Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 4

message: I worked realy hard into including the official match ball section into this article and somebody just erases it. It always happens to me when I add something to an article. Is the  official ball section not relevant or what??—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob Diablo (talk • contribs).
:It got moved into the world cup miscelleaneous section with all the other stuff, its on its own page now. Batman2005 22:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  People come on 

message: Two things
*Who is updating the group pages? Because someone colored the standings boxes for non-secure second round teams.(I fixed it)
*Can we delete some unneeded discussion articles, the page is kinda long. 
Bornagain4 20:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Created Archive 3. sikander 21:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two things 

message: A think there is a mistake at the Knckout Stage session.
Alredy-eliminated flags shouldn't be deleted from the group stage column, but alredy-classified flags should be add to Round of 16 column.
:But we dont know yet who the winner and runner-up will be per group. sikander 21:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a huge debate in some of the sections above. I haven't bothered to read them but you can if you want. And please sign your articles. Bornagain4 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knockout Stage 

message: Hi folks! I think I have to make it clear that until the Portugal vs Iran game is played, all teams still have a chance at both first place and 2nd place. Please stop removing the flags until it is done.
Kiwi8 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Angola's scoreless draw to Mexico gives them 1 point, and with one game to play, they may score a maximum of 4 points. A win to either Mexico or Portugal when they play each other will place them above Angola. Also, a draw in that game will put Portugal on 5 points, again denying Angola 1st position. MrTree 23:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: You are wrong and right. A draw would give Mexico 5 points. Angola cannot get first place, but second is wide open.  Bornagain4 23:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh but i think the discussion is reffering to where the teams can enter in the ro16 so then if angola cannot attain 2nd place, it is right to remove them from the position on the table. Philc TECI 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But they can, so it's not.  Kevin McE 01:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group D situation 

message: Someone who knows what they are doing should add the man of the match for each match played. There are probably other and maybe better places to get it from. But I found this, and that's what gave me the idea to post this. And if the info can't be found else where then this will do:
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/e/wp/mom.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Skaterdude182 (talk • contribs).
:This info was put on the page but the general agreement was that it was basically nothing more than and ad for Budweiser. Jooler 09:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can just imagine Budweiser crying over their spilt beer! :-) Carcharoth 11:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Man of the Match is selected by the FIFA Technical Study Group, so it might have a place in the individual match reports. Intangible 18:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Man of the match 

message: Possibly a listing of some of the common mistakes might help them be avoided in the future, and something like this could be stuck at the top of the talk page as a lot of the discussion has now been archived:
*Times of goals scored - at least two ways of writing the times of goals scored in injury time, complicated by the possibility of Extra Time in the knock-out stage. Can someone add here what times we use, plus a link to the relevant discussion?
*Forgetting that the tie-break criteria can be used for three-way and four-way ties as well as two-way ties (this explains some of the seemingly redundant criteria).
*Not calculating possibilities carefully enough and marking teams as eliminated/qualified too early. A common mistake is to assume that 6 points after two games is enough and that 0 points after two games is not enough. In reality, the qualification/elimination issue depends on the actual table and fixtures for that group, and such a general rule does not work.
*Not realising the difference between being eliminated from 1st place (but still being in contention for second place) and being eliminated from qualification for the last 16 (unable to reach second place).
*Not realising that Germany is currently on CEST which is UTC+2, and changing the times to UTC+1 or something else entirely.
*A distressing number of people just enter the wrong scores, times and table statistics - I am beginning to suspect vandalism - especially the recent change to the tie-break criteria and the immediately following edit that claimed to revert the vandalism but in fact covered it up!
*People reading the incorrect tiebreak rules still being made available by FIFA and UEFA. These rules were changed sometime in later 2005 (see webpage here) but copies of the older version of the rules are still floating around the internet.
Please add more common mistakes to the list, so hopefully people can avoid them. Thanks. Carcharoth 09:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Two new comments added above. Carcharoth 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One more comment added above. Carcharoth 10:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If people didn't keep knocking out the flags you would have these problems. You have to credit the reader with some intelligence, let them work it out. Jooler 09:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why does knocking out the flags create these problems? It is always better to explain things rather than let the reader work things out. For example, I've clarified the tie-breaking criteria section here. This will hopefully avoid the confusion seen here (corrected here), and the confusion seen here. I will now ressurect that discussion and illustrate some (unlikely) scenarios. Carcharoth 10:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was about to withdraw the comment, given the other option posited above, but I don't think absolutely everything should be explained to the reader, because it then becomes both patronising and worse boring and tedious. Jooler 10:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Carcharoth: a worthy idea. However I should note that "A common mistake is to assume that...0 points after two games is not enough" is itself wrong. 0 points after two games means you're out, no matter what your result in the third game. -- Hux 15:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hux, you're actually wrong here. A team with 0 points after 2 matches can indeed qualify in second spot in their group. Team A beats team B and team C beats team D in the first round of matches, leaving A and C on 3 points each, with B and D on 0 points. Team A beats team C and team D beats team B in the second lot of matches, leaving A on 6 points, C on 3 points, D on 3 points and B on 0 points. In the final round of matches, Team A beats team D and team B beats team C, so team A tops the group with 9 points, the other three teams all end up on 3 points, team B qualifies on goal difference, despite the fact that they had 0 points after 2 games. 59.167.73.85 05:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand well and truly corrected! :) -- Hux 21:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common mistakes 

