Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup Group A

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

Brazil: Sports Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Sports in Brazil task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Background section

I think a summary section would be enough, covering any previous matches between the teams. For most matches, there's a line (at most), so could easily be incorperated into a summary, as the section seems too small at the moment. What does anyone else think about this? - 97rob (talk) 22:08, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The "Background" section is unnecessary, IMO. We shouldn't be treating these articles in the same way as we treat articles on individual matches. As I have said before, if there are any relevant previous meetings between group stage nations, those can be mentioned as a matter of course, but the vast majority of previous meetings are irrelevant to the casual reader and don't deserve the creation of a special sub-section just so they can be mentioned. – Pee Jay 22:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Managers or head coaches?

For the {{Football match line-ups}}, if |head coach=yes is used, then the title will change from 'manager' to 'head coach'. I looked at several national team articles, e.g. England, Chile and France, and found that they all (of the ones I randomly looked at) used the term 'head coach'. Should we be changing the parameters on here to also reflect that? - 97rob (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever term they use when speaking in English is what we should use. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but this is exactly why we shouldn't be using that template. I'm pretty sure we've been phasing it out recently, so I don't know why it's suddenly rearing its ugly head again. It's extremely inflexible when it comes to variables like that; why have a separate parameter for a simple text change? We should use the wikitables that are in use for pretty much every other featured article on football matches. – Pee Jay 23:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it has not been done yet, I would like to source referee whioch is not possible with that template. QED237 (talk) 23:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Walter Görlitz as well, but I still think using the regular wikitables would be too complicated for the less experienced users (who obviously can still edit and update the articles). {{Football match line-ups}} is an inflexible template come to think about it, so I drastically simplified it and created {{football match line-ups 2}}. I don't think any of the problems with extra bytes, variables like the question of naming managers "head coaches" and adding sources to match rules and match officials exist any more (see also Template:Football match line-ups 2/testcases). Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1) That template makes it harder to edit and not easier, which is why we use templates elsewhere... The "old" wikitable was smaller and way easier to edit for everyone. New users will have a hard time and i suggest to go back to the using the wikitable lineups like we did the last years. 2) We do not need to add all players to the bench as they are there every game. Only add players who checked into the game. Kante4 (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also prefer just to use tables, they're not that difficult to use once they've been copied into the article, in my opinion. - 97rob (talk) 11:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Live scores and live updates

Hi everyone.

As I believe we will have a lot of problems with livescores and live updating I thought I should bring it up here so everyone knows about it.

Based on Wikipedia policies and guidlines we should not provide livescores and live updates. This is according to WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live scoring and it has also been discussed at other time periods. This also applies to live updates to tables and list such as top goalscorers, squad statistics and other match info, which you can also read about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live updates (again). Please wait until matches are finished before adding the scores and statistics. Wikipedia is not for livescoring and should wait for update until sources are updated. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a new section over at WT:FOOTY#Referring to WP:LIVESCORES after seeing your comment here (since I felt the discussion was relevant to more than just this page). Calathan (talk) 21:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of matches

How detailed should we be of the events of each match. For example, the possible red card for Brazil and the disallowed goal in the second half, are both controversial decisions from the referee, which shaped the remainder of the game. In my opinion, both should be included in the description. - 97rob (talk) 11:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're sufficiently neutral about each incident and don't take sides, and we provide adequate sources as usual, I don't see any problem with including those incidents. – Pee Jay 12:20, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the two events to the match summary, but they may need to be made slightly more neutral - it's quite hard to write it when I have my own definite opinion on the two decisions! - 97rob (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could find an alternate source to the Daily Mail? That "newspaper" sucks donkey dick. – Pee Jay 16:30, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll have another look. - 97rob (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kits

The Mexico v Cameroon match has kits added for both teams, yet there are no references to suggest they will play in those kits. Whilst it may be logical to editors that they'll be playing in those kits, we should be trying to source this. It also seems unlikely to me that they are both playing with red shorts - FIFA are trying to avoid clashes like this, I believe. For the moment, I've commented the kits out, so they can be easily reinstated if anyone has a source for it. - 97rob (talk) 14:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Match photos

I was just about to ask if anyone had found match photos which could be published on Wikipedia, but we've now got one for the first match. This website publishes photos with the correct licensing, so could be a useful place for people looking for more photos for later matches. - 97rob (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to confirm that the copyright on those images, or any you play to use, is compatible with Wikipedia's. In short, if it's not clearly stated that the images are public domain, CC BY-SA 3.0, or some similar copyright, then we cannot use the images. See Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I dug a bit and Agência Brasil is a public agency and so we may use the images. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, could be a pretty useful source if they have photos of all the matches - there were plenty of others for the brazil match. - 97rob (talk) 16:16, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2014

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This article and the rest of the 2014 FIFA World Cup sub-articles should be semi-protected, at least until the end of the tournament. Too many random IPs are vandalising them and it's getting out of hand. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 15:39, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done That would violate too many policies as the edits are not clearly vandalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For instance, this edit was not vandalism as you stated. It was made in good faith and this edit was a good one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Biased reporting

