Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Date format

I notice that there is not a consistent date format on this page, even within a given section (e.g. game dates in Group C). Argentina v. Serbia and Montenegro is June 16, 2006, but Netherlands v. Côte d'Ivoire is 16 June 2006. Is there a recommended Wikipedia convention? --Chrisirwin 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Theme song

hey there guys,, I have been watchin the world cup and there is a theme song that I really liked,, it's played before and after matches, its not vocal, it just an orchestra (if that's what its called),, I hope you know which am i talkin about,, thanks (P.S. I did look for it hard before I asked here) --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 11:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

does any one know what it's called or where to get it (forgot to ask lol)--mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 11:29, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know whether it was played in the stadium or over ABC-ESPN. If it was the stadium check the World Cup website. If it was ABC-ESPN, check their website. It sounded like it was in the stadium, I liked it. Bornagain4 01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

England's official theme song is Embrace's "World at Your Feet". --Madchester 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Carneval De Paris by Dario G. That was the main theme for the 1998 World Cup The main theme was also used in Vindaloo, by Fat Les (I don't think this was the one you were expecting, though) --87.74.66.97 18:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

custom balls

I would think it would be impractical to make only one ball for each match. How many do they make? --Gbleem 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Generally there are about 10 or 12, most placed at different areas around the field...the touchlines, endlines, of course the one that is used to start the match, the 4th official also has a few in case one or more malfunction during the game. Batman2005 15:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

How Does It Work?

Will someone explain to me how the tournament works and how you advance etc?

Read the article. jaco♫plane 17:20, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

32 teams, split up into groups of 4. You play all the other teams in your group, a win is worth 3 points, a tie is worth 1 point. The top 2 teams in the group advance to the round of 16 where you play till a winner is decided, then after that the top 8 teams play, the top four, then the top two teams play for the final. The winner...is well the winner I guess. Batman2005 17:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Ejection Vs. Suspensions

Suspensions...to me at least would indicate that Avery John is to serve his suspension during the match with England. Ejection to me would be that Avery John was ejected against Sweden. At present it says "Suspensions: Avery John - Sweden" which might be a tad confusing to those who think like I do. Perhaps some clarifying statement should be inserted? Batman2005 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

What about "ejected vs Sweden, suspended vs England"? - YXAndyYX 18:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

HEY! I just did that, great minds think alike YXAndyYX!! Also, if Avery John received his second yellow card, he was also shown a red card. For the sake of distinguishing between "second yellow red cards" and a "straight red card" are we not listing "second yellows" as "red cards" in the table? Batman2005 18:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, No. The FIFA Official Match Report lists it as Yellow Cards - 2, Red Cards - 1 for Avery John, we should follow that and do the same. Batman2005 18:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks buddy! I don't think we need that "Second yellow" column at all, the FIFA doesn't seem to make differences between them and the table might look a bit confusing for some people in it's current state... -YXAndyYX 18:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I made the section, and certainly intended that the suspended column is to list the games (and in the teams' table, the players) to which the suspension applies, not from which they result. It makes no sense to say Avery John was suspended for the game against Sweden: if he had been, he could not have been sent off during it! Kevin McE 18:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Your intentions in making the table don't trump understanding of the people who are going to look at it. The way it looks now to me and obviously to several others is that you're saying Avery John's suspension will be served for the game against Sweden. Which is obviouly not true. You're banking on the fact that people either A) read the match reports B) watched the game C) possess the powers of deductive reasoning to look at the matches played section and realize that T&T have only played Sweden. You say it makes no sense, but obviously the table as you created it has caused some confusion, so who's not making sense here? We've got two users now who say its a good idea to put "suspended vs. Sweden, to be seved vs. England." That's more of a consensus than you saying "i made the table, this is how I want it." I'm going to, for now, add a little bit of an explanation in the preceding paragraph about how the "Suspensions" column is referring to the match in which the suspension was earned. We'll likely see more discussion as its confused two or three people thus far.Batman2005 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Every edit I have made is to say that A John is suspended for the match against England: it's what I had intended, and its what is true! I see that someone has tried a compromise of having an extra column "Suspensions gained": I think that looks clumsy, and I think it will lead to lack of clarity when a player is suspended for 2 yellows in different matches. It is relevant to team selection what games a player will miss: it is not relevant to team selection what games he earned his cards in. It is not good semantics to say that he was suspended vs Sweden, because he wasn't: do we want to have to say match in which his earning of cards triggered a suspension for the next game? Kevin McE 18:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the tables to make them more understandable to those not familiar with the system - if anyone would like to expand the basic work then go ahead. But I feel having the second column does explain thing more clearly. Also it means only one column is needed on the player table

I too think its relevant which games a player will miss, whoever keeps putting sweden needs to stop! My mistake for thinking it was you there Kevin McE. Batman2005 19:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, "ejection"? Who in the world calls a sending off "ejection"? That sounds like a term more associated with American sports, and usually with a different meaning (a team can usually replace an "ejected" player, whereas a player being "sent off" will leave his team a man short for the rest of the game)...?

Crime Concerns

Under Crime Concerns, shouldn't there be something about the references to the war? Two England fans have just been arrested for displaying SS insignia.

I think a section about Nazi concerns, propaganda, and the like should be included. Berlin police already raided a couple houses in connection with neo-nazism directed at the world cup, another World Cup Banner was removed because it had swastikas on it. There should be a mention. Perhaps something as well about president Ahma-Ahma-Ahma-GonnastartworldwarIII from Iran saying he wanted to go to the games yet his holocaust denial stance is a crime in Germany and may have contributed to him not attending. At present a lot of that is covered in "Racism" perhaps that section needs a new name, or if neo-nazism is becoming more apparent, maybe it warrants its own section. Batman2005 18:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

maybe a brief mention, it should be handled carefully and diplomatically. But Batman2005's "joke" naming of the president of Iran in the above talk posting is inflammatory and seeking flamewar in my opinion, rather ironic given the discussion is about racism, WP:CIVIL please. Maybe you shouldn't write that section Batman2005 if you've got strong opinions you want to bring to the table? --mgaved 08:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that's useful to mention every stupid fan action. If a pair of britains do that, or a french say that. In every part of the world there is stupid people making stupid things... simply don't believe that a stupid action needs an article. I wouldn't surprise if here comes somebody talking free trash to one president because he maybe could be involved in a war, specially if he is from the leading country in terms of no-sense wars. That deserves an article?.--Bauta 06:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Venues

Wasn't there a list of the stadiums being used? Why was that removed? 172.128.81.143 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I replaced it on the page.Batman2005 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Sweden v. Trinidad and Tobago

How is a tie in the World Cup solved? -Chile 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

1 point to each team. See sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the article. At this stage, the teams are in leagues: in the later stages there would be 30 minutes extra time and penalties if necessary. Kevin McE 19:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

a tie in the group stages isn't solved. both teams get 1 point each, instead of 3 points for a win or 0 points for a loss. the two teams with the highest points in the group go on to the next round. in the elmination rounds, if there is a tie, 15-minute overtime periods are held (2 maximum). if it is STILL a tie after that, it goes to sudden death penalty shoot outs.--81.1.111.9 19:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

To clarify the extra time: there are thirty minutes of extra time, and although this is split into halves/periods, there cannot be a result after 15 minutes extra time. Kevin McE 19:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, it doesn't automatically go to "sudden death penalty shootouts" it goes to each team taking 5 shots apiece, if after that point there is not a winner, then sudden death begins. Almost sounds like 81.1.111.9 should have just let somebody else answer. Batman2005 21:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The last comment sort of sounded condescending. WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, fellas. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:33, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

• Nah, that wasn't the intent, just to hopefully get people to stop leaving wrong information. If IP user comes back...my apologies. Batman2005 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire

I think it's absurd that we're referring to the Ivory Coast as Côte d'Ivoire. I understand that it's what they call the country, but you have to understand it's simply French for Ivory Coast. We aren't referring to any other countries by what they call themselves or else we'd have an article full of Espana, Nederland, Deutschland, Ukrayina and Republika Srbija. I propose we change all instances of Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast in keeping with the English translation of the article. Paxosmotic 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

See Côte d'Ivoire#Name. As far as I can see, Wikipedia uses this name throughout. Conscious 20:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

If it's universal across the site, then I grudgingly withdraw my request, but it's still absurd. =) Paxosmotic 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

It might have a translation, but it is still the recognised name of a country. Would you expect us to call Ecuador "equator", and El Salvador "The Saviour", and Montenegro "Black Mountain"? I'm sure there are numerous other examples... :) Kevin McE 00:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, i'd say calling it Côte d'Ivoire is a good idea, since....you know, that's the name of the country. Batman2005 01:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

K I'll get to work on renaming all instances of Germany to Deutschland, since....you know, that's the name of the country. Sarcasm's helping no one here, and it was just an idea I was throwing out there. I still think it should be Ivory Coast, but since the name is in French across Wikipedia, it might as well stay in French in this article.Paxosmotic 01:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you probably know that that is not the same thing. My point is that the name in English of many countries, including Côte d'Ivoire, is translatable. The fact that the German name for Germany is different from the English name is totally irrelevant. Kevin McE 23:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Now that's just not true, my sarcasm is helping me keep my sanity. It's just not helping you, and for that...I apologize my friend. Batman2005 02:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should we call it that on English Wikipedia when it's not english? How about we call Germany Deutschland then? Kingjeff 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How about we have a vote on the issue? Kingjeff 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd be very hesistant to vote on it and make such a sweeping change if the dissenters above are indicative of how polarized people are on the issue. The last thing we need is a pissing match over the name of a country that won't be in the tournament in a few weeks resulting in the article getting locked. No worries at all, I'll continue cheering for Black Mountain and for Nederland. Paxosmotic 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, and its already been established elswhere that we don't use Ivory Coast. If you really wanted to have this changed, you would have to take this elswhere. Falphin 02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I would be very hesitant to have a vote on something such as this for the same reasons given by Paxosmotic. The simple fact of the matter is that English speaking people used to refer to this country as "Ivory Coast" but they have requested that all countries now refer to them as "Côte d'Ivoire" — as explained in the link given above by Conscious. It would be discourteous to do otherwise. Alias Flood 02:07, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said this was a democracy. I've seen this done in other wikipedia. If you go to Talk:Hannover 96, you'll see what I mean. Kingjeff 02:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA use the name Côte d'Ivoire on their official site, thus it stays as this. 81.178.218.36 02:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think FIFA is the ultimate authority on what's right or wrong to publish. But, I'm compelled to agree that if it's consistent across Wikipedia, it shoulde remain "Côte d'Ivoire" here too. --LateAndCrapulous 03:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, "CIV" is Cote de Ivory (or something like that :P)'s country code. As such, CIV = Cote d'Ivoire. I give up attempting to spell that. If all else fails, just blame the French for colonizing Africa :P Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no problem blaming the french for most things. As such, I'll join you in blaming them for this. Batman2005 04:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

