Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 3

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date format 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Theme song 

message: 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)
thread_title:  custom balls 

message: 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)
thread_title:  How Does It Work? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Crime Concerns 

message: Wasn't there a list of the stadiums being used?  Why was that removed? 172.128.81.143 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replaced it on the page.Batman2005 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venues 

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

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

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Côte d'Ivoire 

message: 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)
replies: text: Fixed. Batman2005 21:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disciplinary records 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Group G 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Just reverted to the seeding. Sam Vimes 08:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool, many thanks. Davidlwilliamson 14:46, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Seeding vs. ranking 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Disciplinary record 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Edit clashes. 12 June 18:20 my time 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Piece of music when the players enter the pitch 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Protected Page 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Ah I see I didn't pay attention enough to see they weren't the same teams.  TastyCakes 22:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pot vs Group

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

message: What do people think of having the table of contents like this? jaco♫plane 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks great! Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Group articles 

message: 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)
replies: text: ha! it is true, but it's also plagarised from the BBC report of the game.Andymarczak 08:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Korea-Togo match

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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 TECI 23:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who died... 

message: 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 TECI 22:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: or that they dont use the ß in Schweiz Deutsch. hmm, no article, strange.... Philc TECI 23:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean Schweizerdeutsch :) -- Arwel (talk) 23:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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 TECI 11:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fußball vs. Fussball 

message: * 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)
replies: text: The Czechs are the world's biggest beer drinkers, so they can't be wrong :) Intangible 15:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Budweiser Soccer Wars

message: 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)
replies: text: 72,000. see http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,420563,00.html bogdan 21:02, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks!  Hong Qi Gong 21:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Attendance number? 

message: ===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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  PaulC/T+ 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 "" 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. PaulC/T+ 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. PaulC/T+ 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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...PaulC/T+ 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "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]"
# 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.
# buses thing is not related to the second part of the news
# 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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.  PaulC/T+ 19:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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 "" 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. PaulC/T+ 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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. PaulC/T+ 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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...PaulC/T+ 21:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Match report references

message: 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]"
# 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.
# buses thing is not related to the second part of the news
# 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title: Talking <sup>of</sup> balls

message: 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)
thread_title:  Germany Goal Difference (14/06) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Groups in progress... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Referees 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tie-breaker criteria 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: Of course West Berlin was west german, who do you think governed it, fairies? No, west germans, suprisingly. Philc TECI 22:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Berlin is in West Germany?

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Part 1 (Knockout stage flags)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Own goals 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cahill or David Villa... 

message: 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)
thread_title: Stoppage time goals

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It was called Last 16 until someone changed the template. I've changed it back Jooler 18:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard Eighthfinals too Rodri316 05:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Round of 16 vs Second Round

message: 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)
replies: text: The words "Possible teams" were added to the template by User:Palffy and confused matters. Jooler 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my response in 'Updating who can qualify in what positions' and 'Knockout stage flags' above. Palffy 15:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible confusion... 

message: 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)
replies: text: Ahh, well thanks buddy! Batman2005 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  STOP! 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  During World Cup 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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... PaulC/T+ 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: 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.  PaulC/T+ 21:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Way too much forking 

message: 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? PaulC/T+ 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "&" is used to abbreviate generally; the correct spelling uses "and". Rodri316 23:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'And' vs '&' (Trinidad, Serbia, Tobago, Montenegro) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  What Happens 

message: 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)
thread_title: Link from Time!

message: 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.  PaulC/T+ 05:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Tables in one section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  External links policy 

message: 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)
thread_title: Top Goal-scorer?

message: 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)
replies: text: Agreed. — 199 15:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadium Photos 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Group C Team incorrectly Marked Matemtically eliminated 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Semi-protection of article has already been deemed inappropriate. Case closed. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 20:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chaotic editing 

message: What happened to the equation part underneath the group sections? Bornagain4  17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Equation