Talk:2007 FIFA U-20 World Cup

Football Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Montreal Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Montreal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Montreal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MontrealWikipedia:WikiProject MontrealTemplate:WikiProject MontrealMontreal articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario / Quebec / British Columbia / Alberta / Toronto / Sport Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Quebec.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Alberta.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Canadian sport.

montreal venue

according to the FIFA website, the montreal venue has not been decided, where did olympic stadium come from

[1]

It was announced today. http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/U20WC_2007/ --Usgnus 23:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed it to Stade Olympique just to emphasize the fact that the tournament is being played all over the country and that we have two official languages. I'm not fanatic about this, but thought the name of the stadium sounded better in French anyway! Jmcnally 18:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing it back to Olympic Stadium, per WP:UE, and include the French name in parentheses. After all, it is the English Wikipedia... I'll change it later if that's OK with you. Having said that, I agree, Stade Olympique sounds better :) --Gabbec 18:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, actually WP:UE refers to article naming rather than use of names within articles, but I think that the spirit is the same. In any case, including both doesn't hurt. --Gabbec 18:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Draw?

When is the draw that decides which teams play in which pool? Kevlar67

Some time next month. Kingjeff 04:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The draw takes place on Saturday, March 3 in Toronto. Bigdottawa 15:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portugal.......Group C??

Is Portugal really in Group C already? or did someone just add that for fun? Ô 18:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOMEBODY ANSWER THIS!!!! I know the draw is on March 3, but was Portugal actually already placed in group C due to the fact group C games take place in Toronto??

I'm removing Portugal from Group C until someone can give us proof. I highly doubt they are in Group C since the draw itself hasnt come out yet. We'll wait till March 3rd [this Saturday] to find out the actual draw and where each team is placed in the groups... Ô 20:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they better be in group c i just bought a package of tickets for toronto and im not really keen on goin for scotland in this thing lol

ya, we bought tickets too...i hope toronto gets a lot of action. hopefully portugal and brazil will be in group C...btw, tickets sales are selling pretty fast. read this if you're interested [2] Ô 15:44, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the bottom of this article. The only group that is mostly based in Toronto is C. Bigdottawa 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

o, wow! thanks. interesting how they made that proposal Ô 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this guy was right. Portugal is group C baby!!!

Victoria Venue

I see that FIFA say that Royal Athletic Park is the venue for the Victoria games. http://www.fifa.com/en/comp/U20M2007/tournament/0,5319,U20M-2007-35,00.html

However I believe this to be inaccurate. RAP seats fewer than 2000. Even with massive construction (which has not started nor been discussed in the local media as of the end of Feburary) there isn't enough land to seat 14500 people at RAP.

When I bought my tickets for the tournament I was told that the games are at Centennial Stadium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centennial_Stadium Ensslen 00:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I know is that both this article and the article for the stadium says 14500 and FIFA's Website says 14500. Kingjeff 01:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

korea

i heard somewhere that North & South Korea will be competing as one team.

I don't see how that's possible. They qualified separately, and if they did compete as one team, it will leave the tournament with an unbalanced 23 teams. Bigdottawa 15:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

time

you guys print the fixtures without the TIME of the matches that`s important

If you have the times of day, please add the information. Flibirigit 13:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

National team links

Has anyone noticed that all of the national team links in this page point to the senior national team, not the U-20 national team? -- Chuq 11:08, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The reasoning being few U-20 articles exist, and most are subsections of the national teams. Flibirigit 13:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing group tables

It's best to edit with final results. Editing wins, losses and draws during the game is crystal balling which is against wikipedia policy. Kingjeff 21:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. If people want to edit the games taking place, they should add Ongoing in the score= parameter, instead of the score evolution; that can be deducted from the goal scorers. The final score should be added when the game ends. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 22:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rd place in group play vs. moving on to knock-out rounds

The article does not explain yet, merely hinting at the matter in the knock-out phase table, which 3rd place teams advance after group play finishes. What's the story? Could an explict explanation be added to the text? -- Mareklug ^talk 03:25, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Top 4 based on points won. If there are any ties, then it goes to tiebreakers. Kingjeff 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group subpages

How about creating group-specific pages where more detailed information about every game played within that group could be properly displayed (e.g. team rosters, substitutions and cautions)? I don't fancy the way some of this information is being added in this main article, for example, mixing cautioned players with goalscorers. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 03:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the cautions had to bed added to explain the red card. It was not a direct red card. Kingjeff 03:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm not referring to why the card was shown. I just don't think we should show that at all in this article. Something more like this. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 03:47, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We can set it up like last year's world cup. Kingjeff 04:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be exactly like it, only the basics are needed — standings table, fixtures results and detailed match info :) Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 04:15, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea

Is it just me or is "Korea DPR" North Korea? Since when do they let comunist nations participate? I think this is disgraceful, especially after recent political events that include threatening the western world, including North America, with weapons of mass destruction. Jonzo12 12:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, are you high? Or just stupid? First, learn how to spell "communist", then please understand that sports are separate from politics. Just because you are a commie-hating hick doesn't mean that the rest of the world treats them that way. By the way, if FIFA didn't let communist nations play, I guess that the USSR and PR China never played in the World Cup, and that PR China and Vietnam aren't playing in the AFC Asian Cup RIGHT NOW. Also, the team you say should be rejected WON the AFC U-20 tournament.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.253.230 (talk • contribs)

It is North Korea. FIFA tends not to let political situations into football. National associations have been suspended in the past for political interference. As much as it is that communism is a bad thing, we can't really say they can't participate. Kingjeff 15:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMO or National Soccer Stadium

I think we should use "National Soccer Stadium", because is what FIFA uses too!

Tell me what you think!

If so, we should change in the groups, not only in the "Venues"!
Luisfilipemiguel 20:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reference to BMO field should change to National Soccer Stadium. Kingjeff 20:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already had done that yesterday, but an unknown IP editor undid my edits. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 21:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't the one who changed it, but I actually disagree. The name of the stadium is BMO Field, no matter what FIFA wants to believe. I think it would be simpler and more accurate to say BMO Field, but it appears I am in the minority, so no big deal. Jyardley 18:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, they're playing at BMO field down at the Ex? There on earth is the "National Soccer Stadium? I've never heard of it! Nfitz 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same place. FIFA won't allow sponsors names that aren't apart of the tournament. Kingjeff 23:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be FIFA's problem, not ours. The name of the stadium is BMO field. No one in this city has heard of "National Soccer Stadium". Wikipedia should reflect reality, not some organisation's red tape. Nfitz 23:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reality is that it's called "National Soccer Stadium" for this tournament. This is an actual rule with FIFA. Kingjeff 00:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't something new. At the 2006 World Cup in Germany, the sponsor-named stadiums were also temporarily renamed to "FIFA World Cup Stadium", and even though everybody used the original names (obviously) it was the way the venues were officially referred to in the tournament. Anyway, the link directs to the article where the real name is big and bolded enough at the top. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 01:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Group stage possible outcomes

What is the best way to describe how the groups will finish depending on the results of the final matches in each group? Will there be an appropriate section before/after the group tables?

Attendance

Shouldn't attendance be per session, not per match? There have been a lot of doubleheaders, and we shouldn't count that attendance twice. Jyardley 18:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There have been several double headers, yes, however not everyone shows up for both matches, and in certain venues you can purchase single game tickets if it is the second game of the double header. Jonzo12 18:41, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Vaughn

My apologies at not being able to figure out how to do this, but the link in the article for Terry Vaughn goes to the wrong Terry Vaughn.--ZoQuo 16:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When this happens usually there are two outcomes. 1) There is no article or 2)There is a word with a bracket around that word. In this case, you would use Terry Vaughn (referee)|Terry Vaughn inside the wikilink. Kingjeff 16:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Elimination color

should a third color be added to the group stages (such as pink for teams that have been eliminated from being in the 4 best 3rd place teams?jb 01:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We already have colours for progression. I think people will know who was eliminated. Kingjeff 01:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if the colored teams progress then the non-colored background (or default gray) means they didn't. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, Austria have qualified for the Round of 16 since, even if they lose to Chile and Congo passes them for 2nd place, they will still be one of the 4 best 3rd-place teams. Should they be marked as the qualifying as one of the 4 best 3rd place teams, since they have that at a minimum, or should some other color be used? Scottmsg 02:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Kingjeff 02:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the issue is on which color will be used for Austria, I believe we should wait for Group A — and all the remaining — to finish ;) Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:10, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some counts and mathematically Austria still has no secured "best 3rd place", if it loses and Congo goes 2nd. Both Zambia and Gambia still have to play a match, and can secure enough points (Gambia, 4 or 6pts; Zambia, 4 pts) to either move ahead of Austria or beat it on GD tiebreak. "It ain't over till the fat lady sings". OK, just forget what I said... Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I did put the colour pink in properly and indicated it would mean: "Teams knocked out at group stage" but someone deleted it. Jonzo12 13:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Austria are guaranteed advancement, if they finish 3rd place they're ahead of Korea DPR, Brazil and Costa Rica, more than enough. I would suggest putting them at least in the colour of best 3rd placed team, as they've secured at least that, and if they advance they can be "upgraded" to the colour of winner/runners-up qualifier. Or, just make it easier and make one uniform colour for all teams advanced, including Brazil (guaranteed one of the best 3rd placed ahead of Korea DPR and Costa Rica, if necessary). Themodelcitizen 03:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing during matches

As has been the case with other recent events (ie, Copa America), please don't edit scores/goalscorers until atfter the completion of a match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mingusfingers (talk • contribs)

Own goal?