For any standard in Wikipedia whether it's standard name or rule, it doesn't make necissarily make it right to do it that way. The case is that the english name is not illegitimate at all. Just like Germany is ok even though Deutschland is the official name of the country. Kingjeff 12:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not to cut in, but Germany is a completely different story. Check the Names for Germany. Deutschland -> land of people/folk, Germany -> Land of germanic tribes. Note how they both have different meanings when translated, where as Côte d'Ivoire and Ivory Coast have the same meaning in the same way that El Salvador and The Saviour mean the same thing. --72.144.171.185 00:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Disciplinary records

As far as I'm concerned Sweden, Portugal, Iran, Mexico, Paraguay, and Poland haven't recieved a red card yet, however the table says that they have. Isn't it a mistake? -- Snailwalker | talk 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Batman2005 21:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Group G

On one of the matchup, it says "South Korea" instead of "Korea Republic". Can somebody fix this quickly? It's weird. -- Revth 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

The template KORf2 was incorrect, so I changed it. However someone seems intent on changing it back again 81.178.218.36 02:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Seeding vs. ranking

It looks like someone changed the "Teams" section to list ranking instead of seeding in the square brackets. There have been several revisions since the change, so I'd rathernot simply revert it. Can someone with more Wiki-clue fix that? Perhaps the ranking should be included as well, with a different set of punctuation to identify them. (And an annotation about it in the prior paragraphs.) Davidlwilliamson 06:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just noticed that the numbers in the brackets have changed from a few days ago, now they disagree with what's in Seeding for 2006 FIFA World Cup and contradict the text. And I don't know where those new numbers came from, but how the fuck did Czech come to #2, ahead of France, Germany, England, etc? Someone please fix. -lethe ^{talk +} 08:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Check the current FIFA rankings, which would make today's Czech vs. USA game huge - they're 2nd and 5th in the rankings, but seeded a bit further back. The rankings are themselves interesting, which might make them worth including is some way...but not where the text says the seeds are listed. Davidlwilliamson 14:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Just reverted to the seeding. Sam Vimes 08:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cool, many thanks. Davidlwilliamson 14:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be quite honest, it really doesn't matter since Ranking and seeding means the same thing. Kingjeff 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ranking and seeding certainly do not mean the same thing: a tournament may be seeded: how the organiseras use rankings lists to do so varies considerably. See the articles FIFA world rankings and Seeding for 2006 FIFA World Cup Kevin McE 18:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disciplinary record

Is there a better method of displaying the disciplinary record? The current one is misleading, as a player who gets two yellow cards in one match get +2yellow and +1red in the table, and this is indistinguishable from a player who get yellow cards in two different matches and a straight red in third. Any ideas?

This table follows FIFA's method of recording. It is a fact that such a player is shown 3 cards, and it will appear as such on his career stats (misleading perhaps, but near universal practice). Kevin McE 18:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, if the article aims to list suspensions, it should also include suspensions issued before the tournament, like that of Nemanja Vidic (vs the Netherlands). Conscious 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Stoppage Goals

What minute does a goal count in if it is scored in first half stoppage time? Bornagain4 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe it would be 47+' for 2 minutes into injury time, as opposed to 47' for 2 minutes into the scond half. M.Jones 19:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx Bornagain4 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Not so. Since football lacks a dynamic game clock, all goal times after the first stoppage are out of sync with reality, and injury time is all 45 or 90, not 47 or 93 or whatever. It's officially 45' for any goal scored in first-half injury time, whether one second or five minutes have elapsed, though it's sometimes reported (and shown on onscreen graphics) as "45'+2".

Not so. As M.Jones said, the official FIFA reports would show it as 47+'. See this report, John Aloisi's goal 2 minutes into injury time at the end of the game. The same applies to half time injury time AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt make it right. FIFA are the governing body of football, not sport journalism. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Edit clashes. 12 June 18:20 my time

I'll stop trying to repair it. I attempted to put back some language links. From http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2006_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=58234009Skinnyweed 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Man of the Match

Wouldn't it be nice to have information on the Budweiser Man of the Match? Joaopais 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Man of the Match is pretty subjective, so I disagree. Rodri316 18:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I just took down the links to the Man of the Match by Shot007. I do not see the relevance. It is little more than a Budweiser ad.--Iago4096 18:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Apparently Shot007 is putting them up again. Could I hear a second opinion on this?--Iago4096 18:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

This kind of information does not belong. It is a marketing gimmick, and a regional one at that. Mindmatrix 18:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this information is one that alot of people would like to know, it is not an advertisement and it is not regional because the Man of the Match is choosen by the FIFA Technical Study Group (TSG). FIFA (TSG) has been observing international tournaments and identifying new trends in the game for 40 years. So i think they have valid opinions in determining the man of the match. http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/w/tsg/index.html Shot007 01:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If the information is notable, it should be incorporated into its own article or any one of several article's already in place at Wikipedia. Personally, I cannot see any notability. As Wikipedia is not a repository for links, I would prefer to see the article without them. Alias Flood 02:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously i would not change it if this is the opinion of the majority here, i simply thought people would want to know who the Official Man of the Matches were in the World cup and I was under the opinion that wikipedia would be a great place to get this information along with any other information on the world cup Shot007 03:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If man of the match is not notable, then why put the referee up? Kingjeff 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

All players, managers, major match officials are included in the spread of articles relating to the World Cup. Many of the match officials have articles in their own right. Alias Flood 03:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

But there is nothing wrong with putting in the player who won man of the match if it's the official man of the match named since it's fact. Kingjeff 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as there seems to be a controversy about this here, chiefly about the Budweiser reference, maybe a different article is the right solution. Although the Man of the Match may be chosen by FIFA officials, this is hardly a part of the official FIFA World Cup.--Iago4096 11:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC

So we also remove references to the Goldeb and Silver boots? Mariano(t/c) 11:58, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

How can it not be part of the world cup when these matches are part of the world cup? The fact is they are part of the world cup. Kingjeff 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that it is part of the world cup. It is voted for by the two members of the TSG analysing the game. So it is official, and also subjective. It's also a bit dull, and not hugely important (They voted Ahn MOTM in the KOR-TOG game, and he didn't even play half the match, so...). I would ask, if it were on every single game, would it just clutter the place up?

Andymarczak 13:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The value of information placed in Wikipedia articles should not be judged by whether it's notable, but rather on its encyclopedic value. I don't think "Man of the Match" meets that criteria (though I appreciate the clarification that it isn't a regional thing, as I had assumed). I'm still inclined to keep this info out of the article, but then again, we have articles like Rolaids Relief Man of the Year Award (promoted by MLB). Mindmatrix 13:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this information could be placed at the Groups' articles, which have more detailed info on the matches. Mariano(t/c) 13:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if you're not aware of it, there is another project called Wikinews, which is essentially a newspaper-like project. Information such as "Man of the Match" would be more appropriate in an article about the match, for example Korea 2, Togo 1. Moreover, it would be quite appropriate to link each WikiNews story to the relevant match, in this article or the group articles, instead of linking externally. Is this an acceptable compromise? Mindmatrix 15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok it seems pretty balanced here on both sides of the issue...so why not just create another page specifically for man of the match.Shot007 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just put it on the group pages with the starting lines up and such. Batman2005 00:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Piece of music when the players enter the pitch

What is the music used when players enter the pitch during world cup games as the same tune is used for every game. I also heard this same piece at some other football games. Who does this tune and is it worth mentioning in the article? ------Wrh1973 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. But I know they've had it since at least the last world cup. But I would like to know what the music is. Kingjeff 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Protected Page

Ok, with this page protected who can change it? And is someone going to update Ghana vs. Italy? Go Ghana. Bornagain4 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The article won't be precise if it's protected. I wanted to change "FIFA Fußball WM" to "FIFA Fussball WM". FIFA is Switzerland-based, they don't use 'ß'. --Tantalos 21:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Established editors can change it. And I don't think there is any lack of supply of editors to make changes. Skinnyweed 20:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How do you become and "established editor." I'm a newbie Bornagain4 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I have left you a "welcome" message on your talk page that will help to show you the way. Alias Flood 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I believe you can't edit a page with this type of protection if you're in the 1% of newest wikipedia members. I'm not sure if that's measured in edits or time, but if you make a couple of edits on other, non protected, pages and give it a day you will almost certainly be able to edit this page. TastyCakes 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while since it's been edited by a non-user. So, does it really matter if it's protected or not? Kingjeff 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well it hasn't been edited by a non-user since non users were barred from editing it.. ;) I suspect vandalism would remain a problem if the protection was removed, but hey why not give it a try... TastyCakes 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Who is in charge of protecting and unprotecting?

What vandalism has happen here? Kingjeff 01:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Pot vs Group

Is there a reason that in some parts they're referred to as Pots and at others Groups? TastyCakes 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"Pot" refers to the recepticle from which groups were drawn from. Teams were separated into pots based on their previous World Cups, as well as their FIFA World Ranking. Groups were selected by drawing one team from each pot. See Seeding for 2006 FIFA World Cup for more information. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see I didn't pay attention enough to see they weren't the same teams. TastyCakes 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Go West (song)

On TV I believe I've heard a variaton of this popular song/football chant being played on the public address systems during the half-time and at the end of several matches during this World Cup. Are they playing any particular version? Jooler 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect they are playing extracts from Pachelbel's Canon, which was bastardised by the "composers" of the song that you refer to. Kevin McE 23:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, it's definitely a German-language version of Go West; it sounds like it has different lyrics to the version the German fans themselves sing on the terraces, though. Anyway, the list of songs based on the chord structure of Pachelbel's Canon is pretty long, no?

