Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Goalscorers

Someone has moved the scorers of teams in the matches and now it looks all moved. Someone please fix it.

Massive Thanks and Request for Award (what and to who?)

Brilliant work on a fantastic set of articles! Well presented, always updated. So much voluntary work by so many people. A showcase for Wikipedia's collaborative methods. Awesome! --Dumbo1 23:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree, great work by wiki on the world cup. Wikipedia is a million times better than the crooks at FIFA, I am sickened. This world cup has been a joke. This is not even real football with the crooks runing this Cup. It really is sad, how they block korean users, cover up the 3 yellow cards against suminic....how can they do this??? They make excuses for the refs....it really is pathetic, and what they are doing to their website with users...Bravo to wikipedia for truth Flyintothesky

Shortening group section

I just wanted to mention this here before I start doing it - the detail of the matches is to be moved to the 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A etc. pages, with only result summaries here. The group sections will look like this:

Group A

Full details: 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A
Team	Pts	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD
Germany	9	3	3	0	0	8	2	+6
Ecuador	6	3	2	0	1	5	3	+2
Poland	3	3	1	0	2	2	4	−2
Costa Rica	0	3	0	0	3	3	9	−6

June 9	GER 4-2 CRC
June 9	POL 0-2 ECU
June 14	GER 1-0 POL
June 15	ECU 3-0 CRC
June 20	ECU 0-3 GER
June 20	CRC 1-2 POL

This was discussed at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 4#Sandbox for redesigned Group section (post first round) with virtually no opposition. (Note: I have made VERY minor layout changes to the example shown there.) -- Chuq 05:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the vote was 4-2 in favor of changing it. I wouldn't call that "virtually no opposition," though. Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

There were a few more positive votes *above* the sample Group A table on other talk page ;) Anyway, I have created a template Template:FWCMatchSummaryLine to make it easier, you can see it in action at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Group. -- Chuq 06:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

You may add my against vote to that tally. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 11:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It isn't so much a tally of yes vs no, it is more of a discussion. What do you think could improve the design? -- Chuq

Personally, I think the above set-up needs to be used on the Groups pages as well. You could start by using it there, and then seeing if people like it enough to use it here. At the moment, when you load a page, say for Group A, you have to scroll a long way down to see the results, and they are not all grouped together. Similarly, for the current World Cup article, you have to scroll a long way down to get to the "Round of 16". I'll add a link in the introduction. Carcharoth 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. I'd also add times to the date column. Carcharoth 12:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The intention is to move the current detailed match reports (ie. the grey shaded boxes below each points table) to the top of each Group article (under the points table as it is here), and the main article only has the group table and the summaries (as seen on User:Chuq/Sandbox/Group). There isn't much point duplicating the tables on both. An advantage of this is that as the group sections on the main article will be shorter, you won't need to scroll down as far to reach the "Round of 16" games. -- Chuq 12:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I like your layout, but the argument about scrolling down doesn't really hold water. You should really either provide a link in the introduction (which I have done) or click on the link from the Table of Contents. Also, be careful about saying that putting the table on both pages is pointless. You don't want to force people to click back and forth between articles to see the table. I would say that both pages need the table, but only the table and results should be on the main article page. Remember that the groups and group articles are daughter articles of this article, and the relevant sections here that link to those articles need to summarise those articles, not just link to them. Then people have the choice to either read the summary, or click through to the more detailed article. If you don't provide the table, you are forcing people to click through to another article. Remember that this article should, eventually, be a one-stop place for people to read about this World Cup. The daughter articles should only expand on stuff mentioned here. More distant articles should be accessed through a navbox, like the one at the bottom at the moment (though hopefully that will be moved up to the top of the article after the tournament has finished). Carcharoth 13:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

If we do change the main World Cup page not to include all matches (and I agree we should), maybe we could adapt your format to look like the Greek Wikipedia's. I think their layout is very aesthetically pleasing, and the smaller font reduces the vertical space they take up - and I think the different shadings add something as well.--Moszczynski 14:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say - I really like the Greek layout! -- Chuq 02:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

you may also count me against changing the current layout. The Greek page that was linked in my opinion looks too much like a statistics box. I like the current lay out, it's consistent across the board with the other World Cup articles, adding or changing the layout won't add anything to the article. Then there's the theory of leaving well enough alone, the article as is serves its purpose very well and there's no need to continuously tweak it just because we can. Batman2005 17:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I vote for the new layout. Not many are interested after a while about the points scored, goals for and goals against. Proposed layout gives brief information and if user wants more, it is always available separate article.

One more point also that, can we remove the group match details from this article? Article size is really huge and it slows down the browser very much.

24.5.19.13 17:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Santhosh.

I am for the new layout. Some people just want to be able to open the page and look at the scores, and click on links if detailed match info is needed. ChaChaFut 18:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that the above layout should feature on the main page (in place of the detailed match info) and the group pages (in addition to the detailed match info). I have a layout suggestion though: move the right-hand box down so that the "Date" and "Teams" headings are horizontally in line with the "Team", "Pts", "Pld", etc., headings of the left-hand box. I'd also shift the right-hand box a little more to the right. Otherwise, I think it looks great. -- Hux 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Um....its my understanding and by looking at the page i'm correct, that as is...you CAN open the page and look at scores, then if you want you can click on a link and find more detailed match info. Batman2005 21:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have edited the "Group A" example above to use some elements of the Greek wikipedia's article, you can compare it to the previous layout by checking Groups B, C and D on my sandbox page at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Group, and also have a look at how I think the group pages should look: 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A. -- Chuq 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Greek format's amazing! Any efforts for this article to get to a similiar format would be great. Also, Chug, I'd recommend centering the numbers in your sandbox tables ;) Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Round of 16

I mentioned this earlier - but I don't think I've ever heard the term "Round of 16" before. The other night Gary Lineker on the BBC coverage said something like - "So France are now through to what the American's annoyingly call the 'Round of 16'." - and in The Guardian on Thursday, Nicky Campbell wrote "CNN is ever-present in German hotels and guest houses and it is terrible. Most galling are its British journalists who adhere to company policy, spewing out guff like "a one to nothing victory", "the opening half", and "scoreless tie". And, worst of all - "the round of 16". I don't care what anyone else says, I yearn for Motty". [1]Jooler 08:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree - no offence to any Americans reading this, but why should we take a name from them, when they think football is a game played with hands. Simply call it the second round.--Tivedshambo (talk) 09:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Stylistically, I agree too. Unfortunately, FIFA calls it this [2], and it is their tournament. For the same reason, "quarter-final" and "semi-final" are the preferred spellings here. Americans seem to prefer to omit the hyphen but clearly we should be guided by how FIFA writes. HTH --Guinnog 10:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