message: Since we will soon be getting to the stage where fiendishly complicated tie-breaking scenarios are possible, I thought a brief discussion might be in order. A previous discussion is at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_3#Tiebreaking, and also at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Common_mistakes.
If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked as follows:
1) Goal difference in all group matches.
2) Greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
3) Greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned.
4) Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned.
5) Greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned.
6) Drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup.
Please note that these criteria, especially numbers 3-5, apply to 3-way and 4-way ties as well as 2-way ties. For 2-way ties, criteria 3 means that if two teams are level on the first two criteria, the winner of the match between the teams goes through. For 2-way tie, if the two teams are level on the first two criteria and the match was a draw, then criteria 4 and 5 are redundant and lots are drawn (criteria 6). Criteria 4 and 5 are thus used only for 3-way and 4-way ties.
Actually, this will take some time to write. Will update later. Carcharoth 10:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the paragraph "Please note that these criteria..." surely belongs on this talk page, but not in the article: it is an aid to understanding the page, but not encyclopedic info.  I have deleted all but the last sentence, and moved it to the top of the information.  Kevin McE 11:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit of a grey area. I tried to write that for readers of the article, rather than editors. IMO, it belongs on both the article page and the talk page. There is nothing wrong, IMO, with an encyclopedia article explaining something, rather than being a dry listing of rules. This counts as expanding and rewriting the criteria for clarity. In case others feel that this is being too original, I would like to point out that it does not count as opinion (it is not opinion - it is an explication of the consequences of the criteria), and it is not original research - it only adds clarity, it does not add new information. Carcharoth 11:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Grey area acknowledged: maybe "surely" in my last piece gave the wrong impression.  I don't think your bit was POV or original research, just a bit too wordy: are you OK with what I have done with it now?  Kevin McE 11:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks fine. Thanks! Carcharoth 12:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Some people mis-read the FIFA document and used tie-break criteria from the qualification stages of the tournament that took place for a few years previous to the finals stage (which is happening now in Germany). Carcharoth 10:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is the correct FIFA document? If/when we are sure what the rules are, we should put a link to it in the article at 2006 FIFA World Cup#Point system. FIFA are apparently publishing numerous conflicting versions  and the one I've found puts the result of matches between teams as the first tie breaker. I went to the official World cup site at http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/, then clicked 'Media' on the left, then clicked on 'Regulations 2006 FIFA World Cup GermanyTM' (center of the page, you may have to scroll down a bit), then go to p34 of that PDF . It lists points in group, then points between tied teams, with group-wide goal difference being well down the list. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  15:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

text:  In addition to my comment immediately above, apparently p40 of this PDF  is the "correct" one. I don't know what to believe though! Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs)  15:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiebreaking scenarios 

message: Should we....wait, i'm just kidding... Batman2005 15:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: =))) --Palffy 15:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

text: They are the only two teams who can claim first place, which is what the table shows (at least it does at the moment, I didn't check if anyone had edited it in the intervening period......) ChrisTheDude 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knockout stage flags 

message: In reverting some edits that messed up the code, I removed this from the article. I have since placed it in List of 2006 FIFA World Cup broadcasting rights. Johnleemk | Talk 16:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Korean broadcasting rights 

message: I seem to have missed something. First, I didn't think the penalty kick was deserved. Second, I didn't understand the whistle being called and a YEllow and red card being shown. I'd appreciate if something would clue me in. (Stupid American) pattersonc 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GHA vs. CZE: The penalty kick, yellow and red cards?

message: A link to the Game Calendar in EVERY group?  Wouldn't it be easier and take up less room to just post it once and not worry about posting it 8 times. Batman2005 18:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, IMO.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need... 

message: In the introduction box with data about the tournament, there is a list of top goal scorers. And I know that one guy from  Ghana scored two vs.  Czech Republic, and it is not there. Can someone with more skill than I please fix it?  Bornagain4 01:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ghana's goals were scored by two different players - Gyan and Muntari. Mindmatrix 02:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals scored 

message: Please note that the changes made here to the tie-breaking criteria are INCORRECT. I have checked the PDF document that people keep linking to (see PDF document here - WARNING, takes long time to load). People are are looking at the criteria used in the QUALIFICATION ROUNDS (section IV, Article 7, paragraph 7), when they should be looking at the tie-break system set out in TECHNICAL RULES FOR FINALS COMPETITION (section XVII, Article 32, paragraph 5). Please, please, let's revert back to the correct criteria and please don't make any more incorrect changes, and let's get a link to somewhere that shows these criteria clearly, and not buried 40 pages deep in a 60-page PDF document. Carcharoth 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoops sorry. The correct criteria were displayed earlier, but somebody edited the new incorrect criteria in. I scanned the .pdf to verify the new edit and I came across the exact criteria copied word for word so I just assumed that's what the entry was referring to. Dav2008 03:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The tiebreaking criteria are on pages 40-41 of the rulebook FYI. Maybe the pages could somehow be added to the reference. Dav2008 03:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course they are counted. Kiwi8 07:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tie-breaking criteria - please be careful 

message: So...is religion the reason not to have games on Sundays? --152.163.100.6 03:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean? There are games on every sunday except for July 2nd Dav2008 03:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sundays 

message: Does anybody know which, if any, is the official song/music/anthem of this World Cup?
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frankman (talk • contribs).
"The Time of Our Lives," by ill deviants and Boni Traxton.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  12:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official theme song?