Languages

As an Englishman, could I ask how English is not the official language of my country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.174.216.135 (talk • contribs).

Sorry. I've got no idea what you're referring to. Can you please explain what exactly you are objecting to? Jooler 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am assuming that "81.174.216.135" is referring to the miscellaneous section where it mentions the languages represented by the teams in the world cup finals. In response to your question: The reason why "English" is not listed as an "official language" is because no law was ever passed by parliament making it so. Instead, English has become known as the de facto language of England. English has come to be known as the language of England through common practice and the fact that it's in every day usage. It is without a shadow of a doubt the most dominant language spoken in England and the rest of the UK. Therefore no law is required to make the language official. I hope this answers your question. Mark Nuttall 00:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right, see English language. I'm not really sure why this page doesn't just say "English spoken in 5 of the countries" and forget all about the de facto and official stuff. I think the nuts and bolts of the issue are of limited relevence for the world cup article, since I can't think of any country who's languages are going to be disputed because they're official or not. TastyCakes 01:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Then the question is what standard to use. We can say Spanish and Korean are spoken in the USA. German and French are spoken in Italy. Arabic and German are spoken in France, etc. etc. The standard used is the official language at the federal level with the following exceptions - USA, Australia, England, Sweden and Mexico - because none of them have an official language on the federal level. But it's pretty clear in each of those countries as to what the de facto language is. If you can propose another standard, I'd like to hear it.--DaveOinSF 22:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well if it's that convoluted should we have that piece of trivia at all? TastyCakes 22:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add it initially, although I did make sure it was accurate. I suppose it's acceptable to get rid of it.--DaveOinSF 00:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Table of contents

What do people think of having the table of contents like this? jaco♫plane 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

That looks great! Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But I think it should be under the map. Kingjeff 15:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Group articles

hey guys, are the group articles really needed,, i mean this is an encyclopedia not a fifa world cup tracking page, thats what the fifaworldcup.com is for,, i think they should be deleted... --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree...I think its overkill. Batman2005 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

They're absolutely pointless. It looks like the same info as in the sub section of the 2006 world cup Kingjeff 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with match line-ups - perhaps some match descriptions from news sources could be added to beef up the pages a little. However, they're essentially no different to pages like 2004 European Football Championship - Group A, which have remained for two years with few complaints. Sam Vimes 15:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I think line-ups by themselves in articles are pointless. The articles should include some kind of overview/description like Sam Vimes said (for every match). Bruno18 20:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated all group stage articles for deletion. Kingjeff 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

{{prod}} is for deletions that are so uncontroversial that no one will object within five days. Is that really what you expected? Melchoir 23:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you oppsoe, then please discuss it in the discussion pages of the group article. 23:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're the one who wants to change the status quo, not me. And article talk pages are not the correct forum for deletion discussions. Why don't you just nominate them on AfD? Melchoir 23:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Korea-Togo match

This bit: Referee Graham Poll celebrates his wedding anniversary by blowing the whistle at the exact moment he got married 14 years ago. sounds really silly, it reads like he chose to end the first half when he did for that specific reason, rather than because it was in fact 45 minutes since it started..... ChrisTheDude 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

ha! it is true, but it's also plagarised from the BBC report of the game.Andymarczak 08:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Who died...

...And made Panairjdde the king of page content. Seriously buddy, learn civility, if people want to update goals during the match, let them. What's it hurting? Seems that quite a bit of discussion has been had on here with no consensus reached. Just get on with it, as long as people aren't vandalising the page. Batman2005 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice, we have a funny boy here. However, this funny boy did not read WP:WWIN, and therefore does not know that this is not a News reports. When the match ends, you and your little friends can come here and add all the informations you want. For now, just stick with this.--Panairjdde 14:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, where have you been the past 5 days where people have been adding goals as they happen? Wikipedia is not a new source, I've read it, thanks. I am pretty funny though, I'm glad you appreciate it! Batman2005 15:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Panairjdde, why does it matter when it's updated? Kingjeff 15:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't to everyone but him. Batman2005 15:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no harm in updating current events. Yes, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a news reports, but it can and is effectively being used as such. It's another issue whether it ought or not, I am not going to make such a judgement call here. I personally would not be in the business of live updating but if someone else intends doing it, I would not oppose it either. --TimBits 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. If someone wants to update scores let them, whatever you think is better, if its not wrong, leave it. Philc _T^E_C^I 23:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Fußball vs. Fussball

As far as I know FIFA calls it "FIFA Fussball-Weltmeisterschaft 2006(tm)" even though football in German (in Germany) is spelt with ß. But as they are our Swiss friends it's up to them. Should it be corrected or is it ss-ish for a special reason?

Didnt the german grammar people recently introduce knew crtieria for the use of an ß, ehich ahs been widely criticised, especially leading to some compound words having triple s's, so mostly the rule is ignored, however using ss instead of ß maybe the correct way in this case. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that ß is the correct way and the ss is simply a replacement. Kingjeff 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

or that they dont use the ß in Schweiz Deutsch. hmm, no article, strange.... Philc _T^E_C^I 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You mean Schweizerdeutsch :) -- Arwel (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think since we're talking about German in Germany, we should use their German. Kingjeff 23:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Both uses are correct, the ß can be changed to ss in certain conditions - for further reading see ß. The main reason (IMHO) why they use it, is because ss is universal, whereas ß is only in the German language. So it comes across as more internationally friendly. And also there's no upper case, so you can't put it in giant caps. Plus the Swiss don't use them at all. Andymarczak 08:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you are talking about the "Fußball Weltmeisterschaft" (German Worldcup) it's spelled with "ß", even after the German spelling reform of 1996. The reform didn't abolish the use of "ß", it just simplified some exceptions in spelling, to make it easier for foreign people to learn German. I've been taught and been writing the new way since 1996 and can't understand why many people ignore it. It's different when you talk about the "FIFA Fussball Weltmeisterschaft (tm)". It was already mentioned, FIFA is a Switzerland-based organisation. Although the German and Swiss languages are very simular, Swiss don't have a "ß". Many Germans are disappointed that the worldcup in our own country is spelled 'wrong', but we have to accept it. --Tantalos 10:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's because of things like weiss schiff, this may be garamtically appaling example by the way, but its to illustrate a point, as I cant remember the correct ones, well weiss schiff becomes weissschiff whereas previously it would have been weißschiff, and people think the triple 's' looks stupid. I know usage og the glyph wasnt temoved, but it has certainly been curtailed and regulated, which as far as I have come across it, being a german learner and all, it has far from simplifed it, it has complicated it. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Budweiser Soccer Wars

• Budwars Taste Contest with American Soccerfans during the Soccer Worldchampionship 2006 by Gemany's leading Newsmagazin. So Funny. ;-) --Nemissimo 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

The Czechs are the world's biggest beer drinkers, so they can't be wrong :) Intangible 15:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Attendance number?

Where is the attendance number of a match found? I can't find it to update the current Brazil vs. Croatia match. Hong Qi Gong 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

72,000. see http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,420563,00.html bogdan 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Hong Qi Gong 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You should get the figures from the FIFA match reports which are carried on their WC 2006 site. See for example the link to "FIFA Official Match Report" here. Jooler 00:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Pointless

