Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Slovakia

I've added a citation tag to Slovakia, as I'm pretty sure Czechoslovakia's records went to the Czech Republic. Krytenia (talk) 13:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, they share it chandler 13:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's me satisfied...learn something new every day. Krytenia (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

As many of you following this article have noticed, it is suffering from constant vandalism from anonymous users. Seeing the event drawing closer, one can assume that vandalism will only increase. I am proposing re-protection. =>t3rminatr<=  ✉  11:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Three days since the last protection expired and there have been several reverts already. Semi-protected for a month now, if anyone thinks this is too long, let me know. (I prefer not to protect it until end of July 2010 because that would be too much. If necesary, bring the protection back.) --Tone 13:12, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The vandalism is only going to get worse as the Finals draw near.LarryJeff (talk) 15:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

• This may sound weird coming from an IP editor, but speaking from my personal experiences at high-profile articles, you might as well just keep it protected. I'd propose a tmbox at the top of this talk page, encouraging any well-intentioned IP editors to propose edits via {{editsemiprotected}}. Just my 2 cents. --87.79.52.46 (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not something like this? --87.79.52.46 (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone place France on the round of 16, I am removing it. Crazydude22 (talk) 18:33, 21 January 2010 (UTC) Nevermind, someone fixed it before I could. Crazydude22 (talk) 18:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Prize money and club payments

The article says that FIFA is paying clubs about $1,000 per day per player and the reference supports that, but the article also says this payment "followed claims for compensation to FIFA from domestic clubs for the financial cost of injuries sustained to their players while on international duty" and the reference doesn't support that comment. I plan to remove the speculation soon unless someone has a reference for the statement. Thanks Johnn 7 (talk) 18:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

This was already pretty well supported by The Times reference - "Fifa have also moved to head off any potential claims from clubs for players injured during the World Cup...As part of that package, clubs have agreed not to pursue any claims or any possible compensation through civil courts", but I've found and added two more from the BBC which spell it out in more detail that it was the result of a deal made in 2008 to disband the G-14 who had started making claims in 2005. MickMacNee (talk) 20:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for referencing the statement properly. The quote you gave above from The Times article wasn't in the The Irish Times article that was actually cited on the Wikipedia page. The Times article would probably be sufficient. Again, thank you. Johnn 7 (talk) 13:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela and Diski Dance

I think that the vuvuzela will be quite a big part of the World Cup, and could be included somewhere. I know that it might be hard to find a balanced view, but I think that some menton should be made of it.

The Diski Dance is quite a big part of marketing for the World Cup, should that be included. Crazydude22 (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I had absolutely no idea what you were talking about. After looking it up, I'd say no because it doesn't seem that important. Marketing the World Cup in the first place is barely a big deal. People on other regions might have had a different level of exposure than me though. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of the Vuvuzela is going to be a massive controversy in this world cup. It's annoying as hell, players have complained about it, and you cannot hear the television commentary because it is blown constantly during games. The SA authorities have even had to clarify that, being a rather large object, it won't be banned from grounds under FIFA rules about safety. This has all been covered in main stream media. I have no clue what a Diski dance is though. MickMacNee (talk) 20:28, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so the Diski Dance doesn't need to be added (it's a South African thing), but I think that the vuvuzela should be mentioned somewhere. While somepeople might think that they are annoying, it's a big part of SA football. Crazydude22 (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Adidas Jabulani

Can we add more information about the Jabulani ball? The area seems very empty. Also, there is a page for the ball that needs to be linked in 'Adidas Jabulani'.

Let me know if I can help/contribute to this area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eireburner (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead. Just remember to always add sources. And what's the other page you mention? --Tone 20:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup sponsors

This article lacks a mention of the official sponsors of the 2010 FIFA World Cup, there should at least be a list of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisonderstall (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Match number argument

The original purpose of a match number is to indicate that the winner or loser of that match would progress to the next stage, not to show which match it is. The match number would not be shown in the article after the game has been played. If the number have to be included, then we have to make a new section. So I removed the match numbers of the third-place match and the final. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 06:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Not including the match numbers for the third-place match and the final implies that FIFA never numbered them in the first place. The match numbers should be included. – PeeJay 15:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

So the match numbers of the group stage matches should be included then. But I wondered why you did not mention it. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the match numbers should be kept after the match finished if you said that. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I really have no preference either way about the inclusion of the match numbers, but I'm curious why you think including them would require another section added to the article. Not trying to be argumentative, just missing your line of reasoning. LarryJeff (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I added the match numbers to the group stage matches, I think you could find some consequences. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 14:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with it. Looks better, IMO. – PeeJay 14:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 FIFA World Cup video game

On the top of the page it says that for the EA Sports game see FIFA 10. SHouldn't there also be a note made of 2010 FIFA World Cup (video game), the world cup based game? Crazydude22 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That relates to the link FIFA 2010. I'm not quite sure why that directs here - surely it should go to FIFA 10 with a note that if anyone wanted the actual world cup they should come here. Would anyone reasonably call this tournament FIFA 2010? I'll change that redirect as I don't see any reason for it.

As for the 2010 Game - yes, that should be linked from here. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Redirecting to the World Cup page for World Cup years is established standard. See FIFA 2002 and FIFA 2006. --78.34.241.78 (talk) 07:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Map of the venues

I am thinking of removing the image which contains the map with the points of the venues, but using a blank map of South Africa and labelling the venues by another method instead. That map has been used in the Confederation Cup, but I think it is inappropiate. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 08:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Why? – PeeJay 16:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, why? The map looks clear and informative. Why changing? --Tone 20:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that it is unnecessary to give certain cities double names on the map. It is not indicated this way on the stadium list and it is best to stay with the official names of cities. =>t3rminatr<=  ✉  17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Whose "official" names. FIFA consistently uses a number of double names throughout its website. Do you mean that? Or something else? Jlsa (talk) 00:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The official names as given to them by their respective municipalities/metroplotains. FIFA errored in showing the dual names on their website as it just serves to confuse people (the dual name is due to the name of the greater municipal are it is located in and NOT the name of the city). The correct naming is shown on http://www.sa2010.gov.za/en/host-cities (Official SA World Cup portal) =>t3rminatr<=  ✉  14:19, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Training venues

Is it possible to obtain a list of training venues for the world cup ? TheBigJagielka (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can get hold of. As it stands though, the peter mokaba stadium listed for polokwane, I assume that the training venue would be the 'old' stadium and not the new one built for the WC as the link implies. Crazydude22 (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like others don't want the training venues on the page, never mind then. Crazydude22 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Preperations Section

I would like to challenge this statment: "Five new stadiums have been built for the tournament (three new match venues and two new practice grounds), and five of the existing venues are to be upgraded. Construction costs are expected to be R8.4bn" If you read the reference, it makes mention of 5 new match venues, in Cape Town, Durban, Port Elizabeth, Polokwane and Nelspruit. I'm not sure why that comment about training venues is there, there were multiple training venues built and upgraded. I would like to remove the part in brackets. Crazydude22 (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

No one has complained, I will now remove the unneeded phrase. Crazydude22 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerns

I am becoming increasingly concerned at the tendency of editors to add what seem like short essays to this article. This article should be about the 2010 FIFA World Cup, not the various issues surrounding it, such as the crime rates and slums of South Africa. By all means, these issues should be addressed, but do we really need entire sub-sections devoted to Blikkiesdorp or the legacy stadia? If no one raises any reasonable objections, I'm going to give this article a good pruning on Monday. – PeeJay 10:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the legacy stadia, I think a little more context would be in order about why some of those venues got upgrades, but it's relevant to the article. As for Blikkiesdorp, I don't see why that can't be merged with the evictions subsection right above it, but I do feel that some context is gained about what's going on in South Africa as a result of the preparations for World Cup. So, I don't think it should be a heavy pruning, but some pruning is in order. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how 3 sentences is a short essay. Anyways, the Blikkiesdorp section is extremely relevant to the world cup because it is essentially a world cup project by the City of Cape Town. If one denies that relevance, I'd recomend they look at the front page of yesterday's Guardian in the UK - which for those who don't know is a HUGE newspaper. In terms of whether it should be merged with Evictions, I'd recommend that it doesn't get merged because it is only partially evictions related. Its more of a housing / town planning issue than an evictions issue. The threats by residents to burn down their own shacks don't relate to evictions, but to the conditions in the settlement. If a discussion of the 'Match Ball' or the 'Mascot' have its own sections, then why not Blikkiesdorp which is the sigle most controversial issue relating to the World Cup?41.240.88.189 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I mean, really, who gives a shit when Zakumi's birthday is???41.240.88.189 (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you noticed, but the FIFA World Cup is a football tournament. The article about the tournament should be focussed on the football elements of the event. I'm not saying that all mentions of Blikkiesdorp be eliminated from the article, but I would suggest that an article such as Controversies surrounding the 2010 FIFA World Cup be created. – PeeJay 21:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry PeeJay, that is incorrect. the FIFA World Cup is technically what one would call a 'Hallmark Event' which has a special focus on football. The purpose of the FIFA World Cup is not football. Its two fold: (1) To make tons of money and (2) To put on a show. Regarding the second, the WC can be seen as a type of theatre in a similar way as WWF Wrestling is often compared to a soap opera. The truth is that the WC is about so much more than soccer. Thus, the article should be about so much more than that. For instance, a mascot has nothing to do with soccer. The purpose of a mascot is usually to entertain and brand the event. Why else would Zakumi's birthday be on Youth Day. Why else would adidas have a ball called Jubelani ("bringing joy to everyone")?

All this extra stuff latched onto the soccer has a socio-political purpose. The purpose is to politicise the event and make it something more than about soccer. If the WC was just about soccer then why call this "Africa's World Cup"? Why say things like: "this is Africa's chance to prove itself to the world"? Everything is political - especially the WC. So its disingenuous to try to hide the politics behind the WC just because one wants the page to be just about soccer.

That said, a controversies page might be useful but one should not use it as a way of hiding the controversies which are of central importance to the event. they're not a side issue, theyre a core issue (which is why this issue resurfaces at every single major sporting event in every country in the world - see the Olympics in Beijing and Vancouver. Or the Anti-Olympics movement in Chicago. If it was just about sports, then no one would ever object to the events.Frombelow (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That is a very cynical viewpoint. I'm not saying that the politics of the event should be hidden entirely; I'm simply saying that we should give those issues appropriate weight within the article. After all, if this article is ever to be considered some of Wikipedia's best work, we should see to it that no aspect is given undue weight. A sub-article, summarised by a few paragraphs in the main article should suffice. – PeeJay 22:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Stadium names during the World Cup

I know that we all agree that sponsered names will not be used, but I picked up 2 oddities in thethe names that FIFA use for stadiums. As can be seen on FIFA's website[1], they refer to Moses Mabhida Stadium as 'Durban Stadium', and Cape Town Stadium as 'Green Point Stadium'. I have also spoken to people who have tickets to games at those stadiums during the WC, and they use the 'FIFA' names. I think that a note should be made of the FIFA used names, much like the 2006 WC article. Crazydude22 (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree that a note should be made of the names that FIFA use, but I will maintain that we should not be bound by those names, since Wikipedia is not restricted by sponsors in the same way. – PeeJay 16:29, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear something up, neither name has anything to do with sponsership. Cape Town Stadium was called Green Point during construction, and only renamed in about December 2009. I'm not sure why Moses Mabhida is called Durban Stadium. Crazydude22 (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

list of injured Players?

i'd like to have a list players that are injured and thus cannot compete at the World Cup. i know following players will not compete because of an injury:

• David Beckham
• Mohamed Zidan
• Emile Baron
• Boško Janković
• José Bosingwa
• Michael Owen
• Salvador Cabañas

plus a list of players who are now injured and maybe cannot compete at the World Cup. for example, following players might not compete:

• Aaron Mokoena
• Fernando Torres
• Aaron Lennon
• Marcel Jansen
• Simon Rolfes
• Sami Khedira

any objections? Doppelback (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm... it sounds like a good idea to be honest. The only problem would be that there would be a lot of players for whom you wouldn't be sure whether they'd have been in the squad. For players that can be referenced as dead-certs I think it's worth mentioning. The problem would be where you draw the line... Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

if there is a source we can trust, i do not think that this will be a problem. additional, of course, the list of "might not play" should be disregarded if those players could play but are not choosen. Doppelback (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object as this is total WP:OR and/or WP:CRYSTAL - no player is guaranteed to have been included in a squad. Dancarney (talk) 08:28, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

If significant coverage exists, such as with Beckham, this can be mentioned in England's article. However, a separate list would violate WP:SYNTH. --Tone 08:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dancarney. There is no way to predict exactly who will be in a country's final World Cup squad, injured or not. How do we even know that Capello would have picked Beckham? We certainly know he wouldn't have picked Michael Owen (or do we?!) – PeeJay 12:47, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

A list would be arbitrary and trivia... Pretty Green (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reference literature and websites?

Once more I would like to post here my comment to Peejay's removal of the links I made to the internet library sub-saharan Africa . I would like to add one more thing: Without having read in detail every guideline to wikipedia-articles, as far as I understand, one of the important aims of an encyclopedia is to give information on further reading on the topic at the end of the article. What better links could there be than links to specialised (online) libaries? Here my answer/question to Peejay's removal of the ilissAfrica links: "I didn't quite understand why you qualified the links as "spam". ilissAfrica is a serious website by the two German Special Collections for Sub-Saharan Africa financed by the German Research Foundation. Via our website, several africa specific catalogues and databases can be searched via a metasearch, additionally, we built up an internet database with chosen and indexed website links. ilissAfrica is certainly a very good instrument for finding qualified literature and websites for the topic "Africa and football" and it got a lot of positive feedback from researchers and librarians worldwide. I hope I could convince you to add the links again ;-) Kind regards, Nadia, Scientific Assistant, internet library sub-saharan Africa (ilissAfrica), University Library Frankfurt" --141.2.166.212 (talk) 10:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

The links you provided were to the results of searches using the database you are involved in. These search results were not specifically about the subject in question, namely the 2010 FIFA World Cup. WP:ELNO states that EL sections should avoid "Links to any search results pages". Your database does appear useful as a source for finding relevant books, articles, etc. but in itself it is not a suitable external link. Dancarney (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"These search results were not specifically about the subject in question"
>> The link to the websites was a search for the keyword "FIFA 2010".
>>The literature search was about football/soccer in Africa, which for my understanding also is about the topic in question. After all, the article is not only concerned with the sportive event of FIFA 2010 itself, but also with topics that evolve around it, like the controversies section shows (subjects concerning e.g. Human Rights, crime, etc). If I had put a link to "Zulu warriors in South Africa", I would understand that it is not appropriate. But wanting to know more about the first World Cup ever taking place in Africa for me would also involve broadening my horizon and learning more about the topic on the African continent. Anyway, I will not fight over it. --Jummai (talk) 09:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No need for two hatnotes

It is frankly absurd that this high profile page has two separate hatnotes, taking up two lines at the top of the article. It is especially absurd when the second line is only being used to disambiguate with the article about a single video game. I tried to correct this situation to make the article look a little less cluttered, and actually give readers impression the article proper begins at least somewhere near the top of the page, but it has been reverted. There is no reason to think any reader will not be able to find this game article under the already provided 2010 World Cup (disambiguation), this is an entirely standard approach normally. Should this logic defeat readers looking for the game, then considering the game is the official game of the tournament, they would probably be expecting to find information and a link to it somewhere in this article, which of course already does exist, in the In video games section. If people want to justify this extra hatnote on the technicality that the game also contains the word FIFA, while the dab page is just for '2010 World Cup', they need to seriously consider that guidelines are advisory, and what is supposed to guide our thinking ultimately, is common sense. They need to seriously consider if this gives out the proper impression of Wikipedia as a serious encyclopoedia. Wikipedia is already perceived in the wider world as a pop culture cruft vault as opposed to a serious encyclopoedia, and preferring this sort of layout, giving extraordinarily high preference to a video game of all things, is a perfect example why imho. When you think back to the logic that was invoked to move everything World Cup to FIFA World Cup, it is ridiculous that a simple video game is given a higher priority in terms of disambiguation on the term '2010 World Cup', than the other sports which are supposedly also well known World Cups. In reality, they are all secondary meanings of the term, and they all belong in one simple dab page. MickMacNee (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I couldn't see this as less of an issue. There's a standard disambiguation link accompanied by a link to the game of exactly the same name. They stand out less than the opening paragraph. Sure, the reader's eye has to move down an extra 2 degrees to see the start of the article, but I don't think that's an unnecessary amount of extra effort or time for the reader. Especially considering the time saved for all the instances when someone searches for the game 2010 FIFA World Cup and just wants to find the page about the game. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but I don't think that ease of navigation is a damaging property for wikipedia to have. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't see the problem here, the name '2010 FIFA World Cup' is different from '2010 World Cup' and should be dealt with accordingly. The issues about relative importance are: firstly a little irrelevant; and secondly highly debatable. Is a game which tops sales charts ([2]) less relevant than the '2010 FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup', the '2010 Speedway World Cup' or the '2010 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup'? Which one do you honestly think more people are going to search for? --Pretty Green (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Squads

Isn't this article supposed to have a "Squads" section with a link to the detailed squads page? --ChaChaFut (talk) 22:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Can't you add one? – PeeJay 23:10, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Just wanted to ask first. --ChaChaFut (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

old comment

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversies

I moved the whole section to 2010 FIFA World Cup controversies, as this page was already intended to be created, looking at the template. There is an extra link also in the "See Also" section, just as happened for the 2006 FIFA World Cup article. So please at controversies there and help improve that article.

Question: are the relocation rumours to be put there too? Or shall we leave those on the main article page? Pelotas^talk 01:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd say definately move the relocation rumours off the main page to the controversy page. They all amounted to nothing and weren't truelly founded. Oh, and if you remove it, be sure to leave a "controversies" heading with a link to the controversies page under it. Aheyfromhome (talk) 11:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverted. There is no consensus for this, and the material is not unduly large. MickMacNee (talk) 18:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Consensus to revert? ;) Sorry but the amount of controversies will only increase as the matches get played and the referees make 'dubious' decisions. I promise you the section will get too big, for an example see the 2006 World Cup controversies article. But I'm not starting an edit war, so do whatever you like, it'll end up at the controversies page in the end anyway. :p Pelotas^talk 22:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok, let's just wait until the tournament begins, we do not expect many more controversies before that and it is easy to make a separate article then. By the way, I think the FR:IRL paragraph should be trimmed down, it's really long here while it's extensively covered by a separate article already. --Tone 22:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've no doubt that there will be more controversies, but it is a pretty bad move to copy paste the entire section into a sub-article, before that even happens. The proper method is to create the sub-article when the content actually gets too large and not before, and then summarise that new article here, per Wikipedia:Summary style. Not text dump it into a new article and treat a template link as the summary, leaving zero evidence that the content ever existed, as happened with the version you left it in. There is no sense in pointing to the 2006 article as an example of best practice, as that has just the same flaws as you created here, and has failed to be listed even as a GA. MickMacNee (talk) 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the copy-pasting might not ideal as the article needed more expansion (I did add a short intorduction and split it into paragraphs by the way), in the same way that a basic redirect of the controversies page back to the main article is not ideal (At least redirect it to the controversies-section!). Both with good intentions however. About the version you cited at version, I believe that it is a perfectly good version. I don't need an empty section "controversies" saying click here for controversies when there is a link in the "See Also" and in the template already! Also, for me the content is too large (but maybe that's just me), the relocation rumours are no longer valid and some controversies are also getting outdated, especially the France vs. Ireland part. As much as I would have loved to see the Irish win, the game is over and it should not be on the main World Cup page but has more to do with the qualifying/playoffs, also it already has a seperate article! The controversies page is therefore a good compromise... Pelotas^talk 16:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I really don't know where you got this idea that whole sections of articles can simply be removed if there is a See Also or template link, but that is not the way things are done. Irrespective of whether things become out of date, or the material is too long, they are all still controversies directly associated with this article, and as such, a mention in a Controversies section is, and always will be, justifiable. MickMacNee (talk) 19:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe 'whole sections of articles can simply be removed if there is a See Also or template link', but it is done because the page is, or will be, too large and the section is just an addition and not the core of the article. Then seperate template links and a reference in the "See too" is sufficient for me instead of an empty paragraph. I keep feeling that the controversies section should ultimately be removed and that most of the controversies don't belong in the main article. Just like you claim that the 2006 article is not perfect and therefore the 2010 should not be the same, I claim that any difference with the imperfect 2006 article is therefore not the ideal solution. But it doesn't seem like we're on the same wavelength here about something relatively small, so let's do what Tone says: just wait. The controversies section will be removed in a few months anyway. But maybe we should indeed trim the FR vs IRL section down? It has a seperate article already... Pelotas^talk 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly matter what is sufficent for you if you are not aware of, or are not going to follow, what is standard practice - and the 2006 article is not standard. If and when it expands, the section will not be removed, it will be summarised. That is standard. MickMacNee (talk) 14:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And anybody is free to trim what they like from the Ireland section, but it already contains the main points of summary that are relevant to this World Cup. MickMacNee (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Told you, we just differ in opinion :) I could also say you suffer from main article fixation. Sorry 'bout the trouble anyway. Pelotas^talk 21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think I can live with the fact that your opinion comes from an essay, while mine comes from a guideline. There is a difference. MickMacNee (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question: I note there is no mention of the additional US$100m (£67m) which has recently been injected by FIFA to ensure the host country is ready on time. I would have thought this is of interest for inclusion in this Wiki article. Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8674024.stm Any thoughts? (Apologies if this in the wrong section) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosema (talk • contribs) 08:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Schedule

The Schedule is wrong. Match 45 is between Portugal and Brazil. Match 46 is between Korea DPR and Cote d'ivore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuxzsh (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FIFA in 3D

2010 FIFA world cup will the first world cup to be broadcast in 3D. I think this should also be added in the article

http://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/marketing/releases/newsid=1143253.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.33.66.121 (talk) 07:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

below is a list of the scheduled games to be in 3d, you will find that all the games in soccer city, ellis park and durban will be shown in 3d. the only other games scheduled to be in 3d are the quarterfinal and semifinal games in cape town. it is possible for any team to get at least 1 match in 3d if they advance, but 10 teams will not get a 3d game in the 1st round, 15 will get 1 game, 6 will get 2 games and Brazil will get all 3 group games in 3d! Lucky! ~00Kevin

http://www.hdguru3d.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=299:2010-fifa-world-cup-3d-schedule&catid=35:hdguru3d-news&Itemid=59 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.129.85.4 (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Sony is specifically carrying this 3D program out for the World Cup as they are a partner of FIFA. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 04:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Music and Anthems of the World Cup

Perhaps a reference to some of the Anthems's and songs that have been produced for the world cup? E.G. Wavin' Flag by K'naan which has accompanied Coke adverts and FIFA world cup game ads? ([3]) Charliebaudry (talk) 01:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)charliebaudry

"Wavin' Flag" was mixed for Coca-Cola and their World Cup campaign. It is not the official song of the World Cup per se. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Charities & Non-Profit organisations associated with the world cup

For example, [4] ~ ~ ~ ~charliebaudry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliebaudry (talk • contribs) 01:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Official song

What is the official song of this time? Who'll sing it? 64.255.164.24 (talk) 23:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

And I love her by the Beatles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.255.164.24 (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Official song will be Waka Waka (This Time for Africa), performed by Shakira Isabel Mebarak Ripoll and South African group Freshlyground. Newone (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Errata

Since we can't edit the main article, I'm started this column. The correction should change the sentence "Italy are the defending champions" to "Italy is the defending champion". Italy, used in this context, is singular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.183.139.64 (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That is incorrect. "Italy" in this context refers to the Italian football team, which is plural as the team is made up of several people. – PeeJay 08:28, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually in American English, it would be is, but in British English, it is are. Its a weird quirk that Im almost used to by now. I would probably side with BrE because they started the sport and have more material on it. Also, the article started that way so theres no need to go back and forth.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

List of injuries?

I have the following idea: a list of notable injuries. For followers of football, this is important information. It will affect a team's perfomances. The injuries get a lot of press, therefore there will be many sources. It is important for the readers of this article to know which notable players will NOT participate in this tournament. Everyone expects the "world bests" to play here, so we need information about which ones don't. Tropical wind (talk) 12:33, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone already suggested this further up the page, and we all decided it wasn't a good idea. – PeeJay 13:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Sorry for being completely blind and not noticing it was already discussed! Tropical wind (talk) 13:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Referees

The paraguayan referee, Carlos Amarilla, isnt going to perform at the WC because of an injury. The uruguayan Martín Vázquez is going to take his place. The following link is from an article on a uruguayan online news webpage, that summaries the situation in spanish: http://www.ovaciondigital.com.uy/100526/mundial-490980/mundial/martin-vazquez-arbitrara-en-el-mundial

Cheers Nuno93 (talk) 19:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Host selection

I am a librarian and we have gotten the question wondering when it was announced the South Africa would host the event. I was hoping you could add the date Saturday, May 15, 2004 Source: MILLWARD, ROBERT. "Sports." Daily News, The (Batavia, NY) 15 May, 2004, Sports: 5B. NewsBank. Web. 26 May. 2010. Thanks! Mleigh6 (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already in the article; read the section Host selection, which clearly states: After one round of voting, the winning bid was announced by FIFA president Sepp Blatter at a media conference on 15 May 2004 in Zürich. Mindmatrix 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Official Song & Official Anthem

The Official Song is by Shakira (Waka Waka), but the Official Anthem is sung by R. Kelly feat. The Soweto Spiritual Singers (Sign of a Victory)

http://www.r-kelly.com/ & many other Websites 84.135.163.12 (talk) 15:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently, the Official FIFA World Cup 2010 South Africa Anthem is "K'naan - Wavin' Flag".[5] 86.178.213.43 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

• No, Wavin Flag is not Official, is the Coca Cola song. But Sign of a Victory is the Official Anthem & Waka Waka the official song. 84.135.163.12 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

anthem?

The official anthem for the World Cup is "Wavin' Flag (Celebration Mix)" by Somali-Canadian singer K'naan. Where should this be added?

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/theampersand/archive/2009/11/26/k-naan-s-waving-flag-named-official-anthem-of-the-2010-fifa-world-cup.aspx

there are many other sources in case someone wants them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.150.32.5 (talk) 03:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

that's for Coca-Cola's commercials, not the official anthem. 71.240.173.132 (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

article size

for the results section there is a listing of matches and tables AND another spin-off page. The point of the spin-off is to decrease the size of an already large page. We --dont need the details of every match here AND on its own page. The schedule table below is good enough, or maybe just the tables instead of result.Lihaas (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The results section is no more detailed than that of any other World Cup article. Just like the Champions League articles, the results of the group matches are given, except with the dates and venues added, which seems fair as the World Cup receives far more exposure than the Champions League. It is for the same reason that the {{footballbox}} template is used for the knockout stage matches. Ipso facto, it all seems fine to me. – PeeJay 23:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this argument ("it's the same as other World Cup articles") is that it is not true because the articles have grown because wikipedia is growing so fast. Obviously the WC90 (for example) page was all written well after the event, so there is nowhere as much "stuff" in the article. This is really the first WC of the wikipedia age - so it is in many ways a new type of article that is being created. To help, I would suggest a sensible pruning of the results section. For example, we could tweak the matches section quite easily. For a start, get rid of the massive intro (a link to a tie-breaker note from the general WC page should suffice), remove the "3 points for a win" section. (I mean, really, if we need to define the 3 points thing, we probably also need to note what "win" means). We could then possible tweak the group template tables - add in a "minifixtures" option, which we only use on this page, and which produces the following table (note also the temaplates have a "fixtures" option which is probably not as appropriate in the current context):

Group A

Main article: 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A

Standings Team Pld W D L F A GD Pts South Africa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Uruguay 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 France 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Fixtures 11 Jun Match 1 Match 2 16 Jun Match 17 17 Jun Match 20 22 Jun Match 33 Match 34

with links as required (and better formatting on the second part). Just show the bracket for the knockout (not a bracket and then a detailed matchlist here as well).Jlsa (talk) 13:52, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The article is still pretty slow to lead, another page already exists so whats the harm in moving the results there? The tables can stay. Perhaps other articles werent as long in the first place (before kick off)Lihaas (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Surely we should keep the results and farm off all the other crap, such as 'match ball', 'mascots', 'official song' and 'controversies'?--Pretty Green (talk) 12:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with PeeJay on this one. The article length and level of detail seems fine to me. The tables and match results don't have much context unless shown together. Without the results the reader has no idea where the table came from, and without the table the reader doesn't know what happened because of the outcome of the games. As for the "other crap", it is very much a part of the event and deserves to be mentioned. To a lot of people, the world cup is a big deal, and to me at least it's not surprising that this article is and should be longer than average. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

World Cup football is a big deal. Mascots, songs and official match balls are FIFA-cash cow exploitations of a brilliant sport. But I suspect that's not a NPOV ;) --Pretty Green (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, along the lines of Pretty Green the other stuff doesn't warrant a split as such its part of the world as itself, the results summary is here (which is the point of a split to leave a summary here), the requisite page on the details is there and a link is provided right above. One doesnt need the tables and scores, and scorers, etc to be listed twice. As it stand the article almost 100k, imagine when the results are added and the tables added and a possible "controversies" gets expansded. itll be well over. The summation of the tables seems short enough as that doesnt "expand" it only gets changed.

I like Jlsa's suggestion. (Lihaas (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Records and milestones?

I feel there should be mention of any records and milestones that have been reached / could be reached during the 2010 finals. The fact that Africa hosts the tournament for the first time is the first one and it is already mentoined.

However I'm not sure there are many significant team or individual marks being reached. I know Thierry Henry and Fabio Cannavaro being on the squad for their 4th time deserves a mention. Maybe so the possibility of Maradona becoming a champion coach and equalling Beckenbauer who is the only person ever to win the world cup as the captain of the team and as the coach. I don't think any individual records are going to be touched, or will they?

Surely there are records related to the qualification process and records related to TV broadcasting, etc.

Maybe we can compose a good list here and then incorporate it into the article either by means of a separate section (if worth it) or in different appropriate places throughout. --ChaChaFut (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion we should embed notable milestones into the already existing sections and into the current prose. If there are enough milestones, I would support creating a separate article for these. Tropical wind (talk) 06:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi - for what it is worth I'd love to see a list of the important milestones that might be reached. Maybe a table in this article? Thanks for creating a really great article on the world cup. Footy chicken (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that wikipedia has a policy against speculation, I would suggest we leave out any records until they are actually set or broken. Sir Sputnik (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Golden & Silver Goals???

Will there be any golden or silver goals rule during extra time in matches in the knockout phase? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heruur (talk • contribs) 18:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

No, these were dropped some years ago. --Pretty Green (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Match Times

Shouldn't we put in the times of the matches in the group stage at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.119.2 (talk) 19:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What for? They are already on the individual group articles (see 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A, etc.) – PeeJay 20:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

As are the venues etc. Why the difference? Why not leave just a table or very simple table and results? Jlsa (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguate

considerign this is about to be a highly viewed page it makes sense to redirect 2010 World Cup here, but about a week or so after it ends then the disambigatution page ought to be be the first point because other tournaments may very well be sought.Lihaas (talk) 04:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

New section/Apartheid

there has been numerous reference to South Africa's emergence from Apartheid and the repercussions thereof. This doesn't seem to have an inclusion of the said matter. I've added a a section on this, feel free to move it where appropriate, though the content is relevant so i dont see a reason to remove without discussion.Lihaas (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Group D

Australia GF is set to 1337. I cant edit, so can someone else get that?

DInaxio (talk) 14:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Forget that, fixed.

76.30.39.50 (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Controversies

What about the Iraq vs. Qatar game where Iraq lost in the qualifying stage when Qatar played a player from a different country. FIFA rejected their claims and let Qatar advance to the next qualifying stage when FIFA rules clearly state that it should be changed to a loss for Qatar and a win for Iraq which would have put them in the next round of qualifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.113.233 (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the World Cup in South Africa with 32 teams and no Iraq or Qatar. There are other articles about the qualification. The Iraq vs. Qatar game is mentioned at 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)#Group 1. Note that Wikipedia should keep a neutral point of view. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead and be WP:Bold and add this to the list of controversies during qualification. The section of Ireland, Uruguay, etc already exists.Lihaas (talk) 05:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

External links

the link "2010 World Cup: Opening Ceremonies - slideshow by Life magazine" serves the article because, as per WP:EL, websites can be added to the "external links" section when "information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy."

Additions do not simply have to be official pages (As in the past international football tournaments like 2006 FIFA World Cup. Said pictures are copyright violations to add here, and then show the opening ceremony on the relevant site, thus it is on EL.Lihaas (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)).

Why must we add a pointless external link when we could just as easily add free photos of the opening ceremony? Surely someone has uploaded some photos of the ceremony on Flickr by now! – PeeJay 09:48, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has done so: the link provides images that may well be of interest to readers of the article. It provides additional illustration relevant to, but not repeated in, the article: is that not what external inks are all about? Kevin McE (talk) 13:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Countries that did not enter World Cup"

In 2010 FIFA World Cup#List of qualified teams, the explanatory image caption needs a grammatical cleanup. --78.34.244.72 (talk) 12:39, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Captions are often not written in complete sentences: that aside, what is unclear? A few countries are not FIFA members, a similarly small number are FIFA members but didn't enter this competition, the majority entered, but failed to qualify for the finals, and 32 teams are in the finals tournament currently underway. Kevin McE (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Matches" link to scored

seems rather cyclical on this page (As opposed to the schedule page) as the link comes right back to the same place. Someone may want to remove them. (except the final which has its own page)Lihaas (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Update

The following quote appears in the 'Preparations' section: "five of the existing venues are to be upgraded" and this is in the 'Legacy' section: "The following stadiums have all been upgraded" (my emphasis). Of the two, I would say with less than a month to go before the tournament starts, that the first quote needs attention; maybe something like: "five of the existing venues were upgraded". What do others think?
RASAM (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2010 (UTC) This issue is still not adressed. The WC is ongoing but the 'Preparations' section reads as if the WC will happen in some distant future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.27.207.192 (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Altitude

The fact that some of the matches will be played at moderate altitude (1500-2000m) has had an important impact on several teams' preparation plans, and is of considerable interest because of the physiological effects on the players and the modest physical effects on the flight of the ball. There is much written elsewhere on wikipedia and extensively referenced about altitude already, but I think a short section identifying the highest venues and describing the likely effects would be of value. What do other think? I'd be happy to get it started but don't want to put too much work into it if it is not a popular idea. Empyema (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey - I think this could be really interesting. I don't know anything about it though. Is it really that important? Footy chicken (talk) 19:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I've added a brief section under venues Tomcrocker (talk) 15:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Chazkim, 13 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Colours for qualification map key are incorrect. Should be changed to match http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_world_cup_qualification.png

Chazkim (talk) 01:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What should happen is that people shouldn't edit graphics after months of use - particularly at a time when the page is likely to be edited a lot. Given the large number of revisions it is hard to track who edited the colours and when and why - hence when another user went to the page they saw the old picture (because they don't just magically recache when you open a page you often use, I am still getting the old colour scheme on a lot of pages) and thought the edit was vandalism - and they had little reason not to think that. That is why edits (and particular picture edits) need to be flagged precisely and we would probably need a comment on the page to note what has happened in a case like this. Jlsa (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the above; either fix the template, or request an edit to the template - not this page. Cancelled this request  Chzz  ►  06:18, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at this page. There is no template. It's a semi-protected page the guy probably can't edit. Jlsa (talk) 06:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Diski Dance

Can there be some small coverage of the Diski Dance, a dance specially made for this tournament by the South Africans, and used in Matt Harding's "Where the Hell is Matt in South Africa?" video. Thanks mezuu64 --Mezuu64 (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Colours on map of qualified countries

Using red and green as the main colours on the above map means that a lot of colourblind people will have trouble reading it. I've already posted on the talk page for the file on Commons, but I think more people who can fix it may notice a comment here.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

What colors would you suggest to use? Black, white and gray?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

No... read here http://jfly.iam.u-tokyo.ac.jp/color/#select

Also, Photoshop has a function to let you see a picture the way color blind people see it. Go to View -> Proof Setup -> color blindness (2 types) --91.32.61.159 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Peter, being colorblind (red-green and blue-purple) myself. Looking at the map, I found it very difficult to discern what countries were qualified and which ones weren't, especially the smaller European countries. I'm sure that you guys probably already know that the image causes a problem, but I felt it somewhat necessary to provide input from the view of a colorblind person. 98.235.217.244 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

First talk post - be kind! Since the changes mentioned above, the colors in the key of the map in the main article no longer reflect the colors within the actual map image (although those within the Description of the image at its wiki entry have been correctly updated). In any case, the color codes need to be changed from top to bottom to: #000cff, #ffb400, #000000, and #ababab. 94dgrif (talk) 01:33, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Now that the key has been fixed too, Everything is much clearer than it was. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey. I see a map in mostly red and green, but the key colors are blue, yellow, grey, and black. I thought that was odd... 192.91.173.42 (talk) 15:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Card list?

Maybe make a list of players with yellow and red cards with "misses match XX"? Bahati (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's quite appropriate, although we did make a separate article for discipline at the 2006 FIFA World Cup, in which we listed every yellow and red card. – PeeJay 01:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not grounds saying it cant be "pioneered" here. But that said as per consistency an article liek that can be madeLihaas (talk) 07:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be useful to know which referees issued the red cards? It's their moment of glory! Tomcrocker (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Group A rankings incorrect

Shouldn't South Africa be ahead of Mexico, since they were the first seed in Group A and the game with Mexico was a tie? They list SA first on FIFA.com. FIFA World Cup Standings . As well, Uruguay is listed before France on FIFA, unlike on this page...

Does it really matter? I doubt it. In years to come I really don't think people will remember who was third and fourth after one match. The BBC has it the same way, which I assume the table on here takes after. If I had to give a reason then I would say its based on the World Rankings; Mexico are higher than South Africa, and France are higher than Uruguay. Argyle 4 Life^talk 01:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it doesn't really matter in the grand scope of things but another possible reason is that Mexico and France are first alphabetically. --SM1991 (talk) 02:49, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the main issue here is to know the actual tiebreaking criteria and to use sources. Kingjeff (talk) 03:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

True on the tie-breaking, but at this stage its really alphabetical with all things considered equal (as the table is with Mexico then South Africa and France then Uruguay)Lihaas (talk) 04:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

So why the arguments here (the "does it matter?" well, YES it does) for what is an attitude of just being lazy. It doesn't take but a click to visit FIFA's website. South Africa currently leads that group, this is the simple fact. It is funny to read all the nit-picking anal-retentive discussions on Wikipedia to be correct and referenced, and then when someone points out basic errors: nothing. Kingjeff is the the only one that has a clue here. It IS about tiebreaking criteria and using sources; not a new Wikipedia World Cup Standings. Look, you have a user, Argyle 4 Life, completely making up things now, and Lihaas hasn't a clue. Sorry fellas...

Before you are so uncivil about things, you should be aware of the tie breaking criteria. The only listed criteria that could separate SA and Mexico, or France and Uruguay, at present is a "drawing of lots by the FIFA Organising Committee", which has not taken place. Therefore either order is equally correct: two teams are joint top of the group, two teams are joint third. It might be that as a project we wish to be consistent, but that is a different issue, we could either be consistent in following FIFA's lead (although too many editors want to update within 4.37 milliseconds of the final whistle for that to be consistently applied), or alphabetical order. But in the absence of authoritative explanation of rankings, we have editorial freedom. Kevin McE (talk) 11:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Careful, we won't have common sense being spoken here, Kevin. ;) Argyle 4 Life^talk 16:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

"Uncivil" i think saying "don't have a clue" was more a WP:NPA. At any rate, re-read what i wrote. it was agreement with the post above that the criteria had to be known, the other comment was merely an attempt not to get into huff just yet. But if you have said source and rules then why not go ahead and edit on it. Youre not in the wrong, not even by a doubt. (said pretty "civil[ly]"?)Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The FIFA order of tied teams at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/standings/index.html is currently consistent with http://www.fifa.com/live/competitions/worldcup/finaldraw/index.html for all groups including those with no matches played. I haven't seen an offical statement from FIFA about how they list tied teams after they have played but I guess they follow the draw positions. This means that in case of a tie, the seeded teams (best 7 plus South Africa as host) are listed first (it was decided before the draw to give them all position 1). The others are listed by the position they received in the draw. Note that this position within the group was a draw and not based on other criteria like spelling, world ranking or pot number in the draw. After being drawn into group A, Uruguay drew position 3 in that group. When France was drawn from pot 4, only position 4 was left. This was by draw and not by design. All teams from pot 4 were last to be drawn into their group but they didn't all draw position 4. The position determined the playing order in that group. I don't agree with the tone or arguments of the unsigned editor and South Africa doesn't lead group A ahead of Mexico but if there is disagreement about the order of listing the teams, I think we should follow the draw as the closest we can come to something official. I personally don't care whether they are listed by FIFA's draw or other random criteria but if others care and we need something to settle a dispute then FIFA's draw seems suitable. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

My guess about FIFA's order didn't hold long. Before the first round 1-1 match between England (designated C1 by FIFA) and USA (C2), FIFA listed England before USA. After the match they list USA before England. I cannot think of any meaningful criteria which would cause the match to change the order so I now guess FIFA has no criteria and it's just chosen arbitrarily after each match by whoever updates their table. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the placing of the US above England makes no sense under any published or logical criteria (simple alphabetical, discipline, qualifying record, World ranking, etc) Sinfony81 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about this. When the second round of matches finish, the tiebreaking criteria will morely be present. Kingjeff (talk) 03:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

This will likely only be a problem this week so surely teams level on 1pt should be shown in alphabetical order. User:Arthur7171 (User talk:Arthur7171) 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yellow card suspension rules

The rules for suspensions for this World Cup have been changed to avoid players being banned from the final by getting a yellow in the semi final like Ballack or Blanc in 06 and 98. Single yellows will be 'deleted' after the quarter finals [6]. I couldn't see where to add this, does anyone think it's relevant? Tomcrocker (talk) 15:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Probably, this could be mentioned if there is such a situation in the finals. It would fit into the finals section as a notice. --Tone 15:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Although there won't be a specific 'situation' as the rules have been amended to ensure there isn't... Tomcrocker (talk) 09:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please change the intro as i says 3000010 world cup etc. should be changed as it is just plain vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NMN1488 (talk • contribs) 13:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Buzz/Hum during the games?

Could someone post something about the buzz/hum that is both prominent and in the background during the games? I'm not sure of any resources that might comment on this. Hires an editor (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It's only the Vuvuzela, nothing worth putting in an article, really. doktorb _words^deeds 20:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Vuvuzelas are a big talking point here in Britain. I would think some mention of them appropriate as they are getting significant coverage and it is a cultural element of this tournament that will be notable from others, like the mexican wave or those inflated clappy things. Tomcrocker (talk) 08:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I see it's been added already under controversies. Tomcrocker (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

it was also mentioned here in Australia - it was mentioned by David Koch on the news this morning (June 14). They wish to have them banned. Timeoin (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It's all over the news in the States, too. Might be worth mentioning. Coemgenus 20:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned briefly here and in detail in the Vuvuzela article, to which this links and has a "Main Article:" link for as well. I honestly think that is enough coverage and that it should not be duplicated here.Best wishes DBaK (talk) 14:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Possible scenarios

The possible scenarios should be left out since there has been only one round of matches played and there are lots of scenarios that make this section too long and hard to follow. Let us just either skip it or move to the group articles. --Tone 20:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, oh look, they've gone too. brob (talk) 20:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed by me but someone added them back... Waste of space at the moment. --Tone 20:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Scenario are always at the group page if they exist - not the summary. Jlsa (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree that each group page is a better place than the main article. Disagree that it should be left out entirely (as long as we're only looking ahead to the chance to either clinch or be eliminated in each team's immediate next match). LarryJeff (talk) 19:10, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Group F

The result is New Zealand 1-1 Slovakia (instead of: New Zealand 1-2 Slovakia) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.228.230.250 (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 142.150.205.208, 15 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Brazil 2- Korea DPR 1

142.150.205.208 (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Already done. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzela

Does anyone think that there should be a section based around the controversy over the use of the Vuvuzela horns? (BBC: South Africa ponders vuvuzela ban) TubularWorld (talk) 16:06, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really in this article, no. The Vuvuzela section here does make reference to those issues, but they are dealt with much more fully in their natural home, the main Vuvuzela article, to which we also give one of those nice "Main article" links. I think that's more than enough - to go into it all here would just duplicate that article. DBaK (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree, as there is now sufficient media coverage to classify this as a controversy that needs to be included in this article (this is different than the main article on vuvuzelas which explains what they are, their history, etc, and yes which should include references to the World Cup and Confederations Cup controversies). I cannot edit as I'm not registered, but someone should also add the fact the BBC has also announced it is introducing a noise filtering option after receiving more than 500 complaints. 68.146.81.123 (talk) 12:36, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}}

According to BBC world cup page and the Commentators, Kagisho Dikgacoi of South Africa is suspended against France for picking up two yellows in the two matches (vs Mexico & Uruguay). Here is the evidence Match report of South Africa v Uruguay (make sure its South Africa v Uruguay and its right at the bottom of the report) Could someone please add this, thanks. Mr tim111 (talk) 20:44, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Where do you suggest we add it? I'm not sure it would really fit anywhere. – PeeJay 20:52, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

This is something to add here, not in the main article. Just red cards are listed in this one. --Tone 21:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

My bad, this is already in the article, apparently we list those as well. --Tone 21:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

South African Goalkeeper Sent Off

This seems to be a significant event in the World Cup. I have checked the statistics for 2006 and 2002 and in those World Cups, no goalkeepers were sent off. If anybody could find out when the last goalkeeper was sent off, it may be a nice addition to the "notes" section of the "suspensions table". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.8.235.125 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The only other keeper ever to be given marching orders was Gianluca Pagliuca during the 21st minute of play against Norway in 1994's Group E. His offense was handling outside the box. Italy managed to score and win 1 - 0. Xenon54 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Goalscorers section

I'm wondering if anyone has the time to revert the Goalscorers section to its original state, that of all the players who scored being listed freely, and not one just showing the "top" goalscorers. That format has NEVER been used for ANY international tournament, and it's not very informative or professional looking. Thanks.--Shadowrouge99 (talk), 12:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 12:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC).

Edit request from 173.86.41.169, 10 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} In the opening paragraph, it should read, 'Italy is the defending champion,' not 'Italy are the defending champions.' 173.86.41.169 (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

 Not done The current version is correct in British English; see WP:ENGVAR. Algebraist 14:54, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Another user has made the change requested above. I have reverted it. Bevo74 (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

This all depends on whether Italy is seen as an entity ("Italy is the...") or as a conglomeration of individual entities ("Italy are the..."). Either way, I think whichever form is chosen, it needs to be kept consistent throughout the entire page. XJ3N0V4x (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Why has this been changed to 'Italy is the defending champion'? The entire article is written in British English, and it ought to remain consistent throughout. We're talking about the Italian football team, which is a group of players, and is therefore coupled with the plural form of the verb 'to be' in this case. ericxpenner or User Talk —Preceding undated comment added 09:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC).

current tag

per WP:CET (and the protection level given for that reason) "used optionally to warn the editor or reader about the great flux of edits and the fast-changing state of the article, due to the fact that current events tend to get the most attention from editors." The # of edits has gone up and will go up in the next few days and weeks.Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The current tag is for little watched articles that might be receiving hundreds of edits an hour due to an incident like the death of a celebrity etc. There are plenty of editors watching this article, and even now, with the tournament in progress and a game ongoing right now, it is getting about 5 edits an hour. It is wholly innappropriate for this article, and should not be used, even when games are in progress. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just cited the reference from the wikipedia guideline itself that warrants its inclusion. On what such basis do you think it shouldn't the reasons above seem like simply the opinion of an individual editor, nowhere is the mention of "hundreds of edits and hour" or any such measure. (of course today is the first day with 3 matches, there are also 4 match days to come

Im not going to revert the edit, i look to you do that because the revert was rather quick. Lihaas (talk) 16:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

From Template:Current#Guidelines:

• As an advisory to editors, the template may optionally be used in those extraordinary occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, for example, in the case of natural disasters, the death of celebrities, or other breaking news.
• It is not intended to be used to mark an article that merely has recent news articles about the topic; if it were, hundreds of thousands of articles would have this template, with no informational consequence.

Even using the watered down wording of WP:CET, there is no way on earth anybody would classify the edit rate to this article as a "great flux" or "massive editing attention" or describe it as a "fast-changing state". It is at best, getting a few numbers changed three times a day. There is no need for the tag, it does nothing for readers, editors don't need it, and to cap it all off, on such a high profile article, it looks bloody stupid. MickMacNee (talk) 17:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The number of points of South Africa are wrong, it says 5 points while it should say 4 points! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.154.117.138 (talk) 16:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I've restored the tag pending consensus that it's unwarranted. There are more than "a few numbers changed three times a day". --Elliskev 23:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The whole idea is that a very small section of this article gets changed often...the matches section. The other edits are minor. So if any template is on this page it should be the section specific one and it should be put on the Matches section. Chris1834 (talk) 23:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call the matches section "a very small section". It's kind of the core of the article. --Elliskev 00:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

So. It's been removed again with a per talk edit summary by MickMacNee. I don't get it. What talk? --Elliskev 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

New additions (vuvizulas, betting odds etc)

some section on the vuvizulas (sp??) and the controversy would be nice, boy that thing it loud especially when south africa are playing ;)

Also some info on the special appearances as in Felipe Calderon (and the more to come (apparently joe biden tonight)) and the pre-kickoff concert with attendees (singers) could be added here. It is encylopaedic reference after all. And 1 more suggestiong was to expand a section for the booking favs to win. Ive added the section, but someone can expand it further.Lihaas (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

• I believe the spelling is "vuvuzela", not vuvizula... XJ3N0V4x (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
• I too would like a section that has the pre-tournament bookmakers' odds. Surely, a good source on this exists. kabbelen (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)kabbelenkabbelen (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

favourites section

this edit [7] was removed because "inappropriate speculative opinion. different places give different opinions of who is favourite and one persons opinion is not notable" However, unlike the debate at the schedule page this edit firstly cites the view of a manager as such, which is not speculate and newspaper articles (as opposed to specific agencies) giving a summary of popular opinion/collated odds more generally. Furthermore, the first link may well have been from a specific outlet (although corroborated by the media link), but when removal can be improved on then why not keep it or fact tag it? Nothing is stopping and editor from adding more cites.

Im not going to restore it just yet, but can objection be discussed here? After all various cites were removed because of an undiscussed issue on 1 sentence.Lihaas (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Opening ceremony

Could a short paragraph on opening ceremony be added? This is one of the prerequisites to get the article back on ITN. --Tone 14:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

it should, add a section and some info with an "expand" tag is need be.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Notable/controversy

[8] this was certainly a notable event, and backed by sources, to say why Mandela didn't attend, sources also say the expectations for so were high. the editor first removed it saying "individual is free to attend an event or not as he/she wishes: why should it be controversial that an elderly infirm person, mourning the loss of a relative, does not attend" i responded saying "his absence was notable" he returned saying "if there were an article on the Opening ceremony, it might be notable in that, but it is not a WC controversy" so rather than an edit war we can discuss this. as i said its his absence that is notable not the fact that an "individual" is free to attend. Mandela doesn't count as one of the 60,000 spectators, his presence adds the value as the sources said.Lihaas (talk) 14:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

His absence from the opening ceremony was listed as one of the competition's controversies. I cannot believe that many people see it as such: a disappointment, perhaps, but not a controversy. I note that in preparation for the event, no-one had thought it important enough to record his expected presence at the opening ceremony, so why is the inclusion of his absence (for entirely personal reasons) imperative? While there is nothing on Wikipedia about the opening ceremony, the absence of Mandela from the ceremony is going to be out of place wherever (with the possible exception of his own article) it is posted. If there is extended reporting of the ceremony, then of course it would be appropriate within that context. Kevin McE (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Per the source statement of the expectations generated, but anyways, we can come to an agreement the section just above deals with the opening ceremony, so would you agree that its suitable there?(Lihaas (talk) 14:50, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Another editor readded this already, so I enhanced the edit to clarify the details. Hope its better, if not then edit it or say what should change.

Yes, I re-added per edit summary - seemed to be enough mention of it to justify inclusion if there was a suitable space for it, although I agree with Kevin McE that it wasn't really a controversy--ClubOranje^T 00:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The expression "ex-South African president" is nonsense! Mr Mandela is no longer president but he's still South African so it should be "former president of South Africa". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.243.91.229 (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Goal Scorers section

The goal scorers in the "Scorers" section are currently sorted by the order in which their goals were scored. This is not the proper way to sort them, they should be sorted alphabetically by country, and then by name (similar to previous World Cup articles). When the "scorers" section becomes more populated it will become cluttered with players in a seemingly random order. It is more organized to have it alphabetically. 1joe60 (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Also in this section, an editor has pointed out, quite correctly, in an editnote that flags should not be used without text, and so replaced the flagicon template with flagathlete: an editor has now placed himself in breach of 3RR by undoing that change after three different editors had applied it. In defence of the editwarrior, a young and inexperienced editor, such sections appear, using flagicon in articles for previous events, but should we continue, knowingly, to flout WP:Flag? Kevin McE (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that flags only had to be accompanied by text for one of their usages in an article. Since the flags are accompanied by text in the group tables, I don't see any problem with leaving out the country name in the goalscorers section. – PeeJay 15:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the order, shouldn't they be in a sortable table with columns for country, player name, number of goals and then if space permits details of who they were scored against? Default order I would think would be number of goals, country, name. I don't know how to create such a table... Tomcrocker (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Typically, we have listed every single goalscorer in the tournament in that section, and I don't think that such a table would be very conducive to the large number of players that would need to be listed by the end of the tournament. – PeeJay 15:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why a list is better for displaying a large amount of info compared with a table? Tomcrocker (talk) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I see the 2009-10 UEFA Champions League#Statistics article has a similar table. Tomcrocker (talk) 16:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Someone has changed it back to flagathlete and stated that "the flagathlete template should be used here according to WP:MOSFLAG". Where in WP:MOSFLAG does it say we have to use flagathlete instead of flagicon? We have used the flagicon template for every other major international tournament including 2006 FIFA world cup and Euro 2008 so why should it now be changed? What is wrong with the flagicon template? 1joe60 (talk) 18:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Green line in group tables

What exactly is the function of the green line in the group tables? I noticed that in the first few tables, it sits between the top two and bottom two teams, thereby representing who would advance and who wouldn't. But on group C, there are two lines, above and below England and the US, and on Group D there is no line at all at the moment. Since it's not obvious to me where the green line *should* be, perhaps someone could explain so we can make sure it's in the right place... TIA. ScottLeibrand (talk) 16:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

What the line is, is the line that shows that the top two go into the next round. England should be above the USA though. See Group C Clyde1998 (talk · contribs)

I like how not only does Clyde site to the BBC of all institutions, but on the very page he linked to, the US is listed first. On FIFA.com, http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/standings/index.html, US is listed in 2nd. Where exactly is the controversy? Bds69 (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)bds69

If there is no key, the line should not be there at all. Wikipedia is not meant to be a self-serving resource for the cognoscenti, and readers should not have to guess about our symbols. Kevin McE (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree here. Wrongly placed green line can be misleading. --Tone 21:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The USA and England are even through all tie breakers and are currently tied for second place in group C. Many sources will change the order of the two (most likely depending on which side of the pond you are on). I don't think the green line should be included in any of the standing boxes. With the group stage just having begun and the minimal results in each group, the line is rather useless. Instead, a color backgrounds should be used to signify when a team has secured a spot in the next round (perhaps blue). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.187.99.58 (talk) 00:20, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is england/usa even an issue? When the teams are tied it goes on which Pot they are in, england should be second because they are in pot A. See the placing of other groups who are all tied because no games have even taken place yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.144.40.31 (talk) 03:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Which is of course, rubbish. The sides that have drawn are completely equal at the moment - any ordering of them on the FIFA website is entirely down to whoever updated the table - same with the BBC results, or your local newspaper (which probably done by AP or something) and even this page. If they put USA first, then they put USA first. If they had listed England first, then England would be listed first. Regardless, neither is ahead of the other - you just can't put both teams on the one line. The ordering before the group started is entirely down to a convention of listing them by the A1, A2, A3, A4 etc designation given in the draw. They could equally have been ordered alphabetically or by FIFA rankings or by GDP or anything if that had been the convention. Jlsa (talk) 04:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The green line indicates that the top two progress, not that the current top two will progress. Just like these league tables for next season don't profess that the bottom four alphabetically will be relegated! As for the Eng v USA thing - Jlsa is entirely correct, this is a non-issue --Pretty Green (talk) 07:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

If anyone wants a possible reason as to why FIFA have ranked equal teams the way they have (and this works up to Group E I think)- it is the team that plays its next game first that appears higher on the list. That could just be a coincidence however. Jlsa (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Like my own guess in an earlier section, this guess was quickly disproven by FIFA. All teams are tied in group F after two 1-1 matches. FIFA lists Paraguay, Italy, New Zealand, Slovakia. The next match is Slovakia-Paraguay. If your guess had been correct then there would still be the question of which team to list first when two tied teams play eachother. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Removed? The green line has been removed in Group A, although it is not of much use but still it looked good. 1Nikhil9 (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2010 (UTC)