Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Stadia or Stadiums

if this were Latin then it would be obvious. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/stadium -> plural stadiums or stadia. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stadium -> plural -dia or sta·di·ums. It's been stadiums for as long as I remember. Someone just changed it to stadia. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If those two good dictionaries both acknowledge that "stadia" and "stadiums" are equally valid plurals for "stadium", why bring it up? – PeeJay 14:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because it's been stadiums for as long as I remember. Changing it seems to fly in the face of the rules of consensus. Perhaps a better question is: why was it changed? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Also recently re-read the lede. Since stadia is also a Latin measurement of length, from which we get the term for a field of play, when I read "in ten stadia" I am slightly confused while if it read "in ten stadiums" I would not be confused. So why on earth did you decide to change it without consensus (aside from being bold)? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Now you're just intentionally trying to find fault with my work. How many people would know that a "stadion" is an ancient unit of length? How many of those, then, would get confused at seeing "stadia" in a sentence when the context clearly shows that it is meant as the plural of "stadium"? Finally, "stadia" is the original plural for "stadium"; "stadiums" was likely invented by someone who didn't know that "stadia" was the correct plural and simply added an S to "stadium". Unfortunately, that word has now passed into the vernacular, but that does not mean we should continue to use it. – PeeJay 10:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to find fault with your work. I don't know how many people would know it's a measure of distance. I would argue the same in return: how many people use the correct Latin plural "stadia" to represent the Latin singular "stadium". I would argue that the more common plural uses English grammar rules (and the consensus term) "stadiums". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, "silence implies consensus", but now that the topic has been raised, we should not continue to assume that axiom holds any water. And as you may know, the English language is full of exceptions to rules, particularly when it comes to words with Latin or Greek roots, as "stadium" does. Perhaps other people might deign to give an opinion on this matter? – PeeJay 16:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The English language also evolves. In modern usage, "stadiums" is far more common than "stadia" is. And unlike some examples (e.g. a lectern commonly referred to as a podium), this is not an instance stemming from or disseminating confusion. —David Levy 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that the using "stadia" is the exception while "stadiums" is the rule. Good thing the English language grows or we would have even more problems considering the influences of Greek, Latin, Old German and Norse, Norman-French, and several other linguistic influences. It's close but Google has about 9,960,000 results for "stadiums" and 5,080,000 results for "stadia". Finally my browser's spell-checker shows the latter as a misspelling and the former as correct. I think that we should be using stadiums rather than stadia since the latter is archaic and confusing even if one of those 5 billion Google hits is to FIFA's own list of fields and facilities on the games. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

On my end, Google reports about 8,820,000 results for "stadiums" and about 2,320,000 results for "stadia" (not even close). —David Levy 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

So it seems it will be going back to "stadiums" soon. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to use what is effectively a neologism... – PeeJay 10:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Third Place?

I noticed that the summary box at the top right of the page has both Germany and Uruguay as "Third place (no match was played). This is the same for not only this World Cup article but many before it. Shouldn't Germany be listed solely as Third place since they won the third place match. If not, why is the summary box listed with both Germany and Uruguay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.65.168.87 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. My guess is it was a copy/paste error. Apparently that's been corrected. - PhilipR (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Awards

For consistency with the wiki article on awards, shouldn't golden ball be first and golden boot second? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.91.109 (talk) 18:52, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Or for consistency we could use the order at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/awards/index.html:

1. Golden Ball
2. Golden Boot
3. Golden Glove
4. FIFA Fair Play
5. Best Young Player

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Severe vandalism here

Who deleted the "Spain, first title" thing, which is present on every EURO CUP/WORLD CUP article?

Also who changed some things out of order, deleted valid sources, etc.

If this is how you, registereds users are going to "protect" the article, please unprotect it, it will be more safe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.83.153.244 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I changed the order of some material in the lead - Wikipedia:Be bold. Besides the specific item you mentioned (which should be restored), what else do you consider "out of order"? - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 121.209.84.125, 14 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Someone has put an advertisement on this page... it's huge

121.209.84.125 (talk) 02:57, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I don't see it. Could you be a bit more specific? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:23, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It has been removed and the user was also blocked. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:25, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Rajeshkumarnatarajan, 14 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} There is an link for Viagra ad in this page. Please remove.

Rajeshkumarnatarajan (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The ad was removed an hour ago. Refresh the page; if that doesn't work, clear the cache in your browser. —C.Fred (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

' Why is this article semi protected. change it , or increase the protection so we don't see ads damn it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.148.207 (talk) 04:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's protected to prevent more SPAM like this and vandalism from disgruntled fans. The spam was removed in just under 30 seconds. I doubt any anonymous editors could have edited the page any faster. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

PAUL The Octopus

why dont hv any tittle for PAUL The Octopus? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.159.40.62 (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's linked to in the see also section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

2006 Opening Ceremony Cancellation?

Although this is cited, it is untrue. Images of the 2006 opening ceremony are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FIFA_World_Cup_2006_Opening_Ceremony.jpg

The cited source is extremely unreliable, written in broken English on a dubious website. http://www.worldcup2010southafrica.com/world-cup/2006-news/opening-ceremony-for-2006-world-cup-cancelled/ . This is clearly a hoax article.

I ask that any editor who can edit this page verify my claims as true and revise the statement below, as well as all other references to reference #2: The opening ceremony marked a return to this tradition,[1] following a cancellation of the previous one.[2]

75.67.190.251 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I have removed the sentence. There are more than enough sources to confirm there was an opening ceremony in Germany.[1] It is depressing that this misinformation can get onto such a prominent page. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

In the quarter Finals section.

"Netherlands came from behind to beat Brazil 2–1 (this represented Brazil's first defeat in a World Cup finals game played outside Europe since 1950)"

France beat Brazil in the 1986 World Cup, held in Mexico. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan Calot (talk • contribs) 05:16, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

While true that France advanced - that was after penalties (and a famous penalty shoot-out at that) so the result in the records is technically a draw. Jlsa (talk) 05:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

World Cup Trivia

There is no section for Trivia eg; 1. New Zealand was the only undefeated team of the world cup as all matches were draws —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.41.49 (talk) 01:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trivia sections) says to avoid trivia sections. 2010 FIFA World Cup#Group stage already says: "New Zealand ended the tournament as the only undefeated team after drawing their three group matches". PrimeHunter (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. There should be no trivia sections. I personally believe that information that does not contribute to better understanding the subject should also be avoided, but WP:TRIVIA does not back me on this. As for New Zealand, not managing to win or lose any game isn't particularly important. This is mentioned in the group play section already: "New Zealand ended the tournament as the only undefeated team after drawing their three group matches, but they finished behind Paraguay and Slovakia and were eliminated.". Now if they actually had a difficult route to the finals they may have something more to crow about. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:02, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Also under this topic, do we really need to reproduce in full FIFA's rankings for the tournament? We are supposed to summarize sources, not mirror them. --John (talk) 20:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Where does it indicate that we are to summarize sources? When the source is a list, how do you suggest summarizing it? The full list of clubs that qualified are listed. That's not a summary. The full list of stadiums used is listed and not a summary. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Copyright violations for details. --John (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Golden Boot

/////Sorry to intrude, my name is P. D., I don't have an account here. My suggestion - if I am not mistaken, this is the first World Cup that took into account the number of assists, as well as the minutes played to separate the top scorers from each other (as four players netted 5 times). Should this be mentioned in the article? I was under the impression that the golden boot could be awarded jointly (at least for previous World Cups). 17 July 2010, 17:52 CEE

I don't know that it's the first time. I believe that you have to go back to the 1970s to see it again. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying! :) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.139.80.170 (talk)

Goal of the tournament

One question, can we add the goal of the tournament to the awards section or it isn't worthy enough. By the way Forlan won the award and here is the link [2]201.139.69.8 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Tournament Rankings

I know some people wanted this, but Im not sure if it is necessary. I dont really care either way, but I would vote to delete it. Metallurgist (talk) 00:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it and it seems to me reproducing the whole rankings is superfluous and bloats the article. The stats article is the place for it. A summary of what the reliable sources have had to say about it would be better than another list in an article that already has too many lists. I know England's low ranking is noteworthy, for example. --John (talk) 03:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: The 2006 article has a whole complex template for the rankings. I was not aware of that before.Metallurgist (talk)

Edit request from 66.157.57.36, 24 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Below the results chart for the knockout round it says it was the first time so many teams from South America made the last eight since 1930. This is untrue because there was no quarterfinal round in that tournament.h

66.157.57.36 (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Done, thank you anonymous editor from Louisiana. --John (talk) 04:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Done Dabomb87 (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Top importance Question

If a team scores six points in a group phase, do they automatically advance to the Round of 16? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.8.82 (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No. 3 teams could all finish on six points - then one would have to miss out. Jlsa (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 66.157.57.36, 24 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} The reference for the official song was mistaken. The actual official song of the 2010 FIFA World Cup was "Wavin' Flag" by Somolian singer K'naan. Check fifa.com

66.157.57.36 (talk) 01:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

 Declined You are mistaken. Wavin' Flag was Coke's promotional song. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

K'naan isn't even Somalian. He's Canadian. 69.255.16.132 (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Born in Somalia. Citizen of Canada. Somalia was one of the only countries that the world cup trophy tour, which included the Coke group and K'naan, did not visit. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:09, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Notes in knockout section

After the round of 16 article, there are many 'notes' about referee's calls, and othere decisions during matches. After the quarter finals though, O feel that more should be said about how Ghana were denied a clear goal during extra time. It currently says that they missed a penalty, but I don't feel that it gives the full picture. Crazydude22 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Perfectly routine decision: handball on line results in sending off and penalty. We are not going to start describing the foul that resulted in every penalty.. Kevin McE (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's in 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Uruguay vs Ghana. There was no controversy about refereeing so I agree it doesn't belong in the main article. "denied a clear goal" sounds like you imply a bad referee decision but the ball never crossed the goal line so it couldn't have been declared a goal. There is no equivalent of basket interference in soccer. It gave a penalty (which happened to be missed) and a red card (which didn't help Ghana because it happened to be seconds before full time). The referee couldn't have made a better call for Ghana unless he cheated and pretended he saw it across the goal line. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The recent addition is not "describing the foul that resulted in every penalty". It is merely describing the most significant and memorable part of the match. No salacious detail. No POV injected (I was cheering for Uruguay, and it doesn't look good on them). Not sure what Kevin McE is referring to consensus by removing the details of blocked shot. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It is describing the foul that resulted in one penalty: there must therefore be something qualitatively different about this penalty to justify including this one's cause, unless we are to include all others. So what is different about this: that it was missed? That it was late in the game? That some rather patronising wish to see African teams do well in the "African World Cup" was thwarted?

There was no controversy: there was scarcely a clearer decision in the entire tournament, and the incident is described in more detail in the knockout stage article. While there is a case in journalistic match reports for saying that chances missed are as important as goals (as a retired right-back, some credit to defenders is appreciated), in a record of fact such as an encyclopaedia, what is significant is what is on the results sheet: to suggest that anything else is more significant or memorable is POV.

Not sure what Walter means by being not sure what I mean about a consensus: a rather softly phrased suggestion rebuffed with two clear reasons by two editors, and not a single voice raised in support of it. Not the strongest of consensuses (consensi?), but hardly a conversation with no clear conclusion. Kevin McE (talk) 07:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The one foul and subsequent PK changed the course of the game. It is a substantially different penalty. The mere act made it different than other penalty: it was intentionally punched off the line by a player who was not a goalkeeper. That makes it quite unusual. At the time of the infraction there was no controversy, however it was much commented-upon afterwards. To suggest it was insignificant, in that it changed the flow of the game, is also POV. There was a comment, but no consensus. I do understand the points you're making Kevin and would like to keep some of the information about the infraction wince it was quite unique. I believe that it is one of the most memorable individual on-field plays that will be remembered years from now. That is POV. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus against it was weak, but existed: the consensus on the talk page to include extra detail was non-existent. The claim that it was "diiferent than any other penalty" is extraordinary: handball on the line happens several times in a season. I didn't say that it was "insignificant", but that it was ultimately less significant than either of the goals that were scored: FIFA seem to agree. As you suggest, memorability is POV, and the more that is said about the incident, the more the validity of an opinion justifying extraordinary inclusion is open to challenge. Comment after the match was about the inability of the rules to acheive what people perceived as justice, but the controversy was not about the way it was dealt with in that game: the incident was dealt with absolutely properly. Would there be any great interest in including it if it were not so recent? Brief reference here, fuller detail in the fuller articles (knockout stage, Ghana at the World Cup, Uruguay at the WC): how many fouls can you find described in detail in other WCs? It would need evidence of widespread comment beyond the normal scope of match reports to convince me that this merits greater inclusion than any other foul commited in the month. Kevin McE (talk) 18:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah then rather create a self-fulfilling prophecy, let's pare back the information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Goal in Portugal/Spain match

We need to come to some sort of firm consensus on the inclusion/exclusion of this goal in the list of controversies in the second round.

For inclusion: looking at the video it clearly was offside, the linesman on the far side presumably not seeing the flick by Xavi and assuming the pass went directly to Villa; and a wealth of citations, all in Portuguese or from pro-Portugal English language sites.

Against: there are many errors and controversial decisions in any tournament (offsides, penalties, cards, fouls: given or not given), is this one sufficiently different in nature or scale to merit a mention; only two errors (Eng/Ger and Arg/Mex) were acknowledged and apologised for; lack of citations from neutral, quality, English language sources (BBC match report makes no mention of offside claims in relation to the goal); desire to record that "we woz robbed" is not encyclopaedic.

So, two issues that we need to decide once and for all, and with disinterest: which errors/controveries in the tournament are worthy of recording here, and what single, reliable, unbiased, English language source best justifies any that we do include? Kevin McE (talk) 14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the ones that Blatter apologized for are worthy of mention, as that makes them so. Any others would need a very high standard of notability and verifiability for inclusion, and I have not yet seen evidence of this. --John (talk) 00:17, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly the firm consensus I'd hoped for, but as the only opinion expressed on the page, I'll act on it. Kevin McE (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John - it's less relevant than the Suarez handball, for example, which is at least likely to be remembered (even if only for visual impact) unlike the Spain/Portugal goal.Jlsa (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Any infraction that requires advanced video dissection is less of a controversy than one that is as obviously understood upon first viewing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

inconsistent venue naming

I corrected the inconsistent venue (stadium) naming error. The "FNB Stadium" (official name) was called "Soccer City" during the World Cup, just as "Cape Town Stadium" (official name) was called "Greenpoint Stadium" and "Moses Mahbida Stadium" (official name) was called "Durban Stadium" during the World Cup.

I proposed this usage several times during the World Cup. If you think this usage is incorrect, please verify your sources.

XJ3N0V4x (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are incorrect. Yes, FNB stadium is the official name but was referred to as Soccer City during the world cup, but Cape Town Stadium and Moses Mabhida were used instead of their unoffficial names. Soccer City I still think should remain becuase during the world cup (which this article is about) it was reffered to as Soccer City. If you think otherwise then you've got alot of work to get started on, such as Boet Erasmus Stadium (now EPRU Stadium) in the 1995 Rugby World Cup etc. Bezuidenhout (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm only interested in this article. Soccer City, Greenpoint Stadium and Durban Stadium were the names used during the World Cup for the stadias officially known as FNB Stadium, Cape Town Stadium and Moses Mabhida Stadium (respectively). I edited the page to reflect this fact. I propose the changes be reverted to the format I created. These are factual and consistent, whereas the current state of affairs is inconsistent. XJ3N0V4x (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know about you but here in England we referred to FNB stadium as Soccer City, but reffered to Moses Mabhida[3] and Cape Town Stadium by their names. In BBC coverage they listed the venues as Cape Town Stadium, Moses Mabhida Stadium and Soccer City. I don't know where you are getting the impression that "Durban Stadium" and "Greenpoint Stadium" were being used during the world cup? Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Ipod Aps that I downloaded for the games also listed them by their 'Official' names except Soccer City. My proposal is simple, refer to the stadiums to which they were called during the world cup, and if not correct then add a disambig. Bezuidenhout (talk) 16:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Then what is the use of the footnotes?!? I know what FIFA officially called the stadium DURING the World Cup, but Soccer City is not the name of the stadium NOW. The footnotes indicate what FIFA called the stadia DURING the World Cup, the names in the table should reflect their actual names. FIFA used the term Greenpoint Stadium to refer to Cape Town Stadium. Officially. Go check their (official) website before slinging iPhone crap at me. XJ3N0V4x (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Iphone crap? I am talking about Media, aka BBC, SABC, ABC, Sky News/Sky sports every frikin media you can think of. The footnotes are to say what the name of the stadiums are now. But because this is now a historical article, we refer to it historically, just like previous world cups. The idea is to give information to show the reader what they were referred to as then. When we have an article about Rhodesia, we say the capital city was Salisbury, not its current name, Harare. Bezuidenhout (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Right, then I'll adjust the table to refer to things the way you currently stated them. Then we'll see who's right... XJ3N0V4x (talk) 09:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The names of the stadium during the tournament are the display names that should be used. I suggest that you should use less threatening language during your discussion XJ3N0V4x. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

While I am not a fan of sponsered names, would it not be best to follow the naming convention from the 2006 WC? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Venues The stadiums are listed with their sponsered names in the table, with the 'offical' FIFA used names as footnotes. In the main body of text the stadiums are refered to by the FIFA names. Comments? Crazydude22 (talk) 06:57, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The "Venues" section would then act as a sort of key/legend. – PeeJay 10:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It is however, the exact opposite of what is done elsewhere (your last edit on the "Dublin Arena" question being an example) - where we use the actual name, and then note that the official name for the tournament is the unsponsored name. Is there a justification for the reversal in this case? Jlsa (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

This is exactly how I tried to edit it. The sponsored (official) names are used in the table with footnotes indicating what the names were during the World Cup. 196.215.22.251 (talk) 08:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have to disagree, we should list them as the name they were used during that Time. For example the 1995 Rugby World Cup list the stadiums to their former name. Likewise we refer to cities by their old name in historical contents (such as Bombay/Mumbai, Pietersburg/Polokwane) because that's what they were known as at that time. Bezuidenhout (talk) 11:43, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The locations should named using the names during the event. If required, a footnote could be used to indicate that the location was temporarily renamed for the tournament. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Mueller and top scorer

I don't think we should include all the othe players with this award. The FIFA description of the award says quite clearly the boot is given to the "leading goal scorer". We have forlan listed as "best player", so it logically follows that there can only be one leading goal scorer, least we also have to include the "best young player" with the "best player". It's one or the other. 66.190.31.229 (talk) 21:31, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are you referring to? 2010 FIFA World Cup#Awards only lists Thomas Müller at Golden Boot. Do you mean the 4 top scorers in the infobox? They are shared top scorers with 5 goals each and the Golden Boot award is not mentioned there. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

my point is: either we only list the golden boot winner, or we also must place the best young player with the best player of the tournament. Goose, gander. Why is Forlan "best player" I don't think he was the best player, but that didn't stop FIFA from giving him the golden ball. So we could also change all "best player" to golden ball winners, likewise with the golden boot for scoring. The current format makes no logicalsense. 66.190.31.229 (talk) 00:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

nonsense. Go back a few tournaments and you will see that the top scorer is not equivalent to the golden boot. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

What are you saying? That someone won the golden boot without having the most goals/assists? When?66.190.31.229 (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that. Winning the golden boot and being the top scorer are different things. "Top scorer" means a player scored the most goals, and since more than one player scored five goals, they must all be listed as the top scorer. The golden boot, however, can only be awarded to one player, who FIFA determines by ranking players first by goals scored, then by assists provided. I see no problem here. – PeeJay 21:44, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

An infobox must have a limited size and is a selection of key information. I didn't make the selection but I agree with it. Top scorer(s) and best player are the best known and most often mentioned accomplishments and probably of interest to the most readers internationally. Many people (including me shortly ago and I follow the World Cup) don't even know about other things like best young player. By the way, FIFA doesn't select best player. The FIFA Technical Study Group nominates 10 candidates and then accredited media representatives vote for the winner: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/awards/goldenball/shortlist.html. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Try to learn how to indent properly and actually read what has been said. You cannot say Forlan was the best player. It's debatable if he was the best player. So you either except FIFAs claim he is the best player or you don't. If you accept FIFAs word, you must also accept their word that the LEADING GOAL SCORER was mueller. It says so right in the description for the golden boot: it's only awarded to the LEADING goal scorer. Here it is: "The leading goalscorer at every FIFA World Cup™ finals is awarded the adidas Golden Boot." According to FIFA, Mueller is the leading goalscorer.66.190.31.229 (talk) 04:33, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I replied to you, not to PeeJay2K3. I indented [4] one level beyond the post I replied to, as recommended at Help:Using talk pages#Indentation and elsewhere. Practice sometimes varies on this point but please don't change indentation of other posters when you don't know the relevant guidelines. As for your other comments, there is clear consensus against you and considering your attitude I will not spend more time discussing the matter. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

yes, the space is limited, and it's exactly why having a half a dozen "top scorers" is ridiculous. FIFA says Forlan was the best player, so he's listed as the best player. FIFA says that Mueller was the leading scorer, yet multiple people are listed. There needs to be consistency. 66.190.31.229 (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The most goals scored is what is being indicated. That is not the same as the golden boot award. Müller received the golden boot because of assists. The same thing happened in the seventies. Precedent has been set: golden boot is not the same as most goals scored. And you may want to stop being so rude in your responses 66.190.31.229 (a.k.a. anonymous from the Madison, Wisconsin area). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Fine, then. We remove Diego forlan as being considered the "best player". where is the stats for "best player", anyway?66.190.31.229 (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

On the FIFA site. Isn't the ref there? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What? Dude, this is not an abbot and constello routine. Stop wasting bandwidth with this garbage. There is no stat for "best player" the FIFA site only considers him the best player BECAUSE HE WON THE GOLDEN BALL. Do you even know anything about soccer?66.190.31.229 (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend seems unwilling or incapable of recognising that while the title "Top scorer" does not only apply to the winner of the Golden Boot, the "best player" designation can only be applied to the winner of the Golden Ball. It is not the case that " FIFA site only considers him the best player because he won the golden ball" (no need to shout); but rather that they awarded him the golden ball because he was voted the best player: confusion of cause and effect here. Maybe the best resolution is to make clear that the "best player" designated in the infobox is not there as a POV statement, but because of an award: For the moment I've left a ref to the Golden boot award, it would probably be better to change the display name of the field (I know I've seen this done but I can't find an example to copy at the moment) Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

More like some here are incapable of logically reading for comprehension. You cannot have two different standards. Either you accept that FIFAs "word is gold", in which case the single best player is Forlan and the leading goal scorer is mueler, or you don't. If you don't you can't call Fornlan the best player because that's completely POV from FIFA. There must be a stanard66.190.31.229 (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin McE and anonymous from Madison, Wisconsin. Anon is unwilling or incapable of recognizing that goals and the golden boot are not the same thing and that implies the incapacity of logically reading for comprehension, let alone spelling: it's Müller, not mueler or Mueler. It's my understanding that the best player was voted-on by the other players, coaches, and I believe refs. The Golden Boot is an award determined purely by statistics: most goals and in the case of multiple players netting the ball the same number of times, assists are included. Top scorer too is determined by statistics: greatest number of times a player puts the ball in the opponent's net. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Voted-on by "representatives of the media". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, an assist is a form of scoring. Without anassisting individual an assisted goal is impossible to have, and the majority of goals are assisted. The point is someone has decided to say that "the most goals" is somehow important. Why isn't the best youn player equally important, as this is likewise "voted on" just like the best player. You are arguing yourself in circles here. We need a strict format that is free of bias. We either treat what FIFa says as Gospel or we only list facts. End of story.Whatzinaname (talk) 09:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"An assist is a form of scoring": what!???! "Assisted goal" is not a meaningful status in the score of a match, and the only unit of score in football is goals.

This discussion probably belongs on Template talk:Infobox international football competition, as it is not specific to the World Cup, and even less to the 2010 edition of that.

It is unfortunate that two fields that look as though they ought to be close parallels are not: Best player (probably an inappropriate fiel title: Player of the tournament would make it clearer that it is an award rather than an opinion, and would describe an award like Golden Ball) is a title given by the organisers to one player; Top scorer is a statistical measure which, given the nature of goals in football, will often, as a statistical fact, be shared. If the field name were to be changed to "Scorers' award winner", then of course Müller's name would be on its own there: such a change however would need to be proposed at the template talk page. In the meantime, there seems little reason why we should not compromise by indicating the Golden Boot winner among other scorers of 5 goals with a footnote. Kevin McE (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the infobox is used with other tournaments the field has meaning beyond this tournament and should be used consistently across all articles. If we make a change that states that "with World Cup tournaments, this field equates with golden boot, but all other tournaments, it equates with something else" then we could confuse readers. As it is, we're simply confusing those who think that the golden boot award is given to the top goal scorer when it's an award that takes goals scored into account, along with other factors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be entirely possible for the infobox to have two alternative fields, one labelled (as at present) "Top scorer", another labelled "Scorers' award winner", and the latter could be used in the case of World Cups, and any other event that determines an award based on similar criteria. That is undoubtedly possible, and those who think that the field under discussion here should only ever have the Golden Boot award winner in it should try proposing it there (I certainly won't be).

Meanwhile, given that we are showing all those who scored 5 goals, we need to have a sensible, POVfree, and evident to the reader, order in which to present them. Alphabetical oprder seems to be the solution which is obvious, uncontroversial, and free from need of explanation. Kevin McE (talk) 22:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

User:John KB: you're past the limit for WP:3RR. I suggest that you cease editing the article to change the infobox. If you have something to actually discuss, do it here. Your recent comment implies that you want to discuss it, but I don't see any recent entries. I'll reiterate the simple fact: the template field reads "top_scorer = " and the template displays "Top scorer(s)". It is coincidental that in many of past, recent World Cup tournaments the top scorer was also the winner of the golden boot. Please don't confuse matters in this tournament by equating the two. If you need help discussing changes to the tournament, feel free to ask here. I don't think the template needs to be changed either so I won't be suggesting it either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

All-star team Vandalism

Some of the players who were named to the all star team were replaced by players who were not present at the World Cup: Josip Simunic, Luka Modric, and Josip Begonja. I went to edit the section 'All Star Team' but there seemed to be no vandalism present. Someone who has more experience than me, could you please figure this out? Killian1989 (talk) 19:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

IP has vandalized that section, so I reverted its edits. Now it is OK. PS. (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Legacy

The FIFA-2010 World cup games in South Africa spurred the government to vastly improve its infrastructure nationwide, and led to a legacy of improvements in health, security, and interagency coordination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfessorAM (talk • contribs) 23:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Results in Group C are not correct

Some turd from england must have changed the results in Group C. It says 1:0 for england against the US, instead of 1:1. It also says 1:1 instead of 1:0 for the US against Algeria. Remember when "the Sun" had the headline about how "EASY" their group was? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.153.200.118 (talk) 13:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, tiger. Obvious vandalism like that happens every now and again, and is usually the most recent edit that no-one has reverted yet. You can click the View History tab at the very top of window and then checkout the most recent edit. In the case of vandalism, it's usually an IP edit, and you can revert it after checking out the changes. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Stadium images may be deleted

Seems that an anonymous editor has tagged several of the stadium images to be deleted with the statement that there is no freedom of panorama in S.A.. Several of the images are not tagged but should be under the same principle. Any ideas how to deal with this? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Jimjam007, 2 April 2011

The following article refers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_FIFA_World_Cup

Under the section "Construction strike" the wording has a negative implication but the text body doesn't mention anything that explains whether the reference was handled positively, or negatively therefore the wording should have a neutral status:\\ "Other unions threatened to strike into 2011.[24][25] The strike was swiftly dealt with and..."\\ 'Dealt with' should be replaced with 'resolved' Jimjam007 (talk) 05:27, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done – Ajl^talk 06:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jO_FwfnIayPK8z-g_2K2KxWTfpPA
  • In France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off on 2011-03-19 11:31:57, 410 Gone
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:20:11, 410 Gone

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hMVC1s6Pr6WoHBrceHOFXYf4HZRw
  • In France vs Republic of Ireland 2010 FIFA World Cup play-off on 2011-03-19 11:31:56, 410 Gone
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:20:21, 410 Gone

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 3

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.tshwane.gov.za/fifa_office.cfm
  • In HM Pitje Stadium on 2011-03-22 18:19:48, Socket Error: 'No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it'
  • In HM Pitje Stadium on 2011-04-13 03:31:05, 404 NOT FOUND
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:20:37, 404 NOT FOUND

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 4

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/dreamteam/index.html
  • In FIFA World Cup awards on 2011-03-18 13:08:26, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:20:53, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 5

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1270570/index.html
  • In Germany national football team on 2011-03-19 23:16:05, 404 Not Found
  • In Germany national football team on 2011-03-22 04:54:25, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:21:01, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 6

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/awards/goldenboot/index.html
  • In FIFA World Cup awards on 2011-03-18 13:08:26, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:21:11, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 7

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

• http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/organisation/fanfest/index.html
  • In FIFA Fan Fest on 2011-03-18 13:08:08, 404 Not Found
  • In 2010 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-18 12:21:32, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Xenophobia?

Our article isn't so good that we can't possibly glean from others is it? The defacto removal of suggestions is arrogant at best and xenophobic at worst. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:53, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Legacy

Interesting article on the world cup's legacy for SA:[5] 165.230.194.245 (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Financial Legacy

Any objections to starting a section on the financial legacy left by the SWC 2010? Arcanum-WP (talk) 04:04, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone's "changed" the winner?

I don't know much about football, but even I know that Spain won this World Cup. In the article's introduction, it's been edited to suggest that Netherlands won it in the article's introduction. I'm not really a Wikipedia expert and I don't have all the facts, so I didn't want to screw the page up, but someone should really fix that.

86.180.233.42 (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC) CW

Thank you for pointing it out. Yes, the article was defaced earlier, but it's been fixed. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Worldcup awards

Ah i think they should list more details about the best goal of the tournament, most fouled player and more statistics etc...

Diego's forlan volley was definitely the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.191.4.240 (talk) 07:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Not likely unless there is a source that lists these things. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

top scorers

There is a list explicit FIFA criteria for ranking top scorers: 1. goals (obviously) 2. goals without penalties 3. assist 4. goals per minute I have sorted the top-scorers by the official Fifa ranking, but somebody keeps sorting them by some other criterion. Since i've been asked to start a discussion about this, here we are. My opionion is pretty obvious: the way Fifa ranks the top scorers should be the way the top scorers are ranking in this article. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 08:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The field in the infobox is simply entitled Top scorer(s), not leaders of scorers competition. As scorers, there is nothing to distinguish between them. FIFA might choose a method to rank them for its own purposes, but that does not alter the simple fact that they are equally top scorers. The alphabetical listing is the most clearly non-POV way of listing them, and has been the defended status quo here for some time. Kevin McE (talk) 09:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

The infobox is indeed entitled "Top Scorers", but FIFA ranks these scorers, therefore they are not equal. And the FIFA ranking should matter, since this is an article about a FIFA tournament. The FIFA distinguishes through the 4 criteria I listed. The one criterion you suppose is which guys name begins with which letter, that is not an accomplishment at all, and should therefore be superseeded by the official criteria by FIFA to rank top scorers. The FIFA criteria are also not randomly chosen, but calibrated to determine the best scorer, so for this article it is the best way to rank people by the order given by the organisation that is responsible for the whole competition. The order of the list in the infobox always implies to the casual reader who is named first is the most accomplished of those in the list, even if not explained explicitly. And who is most accomplished is Thomas Müller, then David Villa, then Wesley Sneijder, and then Diego Forlan. The top-scorer competition has 4 criteria, not one, and the four best scorers of the WC are not equal, they are ranked by the organisation that holds the event. It is not proper to cut out three criteria if you don't like them, and then say only one criterion is relevant and the rest has to be listed alphabeticly. And i have not seen any argument (and can't think of one myself) why three criteria that determine the top scorer are left out and only the most important criterion counts. To make it short: The four top scorers are not equal, they can be ranked by accomplishment in the WC, and they are officially ranked by FIFA. The casual reader expects the ranking order in the infobox to reflect the accomplishments in the competition. In the Infobox at the teams we don't place Germany over Spain just because af the alphabet, no the officially by FIFA first places competitor is ranked in the first place, because this is more intuitive to understand for readers. The alphabet should really only be used if there is no other relevant criterion left. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And I maintain that, if all we are doing is telling the reader who scored most goals (and I do not believe that the field in question has any other purpose), there is "no other relevant criterion", so alphabetical order is appropriate.

The teams field is a total red herring, but if there were a field entitled "Semifinalists" (which would be a pretty stupid field to have...) then, yes, I would argue for them being listed alphabetically within that section: regardless of what happened subsequently, they were equally semifinalists.

Note that the link is to the winner of "Golden Shoe", not to a list of top scorers: Forlán is not even mentioned. Having provided the assists that earned Muller the Golden Shoe might make Muller more of an asset to his team: it does not make him more of a goalscorer. If he provided an inadvertent assist by a mishit or blocked shot, or because he did not have the confidence or positioning to take the scoring chance himself, it could suggest that he is less deserving of a "top scorer" award (but not necessarily of a Golden boot).

I would have to ask you to declare an interest if I interpret your edit history correctly, that you have a particular interest in German football. That aside, our differing opinions are clear: what do others think? Kevin McE (talk) 12:59, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that it should just be in alphabetical order, because quite simply, it says TOP SCORER(S), not GOLDEN BOOT. I think that Jonathan0007 is overreacting over nothing. If it said Golden Boot, then you would be right, however it says top scorers. Why would you apply a GOLDEN BOOT formula to determine the TOP SCORER? Top Scorer simply means which player(s) scored the most goals in the tournament. Since there is a four-way tie, just list them in alphabetical order. An average reader with COMMON SENSE would easily figure out that the players were level, as they scored the same amount of goals. Editadam 22:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

To date, consensus has been top scorers listed alphabetically. I believe that we discussed this earlier as well. The suggestion was to add a Golden Shoe parameter to be used only for World Cup tournaments. That idea was quickly abandoned. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Jonathan0007, STOP reediting an widely accepted feature of the article, it got old after the 2nd time Kevin McE had to do it. Editadam 12:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi! @Editadam: I didn't reedit anything since I started this discussion here and I am certainly not overreacting, my reaction was to explain my understanding of this in a factual manner, I don't see what is overreacting about this. I reedited the first time, because I didn't think KevinMcE was serious, the case seemed so obvious to me. Now I learned, that it is not, and therefore we are having this discussion. I didn't mean to annoy anybody, and I don't want to create an unprodutive atmosphere, so sorry if I didn't handle this completly proper, it was just that honestly didn't thought the opinions I am reading here were possible. I thought someone just jumbled up the order, when I first read it I didn't even get the idea this could be alphabetical. There are so many mistakes in many articles here, I honestly though I was correcting a mistake and someone is trying to prevent me from doing that. I learned now, that this is a real controversy. So no offense.

@KevinMcE: As for your disclosure request, you are right, I am fan of the German team, although I have already removed parts of articles that I found to be too positive and therefore not an encyclopedic tone in other articles about German players. I'm trying not to be biased, I'm always trying to be factual and I don't think this whole thing changes the validation of my argument, which is really simple: The Top Scorer competetion and the Golden Boot are the same thing. Golden Boot is the name of the prize, Top Scorer the name of the competition, but the Golden Boot competition and the Top Scorer competetion are ranked by the same criteria as they as synonymes. This is the same point of view the Fifa holds, I quote:

Thomas Muller’s opening goal for Germany against Uruguay in the third-place play-off proved enough to earn the Bayern Munich starlet the adidas Golden Boot. Muller finished on five goals at the 2010 FIFA World Cup in South Africa, but claimed the top scorer accolade thanks to no fewer than three assists, leaving him ahead of Spain marksman David Villa and Dutch hitman Wesley Sneijder, both of whom finished on five goals but with only one assist apiece.

source:http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/southafrica2010/awards/goldenboot/index.html

This shows, in the Fifa competetion that is the World Cup, the top scorer accolade and the Golden boot are defined by Fifa as the same thing. Therefore it is impossible to rank the Top Scorers and not the Golden Boot competition. Other organisations like national leagues may handle this different, but Fifa has a clear ruling on this, which is compatible with my editing, and not with the former version. And also this is what the casual reader expects, if they read a Top Scorer ranking in an article about a Fifa competition, they will obviously think it is the Top Scorer by Fifa rules, but the Fifa ranking was not what was in the infobox. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: "this is what the casual reader expects". I'm not sure we can assume what the casual reader expects. The consensus was reached shortly after the end of the tournament and if you change the consensus here you must change at least one other tournaments: 1962 FIFA World Cup.

Just remember the field is labelled Top scorer(s) and not Golden Shoe', Golden Boot, Top player or even MVP. That means it's not related to the awards but is a statistical field. You may feel free to suggest that we change the Infobox international football competition template itself to include an awards parameter or even create a sub-template specifically for the World Cup tournaments. However, we must maintain consistent use for all uses of the template. Any changes would have to be discussed at the template though. Until the field changes, we should maintain its understood usage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

He won the accolade by another achievement (3 assists) in addition to being one of the top scorers. Top scorer is a statistic, not an award: Golden boot is an award based on statistics, primarily, but not exclusively, the goals scored stat. I think consensus is clear here. Kevin McE (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I think we're getting caught up in the small point of different interpretation. But there is no need for interpretation, since there is a organisation that makes the rules for this competition, and the organisation (Fifa) has left no room for interpretation, and explicitly said Top Scorer = Golden Boot winner. No room for interpretation, at least not in this tournament. A goal scorer is not only defined by nummber of goals shot by himself. You get a so called "scorer point" also for assist in some statistics, they are even called literally "scorer points". In statistics, the assists are usually the tie-breaking criterion. Again: this is a Fifa competition, Fifa says Top Scorer is not only the one who shoots the most goals, but also who provides the most assist in case there is a tie in the first criterion. There is no room left for interpretation. At least not in this tournament. To make things short: Where can I propose a change of these rules that Walter Görlitz refers to? I was first asked to make the case here, so I did. Now I am told what I say here is irrelevant, since the decision is made somewhere else. Alright, no problem, let's end the discussion here and move on to the next level. I don't think changing a standard that causes a minor change in two articles is so bad, and I have confidence in my reasoning. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

PS I took a look at the WC1962. First, the players a not in alphabetical order in the infobox, as is demanded here. Secondly, the declared Golden Boot winner was Garrincha by lot. Just wanted to add that. Greetings, Jonathan. Jonathan0007 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

My last word: "top scorer" is not a competition, it is a statistical fact, based on nothing other than scoring. If FIFA want to take money from adidas on the grounds of naming a category winner, that has nothing to do with our infobox. Kevin McE (talk) 20:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

We're not getting hung-up on the interpretation. Only one editor is hung-up on interpretation. If you want to propose the change to the template you make it at template:Infobox international football competition and click on talk or discussion depending on your skin. The change would be to more than two articles, it would be all articles where the template is used. We are simply looking at two examples of the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I will have to agree with Kevin McE, the Top scorer is meant as a statistical fact in this article, not as the award. I am also afraid that you are the only one arguing a nonvalid point. There are at least 2 people here arguing the status quo as has been in the vast majority of World Cup pages. As far as I checked, 2 > 1. Editadam 23:50, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

And Jonathan0007 it is ALWAYS okay to add your opinion on Wikipedia. However, you kept reverting edits, and not listening to what others have to say. You can stand for your opinion, just discuss it on the talk page, not cause an edit war; because some users would have reported you, as Kevin has already stated on your talk page. There is a point where you have to stop (especially over such a minor detail as this). I do think that you have potential to be a good editor in the future, because you are not afraid to express your opinion, you just have to careful how you do it. Editadam 23:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to counter the extreme language used by Editadam. Jonathan0007 did not keep reverting, he reverted twice: here and here and no other times. This discussion was started by him after he was reverted twice and he has not touched the article since. Technically, his initial change was a revert, but let's consider that a bold edit instead. But the fact remains, he only tried to restore to his preferred version twice and has discussed since. I for one would not have reported him since there was nothing to report. He reached 3RR and didn't step over the line and has bent over backward to discuss since.

As for careful, I'll remind you that bricks and glass houses don't go together =). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:27, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like to ask: What articles besides the two already mentioned WC2010 and WC1962 would be affected by a request to change this standard? Greetings, Jon. Jonathan0007 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

This edit war is now officially LAME: [6]. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Critics: South Africa denied Dalai Lama a visa

C.Fred, in my opinion your removal [7] deserves place, since based on WP:NPOV article is not neutral without critics. There was connection to the event, which you can confirm from the citation below:

Citation: South Africa denied Dalai Lama a visa in March 2009 to attend a peace conference linked to the 2010 Football World Cup. Chinese officials in Pretoria said Beijing had warned against allowing the Dalai Lama into the country, saying it would harm bilateral relations. Thabo Masebe confirmed that no visa would be issued to Dalai Lama "between now and the World Cup". The Johannesburg conference was intended to discuss football's role in fighting racism and xenophobia. ref. [8] [9]
Watti Renew (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The introduction of this criticism would introduce unfair "balance" to this article. How many sources have actually made a big deal about this? Now compare that to the number of sources that have covered the footballing aspects of the World Cup. I think you will find the latter massively outweighs the former. NPOV is not about giving a voice to all opinions and viewpoints, but giving appropriate and proportionate coverage to them. In all honesty, nobody really cares about the Dalai Lama not getting a visa. – PeeJay 15:48, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The other things that's not clear is how the Dalai Lama's visa situation directly related to the World Cup. Was he granted a visa immediately after the tournament ended? Was China threatening to boycott the tournament if he were invited? —C.Fred (talk) 15:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The Free Tibet Campaign wrote: The move provoked a massive international outcry.[10] Nobel peace laureates Archbishop Desmond Tutu, former president F. W. de Klerk and the Nobel Committee pulled out of the conference in protest at the decision. Conference theme was How football can promote peace? Watti Renew (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Google gives 3 000 000 hits for Dalai Lama, football and South Africa and 11 700 000 hits for Dalai Lama and football. In India Dalai Lama spoke before the cricket match, Indian national sport, to the players including e.g. Andrew Symonds and Yuvraj Singh. [11]. In Australia: a football foto in June 2011. [12] Watti Renew (talk) 12:49, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh? And how does this relate to the World Cup itself? This conference, which I hadn't heard of before you mentioned it, was nothing to do with the tournament, it was just scheduled to take place in South Africa at the same time. – PeeJay 14:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree with PeeJay. This article is about the World Cup. The fact that it was an event that took place in time and so is used as a marker for the start or ending of some other event is not notable when discussing the other event. If you can find a reliable source that showed that China threatened to pull out of the World Cup if the Dalai Lama were permitted to enter South Africa before the tournament, you would have something to discuss. Compare that with direct statements of countries boycotting sporting event during the apartheid era when South Africa did participate. That changed the complexion of the event while the Dalai Lama's visa denial did not. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The funniest thing is that China didn't even qualify for the World Cup. – PeeJay 20:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

David Villa was signed by FC Barcelona before the World Cup

"FC Barcelona of Spain was the club contributing the most players to the tournament, with 13 players of their side travelling, 7 with the Spanish team" This is wrong information because David Villa was signed by FC Barcelona on May 21st, 2010. So there were 8 FC Barcelona players with the Spanish team (Valdés, Puyol, Piqué, Busquets, Xavi, Iniesta, Pedro and Villa). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.31.112.28 (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Except the international transfer window didn't open until 1 July, and FIFA's official squad list document recorded Villa as a Valencia player still. – PeeJay 22:15, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Wrong Info.

Someone has put down wrong information on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.57.167.142 (talk) 10:05, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you want to give us any specifics? Achowat (talk) 12:22, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Wavin' Flag

Even though Wavin' Flag wasn't an official song of the World Cup, I think it probably still deserves a mention, seeing as more people associate it with the World Cup than the actual official song. The only problem is, how do we do that? – PeeJay 19:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure add it to the culture section, but not the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:51, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

But it was already in the "Official song" section, not the lead. I don't see any problem with putting it in the "Official song" section as a way of further dispelling the myth that "Wavin' Flag" was the official song. – PeeJay 20:28, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Afrikaans in infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As I have pointed out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2013_Africa_Cup_of_Nations, the infobox should either have all 11 offical languages, or only English. Afrikaans should not receive special treatment. Crazydude22 (talk) 14:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree to put all the 11 official languages, or we must removing Africaans, I think it's more correct. There is the same probleme in the article 2013 Africa Cup of Nations. Regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Why is this discussion happening in two places? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Because as you see, there are two different articles that are concerning by the same problem. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 16:53, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2014

statement in 2010 FIFA World Cup in the section Statistics under goalscorer that "Spain had the fewest goals scored in the World Cup tournament for a champion, with eight.[55] The previous record low was 11, by Brazil in 1994, England in 1966 and Italy in 1934." is wrong & should be replaced to "Spain had the fewest goals scored in the World Cup tournament for a champion, with eight.[55] The previous record low was 11, by Brazil in 1994, England in 1966." Because in 1934 FIFA World Cup Italy played 5 matches during the tournament. 1st match (27 May, Rome) (First Round) Vs USA: 7-1 2nd match (31 May, Florence) (Quarter-finals) Vs Spain: 1-1, this match is first tide match in the history of world cup & replayed on 1 June, 3rd match (1 June, Florence) (Quarter-finals) Vs Spain: 1-0 4th match (3 June, Milan) (Semi-finals) Vs Austria: 1-0 5th match (10 June, Rome) (Final) Vs Czechoslovakia: 2-1 (a.e.t.) So, Italy becomes Champion playing 5 matches in the tournament & scoring 12 goals (not 11 as mentioned in the article) there are many source but most notable is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1934_World_Cup I hope you will make necessary changes... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proloydr (talk • contribs) 05:36, 20 February 2014‎ (UTC)

That appears to be sourced. Do you have a source to support that or are you only using WP:CALC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Walter Görlitz (talk • contribs) 06:00, 20 February 2014‎ (UTC)

I don't see any support in the cited source for the eight-goal record or for the prior record. I do see plenty of material in the 1934 Cup article that says Italy scored 12. —C.Fred (talk) 18:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not challenging that Spain scored only 8 goals in 7 matches in the tournament. I'm not also challenging that previous record of low goals by champion team is only 11 goals. But in the article it is mentioned that Italy World cup champion of 1934 scored only 11 goals, a previous record shared or equaled by England in 1966 & Brazil in 1994. But actually Italy scored 12 goals in 5 matches. I'm again giving the facts... 1st match (27 May, Rome) (First Round) Vs USA: 7-1 2nd match (31 May, Florence) (Quarter-finals) Vs Spain: 1-1, this match is first tide match in the history of world cup & replayed on 1 June, 3rd match (1 June, Florence) (Quarter-finals) Vs Spain: 1-0 4th match (3 June, Milan) (Semi-finals) Vs Austria: 1-0 5th match (10 June, Rome) (Final) Vs Czechoslovakia: 2-1 (a.e.t.) So, in the article instead of "Spain had the fewest goals scored in the World Cup tournament for a champion, with eight.[55] The previous record low was 11, by Brazil in 1994, England in 1966 and Italy in 1934." it should be... "Spain had the fewest goals scored in the World Cup tournament for a champion, with eight.[55] The previous record low was 11, by Brazil in 1994, England in 1966." Don't mention Italy's name in previous record. It's a wrong information. There is plenty of sources/ references in support of my data, as I have mentioned most notable is I know that I'm correct, if you don't want to make any changes in the said article it's your decision but truth is truth... thanks... Proloydr (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proloydr (talk • contribs) 20:04, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And sources are sources. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources misquote records like this all the time. If a source existed for the wrong record, there must be one for the correct record Proloydr has pointed out. Unfortunately, Proloydr, we can't use Wikipedia as a reference for itself, so I've taken the liberty of finding this source, which acknowledges Spain's new record. – PeeJay 21:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

And now I've made the changes. – PeeJay 21:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a communication error... and I should take the blame for it... My intention is that erase Italy's name from previous record. Instead of "The previous record low was 11, by Brazil in 1994, England in 1966 and Italy in 1934." write "The previous record low was 11, by Brazil in 1994 and England in 1966." sources: - Proloydr (talk) 21:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I've done it. And as I said above, Wikipedia must not be used as a source for itself. – PeeJay 21:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

so, the correct answer is instead of "The previous record low was 11, by Brazil in 1994, England in 1966 and Italy in 1934." write "The previous record low was 11, by Brazil in 1994, England in 1966 and Italy in 1938." sources: ... thanks for tolerating me for so long- Proloydr (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point about Italy in 1938. Not sure why they're not listed in the BBC reference. – PeeJay 23:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ghana Quarterfinal

Should we include a slight mention of the nature of Ghana's exit? For those who are not familiar, Ghana had a shot on goal that would have potentially been the game winner, but was blocked by Luis Suarez's hand, who was given a red card. Gyan proceeded to miss the penalty, and Ghana ended up losing the game. This was said to be one of the most controversial moments of the competition -- I think it warrants a short explanation! Adamh4 (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

the plural of stadium is stadia NOT stadiums as appears in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.172.111 (talk) 19:09, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

According to Wiktionary's usage notes for stadium, stadia is an uncommon plural used "chiefly in high-register contexts". Stadiums is the better word choice here IMHO. —C.Fred (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

The post-tournament rankings are incorrect, as the template must have been copied directly from 2006. In 2006, 25 and 28 were two way ties (Iran-USA and Saudi Arabia-Japan) while in 2010 there were no ties in the standings. France is 29th, not tied for 28th with Algeria, nor is Italy (26) tied with Greece (25) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdepstein (talk • contribs) 17:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2014

Please change the runners up (NETHERLANDS) with GERMANY because it was Germany who versed Spain and lost, not Netherlands. WTF is this lying crap

thanks!

71.80.173.164 (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: I don't think Germany and Spain ever met in the title match. Sam Sailor ^Sing 09:30, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The two nations met in a semi-final match. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Corruption & Bribery Investigations

On 4th June 2015 Chuck Blazer while co-operating with the FBI and the Swiss authorities admitted that he and the other members of FIFA's executive committee were bribed in order to promote the South African bid prior to the 1998 and 2010 World Cup competitions. I'll start work on this and the 1998 FIFA corruption sections once we know more about this breaking story. Twobells^t@lk 12:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 17 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427042107/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/awards/goldenball/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/awards/goldenball/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150330081425/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/awards/goldenglove/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/awards/goldenglove/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427021020/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/awards/bestyoungplayer/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/awards/bestyoungplayer/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427041816/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/germany2006/news/newsid=25395.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/germany2006/news/newsid=25395.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080626002544/http://sports.yahoo.com:80/sow/news;_ylt=Ah.1PkVLAGTpuoi3rG.VSMgmw7YF?slug=ap-fifa-wcup2010&prov=ap&type=lgns to http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_ylt=Ah.1PkVLAGTpuoi3rG.VSMgmw7YF?slug=ap-fifa-wcup2010&prov=ap&type=lgns

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090804123029/http://www.joburg.org.za:80/content/view/1030/244/ to http://www.joburg.org.za/content/view/1030/244/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081020103211/http://www.tshwane.gov.za:80/fifa_office.cfm to http://www.tshwane.gov.za/fifa_office.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427024624/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid=1142022/ to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid=1142022/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427030443/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid=1143584/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid=1143584/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110831043805/http://soccer365.com/world_cup/story_9710195414.php to http://soccer365.com/world_cup/story_9710195414.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150427041821/http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/awards/goldenboot/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/awards/goldenboot/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100621002945/http://thesoccerroom.com:80/?p=9013 to http://thesoccerroom.com/?p=9013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928224810/http://us.oneworld.net/article/362921-slums-act-will-displace-thousands-south-africa to http://us.oneworld.net/article/362921-slums-act-will-displace-thousands-south-africa
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110501210034/http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://playstationhome.jp/member/lounge/r-type.html&sl=ja&tl=en to http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://playstationhome.jp/member/lounge/r-type.html&sl=ja&tl=en

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100715092930/http://www.africareview.com:80/News/SA%20marks%20100%20days%20to%20World%20Cup/-/825442/872036/-/fcqxfuz/-/index.html to http://www.africareview.com/News/SA%20marks%20100%20days%20to%20World%20Cup/-/825442/872036/-/fcqxfuz/-/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100613011535/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBU5fp-9OUOfP3BIvX0lz-A8CvtAD9G7QKR00 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gBU5fp-9OUOfP3BIvX0lz-A8CvtAD9G7QKR00
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111006161524/http://csr-asia.com/upload/cover/307059103144.pdf to http://csr-asia.com/upload/cover/307059103144.pdf

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Nigeria entered the bidding process

In January 2003, Nigeria entered the bidding process, but withdrew their bid in September. In March 2003, Sepp Blatter initially said Nigeria's plan to co host the 2010 FIFA World Cup with four African countries would not work. Nigeria had originally hoped to bid jointly with West African neighbours Benin, Ghana, and Togo.

Could you please add this information in the "Host selection" section 86.1.125.7 (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

This information is already in FIFA World Cup hosts. Stickee (talk) 02:20, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1137489.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hMVC1s6Pr6WoHBrceHOFXYf4HZRw
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2009/1202/1224259931744.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jO_FwfnIayPK8z-g_2K2KxWTfpPA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/8391388.stm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101009020717/http://www.theoffside.com:80/world-football/adidas-xi-vs-nike-xi-which-brand-has-the-best-football-team.html to http://www.theoffside.com/world-football/adidas-xi-vs-nike-xi-which-brand-has-the-best-football-team.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100616164928/http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5282269/ce/us/organizers-consider-silencing-vuvuzelas&cc=5901?ver=us to http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5282269/ce/us/organizers-consider-silencing-vuvuzelas&cc=5901?ver=us
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150323115222/http://www.rsssf.com/tables/2010full.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tables/2010full.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:22, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 27 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/germany2006/news/newsid%3D25395.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.fifa.com/aboutfifa/organisation/president/news/newsid%3D881662/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news%3B_ylt%3DAh.1PkVLAGTpuoi3rG.VSMgmw7YF?slug=ap-fifa-wcup2010&prov=ap&type=lgns
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid%3D1137489.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hMVC1s6Pr6WoHBrceHOFXYf4HZRw
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2009/1202/1224259931744.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jO_FwfnIayPK8z-g_2K2KxWTfpPA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/8391388.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Soccer/0%2C%2C2-9-840_2006517%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091024123110/http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/AIC%27S/45-2.pdf to http://www.caa.co.za/resource%20center/AIC%27S/45-2.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100901022309/http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2007/03/01/fifa-are-adding-insult-to-injury-61634-18690847/ to http://www.journallive.co.uk/nufc/newcastle-united-news/2007/03/01/fifa-are-adding-insult-to-injury-61634-18690847/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100413090212/http://www.nelsonmandelabay.gov.za/fifaworldcup/Content.aspx?objID=32 to http://www.nelsonmandelabay.gov.za/FIFAWORLDCUP/Content.aspx?objID=32
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120165555/http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Pages/CapeTowntohost2010finaldraw2.aspx to http://www.capetown.gov.za/en/Pages/CapeTowntohost2010finaldraw2.aspx
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid%3D1142022/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/worldcup/southafrica2010/finaldraw/news/newsid%3D1143584/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/news/newsid%3D1273493/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230651/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/fifa_wc_south_africa_2010_regulations_en_14123.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/fifa_wc_south_africa_2010_regulations_en_14123.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid%3D1270570/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/statistics/news/newsid%3D1273020/index.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid%3D1274177/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100430093345/http://www.shakira.com/news/title/shakira-records-official-fifa-world-cup-2010-song to http://www.shakira.com/news/title/shakira-records-official-fifa-world-cup-2010-song
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100818052154/http://www.dishtracking.com/newsdetails.php?news_id=OTYw to http://www.dishtracking.com/newsdetails.php?news_id=OTYw
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://soccer.fanhouse.com/2010/05/31/players-dislike-adidas-world-cup-ball/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theoffside.com/world-football/adidas-xi-vs-nike-xi-which-brand-has-the-best-football-team.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/id/5282269/ce/us/organizers-consider-silencing-vuvuzelas%26cc%3D5901?ver=us
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/soccer/world-cup-2010/07/12/ratings.ap/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711141857/http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round%3D249721/match%3D300061509/report.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round%3D249721/match%3D300061509/report.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.sa2010.gov.za/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid%3D1137489.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5hMVC1s6Pr6WoHBrceHOFXYf4HZRw
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.irishtimes.com/sports/soccer/2009/1202/1224259931744.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jO_FwfnIayPK8z-g_2K2KxWTfpPA
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/internationals/8391388.stm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news24.com/News24/Sport/Soccer/0%2C%2C2-9-840_2006517%2C00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111008061333/http://www.sa2010.gov.za/en/node/2429 to http://www.sa2010.gov.za/en/node/2429
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100709201422/http://musikwelt.host-ed.net/shakira-waka-waka-this-time-for-africa to http://musikwelt.host-ed.net/shakira-waka-waka-this-time-for-africa
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723174141/http://www.ricardo-kaka.com/information_endorsements.php to http://www.ricardo-kaka.com/information_endorsements.php
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://app.reach.gov.sg/reach/TalkAbuzz/SnapshotsofHotIssues/tabid/233/ctl/Details/mid/917/ItemID/213/Default.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715052728/http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/07/12/700-million-to-watch-world-cup-final/ to http://www.mediaspy.org/report/2010/07/12/700-million-to-watch-world-cup-final/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430025342/http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/sports/fifaworldcup2010/news.html?sid=6247684&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures%3Btitle%3B2 to http://uk.gamespot.com/ps3/sports/fifaworldcup2010/news.html?sid=6247684&om_act=convert&om_clk=newsfeatures&tag=newsfeatures%3Btitle%3B2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100711141857/http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round%3D249721/match%3D300061509/report.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round%3D249721/match%3D300061509/report.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 2 September 2017 (UTC)