Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions about 2006 FIFA World Cup. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Results of group stage matches

I think that results of individual group matches should be on the page, in whatever form possible. I don't really see any reasons why tables should be kept on the page, while to find out the results a user has to go through 8 (!) different individual group pages. Artyom (talk • contribs) 18:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we should use a similar table to the ones used at UEFA Champions League 2007-08. – Pee Jay 18:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with those would probably be that teams only play each other once, so the tables might not look very good. However, since there are only 6 matches in each group, it may be better to list the results in some form either adjacent to or beneath the standings tables. Artyom (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

You could be right there. Perhaps something similar to the way the results were listed in the Champions League articles before we decided to use the tables? – Pee Jay 18:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

That would probably work. Artyom (talk • contribs) 19:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead then :) – Pee Jay 19:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. But just to make sure that it won't be useless, it might be a good idea to wait for other comments and/or suggestions :-) Artyom (talk • contribs) 20:11, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary

I got a good summary going for the 2006 FIFA World Cup. Unfortunetely, some Europeans on wiki think that they world revolves around italy, france, germany, and england. I was even told my PeeJay that any contributions I made from now on will be treated as vandilism which I am going to report.SuperSonicx1986 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Your unilateral changes to this article are not welcome. By all means, replace the summary of the tournament, and it will be judged on its own merits, but when you take it upon yourself to change the entire article to follow a completely different style, that, in my opinion, is vandalism. – Pee Jay 10:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Germany vs Argentina

Could someone please tell me the song that plays in the stadium after the penalty shoot-out?

Thanks!SuperSonicx1986 (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1990?

Why is there a summary of the results of the 1990 world cup in the box down at the bottom of the page? I assume something is broken in the template and it should either be showing the results of 2006, or the previous edition in 2002. I'd fix it but I can't actually see what's wrong... Brickie (talk) 17:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it. – Pee Jay 17:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Number of viewers

Were there really 26.29 billion non-unique viewers? The number seems to be a little bit to high. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.169.65 (talk • contribs)

What makes you say that? 26.29 billion viewers split between 64 matches gives an average of 411 million viewers per game, and since the final was viewed by 715 million people, that's easily believable. – Pee Jay 23:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Round of 16

{{editsemiprotected}} Allegations of the Brazil v. Ghana game being fixed are now pretty much unfounded. The article that it linked to no longer exists, and more recent articles, such as this, [1] demonstrate that news of a possible fixed result were sensationalized. Please remove Der Spiegel reported that the match was influenced by an Asian betting syndicate. Santihenderson (talk) 03:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks for wanting to improve the accuracy of this article. Your reference reports that GHA denies the incident and is suing the author. That seems neutral with regard to whether the allegations were unfounded. Do you have any other references that comment more directly on your point? If you did, that would support adding content disputing the report. Removing the existing content would require an abundance of opinion that that allegation was just sensationalism. Celestra (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

This article was semiprotected in early 2008 after being fully protected for a while. Over 18 months have now passed so I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still considered necessary. As well as welcoming opinions from regular editors I've contacted IanManka, the protecting admin. --TS 09:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the time since the event, I would imagine that semiprotection is no longer necessary. I can't imagine it being vandalised often enough to warrant protection. I hope I'm not wrong. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. It's been unprotected. Hopefully we won't need to reapply the semi-protection, but we'll see. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and move protection is still sysop-only. Let me know if you think that should be changed, but I don't think it should, per the article's move log. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 23:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Quarter-Final bias?

The wording in the description of the England-Portugal game, where the word "ugly" is used, makes it sound like the writer is biased towards England.64.180.179.105 (talk) 04:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

It is not the only instance where the word ugly is inappropriately used. In general the wording of this article is over the top and does not sound encyclopedic at all. It has become a tendency in Wikipedia to let go on such writings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.29.183 (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Final rankings table

What do the asterisks and daggers in the Final Rankings table denote? A key is needed. Bazonka (talk) 08:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Final

Croatia did not win in the final. It was Italy, beating France 5-3 on penalties after 1-1 in normal time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.15.109 (talk) 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Somebody completely altered the winnings table for some reason. It can't be reverted any more and would need to be fixed manually. 89.142.29.249 (talk) 08:28, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Viewers

Is the third paragraph still correct? I find it hard to believe the 2010 Cup did not surpass those listed there, but it's hard to tell from the relevant article, which says "Hundreds of broadcasters, representing about 70 countries, transmitted the Cup to a TV audience that FIFA officials expect to exceed a cumulative 26 billion people, an average of approximately 400 million viewers per match. FIFA estimated that around 700 million viewers would watch the World Cup final." Can anyone find out and update accordingly? Languagehat (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Penalty Shoot-Out rules

Just a thought: replace the "(at least five penalties each)" with a better definition as, indeed, in real world, sides often win a shoot-out while having shot fewer than 5 penalties. In fact, that was the case with Ukraine who won a shoot-out against Switzerland with only 4 penalty kicks. It is also possible to win with only 3. 74.255.212.2 (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Final Match: kicks from the penalty mark

In the description of the final match between France and Italy the term "penalty shootout" is used to describe the manner in which the match was settled after extra-time failed to produce a winner. The correct term is "kicks from the penalty mark". It is an important distinction because unlike penalty kicks, no penalty (i.e. direct free-kick offense that occurs in the offender's penalty area) actually occurs to lead up to the kicks.

I recognize that even though they are technically incorrect, the terms "penalty shootout" or "penalties" are commonly used to refer to "kicks from the penalty mark" and they are shorter and less cumbersome which is especially nice when you are faced with repeating the term multiple times in one article. I suggest that perhaps the official term be used during the first mention and then one of the shorter terms used subsequently.

It also offers a nice little re-direct link for the curious to the wiki page describing the FIFA rules on kicks from the penalty mark. Vansloot (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Which term do you think readers are more likely to recognise? "Kicks from the penalty mark" or "penalty shootout"? My guess is the former. – Pee Jay 08:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, my guess is the latter, by a country mile. I bet even a lot of football fans don't even know the correct term is "Kicks from the penalty mark", whereas even people with minimal knowledge of the game are aware of the concept of a "penalty shoot-out" ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that many football fans don't even know the correct term is precisely the reason it should be used (maybe just once and then switch to vernacular). One of the things I love about Wikipedia is all the little things I learn when I'm not even intending to learn about them--when I'm looking something else up but one of the hypertexted entries catches my eye and I click on it and learn something new.

This in my opinion, is what will happen when otherwise knowledgeable football fans scanning the article about the 2006 World Cup come across the previously unknown term "kicks from the penalty mark." The idea of an encyclopedia is to teach people about new things--you can't do that if you only use the same old slang terms that are useful and well-known but technically incorrect. Use both and teach folks something new! Vansloot (talk) 04:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

But it's not like anyone has ever referred to a penalty shootout as "kicks from the penalty mark" in common parlance. In fact, I'm fairly sure it's just a phrase conjured up by FIFA when searching for a slightly less colloquial term for a penalty shootout. This is what everyone here would know it as, and this is how it should be titled. – Pee Jay 11:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Vansloot. It doesn't matter what people THINK it should be, if that is the official term, it should be written as such. (And then provide a link so people can click on it to understand why it is called that and not what they thought it should be called). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 136.181.195.25 (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)