FIFA's international nature means that they have a habit of mangling the English language. It's their tournament, but it's our encyclopaedia. What they call simulation, we have at diving (football). I'm just wondering if "Round of 16" was used before this tournament, or whether it's got something to do with the current sponsors. I've tried to look up FIFA's pages on the Internet Archive for 2002 but with no luck. Jooler 10:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall the Round of 16 being so-called since 1986 when it was introduced to the tournament. Certainly the relevant Wikipedia articles seem to reflect this useage. --Guinnog 10:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

My understanding, probably wrong, is that the terminology is "first stage" for the group stage, which has three rounds of matches. Then there is the "second stage" or knock-out stage, where losing teams are automatically knocked out of the tournament. This second stage has four rounds: the Round of 16 is the first round of the second stage; the Quarter-Finals is the second round of the second stage, etc. So there are 7 rounds in total at the finals of the World Cup (preceded by various qualification and play-off competitions), but divided between 2 stages. Dunno what you would call the third-fourth play-off. Pointless? :-) Carcharoth 11:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

PS. I forgot to mention that this use of second and first stage, and second round of the first stage and second round of the second stage, means that calling the Round of 16 the "second round" could be confusing. Similarly for calling the group stage the "first round", as it is technically a series of round-robin rounds, as opposed to a knock-out round. This might explain the need to avoid "2nd round" terminology (though I am as guilty as anyone of calling the "Last 16/Round of 16" the second round). Carcharoth 11:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The excel sheet of the fantasy football competition of FIFA/Yahoo! shows Round of 16 too though. Eighth-finals would be the British equivalent i guess, but I'm not sure this point deserves all this discussion. _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 11:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

"Eighth-finals would be the British equivalent" - no. Second round or last 16, as per BBC website Jooler 12:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I feel that "Round of 16" is fine. It lets us know how many teams are in this round... just like in quarterfinals we have 8 teams, semifinals we have 4 teams, etc. Kiwi8 12:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But it's just not what I or proobably most people who have followed the World Cup over the years are used to. We don't say "round of 8" or "round of 4" and I don't recall "round of 16" being used either. Jooler 12:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "Last 16" is a fairly common expression. It is certainly the one that I use. but the important thing is not to argue over which we should use, but to consistently use one of these terms and to mention and explain ALL the terms. Carcharoth 12:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Who gives a shit what its called? Honestly there are probably more important issues to deal with other than "Round of 16," "Last 16," "Second Round," etc. Look at the FIFA page, see what they call it and call it that. Goodness, its not that difficult to figure out. Batman2005 17:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the people discussing this topic give a shit, sir. And if you bothered to read the discussion, you would see it is not that easy either. I support Carcharoth's views of mentioning the other terms. PHF 17:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

We don't say "round of 8" or "round of 4" because they already have special names (quarterfinals and semifinals respectively). Kiwi8 18:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, PHF, I did read the entire conversation, and easily came to the decision that calling it whatever FIFA calls it would probably be the best choice, since you know...it is the FIFA World Cup...perhaps they should be allowed to call it whatever they want. If you guys wanna disagree and call it something else just because some writers or commentators call it something else in other countries, then start the Wikipedia World Cup and ya'll can argue about what to call it. Until then, just look at the damn FIFA webpage, figure out what they call it and get on with it. Again, not difficult, too many people here try to over complicate the pages when simply looking at this page [3] shows that FIFA calls it the Round of 16. WOW, MY GOD THAT WAS HARD. Seem the "American's annoyingly calling it the 'Round of 16" might just be doing so because FIFA also calls it that. Hmmm? Batman2005 21:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What authority does FIFA have on the vocabulary the world uses and why is it that we should use only the vocabulary used by the organizers of some event? My point is that the language used should be the most informative and user friendly as possible, and FIFA doesn't necessarily have the last word. I never directed anything or even mentioned americans in my previous edit, so that's a straw man argument. I would also like to advise to keep this conversation clean, I dont come here to find "gives a shit" and "damn webpage" and sarcasm in a discussion, makes it hard to assume good faith. PHF 23:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, like I said, FIFA does organize the World Cup, therefore if they want to call it the "Round of teams that were better than the rest of the other teams in their groups" it would need to be listed as such on here, because...it's their World Cup, not yours or the editors herein. The bit about the Americans was to the guy who started the thread in the first place. As for assuming good faith, its not my problem if you have difficulty assuming good faith based on swear words, Wikipedia isn't censored for the faint of heart or for the conservatives who don't like swearing. Batman2005 00:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, they are FIFA. You know, the organizers of the tournament. Sure, I agree, we don't necessarily have to use FIFA's terminology for anything which applies to the game of football. But it does make sense that when we are referring to some part of a FIFA tournament, we use FIFA's terminology. But, even ignoring that, how on earth is "Round of 16" anything but informative and user-friendly? -- Deville (Talk) 23:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I was quoting Gary Lineker. As I said I don't think I've ever heard the term used before, it's certainly not common in the UK and I still wonder whether it was used before, but can't find the right pages on the Internet Archive. Jooler 22:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Useless comment of the day: here in Argentina and all the spanish speaking countries it's "octavos de final" (literally "eighth finals", as "cuartos de final" are "quarter finals") and there is no official mentioning of this at FIFA. But it's "octavos de final", no matter what, since "second round" was the name given to the second league played before the world cup turned to be a league+tournament, in 1986. --Yago Stecher 22:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we're looking at different pages, but if you go here you'll see that FIFA does call it "octavos de final". --Deville (Talk) 22:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I'm a bit confused as to why we are having such a discussion. If FIFA calls it "Round of 16", why would we do otherwise? --Deville (Talk) 22:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the term, but I looked up the FIFA site after I posted my comment above, and realised that it was the official name. Therefore this should be the title Wikipedia uses. --Tivedshambo (talk) 22:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Batman2005 that we should call it the Round of 16, like FIFA do. Batman, do you agree that there should be a footnote mentioning the other names for this round? And talking about commentators being annoying, the BBC commentators made an annoying error tonight. They mistakenly thought that Torrado (for Mexico) was mistakenly booked for a foul made by Castro a few moments previously. It was obvious that the referee had booked Torrado for kicking the ball away, not for the foul. The commentators then made a big thing out of it, saying three or four times that the card would be rescinded, and that (later in the game when Castro got booked) that it would have been a red if the earlier "mistake" hadn't happened, and saying that Mexico would "quite rightly complain". I've never heard such bilge. I want a Wiki commentator that I can rewind and correct!! :-) Carcharoth 22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I do have to say that the mistake was a bit understandable, however, since Castro had made contact right before the whistle, and Torrado was clearly away from the ball, so if someone thought the booking was for contact then it was reasonable to think the wrong player was booked. The (Spanish-language) commentators in the States made the same mistake, although they didn't make such a big deal about it...:) --Deville (Talk) 22:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

That's funny. :-) Other commentators making the same mistake. I wouldn't have minded so much, but the commentary I heard was accompanying a replay that actually showed Torrado kicking the ball away. I guess that the commentators were looking at Castro and the Argentina player lying on the ground, rather then (shock, horror!) looking at the player who was booked and maybe seeing what he did wrong. </sarcasm>. Carcharoth 23:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

shock and horror indeed. Again, to be fair to the commentators, I would guess that they typically are not seeing all of the same replays which are being shown on the screen, so perhaps, you know, they say contact, saw that there was a foul, and instinctively assumed the foul involved the players making contact. Well, you know, always trying to cut them some slack...:P -- Deville (Talk) 01:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, and to make the, ahem, discussion, slightly more relevan to the article, what is happening with Hernan Crespo's "goal". Are they giving to him because of the slightest of touches he made on the ball? Does that turn the defender's header (and own goal) into a deflection? Surely that is only if they can be sure Crespo's touch had sent the ball towards the goal. Carcharoth 23:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've always wondered exactly what the rules, or guidelines, are for scorers in this situation. I've actually looked at the FIFA site, but for some reason I can't find any information on this. (BTW, the FIFA site is excellent for actual rules of play, but they don't seem to have delineated the details of how to score things like this.) -- Deville (Talk) 01:21, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Group teams removed in the map?