message: The official rules PDF (pages 40-41) says that the qualifying criteria are:
a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches;
b) goal difference in all group matches;
c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.
d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between
the teams concerned;
e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the
teams concerned;
f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the
teams concerned;
g) drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World
Cup™.''
I don't understand how e) and f) can ever break a tie. Since there is only one game between each two teams, and d) already breaks the tie if they didn't tie that game, e) and f) would only be used in case that game was tied. But, if the game is tied, they scored the same number of goals on the game, so how can e) and f) break any tie?? Rbarreira 12:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are used in three or four way ties.
e/f apply where three or four teams are on equal standings. --Robdurbar 13:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, and this has now been clarified in the main article, e/f (well, they were called that before bullet points were used instead) apply only to a three-way tie. In a four-way tie, d/e/f are identical to a/b/c. In a two-way tie, d simply means "who won the match between the teams", and, as you correctly note, e/f fail to break 2-way ties (or, more correctly, they break a 2-way tie in the same way that d does, and so are redundant). Hope that helps. Carcharoth 09:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't understand the tie breaking criteria 

message: Since the tiebreaking_criteria section was removed, if you find any links to said section please change them to go to 2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Point_system instead. I was going to put the Tiebreaking criteria section back in (with a ==== header), but that would just amount to an edit war so it should probably be discussed here.
Dav2008 14:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm. I've frequently moaned about these anchor (#) links breaking if section headings get changed. There really needs to be a way to get "What links here" to work for # links. Carcharoth 09:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to #tiebreaking_criteria

message: Someone put the flags back (Group E, first place). I don't know how to do that :/ - Lemke
--200.138.210.229 18:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's impossible for the US to get 1st place. That's why only 3 flags are present. There are 3 scenarios for the US to advance, and they all involve them in 2nd place. It is impossible for the US to grab 1st place-- so the US flag is not in the E1 box. However, every team can possibly get the 2nd place position, therefore no flags are transfered into the E2 box. ScottNak 03:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knockou Stage flags Group E 

message: Hey, those qualification conditions that you get when you rollover the flags in the round of 16 are really cool.  You guys are awesome. -lethe talk [ +] 21:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that is good, take a look at the "tie-break scenarios" in the articles for each individual group! For example, the one for Group E is here. Carcharoth 09:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  rollover conditions 

message: The rollovers for these two teams are missing. Below is how I calculated they should be. Please check them and hopefully simplify them, then we'll add them in. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Czech Republic & Ghana rollovers 

message: From my IP you'll see I'm an Aussie, however 25 fouls for Australia to 9 for Brazil does seem a little fishy!! Perhaps FIFA are counting on ensuring a large tele audience by having the current world champs ensured of getting through? ~~
:You could just as easily say, wouldn't FIFA be keen to be biased towards Australia, a sports-mad and sports-strong nation but one where association football is not as strong as other football codes? -- Chuq 06:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: see that Harry Kewell has now been charged for complaining to ref of bias. Must have been something goin on for that sort of lopsided number of fouls. is it correct? Greynurse 11:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to FIFA, it is correct. Still, could have any number of explanations: Brazil having the ball more, Brazil being "lazy" and not bothering to tackle, legally or illegally, Australia playing a game more like the one played in English leagues (which has, stereotypically anyway, more fouls) because most of their team play there, etc. So purely from the foul count there's no reason to suggest foul play. Sam Vimes 11:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sam Vimes' reasons tend to explain it.  I saw the match, and I can definitely say that the Australians played much, much harder.  (And for good reason, of course.)  This itself will lead to more fouling on challenges.  Add on to that that the Australians play a more English game as opposed to continental (most of the Brazilian squad plays on the Continent) and that the Australians had something to prove, and it's not surprising.  Also, don't forget, the Brazilians are on average much more experienced and know better what the line is between a foul and not, and can skate it more finely than the Australians, e.g. they know exactly how hard they can tackle without getting called.   Finally, if it makes you feel any better, more Brazilians (3) were booked than Australians (2).   I don't think there's much to worry about here.  And, hey, if you're looking for conspiracies, how about two of my boys getting reds in the U.S. - Italia game?   :P --Deville (Talk) 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeh I'm an Aussie and I didn't find that much wrong with the ref despite the foul count. A few might have been dodgy but on the whole, we did foul significantly more than Brazil so it was more or less fair enough. Kewell was going crazy at the end, I'd be interested to know what he said... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Kewell is reported to have said repeatedly "you were shit". Reports on ABC (Australia) news 20 1900 K Jun 06 is he has just been cleared to play by FIFA. Same report analysed the Brazilian goals and both technically should have been "offside", but weren't. I guess that would get you worked up, but IMO Harry was stupid to do what he did - even if he had a legit complaint. Greynurse 10:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is Brazil being protected by FIFA?

message: It is possible that a three-way tie could occur in Group G. If Switzerland beat Togo today, and then France beat Togo while Switzerland and South Korea draw (all three results are quite likely), then three teams will finish tied for 1-3 place in the group.
The problem I foresee, from looking at the FIFA tiebreak criteria, is that they do not say what happens if a three-way tie is only partially resolved when applying criteria d, e, or f (the ones that look only at the points, goal difference and goals scored between the teams in the tie). Eg. One team has inferior points/GD/GS to the other two teams, but the other two teams are still tied on points/GD/GS. Do you then move on, say, from criteria d to e, and still use the values for the three-way tie, or do you recalculate the values for criteria d/e/f for a 2-way tie (effectively reverting to criteria d, as criteria e/f are irrelevant for a 2-way tie)?
The same would apply for a four-way tie, except for the fact that a four-way tie is no longer possible at this World Cup (in Group H, Spain drawing or winning one of its last two games, or losing them both - these conditions cover all possibilities - avoids a 4-way tie). Thankfully. Carcharoth 11:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the hypothetical three-way tie would only reach criteria d/e/f if Switzerland beat Togo 3-2 today, thus bringing the Swiss level with South Korea on points, GD and GS, all of which would be preserved in the hypothetical final draw between Switzerland and South Korea. For France to join that tie, they would have to beat Togo by 2+x:1+x, where x-x is the score in the South Korea-Switzerland draw! Carcharoth 12:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Scenarios given at User:Carcharoth/Group_G. Carcharoth 12:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Three-way ties - problem? 

message: Does anyone know there is a Wikiproject for football? Everyone can participate in the Football Article Improvement Drive Kingjeff 14:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FIAD

message: Should the list of goal scorers be organized in some way? I was thinking alphabetically, but there may be a better scheme available as well. (to clarify, I mean: #Individual_scorers) Rballou 17:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. It was just reverted to a Paraguay flag.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goal Scorer Organization 

message: The own goals section needs a rethink. There's an Italian with an Italian flag and a Paraguayan with an England flag.  Should the flag be of their country, or the country they scored for? Or a combo of both?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  17:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. It was just reverted to a Paraguay flag.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  17:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OG

message: Does anybody know exactly how the "Actual Playing Time" stat in the official FIFA Match Report is calculated? In particular, I would like to know whether the sum of the two team's Actual Playing Time numbers equals the entire time that the ball was in play, or if there is a third number, not shown, that would be the time that the ball is in play but during which neither side has possession. For all of the matches that I've checked, the sum of the two Actual Playing Time numbers is between 50 - 55 minutes, leaving 35 - 40 minutes unaccounted for. That seems like a lot of time waiting for restarts. --Rkstafford 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm pretty sure that Actual Playing Time refers only to the time during which the ball is moving around on the pitch between players, i.e. it doesn't include stoppages for injuries, time when the ball is out of play, time spent setting the ball up for a goal kick, free kick, corner kick, start of play following a goal, etc. etc. That's the only way to explain why it's so low compared to the total time. -- Hux 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match Report definitions 

message: "This article or section may contain external links added only to promote a website, product, or service – otherwise known as spam.
If you are familiar with the content of the external links, please help by removing commercial links, in accordance with Wikipedia:External links. (you can help!)" Which link is it and what's the problem? Kingjeff 01:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The purpose of that is to prevent people adding spam links, which has been happening an awful lot, and to notify readers that they can get rid of it when it appears. Such usage is common on a large number of other pages, see Sudoku for example. Jooler 01:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do generally support the use of the template, though I'm not sure if it's necessary here. The article is on my watchlist, so spam doesn't get to hang around for long ;-) and at leat one other user has been keeping things clean. I'm not motivated to remove the template, but I wont go as far as to revert anybody else taking it out. --GraemeL (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've had to remove spam myself about 4 times in the last week. Jooler 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was on a wikibreak for around a month until 3 or 4 days ago. I'm on top of things now though. --GraemeL (talk) 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is getting about 500 edits (maybe more) a day at the moment. Jooler 01:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Maybe two or three of those were spammers. Seriously, random vandalism is much more of a problem at the moment and most of that gets fixed within two minutes. --GraemeL (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Remove the template. The point of a template is to notify others to fix the page and then remove the template. Just putting that up there isn't going to prevent anyone from posting spam links if they are so inclined. It's possible that some people may be adding links not knowing they are adding spam, in which case I think it would be more effective to add a comment in the code to tell people that they should post their links here first for approval, or to not post random links, etc.Dav2008 02:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The point of a template is to notify others to fix the page and then remove the template." - If that is true then why is it permanently used on Sudoku etc? The point of the template is to inform readers that the may be a spam link amongst the links, and to remove the spam. Also there IS also a comment on the page to do exactly what you say. Jooler 08:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just had to remove another one now that was on the page for five hours (while I was asleep). Someone who ignored the comment in the code. Jooler 08:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: There is no probelm at the moment (as I speak) - the point of the template is to make sure we don't get spam, by encouraging people to remove it if someone esle adds it. The template says "...  section may contain external links added only to promote a website ..." - it doesn't says it does contain spam. Jooler 12:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: What the hell is this? Are we suddenly doing free advertinsing for these guys? BTW did you hear about the Dutch fans who had to sit and watch the game in their shreddies?  Jooler
:I've removed the offending "thing", basically someone added a huge block with all the sponsors logos like one of those boards they put behind the players when they get interviewed. Jooler 01:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was seriously considering doing the same. If somebody can dig up some background to sponsorship of the event, then some text with a list of links to the articles for the sponsors may be relevant. The image gallery could probably be best described as a "thing". --GraemeL (talk) 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a list already exists at 2006 FIFA World Cup sponsorship. jaco♫plane 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, so it does. Including the 'thing' here was even worse then. --GraemeL (talk) 02:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: agreed, thanks for removing itDav2008 02:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Official Sponsors

message: Copied from above to make more people aware of it - should this be put at the top of the talk page while the tournament is in progress? .
:::No, most people who do these mistakes actually do not glance at the Talk page at all! -- └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_3#Stoppage_Goals  -- └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 19:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common mistakes II 

message: Can someone check/rewrite this edit I made? I'm not entirely sure what the best way is to put this, but it does seem noteworthy that confusion has been caused by FIFA not removing/updating old documents from its website. See also the discussion at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Question_about_tie-breaking and Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Tiebreaking_scenarios and Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Common_mistakes_II. Carcharoth 10:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tie-break confusion 

message: Horror! Match not updated: 2006_FIFA_World_Cup_-_Group_G - the Togo-Switzerland game hasn't been updated. I would do this, but don't know where to get the team lists from. Can someone else do this? Carcharoth 11:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Team lists taken from FIFA match report. (Though it baffles me how Togo had six forwards on the pitch.) Sam Vimes 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Carcharoth 17:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match not updated! 

message: Can someone fix the templates right at the bottom of the page? At the moment it puts the 2006 WC inside a box headed by the Women's WC making it look like it's the women's competition. Jooler 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Templates

message: Have you noticed players falling because of the slippery wet grass? Argentine sports newspaper Ole had a section on it (In Spanish, sorry), and I wanted to know if this was commented elsewere. Thanx, Mariano(t/c) 14:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slippery 

message: Looks horrible and is a pain in the *** to read, can we go back to the list that was easy to read and looked just fine. Batman2005 14:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goalscorers Table... 

message: Hey guys, I was wondering, should we lock this page for unregistered users?, obviously people are updating the page when games are still being played and that's just causing confusion. Most of time it's done by unregistered users.DamianFinol 14:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits 

message: Curious here...if the stadiums were named in german (e.g. FIFA WM Stadion München), why do we translate them?  Is there some precedence?  This is especially true when taken with the fact that we don't translate any of the other stadiums in the article (e.g. Olympiastadion is listed as such, rather than as Olympic Stadium, and Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion is listed as such rather than Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadium.)  Why is that?82.82.175.226 20:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because those are official names of the stadiums, not names FIFA came up with. Batman2005 12:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadium Names 

message: I just want to say thanks to you guys for keeping this article up-to-date very fast and still quite readable.  I'm not familiar with the world cup enough to contribute to this but I'm interested in the results and I find this the best resource on the web for me (commercial pages have too low signal-noise ratio).  – b_jonas 21:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks 

message: Looks somewhate neater, see: 
Given the finals bracket, there will be a horizontal scrollbar anyway on small screens.
See what you think, and then you can just copy & paste.
└ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual scorers col-3 to col-4 

message: I have two concerns about the table under the heading Knockout Stages.  First the flags in the first column are wrapping around, like there is not enough space.  That led to my second concern - why do all the boxes in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th columns have a right hand box?  Surely we are not going to insert "1st" and "2nd" as that would be readily apparent by looking at the next column to the right.  Could someoone remove these?  (Perhaps the boxes shopuld remain for the 5th column.)  One possibility is to use the green and red backgrounds as in previous tables. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alandavidson (talk • contribs).
:I'm pretty sure the "right hand box" is for the score of the match. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course it is. See Template talk:Round16. Carcharoth 12:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knockout Stages Table 

message: :Group table
Team	Pts	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD
    	9  	3  	3	0	0	8 	2 	+6
    	6  	3  	2	0	1	5 	3 	+2
    	3  	3  	1	0	2	2 	4 	−2
    	0  	3  	0	0	3	3 	9 	−6
:Individual games
Date   	Teams
June 9 	GER  4-2  CRC
June 9 	POL  4-2  ECU
June 14	GER  1-0  POL
June 15	ECU  3-0  CRC
June 20	ECU  3-0  GER
June 20	CRC  3-0  POL
:I've linked the scores to the match report on the Group page...? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 03:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea! -- Chuq 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just curious - are the FIFA match report web pages copyrighted?  If so, are we getting close to the line on this? --NThurston 14:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You cannot copyright facts. The presentation of facts in a certain matter however is copyrighted, but this does not seem to be an issue here. Intangible 14:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the layout of "match results in brief" but it may clutter the page up to have these results and the match-by-match results beneath..? doktorb | words 14:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The intention with this design is that the "detailed match summary" (ie. the grey shaded boxes that are currently below the group table) section isn't on the main page, it would be on the group page. -- Chuq 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't like these new formats.  I actually like it how it currently is, as it provides a nice summary of each game, which has made it very convenient to compare across games.  For example, it's really easy right now to find out who has scored all of Argentina's goals.  These new formats make that sort of thing difficult.  For me, I like having a "box score" section on this page, and asking you to get into the particular match for all the nitty-gritty.  My vote:  No format change --NThurston 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with NThurston, and also vote against new format. SteveGOLD 18:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is easy to check all of Argentina's goals - just go to the Group C page.  If the details match reports are annoying, have a "detailed match summary" section (like the grey boxes that are below the group table at the moment) at the top of the group C article, and then have the "detailed match reports" below that. -- Chuq 00:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the proposed change. The page is way too long. The average user (90% ?) wants to see the final result of the games at a glance. Vote: change Frankman 20:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it.  Vote: change --DaveOinSF 23:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I like it -- page is far too long as it is. But, possibly, have a link to the match report? I don't know, I'm really tired, but my opinion is to change the current format to this new one. Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:58, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Group A

message: I could be wrong here but isn't local time in Germany UTC+1? If so, why does the article say it's UTC+2? Not going to be bold as I don't know exactly how DST works in Europe and changing it to UTC+1 will take a while. Redeem 10:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Germany is currently UTC+2 as a result of DST - see Central European Summer Time. ChrisTheDude 09:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local time? 

message: Allbäck had scored the 2,000th goal in FIFA World Cup history!
:Anyone know who scored the 1,000th goal? Carcharoth 12:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rob Rensenbrink. Milestones list here. I assume these are Finals goals only... – AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You beat me to it by about 5 seconds there :-) ChrisTheDude 12:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'll wait with baited breath for the "2000 goals from FIFA World Cups" DVD, though some of the early ones might be a problem. Seriously, are there "goals" DVDs out there, and which are the best? (I know this is not the right place to ask this - sorry). Carcharoth 12:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000th goal 

message: Why does this one seem out-of-sync with the rest of the flags? Intangible 14:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's square? -- Arwel (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: It is the only square flag other than that of the Vatican City. Kiwi8 14:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The Flag of Switzerland is square =P (gotta get those Wikilinks in.....) doktorb | words 15:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Could be worse - Flag of Nepal -  -- ALoan (Talk) 16:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swiss flag 

message: Does anybody know what's that song they play shortly after the conclusion of every game (within seconds of the game ending). It sounds like 
"Go West" by the Pet Shop Boys LOL. Anber 22:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Song at the end of every game 

message: Final standings are starting to take shape.  Put on main page or a sub-page?
Rk*	Team	Pts	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD
25 	    	3  	3  	1	0	2	2 	2 	0
26 	    	3  	3  	1	0	2	5 	6 	-1
27 	    	3  	3  	1	0	2	2 	4 	-2
28 	    	2  	3  	0	2	1	1 	2 	-1
29 	    	1  	3  	0	1	2	2 	6 	-4
30 	    	1  	3  	0	1	2	0 	4 	-4
31 	    	0  	3  	0	0	3	3 	9 	-6
32 	    	0  	3  	0	0	3	2 	10	-8
*Subject to change as more teams complete their schedule
--DaveOinSF 23:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think is unfair to compare teams in different groups. -Lemke --201.34.150.207 00:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't include it at all, right now its purely speculation...sure that's how WE think it'll end up, but what if FIFA changes around criteria?  Wait until FIFA releases something officially ranking the teams, then we can link to it. Batman2005 02:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the FIFA has a Final Standings, but I think they don't publish them nutil the end of the competition. I'm also not sure if they only use the final table for assigning the final positions for the 16 temas that didn't reach second round. Mariano(t/c) 09:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is comparing apples to oranges, it makes no sense at all, it's a statistical deception and should not be on this page for sure. Jooler 15:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final Standings (Updated)

message: Why are some of the players listed as goal scorers using their nicknames rather than their real names (eg players from Brazil and Portugal). -- SGBailey 11:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say that they are listed with the names by which people most commonly refer to them in a football context. And they are a lot shorter too. Andymarczak 11:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because if you put "Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite" nobody would have any idea who you were talking about.  But when you put "Kaka" instead...then everyone knows who you're talking about.  Those names are common usage names so that's why they're used here. Batman2005 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Additionally in Portugal and Brazil, the names they go by are as real as their birth names. A person in Brazil can go through their entire life going by the name "Kaka" and never by the name "Ricardo Izecson dos Santos Leite." Batman2005 16:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goals scored