The summary of the opening match between Brazil and Croatia is clearly biased. Quoting [the wikipedia suggestion]

"If you can't or don't want to fix an error, your best approach depends on what kind of problem it is:

if it's clear vandalism and you can't fix it, please email info-en-v@wikimedia.org and include the address or title of the article and a description of the issue.
if it's an error or omission, please leave a note at the talk page of the article explaining the problem"

I tried the latter option and asked the contributor politely on the Talk page to avoid bias, however my comment was removed by Walter Görlitz with the reasoning "not a forum". To make it clear, is there any accepted method of reporting bias in an article, or not? Obviously I cannot provide any video evidence as fifa does not allow it. Whibu (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which part do you feel is showing bias, and what would you like it to be changed to? - 97rob (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) If you have a problem with biased reporting, it's not Wikipedia you have the problem with, it's the media in general. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we require reliable, third-party sources for any content we add; if the media aren't reporting on an incident, neither can we. As far as I can tell, all of the major incidents have been reported impartially here, although that may not be the case for the sources we've taken our info from. – Pee Jay 20:31, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Of the two controversial moments I added to the article (the possible red card and disallowed goal), I agreed with the media on one, and disagreed with the other, yet I still added them both to the article because the media in general have referred to them. - 97rob (talk) 20:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I get your point, it works in the case of scientific articles where the origanal facts can be verified. However I can't see the value in blindly sticking to what third party sources report about sport events. How can any sports related website get a "reliable" status? By writing what the masses want to read so more people will accept it? In this case removing all match reports would be more fair and factual than the current status quo.Whibu (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If people come to Wikipedia to read about the match, then I'm sure they will be expecting match details, which are likely to follow the media. Also, which part or sentences do you feel actually shows bias? - 97rob (talk) 14:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just avoid using terms such as "controversial goal", "slightly controversial foul", etc. Almost all decisions in football can be disputed in some way. If there is a controversy, you can mention the coaches and/or players' comments about the decisions, FIFA's responses, etc. then we know how it is controversial. Just as we cannot say "Lionel Messi is a great player", we can list accolades he earns and other people's quotes about how he is great. Chanheigeorge (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead we should use WP:NPOV terms such as "paid-off official" and "clear bribery". That was a joke in case you missed it. Agree with Chanheigeorge. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lots of decisions can be disputed at the time, but most are forgotten about once the match has ended. If, after the match, the media/coaches are talking about how they disagreed with the decision (especially if others also praise the decision), then it's controversial. - 97rob (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Chanheigeorge regarding the overuse of the term "controversial." But I don't think adding post-match quotes from players and coaches is any better, because the losing team often complains about the officiating. Barryjjoyce (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that controversial was probably being overused, however, there seems to have been quite a few disputed decisions in this World Cup so far, and controversial just seems to be the word used to describe that. - 97rob (talk) 15:44, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lineup svgs

I've noticed that the lineup svg seems to stick out from the end of (some of) the written lineups, leaving a gap before the man of the match/assistant referees section. I've had a quick look at moving some of the code around to avoid this, and I've found a possible solution to this. It does mean a bit of a change from what we've got at the moment (not a huge one though), so I've brought it to here first to see what the reaction to it is. The current, and proposed, versions are currently housed at User:97rob/FootballMatchSVGs, so you can have a look there and see what you all think?- 97rob (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest another solution might be to reduce the size of the SVGs. It shouldn't reduce the readability of the players' names, and the patterns of the kits should remain sufficiently recognisable. That said, I really like your change. I've often thought the kits should align with the line-ups better, so perhaps we should implement that change across the encyclopaedia, even on articles where the SVG doesn't poke out. – Pee Jay 23:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the SVGs are at a good size currently at 300px. If we reduce the size, it takes up no less space on the page than my proposed version, yet there's still an unused space above/around it which could enable the names to be slightly more easily read. Would it be better for me to bring this up at WP:FOOTY, to get it a wider coverage? - 97rob (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely. Either link them to this discussion or start a new one there, it makes no difference. – Pee Jay 16:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought it up at WP:FOOTY, so please leave any comments about this there instead. - 97rob (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There didn't seem to be much interest in this proposal at WT:FOOTY, and certainly no opposition, so I think we can safely assume that silence implies consensus. I'm not exactly sure how you implemented the changes, so would you mind taking the lead on the 2014 World Cup articles? – Pee Jay 10:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've not got access to a computer at the moment (only a phone where editing is fairly difficult), so I can try and look at the best/easiest way to implement this once I'm back on a computer (although if anyone else wants to before, feel free). - 97rob (talk) 19:45, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Next day scenarios

The "next day scenarios" are not to be inluded after consensus at WP:FOOTY. 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) 23:08, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140629232249/http://www.fifa.com:80/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/38/2014fwc_kit_matches_neutral.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/38/2014fwc_kit_matches_neutral.pdf#page=7

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) 06:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A. 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:

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) 20:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]