I may have been wrong, but didn't we agree that for the Knockout stages map, we can keep the participants of the group in the group stage so that we know at a glance a knockout qualifier came from? Kiwi8 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. But I don't have particularly strong views either way. I think there should be three such diagrams: one for the overall tournament, where the group order (1, 2, 3, 4) is shown, plus the knockout stage; one just for the group stage; and one just for the knockout stage. There should also be a chronological list of all the matches somewhere, with all other information stripped away. A lot of these presentations will use the same information, but the different layouts have different purposes, so they are all needed and are not redundant. Carcharoth 12:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Introduction rewritten

The introduction was looking a bit dated and incomplete, so I rewrote it. I think the last paragraph could still be rewritten, but left it there for others to play around with:

The 2006 FIFA World Cup is a high profile international football championship, the finals tournament of which is being held in Germany. The championship began in December 2003 with the draw for a series of qualification tournaments and play-offs that resulted in 31 national teams qualifying for the finals tournament. Germany, as the host country, brought the total number of teams to 32. The finals tournament of the 2006 World Cup began on 9 June 2006 and will end on 9 July 2006. The first stage was the Group stage, where the 32 teams were divided into 8 groups of 4 teams. The teams in these groups of four competed in three-round round-robin tournaments to find two teams from each group (a total of 16) to advance to the knock-out stage. The Group stage was completed on 23 June 2006. The knockout stage starts on 24 June 2006, and progressive elimination of teams through quarter-finals and semi-finals, will finish with the World Cup Final, the final match on 9 July 2006. The World Cup Final will determine the World Cup champion and will be played in Berlin.

The 2006 finals are the eighteenth to be contested. The host country and football federation is Germany, who in June 2000, won the right to host the event, beating bids from South Africa (who will host the 2010 World Cup), Brazil, England and Morocco.

Carcharoth 12:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks more like a schedule than an introduction to me though. And the information on qualification is quite redundant. Maybe you should transfer that part to the Teams section, which is in need of some text anyway. Less dates and more history maybe? _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 15:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is the information on qualification redundant? You do know what the introduction or lead section for an article is meant to do? It is meant to act as a self-contained summary of the entire event. So it needs to start from the beginning and go to the end. This article is (or should be) about the whole event, not just the finals tournament. It should also give the context, explaining that this is part of a series of tournaments held every four years. I will add more later, but please be aware that this is just a start, and I built on what was a very sparse introduction. Also, bear in mind that it will read like a report on a current evet while the tournament is still going on, but that will change after the tournament ends. Carcharoth

I think the opening line is a little odd "a high profile international football championship" makes it sound like this is just one of a number of equally important international football tournaments when it is evident enough to be stated here that this is the premier international football tournament.

I agree. See comments above. That sentence was in the original text, and I didn't get around to changing that. Please feel free to make changes. Carcharoth 16:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It is meant to summarize / introduce the entire article. You used up some 4 lines on qualification when it is not even mentioned in the article! _└ ^VodkaJazz / _talk ^┐ 23:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Something about qualification needs to be added to this article, or the article needs to make clear that despite being named "2006 FIFA World Cup" (a term that can refer to the whole 3-year cycle, rather than just the 1-month finals tournament), the article is in fact about the 2006 FIFA World Cup finals tournament. Hopefully someone can do it before I find time to do so. Carcharoth 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Highlighting scorers still active in tournament

2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Individual_scorers doesn't distinguish between players whose teams are still in the tournament, and those who are not. Would it be possible to have a colour marking those who are still active, so we can see who is still in the running for the Golden Boot, and who isn't? I don't know how to do this, but it would be informative piece of formatting. Also, if someone in the list is injured, that should be noted as well. Carcharoth 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I've added asterisks for now. Maybe the alphabetical order by country should be dropped, and the players still in contention moved to the top of each list? ie. Order by "number of goals", then by "in contention", then by "country", then by "name". In fact, I disagree with any ordering by country, which is pointless as this is an individual award. Carcharoth 12:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no need at all to distinguish which scorers are still in the tournament. It makes no diffference. If Germany is eliminated today, Miroslav Klose will still lead the tournament if nobody else has 4 goals. As we go on and more players keep scoring then we'll see movement, but as it stands there's no real reason to do it. Why should we list injured players? That doesn't have anything to do with the goals they've scored. The list is fine as is, there's no reason to bold certain players and leave others in regular text. Batman2005 14:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The point is that you can see that some of the players on two goals cannot catch Klose. It gives you an idea of who is still in the running to catch him, and who isn't. It might not be that important now, but when only four teams are left in the tournament, it will be helpful to see who is left in. Surely you can see that? It is adding information. What is wrong with that? Carcharoth 14:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I suppose highlighting scorers still in action is useful mainly for prediction of the final outcome. It's not a necessity, but now that someone has added it in, it's fine. 203.218.141.30 14:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand the desired outcome, but I just don't see the point in it at all. Regardless if its added I won't undo it or anything. Batman2005 17:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

After all I said and done, I would prefer to see them listed alphabetically, not by country. My U$S0.02 --NThurston 14:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Listing them by country makes sense to me. Batman2005

Why? Listing them alphabetically by name makes sense to me. I'm not going to make a big point over this, as I don't really care either way, but I'd be interested to know why listing by country makes sense? I thought it might be so that you can see more easily how many goals a particular country has scored, but you still need to do some adding up. Is there anywhere where we list how many goals have been scored by each country? Maybe in that "big table" that got removed a few days ago? Carcharoth 00:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Because it keeps it uniform and all together, not to mention precedent from the other world cup articles. Batman2005 21:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Unupdated information

I corrected some unupdated information in the Group G, the results of the last two matches of the group here wrongly implemented in the score table. Also, the colours of the eliminated teams of groups F and G were wrong. Note: Is UNUPDATED a real english word? PlaGa701 6/24/6 11:24 (GTM -4)

Out of date? --Guinnog 16:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted = Unupdated. sikander 16:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

yes, the code has right, but the information did not displayed, the group g appear like if the last two matches of the group didnt happen, so i erased some characters so the table of the group appear like the tables of the other groups, and that fix it. I really dont know much about the code you use, but the changes i did worked perfectly. No intencion of offending anyone

PlaGa701 12:39, 24 June 2006 GTM -4

Early updates

Please, do not update the Knockout stage table before the end of the matches. It makes no sense and can be misleading, especially if someone doesn't know that the match is still being played. Afonso Silva 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

ANGf2 vs ANGf

What is the difference between these two? when rendered it looks like that, ANGf is shown as Portugal.

24.5.19.13 17:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Santhosh

The flag icon appears to the right of the country name in the f2 templates, to the left in the f templates. -- Arwel (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

See for yourself: ANGf2=Angola and ANGf=Angola. sikander 20:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

I know this has been thoroughly discussed, but the article just has to be at least semi-protected during games and for several hours after them. The vandalism and early updates are just out of control. There are many good contributors, but there are lots of people trying to update the same statistics creating conflicts. Phoenix2 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Protection of any front page article is strongly discouraged and we're probably just going have to live with it. Certainly any protection lasting around two hours would be unwarranted unless the article was under attack from IP hopping vandals. That said, I did come close to semi protecting it after the end of the last match. I blocked one of the vandals and things started to calm down, so I decided against it. --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

All righ, thanks for the reply. Phoenix2 22:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there anyway we can fully protect just the group stage results? There's no need to keep it open. Kingjeff 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunatly there isn't. Protection is only available at the level of the whole article. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What would be possible is to create templates for the group tables, and then protect the templates. This could be extended to anything involving results, but would rely on an admin being there to update results and/or unprotect as soon as the game is over. Carcharoth 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I think we should do that. Group stage is over and no need to edit that section. Kingjeff 22:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection of the templates would also be an option - this limits editing to logged in users who's accounts are more than a few days old. -- Chuq 02:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

A Little story from July 6, 2000

Titanic (magazine)#Football World Cup 2006 Bribery Affair

The longer german article de:Wie Titanic einmal die Fußball-WM 2006 nach Deutschland holte. Trans(I hope :): How take Titanic once the world cup 2006 to germany.--LaWa 00:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Distasteful vandalism

I noticed a new logo being purportedly sported by FIFA for the '06 world cup. Whomever made and published the ridiculous graphic of a Microsoft Paint created swastika kicking an oblong blur should 1. work on their wit and candor to attempt to offend someone, 2. be banned from wikipedia for vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martjoseph (talk • contribs) .

The image was uploaded by a vandalism-only account and therefore was speedy deleted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Knockout stage link names

One thing I noticed for the matchups in the knockout stages that while it reveals where the game is being played the link is to the location, not the stadium. Is it alright to change the links to saying Berlin instead of Berlin. --Lummie 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with that. Mitch119 11:29, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Smaller Soccer Fields?

For those who are paying attention to World Cup on TV, dont the soccer fields look smaller now in the Group of 16 games than they did in the first round of 32? The players are so close together and one can see both flanks of the filed in one screen shot. Does anyone know why or can anyone explain?--Xlegiofalco 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I saw 44 players in yesterday's match... wait, that might be because I was drunk ;-) Seriously tough, I don't think there is notable difference between any two of the world cup fields in use, as pitch dimensions in the world cup are strictly regulated by the FIFA and they all have to be pretty much the same. ChaChaFut 15:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

They are using the same pitches, dont ask such stupid questions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.130.141 (talk • contribs).

Please be WP:CIVIL. Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

It is possible to change the pitch dimensions, although I think it would be unlikely.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:17, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely and against the FIFA regulations for the tournament which describe precisely the exact size the pitch has to be so that one team cannot claim that a larger or smaller pitch was disadvantageous to their team. Batman2005 18:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I know every pitch in the world cup is 105 m by 68 m. However, the "2006 FIFA World CupTM Germany Regulations" (http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/i/eu/fifa/regen.pdf) only makes a reference to the "Laws of the Game and Decisions of the International Football Associations" (http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/i/eu/fifa/lawen.pdf) which only lists the desired dimensions for international matches (min./max. lenght 100/110, width 64/75). The french version http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/i/eu/fifa/regfr.pdf does cite 105 x 68 under XIL.5 --ChaChaFut 19:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, the pitch is the same. And changing pitch dimensions is not that easy, you must remove the paint and paint it again. If the pitch looks smaller it's your impression. Afonso Silva 19:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Whether it's a good question or bad question or stupid question, it's really doesn't matter. Kingjeff 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

The pitch size can´t be changed (at least the length) because the goal posts are firmly set in concrete shafts; they also couldt simply dig new, closer holes because most pitches have a heating grid below the soil. One reason why the players might seem closer together now could be that the teams in the finals are generally more mobile and fitter tan some of the contenders in the group stage - the players are simply more capable of closing the gaps.

Could it not be that they have moved the camera's to a better angle? enabling the whole width of the pitch to be seen? Arnie1066 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Card Information

Great site. But there's no information for what cards are being given out.

see also section...World Cup 2006 Disciplinary Record....I believe you'll find it there.

And in the main article under each group/the knockout rounds. -- Arwel (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

portugal vs netherlands cards record

Did this match set a new record for most cards in a game ? sikander 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

4 red cards is a record. Intangible 21:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Joint 16 yellow cards. Fantastic. Skinnyweed 21:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Damn. This has to be a record. That was a ridiculous game. Haha. ScottNak 21:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Foul language. . Name and number? :-P --GraemeL ^(talk) 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Scott, 17. USA. *hangs head*ScottNak 04:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It was funny seeing the sent-off players Deco and van Bronckhorst (who are Barcelona clubmates) sitting together discussing the match.  :) Kiwi8 21:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess Deco had some golf resort tips for van Bronckhorst :) Intangible 21:13, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Portugal in its best! We rock! Afonso Silva 21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry mate, but it's a Pyrrhic victory. With 2 players suspended and Ronaldo injured, it's going to be tough in the next round. Kiwi8 21:23, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Portugal beats Brazil 8-0 ? hahahah. sikander 21:25, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, after extra time, Deco will score the 8 goals against his motherland.

In the next match we'll beat the English once more, we have 23 players and Ronaldo is going to recover, Merche Romero will help. The English are in bad position, Rooney will have to work on his McDonalds part time, Beckam has a schedule in the hairdresser and Crouch will be in the mechanic. Afonso Silva 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How bout you all make a better referee controversy subsection in the 2006 Fifa World Cup article? Some have been absolutely atrocious... --Palffy 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Moving elimination bracket to the top?

Considering that most people will be looking at that now, it makes sense to me that that should be at the top. I don't want to be rash and move it up there without any prior notice, though. Comments and criticism welcomed. eszett^talk 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

That will just be temporary. leave it where it is because that is more logical long term. Kingjeff 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How about adding a temporary hatnote that links to the relevant section? In fact, I'll go and do that now! Carcharoth 22:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Referee controversies

2006 FIFA World Cup#Refereeing_controversies is tagged as unreferenced. I added one, but it needs several more before removal of the tag is justified.

It is also tagged as NPOV. Again probably justified. Needs some rewording and some citations to fix this.

Finally, it's tagged for cleanup. Bad grammar and repeated phrases mostly. Should be fairly easy to get it to a state to remove the cleanup tag. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I did a little work on it. Hope it's a start. Kingjeff 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Certainly is. You can probably remove the cleanup tag now and the cite needed flags will make it easier for people to get the appropriate references quickly. --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we should keep the citation flags. They show where citations are needed. Kingjeff 22:30, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yup. My bad wording. I should have started a new sentence instead of using "and". --GraemeL ^(talk) 22:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

No no. My mistake. I didn't read it right. Kingjeff 22:38, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

One thing that bothers me, regarding the request for citations is that, for example, the television commentators on the BBC commented on the numbers of yellow and red cards issued. This is, of course, without on-demand playback, which is often not available, uncitable, but nevertheless true. How does one go about justifying things said by commentators live, but no longer available? M0RHI 23:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

How about changing the text to just mention commentators (instead of television commentators) and use an online newspaper source that criticises the number of cards? --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:24, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I renamed the section to "Refereeing controversies". I think that it's more accurate. It would be "Referee controversies" if the controversy was over the selection of referees. --GraemeL ^(talk) 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

"In the same match, Russian official Valentin Ivanov also came in for criticism for ignoring the pleas of two Dutch players who seemed obviously to have been fouled in the penalty area near the end of the first half, first when striker Dirk Kuyt appeared to have been hauled down by Portuguese defender Ricardo Carvalho,[citation needed] and moments later on the same play when Arjen Robben was kicked in the shoulder and brought to the ground by a high-flying lunge from Nuno Valente, but was out-ruled by an offside awarded to the Dutch attack.[citation needed]. In the other hand, Portugal complained about a red-card deserving harsh foul over Cristiano Ronaldo, who had to be substituted. Also, Deco's sent off was considered ridiculous, since the fault was clearly done by the Dutch player."

^ This section is POV and has elements of bias, I for one disagree with most of the examples as did English TV commentators. May be more sensible to label said decisions 'contentious' or 'debateable'.

My apologies for sticking my nose in here, but I would like to suggest to the many wikimembers who are taking care of these pages during the tournament that you might want to discuss whether you want to split this topic off into its own article. It is being added to so quickly (at least in part by contributers who are getting a chance to vent there frustration with how the games are being officiated) that it will soon be bigger than all of the other parts of the article put together. I understand if there is a consensus against this idea, I just wanted to toss it in here as food for thought.User:MarnetteD | Talk 02:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Marnette, an article for officiating controversy throughout the World Cup would make for a good football article, but it will be difficult to keep it NPOV and correctly worded. Animated GIF's of each incident would count as a semi-citation but many references would be needed. --70.49.220.9 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree, it's way to POV to be on the main tournament page. For example, "Perhaps the most controversial goal in the World Cup so far has been Nakamura's 26th minute strike against Australia in the first group match... In the end no harm was done as Australia stormed back into the game in the final 10 minutes to win 3-1." What the hell is this?? --KiwiDave 03:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The entire thing was POV as hell. There are controversies in EVERY GAME with the officials, certainly we're not in the business of inventing controversy, but we can't seriously include ALL controversial stuff in here. The simple fact is that one or two people disagreeing with a call is NOT a controvery....a writer in Portugal will feel that the two red cards issued to their players against Holland were not warranted, while a dutch writer will think they were. There have been controversial decisions thus far, but I don't recall any real controvery...stuff like match fixing, improper conduct (i.e. holding up a barcelona shirt before you ref the final champions league game, etc.) and stuff are controversies. A few calls that ruffle feathers are not. Batman2005 04:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I am inclinded to disagree, in that at the very least Graham Poll's refereeing of Croatia v Australia (unprecedented 3 yellow cards) and the recent Portugal v Netherlands game (record breaking red cards, record equalling yellow cards, nature of the game in general, its importance) should warrant a mention somewhere within the article.--Anthonymous 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They are mentioned....on the disciplinary record page. Batman2005 13:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, three yellow cards is not unprecedented - I was listening to ex-referee Clive Thomas on the radio last night, and he recalled the same thing happening in a 1974 World Cup finals match at which he was the fourth official (ironically also involving Australia). -- Arwel (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

References need cleanup

That's all. Skinnyweed 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way? Kingjeff 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

In a format such as [title] [publisher] [author] [date] and optional [date of access]. Skinnyweed 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

referee controversies

I THINK THAT PART SHOULD BE DELETED FROM PAGE, REFEREES ARE HUMAN , MAKE MISTAKES, ERRORS OCCURS IN EVERY COMPETITION IN EVERY SPORT SO I THINK IS AN USELESS AND POINTLESS ARTICLE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.114.28.174 (talk • contribs).

I agree (except that it is in fact a section not an article), no contreversy can really be judged as factual knowledge, except perhapes the 3 yellow cards. There's no interpretation there, but that dosen't really deserve the space to mention it. PN123 05:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that just because a mistake is unavoidable it isn't noteworthy. It is usefull to document mistakes that were made, because they help keep the event and its results in context. --NThurston 18:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with NThurston. Accidental as they may be, the mistakes do affect the outcome of the game and should be recorded Jds10912 15:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A section on referee mistakes is fine and would fall into this category. A section on "controversies" is more difficult to establish, as one needs to verify that it is indeed a controversy. -- Deville (Talk) 16:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the section, but I think it has become more relevent based on Sepp Blatter's critical comments [4]. --Elliskev 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Goals

I think the current player should be in bold because it stands out better, what do u all think?. 01sbrightwell 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) I totally agree Kingjeff 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Vandalism on england's game. Please correct it

Controversial decisions

Should we have a section for controversial referee decisions? I think we ought to as those matches will be remembered. For instance italy vs usa, portugal vs netherlands, and now italy vs australia. I think everyone would agree that these were controversial matches. However, the section will have to be NPOV and that might be hard to do. sikander 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• Such a section was added [5] but it looks like it is was removed because of POV problems.[6] [7] 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies was also created, but it is currently on AFD. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• I have done some work to straighten up 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies. It is now in an NPOV format, but the article still needs help to reflect true information. Please add your knowledge (especially references) but keep it NPOV --204.113.19.8 17:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

How would you go about citing commentary from the commentators? Or the pundits? Skinnyweed 18:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not just the commentary or pundits anymore. FIFA has joined in the criticism of the referees. Xombie 18:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia has a good solution for "I heard in on TV" yet. For now, though, I would say to include what a reputable commentator said on this topic as accurately as you can document it. --NThurston 18:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Tape the games and keep copies of the commentaries. Oops. Are you not allowed to do that? ;-) I still think the 'wiki' commentating revolution is overdue - we should all be able to commentate on a game and edit our commentary as needed! Carcharoth 01:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Commentarism, journalism and history are all one person points of view, and just a few can do it with the professionalism of objetivism. So, for me, citing a australian commentator quote on the transmission of the match against Italy is the same that citing a an australian fan quote about the game. Don't take commentary on TV or a daily article as the "absolute truth".--Bauta 02:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A curious example ... I believe there is no Australian television commentator covering the world cup whilst the game is in progress. I believe Australia (SBS) takes the English commentary.60.226.76.41 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You're right... example.--Bauta 17:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

About mistakes and controversies

I don't think this world cup is so controversial, there has been a lot of mistakes by the refs, but that's normal. It's part of this game, players are human, and the refs are too. I don't think that's enough material to call this a controversial world cup. If you read on more "neutral" press, you'll discover that isn't really so controversial, they all make reference to certain mistakes, but didn't call it a setted up cup like four years ago... that was real controversy, there was teams like Korea or Brazil that has one-sided referees in a lot of games, but in this world cup the mistakes are for every side. Portugal against Netherlands was a tough game, but Ivanov show cards to the two teams, all the sent-offs were by double yellow. Italy-usa was the same; Criminal elbow to the face, criminal kick to the ankle deserves red cards. In today's game of Italy, they were 45 minutes with ten men because a polemic red card to Materazzi, Australia didn't score and there was a polemic penalty kick to Italy, but that's not controversial, call it bad refeering, but no controversial. You can't say Italy got the ref help, they were with the water on their neck all second period. Same for Portugal or Netherlands, no one got help. And are specific games, if this world cup is setted up controversy should be in Germany games, but those have been very good matches. The refs makes mistakes and that's part of the most beautiful game of the world, it makes it more human. By the way... yesterday game of Por vs. Ned was really good, expulsions and the heat ofall players make it one of the best of this tournament. --Bauta 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I guess you have a different understanding of controversial. It's not about being "good" or "bad"; it's all about whether it generates discussion or, more appropriately, argument. So, the refereeing has definitely been controversial. Many of the calls and results have generated a lot of discussion and disagreement. I believe it is useful to document those events that were controversial, as that it is an important part of how the event unfolds that is not reflected very well in the official reports. --NThurston 18:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That's my point. There are a lot of mistakes, but there is no reason to discuss it, if you want to document every ref decision that's not accepted by the whole world you'll never end. I agree on it when the calls are always on one team favor, but there is no reason to discuss the call on his technical motives. I mean, this world cup article is long enough, and has a lot of irrelevant information, so to put "no, that was bad, because if you see the left ankle of the man who was 3 meters back on the play..." for every play that somebody does not consider correct isn't useful. The bad calls on this world cup are because refs have just two eyes in front of their face and don't have 30 cameras for every angle of the play, but I don't see any other major reason on the mistakes, like I saw 4 years ago.--Bauta 20:01, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

• • I agree with Bauta. 63.23.17.177 21:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

So your point is that this would make the article too long. Problem solved, because it has been moved to a separate article. No, seriously, Graham Poll and assistants clearly had more problems that just not seeing the action. Regardless, mistakes can have consequences (Poll will not be refereeing again in this tournament), and some of these mistakes or consequences will affect the outcomes of the games and the tournament. This is important to document.

Like you, I wouldn't want to see the controversy page become a forum for two wikipedians to duke it out on the finer points of whether a call was good or bad. There is no point in that. Documenting history is quite different. For example: Refereee Jones did not call offsides on winning goal, resulting in a good outcome for Team A. Replay evidence suggests it may have been a mistake. Generated a significant amount of discussion in the press and other places. (Citations here). Then, four years from now when everybody's recalling the ref's history, or the team's perennial good luck, we'll know what they aretalking about. It will have been documented. --NThurston 22:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if somebody wants to do it... no problem... there are a thousands of articles that I would like to delete before a list with ref's mistakes on 2006. However, I still think that a ref mistake is part of the game just like a good mid-field kick, a good assist, or a miss shot. And none of these is documented and that also affects the outcomes of the matches. A ref mistake must be on match reports or something. Anyway... call it mistakes, but controversy isn't the case this time. About controversy, with your view on documentation you should view the 2002 world cup article and talk page. There's a discussion about the same thing, but that time was very different.--Bauta 02:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Penaultys

I think we should put in brackets the scorers of penaulty sgoot outs because it is a goal, but i know it dosent count for the boot , what do u all think? 01sbrightwell 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Do it in a separate section, like for the "own goals". I know the penalties scored in a penalty shoot-out don't count for much, but this section is a logical place to put stuff to avoid people having to hunt through the article to find out who scored what penalties. Alternatively, put a "penalty shoot out" section at 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany, which generally seems to accept anything rejected from the main articles. Carcharoth 01:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Seems a bit pointless to me. It's not technically true that "it is a goal but doesn't count towards the golden boot" - penalties converted during shoot-outs are not added to players' career goal-scoring records therefore they are technically not goals at all. Adding this info the the goalscorers section would just cause confusion, IMO ChrisTheDude 09:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its a dumb idea, what's next? Adding goals that were disallowed due to offside? Adding shots that would have been goals if they hadn't been saved? If it's not recorded going to count for the golden shoe it shouldn't be in that section. If we want to see who scored a penalty kick we can look at the game box. Batman2005 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Players scoring in three world cups

The record amount of players who have scored in their third world cup during the current tournament, plus the count by ESPN which I find inaccurate, plus a recent edit in the Raul Gonzalez article saying he was the 4th ever to do it, lead me to enter my list here, to see if someone can comment on this, on whether this is an agreeable list, or correct any errors. Thanks in advance. ChaChaFut 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Players who have scored in at least three world cups
(First 14 not necessarily in exact order)

1. Pelé 1958-1970
2. Uwe Seeler 1958-1970
3. Grzegorz Lato 1974, 1978, 1982
4. Andrzej Szarmach 1974, 1978, 1982
5. Joe Jordan 1974, 1978, 1982
6. Dominique Rocheteau 1978, 1982, 1986
7. Michel Platini 1978, 1982, 1986
8. Karl-Heinz Rummenigge 1978, 1982, 1986
9. Julio Salinas 1986, 1990, 1994
10. Diego Maradona 1982, 1986, 1994
11. Rudi Völler 1986, 1990, 1994
12. Lothar Matthäus 1986, 1990, 1994
13. Roberto Baggio 1990, 1994, 1998
14. Jürgen Klinsmann 1990, 1994, 1998
15. Gabriel Batistuta 1994, 1998, 2002
16. Fernando Hierro 1994, 1998, 2002
17. Sami Al-Jaber 1998, 2002, 2006
18. Raúl González 1998, 2002, 2006
19. Henrik Larsson 1994, 2002, 2006
20. Ronaldo 1998, 2002, 2006
21. David Beckham 1998, 2002, 2006

• Sweden wasnt in the 1998 world cup, but they were in '94, which is when Larsson scored.

Thanks for editing my typo. ChaChaFut 00:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On Switzerland and penalty kicks

I just have to ask, before this might get added to the trivia section... a quick look at the previous results show that not only are the Swiss the only team to not give up a goal in a World Cup tournament (as far as I know, no champion has pitched all clean sheets), but I believe that they may be the first team to not score at all in a penalty shootout, when they went out 0-0 (0-3) to Ukraine. Wjmorris3 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This portal agrees with you. -- Alias Flood 02:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I added something about it. Kingjeff 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The statement on least PK scored is also correct. The worst shooting team in a single PK shutout had until now been Mexico, with 1 goal (recorded twice, in 1986 and 1994). ChaChaFut 02:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

These facts are cited at the BBC sports report [8]--Tivedshambo (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

As much as I'm sure the Portugese would love it, Portugal has not yet beaten Argentina 5-4 in the World Cup Final. Please remove this from the knockout ladder. --Australian Matt 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Against Vandalism

I'm suggesting that add a semi-protection to this page to avoid some unregistered super-fans vandaling this page. Daylight 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

See the thousand other discussions on this for reasons why it won't be semi-protected. Batman2005 21:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Extremely large article

Serious efforts need to be made to bring the size of this article down from 60+ KB to a manageable 32 KB. I recommend making the changes discussed here. Making said changes would reduce the amount of extraneous information. Further splitting of the article is impossible. Efforts should be made to trim article size. Thoughts, comments, suggestions? Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not look at previous World Cup articles to see if any are good enough to be used as a model for where the article should be heading (it will, after all, be history in just a few weeks). Try Category:FIFA World Cup tournaments. Carcharoth 08:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The past 8 or so tournaments have each match expanded in the main article, which expands the article significantly in terms of length. No past World Cup has stadia and the draw in the article, and still be about 32 KB. However, we have individual group articles that have the same data as what's shown on the main article. I really think we should reformat and eliminate all of the expanded match summaries (from the main article). Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the stadia and draw sections should become daughter articles (leaving summaries in this article), along with the expanded match details, but (as I'm not entirely clear what you mean) I would still want to see all the match results (not just the tables) in this article, rather than forcing people to click around between articles to get basic information like that. I think it would be acceptable for people to have to click through to find out the goalscorers and the times of the goals, but the score should be here. Also, if a suitable format is found for this World Cup, should it be applied to all the World Cups - in some sense, I quite like the idea of having different layouts for different World Cup articles. It makes things a bit more interesting, and recognises that each layout has its advantages and disadvantages. Maybe that is something more for a Wikibook though, and the encyclopedia articles should be uniformly consistent in layout. Carcharoth 11:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The venues section can be shortened, the image and the table are too big. See [9] for example, it can be half of space. I would do it if I know how... but I don't know.--Bauta 01:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn't worry about the 32 limit. That old standard no longer applies and we have plent of articles large than that. Jooler 05:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I was misunderstood. I feel that the article should be reduced in size a great deal to approximately 40-ish KB, as I feel that is a manageable size.

To respond to Carcharoth, the match results would still be available, but it would be side-by-side with the table. Example (using plain text because I am too lazy to write a table):

For more information, see 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group E

Italy          [Points, GD, W/T/L, etc.]      USA 0-3 CZE
Ghana          [goes here              ]      ITA 2-0 GHA
Czech Republic [                       ]      CZE 0-2 GHA
USA            [                       ]      ITA 1-1 USA
                                              CZE 0-2 ITA
                                              GHA 2-1 USA

Match scores would be linked to the very detailed match report in the daughter article. Thoughts? Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow...

2006 FIFA World Cup

number of edits                   7511
number of minor edits	          1699 (22.6%)
first edit	                  12/12/2002 14:34 (Mintguy)
most recent edit	          06/27/2006 07:38 (IanManka)
mean time between edits           4:07 h
unique editors	                  2558 (1573 IP addresses)
average number of edits per user  2.9
number of edits within last day   263
number of edits within last week  2201
number of edits within last month 5964
number of edits within last year  7279

Take a look at those statistics! Over 5900 edits in the past month. Thanks to everyone who has worked on this article so far. Retrieved from [10]. Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

Yesterday I added a trivia section, and today it has been removed. Why? Couldn't it be easier to keep up with the trivia when it is added as soon as it happens? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.138.75 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I would say it would be because there is already an entire article full of trivia at 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany. Take a look and see if what you wrote is already in there. -- Chuq 13:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Semi-protection

I think the article should be s-protected during match times, and unprotected during other times.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This has been discussed about a thousand times, and has been shot down a thousand times. Batman2005 21:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Scores already?

On the scores for the games, it lists Spain beating France 5-0, when the game hasn't even taken place for another hour or so... --Slappy.McGee 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Now fixed. David McCormick 17:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I have one REALLY good reason why it is ß not ss for the German title or offical title

I have heard a lot about it should Fussball because FIFA is locationed in Switzerland, but not is not a good reason becuase the World Cup isn't in Switzerland. It is in Germany where they would use Fußball. Please give some better reasons, I will listen. --Je suis _t\^c 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

In some placxes it is "ss", in others it is "ß". To maintain it for uniformity, I think I will change it to "ß", unless there are any objections.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 20:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It is a good reason. The cup is organized by FIFA, and the official World Cup name is written with "ss" and not "ß". We should stick with the official name. (i.e. "ss") 81.221.179.69 21:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any objections. Kingjeff 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I object to going against consensus in the archives simply because people don't read them and established precedent by FIFA. They say its "ss," it should stay that way, its not the Wikipedia Editors World Cup, its the FIFA World Cup. Batman2005 21:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

More to the point, it's not the German world cup; it's merely hosted in Germany. They didn't change it to "World Soccer Cup" when it was in the US in 1994, after all. --EngineerScotty 21:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ß is used in Germany. ss is used in Switzerland. How about we keep this article in english? That would solve the problem. Kingjeff 21:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is in English. Regarding the official title, we should either quote it exactly, or not at all. (Likewise, the German Wikipedia might wish to spell it as Fußball for local audiences, Fussball to make FIFA happy; much as the English article uses "football", and Spanish uses "futbol".) --EngineerScotty 21:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay people who object, why in the 2002 world cup page did they use Korean and Japanese, shouldn't there be a language that is spoken in Switzerland, obviously that can't be right, I should go to that page and change into Swiss German, French, or Italian, maybe even Romanish. Also you can't just put one thing of the swiss german dialect in there it has to all be different compared to standard German. Or hey let's change to french becuase that is the offical language FIFA, but make sure it is the correct dialect Swiss French! --Je suis _t\^c 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that Swiss German dialect is anyway involved in this "ß/ss" debate. The fact that FIFA is swiss is simply pointless. When the cup was hosted by Italy they used the italian name and the same happened in France, so there's no reason why they should use Swiss now instead of German. But it is allowed, under certain conditions, to write standard German with some translitterations (for example when you are writing in German on a US keyboard). So you can find "Mueller" instead of "Müller" or "Strasse" for "Straße". FIFA may have decided to write Fussball because it is an allowed form of German which is immediately (and correctly) readable by most people. 130.251.4.11 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

On the official World Cup website, FIFA uses 'fussball.' Maybe it's because they're Swiss, maybe it's because its easier to read, maybe it's because someone was too lazy to type a special character and maybe it's for no reason at all - but the fact is that that is the official spelling and is therefore the one we should use. Moszczynski 13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

I thought this page is semi-protected...I just saw all countries flags were switched to U.S.A. flag, and a match just finished too.