message: I see some of the time for a goal have a + sign after them (eg "Neville (92+)" ). What is the meaning of the "+"? I can't see it defined anywhere? I expect it means in "extra time" but whatever it needs either a definition or removing. -- SGBailey 11:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that stands for injury time. This is to distinguish the time from added time. ----WinHunter (talk) 11:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It stands for goals scored during time added on in either the first or second half. A goal scored in the second minute of added time in the first half would be listed as "47+"  A goal scored in the 7th minute of extra time in the knockout stages would be listed as "97" Batman2005 12:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to helping distinguish between goals scored in injury time during regulation and "over time," this designation is very useful in that it allows us to distinguish from a goal scored in the 47th minute of the first half (47+) and the second minute of the second half (47).  Any interest in an explanatory footnote somewhere? --NThurston 14:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goal times 

message: And Wikipedia get it right of course!
See BBC scenario for Group G and compare to Wikipedia scenario for Group G.
BBC: "If Switzerland draw with Korea and France score two or more goals, then both Switzerland and the French will qualify."
Wikipedia: "France [...] may qualify as either group winners or runners up, or be eliminated, after the consideration of tie-break scenarios, if they win and Korea and Switzerland draw."
The clear refutations of the BBC's statement are the following examples, where France do indeed score two or more goals, but can still be eliminated:
*Togo 1-2 France; Switzerland 0-0 Korea - Lots will be drawn to determine whether France or Korea advances; loser of the draw is eliminated.
*Togo 1-2 France; Switzerland 1-1 Korea - Korea advances on goals scored, France is eliminated.
To be fair, the BBC probably meant to say If Switzerland draw with Korea and France win by a margin of two or more goals, then both Switzerland and the French will qualify.
But as it stands, the BBC statement is clearly wrong. Carcharoth 12:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dang! I should have got a screenshot. They've corrected it. Carcharoth 13:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC get qualification scenario wrong for Group G! 

message: I just reinstated Group G after it being completely missing for the last 20-30 edits, and no-one fixing it.  Don't have time now (it's half time break at Aus-Cro) but this is a good reason for (a) semi-protection of the article (b) all edits made DURING a game being reverted. -- Chuq 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, one vandalised edit to an article is not enough for semi-protection.  We've kicked around semi-protection over and over again on this page and just because someone is an IP editor doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to edit a page.  Additionally, reverting all edits during a game is a horrible precedent to set as you'll also be removing the mostly positive and accurate edits.  This page so stay as is and the thousands of people who spend all day on here will continue to revert vandalism.  But as I look through the edit history, quite a bit of positive contributions are coming from IP editors. Batman2005 21:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto that.  It's quite impressive actually at how quickly errors are corrected (usually) and how almost all edits are in the right direction, regardless of source.  With so many eyes watching, mistakes are being caught rather quickly.  Besides, many small changes over time leads to a good article.  --NThurston 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with the two opinions above. Apart from the occasional thing that gets missed, everyone is doing a great job of keeping the page vandalism free. Having counted the number of reverts in the last 100 edits, we're running at about 7 or 8%. Which is well below the level that I would apply semi-protection. --GraemeL (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I temporarily put this article on semi-protection again because for the past hour, numerous IPs were replacing all references of Italy with Turkey. I think semi-protection should only be used temporarily there is massive vandalism that needs to be correcting. However, I will probably release this protection soon as per WP:PPOL: it is high profile and linked off the main page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining. --GraemeL (talk) 22:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I went back through the list of IPs involved in the Turkey vandalism. At least 5 of them were open proxies, which I've blocked indefinitely. Depending on how determined our vandal is, short term protection might not be enough. All depends on his patience and how large his list of open proxies is. --GraemeL (talk) 23:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'll just clarify what I meant - I don't think the deletion of Group G is the reason for semi-protection - I mean the fact that there are 20-30 edits by anonymous IPs, most of which have been changes to figures (points, goal differences in tables, of games that were in progress at the time), which were unsourced, and also had no edit summary.  Basically, I felt bad, because when editing a page I make a habit of checking all the recent anonymous edits for undetected vandalism - but the half time break was only 10minutes and I just didn't have time to do it! -- Chuq 03:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anonymous IP edits 

message: It seems to be that the icon for the Netherlands is missing in the Round of 16 map. Can anyone fix it? Thanks.
Kiwi8 20:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry but no, the problem is still there. Kiwi8 23:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Round of 16 quirks 

message: Brazil can still get 2nd in Group F if Australia wins by a big enough margin and only Australia and Brazil can get first. SandBoxer 20:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now a moot point. --NThurston 21:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flags in 2nd column are wrong? 

