Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup

message: Since the talk on the 2006 is way too long, and the issue not quite the same, I'm responding here.  I fail to see the need for a listing of the group stage teams in the Knockout stages section.  If a reader wants to know who came out of what group there's an entire section on the group stages. - Pal 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Other than giving the reader some finger excercise by making him scroll up the page, what useful purpose does leaving this information out provide? Jooler 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's actually more relavant on the 2006 page, because we are hoping that this would be a solution to the edit war that has been taking place. We're considering changing the Knockout stage to a tournament-inclusive bracket for all of the World Cups. Please read the issue to familiarize yourself with the issue we're having and make a case on the 2006 page. Thanks, --Palffy 04:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've read what's over there, and it still doesn't make sense to refer to group play in the knockout round.  I wouldn't have a problem if you used the bracket that includes group play in a separate section somewhere else in the article (after the final or before group play?) and removed the one from the knockout stage. - Pal 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It makes perfect sense to show which groups the last 16 came from and whether they finished first or second. It gives context to the knockout stages. It shows that they weren't put in those boxes in random order and shows how teams would have faired if they had finished in the other slot.  Jooler 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the change I just made. This gives group context without suggesting that the group play round is part of the knockout stage. I feel this is a good compromise, but if you disagree you can revert it and we'll continue discussing it. - Pal 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of the two, the more graphical Jooler's edit is a better representation...::shrug:: --Palffy 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: What the heck happend to this section? Can anyone make sense out of it? I've no idea how to read this table.sikander 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Can we simply use this format ? Its easy to read for everyone. sikander 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But what do you think of this format? Jooler 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perfect; simple and easy to understand. sikander 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knockout stages 

message: the bracket diagram is messed up (Turkey and Brazil seemed to be switched).
This guy is vandalizing the page: 81.155.3.180
--Peripatetic 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up.  I think I got most of it; everyone check to make sure I didn't miss any. - Pal 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism Alert

message: I was wondering if the article should have links to the match reports, as per the 2006 FIFA World Cup article. Is there any reason not to? The reports seem to be available from two locations:
*The 2006 FIFA World Cup site
*The 2002 FIFA World Cup site
I can't find the 1998 world cup site... so on the assumption that FIFA are going to move the reports around every few years, would linking to the 2006 site be better? --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've opted for using the reports from the 2002 site for the time being, as they're more complete. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match reports 

message: I added an awards section for every world cup. I don't know if you like the format I have it in, but I do think it is important that we have these awards for each tournaments article. Let me know what you guys think.Squadoosh 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great! However, should it also include the silver ball and bronze ball awards? Or maybe not? (Just an idea.) --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think maybe not because in the link to the "Golden Shoe" and also the Awards link on the bottom the page provides who won the Silver and Bronze balls...lol. Thanks. Squadoosh 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awards 

message: I really like the idea of having a full team ranking for each World Cup. Someone else do not and keeps deleting it. In past World Cups FIFA has adopted it to decide which teams could go through the knockout stages, and they are still using in World Cup Qual stages. And It is very good to give an idea of a team's overall performance in the cup. I would like to know why you keep deleting it (and please do not reply that it compares apples with oranges, because it does not).--130.251.4.11 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If FIFA use it, I'd like to see some justification for its removal. I personally think that the third place play-off is nonsense, but you don't see me removing that from any articles. --StuartBrady (Talk) 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FIFA don't use it as it was presented here. It is a piece of OR and has no place here. Sorry. --Guinnog 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay — that's a better reason. Thanks. --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: FIFA uses it. If you have a look at the article 2006 FIFA World Cup seeding you will see that there is an official ranking in each World Cup, which ranks the teams from the first to the 32nd. UEFA uses a similar criterion to determine the best runner-ups in qualifying stages. --130.251.4.11 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes and no. As you can see on the page you refer to, FIFA's rankings are based on such calculations, but not completely so. Also from that page, FIFA have expressed dissatisfaction with the seeding system and plan to change it. But the main argument against including the table is that it may confuse people into thinking this has some significance beyond (possibly) deciding future seedings. The World cup is won by the winners of the final; it is not essentially a league competition, and including this table may be seen as implying that it is. Hope this clarifies why I am so strongly against its inclusion. --Guinnog 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand your point, and I will try to explain mine: FIFA seeds the teams on two different rankings: The "CocaCola" one and the final ranking of the last World Cups, with different weights. The fact here is that the final ranking do exist, and it is official. What they are planning to change is the CocaCola ranking and the weights assigned to the two ranking systems. And please note that the final world cup ranking is used to rank the teams from 5th place to last, since the first four places are assigned by the finals. My proposal is to include it anyways, maybe in a different page. We could add an entry in the "2006 FIFA World Cup general information" box. --130.251.4.11 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would have no objection to that. I just don't really think it belongs on the main WC entries. --Guinnog 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full Ranking 