The play-by-play section of the Portugal-Gambia match says that it was a own goal by Rui Patrício, but both the match report and match summary say it was a direct goal by Abdoulie Mansally. Where do we stand? Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 00:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the game, it was a free kick and nobody touched the ball! That aint a own-goal! Luisfilipemiguel 02:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is the same. The keeper might have skimmed the ball under his arms but the way it got in from a free-kick doesn't make it an own goal. But FIFA isn't accurate on this case. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 02:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go with what the match report since that can be a source. Kingjeff 03:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And if FIFA is wrong? Last year they said that germany's 2nd goal (in the Germany 2006 third place game) was an own-goal. The ball just slightly touched Petit and FIFA "awards" him with an own-goal? Here is the same, but i think, and i saw (in TV) the game, Patricio don´t touched the ball. Should we stick with the official way or the right way?

That was the correct call. Petit directed it into the net. If we were to change it, it would have to be from a credible source. This would be hard to do since we also put match reports in FIFA Tournament articles. Kingjeff 15:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the ball was headed into the goal, maybe if Petit didn't touched the ball Ricardo would stop it, but nobody knows that! Not even FIFA! But ok, a year has paased, all is forgotten (at least for now).
In this case nobody touched the ball. I saw it again in the news and the ball crosses all the 18 yard box, hit the bar and enter! Maybe FIFA has other images, but the replays in the game, and after in the news, shows, no doubt, the ball passed and nobody touched it! Luisfilipemiguel 20:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way that was heading on to goal. It was merely crossed into the box and Petit put it on goal. There was no shot awarded. Goals need to be sourced and who scored them needs to be sourced. If you can find a ligitimate one, go ahead. Kingjeff 20:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U-20 Meaning

If someone could add what the meaning of U-20 is, that would be great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.67.58 (talk)

"U-20" is short for "Under 20", which means that the tournament's players have to be younger than 20 years. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 23:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is only partially correct. "U-20" is short for "Under 20", which means that the tournament's players have to be younger than 20 years, or equivalent in age to 20 years. Meaning, that players of the ages up to and including 20 can participate. Jonzo12 02:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it means you have to be below 20 at a specific time in the year. Kingjeff 05:44, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born on 1 Jan 1987, or after that date (see article 20 of [3]). elpincha (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Penalty Shoot-out

There are several different ways to record the penalty shoot out, but there is still no standard fashion. Consider the following:

Jonzo12 21:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 1^st one looks best. Kingjeff 21:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fight post-Chile-Argentina match

The section, as originally written, is full of non-neutral language. I have tried to clean it up a bit. More will undoubtably be known in the coming days. Please remember to keep the section factual. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 06:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit does contain wording like "apparently" because of the newness of the incident. Such wording will be removed when the facts become clear. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section on Chile vs. Argentina incident

I have removed the section on the incident between players and police that occurred yesterday on July 19. It is not relevant to the sports tournament as a whole. Mixing it with the larger article about the sporting event is a form of m:recentism, and lacks long-term notability.

If you think Wikipedia needs to cover this event, my advice is to start a new article, and place a link the the "see also" section to that article. Shalom ^Hello 16:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally endorse this opinion. Parutakupiu ^{talk || contribs} 16:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that. It is likely, at least in the short term, to be a magnet for "he said, she said" type comments with fact obscured. It can come back later when the facts are out, not as a news story. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~What occurred is in direct relation to football and how it is being run by FIFA through international tournaments. Impartial arbitration of a game is of a subject that needs to be heavily emphasized when discussing the sport. The post game incident should be included as a seperate article but mentioned on this main article, since Canada is responsible in being the organizers of this event.~

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2007_FIFA_U-20_World_Cup"

I think consensus would say include this info. If you look at this, you'll see that stuff like this is included. Kingjeff 18:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV

Wow, it would be nice if the Chilean supporters would make an attempt at maintaining neutrality on this one. There are two sides to every story. Resolute 00:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then rewrite the section where it's neutral. The topic deserves to be there. Kingjeff 01:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And who exactly said that it didn't? Resolute 02:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Move section

If some editors want to keep this section, fine. But I think it's wrong to give this off-pitch incident such a big prominence by appearing right after the introduction. I mean, its content doesn't relate in a sportive way with this tournament, nor does it have any direct sportive consequence for it and any of the remaining teams. In my opinion, it should be moved to the bottom; even more when it's currently a non-neutral section. Paruta(l)kupiu 02:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was my initial thought as well, but really, this article is so lacking in prose, that I'm not sure where else it could be put. It's a shame that people who have been closely following this tournament haven't written more prose sections on it at this point. Resolute 03:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's hard for articles like these — which are usually filled with statistics, match reports, group standings and tournament brackets — to have a large content written in prose; what exists is mostly in the lead section. When the Cup ends perhaps more prose content can be added as a "review" of the tournament.

As for the section, I'd say the bottom of the bottom, between the goalscorers and "see also" section. Paruta(l)kupiu 03:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally disagree. As Chile has yet to play the third place match, an event where the players' health is at risk, and could jeopardize their performance, should be documented. ☆ CieloEstrellado 05:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have to review my position on the sportive consequences because I completely forgot Chile has to play the 3rd place playoff. Still, this incident isn't the prime content of the article and thus shouldn't be given bigger importance than the tournament and matches themselves. This section should be moved anyway to a lower position. Paruta(l)kupiu 16:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is now an International affair according to the Toronto Star. This needs to be here, but if you're going to put so much emphasis on the Chilean account of the incident, then the Toronto Police Service's complete list of events, at least those that have been released to date, must be displayed as well. Also, this crap about how the TPS removed 'evidence' of the tasering even though it has been widely reported today must be declared as one-sided diatribe. {{subst:unsinged2|06:24, July 21, 2007|24.141.47.50}}

Further implausabilities in the Chilean players's account

There are several statements, presented as facts, which are implausable:

"A policewoman noticed this and threw a tear gas canister inside the bus." Toronto Police do not routinely carry tear gas, although they do carry pepper spray and Tasers (see below). This is not to say that the Chileans believed tear gas was used. Pepper spray is apparently very debilitating in close quarters.
"Peralta claimed that after he regained consciousness, the police removed the TASER evidence from his back so the press wouldn't be able to see it." Again, although this may be his belief, that is what happens after a Taser is used: The two leads are removed from the victim/detainee, as they are no longer needed. This has nothing to do with hiding evidence. (I note this is also anonymously stated at the end of the section above).

Discuss away, but they should probably be removed or at the very least toned down. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 00:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They either claim that or don't claim that. This is what the facts are about the situation. If someone says something that is inaccurate, then it doesn't change the fact they said it. Kingjeff 03:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

flag of Mexico?

There is a white flag where the flag of Mexico should be appearing. I noticed it isn't just this article. I'm here for the words 16:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the problem is due to a recent change in the flag of Mexico image over at Wikipedia Commons. Scottmsg 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Commons original file was updated with a version that was recently uploaded by another user and the duplicate file tagged was added to the original file instead of the most recent one. Don't know if that was the reason, but it's fixed now. Paruta(l)kupiu 18:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top 2007 Fifa U-20 Teams

I just made this recently. It's on my userpage too.

Rank	Team	Points	Wins	Draws	Losses	GF	GA	GD
1	Argentina	19	6	1	0	16	2	+14
2	Chile	16	5	1	1	12	3	+9
3	Mexico	12	4	0	1	10	3	+9
4	Spain	11	3	2	0	13	7	+6
5	Austria	11	3	2	2	6	4	+2
6	United States	10	3	1	1	13	6	+7
7	Nigeria	10	3	1	1	5	5	0
8	Czech Republic	9	2	4	1	8	7	+1
9	Japan	8	2	2	0	6	3	+3
10	Zambia	4	1	1	2	5	5	0
11	Uruguay	4	1	1	2	4	6	-2
12	Congo	4	1	1	2	3	7	-4
13	Gambia	4	1	1	2	2	6	-4
14	Poland	4	1	1	2	4	10	-6
15	Portugal	3	1	0	3	4	5	-1
16	Brazil	3	1	0	3	6	9	-3
17	Costa Rica	3	1	0	2	2	3	-1
18	South Korea	2	0	2	1	4	5	-1
19	North Korea	2	0	2	1	2	3	-1
20	Jordan	1	0	1	2	3	6	-3
21	Panama	1	0	1	2	1	8	-7
22	New Zealand	0	0	0	3	1	5	-4
23	Scotland	0	0	0	3	2	7	-5
24	Canada	0	0	0	3	0	6	-6

Fair use rationale for Image:U20canada2007.png

Image:U20canada2007.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 09:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]