Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Economic Luxury, Corruption

transferred from main article controversies section - the edit rate is too quick there ...

Economists and economic newspapers think it is economic luxury to host a sports event of this size in a newly industrialized country like Brazil or Russia. German economists suggest at least two measures to make such events sustainable: first, build less. And second, the organizing associations should participate finance the sports venues. The large stadiums and streets are not used any more after the event. For a football world championship 8 instead of 12 stadiums should be sufficient, only 4 big ones. The Brasilia, Manaus, Cuiaba and Natal stadiums are feared to become so called "white elephants" after the championship as there is no team in the top three domestic divisions. It is known from other cities that the question may turn out into either/or questoins (stadium or hospital e.g.). It is not necessary to distribute the venues across half a continent, public viewing is sufficiently suited to give a similar atmosphere. The effect is especially disastrous if the relation of investments compared to the assets is as low as in Brazil, and the event drains a significant chunk of the total money spent. It As a consequence, they fear that Olympic games and football world championships will in future only be hosted in countries with authoritarian regimes. That public spending can be secured is partly attributed to the low cost sports persons have to media in their effort to promote subsidization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThurnerRupert (talk • contribs) 18:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The information was moved to 2014 FIFA World Cup preparations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Are all of the references to the same basic story? Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

And perhaps, you could tone down the non-neutral language such as you added here. Phrases such as "in mature democracies", and the earlier "authoritarian regimes". WP:NPOV.

And just to be clear, the copy has been moved to another article so "improving" this is a waste of time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

You might want to make your changes in your own sandbox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

walter, if i would like to edit my own sandbox, i would be a blogger. i am editing wikipedia since they changed the wiki software from usemod and i strongly believe in the concept of collaborative editing :) as said here you are far too quick for me. no wonder you will be having 100'000 edits soon, hehehe. i like the text where you _copied_ it, but i strongly believe that a text about the impacts does not exclusively belong into something called "preparation". @neutral language: you r right. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 09:59, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

• Normally the controversy section tends to be big for an article like this (see eg. Euro 2012). That is OK as long as you keep the details in a child article. So far, however, there may not be enough content for a split but I am sure it will come...take the match-fixing concerns for instance. Soerfm (talk) 11:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you take the creation of a section like this to a sandbox, you would be a normal Wikipedia editor.

A brief mention in this article is fine, but not with the details provided here since it is in a child article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you keep editing this here. If you want to edit the material, it's at 2014 FIFA World Cup preparations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

because i am with User:Sandstein, that the topic should be covered here. i agree as well with him and you that it is not an excellent piece of text yet. but - i'd never in my live would have the idea to look for it in preparations, i do not expect from others to have this idea also. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

By all means. Cover it here on the talk page.

It's in the sub-article and so a summary is all that should go into the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The statement was " The topic should be covered, but this reads like an essay rather than an ecyclopediy entry". What you have above is even more of an essay and now that it's in a child article, only a summary needs to be included in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Why are we having this section? QED237 (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I think it belongs to the Economic Luxury, Corruption section. It is not needed on a talk page since you won't get an error message if it is not there. Soerfm (talk) 20:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Then I believe it should be removed? Totally unneccesary at talkpage. And before now it dd not have timestamp so it wouldnt have been archieved. QED237 (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Managers or head coaches?

I've just posted at Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup Group A regarding whether we should be referring to those in charge as 'managers' or 'head coaches', but I thought it might interest some of the people here, and might be more likely to get a response if I notified users here as well. If you're replying, it'd be best to reply on the group A talkpage, rather than here, so that we can keep any comments together. - 97rob (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

BRD anyone?

I'm not sure why we're seeing the edit war here, but I would prefer to leave the article and discuss here.

No one is entitled to delete 10%, 20% or 30% of the page without explaining why he or she is doing it. And yes, removing a section is not vandalism if it's clearly explained and approved by the other editors. Or we can just name Soerfm as the "owner" of the page and leave him doing his job alone. MarcosPassos (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BOLD argues against that, which is why I started with WP:BRD. I could show a few others, but usually discussion and consensus are a good idea. However, the other editor did explain all of the edits. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

haha! Yes! clearly explained as you put, right? here. "trimm" MarcosPassos (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

MarcosPassos, after being warned that he was engaged in an edit ward, and after this discuss was started, continued to revert the article. I suppose the most disappointing part is that admins won't take action against him or lock this article.

MarcosPassos, you have shown page ownership issues here and if anyone should be served with a topic ban it's not the other editor. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

You have a personal issue against me because of things that happened a long time ago, thus you will always be biased against me. The truth is that this article was great 2 days ago and it sucks now. And it sucks to an extent that I think it can't be repaired. I also don't believe that any editor here approves what Soerfm did, you do because, like I said, you have a personal issue against me. And go ahead and ask a mod to ban me, but let me add first that my ban might be useless because this page sucks so much now that I have lost 100% of my will to edit it, so you won't see me here again. And yes, it was sad to see the great work of so many editors being deleted like that. I tried what I could to protect the page, but I have a job, and don't have the time nor patience to be a babysitter here. Bye. MarcosPassos (talk) 04:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No. I don't have a personal issue with you and I have nothing against you.

Instead of trying to lay blame, please focus on the areas that need to be fixed or changed as I laid them out below. If you want to add other areas to the discussions feel free, but name-calling won't help this article, concrete discussion will. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I won't. It will need a herculean effort to revert the page back to what it was 2 days ago, just to Soerfm appear tomorrow and ruin it completely again. Did you notice that 99% of the pictures have been removed? Did he use the Talk Page at all? Have you been consulted? Actually, try to find his signature in this Talk page and you won't find it, he just ignores what other editors think. And I'm the editor who should be banned, right? Amen! MarcosPassos (talk) 06:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Really bad assumptions.

I don't believe that Soerfm's edits ruined anything. I think there were some very good improvements. I think that I explained that below.

As for finding his signature on this talk page: perhaps you should look at the timeframe of the editor's work and recognize other editors are not beholden to your time:

1. they're all volunteers
2. and they likely do not live in your time zone.

What I don't see is you discussing how to come to a compromise or admitting that the edits made by other editors might actually be improving the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Venues vs Stadiums; venue capacities, new/renovated, stages used

Are the main issues the section names (venues vs stadiums) and whether to include capacity, whether it's a new or renovated facility and in which stages the facility will be used?

The main article uses the word "venues" and so it makes sense to use that term here as well. The fact that it was the term used in the South Africa tournament article is also a good reason to use the term. I believe that term was chosen because "stadia" is the preferred term for our British readers, but its not a well-known term in North America, and "stadiums" was causing conflict. WP:COMMONALITY: no one gets to use their preferred term and we settled on venues, which is equally awkward for all English readers.

As for pulling detailed information out because it's in the child article I would ask, why is there a sub-article? As for what the 2010 article contained: linked city name, linked stadium name with a reference, linked coordinates, capacity and stadium image. The image was usually an image of the pitch and one was an aerial image, but South Africa has some copyright issues related to whether external images could be used when the photo was taken from another private building. I won't bore you with the details but the current images in both the venues article and this one are the same, so we don't have to worry for now.

So I'm not sure that we need whether the venue is purpose-built or renovated, or for what stages the venue will be used. Let's talk it out.

FYI: I have requested page protection, so don't be surprised if that happens. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the information. It's still in the main article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I found the information on the venue capacities, whether new or renovated, and which stages of the tournament they are used in (group, knockout, finals, etc. to be very useful - in fact, I was quite impressed it was there when I first saw it yesterday and noted it really gave me a good idea of the whole progression of the tournament and how much Brazil has invested in new venues. So I have respectfully restored the information for now and changed the title of the talk section to reflect the discussion. Perhaps we could leave the info in for a week or so to allow for more comments. thanks, Facts707 (talk) 08:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

That's why it's in the main article. We do not need to duplicate it here. I also restored the heading level as it was part of a larger discussion. Compare it to the last tournament where there was no main article. I would even argue that the geolocation isn't necessary here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Although, the removing of the bold on capacity was a good call if it were going to stay.

So just to reiterate, the information is not lost, it's in a main article on the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree the geolocation data is not necessary here (it's one click to get to if anyone wants more detail on a particular venue), and to save space the capacity could be eliminated here as well. To save space, we could also just say "(new)" beside the name of the new stadiums, e.g. Estádio Nacional (new). But I think it is useful to show that the Rio stadium is the home of the finals, etc. without having to go to the subarticle - so I would like to see the "Group/Knockout/Finals" line if possible. Facts707 (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Also we could remove the "team base camps" table from here - just a quick intro and link to 2014 FIFA World Cup venues#Team base camps would be fine. I don't think we need to know where each country's team is based in the main article. Facts707 (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Please update the photo of Beira-Rio Stadium! In a Facebook closed group, some users colaborate with recent photos daily. This is the latest one: Beira-Rio Stadium 11/jun/2014. Author: Alexandre Sperb, Grupo Gigante Para Sempre. Nicolasrg (talk) 18:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

If it's been published without granting a license that is compatible with those held by Wikipedia, it cannot be used on the project and so that one cannot be used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Ticketing

It seems that the ticketing section is also contentious. Removing a section is not vandalism if it's clearly explained. It appears to have also been moved to a the venues article. Does anything need to remain here if it's explained in detail there? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

‎Innovations and utilities

Not sure if it needed to be trimmed, but the removal of content is not vandalism either. What needs to stay and what may go? Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I merged these three short sections as we don't need three headings. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Current event template

I like to propose a new current event tag:

the reason being that the normal one just tells you something you already known and doesn't guide you to what's current. It is supposed to be updated with round of 16, quater finals, semi finals, third place play-off and final.

Normal template:

 

Soerfm (talk) 19:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am positive to this (I like it) as long as it does not gets updated prematurely, editor have a tendency to update to soon (when their team is through). The round of 16 starts the day after all groups has been played and so on. It is also not a current event until 00:00 12 July (UTC), that is the day of the first match. Talking about the notice itself, maybe we should say that group stage is current round and link to the groups instead of saying were people might want to go (it is up to themselves). Something like "The current round is the group stage with groups:..... The next stage (round of 16) starts xx June 2014". This is just a suggestion and my personal thoughts. QED237 (talk) 14:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps with links to group stage and round of 16. QED237 (talk) 14:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we should also have a row with the info regular notices has, that information can change rapidly and link to current event with bolding that it is current event. QED237 (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• The content can be edited like normal wiki-text eg.:

Soerfm (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• Okay I see (just like the editnotice I created as per livescores section above). I take liberty of rewording a bit and lets see what everyone thinks. Dont think we have to list entire timetable and it should be kept fairly short (max three rows).

Just my suggestion, I think we should get more opinions. QED237 (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Update the rankings and keep in line with previous World Cups.Correctron (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Correctron: I am sorry, but what does this have to do with current event notice? QED237 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant because you are talking about being current and up-to-date and what-not while the page is currently not up-to-date anyways.Correctron (talk) 05:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Correctron:Unless I've just completely overlooked it, there's no rankings in the 2014 FIFA World Cup article, which this page discusses. If you're referring to the subarticles, e.g. 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A, they already have the most up-to-date rankings. - 97rob (talk) 12:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I completely overlooked it (oops). It's been updated now to pre-tournament. - 97rob (talk) 12:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• How about:

Soerfm (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Soerfm: I like it short, but first of all it is called group stage, not group round. Secondly the meaning of current event notice in the first places is to let editors know that it is a current event so the pages is currently being updated and may be incorrect, so the info about rapid changes I believe should be there, just as it is on regular notice. QED237 (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Also the fact it is documenting current event is the important part (hence the bolding), and not the article name. QED237 (talk) 23:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

• OK then, if nooneelse objects. Soerfm (talk) 10:11, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Would it be better for the links to go to 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A rather than the #Group A section of this article? - 97rob (talk) 10:46, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

It links to group A on the article it is on and it is supposed to be on the main article and not talk, so it will link correctly then. QED237 (talk) 10:53, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Misinterpreted your answer. I would say and current event should link to something on the same page (if even linking at all). A notice is not for linking to other pages. QED237 (talk) 10:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

• Now you are mentioning it, a tag should also be set in the grop play subarticles. Soerfm (talk) 12:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes you are right it should also be on subpages, in those cases my suggestion is "my notice" above but without the last row and adaption to each article for dates and article name. QED237 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

@Soerfm: @Qed237: The statistics article has now been created, if either of you want to update the standard live event which is there with one which is more tailored to the world cup? (Might also need an edit notice) - 97rob (talk) 11:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@97rob:, I have now fixed the current event on that page and fixed request for the editnotice (notified the editor who fixed it last night it should be needed soon and now I said to him it is time and reopened edit request). QED237 (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Kits

Anyone can make the kits of all teams? Or at least, open the space to others start helping?

Thks! 188.80.193.166 (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The kits will be added to the group pages for each match (the kits the teams are playing in). For example you can see Brazil and Croatia at 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A. There is no reason to list all kits on this article. QED237 (talk) 23:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

A section with all the kits (like the ones with squads, or venues, or the fan fests) will improve the article IMHO 188.80.204.197 (talk) 22:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

add continuing "pacification efforts", per Portal:Current events/2014 June 9

"Brazilian riot police use tear gas to disperse protesters in São Paulo amid rising tensions between protestors and the government over the cost of the World Cup]]." ... example:

• http://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-27761723

99.181.131.34 (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not all events prior to the WC are related to it. It seems now that strikes and protests are using the stage but they are not directly related to the staging of the games. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

See 2014 protests in Brazil. 99.181.134.49 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Opening ceremony and Photos

I don´t have access to google and other pages of www so if someone will add information and photos of the great opening ceremony i think it will b great for all users of Wikpedia and we will b greatfull... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.225.242.246 (talk) 04:35, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Match Times for Manaus and Cuiaba

I noticed the times for matches played in Manaus and Cuiaba aren't right. These cities are an hour behind, so the start times should be listed an hour sooner, mirroring the official schedule of FIFA.

http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donadio.j (talk • contribs) 11:21, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

All kick-off times are Brasilia time as described in the article, with the Manaus and Cuiaba time difference noted in the notes section. 92.0.193.185 (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

External links Find more about 2014 FIFA World Cup at Wikipedia's sister projects Media from Commons News stories from Wikinews Travel guide from Wikivoyage Database entry Q79859 on Wikidata Portal icon Association football portal Official website Official Brazil government website (Portuguese) (English) (Spanish) Also check out www.wcfooty.blogspot.com 114.143.148.32 (talk) 13:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Older and ... well older (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Doves

Are the doves of peace, scheduled to be released before each of the matches, classed as an "innovation" or a "utility"? It seems that two of the three birds relased before the opening match did not survive: [1], but probably hardly surprising. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I would class them as a gimmick or showmanship. All part of the bread and circuses intended to keep the masses entertained and distracted from the real world. HiLo48 (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

...still some hope for the England reserve list, though? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Could we also have a sound file, or a link to one, in the Note for the name of the event in the info box? Plenty of sources seem to exist: e.g. [2]. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Ivory Coast/Côte d'Ivoire?

Why is the country shown as "Ivory Coast"? I saw the match on the tv, and the teams were "Côte d'Ivoire" and "Japan". Does it mean that FIFA does not decide what is shown on tv? 82.141.66.140 (talk) 03:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Check the talk page at Ivory Coast. There has been back-and-forth there and there are many discussions about it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

And don't get me started on Holland/The Netherlands... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I checked those from the FIFA page, and they are "Côte d'Ivoire" and "Netherlands". While 'Holland' is popularly used, it is sadly not the right one. 82.141.126.42 (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

As it's incorrect, with there being no such country. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: wrong starting time of match 30

Match 30, United States vs. Portugal, starts at 18:00 local time in Manaus (UTC-4), which is 19:00 in UTC−3. According to note 4, all times should be specified in Brasília official time (UTC-3). 85.244.127.238 (talk) 12:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done, I corrected it. QED237 (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Benzema

'Leading goalscorers' credits this player with having scored two goals in his initial appearance. But I think you will find that one of these was actually an own goal by the opposition goalie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkyHighSelfregard (talk • contribs) 12:06, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong. Benzema converted the penalty for the first goal and scored the third one too. He also made the shot that led to the own goal by Honduras' goalkeeper. So, Benzema scored two goals and Valladares scored an own goal.--144.64.78.89 (talk) 13:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

First goal was Benzema, second goal was own goal, and third was Benzema again. He scored two goals. QED237 (talk) 14:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Stadiums links

I suggest someone to standardize the stadiums links. For example, Arena de São Paulo, instead of Arena de São Paulo in this article and the other way in the group and knockout stages detailed articles, and the stadiums with corporate naming (Arena Fonte Nova and Arena Pernambuco, instead of only Arena Fonte Nova and Arena Pernambuco. Also the kick-off time for United States vs Portugal in Manaus is wrong, given the consensus of putting all the kick-offs at the Brasília Time, it will be 19:00 Brasília Time. Thank you.--144.64.78.89 (talk) 10:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• A little correction: in this article the Arena Pernambuco links are named "Arena Cidade da Copa", which is not used anymore long ago.--144.64.78.89 (talk) 13:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about stadium names, but I corrected the kick-off time. QED237 (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

Muller of Germany is now the top scorer with 3 goals.

You should probably change those top scorers.

Have a nice day!

99.115.12.175 (talk) 17:45, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done Heymid (contribs) 18:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: Inaccuracy under "Innovations"

Under innovations -> technologies, it says "The previous World Cup was a catalyst for the decision to adopt technology after England were wrongly denied a goal in their round of 16 tie against Germany.[25]". This is incorrect; the match between England and Germany did not result in a tie, but in a 4-1 win for Germany (this is significant because even if the goal were counted, Germany would have won; while England was indeed wrongly denied the goal, it did not affect the overall outcome of the match). Kw1130 (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Tie" in this context is equivalent to "match" not "draw". I'll change it though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Will qualify or will be eliminated

What is the reason for not including discussion on the possible cases on 2nd and 3rd group games? I am sure there are plenty of sources that (will) discuss the possible scenarios, so why not include them temporarily? Nergaal (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Because after one game it's completely too soon. After two games, it's pretty much pointless as well but will happen. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It's better after two games than at the moment, but still not required. In the past, have these edits been removed, or are they allowed to just stand for a week until they can be properly removed? - 97rob (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The "next day scenarios" are not to be inluded after consensus at WP:FOOTY. If you want them feel free to open a new discussion at WT:FOOTY if you dont agree, but I doubt it would lead anywhere. The consensus can be read at WT:FOOTY Archieve 82 (link to section) and the consensus was confirmed afterwards at WP:ANI after a editor still continued with the edit, which can bee seen at WP:ANI archieve 821 (link to section). The insertion of these scenarios has also been at Dispute resolution noticeboard where it was decided "Resolved against inclusion of the material" which you can read at DRN archieve 54 (link to section). So as I said no "next day scenarios" unless new consensus at WT:FOOTY. Older discussions like this discussion follow the same line. QED237 (talk) 22:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2014

Extant vandalism of 'Portugal' should be reverted to 'Winner of group G' in Knockout stage section as the team in this position has not yet been determined 82.29.235.78 (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done just vandalism, it was soon fixed by another editor. QED237 (talk) 22:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was vandalism, but it may have been an edit by an over-exuberant fan, so perhaps it was "fandalism". Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Or possibly Ivandalism. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Brazuca ball - repeated insertions made in Pakistan

Dear all. I wanted to get some ideas of how other contributors feels about something, and how to handle it. I'm cross-posting to Talk:Adidas Brazuca as well as it involves that page. Certainly on the main Adidas Brazuca there are contributor(s) who feel that the ball is made in Pakistan is worthy of putting in the introductory paragraph. This is despite (1) the fact it is misleading as it is also made in China, and (2) it is mentioned in the production section of the page. I also feel that it is not notable enough to go in the main introduction section. This also applies to the paragraph in 2014 FIFA World Cup where this statement gets repeatedly inserted, where I think it is something that can be seen in the main Adidas Brazuca page. The comment on adding it to the Brazuca page is "Why this gets removed? Hate mongering against Pakistan?". Eventually I will run up to the three revert rule and was seeking concensus with the group how to handle it: (a) delete it, (b) keep it and also add in it is made in China? - With Thanks Master Of Ninja (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I already tried removing that a week ago, then ran into the same user from Pakistan who is seemingly obsessed with Pakistan in some ways being mentioned in connection with the World Cup. I removed the detail because it is irrelevant information who manufactured the ball, they are simply a company mass manufacturing a product on behalf of Adidas, and outside of Pakistan, nobody in the world will be interested to know "say, in what country is the ball being manufactured?"... Sinfony81 (talk) 12:01, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Base camps

I suggest that we remove the base camp table, it seems excessively detailed for the parent article. Soerfm (talk) 17:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

• If there are no objections I will remove it from the parent article. Soerfm (talk) 10:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Reverted. No any reason for such deletion. Standard section. See UEFA Euro 2012#Team base camps, for example. NickSt (talk) 18:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I liked the base camps information, it is useful to know where the teams are basing themselves. Yes, we do not want an enormous unwieldy main article, but where the participating nations in the tournament are training and travelling to and from is surely valid information - especially ahead of details about a video game being made or what camera is beign used to film a game. Sinfony81 (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I still don't see the purpose of the table, wouldn't a map with the base camps like in EURO 2012 tell you more? Soerfm (talk) 12:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

: Team base-camp

: Match venue

Wrocław

Kiev

Lviv

Donetsk

Warsaw

Gdańsk

Kharkiv

Poznań

Kołobrzeg

Kraków

The trouble with such a graphic is, with 32 teams, and several staying in the same cities it will look extremely cluttered and become difficult to read easily. Sinfony81 (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that's true. Soerfm (talk) 15:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Prize money

I'm a little unclear on the prize money table (2014 FIFA World Cup#Prize money). The numbers don't add to 576 million, even if I include the 1.5 million in prep costs per team. What am I doing wrong? Abductive (reasoning) 00:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Read the article: “The 32 teams at next year's World Cup finals will share a total fund of $576 million, including a prize-money pot of $358m”. The prize money pot is only $358m, not $576m:

$8m x 16 + $9m x 8 + $14m x 4 + $20m x 1 + $22m x 1 + $25m x 1 + $35m x 1 =
$128m + $72m + $56m + $20m + $22m + $25m + $35m =
$358m.

The article also says that “There will also be awards of $70m for the clubs whose players are taking part in the World Cup and, in addition to that, $20m will be given as a legacy to Brazilian football ... The grand total of $576m includes a figure of $100m available as insurance for players injured while playing for their national teams,” although those numbers seem to not match up with the $576m grand total. 71.146.1.174 (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, Wikipedia's readers aren't supposed to "read the reference" if the text is unclear. Instead, the explanation should be improved. Abductive (reasoning) 07:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Then do so. 71.146.1.174 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, and if "those numbers seem to not match up with the $576m grand total", why do we use that as a source? Martinevans123 (talk) 08:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know, I didn't add the source. 71.146.1.174 (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Too much info on group matches

So tell me, how much info on the group matches have we actually decided to include in this article? I was under the impression that we had decided only to include the date, time, result and venue, but the way the page is currently set up seems to indicate that people are intending to add goalscorer, attendance and referee info. If we treat this article as similar to 2013–14 UEFA Champions League, I would be vehemently opposed to adding that extra info until we reach the knockout stage. – PeeJay 12:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Concur. We seem to do this slightly differently every time, but imo the layout at 2006 FIFA World Cup is optimal. Links through to the group articles can add extra info. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 13:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I would say leave the group match details (goalscorers, attendance, ref) in there until the knockout stage starts then display only the scores, dates and venue as per 2006, 2010. While the group stage is in progress, I think it is quite useful to have all the game details together in the same section on a single page. Sinfony81 (talk) 15:57, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you should keep the info until the group stage ends. I take all the information from this article, especially the games times, now I have to visit every Group's article, and it's a mess, since there are times in UTC-3 and UTC-4. The user who decided to change the layout of Groups A to D (and maybe the rest later) shouldn't have done that. People show a lot of information, so what? it's an event in progress and millions visit the wikipedia article about 2014 WC, it will end in less than a month, and after that, you can reduce the information to meet wikipedia's standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexsd27 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Innovations and utilities" section. What is it for?

I see two innovations, the goal line technology, and the vanishing spray. They definitely belong under a heading of "Innovations". The only other content is about the name of the ball, which seems far more a commercial promotion than an innovation. I see no utilities. To be honest, I have no idea what is meant by that word. Can anyone explain? HiLo48 (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is names poorly. Better anmes might be innovations (rather than innovations and utilities) or new technologies but this might be up for discussion. The ball is actually innovative and interesting, but the spin on the paragraph is wrong, and people are focused on the name, and there are posters very keen to note it's partially produced in Pakistan for some reason. The ball should be mentioned as each world cup gets a separate ball, but giving it's own section is a bit overkill. Will make an edit to improve. Might put the naming of the ball in the marketing section as well - Master Of Ninja (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It was larger until it was gutted. Feel free to change the heading. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It's a lot better now. Thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 16:56, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

RE: The goal line technology supplier, I was listening to Radio Derby this afternoon and they were interviewing a Derbyshire based firm who said they'd suupplied it, so who has? Derbyshire or Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.203.254.3 (talk) 19:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Apparently the Derbyshire firm (Labosport, based in Heanor) tested it: [3]. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Are the so-called "cooling breaks" not an innovation: [4]? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added a single sentence with a ref source from last year. But I think more detail would be useful explaining how they work, e.g. how long they last, how many can be taken, etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2014

122.170.34.92 (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DJAMP4444 09:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Misled wording about regions

In the "Team base camps" section, it reads "Only five teams have opted to stay in the northern region of Brazil", where it should actually read "Only five teams have opted to stay in the northeastern region of Brazil, and none in the northern or western regions".--Pedro Aguiar (talk) 19:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done --Nick Moss (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Top goalscorers

Alexis Sanchez of Chile has scored only one, not two goals.

Already corrected!

It is very rapid changes when matches are just finished so easy that mistakes are done. However they are often soon corrected. But, thank you for the information about the error. QED237 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Qualification to the knock-out phase

What's the MOS about having those mini-tables that state if "X team beat Y team, they'll progress" or if "X team beat Y team and score more goals than Z team, they'll progress", for each group? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• MoS is verifiability; if you can find a reliable source that shows them it is OK; if not, it is OR. Soerfm (talk) 09:19, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was asking to see if these snips of trivia should be included at all (regardless if it meets WP:V). Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There has been consensus lately to not include them at all. They are not encyclopedic and will soon be not neeeded. I will see if I can find the consensus. QED237 (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The "next day scenarios" are not to be inluded after consensus at WP:FOOTY. If you want them feel free to open a new discussion at WT:FOOTY if you dont agree, but I doubt it would lead anywhere. The consensus can be read at WT:FOOTY Archieve 82 (link to section) and the consensus was confirmed afterwards at WP:ANI after a editor still continued with the edit, which can bee seen at WP:ANI archieve 821 (link to section). The insertion of these scenarios has also been at Dispute resolution noticeboard where it was decided "Resolved against inclusion of the material" which you can read at DRN archieve 54 (link to section). So as I said no "next day scenarios" unless new consensus at WT:FOOTY. Older discussions like this discussion follow the same line. QED237 (talk) 22:26, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Boo, that was my favorite part of the football tournament articles. Phloopy (talk) 21:37, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

One of my main problems with that was that it always focused on one or two teams, not all four groups. And someone would always get one thing confused. It was at its most complicated when goal difference had to be calculated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

That's great - agree with the consensus too! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request: Group C table just edited erroneously

With the Colombia 2-1 Cote d'Ivoire result just in, an edit has been made which added that result *and* color-coded Colombia as having secured advancement to the knockout round. The latter is not true -- Colombia is not yet safe. If Japan win their last two matches (against Greece and Colombia), *and* if Cote d'Ivoire win their last match, there can be a three way tie at 6 points and GD will decide the two to advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.22.6 (talk) 18:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Followup -- fixed quickly, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.250.22.6 (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

My fault that came in, I saw Colombia on 6 points, and two teams on 0 points and forgot they'd only played 1 game! - 97rob (talk) 18:20, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

James rodriguez has scored 2 goals — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.189.28 (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2014

Score Uruguay - England 1-0 Fred301278 (talk) 19:51, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done No WP:LIVESCORES The game is still on. TeamGale 20:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Colombia not through to the Round of 16 yet.

Someone has indicated that Colombia is already through to the round of 16. If Japan wins against both Greece and Colombia, and Ivory Coast also wins against Greece, then Colombia could still be eliminated on goal difference. Teams should not be indicated as eliminated or progressed until it is certain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.103.197 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Classified teams

Colombia is currently not classified. Consider Japan winning 2-0, and in the next matches, Japan and Cote Ivory winning 3-0 each one. They both would be able to classify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.110.60 (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Classified? Maybe you mean qualified? HiLo48 (talk) 21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2014

If Italy defeats both Uruguay and Costa Rica, then England will be able to pass on. 85.74.125.119 (talk) 04:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Already fixed at the template. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Pre-emptively indicating elimination/progression???

England is not eliminated. England will only be eliminated if Italy does not defeat Costa Rica tomorrow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.103.197 (talk) 04:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I was just coming to post this same edit request -- while their likelihood of advancing is quite low, England is not yet eliminated mathematically. This makes four times today I've seen colors set for advancement or elimination prematurely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.149.24 (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Already fixed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Colombia and Costa Rica have won their groups

Sorry. They would by UEFA rules, but FIFA works with overall goal differences. forget it.

Yes, both can bre second on goal difference. QED237 (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Goal average bucks trend

If the current trend continues, the goal average will be the highest since 1958. It's probably too early to put in the article but it's worth keeping an eye on. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 07:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Costa Rica groupwinners

Costa Rica hasn't won the group just yet, so they shouldn't be included in the "Knockout phase"-section at this moment in time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.62.78 (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Tykyheg (talk) 08:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Discipline

I wanted to point out, since the lead of the section says "The following players are currently serving suspensions", does that mean we remove them from the list when it's over? Palacios just served his against Ecuador for example, so should he be removed from the list now? Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 00:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, obviously, but it seems to me that, according to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, the whole section probably shouldn't exist. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest that we just left all suspensions in, but changed the text to just be 'players who served a suspension during the tournament' - 97rob (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good idea. HiLo48 (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Using preliminary results in group stage

Important note for those of us who will use preliminary results in group stage to place teams in any specific order, or to mark teams as qualified for playoffs (or lost their chance to qualify):

When teams in a group have equal number of points, then goals for and goals against are considered before their head-to-head game results (see the official rules).

6 points themselves don't guarantee the team qualify for the playoffs (it's possible for three teams within a group to finish group stage with 6 pts).

• 1-st rank after the group stage: number of points is between 3 and 9, the 1-st rank is guaranteed with 9 pts (regardless of the other games within the group);
• 2-nd rank: 2 to 7 pts, guaranteed (2-nd rank or higher) with 7 pts;
• 3-rd rank: 1 to 6 pts, guaranteed (3-rd rank or higher) with 5 pts;
• 4-th rank: 0 to 4 pts.

128.72.179.187 (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Just follow normal guidelines: go to reliable source (FIFA) and find the standing there, then transfer it to the article. 2.111.90.101 (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• In group C Colombia has 6 points while only Ivory Coast can equalize it. But in this case, the result of their match (2-1 to COL) makes sure that Colombia will remain in the 1st place, so I think they could be inserted to correspondent places.

Similar to this, in Group D Costa Rica also reserved the 1st place after defeating bont 3-point teams Italy and Uruguay. Any of these would receive another 3 in last match, would finish only on second place independently from what Costa Rica plays. So, top positions in these 2 groups are already given away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.110.82 (talk) 11:44, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

No that is incorrect, read the rules and the article. The first tiebreaker is not head-2-head it is goal differential, the result between the two teams dont count. QED237 (talk) 13:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, just read it, interesting that it differs from the order applied at other competition types, maybe to encourage scoring as much as possible in tournament. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.61.110.82 (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Merger proposal

List of 2014 FIFA World Cup matches → 2014 FIFA World Cup

• Merge — unnecessary duplicate of the matches sections, in my opinion. 71.146.1.174 (talk) 01:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Could do the following: merge it with statistics and link to it from the current event tag as an alternative to the group links. In this way it will be easy to access during the tournment and hidden ind a subarticle when it is over. 2.111.90.101 (talk) 05:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It makes no sense to merge that info into this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not this article, the statistics subarticle. 2.111.90.101 (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• Merge — I agree with the starter of this discussion. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a TV schedule. Heymid (contribs) 09:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - There is nowhere else to find a chronological list of the matches. We split them up by group, so why not list them in chronological order as well? This is a common practice in other sources, including on the FIFA website. – PeeJay 13:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Similar articles: List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches (more than 10 interwikies), Chronological summary of the 2014 Winter Olympics. NickSt (talk) 17:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2014

Les Bleus (France) won twice, that means that they can qualify for the Round of 16. 24.15.125.242 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

 Not done They can still be eliminated if both Ecuador and Switzerland win their next matches and with a high enough goal differential, although it would be highly unlikely. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Spain elimination

I don't want to create an edit war so I will ask for others opinions: The opening has been edited to say "but they were eliminated at the group stage by Chile". The phrase by Chile has been added multiple times. In my thinking a team can not be eliminated by one other team in the group stage, it is a combination of multiple losses. It doesn't matter that when they lost to Chile is the moment they were mathematically eliminated, they lost to two teams. Am I mistaken in this? Chris1834 (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, "eliminated in the group stage after losing to Chile" would be fine. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 21:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Coordinates for stadiums

Why are they in here? I can think of so many more important things to feature in this article. I will go ahead and remove them. Nergaal (talk) 22:18, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

"Arena de São Paulo" and "Arena Corinthians"

I'm not sure when the change was, but FIFA is no longer referring to to "Arena de São Paulo" but rather to "Arena Corinthians". [5] [6] The PDF report, which isn't the linked reference, uses the other name: [7] as does the main arena page: [8]. I would argue that whatever the referenced report states is what should be used rather than a knee-jerk edit war to keep Arena de São Paulo in place. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:30, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Bosnian and Ghanian second matchday shirts

In the group F and G pages both shirts have Adidas and Puma logos respectively and I can't remove only the logos. Is there anyone who can do that?. Thanks.--The Replicator (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Also in the group H page the South Korean second matchday shirt has a Nike logo.--The Replicator (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Switzerland - France

Goalscores are shown for the wrong team. Please fix it. 91.60.228.104 (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Karim Benzema is not only top scorer with 4 goals, he scored 3 goals(2 goals on the first match and one goal today). So fix it and add Van Persie, Muller and Robben. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.2.252.139 (talk) 21:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Benzema is only at three goals. His third in today's match was disallowed because it came after the final whistle. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't France be green? 204.77.216.10 (talk) 23:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

No. If Ecuador win their two remaining games and Switzerland win theirs it's possible, though unlikely, that France will be eliminated. Let's wait until it's confirmed. Valenciano (talk) 23:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I had incorrectly believed that two wins was automatic move-on. I see now that two wins and some help is required.204.77.216.10 (talk) 23:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It has, however, only happened once (Algeria in 1982) that a team with two wins has been eliminated, so it is very unusual. :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Yohan Cabaye was booked in the 88th minute and will be suspended for the game against Ecuador, so please include him in the disciplinary section. THX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.62.78 (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

England

England are not out yet win & uruuag or chile loss and they can go though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.38.140 (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Wrong! Kante4 (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that you are ignorant. You don't have the respect to write one country's name correctly. Moreover, you didn't realize that Chile isn't even in the same group as England, which proves that you don't care about different Spanish-speaking countries. --2.245.66.223 (talk) 00:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Curious. England has no points on two losses. Costa Rica, who have six points on two wins, are England's next opponent. If England manage a win, they'll have three points but CR will still have six. Put a pin in that thought.

Both Italy and Uruguay have one win and loss apiece. That gives each three points. So if either wins, the winner will have six points and England, having just won, will only have three and the two sides with six points will advance. Now if Italy and Uruguay draw, they'll each have four points and again, that's one more than England can muster with a win and so England is still eliminated.

So no matter how you slice it, England cannot advance at this point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Green line

That has been on and off in the Group B table. If the top 2 teams have been decided, that should be removed, right? –HTD 13:42, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. It's only supposed to indicate a threshold, so if both teams have been confirmed as qualifying, it should be removed. – PeeJay 13:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah I'm peeved by this because it always reappears for some reason (LOL).

Would the red shade be removed once all the group matches are over? –HTD 14:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Removing the red shading is usually done after the group stage is complete. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Innovation?

Were the electronic boards used to signal substitutions and to show added time used at the last World Cup? They seem to have a sponsors name on. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Electronic boards have been used for at least 10-15 years. There's nothing innovative about the ones being used at this World Cup other than that they have a weird housing around them for advertising purposes. – PeeJay 18:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that. They look rather heavy and cumbersome. I wonder how they work. Here's a nice neutral link. Poor old Hublot - not even a mention as sponsors here or at 2014 FIFA World Cup marketing? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Group B

I suggest hilighting Spain and Austrailia (in group B) in red,as they are already eliminated Oskar Kopaczewski (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Yep, I was going to make just the same point. Those colours need updating now. Thanks to all the people who keep these sports pages updated. Wikipedia is now my go-to place for tournaments like this. 86.179.0.72 (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The group stage is over and there is no need to indicate that they are not advancing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Team cannot preliminarily advance"

This phrasing is meaningless and confusing. There has to be a better way of explaining a team still has games to play but can't advance - I'd suggest simply "Team cannot advance" or "Team cannot mathematically advance"? I don't understand the added benefit of the word 'preliminarily' here, and so I removed it, but someone's immediately reverted the change. ✤ Fosse 8 ✤ 15:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The relevant edit has been reverted now. Heymid (contribs) 16:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

A new sprint record was set, twice - How can we incorporate the new record into the article?

During the second group stage game against Cameroon Croatia-captain Darijo Srna set a FIFA World Cup record of the fastest sprint recorded in the history of the tournament, with a 32.98km/h psrint, beating a record previously set by Arjen Robben at the 2014 World Cup earlier.samw tournament edition

Who can add it to the article? I can't edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.89.66 (talk) 07:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The record is noted in the linked article FIFA World Cup records. Looking at how many records have been set (or streaks continued) in 2014, it would probably be too cumbersome to list them all here. Just my opinion. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Requested move for Estádio do Maracanã

See Talk:Estádio do Maracanã#Requested move to Maracanã Stadium June 2014 for a requested move for Estádio do Maracanã to Maracanã Stadium. Heymid (contribs) 17:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: complementing information

Since there is a reference to the elimination of Spain at the group stage in the first section, someone could also put a small mention to the fact that this happened for the fourth time in the history of the World Cup (after Brazil in 1966, France in 2002 and Italy in 2010) or somethin like that.--Nakinn (talk) 07:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The article states that Spain was eliminated from the tournament "after losses in the first two matches at the group stage", which was not the case for the other teams you have listed (they were mathematically within reach of going through until the last game in group play). Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Discipline section

Mario Balotelli is listed as having to serve a suspension for a Euro Cup qualifying match, but the 2014 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record page says that players who receive their second yellow in their final match of the World Cup will not be suspended beyond the tournament. This means he should be removed from the list, or am I missing something? --Geelcat (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

That is confusing. According to this article, he earned the suspension with the second yellow, but since his team got eliminated he will not serve the suspension. I'm with you - his name should be removed. I'd prefer getting some addition sources to verify this first. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Final Standings

I think now you can add Final Standings where 30th is Australia, 31st is Honduras and 32nd is Cameroon because all the teams left yet to play already have at least one point so we know that standings will be like this for the last 3 places on the WC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.207.46.11 (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Paraguay not highlighted in the map

Hi, I wanted to bring to your notice that the country Paraguay is not highlighted in the map of qualified teams for the world cup. Paraguay national football team did qualify in the past for many world cups203.99.208.1 (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Regards, Ronald Wilson India.

Hello, thanks for your comment, but our map is only for the current world cup, where Paraguay are not taking part. Valenciano (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why only preliminarily eliminated teams are highlighted red?

Does it make any sense that once all matches in a given group are played, the red color (#fcc) is removed from the eliminated teams? IMO, the red color should stay to help convey the message that all play in that group is over and the results are final. Any thoughts? Johnnyjanko (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Part of the reason is that the red traditionally symbolizes the teams that have been relegated to a lower league while green means promotion or advancement to the champions league. See Template:2013–14 Premier League table as an example. We don't want to leave readers the impression that the teams have been eliminated from all future play, only that they have not advanced in the tournament.

The understanding as I've known it is that before the final match, there's a green line between the top two and the bottom two of the group. If after the second match day for the group a team has qualified, they're marked green. If a team cannot make it through, they're marked in red.

Once the final match has been played the green line is removed and the top two teams are marked in green. The other two groups clearly cannot advance.

That has been my understanding. I'm sure that if enough editors want a change, we could leave the red in until the group of 16 begins, but at that point it would have to be removed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If people are getting confused, leaving the red shade for eliminated teams until all group stage matches are over is a good compromise. After that, they're gone for good. –HTD 23:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it's confusing to have red shade in groups that aren't fully decided, but no red shade in groups that are. It looks like a mistake (or oversight). I would agree with removing all red, including from the colour key, once all groups are decided. 86.169.185.14 (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

• I agree there's no need to confuse people with this. I've updated the tournament article and the group standings accordingly. I suggest that we remove both the red highlighting and the red legend once all groups have been fully decided. Heymid (contribs) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you guys. This makes perfect sense. Johnnyjanko (talk) 18:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

So apparently we needed an entire discussion about group highlighting, which is a tad ridiculous given the fact that no where else are the teams which have been eliminated from a group and that group having finished are such teams highlighted red. Please see all previous Euro, World Cup and UEFA Champions League articles. This shouldn't even be a discussion, and I have a feeling that it's only inexperienced Wikipedia users who are taking issue, seeing as it's never been one before. I suppose if we're having some sort of vote here, that by all means take off the useless red highlighting. Green and blank are more than enough. And I don't know why Walter Görlitz suddenly changed his mind either. Italia2006 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't suddenly change my mind. I initially believed that it should be at the end of the group stage but it appeared to me to be consensus that we remove the "demotion" colouring when a particular group ended. I still think that leaving the red until end of play Thursday, or possibly even Friday, is the least confusing. But I'll go with consensus either way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:56, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah sorry Walter I read the debate completely the wrong way. You'll have to excuse me. I agree wholeheartedly with the consensus. Italia2006 (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem. And honestly, the colouring is very, very low on my list of concerns. I am more concerned about WP:OVERLINKing of Brazil. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

From now on there are no more teams that have games to play but are eliminated. So I see no point in having red used since if there are 2 green then my default the others are eliminated, and whoever is left in white is not mathematically eliminated. Nergaal (talk) 19:39, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I think you were wrong to go against overwhelming consensus and remove the red. It still creates inconsistency. In some groups the white means the team's eliminated, in others it means the team's still in it? It doesn't make sense to me, at all. I would have preferred to keep all the red until all groups have been fully decided. Heymid (contribs) 08:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if there's an "overwhelming" consensus. I am simply offering weak support and there are a lot of editors who are watching these articles who don't care one way or the other and so there's a consensus of silence. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Suarez under Goalscorers Statistics be unbolded?

Under Statistics - Goalscorers, Luis Suarez is in bold, as Uruguay are still in the competition. However, with the header saying "Players rendered in bold are still active in the competition," should he be removed, as he is no longer active? If not, then it should rather say "Players rendered in bold represent nations still active in the competition" or similar.121.221.167.151 (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

I've unbolded him. He can't play any part in the rest of the tournament. - 97rob (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014

In 2014 Fifa World Cup Disciplinary Section, The red card Pepe got against Germany is not mentioned. He got suspended for the next match against USA. Please add that. Thank you 124.124.14.25 (talk) 04:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What's to update? If he's served his suspension, there's nowhere to indicate that in this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2014

Please correct the following sentence below, as it has a couple of errors. First error, please correct 20014 to 2014. Second error, the 24.7 million viewers for the USA / Portugal soccer match does not exceed the 115 million viewers for Super Bowl XLVIII, so should be reworded.

Worldwide, several games have qualified as the most-watched sporting events in their country in 20014, including 42.9 million people in Brazil for the opening game between Brazil and Croatia, the 34.1 million in Japan who saw their team play Ivory Coast, 26.4 million in Germany who saw the home team beat Portugal, and 24.7 million viewers in the U.S. during the game between USA and Portugal.

134.223.230.154 (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done. Corrections have been made. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Suspended Players

Tim Cahill from Australia was suspended from the third game (vs Spain) for second yellow in the tournament (received vs Netherlands). Please update table. Bevstarrunner (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What's to update? If he's served his suspension, there's nowhere to indicate that in this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the confusion comes from the sentence before the table: The following players have served suspensions during the tournament. Before, there was the word currently but now it was removed. That's why everyone started adding suspensions that had already served. A change has to be made to the section; either by adding back the "currently" either all the suspensions. The way is it now it's wrong and confusing. TeamGale 10:07, 27 June 2014 (UTC)