message: The infobox says 161, someone just typed 158 above the list of scorers, I count 157 from the scorers section (thanks to Excel). Is there an official figure?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk   22:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals total

message: Why is Saudi Arabia classified as an AFC participant? Isn't it middleeastern? Oyo321 05:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Saudi Arabia

message: How is a youtube video a reasonable source to state that Totti was wrongfully sent off in that game. I removed the source and tried to keep NPOV.
--207.35.14.235 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  You are, of course, correct that that is not a reliable source. -- Visviva 07:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A youtube video as a source? 

message: What is surprising is that france did something smart. See had Uraguay defeated france they would have qualified for the round of 16 over senagal. Because of uraguay's goal differeance.
how is that smart?--Numberwang 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  redemption 

message: The summary should mention the major controversial calls, but the previous version seemed especially targeted to imply something sinister about just one country. Many sentences had links to articles that had nothing like that sentence. There were many bad calls, and you can Google an article about your favorite bad call; don't hand-pick only commentaries on the Korea games. News articles that overview the whole 2002 World Cup mention various bad calls, don't just quote the sentence about Korea. That's all I'm saying. CBJourney 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias in summary 

message: Is it me, fifa or wikipedia who has it wrong? I thought that teams that meet in the group stage can only meet again if they are in the final together. Spain and Paraguay were in the same group and advanced to the knock-out stages, but it would be possible fot them to have met in the semi finals, the same thing with Denmark and Senegal, England and Sweden and Japan and Belgum, all of the teams to be precise. Was this a unique format? Because I know that in the 2006 World cup, group winners and runners up could only meet again if they were in the final.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.197.184 (talk) 17:56, 5 December 2007
:Brazil and Turkey (Group C) met in the semifinals. It was a special format to make sure the hosts will play on their home soil no matter where they finish in their group (1st or 2nd). Follow South Korea's and USA's path to the final. Edgar (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Meet again before the final

message: "The first goal should really be marked down as an error by Germany goalkeeper, Oliver Kahn, who failed to deal with a long-range shot from Rivaldo, spilling the ball directly into Ronaldo's path. The second goal was much better taken"
sounds very POV. Does anyone else think this should be changed  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.126.9 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The second part, about the second goal being better taken, perhaps. But not the first part. The first part seems bang on to me. – PeeJay 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Summary of final

message: Who on the Earth said Argentina as the "second most favorite team"? As far as I know, France and Brazil were the favorite teams to take the trophy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.171.248 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  OMG 

message: Can someone give third party input on the inclusion of the dodgy refereeing calls that I have highlighted on this article.
My correctly cited facts are being removed with bullshit reasons and I don't want to argue about it anymore. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  There seems to be a section about this very subject three topics above yours. Akkies (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  then contribute to it, rather than reverting me. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know what to say. I pretty much agree with them. Akkies (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  Good, they don't like one nation being highlighted - I will add the facts about the korea matches that were controversial and if there are other nations who had game influenced by controversial refereeing, then you can add them. Problem solved. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hey I'm glad we can resolve this one. Akkies (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

text:  Sennen goroshi, entire FIFA is corrupted even Japan is part of this larger corrupted organization, this claim of yours is stupid--Korsentry 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, apart from some wonderful statement with uncited claims, that everyone is corrupt - are there any reasons as to why the refereeing controversy in 2002 should not be included? With of course the stipulation that editors are free to add controversy that involved ANY team, and not only the games that occurred in south korea, but also those in Japan. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, might it interest you to look at the my comments in   this new section regarding this issue? Cheers!  Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  refereeing 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/cup2002/4
** In 2002 FIFA World Cup on 2011-05-25 07:20:05, 404 Not Found
** In 2002 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-10 09:18:58, 404 Not Found
--JeffGBot (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Almost all won of South korean was won by refree. This issue should me mentioned here. Wikipedia is a history. all truth should be writtten , thats the NPOV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvez gsm (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a controversy, but if you have a reliable source that supports your claim it could be added to the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversial issue of South Korean's controversial wins

message: Hi there,
Noticed that Walter Görlitz liked the image of the flag displayed at the 2002 FIFA World Cup, but deleted it because it didn't seem to relate to the adjacent paragraph. The section above it contains an image of the World Cup mascot, embedded in a paragraph describing the previous match. I added the flag image to the next section, simply to continue the spirit of World Cup imagery already established on the page. Please accept my apologies if I disturbed your hard work. My intention was to add visual interest to the article by adding material related to the event as a whole. Thanks for your time.Global Microscope (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No apologies necessary. The issue with the placing of the image is not so much its relationship with the content to which it was adjacent, but rather its relationship with the entire tournament. Was this a FIFA sanctioned art exhibit or an exhibit created to run concurrently with the tournament but unaffiliated with it in any way. I only have first-hand experience with the 2010 Winter Olympics and there were several cultural events that were officially planned and many more that were simply presented to correspond with the events of the games. Knowing the relationship would help in clarifying whether the image and a discussion of the exhibit belongs in this article or elsewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

text: A new section should should be added related to the cultural event and the image could be placed in that section. Mirroring the 2010 article, it should be placed below Awards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Why are there no mentions of the match fixing that happened in the 2002 world cup, where South Korea won against Italy and Spain by blatant cheating. This is no football rivalry, it is this. 2.103.198.253 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Care to back that accusation up with some hard evidence? – PeeJay 19:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

text: there is evidence all around the internet 89.13.133.77 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, there are accusations but no hard evidence that the matches were actually fixed. – PeeJay 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korea Match Fixing 

message: Apparent, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=617594892&diff=prev old versions of Yahoo, an official FIFA sponsor at the time, are more accurate than the numbers in FIFA's official Report and Statistics on the tournament. Care to explain that thought? The official report was made after the tournament and is supported by FIFA. The individual pages are not longer supported and they may have been listed long before final capacity were agreed upon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: How would you possibly know that the individual pages are not reliable? I'm quite sure the old Yahoo! website can be considered reliable, since plenty of information is available. Now I'm not saying that the FIFA rapports are unreliable, but perhaps FIFA may have tinkered with the capacity numbers? Also, for this year's tournament, we used the official capacities from the current website. This means we should be using those old websites for the previous tournaments, as long as they are all available via the Internet Archive. If some are not, then use the FIFA rapports. Arbero (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know, but they vary from the official report. What's your proof that FIFA may have tinkered with the capacity numbers and not Yahoo!? And so you're saying that for 2014 we used FIFA's numbers and so why are insisting that we use Yahoo!'s numbers for 2002? So why are you insisting that the archived website is more reliable than the official report? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Alright, I may have sounded a bit biased there; if so, I apologise. I searched through the archived website and found everything there (news, teams, matches) to be accurate, so I assumed they would get the capacities correctly as well (No, I don't have any evidence, it was just speculation from my side). Anyway, if you insist on using the official FIFA PDF file, then I will roll back my edit. Let me know. Arbero (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  One thing I would like to add though, is that the archived website can be used for other matters, and could improve this article. Arbero (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I trust your research. Having two refs seems OK as well. I just don't want someone to question the discrepancies at some point in the future and have it come back to bite us. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capacity of stadiums 