message: Three times yellow is red :-) Intangible 20:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Siminuic Josip in the Croatia/Australia game actually got 3 yellow cards in the game followed by the red. (Must've forgot to pull the red at the 2nd or something... haha) ScottNak 21:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham Poll 

message: Seems to be a bone of contention.  Can we agree that there is no point is putting "flag 1" or "flag 2" in that chart?  It is plenty helpful to just say Winner of R1.  --NThurston 21:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quarter Finals: "Winner" vs. flags 

message: Somebody vandalized this web and changed all the Italian flags to Turkish ones.....
Can we get a moderator or someone to disallow editing from unregistered users until this stops? Cerberus584 21:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turkey Vs. Italy 

message: Stop editing the spacing! I just finished editing the flags for the Spain group and someone removed it. Please revert to my edit. --Harmonica 21:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay! I just worked that I'd missed out Spain and had then put all four into the box, but then there had been updates and I couldn't work out what was merging, so I left it alone anyway! Didn't realise we weren't putting all four into boxes --Harmonica 21:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Took me about two full days to figure out the "no 4" rule.  But I didn't have the energy to put all four in anyway.  --NThurston 21:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knockout Stages Flags 

message: My recommendation - 
*First Step:  Go to the person's talk page, and place a vandalism warning  or .  This is important because it is a prerequisite for getting an admin to block them.  
*Second step: Start fixing the vandalism, preferably by reverting to the last known 'good' version.  Even if you miss a recent edit, those are usually easier to add than to try to 'undo' all the damage yourself.  
*Third Step: Watch for the vandal to return.  If they do, then you can add them to the vandal action list:  Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism.  Usually it takes less than a minute for a blatant, pre-warned vandal to get blocked.  
--NThurston 22:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dealing quickly with vandalism on this page 

message: I know this isn't the right place to raise this, but I thought I'd get a quicker response here. The 2002_FIFA_World_Cup page doesn't display properly for me, and maybe for everyone else as well. Lots of strange white space at the top. Can someone fix it, please? Carcharoth 22:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dunno if its moot now, but it looks perfectly fine as is.ScottNak 00:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Looks OK now. Don't know what was happening there. Carcharoth 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2002 FIFA World Cup page formatting broken 

message: A lot of anonymous editors seem to think Turkey had the quality to qualify into the World Cup finals.  This is not true, unlike rising stars such as Angola and Trinidia+Tobago, they failed to qualify so please stop adding them into the article.  Maybe you could cheer on Ghana instead? - Hahnchen 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  TURKEY failed to qualify for the World Cup finals 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stages
What is the point of writing down the four possible teams for a quarter-final match? It just clutters the page. It's pretty obvious who the potential teams are. I say to leave the Quarter-finals and further brackets blank until there is a winner in the previous round.
Dav2008 16:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the table already serve the purpose. --WinHunter (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Knockout Stages chart--Quarter-finals

message: If Korea qualifies for the Round of 16 then this will be the first World Cup where at least one team qualifying from every confederation will have progressed into the knockout stage.  The teams are : AFC(Korea Republic?), CAF(Ghana), CONCACAF(Mexico), CONMEBOL(Ecuador, Argentina, Brazil), OFC(Australia), and UEFA(Germany, England, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Italy, Spain, Ukraine, France/Switzerland). It is also the first time ever that a team qulifying from OFC has made the knockout stage.--KiwiDave 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not 100% sure, but I think that Australia left OFC for AFC just before the World Cup. But they qualified as members of OFC, so your remark is valid anyways. 130.251.4.11 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One team from each confederation? 

message: Hi,
I;m new to the site but why is Germany represented by the Nazi flag in the groups sections?
::Mhm I don't see it....Where specifically? PerfectStorm 17:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure if I were German i'd be upset, but man that's kinda funny. Batman2005 17:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Flag 

message: Maybe someone could modify the map so that teams that advanced to the round of 16 have a different color. And then teams who advance to the next round have yet another color and so on. Am i the only one who thinks this is a good idea? Arg2k 17:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualifying Countries Map 

message: Someone modified the flags and team names of the 06/23 match (Ukraine vs Turkey), so now it says Ukraine vs Ukraine, someone please fix it. By the way, i think that USA scored an own goal, if they did we have to modify the own goal section at the end of the article. Sorry for any mistakes, i´m pretty new at wikipedia and my mother languaje is spanish. - PlaGa701 13:37 (GTM -4:00) June 23
:Can we please restrict this page to registered users only? I don't understand why it's so hard. All of the vandals I've seen have just been small random edits by unregistered users. Dav2008 17:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree,  good idea. PerfectStorm 18:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately there's a strong bias against semi-protecting articles - I think it would be a good idea to semi-protect this article, but I'm pretty sure someone would quickly unprotect it and say we should simply block the vandals. If I hadn't already edited this article in the past, I'd semi-protect it myself, but it's a big no-no for admins to do that! -- Arwel (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VANDALISM 

message: I'm removing the potential teams from the quarterfinal stages - they clutter things up add they add no new information. For the rounds of 16 it was valid because the potential teams changed over time, but if you can't figure out who could be in a given quarterfinal from the round of 16 matches then the whole tree must be a mystery to you. Note we didn't put potential teams in R16 when all four still had a chance. Moszczynski 18:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree.  It clutters and adds nothing new. -- Deville (Talk) 18:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I dont agree. This will give many a quick insite on the teams that had a potential of making it to the round of 16, without having to navigate through each group table. If you dont know the flag, just click on the image and you'll find out ken (ken) 19:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The standard template for World Cup pages is to not have the group stages in the Knockout Tree, and it would be redundant to keep them in there. Xombie 21:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knockout tree 

message: It's time to archive the Talk page again. Just to give a heads up in advance -- I'll do it at 0:00 CEST (World Cup Time :P). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival