfectly in the seperate group articles? The information above could surely be added at 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A. Pelotas^talk 01:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schedule

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

FIFA in 3D

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

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

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

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

Slovakia

I've added a citation tag to Slovakia, as I'm pretty sure Czechoslovakia's records went to the Czech Republic. Krytenia (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they share it chandler 13:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's me satisfied...learn something new every day. Krytenia (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

As many of you following this article have noticed, it is suffering from constant vandalism from anonymous users. Seeing the event drawing closer, one can assume that vandalism will only increase. I am proposing re-protection. =>t3rminatr<=  ✉  11:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Three days since the last protection expired and there have been several reverts already. Semi-protected for a month now, if anyone thinks this is too long, let me know. (I prefer not to protect it until end of July 2010 because that would be too much. If necesary, bring the protection back.) --Tone 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The vandalism is only going to get worse as the Finals draw near.LarryJeff (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This may sound weird coming from an IP editor, but speaking from my personal experiences at high-profile articles, you might as well just keep it protected. I'd propose a tmbox at the top of this talk page, encouraging any well-intentioned IP editors to propose edits via {{editsemiprotected}}. Just my 2 cents. --87.79.52.46 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not something like this? --87.79.52.46 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone place France on the round of 16, I am removing it. Crazydude22 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, someone fixed it before I could. Crazydude22 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Prize money and club payments

The article says that FIFA is paying clubs about $1,000 per day per player and the reference supports that, but the article also says this payment "followed claims for compensation to FIFA from domestic clubs for the financial cost of injuries sustained to their players while on international duty" and the reference doesn't support that comment. I plan to remove the speculation soon unless someone has a reference for the statement. Thanks Johnn 7 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This was already pretty well supported by The Times reference - "Fifa have also moved to head off any potential claims from clubs for players injured during the World Cup...As part of that package, clubs have agreed not to pursue any claims or any possible compensation through civil courts", but I've found and added two more from the BBC which spell it out in more detail that it was the result of a deal made in 2008 to disband the G-14 who had started making claims in 2005. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing the statement properly. The quote you gave above from The Times article wasn't in the The Irish Times article that was actually cited on the Wikipedia page. The Times article would probably be sufficient. Again, thank you. Johnn 7 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela and Diski Dance

I think that the vuvuzela will be quite a big part of the World Cup, and could be included somewhere. I know that it might be hard to find a balanced view, but I think that some menton should be made of it.

The Diski Dance is quite a big part of marketing for the World Cup, should that be included. Crazydude22 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. After looking it up, I'd say no because it doesn't seem that important. Marketing the World Cup in the first place is barely a big deal. People on other regions might have had a different level of exposure than me though. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the Vuvuzela is going to be a massive controversy in this world cup. It's annoying as hell, players have complained about it, and you cannot hear the television commentary because it is blown constantly during games. The SA authorities have even had to clarify that, being a rather large object, it won't be banned from grounds under FIFA rules about safety. This has all been covered in main stream media. I have no clue what a Diski dance is though. MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the Diski Dance doesn't need to be added (it's a South African thing), but I think that the vuvuzela should be mentioned somewhere. While somepeople might think that they are annoying, it's a big part of SA football. Crazydude22 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Adidas Jabulani

Can we add more information about the Jabulani ball? The area seems very empty. Also, there is a page for the ball that needs to be linked in 'Adidas Jabulani'.

Let me know if I can help/contribute to this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eireburner (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Just remember to always add sources. And what's the other page you mention? --Tone 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup sponsors

This article lacks a mention of the official sponsors of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, there should at least be a list of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisonderstall (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Match number argument

The original purpose of a match number is to indicate that the winner or loser of that match would progress to the next stage, not to show which match it is. The match number would not be shown in the article after the game has been played. If the number have to be included, then we have to make a new section. So I removed the match numbers of the third-place match and the final. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not including the match numbers for the third-place match and the final implies that FIFA never numbered them in the first place. The match numbers should be included. – PeeJay 15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So the match numbers of the group stage matches should be included then. But I wondered why you did not mention it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the match numbers should be kept after the match finished if you said that. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I really have no preference either way about the inclusion of the match numbers, but I'm curious why you think including them would require another section added to the article. Not trying to be argumentative, just missing your line of reasoning. LarryJeff (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added the match numbers to the group stage matches, I think you could find some consequences. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. Looks better, IMO. – PeeJay 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup video game

On the top of the page it says that for the EA Sports game see FIFA 10. SHouldn't there also be a note made of 2010 FIFA World Cup (video game), the world cup based game? Crazydude22 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That relates to the link FIFA 2010. I'm not quite sure why that directs here - surely it should go to FIFA 10 with a note that if anyone wanted the actual world cup they should come here. Would anyone reasonably call this tournament FIFA 2010? I'll change that redirect as I don't see any reason for it.