It is not. -- Deville (Talk) 21:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it should become semi-protected at least... Looking at the history, it appears this page has been vadelised alot... Tuvas 21:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Article is currently protected against anon edits. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, --Bajnyhnoj (but not signed in)

This topic has been discussed numerous times here, here, here, and here. As per WP:PPOL#Uses

When a page like this one is particularly high profile, either because it is linked off the main page, or because it has recently received a prominent link from offsite, it will often become a target for vandalism. It is not appropriate to protect pages in this case. Instead, consider adding them to your watchlist, and reverting vandalism yourself.

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between Protection and Semi-protection. Thanks. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This article should not be semi-protected - it should be monitored only. violet/riga (t) 12:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

It is currently protected from moving, but not from editing. Which seems fair IMO - the article appears to be at the correct title (no one has requested it moved, and most of the moving has been childish), but at the same time all people who want to see the wiki at work can edit. Sam Vimes 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Conceding goals

Is Italy the only team in this year's world cup so far never to have had another team score against them?

In the group stages, Italy had a goal scored against them, though and own goal in their match against USA.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 16:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well that's why I specified "by another team". I guess that means the answer is yes? It looks that way, but I haven't checked to see whether any of the other temas with singleton goals were caused by an own-goal. 199 (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Switzerland was eliminated without conceding any goals. Star Ghost 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Portugal v England rivalry

How about an article on the burgeoning Portugal v England rivalry?

Please explain Bornagain4 18:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that we (England) will be playing them for the second major tournament in a row exactly qualifies as a "rivalry". There's no other significant history between the two teams that I can think of..... ChrisTheDude 21:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Meetings in two successive tournaments is a long way from "rivalry". Though since Phil Scolari was managing Brazil when they knocked England out of the 2002 World Cup, rumour has it that if his team manages it three times in a row he gets to keep Sven! -- Arwel (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

We have England and Germany football rivalry and Argentina and England football rivalry; but we're still missing THE BIG ONE England and Scotland football rivalry. England and Portugal doesn't really match up. Jooler 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

They met in the '66 World Cup, '86 World Cup, Euro 2000, Euro 2004, World Cup 2006. I said it's a burgeoning rivalry. But you are right, an England-Scotland article is needed.

I'd say that to be considered a proper "rivalry" there would have to be a serious depth of feeling around any match between the two nations, extending almost beyond football, as there is with Argentina, Germany and Scotland. Meetings with those nations get fans seriously fired up, I don't think fans think much about a game with Portugal other than "oh look, it's Portugal again!".... ChrisTheDude 07:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I Think any such article should be tittled Scottish-English rivalry. In my experience English fans have no problem supporting Scotland, Wales, N.Ireland or Ireland. However there seems not to be the same camaradary in the opposite direction. For instance When england failed to reach the World Cup (shudders at the memory) English fans Supported the other countries from the UK Arnie1066 07:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Changes in the Quarters Finals Section

What does "to come here:" means?, the quarters finals section have been altered, Why? PlaGa701 28 June 2006 9:52 (GTM -4)

someone had inserted the football match template and left a message (report to come here) in the template where the report links are usually placed. I've updated the section and removed those messages so it is clear now and no confusion for readers. sikander 05:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Match fixing

The link we have for the GER-ARG match report ([11]) already has the final score filled in! 2-1 to Germany aet. Very unprofessional from Fifa, but what's new? How long before someone realises?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Amazing! I'm speechless! -- Alias Flood 02:44, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It has to be a database bug. sikander 05:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is dead as of now.--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91^{(review me!)} 05:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Highest scoring clubs

It would be interesting to see a list of scorers by clubs. As I write this I think Chelsea have 8 World Cup Goals, Arsenal 7. Not sure about Real Madrid. 86.17.246.75 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Chelsea players have only scored 6 goals. Kingjeff 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Are Premiership strikers as or more disproportionally represented than World Cup players in general? How many of the scorers or goals are from players in the English Premiership? Jooler 17:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Uh...Hernan Crespo - 3 goals, Andriy Shevchenko - 2 goals, Drogba , Robben, Joe Cole each have 1....do the math that adds up to 8 goals. I could 6 for Real Madrid. Batman2005 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Shevchenko isn't an epl player till July 1st. Kingjeff 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh god you're one of those? He plays for Chelsea! :) There was a HUGE argument on the squads page about that, one dude even quit editing at wikipedia all together cause he was so upset that people put footnotes to denote that Ballack would be going to Chelsea....it was great, you could almost see his tears in his typing. Batman2005 04:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Does that mean that if Ukraine progress to the semis or the final and he scores some more, the goals scored after tomorrow will be counted as having been scored by a Chelsea player but the goals up to today won't? ChrisTheDude 07:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that was Sarcasm, but... until a player actually Signs, he is at his 'old' club. Arnie1066

ChrisTheDude brings up a good point...what if they make it to the finals, does that mean that he scored some goals while playing for AC Milan and then some when he was playing for Chelsea? I have a feeling that if this were actually something that FIFA kept track of, that guys like Ballack and Shevchenko would have their goals credited to Chelsea, rather than their old clubs. Batman2005 13:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I concur with the caped crusader. FordTuffinIt 14:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Since they came as the previous club, then it should count for that team. But anyways, why would we break it down this way?Kingjeff 14:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should at all, its the poster child for "too much information." It serves no real purpose whatsoever. Batman2005 16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro

Is it worth mentioning, perhaps with a footnote, that now that Montenegro is independant from Serbia they will play as two different nations in future world cups? Wikibout-Talk to me! 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the trivia article, 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany --Moszczynski 16:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know that article existed. Wikibout-Talk to me! 17:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure they will. There is talk (every so often) of having a UK Team instead of Scot/Wales/N.Ireland/England. So i think thay can still enter a single team?? Arnie1066

The UK issue is more to do with the concept of separate teams having been estbalished back in the 19th century and being far too ingrained in British culture to change now. Every country that has broken up in more recent times (Czechoslovakia, USSR, Yugoslavia, etc) has fielded separate national football teams accordingly - I expect the same to happen with Montenegro..... ChrisTheDude 08:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Trivia/miscellany

It seems difficult to notice the link to the 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany page under the heading == See also ==, so I gave it a separate heading. --Oden 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)