Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Group C

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Football (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

After The First Game[edit]

The green lines on these templates indicate who will be going on to the next round, but due to the victory of Slovenia, it's somewhat complicated.

If there we no more games, what would happen is....

  • Slovenia would advance
  • Algeria would not advance
  • England and the United States would be in between advancing and not advancing.

I think the green line should reflect this until the next game potentially changes the dynamic of the group. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is just confusing people. the line is there to show that the top two teams qualify. This is the system that's been used for a long time. Two lines currently indicate that 3 teams could qualify chandler 17:19, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You're right. The green line is confusing. So i've decided to remove all the green lines with green fill ins for the teams that would advance at the present time. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
The green line is not confusing at all. It shows that the top two places qualify for the next round. When a team is guaranteed to have qualified, the background for that team's row is changed to a pale green. What could be simpler? – PeeJay 21:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
It would be simpler if it was accurate. Right now in Group C, neither England nor the US would advance over the other, so the green line should only portray which teams should advance. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Like I said, the line does not show that either team has qualified over another, only that the teams that finish in the top two places will qualify. How are you having trouble with this concept? – PeeJay 21:34, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
First off, I would remind you to retain some civility here and address the concept rather than address me. And on that note, currently England and the US share the second spot. Putting a green line between them is misleading and inappropriate, but putting a green line below them also doesn't fit.
The is not confusing at all. It is temporary and its purpose is clear. Digirami (talk) 07:21, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with keeping the line between second and third place. It does not indicate who is will qualify but that the top two teams will qualify. Also according to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/standings/index.html the order is correct. If the green line changes to reflect who has a chance of qualifying you must change it for all other templates where there's a draw. In Group A that would mean a green line below all of teams, which of course is a silly thing to do. Also, currently, all teams have a chance of qualifying even if they've lost their first match and particularly in the groups where no matches have yet been played. There does not seem to be any confusion on those groups. And there wasn't any confusion here before the first matches were contested. I don't really think that there is any confusion here now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Every UK news source I have checked is using the same system, the green line stays in a constant position. This also applies during football seasons, the lines for promotion and relegation stay there from the start to the end. Why should Wikipedia decide it needs to use its own special system? --Taelus (Talk) 08:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Keep the green line. It isn't confusing, and not using it would in theory breach WP:RS since almost every reliable source seems to. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
FIFA has an internal tie-breaking process in mind when they post positions in each group, which is why they have US listed as 2nd, and England third. As such, since the green line merely denotes teams who are in 1st or 2nd according to FIFA, the green line is a) sensible, and b) used elsewhere. Kudos to the WP:TROUT below by the way, and those who deserved it now smell like wet trout (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, stricktly speaking it was just a {{minnow}}... ;-) TFOWR 18:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
If this was the final table, criterion 7 (drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee) would be used, so unless this has already been done they are in equal positions. It isn't clear from the FIFA website, as it shows the tables with lines but without positions. There are reliable sources (The Guardian and The New York Times) that put England above the US; both of these show the tables without lines. A note below the table would be more useful – the line would be unnecessary, and the meaning would be clear. snigbrook (talk) 18:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Things will change tomorrow, so it doesn't really matter - but it is confusing to be in this order. In most such cases tied teams are ordered by alphabetical order, it wasn't so it looks deliberately in another order, therefore I had to discover why. If it's a copy of FIFA's arbitrary order can't we at least detail this on the page? Else scores more people will have to discover the reasoning behind the order. 90.5.192.84 (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently England was the home side so I can only assume that the US is ahead on away goals. And things may change tomorrow. If both England and the US have the same scoreline, things won't change. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There is no mention of away goals, or whether they exist in this situation. They are not mentioned in the tie-breaking criteria – see 2010 FIFA World Cup#Group stage and article 39 of the regulations. snigbrook (talk) 13:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Full protection[edit]

Requested. It is beyond me that people think edit warring is ever going to resolve disputes like this. If more eyes are needed, raise an RfC or take it to 3O for additional comments. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, and fully protected for three days. And for the several editors involved:

Follow me to join the secret cabal!

Plip!

.

You all should know better. Next time the fish will be bigger. TFOWR 10:31, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from LarryJeff, 16 June 2010[edit]

{{editprotected}} Insert the following in the "scenarios" section of the template:

In matches to be played on 18 June

  • Slovenia will advance to the knockout stage if they defeat United States
  • Algeria will be eliminated if they lose to England

LarryJeff (talk) 19:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Oppose While the other templates have included scenarios, it's just a waste of space and isn't encyclopedic. The material will be removed in just under 48 hours. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Speaking as a lazy admin who (briefly) considered this request: protection ends in about 13 hours time. If there is a consensus to add this before then, I'll do it, but it would be good if you could provide easy-to-follow instructions. (I saw the scenarios section at the bottom of the template, I'm guessing it goes there, but my ideal would be if you created a sandbox copy of the template - then I can simply rip that off). TFOWR 20:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose THANK YOU for not doing this ... the templates show STANDINGS, not what-if scenarios. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    No worries. I'm trying to get into the habit of allowing 24 hours or so, to give time for opposes to emerge. At least, that's the reason I gave the judge and I'm sticking to it... TFOWR 20:25, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    In theory, they are not even supposed to request it via the template unless they actually have consensus for it. So, if you see no consensus for it when you arrive, decline (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, this is complicating the templates. Just stick with the tables, in this format, as offered by many reliable news sources. If readers want analysis of all possible scenarios, they should seek out one of these news sites. It falls outside the scope of an encyclopedic project to forecast and advise on future events and occurances. --Taelus (Talk) 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment If I'm reading the template correctly, it is specifically designed to have these types of scenarios in it. The pages that transclude this template may then show or not show it by including the "yes" portion to the template (or not). See: Template:2010_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_A/doc --Siradia (talk) 22:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
    That does not mean that it should be there (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Looking at the group c discussion page, the agreement was to put it in the template. Now the template discussion is wanting to put it in the group page. We have a circular argument resulting in nothing getting done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.58 (talk) 15:45, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

why are[edit]

USA ahead of Engerland in teh table? —Preceding unsigned comment added by SFD(NR!) (talkcontribs) 21:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody knows. That's the way they have it on FIFA.com, so you'll have to ask FIFA. – PeeJay 21:28, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A...that's why. What PeeJay said works too. --75.168.95.111 (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
You forgot the "sucks" after each USA. It's a tradition in our house, but the main reason is that FIFA has it that way in their table. Likely ahead on away goals. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

"Scenarios" Edit request from Homsar773, 17 June 2010[edit]

{{editprotected}} In matches to be played on 18 June

  • Slovenia will advance to the knockout stage if they defeat United States
  • Algeria will be eliminated if they lose to England


Sorry, I did not see that this request has already been made. Homsar773 (talk) 09:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Worth noting that the protection ends in an hour. I strongly recommend, however, that you discuss your proposed change here, first. As you can see from the thread above, this is a controversial request. If there is any edit-warring on this template I will protect it again. For longer. And then I'll {{minnow}} you all. Again. Possibly with a bigger fish. TFOWR 09:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Odd error for template[edit]

In the template, US's points appeared as 56.5. I checked the source code to see if there was a typo, and then it was gone. I just wanted to point this out.hidividedby5 (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

It was fixed here by a kindly IP ;-) TFOWR 16:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)