As for the 2010 Game - yes, that should be linked from here. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Redirecting to the World Cup page for World Cup years is established standard. See FIFA 2002 and FIFA 2006. --78.34.241.78 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

anthem?

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

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

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

Map of the venues

I am thinking of removing the image which contains the map with the points of the venues, but using a blank map of South Africa and labelling the venues by another method instead. That map has been used in the Confederation Cup, but I think it is inappropiate. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? – PeeJay 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why? The map looks clear and informative. Why changing? --Tone 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is unnecessary to give certain cities double names on the map. It is not indicated this way on the stadium list and it is best to stay with the official names of cities. =>t3rminatr<=  ✉  17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Whose "official" names. FIFA consistently uses a number of double names throughout its website. Do you mean that? Or something else? Jlsa (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The official names as given to them by their respective municipalities/metroplotains. FIFA errored in showing the dual names on their website as it just serves to confuse people (the dual name is due to the name of the greater municipal are it is located in and NOT the name of the city). The correct naming is shown on http://www.sa2010.gov.za/en/host-cities (Official SA World Cup portal) =>t3rminatr<=  ✉  14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Training venues

Is it possible to obtain a list of training venues for the world cup ? TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can get hold of. As it stands though, the peter mokaba stadium listed for polokwane, I assume that the training venue would be the 'old' stadium and not the new one built for the WC as the link implies. Crazydude22 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like others don't want the training venues on the page, never mind then. Crazydude22 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Preperations Section

I would like to challenge this statment: "Five new stadiums have been built for the tournament (three new match venues and two new practice grounds), and five of the existing venues are to be upgraded. Construction costs are expected to be R8.4bn" If you read the reference, it makes mention of 5 new match venues, in Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Polokwane and Nelspruit. I'm not sure why that comment about training venues is there, there were multiple training venues built and upgraded. I would like to remove the part in brackets. Crazydude22 (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No one has complained, I will now remove the unneeded phrase. Crazydude22 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the tendency of editors to add what seem like short essays to this article. This article should be about the 2010 FIFA World Cup, not the various issues surrounding it, such as the crime rates and slums of South Africa. By all means, these issues should be addressed, but do we really need entire sub-sections devoted to Blikkiesdorp or the legacy stadia? If no one raises any reasonable objections, I'm going to give this article a good pruning on Monday. – PeeJay 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the legacy stadia, I think a little more context would be in order about why some of those venues got upgrades, but it's relevant to the article. As for Blikkiesdorp, I don't see why that can't be merged with the evictions subsection right above it, but I do feel that some context is gained about what's going on in South Africa as a result of the preparations for World Cup. So, I don't think it should be a heavy pruning, but some pruning is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how 3 sentences is a short essay. Anyways, the Blikkiesdorp section is extremely relevant to the world cup because it is essentially a world cup project by the City of Cape Town. If one denies that relevance, I'd recomend they look at the front page of yesterday's Guardian in the UK - which for those who don't know is a HUGE newspaper. In terms of whether it should be merged with Evictions, I'd recommend that it doesn't get merged because it is only partially evictions related. Its more of a housing / town planning issue than an evictions issue. The threats by residents to burn down their own shacks don't relate to evictions, but to the conditions in the settlement. If a discussion of the 'Match Ball' or the 'Mascot' have its own sections, then why not Blikkiesdorp which is the sigle most controversial issue relating to the World Cup?41.240.88.189 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean, really, who gives a shit when Zakumi's birthday is???41.240.88.189 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but the FIFA World Cup is a football tournament. The article about the tournament should be focussed on the football elements of the event. I'm not saying that all mentions of Blikkiesdorp be eliminated from the article, but I would suggest that an article such as Controversies surrounding the 2010 FIFA World Cup be created. – PeeJay 21:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry PeeJay, that is incorrect. the FIFA World Cup is technically what one would call a 'Hallmark Event' which has a special focus on football. The purpose of the FIFA World Cup is not football. Its two fold: (1) To make tons of money and (2) To put on a show. Regarding the second, the WC can be seen as a type of theatre in a similar way as WWF Wrestling is often compared to a soap opera. The truth is that the WC is about so much more than soccer. Thus, the article should be about so much more than that. For instance, a mascot has nothing to do with soccer. The purpose of a mascot is usually to entertain and brand the event. Why else would Zakumi's birthday be on Youth Day. Why else would adidas have a ball called Jubelani ("bringing joy to everyone")?

All this extra stuff latched onto the soccer has a socio-political purpose. The purpose is to politicise the event and make it something more than about soccer. If the WC was just about soccer then why call this "Africa's World Cup"? Why say things like: "this is Africa's chance to prove itself to the world"? Everything is political - especially the WC. So its disingenuous to try to hide the politics behind the WC just because one wants the page to be just about soccer.

That said, a controversies page might be useful but one should not use it as a way of hiding the controversies which are of central importance to the event. they're not a side issue, theyre a core issue (which is why this issue resurfaces at every single major sporting event in every country in the world - see the Olympics in Beijing and Vancouver. Or the Anti-Olympics movement in Chicago. If it was just about sports, then no one would ever object to the events.Frombelow (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a very cynical viewpoint. I'm not saying that the politics of the event should be hidden entirely; I'm simply saying that we should give those issues appropriate weight within the article. After all, if this article is ever to be considered some of Wikipedia's best work, we should see to it that no aspect is given undue weight. A sub-article, summarised by a few paragraphs in the main article should suffice. – PeeJay 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Stadium names during the World Cup

I know that we all agree that sponsered names will not be used, but I picked up 2 oddities in thethe names that FIFA use for stadiums. As can be seen on FIFA's website[1], they refer to Moses Mabhida Stadium as 'Durban Stadium', and Cape Town Stadium as 'Green Point Stadium'. I have also spoken to people who have tickets to games at those stadiums during the WC, and they use the 'FIFA' names. I think that a note should be made of the FIFA used names, much like the 2006 WC article. Crazydude22 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a note should be made of the names that FIFA use, but I will maintain that we should not be bound by those names, since Wikipedia is not restricted by sponsors in the same way. – PeeJay 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear something up, neither name has anything to do with sponsership. Cape Town Stadium was called Green Point during construction, and only renamed in about December 2009. I'm not sure why Moses Mabhida is called Durban Stadium. Crazydude22 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

list of injured Players?

i'd like to have a list players that are injured and thus cannot compete at the World Cup. i know following players will not compete because of an injury:

• David Beckham
• Mohamed Zidan
• Emile Baron
• Boško Janković
• José Bosingwa
• Michael Owen
• Salvador Cabañas

plus a list of players who are now injured and maybe cannot compete at the World Cup. for example, following players might not compete:

• Aaron Mokoena
• Fernando Torres
• Aaron Lennon
• Marcel Jansen
• Simon Rolfes
• Sami Khedira

any objections? Doppelback (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... it sounds like a good idea to be honest. The only problem would be that there would be a lot of players for whom you wouldn't be sure whether they'd have been in the squad. For players that can be referenced as dead-certs I think it's worth mentioning. The problem would be where you draw the line... Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

if there is a source we can trust, i do not think that this will be a problem. additional, of course, the list of "might not play" should be disregarded if those players could play but are not choosen. Doppelback (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object as this is total WP:OR and/or WP:CRYSTAL - no player is guaranteed to have been included in a squad. Dancarney (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If significant coverage exists, such as with Beckham, this can be mentioned in England's article. However, a separate list would violate WP:SYNTH. --Tone 08:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dancarney. There is no way to predict exactly who will be in a country's final World Cup squad, injured or not. How do we even know that Capello would have picked Beckham? We certainly know he wouldn't have picked Michael Owen (or do we?!) – PeeJay 12:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A list would be arbitrary and trivia... Pretty Green (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference literature and websites?

Once more I would like to post here my comment to Peejay's removal of the links I made to the internet library sub-saharan Africa . I would like to add one more thing: Without having read in detail every guideline to wikipedia-articles, as far as I understand, one of the important aims of an encyclopedia is to give information on further reading on the topic at the end of the article. What better links could there be than links to specialised (online) libaries? Here my answer/question to Peejay's removal of the ilissAfrica links: "I didn't quite understand why you qualified the links as "spam". ilissAfrica is a serious website by the two German Special Collections for Sub-Saharan Africa financed by the German Research Foundation. Via our website, several africa specific catalogues and databases can be searched via a metasearch, additionally, we built up an internet database with chosen and indexed website links. ilissAfrica is certainly a very good instrument for finding qualified literature and websites for the topic "Africa and football" and it got a lot of positive feedback from researchers and librarians worldwide. I hope I could convince you to add the links again ;-) Kind regards, Nadia, Scientific Assistant, internet library sub-saharan Africa (ilissAfrica), University Library Frankfurt" --141.2.166.212 (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The links you provided were to the results of searches using the database you are involved in. These search results were not specifically about the subject in question, namely the 2010 FIFA World Cup. WP:ELNO states that EL sections should avoid "Links to any search results pages". Your database does appear useful as a source for finding relevant books, articles, etc. but in itself it is not a suitable external link. Dancarney (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"These search results were not specifically about the subject in question"
>> The link to the websites was a search for the keyword "FIFA 2010".
>>The literature search was about football/soccer in Africa, which for my understanding also is about the topic in question. After all, the article is not only concerned with the sportive event of FIFA 2010 itself, but also with topics that evolve around it, like the controversies section shows (subjects concerning e.g. Human Rights, crime, etc). If I had put a link to "Zulu warriors in South Africa", I would understand that it is not appropriate. But wanting to know more about the first World Cup ever taking place in Africa for me would also involve broadening my horizon and learning more about the topic on the African continent. Anyway, I will not fight over it. --Jummai (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No need for two hatnotes

It is frankly absurd that this high profile page has two separate hatnotes, taking up two lines at the top of the article. It is especially absurd when the second line is only being used to disambiguate with the article about a single video game. I tried to correct this situation to make the article look a little less cluttered, and actually give readers impression the article proper begins at least somewhere near the top of the page, but it has been reverted. There is no reason to think any reader will not be able to find this game article under the already provided 2010 World Cup (disambiguation), this is an entirely standard approach normally. Should this logic defeat readers looking for the game, then considering the game is the official game of the tournament, they would probably be expecting to find information and a link to it somewhere in this article, which of course already does exist, in the In video games section. If people want to justify this extra hatnote on the technicality that the game also contains the word FIFA, while the dab page is just for '2010 World Cup', they need to seriously consider that guidelines are advisory, and what is supposed to guide our thinking ultimately, is common sense. They need to seriously consider if this gives out the proper impression of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopoedia. Wikipedia is already perceived in the wider world as a pop culture cruft vault as opposed to a serious encyclopoedia, and preferring this sort of layout, giving extraordinarily high preference to a video game of all things, is a perfect example why imho. When you think back to the logic that was invoked to move everything World Cup to FIFA World Cup, it is ridiculous that a simple video game is given a higher priority in terms of disambiguation on the term '2010 World Cup', than the other sports which are supposedly also well known World Cups. In reality, they are all secondary meanings of the term, and they all belong in one simple dab page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't see this as less of an issue. There's a standard disambiguation link accompanied by a link to the game of exactly the same name. They stand out less than the opening paragraph. Sure, the reader's eye has to move down an extra 2 degrees to see the start of the article, but I don't think that's an unnecessary amount of extra effort or time for the reader. Especially considering the time saved for all the instances when someone searches for the game 2010 FIFA World Cup and just wants to find the page about the game. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't think that ease of navigation is a damaging property for wikipedia to have. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see the problem here, the name '2010 FIFA World Cup' is different from '2010 World Cup' and should be dealt with accordingly. The issues about relative importance are: firstly a little irrelevant; and secondly highly debatable. Is a game which tops sales charts ([2]) less relevant than the '2010 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup', the '2010 Speedway World Cup' or the '2010 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup'? Which one do you honestly think more people are going to search for? --Pretty Green (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Squads

Isn't this article supposed to have a "Squads" section with a link to the detailed squads page? --ChaChaFut (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't you add one? – PeeJay 23:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Just wanted to ask first. --ChaChaFut (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Music and Anthems of the World Cup

Perhaps a reference to some of the Anthems's and songs that have been produced for the world cup? E.G. Wavin' Flag by K'naan which has accompanied Coke adverts and FIFA world cup game ads? ([3]) Charliebaudry (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)charliebaudry

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

Charities & Non-Profit organisations associated with the world cup

For example, [4] ~ ~ ~ ~charliebaudry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliebaudry (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Official song

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

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

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

Errata

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

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

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

List of injuries?

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

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

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

Update

The following quote appears in the 'Preparations' section: "five of the existing venues are to be upgraded" and this is in the 'Legacy' section: "The following stadiums have all been upgraded" (my emphasis). Of the two, I would say with less than a month to go before the tournament starts, that the first quote needs attention; maybe something like: "five of the existing venues were upgraded". What do others think?
RASAM (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Altitude

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

Controversies

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

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

Referees

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

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

Host selection

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

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

article size

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

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