Match report references

Why do we have the links to the match report, then a reference next to it going to the bottom and then linking to the exact same report? It's absolutely pointless. They're essentially just taking up an insane amount of space and the link in the (Report) part will work just fine, there's no reason for the footnotation going to tell you what match the report is for as its clearly defined in the match box. Batman2005 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I was "WP:BOLD and removed them, as I said if we footnoted 64 games the page would be ridiculous, one link to them is enough. Batman2005 13:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Batman, the link to the reports in reference style makes more sense than the inline link. First of all, each game can be referenced more than once in the article, so, for example each goal and card given in each match could have the report as a reference. As of now all of these facts are just presented without any easy way to verify these things. I'm going to add references for the first game and show you what I mean. It is going to take a lot of work to keep this article referenced and not just adding stuff as you hear about it without worrying about verification. This is a very important part of any wikipedia article. Paul^C/_T+ 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The inline link was added to reference goal times, attendance, referee's etc. Adding the references as they were is totally overkill, doing that would make 64 individual references at the bottom of the page, which would be nearly equal to the length of the actual article. The inline link was decided on quite a long time ago as the best way to include the match reports. The verification is clearly noted when you click the "report" link and it takes you to the official fifa match report. Adding footnoted references will lengthen the page to a ridiculous amount, and is unnecessary. Batman2005 19:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I did some quick math and with the current amount of footnoted references on the page, plus the 64 you're going to include with your footnoted references, then with the numerous others that will no doubt creep in as things happen, we'll soon have over 100 footnoted references on the page. However, if we eliminate the 64 you want to put on, we'll likely keep the number under forty, which i'm sure we'll all agree is a more manageable number. The external link under the score is the best way to do this. Batman2005 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Everything in the article needs to be referenced. If there is going to be 64 games worth of information on this page, having one reference for each game is going to be needed. The fact that it adds 64 references to the article doesn't matter, it just shows that the article is well referenced. Can you please point me to the page where this consensus about the match report was reached? A good example of what I am talking about is the venues table... where do those attendance figures come from? How do we know that they are the accurate-no standing room-fifa number? Having a reference for each one is needed. I will concede that within each "{{footballbox}}" only one reference is needed, so each fact in there does not need a footnote; but in the goals section each person should have a reference to the game in which they scored their goal so that these can be quickly verified. Any other fact mentioned about any particular game can be easily referenced within the article, for example much of the miscellaneous section that refers to specific games. So each of these 64 references would be used many times throughout this article and are more relevant than many of the other references that are present now. Just because there would be a lot of these references does not mean that they don't belong. Having 100 references would not be that big of a deal. There are many articles on wikipedia that have tons of references and an article chronicling 64 games would need a lot of references. In addition, if the article does become too large, I could see different areas being broken up similarly to 2005 Atlantic hurricane season and List of storms in the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season. As you can see, each article has about 50 references. A similar thing could be done here where only especially notable games would be kept on the main Fifa World Cup page and the rest are moved to a separate games article with every game listed. I'm not saying that is what is going to happen, only what could happen. Besides, those are both featured articles, another is AIDS which has over 100 references; getting this article to eventually be featured will need a lot more references. Having a large number of references, when relevant to the content, is not a bad thing. Paul^C/_T+ 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah, it was reached about 15 topics above this one. Not a single other tournament page, be it world cup, euro, confederations cup, qualifying, etc. has referenced every single goal. They are referenced by looking down and seeing "Miroslav Klose - 2 goals...then by going up and looking for Klose's goals in the game boxes. Then if you have doubts, by clicking the match report link under the goal tally and seeing clearly that Klose scored two goals in that game. As is the references are there...linked to the external match reports. There's absolutely no reason to go against every other world cup, or soccer tournament page and start referencing every single goal, attendance figure, caution, ejection, substitution or whatever...as is we're going farther than those other pages by even including the match report in the page anyway...which serves as enough reference without footnotes. If a person wants to check to see if Avery John was really ejected from a game...they look at the discipline summary, see that he was ejected vs. sweden...then if they want more proof they go to the sweden - trinidad game and click the match report to see. What you're doing is taking the match report that's already linked and then linking it again at the bottom of the page, which is unnecessary. The way we've got it now puts the reference right next to all the pertinent information that it is verifying. Batman2005 20:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I read that last night before I actually added the references. There is no discussion about an inline link versus references. Also, I'm not saying that we should remove the inline link, just that the references should be added as well. I've been searching through WP:LOP and WP:POL and I can't see anything that says having too many references is a bad thing. The closest thing I can see is where having lots of citations can take away from the actual content. But since we aren't talking about prose here, just statistics the addition of the citations would not be taking away from the content. So, unless you can explain a better reason other than "there would be too many references" or explain how having these citations would be distracting, I'm going to add the citations back in... Your appeal to tradition regarding other tournament pages is a logical fallacy, so it isn't really relevant to this discussion. Paul^C/_T+ 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My reason is that its redundant! You're adding the same information twice into the same article. It's not logical fallacy to follow precendent in other articls. There's absolutely no reason to post sources two times, none whatsoever. The Olympics have over 200 countries that compete, the article for the 2004 olympic games has like...10 references, the last world cup and the 15 or so before it have not included references to every goal scored or every caution handed out and its nearly impossible to accurately reference that without clogging the article of useless double, triple or quadruple posted references. What do we do if Michal Ballack has 3 goals in 3 games and then 3 cards in three different games? Do we have 6 references there? Referenceing the games is fine, which is what we've done by including an inlined Match Report, adding a referencing footnote to the bottom of the page with the exact same match report is incredibly redundant, which is why they were deleted the first time. There's literally no reason I can see for including the same match report twice in one encyclopedia article. The big thing people on wikipedia always talk about is uniformity, its why we have standardized info boxes, templates, etc. To follow standard practice for these articles isn't a logical fallacy, its following precendent. You state that your goal is to achieve featured article status for this article, yet a quick look at the opinions for FA show that nobody is concerned with the lack of sources. Were I a first time viewer of the page and I see the match box for the Germany-Poland game, and directly under the score I see (Report), I'm going to use deductive reasoning to establish that clicking the link isn't going to take me to a report on Blue Whales, but rather a report on the match. The inlined link that you're so opposed to was decided on as the best way to reference goal times, scorers, attendance, referee, final score, etc. All of which is included in the match box, so why add yet another pointless reference to the bottom of an already lengthy page to send the reader to the exact same material as right where they were just looking? It's not logical and its overkill.Batman2005 23:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is moot now given all the forking going on... Most of the additional references I would have made have been moved to different pages. This has really gotten ridiculous...Paul^C/_T+ 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Busses and Balls

Even more pointless is this note in miscellanea:

"Hyundai Motor Company will supply 32 brand-new buses for use by the teams. To promote the tournament, a contest was held on the tournament's website. If a fan could supply a good slogan for their favorite team's bus, they would win tickets to the opening match. The 32 winning slogans were announced on 22 May 2006 and can be seen here.[25]"

1. this is pure advertisement, since the fact that a motor company is giving the buses to the teams is not, in itself, important. And no, it is not on the same level as the logo and the mascot. Those will be remembered longer that the brand of buses.
2. buses thing is not related to the second part of the news
3. who cares about the slogans? there are a lot of marketing events and competitions in occasion of WC, are we going to put them all?

--Panairjdde 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Who cares that Adidas made the match ball? Who cares that Budweiser is an official sponsor? Who cares that Toni Braxton sang at the opening ceremony? There are interesting tidbits about the world cup and should be included. The fact that the team buses were the subject of a huge competition on the world cup official website in which millions of submissions were entered is interesting. The fact that news agencies reported on the buses and the slogans, the fact that announcers have frequently mentioned the buses (as during the Brazil game, the USA game and the England game) make them more of a part of the tournament than the mascots who have been mentioned, by my tally, a total of twice. Additionally the fact that the buses were a source of controvery pre-tournament as likely targets for any terrorist plots makes them notable. Several articles in both newspaper and internet sources did stories about them and the possibilities of terrorism being aimed at the buses. Just because you don't think its interesting doesn't mean that its not part of the tournament. It's listed in the "Miscellaneous" section for a reason, not because it will affect the outcome of a specific match, but because its an interesting, miscellaneous, tidbit about the tournament. The important part of that piece of trivia isn't who made the buses, but that the buses have become themselves a story, as well as the slogan competition that was held. Again, I ask who cares that Adidas made the ball? Isn't that pure advertisement for Adidas to mention it? Sure, you couldn't play the game without the "official adidas bal" but the players wouldn't be at the stadium without the "official hyundai team buses." Batman2005 17:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there are "interesting tidbits about the world cup and should be included", but you really think that facts (1) "Adidas is making a different ball for each match" and (2) "The buses of the teams are provided by Hyundai" have the same interest? And notice that the entry on the buses does not mention at all terrorism, but just link to the competition, not to the (alleged) press coverage. And, just for your information, I barely tolerate the entry of Adidas too.--Panairjdde 18:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I, for one, care that Hyundai supplied the transportation. Hong Qi Gong 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

There ya go... Batman2005 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This stuff should probably go on another page, it's a waste of space here. If you want to put this kind of cruft here, you a then going to be filling this page with all sorts of crap like which players have Nike boots and which have Adidas, what the sponsors for each team are and who supplies them with water Evian or Volvic or whatever. etc.. yawn it could go on forever. stick it in a page called 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellania Jooler 18:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, those aren't official sponsors or parts of the tournament, the buses are. What is more pointless is listing the two highest ranked teams not to make the tournament like somebody has done, or listing how long its been since Australia was in the tournament...stuff like that should go on those teams pages, the buses, ball, man of the match, etc. apply to the whole field. Batman2005 18:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the length of time it's been since a team was in the tournament is stuff that sports commentators mention all the time. So that particular piece of information belongs in the article, in my opinion. Hong Qi Gong 18:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are editing the wrong page, my dear Batman. This is an article about a sport event, knowing who did not enter is much more important than knowing whose the buses are. Infact, the information on the highest ranking teams that did not enter should not be relegated in the miscellanea.--Panairjdde 18:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Panairjdde, go away and edit elsewhere if you're going to be condescending and immature. "Dear Batman" give me a break. If you get proven wrong, you don't have to be juveline about it. Grow up. Batman2005 19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC) 19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Please Panairjdde and Batman calm down a little bit. IMHO the story about the buses could be interesting but i don't think it's worth mentionning the brand of buses. Who cares? This is just advertising and the official sponsors already make too much ads so they don't need to be rewarded here. At most it could be explained in the article about this (so bad they need to advertize) brand of car. Besides, I must confess I'm in favour of Batman for what concerns the "live update" issue above (so you see i'm not a partisan). Julien Tuerlinckx 20:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I am calm. I even avoided answering his provocation because the text I wanted to remove has already been removed. Mr. Batman can yell as much as he wants.--Panairjdde 23:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

My provocation? The only provocation here is your condescending attitude and speech. Batman2005 23:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Talking ^of balls

What's with these balls that the team captains are exchanging at e beginning of matches along with the usual FA pennants? Jooler 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Germany Goal Difference (14/06)

The goal difference for Germany should be +3 not +2 (5-2). I'm not an editor and don't want to risk breakign something :P just thought I'd point the mistake out.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia! If you see a mistake, feel free to correct it. Hammer Raccoon 12:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming

Wikipedia shouldn't be selling naming rights to its entries for advertising purposes. It's just the "World Cup" not the "FIFA World Cup" just like it's the "Stanley Cup" or the "Olympic Medal" not the "NHL Stanley Cup" or "IOC Olympic Medal".

216.58.44.227 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is the FIFA World Cup. If you look at the official logo it clearly says "FIFA World Cup Germany 2006. Much the same as its always been. Do you also think it should just be "Champions League?" or "UEFA Champions League?" Batman2005 23:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Groups in progress...

Can changes be made to subsequent rounds whilst a group is still in progress? Example: the Poland flag is still shown under A-1st (in the Knockout-Stage section) when Poland now can't possibly be 1st. Should the Poland flag be removed? It would help clarify who might play who in the second round. Fmgazette 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes it should. It is quite off-base to say that Poland could finish first "because Germany might get disqualified." Unless and until a team or people associated with it do something that might warrant disqualification, we need not take this possibility into account.

I say leave all the flags in there until there is a definitive first and second place team regardless of points thus far, it eliminates the need to go back and change it if we're wrong. We should take every possibility into account by the way, anonymous IP guy who won't make up a user name! Also, be sure to sign your posts people! Batman2005 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't need a user name to tell you that if you are not on medication, consider getting some. If and when Germany commit some grave action and might get kicked out of the WC, then we can consider whether or not the Poles have a plausible chance to win Group A.

Well, aside from not being very civil, if you look at the page, its showing which teams are in which group, not which team is going to advance to the round of 16. If Germany finishes first in their group then we'll leave the four flags in the group box and move the german flag to the box on the right...where it clearly says "Round of 16." Batman2005 02:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, leave them where they are and copy over those that progress. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- Alias Flood 02:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivial question

Just out of curiosity, is this the first world cup to feature qualifying teams from all six inhabited continents, or has this happened before? Procrastinator supreme 05:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It has. 1982 FIFA World Cup (qualification) Happyjoe5 08:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cheers! Procrastinator supreme 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically the USSR covers the Asia part, but the USSR was a UEFA member, there were no AFC teams. But there were world cups long before the regional confederations were founded and they don't correspond to the physical continents anyway, especially lately. And if you look at confederation it gets even more confusing, as in the current world cup Australia played in the OFC qualifications but switched to the AFC before the finals :)

What about Kuwait? Surely they were AFC? ChrisTheDude 14:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, Kuwait! I didn't notice.

Thanks for all the feedback! Personally, I just like how global the reach of this tournament is - North Africa, West Africa, Southern Africa, North America, Central America, South America, the Caribbean, all compass points of Europe, the Middle East, the Far East, and Australia. It doesn't get much better than that; the only obvious "improvements" in global coverage would have been if an East African country, Russia and China had made it in (Russia on account of their large share of the Earth's surface, and on basically being North Asia, China on account of both land area and population). Procrastinator supreme 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

First of all, why is there a statement saying that the top scorer is going to win the Adidas Golden Boot trophy? Adidas could get bought by Nike later this week, and the trophy would have to be renamed.

While we're at it, why is a whole separate section showing a knockout stage of the tournament? FIFA could convene a special session next week and decide to switch Round 2 to group play rather than knockout rounds, so putting in the brackets is premature.

And finally it's awfully presumptuous to make this "claim" that the "final" will be "played" on "9 July" in Olympiastadion in "Berlin"? After the Pope renames July to Benedict, a giant meteor could strike the Brandenburger Tor on "8 Benedict", killing tens of thousands, destroying half the city, and postponing the match for a day or two.

Really people, we have to leave the Wikipedia open to ALL potential possibilities. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --DaveOinSF 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Individual scheduled or expected future events could be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. --Ronweezlee 07:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That better be a joke, and if it is, just to let you know, it was a rubbish joke. Philc _T^E_C^I 11:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's incorrect "Philc". "Wikipedia" as to be open to all "possibilities", including the possibility that the joke was "funny." — 199 19:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll start the section on New Zealand's conquest of the world tomorrow then.

Referees

FIFA have using the group system for the referees in the tournament, which divide in 23 groups. But the article not mention about the group of referee, why? Aleenf1 05:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the people editing the article either didn't know this, forgot to put this information in, or decided it wasn't interesting enough. I think it is relevant information, so if you can reference a source, please add this information. Carcharoth 21:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tie-breaker criteria

Hey who removed this? I think it is a good idea to include it so that people can know that the criteria has changed from head-to-head first to goal difference first. Kiwi8 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Berlin is in West Germany?

in References #2 (about names of stadiums), I think it's slightly incorrect:

"Of the twelve hosting stadia, all but one (Leipzig) are in the former West Germany."

Although the Olympic Stadium is in West Berlin, which is not part of East Germany .. it is also officially not part of West Germany. How could we precisely deliver this fact, without making it too bloat? cheers, -- 141.89.97.204 09:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, West-Berlin was officially West-German. I think the gist is clear, for those readers who are asking themselves why Berlin isn't mentioned as East-German, there's the wiki link. --Tantalos 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Was it though, or did it have a special status? Ordinary West German postage stamps certainly were NOT valid in West Berlin before reunification. -- Arwel (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is that you are using the unofficial terms East Germany and West Germany. Whether West Berlin was part of West Germany or East Germany can not be decided until there is a clear definition of the terms. Geographically it was part of East Germany, legally it was part of West Germany, if you like. The correct names of both countries were/are Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Federal Republic of Germany) and Deutsche Demokratische Republik (German Democratic Republic). --84.149.244.84 22:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course West Berlin was west german, who do you think governed it, fairies? No, west germans, suprisingly. Philc _T^E_C^I 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

from West Berlin:

" West Berlin was the name given to the western part of Berlin between 1949 and 1990. It consisted of the American, British, and French occupation sectors established in 1945. It was closely aligned with, although legally not a part of, West Germany. The Soviet sector became East Berlin, which East Germany claimed as its capital; however, as the whole city was legally under four-power occupation, the Western Allies did not recognize this claim. "

The status of the whole Berlin in that time was officially neither belong to Federal Republic of Germany (West) nor German Democratic Republic (East).

And, reply to Philc, the "fairies" in this story is American, British, and French.

West Berlin#Legal status:

" But the western allies [American, British, and French] remained the ultimate political authorities there. West Berlin was run by an elected Mayor and city government at Rathaus Schöneberg, but this government formally derived its authority from the occupying forces, not its electoral mandate. West Berlin was not considered to be a Bundesland, nor part of one, and the Grundgesetz (constitution of the Federal Republic) had no application there. "

-- 172.177.190.229 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Knockout stage flags / Updating who can qualify in what positions

Part 1 (Knockout stage flags)

What the hell is going on here? The first column shows all four team in the group and the NEXT column shows who ended up 1st or 2nd. Knocking out a flag in the first column if a team cannot mathematically fill that slot means that you will eventually end up with just 1 flag which will duplicate the entry to the immediate right. Someone now has just duplicated all the little flags in the second column minus Poland in the 1st slot in Group A. What the hell was that about? Not only does it look awful it's completely pointless. Jooler 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I say we leave it looking the way it does in all the other previous World Cups and leave the maps there until the eliminations are decided. Hong Qi Gong 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No! Knocking out a flag in the first column shows which competitors are still competing for that spot, which is of interest of many soccer fans. For example, after the Poland loss, many people believe that Poland has been eliminated, which is not the case. They can still finish 2nd in the group. However, by pointing out that the flag is no longer there FOR THE TIME BEING, shows who's in the competition for that spot. --Palffy 02:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say leave the flags in there, you never know what could happen. Batman2005 02:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean?? Neither of you have any excuse to not have them there?! My alternate proposal, that has apparently upset Jooler, is the following [1]. I am not happy with just having an 'a' in the tables, however, it useful nonetheless. A visitor should be allowed to know which teams will be playing where and against whom---ie, there is no reason for Poland to be listed in the 1st Place Group A if they're no longer for the spot. --Palffy 05:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Btw, this template was SPECIFICALLY made for such edits. Once all of the teams are determined, the template is changed from Template: Round16-waiting to Template: Round16 eliminating the left-most column, which is to be used only when the Round of 16 teams have yet to be determined. --Palffy 05:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is so daft. Template: Round16-waiting when it is filled in shows ALL of the team that competed to get to the final. It's more complete. I think this should be used on previous competitions with 32 team as well. Jooler 09:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, Jooler, you're missing the point that the Template:Round16-Waiting will be changed to Template: Round 16 once the Round 16 competitors are determined. If you look at the previous World Cups on Wikipedia, the teams that failed to make it to the knockout stages are not shown in that section. As for Batman, if you want to see who once was vying for that position, why not add all of the qualifiers that once competed for spot won by say Ukraine? You know, let's replace Ukraine by Ukraine, Greece, Kazakhstan, Turkey, etc... --Palffy 05:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we could go ahead and go with your ridiculous suggestion, but only if this page covered the World Cup qualification stages as well. Since it only covers the World Cup Finals...showing that would be as pointless as suggesting it was. However...showing which teams were in that group vying for those positions isn't pointless or ridiculous. Batman2005 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No Batman, I did not suggest it--I was making an analogy as to how to ridiculous it is to leave all of the teams in. And I'm not exactly sure why you and Jooler are so adamant about this. Do you want to make it seem like whichever team you're supporting was once soo great that it competed for the knockout stages? THE WHOLE POINT OF THE KNOCKOUT STAGE SECTION IS TO SEE WHO GOES THROUGH TO THE KNOCKOUT ROUNDS AND WINS THE WORLD CUP. No one here has made a single good claim as to why we should leave the flags in a section totally irrelevant to the group stage. --Palffy 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Look, there are two boxes next to each other in the graph. The one on the right is, of course, the place where the 1st or 2nd place team from that group will be placed. The one of the left is telling the reader that the 1st or 2nd place team from a specific group is the one that goes on that spot in the bracket. The whole point of the flags being there in the first place is to show the teams that are in that group competing for that 1st or 2nd place spot. It's not a way to track which team qualifies while the First Round is still going on (what do you gain by leaving one remaining flag at the end of the First Round in that spot? You're gonna put that team on the box to the right anyways) -- that job is left to the individual Group sections above. Rodri316 21:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The sole point of that box is to show that the 1st place team between the four competitors will make it. It's ridiculous to remove the flags. Rodri316 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As much as it pains me to do it, I agree with Jooler. The flags are showing who was in the group vying for that specific position, not which teams have a chance to be there. If they want to see who's going to come in first they can look at the group section! Batman2005 13:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to remove the flags of the teams that have been eliminated from those spots, at least get them correct... England has clinched the top spot in Group B, but their flag is shown in the #2 position for Group B in the bracket. In the other Group B box (where England should be), the flags for Sweden and Paraguay remain, but I don't believe T&T has been eliminated yet. If Sweden and Paraguay tie this afternoon, and T&T beats Paraguay and Sweden loses to England, than T&T goes to the second round as the #2 team from Group B, correct? 68.37.208.190 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

They haven't clinched the top spot in Group B. Only T&T are unable to take 1st place after their match with England. --Palffy 19:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That's right. I forgot to account for today's Sweden-Paraguay match.Bixman 19:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC) contribs

I have to agree with whoever it was above that said that the flags shoudl be left as a means of having a complete record of the tournament, and that this version shoudl be used for the older world cup articles as well. Even though the section is about the knockout stage itself how the teams in that stage got there (who they competed with) is relavent information for such a section. All the flags of countries who competed at all for a slot in the knockout section shoudl be shown. Keep in mind this is not a news site its an encyclopedia. From a historical perspective its more intresting to have as much info about the tournament in such a useful format is possible. Dalf | Talk 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But who they competed against is already noted earlier in the article, i.e. the group standings. Keeping the flags of all the countries in the Round of 16 section is redundant.Bixman 00:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC) contribs

Not redundant its an efficent use of space. It displays all of the relavent information in one place graphically, does it represent some degree of reduncancy? Yes, but it is not 100% redundant because which groups allign to which teams going ito the knockout rounds is not as easy to determin from the rest of the article (And is not all in one place). If there is no advantage to presenting the data graphically then why present any of it graphically? More to the point if who was compeeting for which slots in the knockout round does not belong as it is listed elsewhere in the article then the rest of the tree does not belong as it is listed immidatly follwing the graphic. Dalf | Talk 03:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Part 2 (Updating who can qualify in what positions)

I came to this article wanting to find out who could qualify in what positions. I then found a column called "Possible Teams" for the last 16. But then I saw Poland were still listed as a possible "1st in Group A". I removed the Polish flag and got reverted. This is silly. Regardless of pedantic arguments that countries could be ejected from the competition, I want to see something in the article about the possible permutations. I was also hoping to find some discussion or listing of the possible permutations that still allow Poland to qualify for the last 16 and Germany to fail to qualify for the last 16.

So please, is it possible to have:

• The 1st and 2nd place boxes updated to show who can and cannot reach those positions (eg. Remove Poland from potential 1st place candidates for Group A)
• A colour to show actual qualification for the next round (in either 2nd or 1st place) (eg. If Ecuador win or draw against Costa Rica, then Germany qualify but exact position is not known)
• A colour to show qualification in 1st place.
• A colour to show qualification in second place.
• A colour to show who can no longer qualify (eg. If Ecuador win or draw against Costa Rica, then Poland cannot qualify)

At the moment, the a,b,x,y superscript labels are not clear. Colours would be better. They also do not make clear who could meet in the last 16. Removing the flags from the "Possible teams" column would make this clearer - eg. team finishing second in group B cannot play Poland. For example, if England win tonight and Sweden draw, then England have clinched first and will not play Poland. Removing flags as the permutations get less would make this clearer. Carcharoth 12:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - it makes complete sense to do it that way - Obviously the teams name would be included in the knock-out draw, once the permutation is down to one anyway... --Nunners 12:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

An example of permutations is at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup_-_Group_A. This sort of thing may not be suitable for the main article, and can get rather tedious anyway, but is there a precedent for this sort of thing in other Wikipedia sports articles? Please note that the text has been written in an encyclopedic style as if someone was reading about Group A of the 2006 World Cup 10 years from now. It is not, of course, written "news" style... Carcharoth 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Your listing of permutations is a very well thought-out and written, Caracharoth, but I personally wouldn't like to see a huge chunk of extra text like that added to every group in the main article, I think it would detract from the quality of the article..... ChrisTheDude 13:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, the listing of permutations is very tedious. I wouldn't propose adding those. But what about using 1,2,3,4 superscripts or entries in a column (to indicate possible finishing positions) for each team after each set of games? One problem with this is that it would indicate that a team technically could still qualify, even if it depended on both final games having 7-0 results or something. That would miss the point. Which is why the best solution might be for the overview summary of each group to include text summarising how the possibilities developed during the playing of the group games, with example permuatations to explain things where necessary. Should Wikipedia document how a group developed, rather than just recording the results and final positions? Carcharoth 13:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that using colours is clearer. Anyone who knows how to use the colours coding, please feel free to implement them.Kiwi8 13:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It is "silly" to remove the flags because eventually you will have to remove three flags and then have the first column duplicating the second one. The second column shows all the teams who competed to get into the next round as does the third and the fourth column. In exactly the same way the first column is listing all four flags and shows who competied for the spots in the second column. this seems entirely logical to me. Jooler 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

But the first column is not showing who competed for the spots in the second column. It is showing Possible teams that still have chances of making the next round in that position. As for your objection that the first column will duplicate the second, just rewrite the table when that point is reached. Once the groups are finished, the column can go back to just showing who competed in each round. At the moment, every country is listed twice in the first column - now that is silly. Carcharoth 14:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also feel that the 4 countries' flags should not be removed even after the group games have finished. This is to show the group that any group winner or runner-up came from. Kiwi8 14:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed the first column should remain as it is even after the the group stage is over to show who competed for the second knockout stage. That way you can see the whole competition in one simple graphic. Jooler 14:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I am talking about: User:Carcharoth/World_Cup_table. Carcharoth 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No I dun think we should remove the flags. All 4 should still be there. The equation stating the possibilities of who qualifies should be limited to words and phrases.Kiwi8 15:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

As this issue is currently being debated, I would suggest that everyone refrain from making changes to the knockout section until a clear consensus is established, lest we start an edit war. --DKNeko 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Some people in this discussion seem to think that all 4 country flags will remain in column 1 even after the group games have finished. In fact, the intended process is to switch from Template:Round16-waiting to Template:Round16, when 'only the last 16 will be shown. Carcharoth 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, there are at least some users who don't. --DKNeko 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Why should we do that? What's the point of showing less information? If the Template:Round16-waiting is retained it shows the whole competition in one graphic. The mock-up that you made illustrates my point. What's the point in duplicating Emgland in the first and second columns ? Jooler 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Template:Round16 has been used in the previous World Cup articles, and less redundant information is usually good for Wikipedia. You don't need to show the same thing over and over 3 to 4 times. --Palffy 19:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest we rename the "Possible Teams" heading to something like "Teams in Group." "Possible Teams" is too confusing for the average reader. The knockout stage should have all four teams in the graphic. Only when the group is finalized should the graphic be updated. In each individual group, we should have colors to indicate who has qualified (which, at the time of this writing, Group A had the top two teams colored green). No color should be for eliminated teams, nor should a color be added for second-place teams. I think the superscript letters are rather confusing, and should either be (1) removed, or (2) revised to make logical sense. As for scenarios, I propose: [Example, Group A]:

• Germany can qualify in first by:
  1. Winning the match against Ecuador by a margin of two or more.
• Ecuador can qalify in first by:
  1. Winning the match against Germany.
  2. Drawing the match against Germany.
  3. Losing the match against Germany by a margin of 1.

What do you think? Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually Germany just need to win against Ecuador to qualify in first. Ecuador just need to draw or win to qualify in first. The margin of an Ecuador loss to Germany doesn't need to be taken into consideration. Kiwi8 15:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I also noticed that England was listed as only a first-place team. If Sweden wins its final two matches, England would finish second. Just an observation Floydspinky71 18:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. Something definitely needed to indicate elimination and qualification, though it would be nice to distinguish between "qualification without placing decided" and qualification in a specific spot (1st or 2nd). I tried to see what Wikipedia did in the last World Cup, and had a good laugh looking at this. Maybe things were better in Euro 2004? Carcharoth 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that removing the flags from the knockout section is the procedure for World Cups 1998 and 2002. Might I suggest that we follow the trend? --DKNeko 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What you mean is that they are currently using Template:Round16. We have to go back to 2002 to see what happened with regard to knocking flags out which is what we are arguing about here. Actually I was planning to replace the Template:Round16 template used on those pages with the Template:Round16-waiting one as it shows more information. Jooler

Actually, since that template is "to use when the last 16 of a cup are not already known.", and some people at least would like to have such a template, it might be best to copy it and create a new template that you can use to show the whole tournament from group stages to final, rather than altering an existing template. Call it "tournament32 groups and last16" or something - to indicate that it is for a tournament of 32 teams that has a groups stage followed by a last 16 stage. Carcharoth 15:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The words "Possible teams" were added to the template by User:Palffy and confused matters. Jooler 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I decided to clarify the issue before anyone else got around to it. I do not believe that your side is making a very good argument in showing that something that has been seen hundreds of times over (I'm sure just about everyone knows which team is in which group) needs to be included, instead of something that helps clarify something to the reader. --Palffy 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting dizzy with all this changing. Last time I came the key said x & y, then I get reverted with an angry message on my talk page saying it's green, yellow & red, I come back and use that, and some other guy decides green simply means qualification. Can't we simply decide? And as we're at it, I think the page should be semi-protected. It's awefully difficult to keep track of petty vandalism with all these numbers flying around and at the same time the traffic would be reduced somewhat (it's simply frustrating to get 5 edit conflicts in a row, and while you're checking what went wrong another edit occurs; races against time make no good edits). _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit summary by User:Palffy "22:17, 15 June 2006 Palffy (→Knockout stages - rv vandalism by Rodri316) " - accusations of vandalism are not helpful. There are at least a five or six editors who do not want the flags knocked out. You caused the confusion by changing the template. Please refrain from making changes until there is an agreement on what format should be used. Jooler 21:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Now because User:Palffy can't have it his way he decides to make it even less useful by replacing Template:Round16-waiting with Template:Round16. I'm way past the 3RR and I know for sure he is. This is just ridculous. I would call for a vote but voting is evil apparently. Also using that template we've got no idea what should go in the boxes as the groups are not shown. I think this is called WP:POINT - Jooler 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you take a break Jooler. If Palffy's not giving in that's the best you can do. This place would make an angel go red, heh. It will take the correct form when he gets tired of checking the page every 5 minutes :P

On another note, I just remembered how these qualification situations are handled in correspondence chess, in particular at ICCF. Sure qualifiers are given a shade (say green), and sure placings are shown by making the place number in bold - point being that if you're sure of coming, say first, you therefore must already be placed first! In the case of the ICCF there's no "certain non-qualification" though one can easily make that a red shade. To implement this, though, we would have to add a place column at the far left. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 21:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I'm not the only person making these changes. There are at least 20-30 other people who have contributed to deleting the flags of those who are no longer qualified for those spots and a few have supported this in the discussion--so please, refrain for saying that I am the only person for this. HOWEVER, I have been coming up with multiple counterproposals that get shot down immediately by the likes of Jooler. Someone has to make a concession and I've certainly done my part.

Secondly, look at what the original creator of the template has just left on my discussion page! Hello, When i created this template, I thought flags of eliminated teams would be erased from Group Stage boxes, to imagine last 16 matches more easily, because finally this template become ununsed when the last 16 are all known. You did it too early. Khardan 22:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC). Khardan 22:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC) My english is bad, like our football team, I know The original creator not-surprisingly created the template for the same reasons as I and many others have been vouching for ;)!

In the meantime, I think the current state is the best solution if you guys aren't willing to make some sort of a concession. The section has been left alone for over 4 hours with no changes made to it. --Palffy 00:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Your "multiple counterproposals " - have been to a) confuse matters by putting the words "possible teams" on the first column thereby making people think that is should only contain the teams who can mathematically fill the spot on the second column, b) duplicate all four flag in the first column into the second column to make the table look ugly and c) remove the left hand column entirely, the last of which is just plain stupid. What we now have doesn't show anything useful at all in the knockout block. There is no way of knowing who is going to go into the boxes on the left hand side because you have removed all context. Why can't you jusr leave the boxes the way they were. It's doesn't matter what the original creator of the template envisioned, this is Wikipedia, things change. But is it usefull to show the whole competition in one simple graphic. The first column showing all 32 teams, the second column showing 16 etc. Jooler 01:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are you counterproposals? Oh that's right, you have none. Responding to a), I clarified what I believe should have gone in those boxes because there was an all-out edit war. There's nothing confusing here, because apparently, that's what the original author intended. b) was one of my counter-proposals. I don't think its ugly, however it demonstrates both of our points--ie, what I want to see on that chart and what you want to see on that chart, even if its slightly unpretty to the eye. c) In response to your 'stupid' comment, I think you're detrimental to Wikipedia. Apparently, I'm not the only person you've annoyed--judging from your history, that is. What we have now is a middle-ground in which no side apparently profits. There is good reasoning behind this edit, in that it looks identical to all the other knock-out diagrams during the previous World Cups. If you were interested in knowing who was going to go into the boxes on the left hand side, perhaps you would've agreed with the one of the previously-presented options or come up with your own, instead of starting yet another an edit war. I must however apologize for bringing myself down to your level and calling you a 'troll'. --Palffy 02:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that regardless of what is decided on the issue, Palffy acted very aggressively calling us trolls and claiming we made no proposals instead of trying to effectively work out a solution. But anyways, enough fighting; I think not having any flags but the letter of the group like it is now works just fine, especially because of the "possible qualification positions" described in the individual Group sections. Rodri316 02:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already apologized for calling you guys trolls, but I think Jooler's actions, with my repeated attempts to communicate with him, and his complete ignorance of the matter, led me to that unfortunate resort. I stand firm on claiming that you made no proposals in the meantime--if there's something I'm missing, post away. --Palffy 03:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

"with my repeated attempts to communicate with him" - Are there any messages from you on my talk page? No. What repeated attempts? Everything is on this page for everyone to see. I put up the first message on this matter trying to communicate with you, that was after you edited the page to have this ridiculous duplication. I also put up messages in my edit summaries requesting dicussion on talk. You responded by making accusations of vandalism. Jooler 03:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tht way this page is now (assuming someone isn't changing it while I'm typing) is using Template:Round16 and there is no way to figure out which team will go in which slot, which group winner is going to be competing in Stuttgart 25 June ? Who knows? - it's a half-right bad choice. Jooler 03:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to compromise between something right and something wrong you end up with something half-right which is no good to anyone. The way it was before you started fiddling with it was right and your half-right counter-proposals were all poor choices. I have just changed the 2002 FIFA World Cup page to use the Template:Round16-waiting - which I think looks much better as you can see who teams were competing against to get to the last 16 and shows the whole compeition in one graphic. Jooler 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, that does like nice because now you can see out of which teams the qualifying team was "first" or "second." Rodri316 03:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I will personally agree to these changes, (I don't know about the others who support me on this matter), if YOU make these changes for ALL of the World Cups (and they have to look normal and not distorted as it appears right now), then you should be allowed to make these changes to the 2006 World Cup article ;) --Palffy 03:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean distorted? If you mean because it doesn't go ABCD down etc.. that's because that's the way the groups were labelled and line up. Blame FIFA Jooler 03:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what it looks like on my browser, [2] (there was some error when you copied it from the 06 version probably.. --Palffy 03:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Ie, your edit is non-compliant with Firefox, but it shows up fine in IE (which I just double checked). See msg above on how to solve this.. --Palffy 03:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It goes like that if you squish the page horizontally, but it goes like that with Template:Round16 too. How do you reckon you fix it? Jooler 04:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I fixed the Template: Round of 16-waiting, so it now appears properly in Firefox as well..I also reverted Pal's edit to your last version, so that you may carry on with you changes, Jooler. --Palffy 04:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello everybody. When I created the template Template:Round16-waiting on wikipedia-fr (and after imported it to wikipedia-en), I imagined it living from the seed (november 2005) until the last of the last 16 is known, removing flags from the first column, when teams can't anymore qualify for the match of round 16, and replacing with First or Second when the 2 teams qualified of a group are known (to avoid double team names beetween fist and second column)). So, this template should be used about 8 months every 4 years. As you can see, the matchs of final, semi-finals and quarter final of this template are not wide enough to accept long team names as Trinidad-and Tobago or Serbia-and-Montenegro until the final match, without ungracious style (boxes with 2 lines instead of one). But in fact, for this template, these matches won't never be filled because it must be replaced with template Template:Round16 and easily (removing the last lines of the template call) like in older world cups. It was my view of the use of this template, and I see that it's having its own life here. Khardan 18:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC). Sorry for my poor english. Can I say that I support Zizou ?

Part 3 (Jooler's Proposal)

Here's is what every World Cup edition would look like according to Jooler, which I something I can agree to [3]. Does anyone have any issues with this? --Palffy 04:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, see here. - Pal 04:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there is only one logical solution. One page (2006_FIFA_World_Cup) where the flags are NOT removed, and another page (FIFA_World_Cup_2006) where the flags ARE removed. Everyone's a winner! - Fmgazette 17:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I strongly agree with Jooler/Palffy. The final chart should provide the most amount of information within it, which means keeping the group stage section and keeping all four flags. Deleting the flags is pointless, because it hides useful information (who was in the group) and provides no extra information that can't be found by looking just one place to the right. I'd be for a straw poll to decide this. — Asbestos | Talk (RFC) 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll Bornagain4

Own goals

Unless there is serious objection, I'm going to go ahead and remove the listing of own goals under the top scorers section. It's not really something that you pay too much attention to in football. I mean, just as you wouldn't have a list of who commited the most errors in a World Series in baseball, no one keeps a tally of own goals in football, especially as its unlikely anyone will score more than one. Hammer Raccoon 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, scrap that. It seems that most of the World Cup pages on Wikipedia keep a tally of it...I'll stick with the convention, although I still think it probably doesn't need to be there. Hammer Raccoon 12:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually its own subheading under the "Goals Scored" section. Presumably to eventually preempt any confusion when the goals scored tally at the top doesn't match the one from the bottom if we deleted the own goal. Batman2005 13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Cahill or David Villa...

It's not true that Tim Cahill or David Villa were the first people in 72 years to score twice in their world cup debut. It's happened in at least the last THREE tournaments. Miroslav Klose got three in his debut game in 2002 against Saudi Arabia. In 1994 Gabriel Batistuta scored three goals in his world cup debut game against Greece. Marius Lăcătuş scored two goals for Romania during his World Cup debut game in 1990. Batman2005 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one...Yaremchuk scored twice against Hungary for Russia in his debut game in 1986. Batman2005 13:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly people are counting debut goals in World Cup qualification games, rather than just the games in the Finals stage (the bit happening now)? Carcharoth 13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Stoppage time goals

Journalistic convention is to write goal times as 45+1' or 90+3' (for example), rather than 46'+ or 93'+. See Champions League converage on ITV. Mjefm 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA convention is to record them as 93+' we've discussed this already and chose to go with FIFA as we're using FIFA for sources on each game, not ITV. Batman2005 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Round of 16 vs Second Round

Is there any reason why the first round after the group stage is referred to as the "Round of 16" and not the "Second Round"? I've never heard it referred to as anything but the latter... Dtsazza 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It can be called both. It is called the Last 16, Round of 16, etc, because there are 16 teams in that round. Compare with "Last 8" and "Last 4" for quarter-finals and semi-finals. Carcharoth 15:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It was called Last 16 until someone changed the template. I've changed it back Jooler 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard Eighthfinals too Rodri316 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's officially called the "Round of 16" by FIFA, and since they run the tournament we should refer to it as such. - Pal 13:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The Round of 16 has 16 teams in it. It is the second round of the tournament. Therefore both are correct. Kingjeff 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard "Round of 16" used anywhere ever before. FIFA's bizarre terminology and the English language are sometimes at odds. Jooler 15:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I read somewhere (I don't remeber where , though) that Round 1 is the group stage, and Round 2 is everything else (ie - the Round of 16, quarterfinals, semifinals, third place match and final). So, Round of 16 and Round 2 are not the same thing. Now, to find that source... Mindmatrix 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, according to the FIFA source cited above, it's Stages 1 and 2 (instead of Round). I didn't have to go far for that one! Mindmatrix 15:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you mean stages and not rounds. Within the knockout stage, you have the round of 16, Quarters, semis and the final. Kingjeff 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Possible confusion...

I think I understand the confusion now. It was over two meanings of "Possible teams":

• "Possible teams" is a listing of the teams in the group from which it is possible to qualify to that position in the Last 16 (a static non-changing list).
• "Possible teams" is a listing of the teams for whom it is still possible to qualify for that last 16 position (a dynamic, changing list).

I still think people will come to this page wanting to see who has qualified, who can still qualify, and to where they can qualify (ie. which position in the last 16). Superscript markings won't be very helpful - colours are better. And having each last 16 position filled with four candidates that are gradually eliminated is a graphic way of illustrating the process. Maybe a new template is needed that will show both the whole group, and the whittling away of teams that are eliminated. Carcharoth 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The words "Possible teams" were added to the template by User:Palffy and confused matters. Jooler 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

See my response in 'Updating who can qualify in what positions' and 'Knockout stage flags' above. Palffy 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

STOP!

England can come in second, Sweden and Paraguay can still come in first, Trinidad and Tobago can still go through, the only scenario that can't happen at this point is England NOT going through to the second stage or Trinidad finishing first! Batman2005 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Trinidad and Tobago is not out yet. They have a chance, and depending of the outcome of today's second game in the group, it may turn out to be a good chance actually. (Especially a draw, or even a Praguay win.) --TimBits 18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said they were out, just that they can't finish first as if they win their next game they'll have 4 points to Englands already established 6. Batman2005 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I know, I wrote in support of you and against the removal of the T-T flag. --TimBits 18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, well thanks buddy! Batman2005 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Group B

Here is the situation as it stands: England just beat Trinidad and Tobago 2-0 to go to 6 points; second is Sweden, on 1 point; Trinidad third, 1 point; Paraguay bottom, no points.

The three remaining games are Paraguay - Sweden (tonight), England - Sweden (next Tuesday) and Paraguay - Trinidad (Tuesday).

If Sweden beat Paraguay tonight, that puts them on 4 points; then beating England in their final game will put them top of the group on 7 points and England second on 6.

If Sweden draw with Paraguay, that puts Sweden on 2 points and Paraguay on 1, at which point England's group lead is unassailable and second place depends on whether Sweden can beat England (Sweden second), or if that match is a draw then the winners of Paraguay - Trinidad, goal difference pending (or Sweden if it's drawn).

If Paraguay beat Sweden tonight, that puts Paraguay on 3 points - but they can't overhaul England's 6 points because England beat them already. Second place then, again, depends on both results.

In summary; any team can still come second, but only England or Sweden can still come first.

Kinitawowi 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If Paraguay beats sweden tonight, and then beats trinidad and tobago...England loses to sweden then it would come down to goal differential between England and Paraguay, if Paraguay wins by enough they can still come in first. Head to head doesn't come into play in the World Cup, the first tie-breaker is goal differential in all group matches. So...you're almost right. Batman2005 18:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Paraguay can still theoretically win the group, yes, it is goal difference first. But considering the situation in the next group, it may not worth much in the end. --TimBits 18:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What happens if next Sweden lose to England 1-0. And Trinidad & Tobago beat Paraguay 1-0.... Sweden and Trinidad will have exactly the same points and goal difference... the match between the two was a draw, so it couldn't be decided by that, what would happen? - Deathrocker 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiebreaking criteria #6. Drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup. --TimBits 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

During World Cup

Will someone please clarify the "During World Cup" link that sits below the two Archive links at the top of this page? It leads to a redirect that leads nowhere. -- Alias Flood 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Way too much forking

Woah! Do we really need all these forks??

• List of 2006 FIFA World Cup officials
• List of 2006 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights
• Sponsorship for the 2006 FIFA World Cup
• Crime Concerns at the 2006 FIFA World Cup
• 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany

Are all these topics really encyclopedic?? Is anyone going to look at the list of broadcasting rights even one day after the tournament is over? And how about "miscellany"? You might as well just call it "random trivia". I really don't think that all these forks are really warrented. — 199 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

From what I can gather, all of the above articles were created because of the immense size of the article. Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, after the World Cup has ended, the Football Article Improvement Drive, or more experienced editors can reduce the clutter at a later time. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

This list has expanded... At the very least, the naming of all these articles should be standardized. I've gone ahead, been bold and did that as well as fixing any double redirects...

1. 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification
2. 2006 FIFA World Cup seeding
3. 2006 FIFA World Cup squads
4. 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A
5. 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group B
6. 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group C
7. 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group D
8. 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group E
9. 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group F
10. 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group G
11. 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group H
12. 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar
13. 2006 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record
14. List of 2006 FIFA World Cup officials
15. 2006 FIFA World Cup crime concerns
16. List of 2006 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights
17. 2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship
18. 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany

These separate articles are going to be hard to keep updated and synched (not to mention well referenced within each article...). For example the disciplinary record section has been added to in the main article, but the larger more comprehensive article is out of date now... the info needs to be added to the correct locations... This is becoming a rapid pain in the ass... Paul^C/_T+ 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To help with keeping the tables for the groups synchronised, I suggest using templates for the tables and using these templates in 2006 FIFA World Cup, 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A, etc. Carcharoth 21:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes: this article needs forking until it does not get n-hundred edits a day. It will be a pain keeping track of the subarticles, but it will be easier that dealing with the edit conflicts on one mega-article. -- ALoan (Talk) 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't look so bad now... maybe even forking the goals section temporarily? It has been out of date for a few days now anyway... The "See also" section helps because it got rid of all those tiny one line sections... Paul^C/_T+ 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Although, if the n-hundred edits a day were the problem, why not just fork the actual games and leave the rest of the content in one place? this way there is only one or two articles that need to be moved back instead of like seven. Paul^C/_T+ 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I like it Bornagain4 01:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

'And' vs '&' (Trinidad, Serbia, Tobago, Montenegro)

Sometimes '&' is used, sometimes 'and'. Is this just for spacing reasons or can all instances of '&' be replaced with 'and' as per the article naming scheme? Paul^C/_T+ 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

"&" is used to abbreviate generally; the correct spelling uses "and". Rodri316 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

What Happens

Say the scores come out like this for Group B.

England - 6 Trinidad - 4 Sweden - 4 Paraguay - 0

How do they decide who advances for #2?

• Goal differential, look at the "Tie Breaking Criteria" in the article for exactly how. Batman2005 02:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Those scores are impossible though. 9 4 4 0 for the tie. For T&T to go through, their margin of win and Sweden's margin of loss has to total at least 3, in which case they would supposedly win the tie by GF given that Tobago score at least 1 goal more than Sweden on the final day. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 09:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Link from Time!

This page has been linked from time.com http://www.time.com/time/europe/2006/wcup/blogs/060615crumley.html Borisblue 02:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tables in one section

I wanted to see what other users thought of having all the Group Tables in one section instead of having them under each group section. I know its usually normal to have the table under each group but I think having one section to see all the groups and qualification at this point of the tournament would help instead of having to scroll down and look at each table. The tables could be put back as soon as the qualification rounds are complete. Any thoughts?

I think that is a great idea... in fact, I feel that the group sections should be moved entirely as there are separate articles for them. Leave the tables as standings and just point to the main articles. there is no reason to have to update this information twice. Paul^C/_T+ 05:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Then again it would take ages to see the scores if they're clustered onto 8 articles. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 09:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nav Box

I've made a little Nav Box - it need logo, colour work, layout etc, but it's a start. Over to you...

Rich Farmbrough 09:27 16 June 2006 (GMT).

External links policy

Can we have a policy about external links? I think what we have now is fine with the possible exception of the charity and ESPN. But can we agree to remove any added external links unless there is agreement on the talk page? They have a similar policy on the Sudoku (Talk:Sudoku#Proposed External Link) page Jooler 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sudoku is a game, this is an event. Sites covering the event in detail (say BBC, ESPN...) can possibly be included in such an article. I'm not saying they should, just that the Sudoku article is not a good comparison. Maybe there's a wiki guideline lying somewhere. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 14:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Top Goal-scorer?

In the Golden Boot section, it is asserted that Just Fontaine is the top goal-scorer ever in a World Cup, yet on his own article it states 'This tally secured him the Golden Boot for that tournament, and his total of 13 remains the second greatest number of goals scored in a single World Cup tournament.'... I sense a conflict here... 130.195.86.37 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Stadium Photos

Now, i'm generally all for photo's on wikipedia articles, but do we really need the stadium photos on this page? We've already got a list of venues with each's wikipedia page linked...simply clicking on those pages will take you to the exact same photo's we have here. As is all the stadium photos are doing is making the page longer and more difficult to navigate. Opinions? Batman2005 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. — 199 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Group C Team incorrectly Marked Matemtically eliminated

Serbia and Montenegro are not mathematically eliminated yet, Netherlands loosing the next two games and a Serbia and Montenegro win could result in a three-way tie for second place. Dcorrin 15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah agree. I think there're still a lot of people who still think that 6 points equals automatic qualification and 0 points with 1 game to go equals automatic elimination. Hope that there will not be such assumptions in future. Kiwi8 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Tiebreaking

The article currently says

If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked as follows: Goal difference in all group matches. Greatest number of goals scored in all group matches. Greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned. Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned. Greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned. Drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup.

Surely 4 is irrelevant. If you can't break the tie on 3, then the two teams must have played to a draw in which case the "Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned" will be the same. Jooler 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It is possible when there is a 3-way tie. Then there are 3 games between the 3 teams to be considered. Remember the case where Italy went out in the first round during Euro 2004 by Denmark and Sweden?Kiwi8 16:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain this to me in English. The "futbol" speak is confusing me.

When teams are tied based on points (W = 3, T = 1) Take the Goal differentials of each team (Goals Scored BY team [GF] - Goals Scored ON the team [GA] = Goal Differential [GD]). Highest value advances.

If that's still a tie, then just simply look at the [GF] Column. Highest Advances

If at this point its still a tie, ignore ANY stats that involve teams that aren't part of the tie.

Check the points now, just between the teams in question.

If it's STILL a tie after that, then you do the Goal Differential thing again except just between the teams who are tied.

If it's STILL a tie, just look at who got the most amount of goals between the teams who are tied. Highest Advances.

And if for some miraculous situation after all that its STILL tied... they get to pull straws or something official to see who goes on. Nothing like randomness. Hope that made sense.ScottNak 16:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanx, it really did.

Chaotic editing

I think the editing has gotted very chaotic. Do you guys agree that we should restrict editing to users with user names? Thanks in advance. Kiwi8 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nope, I don't think so at least, chaotic editing isn't necessarily a reason for semi-protecting a page. Wikipedia encourages all editors to sign up, but doesn't mandate it. If various anon's start vandalising, then I would support semi-protection to only registered users, however...I wouldn't support it just because a lot of people are editing. Batman2005 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of article has already been deemed inappropriate. Case closed. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Table Changes?

I don't think that the new table looks are an improvement to what it was before. The table with the Stadiums (Stadia?) has the huge map now embedded within it. It unnecessarily stretches the page. Is it possible to thumbnail that map like the "qualified natiosn" map? (I would do it... but the details of the pic looks a little weird to me...) ScottNak 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't fit on a standard screen. Rich Farmbrough 17:53 16 June 2006 (GMT).

Equation

What happened to the equation part underneath the group sections? Bornagain4 17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)- :moved to the group articles I think. Rich Farmbrough 17:54 16 June 2006 (GMT).