message: why isn't there anything about this? Wikipedia is part of it or what?, stop being biased and add it!
sources:
- First of all, obvious is obvious
- http://www.goal.com/en/news/1884/north-america/2010/09/21/2130136/infamous-south-korea-italy-world-cup-2002-referee-byron
- http://www.mediotiempo.com/futbol/internacional/noticias/2015/05/29/acusan-a-fifa-de-amano-de-partidos-en-2002
- http://www.garrypassarella.co.uk/2010/06/04/the-robbery-in-korea-koreas-controversial-progress-in-the-2002-world-cup-finals/
89.13.133.77 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those sources actually confirm that the matches were fixed, they just accuse Byron Moreno of being incompetent. There is plenty of info in this article about Moreno's incompetence, and there's no need for anything more. – PeeJay 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  South Korea match fixings and corruption 

message: Wikipedia keeps loosing reliability. (or is watch over by FIFA somehow)
how is there not a single mention of the controversial games between Korea - Italy and Korea - Spain. As you can see above me, I am definitely not the only one pointing them out, and when someone cites a good source, he is ignored. Please Wikipedia. you guys are supposed to document Everything relating the title topic. The accusations and controversies are real and should be included. 
a couple sources:
- http://screamer.deadspin.com/italian-paper-alleges-fifa-used-corrupt-refs-to-fix-200-1707704308
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/3029872/Korean-miracle-spoilt-by-refereeing-farce.html
- http://www.eurosport.com/football/south-korea-results-from-2002-world-cup-now-under-scrutiny_sto4758133/story.shtml
- http://bleacherreport.com/articles/630035-ranking-the-top-10-world-football-scandals-of-all-time
Also this one, regarding the voting:
- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3132045/FIFA-hit-fresh-corruption-claims-Japan-accused-paying-South-American-federation-950-000-2002-World-Cup-vote.html
I kindly ask you to please update the article with this information
thank you.2003:75:F6F:F599:DD2A:241E:7B4A:33E7 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Mention of Korean Controversial games?? 

message: Hi everyone. 
I know that this is not the first conversation about this, but I'm trying to resurrect the List of 2002 Fifa World Cup controversies article.
Those of you who followed the process will remember it was the subject of two deletion debtates, and then closed down and SALTed. Since I believe that controversial incidents are a window into the development and evolution of the game. I hope as many of you as possible will join me in this effort.
 
Merry Xmas one and all! Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversies

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2002 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613061908/http://www.le-musee-divisioniste.org/service/pages/2002/flagart2.htm to http://www.le-musee-divisioniste.org/service/pages/2002/flagart2.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Poorly sourced standalone article; could easily be summarized at World Cup entry --Another Believer (Talk) 15:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: A better target would be Red Devils (supporters club), since the World Cup entry is not meant to dive that deep into each team's supporter culture. SounderBruce 18:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, merge to  Red Devils (supporters club). -Koppapa (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. – PeeJay 20:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, agreed. 76.103.46.252 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Given that a new target has arisen following this discussion I've added a merge template to that page (Red Devils (supporters club)); perhaps as a courtesy we could give watches of that page a chance to comment on the revised proposal before proceeding with the merge. Klbrain (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is absolutely no need for a second discussion. The consensus was to merge it to the supporters group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of [[Be the Reds!]] into [[2002 FIFA World Cup]] 

message: I have upgraded everything on the 1994 World Cup and 1998 World Cup. I have upgraded from round of 16 to final which works successfully but tried upgrading groups but nothing showed up, help needed please.GBT00 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Upgrade Fail on 2002 World Cup Groups

message: Should the name of the host nation include an inline link to the nation's article? For example, should the first instance of the names "South Korea" and "Japan" be bracketed so as to provide links to South Korea and Japan? Rowsdower45 (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Inline link RfC

message: I have made a GAN for this article. Hope it gets accepted. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 02:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, a nomination should come from a major contributor to the article or with their endorsement. There are far too many sections that lack citations and quite a few that are missing prose match summaries, so this will be quick-failed. Please read through comparable GAs and FAs to determine what the standards laid out by the GA criteria look like. SounderBruce 05:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking how to make it eligible for GA status. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 08:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounder Bruce provided a few reasons directly above. CMD (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  GAN 

message: Someone just vandalised the bracket. Somedev123Gtg (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism Warning! 

message: I found that the standings of group C are wrong. I see Turkey in first place, and Brazil with 2 won matches, when in fact they have won all of 3 in group C. I don't know if it's an issue too in different groups. 84.198.165.236 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong data