![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I notice that there is not a consistent date format on this page, even within a given section (e.g. game dates in Group C). Argentina v. Serbia and Montenegro is June 16, 2006, but Netherlands v. Côte d'Ivoire is 16 June 2006. Is there a recommended Wikipedia convention? -- Chrisirwin 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
hey there guys,, I have been watchin the world cup and there is a theme song that I really liked,, it's played before and after matches, its not vocal, it just an orchestra (if that's what its called),, I hope you know which am i talkin about,, thanks (P.S. I did look for it hard before I asked here) --
mo-- (
Talk |
#info |
)
11:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether it was played in the stadium or over ABC-ESPN. If it was the stadium check the World Cup website. If it was ABC-ESPN, check their website. It sounded like it was in the stadium, I liked it.
Bornagain4
01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
England's official theme song is Embrace's " World at Your Feet". -- Madchester 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like Carneval De Paris by Dario G. That was the main theme for the 1998 World Cup The main theme was also used in Vindaloo, by Fat Les (I don't think this was the one you were expecting, though) -- 87.74.66.97 18:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I would think it would be impractical to make only one ball for each match. How many do they make? -- Gbleem 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Generally there are about 10 or 12, most placed at different areas around the field...the touchlines, endlines, of course the one that is used to start the match, the 4th official also has a few in case one or more malfunction during the game. Batman2005 15:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Will someone explain to me how the tournament works and how you advance etc?
32 teams, split up into groups of 4. You play all the other teams in your group, a win is worth 3 points, a tie is worth 1 point. The top 2 teams in the group advance to the round of 16 where you play till a winner is decided, then after that the top 8 teams play, the top four, then the top two teams play for the final. The winner...is well the winner I guess. Batman2005 17:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Suspensions...to me at least would indicate that Avery John is to serve his suspension during the match with England. Ejection to me would be that Avery John was ejected against Sweden. At present it says "Suspensions: Avery John - Sweden" which might be a tad confusing to those who think like I do. Perhaps some clarifying statement should be inserted? Batman2005 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Your intentions in making the table don't trump understanding of the people who are going to look at it. The way it looks now to me and obviously to several others is that you're saying Avery John's suspension will be served for the game against Sweden. Which is obviouly not true. You're banking on the fact that people either A) read the match reports B) watched the game C) possess the powers of deductive reasoning to look at the matches played section and realize that T&T have only played Sweden. You say it makes no sense, but obviously the table as you created it has caused some confusion, so who's not making sense here? We've got two users now who say its a good idea to put "suspended vs. Sweden, to be seved vs. England." That's more of a consensus than you saying "i made the table, this is how I want it." I'm going to, for now, add a little bit of an explanation in the preceding paragraph about how the "Suspensions" column is referring to the match in which the suspension was earned. We'll likely see more discussion as its confused two or three people thus far. Batman2005 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the tables to make them more understandable to those not familiar with the system - if anyone would like to expand the basic work then go ahead. But I feel having the second column does explain thing more clearly. Also it means only one column is needed on the player table
Under Crime Concerns, shouldn't there be something about the references to the war? Two England fans have just been arrested for displaying SS insignia.
I think a section about Nazi concerns, propaganda, and the like should be included. Berlin police already raided a couple houses in connection with neo-nazism directed at the world cup, another World Cup Banner was removed because it had swastikas on it. There should be a mention. Perhaps something as well about president Ahma-Ahma-Ahma-GonnastartworldwarIII from Iran saying he wanted to go to the games yet his holocaust denial stance is a crime in Germany and may have contributed to him not attending. At present a lot of that is covered in "Racism" perhaps that section needs a new name, or if neo-nazism is becoming more apparent, maybe it warrants its own section. Batman2005 18:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't there a list of the stadiums being used? Why was that removed? 172.128.81.143 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
How is a tie in the World Cup solved? - Chile 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's absurd that we're referring to the Ivory Coast as Côte d'Ivoire. I understand that it's what they call the country, but you have to understand it's simply French for Ivory Coast. We aren't referring to any other countries by what they call themselves or else we'd have an article full of Espana, Nederland, Deutschland, Ukrayina and Republika Srbija. I propose we change all instances of Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast in keeping with the English translation of the article. Paxosmotic 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If it's universal across the site, then I grudgingly withdraw my request, but it's still absurd. =) Paxosmotic 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should we call it that on English Wikipedia when it's not english? How about we call Germany Deutschland then? Kingjeff 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How about we have a vote on the issue? Kingjeff 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said this was a democracy. I've seen this done in other wikipedia. If you go to Talk:Hannover 96, you'll see what I mean. Kingjeff 02:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA use the name Côte d'Ivoire on their official site, thus it stays as this. 81.178.218.36 02:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think FIFA is the ultimate authority on what's right or wrong to publish. But, I'm compelled to agree that if it's consistent across Wikipedia, it shoulde remain "Côte d'Ivoire" here too. -- LateAndCrapulous 03:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, "CIV" is Cote de Ivory (or something like that :P)'s country code. As such, CIV = Cote d'Ivoire. I give up attempting to spell that. If all else fails, just blame the French for colonizing Africa :P Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned Sweden, Portugal, Iran, Mexico, Paraguay, and Poland haven't recieved a red card yet, however the table says that they have. Isn't it a mistake? -- Snailwalker | talk 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
On one of the matchup, it says "South Korea" instead of "Korea Republic". Can somebody fix this quickly? It's weird. -- Revth 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like someone changed the "Teams" section to list ranking instead of seeding in the square brackets. There have been several revisions since the change, so I'd rathernot simply revert it. Can someone with more Wiki-clue fix that? Perhaps the ranking should be included as well, with a different set of punctuation to identify them. (And an annotation about it in the prior paragraphs.) Davidlwilliamson 06:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be quite honest, it really doesn't matter since Ranking and seeding means the same thing. Kingjeff 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a better method of displaying the disciplinary record? The current one is misleading, as a player who gets two yellow cards in one match get +2yellow and +1red in the table, and this is indistinguishable from a player who get yellow cards in two different matches and a straight red in third. Any ideas?
Also, if the article aims to list suspensions, it should also include suspensions issued before the tournament, like that of Nemanja Vidic (vs the Netherlands). Conscious 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
What minute does a goal count in if it is scored in first half stoppage time? Bornagain4 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanx Bornagain4 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll stop trying to repair it. I attempted to put back some language links. From http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2006_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=58234009 Skinnyweed 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice to have information on the Budweiser Man of the Match? Joaopais 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If man of the match is not notable, then why put the referee up? Kingjeff 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
But there is nothing wrong with putting in the player who won man of the match if it's the official man of the match named since it's fact. Kingjeff 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How can it not be part of the world cup when these matches are part of the world cup? The fact is they are part of the world cup. Kingjeff 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Andymarczak 13:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you're not aware of it, there is another project called Wikinews, which is essentially a newspaper-like project. Information such as "Man of the Match" would be more appropriate in an article about the match, for example Korea 2, Togo 1. Moreover, it would be quite appropriate to link each WikiNews story to the relevant match, in this article or the group articles, instead of linking externally. Is this an acceptable compromise? Mind matrix 15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok it seems pretty balanced here on both sides of the issue...so why not just create another page specifically for man of the match. Shot007 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the music used when players enter the pitch during world cup games as the same tune is used for every game. I also heard this same piece at some other football games. Who does this tune and is it worth mentioning in the article? ------ Wrh1973 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. But I know they've had it since at least the last world cup. But I would like to know what the music is. Kingjeff 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, with this page protected who can change it? And is someone going to update Ghana vs. Italy? Go Ghana. Bornagain4 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you become and "established editor." I'm a newbie Bornagain4 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been a while since it's been edited by a non-user. So, does it really matter if it's protected or not? Kingjeff 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Who is in charge of protecting and unprotecting?
What vandalism has happen here? Kingjeff 01:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason that in some parts they're referred to as Pots and at others Groups? TastyCakes 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
On TV I believe I've heard a variaton of this popular song/football chant being played on the public address systems during the half-time and at the end of several matches during this World Cup. Are they playing any particular version? Jooler 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As an Englishman, could I ask how English is not the official language of my country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.174.216.135 ( talk • contribs).
I am assuming that "81.174.216.135" is referring to the miscellaneous section where it mentions the languages represented by the teams in the world cup finals. In response to your question: The reason why "English" is not listed as an "official language" is because no law was ever passed by parliament making it so. Instead, English has become known as the de facto language of England. English has come to be known as the language of England through common practice and the fact that it's in every day usage. It is without a shadow of a doubt the most dominant language spoken in England and the rest of the UK. Therefore no law is required to make the language official. I hope this answers your question. Mark Nuttall 00:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What do people think of having the table of contents like this? jaco♫ plane 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
hey guys, are the group articles really needed,, i mean this is an encyclopedia not a fifa world cup tracking page, thats what the fifaworldcup.com is for,, i think they should be deleted... --
mo-- (
Talk |
#info |
)
13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree...I think its overkill. Batman2005 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
They're absolutely pointless. It looks like the same info as in the sub section of the 2006 world cup Kingjeff 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated all group stage articles for deletion. Kingjeff 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you oppsoe, then please discuss it in the discussion pages of the group article. 23:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This bit: Referee Graham Poll celebrates his wedding anniversary by blowing the whistle at the exact moment he got married 14 years ago. sounds really silly, it reads like he chose to end the first half when he did for that specific reason, rather than because it was in fact 45 minutes since it started..... ChrisTheDude 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
...And made Panairjdde the king of page content. Seriously buddy, learn civility, if people want to update goals during the match, let them. What's it hurting? Seems that quite a bit of discussion has been had on here with no consensus reached. Just get on with it, as long as people aren't vandalising the page. Batman2005 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Panairjdde, why does it matter when it's updated? Kingjeff 15:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know FIFA calls it "FIFA Fussball-Weltmeisterschaft 2006(tm)" even though football in German (in Germany) is spelt with ß. But as they are our Swiss friends it's up to them. Should it be corrected or is it ss-ish for a special reason?
My understanding is that ß is the correct way and the ss is simply a replacement. Kingjeff 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think since we're talking about German in Germany, we should use their German. Kingjeff 23:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is the attendance number of a match found? I can't find it to update the current Brazil vs. Croatia match. Hong Qi Gong 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do we have the links to the match report, then a reference next to it going to the bottom and then linking to the exact same report? It's absolutely pointless. They're essentially just taking up an insane amount of space and the link in the (Report) part will work just fine, there's no reason for the footnotation going to tell you what match the report is for as its clearly defined in the match box. Batman2005 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Even more pointless is this note in miscellanea:
-- Panairjdde 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, care that Hyundai supplied the transportation. Hong Qi Gong 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What's with these balls that the team captains are exchanging at e beginning of matches along with the usual FA pennants? Jooler 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The goal difference for Germany should be +3 not +2 (5-2). I'm not an editor and don't want to risk breakign something :P just thought I'd point the mistake out.
Wikipedia shouldn't be selling naming rights to its entries for advertising purposes. It's just the "World Cup" not the "FIFA World Cup" just like it's the "Stanley Cup" or the "Olympic Medal" not the "NHL Stanley Cup" or "IOC Olympic Medal".
216.58.44.227 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Can changes be made to subsequent rounds whilst a group is still in progress? Example: the Poland flag is still shown under A-1st (in the Knockout-Stage section) when Poland now can't possibly be 1st. Should the Poland flag be removed? It would help clarify who might play who in the second round. Fmgazette 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes it should. It is quite off-base to say that Poland could finish first "because Germany might get disqualified." Unless and until a team or people associated with it do something that might warrant disqualification, we need not take this possibility into account.
I don't need a user name to tell you that if you are not on medication, consider getting some. If and when Germany commit some grave action and might get kicked out of the WC, then we can consider whether or not the Poles have a plausible chance to win Group A.
Just out of curiosity, is this the first world cup to feature qualifying teams from all six inhabited continents, or has this happened before? Procrastinator supreme 05:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It has. 1982 FIFA World Cup (qualification) Happyjoe5 08:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, why is there a statement saying that the top scorer is going to win the Adidas Golden Boot trophy? Adidas could get bought by Nike later this week, and the trophy would have to be renamed.
While we're at it, why is a whole separate section showing a knockout stage of the tournament? FIFA could convene a special session next week and decide to switch Round 2 to group play rather than knockout rounds, so putting in the brackets is premature.
And finally it's awfully presumptuous to make this "claim" that the "final" will be "played" on "9 July" in Olympiastadion in "Berlin"? After the Pope renames July to Benedict, a giant meteor could strike the Brandenburger Tor on "8 Benedict", killing tens of thousands, destroying half the city, and postponing the match for a day or two.
Really people, we have to leave the Wikipedia open to ALL potential possibilities. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- DaveOinSF 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA have using the group system for the referees in the tournament, which divide in 23 groups. But the article not mention about the group of referee, why? Aleen f1 05:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey who removed this? I think it is a good idea to include it so that people can know that the criteria has changed from head-to-head first to goal difference first. Kiwi8 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
in References #2 (about names of stadiums), I think it's slightly incorrect:
"Of the twelve hosting stadia, all but one ( Leipzig) are in the former West Germany."
Although the Olympic Stadium is in West Berlin, which is not part of East Germany .. it is also officially not part of West Germany. How could we precisely deliver this fact, without making it too bloat? cheers, -- 141.89.97.204 09:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, West-Berlin was officially West-German. I think the gist is clear, for those readers who are asking themselves why Berlin isn't mentioned as East-German, there's the wiki link. -- Tantalos 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
from West Berlin:
" West Berlin was the name given to the western part of Berlin between 1949 and 1990. It consisted of the American, British, and French occupation sectors established in 1945. It was closely aligned with, although legally not a part of, West Germany. The Soviet sector became East Berlin, which East Germany claimed as its capital; however, as the whole city was legally under four-power occupation, the Western Allies did not recognize this claim. "
The status of the whole Berlin in that time was officially neither belong to Federal Republic of Germany (West) nor German Democratic Republic (East).
And, reply to Philc, the "fairies" in this story is American, British, and French.
" But the western allies [American, British, and French] remained the ultimate political authorities there. West Berlin was run by an elected Mayor and city government at Rathaus Schöneberg, but this government formally derived its authority from the occupying forces, not its electoral mandate. West Berlin was not considered to be a Bundesland, nor part of one, and the Grundgesetz (constitution of the Federal Republic) had no application there. "
-- 172.177.190.229 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is going on here? The first column shows all four team in the group and the NEXT column shows who ended up 1st or 2nd. Knocking out a flag in the first column if a team cannot mathematically fill that slot means that you will eventually end up with just 1 flag which will duplicate the entry to the immediate right. Someone now has just duplicated all the little flags in the second column minus Poland in the 1st slot in Group A. What the hell was that about? Not only does it look awful it's completely pointless. Jooler 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to remove the flags of the teams that have been eliminated from those spots, at least get them correct... England has clinched the top spot in Group B, but their flag is shown in the #2 position for Group B in the bracket. In the other Group B box (where England should be), the flags for Sweden and Paraguay remain, but I don't believe T&T has been eliminated yet. If Sweden and Paraguay tie this afternoon, and T&T beats Paraguay and Sweden loses to England, than T&T goes to the second round as the #2 team from Group B, correct? 68.37.208.190 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with whoever it was above that said that the flags shoudl be left as a means of having a complete record of the tournament, and that this version shoudl be used for the older world cup articles as well. Even though the section is about the knockout stage itself how the teams in that stage got there (who they competed with) is relavent information for such a section. All the flags of countries who competed at all for a slot in the knockout section shoudl be shown. Keep in mind this is not a news site its an encyclopedia. From a historical perspective its more intresting to have as much info about the tournament in such a useful format is possible. Dalf | Talk 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I came to this article wanting to find out who could qualify in what positions. I then found a column called "Possible Teams" for the last 16. But then I saw Poland were still listed as a possible "1st in Group A". I removed the Polish flag and got reverted. This is silly. Regardless of pedantic arguments that countries could be ejected from the competition, I want to see something in the article about the possible permutations. I was also hoping to find some discussion or listing of the possible permutations that still allow Poland to qualify for the last 16 and Germany to fail to qualify for the last 16.
So please, is it possible to have:
At the moment, the a,b,x,y superscript labels are not clear. Colours would be better. They also do not make clear who could meet in the last 16. Removing the flags from the "Possible teams" column would make this clearer - eg. team finishing second in group B cannot play Poland. For example, if England win tonight and Sweden draw, then England have clinched first and will not play Poland. Removing flags as the permutations get less would make this clearer. Carcharoth 12:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
An example of permutations is at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup_-_Group_A. This sort of thing may not be suitable for the main article, and can get rather tedious anyway, but is there a precedent for this sort of thing in other Wikipedia sports articles? Please note that the text has been written in an encyclopedic style as if someone was reading about Group A of the 2006 World Cup 10 years from now. It is not, of course, written "news" style... Carcharoth 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I also feel that the 4 countries' flags should not be removed even after the group games have finished. This is to show the group that any group winner or runner-up came from. Kiwi8 14:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing I am talking about: User:Carcharoth/World_Cup_table. Carcharoth 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
As this issue is currently being debated, I would suggest that everyone refrain from making changes to the knockout section until a clear consensus is established, lest we start an edit war. -- DKNeko 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Some people in this discussion seem to think that all 4 country flags will remain in column 1 even after the group games have finished. In fact, the intended process is to switch from Template:Round16-waiting to Template:Round16, when 'only the last 16 will be shown. Carcharoth 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we rename the "Possible Teams" heading to something like "Teams in Group." "Possible Teams" is too confusing for the average reader. The knockout stage should have all four teams in the graphic. Only when the group is finalized should the graphic be updated. In each individual group, we should have colors to indicate who has qualified (which, at the time of this writing, Group A had the top two teams colored green). No color should be for eliminated teams, nor should a color be added for second-place teams. I think the superscript letters are rather confusing, and should either be (1) removed, or (2) revised to make logical sense. As for scenarios, I propose: [Example, Group A]:
What do you think? Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that removing the flags from the knockout section is the procedure for World Cups 1998 and 2002. Might I suggest that we follow the trend? -- DKNeko 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The words "Possible teams" were added to the template by User:Palffy and confused matters. Jooler 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting dizzy with all this changing. Last time I came the key said x & y, then I get reverted with an angry message on my talk page saying it's green, yellow & red, I come back and use that, and some other guy decides green simply means qualification. Can't we simply decide? And as we're at it, I think the page should be semi-protected. It's awefully difficult to keep track of petty vandalism with all these numbers flying around and at the same time the traffic would be reduced somewhat (it's simply frustrating to get 5 edit conflicts in a row, and while you're checking what went wrong another edit occurs; races against time make no good edits). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Now because User:Palffy can't have it his way he decides to make it even less useful by replacing Template:Round16-waiting with Template:Round16. I'm way past the 3RR and I know for sure he is. This is just ridculous. I would call for a vote but voting is evil apparently. Also using that template we've got no idea what should go in the boxes as the groups are not shown. I think this is called WP:POINT - Jooler 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to compromise between something right and something wrong you end up with something half-right which is no good to anyone. The way it was before you started fiddling with it was right and your half-right counter-proposals were all poor choices. I have just changed the 2002 FIFA World Cup page to use the Template:Round16-waiting - which I think looks much better as you can see who teams were competing against to get to the last 16 and shows the whole compeition in one graphic. Jooler 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's is what every World Cup edition would look like according to Jooler, which I something I can agree to [3]. Does anyone have any issues with this? -- Palffy 04:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless there is serious objection, I'm going to go ahead and remove the listing of own goals under the top scorers section. It's not really something that you pay too much attention to in football. I mean, just as you wouldn't have a list of who commited the most errors in a World Series in baseball, no one keeps a tally of own goals in football, especially as its unlikely anyone will score more than one. Hammer Raccoon 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's actually its own subheading under the "Goals Scored" section. Presumably to eventually preempt any confusion when the goals scored tally at the top doesn't match the one from the bottom if we deleted the own goal.
Batman2005
13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not true that Tim Cahill or David Villa were the first people in 72 years to score twice in their world cup debut. It's happened in at least the last THREE tournaments. Miroslav Klose got three in his debut game in 2002 against Saudi Arabia. In 1994 Gabriel Batistuta scored three goals in his world cup debut game against Greece. Marius Lăcătuş scored two goals for Romania during his World Cup debut game in 1990. Batman2005 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one...Yaremchuk scored twice against Hungary for Russia in his debut game in 1986. Batman2005 13:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Journalistic convention is to write goal times as 45+1' or 90+3' (for example), rather than 46'+ or 93'+. See Champions League converage on ITV. Mjefm 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA convention is to record them as 93+' we've discussed this already and chose to go with FIFA as we're using FIFA for sources on each game, not ITV. Batman2005 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the first round after the group stage is referred to as the "Round of 16" and not the "Second Round"? I've never heard it referred to as anything but the latter... Dtsazza 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The Round of 16 has 16 teams in it. It is the second round of the tournament. Therefore both are correct. Kingjeff 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere (I don't remeber where , though) that Round 1 is the group stage, and Round 2 is everything else (ie - the Round of 16, quarterfinals, semifinals, third place match and final). So, Round of 16 and Round 2 are not the same thing. Now, to find that source... Mind matrix 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean stages and not rounds. Within the knockout stage, you have the round of 16, Quarters, semis and the final. Kingjeff 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand the confusion now. It was over two meanings of "Possible teams":
I still think people will come to this page wanting to see who has qualified, who can still qualify, and to where they can qualify (ie. which position in the last 16). Superscript markings won't be very helpful - colours are better. And having each last 16 position filled with four candidates that are gradually eliminated is a graphic way of illustrating the process. Maybe a new template is needed that will show both the whole group, and the whittling away of teams that are eliminated. Carcharoth 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
England can come in second, Sweden and Paraguay can still come in first, Trinidad and Tobago can still go through, the only scenario that can't happen at this point is England NOT going through to the second stage or Trinidad finishing first! Batman2005 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Trinidad and Tobago is not out yet. They have a chance, and depending of the outcome of today's second game in the group, it may turn out to be a good chance actually. (Especially a draw, or even a Praguay win.) --
TimBits
18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said they were out, just that they can't finish first as if they win their next game they'll have 4 points to Englands already established 6. Batman2005 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I know, I wrote in support of you and against the removal of the T-T flag. --
TimBits
18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the situation as it stands: England just beat Trinidad and Tobago 2-0 to go to 6 points; second is Sweden, on 1 point; Trinidad third, 1 point; Paraguay bottom, no points.
The three remaining games are Paraguay - Sweden (tonight), England - Sweden (next Tuesday) and Paraguay - Trinidad (Tuesday).
If Sweden beat Paraguay tonight, that puts them on 4 points; then beating England in their final game will put them top of the group on 7 points and England second on 6.
If Sweden draw with Paraguay, that puts Sweden on 2 points and Paraguay on 1, at which point England's group lead is unassailable and second place depends on whether Sweden can beat England (Sweden second), or if that match is a draw then the winners of Paraguay - Trinidad, goal difference pending (or Sweden if it's drawn).
If Paraguay beat Sweden tonight, that puts Paraguay on 3 points - but they can't overhaul England's 6 points because England beat them already. Second place then, again, depends on both results.
In summary; any team can still come second, but only England or Sweden can still come first.
Kinitawowi 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What happens if next Sweden lose to England 1-0. And Trinidad & Tobago beat Paraguay 1-0.... Sweden and Trinidad will have exactly the same points and goal difference... the match between the two was a draw, so it couldn't be decided by that, what would happen? - Deathrocker 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Will someone please clarify the "During World Cup" link that sits below the two Archive links at the top of this page? It leads to a redirect that leads nowhere. -- Alias Flood 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Woah! Do we really need all these forks??
Are all these topics really encyclopedic?? Is anyone going to look at the list of broadcasting rights even one day after the tournament is over? And how about "miscellany"? You might as well just call it "random trivia". I really don't think that all these forks are really warrented. — 199 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This list has expanded... At the very least, the naming of all these articles should be standardized. I've gone ahead, been bold and did that as well as fixing any double redirects...
These separate articles are going to be hard to keep updated and synched (not to mention well referenced within each article...). For example the disciplinary record section has been added to in the main article, but the larger more comprehensive article is out of date now... the info needs to be added to the correct locations... This is becoming a rapid pain in the ass... Paul C/ T + 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it Bornagain4 01:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes '&' is used, sometimes 'and'. Is this just for spacing reasons or can all instances of '&' be replaced with 'and' as per the article naming scheme? Paul C/ T + 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Say the scores come out like this for Group B.
England - 6 Trinidad - 4 Sweden - 4 Paraguay - 0
How do they decide who advances for #2?
This page has been linked from time.com http://www.time.com/time/europe/2006/wcup/blogs/060615crumley.html Borisblue 02:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to see what other users thought of having all the Group Tables in one section instead of having them under each group section. I know its usually normal to have the table under each group but I think having one section to see all the groups and qualification at this point of the tournament would help instead of having to scroll down and look at each table. The tables could be put back as soon as the qualification rounds are complete. Any thoughts?
I've made a little Nav Box - it need logo, colour work, layout etc, but it's a start. Over to you...
Rich Farmbrough 09:27 16 June 2006 (GMT).
Can we have a policy about external links? I think what we have now is fine with the possible exception of the charity and ESPN. But can we agree to remove any added external links unless there is agreement on the talk page? They have a similar policy on the
Sudoku (
Talk:Sudoku#Proposed External Link) page
Jooler
11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In the Golden Boot section, it is asserted that Just Fontaine is the top goal-scorer ever in a World Cup, yet on his own article it states 'This tally secured him the Golden Boot for that tournament, and his total of 13 remains the second greatest number of goals scored in a single World Cup tournament.'... I sense a conflict here... 130.195.86.37 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, i'm generally all for photo's on wikipedia articles, but do we really need the stadium photos on this page? We've already got a list of venues with each's wikipedia page linked...simply clicking on those pages will take you to the exact same photo's we have here. As is all the stadium photos are doing is making the page longer and more difficult to navigate. Opinions? Batman2005 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro are not mathematically eliminated yet, Netherlands loosing the next two games and a Serbia and Montenegro win could result in a three-way tie for second place. Dcorrin 15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah agree. I think there're still a lot of people who still think that 6 points equals automatic qualification and 0 points with 1 game to go equals automatic elimination. Hope that there will not be such assumptions in future. Kiwi8 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The article currently says
If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked as follows:
|
Surely 4 is irrelevant. If you can't break the tie on 3, then the two teams must have played to a draw in which case the "Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned" will be the same. Jooler 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain this to me in English. The "futbol" speak is confusing me.
Thanx, it really did.
I think the editing has gotted very chaotic. Do you guys agree that we should restrict editing to users with user names? Thanks in advance. Kiwi8 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the new table looks are an improvement to what it was before. The table with the Stadiums (Stadia?) has the huge map now embedded within it. It unnecessarily stretches the page. Is it possible to thumbnail that map like the "qualified natiosn" map? (I would do it... but the details of the pic looks a little weird to me...) ScottNak 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the equation part underneath the group sections?
Bornagain4
17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)- :moved to the group articles I think.
Rich
Farmbrough 17:54
16 June
2006 (GMT).
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I notice that there is not a consistent date format on this page, even within a given section (e.g. game dates in Group C). Argentina v. Serbia and Montenegro is June 16, 2006, but Netherlands v. Côte d'Ivoire is 16 June 2006. Is there a recommended Wikipedia convention? -- Chrisirwin 19:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
hey there guys,, I have been watchin the world cup and there is a theme song that I really liked,, it's played before and after matches, its not vocal, it just an orchestra (if that's what its called),, I hope you know which am i talkin about,, thanks (P.S. I did look for it hard before I asked here) --
mo-- (
Talk |
#info |
)
11:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know whether it was played in the stadium or over ABC-ESPN. If it was the stadium check the World Cup website. If it was ABC-ESPN, check their website. It sounded like it was in the stadium, I liked it.
Bornagain4
01:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
England's official theme song is Embrace's " World at Your Feet". -- Madchester 05:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like Carneval De Paris by Dario G. That was the main theme for the 1998 World Cup The main theme was also used in Vindaloo, by Fat Les (I don't think this was the one you were expecting, though) -- 87.74.66.97 18:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I would think it would be impractical to make only one ball for each match. How many do they make? -- Gbleem 15:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Generally there are about 10 or 12, most placed at different areas around the field...the touchlines, endlines, of course the one that is used to start the match, the 4th official also has a few in case one or more malfunction during the game. Batman2005 15:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Will someone explain to me how the tournament works and how you advance etc?
32 teams, split up into groups of 4. You play all the other teams in your group, a win is worth 3 points, a tie is worth 1 point. The top 2 teams in the group advance to the round of 16 where you play till a winner is decided, then after that the top 8 teams play, the top four, then the top two teams play for the final. The winner...is well the winner I guess. Batman2005 17:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Suspensions...to me at least would indicate that Avery John is to serve his suspension during the match with England. Ejection to me would be that Avery John was ejected against Sweden. At present it says "Suspensions: Avery John - Sweden" which might be a tad confusing to those who think like I do. Perhaps some clarifying statement should be inserted? Batman2005 18:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Your intentions in making the table don't trump understanding of the people who are going to look at it. The way it looks now to me and obviously to several others is that you're saying Avery John's suspension will be served for the game against Sweden. Which is obviouly not true. You're banking on the fact that people either A) read the match reports B) watched the game C) possess the powers of deductive reasoning to look at the matches played section and realize that T&T have only played Sweden. You say it makes no sense, but obviously the table as you created it has caused some confusion, so who's not making sense here? We've got two users now who say its a good idea to put "suspended vs. Sweden, to be seved vs. England." That's more of a consensus than you saying "i made the table, this is how I want it." I'm going to, for now, add a little bit of an explanation in the preceding paragraph about how the "Suspensions" column is referring to the match in which the suspension was earned. We'll likely see more discussion as its confused two or three people thus far. Batman2005 18:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the tables to make them more understandable to those not familiar with the system - if anyone would like to expand the basic work then go ahead. But I feel having the second column does explain thing more clearly. Also it means only one column is needed on the player table
Under Crime Concerns, shouldn't there be something about the references to the war? Two England fans have just been arrested for displaying SS insignia.
I think a section about Nazi concerns, propaganda, and the like should be included. Berlin police already raided a couple houses in connection with neo-nazism directed at the world cup, another World Cup Banner was removed because it had swastikas on it. There should be a mention. Perhaps something as well about president Ahma-Ahma-Ahma-GonnastartworldwarIII from Iran saying he wanted to go to the games yet his holocaust denial stance is a crime in Germany and may have contributed to him not attending. At present a lot of that is covered in "Racism" perhaps that section needs a new name, or if neo-nazism is becoming more apparent, maybe it warrants its own section. Batman2005 18:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't there a list of the stadiums being used? Why was that removed? 172.128.81.143 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
How is a tie in the World Cup solved? - Chile 19:02, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it's absurd that we're referring to the Ivory Coast as Côte d'Ivoire. I understand that it's what they call the country, but you have to understand it's simply French for Ivory Coast. We aren't referring to any other countries by what they call themselves or else we'd have an article full of Espana, Nederland, Deutschland, Ukrayina and Republika Srbija. I propose we change all instances of Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast in keeping with the English translation of the article. Paxosmotic 20:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
If it's universal across the site, then I grudgingly withdraw my request, but it's still absurd. =) Paxosmotic 20:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Why should we call it that on English Wikipedia when it's not english? How about we call Germany Deutschland then? Kingjeff 01:22, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How about we have a vote on the issue? Kingjeff 01:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said this was a democracy. I've seen this done in other wikipedia. If you go to Talk:Hannover 96, you'll see what I mean. Kingjeff 02:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA use the name Côte d'Ivoire on their official site, thus it stays as this. 81.178.218.36 02:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think FIFA is the ultimate authority on what's right or wrong to publish. But, I'm compelled to agree that if it's consistent across Wikipedia, it shoulde remain "Côte d'Ivoire" here too. -- LateAndCrapulous 03:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
IIRC, "CIV" is Cote de Ivory (or something like that :P)'s country code. As such, CIV = Cote d'Ivoire. I give up attempting to spell that. If all else fails, just blame the French for colonizing Africa :P Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I'm concerned Sweden, Portugal, Iran, Mexico, Paraguay, and Poland haven't recieved a red card yet, however the table says that they have. Isn't it a mistake? -- Snailwalker | talk 20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
On one of the matchup, it says "South Korea" instead of "Korea Republic". Can somebody fix this quickly? It's weird. -- Revth 02:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
It looks like someone changed the "Teams" section to list ranking instead of seeding in the square brackets. There have been several revisions since the change, so I'd rathernot simply revert it. Can someone with more Wiki-clue fix that? Perhaps the ranking should be included as well, with a different set of punctuation to identify them. (And an annotation about it in the prior paragraphs.) Davidlwilliamson 06:21, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, to be quite honest, it really doesn't matter since Ranking and seeding means the same thing. Kingjeff 00:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a better method of displaying the disciplinary record? The current one is misleading, as a player who gets two yellow cards in one match get +2yellow and +1red in the table, and this is indistinguishable from a player who get yellow cards in two different matches and a straight red in third. Any ideas?
Also, if the article aims to list suspensions, it should also include suspensions issued before the tournament, like that of Nemanja Vidic (vs the Netherlands). Conscious 11:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
What minute does a goal count in if it is scored in first half stoppage time? Bornagain4 15:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Thanx Bornagain4 19:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'll stop trying to repair it. I attempted to put back some language links. From http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2006_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=58234009 Skinnyweed 17:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be nice to have information on the Budweiser Man of the Match? Joaopais 18:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If man of the match is not notable, then why put the referee up? Kingjeff 03:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
But there is nothing wrong with putting in the player who won man of the match if it's the official man of the match named since it's fact. Kingjeff 03:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
How can it not be part of the world cup when these matches are part of the world cup? The fact is they are part of the world cup. Kingjeff 12:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Andymarczak 13:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, if you're not aware of it, there is another project called Wikinews, which is essentially a newspaper-like project. Information such as "Man of the Match" would be more appropriate in an article about the match, for example Korea 2, Togo 1. Moreover, it would be quite appropriate to link each WikiNews story to the relevant match, in this article or the group articles, instead of linking externally. Is this an acceptable compromise? Mind matrix 15:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok it seems pretty balanced here on both sides of the issue...so why not just create another page specifically for man of the match. Shot007 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the music used when players enter the pitch during world cup games as the same tune is used for every game. I also heard this same piece at some other football games. Who does this tune and is it worth mentioning in the article? ------ Wrh1973 19:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. But I know they've had it since at least the last world cup. But I would like to know what the music is. Kingjeff 04:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, with this page protected who can change it? And is someone going to update Ghana vs. Italy? Go Ghana. Bornagain4 19:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
How do you become and "established editor." I'm a newbie Bornagain4 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
It's been a while since it's been edited by a non-user. So, does it really matter if it's protected or not? Kingjeff 00:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Who is in charge of protecting and unprotecting?
What vandalism has happen here? Kingjeff 01:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there a reason that in some parts they're referred to as Pots and at others Groups? TastyCakes 20:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
On TV I believe I've heard a variaton of this popular song/football chant being played on the public address systems during the half-time and at the end of several matches during this World Cup. Are they playing any particular version? Jooler 22:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
As an Englishman, could I ask how English is not the official language of my country? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.174.216.135 ( talk • contribs).
I am assuming that "81.174.216.135" is referring to the miscellaneous section where it mentions the languages represented by the teams in the world cup finals. In response to your question: The reason why "English" is not listed as an "official language" is because no law was ever passed by parliament making it so. Instead, English has become known as the de facto language of England. English has come to be known as the language of England through common practice and the fact that it's in every day usage. It is without a shadow of a doubt the most dominant language spoken in England and the rest of the UK. Therefore no law is required to make the language official. I hope this answers your question. Mark Nuttall 00:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
What do people think of having the table of contents like this? jaco♫ plane 12:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
hey guys, are the group articles really needed,, i mean this is an encyclopedia not a fifa world cup tracking page, thats what the fifaworldcup.com is for,, i think they should be deleted... --
mo-- (
Talk |
#info |
)
13:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree...I think its overkill. Batman2005 15:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
They're absolutely pointless. It looks like the same info as in the sub section of the 2006 world cup Kingjeff 15:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I've nominated all group stage articles for deletion. Kingjeff 22:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you oppsoe, then please discuss it in the discussion pages of the group article. 23:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This bit: Referee Graham Poll celebrates his wedding anniversary by blowing the whistle at the exact moment he got married 14 years ago. sounds really silly, it reads like he chose to end the first half when he did for that specific reason, rather than because it was in fact 45 minutes since it started..... ChrisTheDude 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
...And made Panairjdde the king of page content. Seriously buddy, learn civility, if people want to update goals during the match, let them. What's it hurting? Seems that quite a bit of discussion has been had on here with no consensus reached. Just get on with it, as long as people aren't vandalising the page. Batman2005 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Panairjdde, why does it matter when it's updated? Kingjeff 15:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know FIFA calls it "FIFA Fussball-Weltmeisterschaft 2006(tm)" even though football in German (in Germany) is spelt with ß. But as they are our Swiss friends it's up to them. Should it be corrected or is it ss-ish for a special reason?
My understanding is that ß is the correct way and the ss is simply a replacement. Kingjeff 22:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think since we're talking about German in Germany, we should use their German. Kingjeff 23:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Where is the attendance number of a match found? I can't find it to update the current Brazil vs. Croatia match. Hong Qi Gong 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Why do we have the links to the match report, then a reference next to it going to the bottom and then linking to the exact same report? It's absolutely pointless. They're essentially just taking up an insane amount of space and the link in the (Report) part will work just fine, there's no reason for the footnotation going to tell you what match the report is for as its clearly defined in the match box. Batman2005 13:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Even more pointless is this note in miscellanea:
-- Panairjdde 17:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
I, for one, care that Hyundai supplied the transportation. Hong Qi Gong 18:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
What's with these balls that the team captains are exchanging at e beginning of matches along with the usual FA pennants? Jooler 21:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
The goal difference for Germany should be +3 not +2 (5-2). I'm not an editor and don't want to risk breakign something :P just thought I'd point the mistake out.
Wikipedia shouldn't be selling naming rights to its entries for advertising purposes. It's just the "World Cup" not the "FIFA World Cup" just like it's the "Stanley Cup" or the "Olympic Medal" not the "NHL Stanley Cup" or "IOC Olympic Medal".
216.58.44.227 22:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Can changes be made to subsequent rounds whilst a group is still in progress? Example: the Poland flag is still shown under A-1st (in the Knockout-Stage section) when Poland now can't possibly be 1st. Should the Poland flag be removed? It would help clarify who might play who in the second round. Fmgazette 22:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes it should. It is quite off-base to say that Poland could finish first "because Germany might get disqualified." Unless and until a team or people associated with it do something that might warrant disqualification, we need not take this possibility into account.
I don't need a user name to tell you that if you are not on medication, consider getting some. If and when Germany commit some grave action and might get kicked out of the WC, then we can consider whether or not the Poles have a plausible chance to win Group A.
Just out of curiosity, is this the first world cup to feature qualifying teams from all six inhabited continents, or has this happened before? Procrastinator supreme 05:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It has. 1982 FIFA World Cup (qualification) Happyjoe5 08:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
First of all, why is there a statement saying that the top scorer is going to win the Adidas Golden Boot trophy? Adidas could get bought by Nike later this week, and the trophy would have to be renamed.
While we're at it, why is a whole separate section showing a knockout stage of the tournament? FIFA could convene a special session next week and decide to switch Round 2 to group play rather than knockout rounds, so putting in the brackets is premature.
And finally it's awfully presumptuous to make this "claim" that the "final" will be "played" on "9 July" in Olympiastadion in "Berlin"? After the Pope renames July to Benedict, a giant meteor could strike the Brandenburger Tor on "8 Benedict", killing tens of thousands, destroying half the city, and postponing the match for a day or two.
Really people, we have to leave the Wikipedia open to ALL potential possibilities. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- DaveOinSF 05:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA have using the group system for the referees in the tournament, which divide in 23 groups. But the article not mention about the group of referee, why? Aleen f1 05:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey who removed this? I think it is a good idea to include it so that people can know that the criteria has changed from head-to-head first to goal difference first. Kiwi8 06:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
in References #2 (about names of stadiums), I think it's slightly incorrect:
"Of the twelve hosting stadia, all but one ( Leipzig) are in the former West Germany."
Although the Olympic Stadium is in West Berlin, which is not part of East Germany .. it is also officially not part of West Germany. How could we precisely deliver this fact, without making it too bloat? cheers, -- 141.89.97.204 09:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, West-Berlin was officially West-German. I think the gist is clear, for those readers who are asking themselves why Berlin isn't mentioned as East-German, there's the wiki link. -- Tantalos 11:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
from West Berlin:
" West Berlin was the name given to the western part of Berlin between 1949 and 1990. It consisted of the American, British, and French occupation sectors established in 1945. It was closely aligned with, although legally not a part of, West Germany. The Soviet sector became East Berlin, which East Germany claimed as its capital; however, as the whole city was legally under four-power occupation, the Western Allies did not recognize this claim. "
The status of the whole Berlin in that time was officially neither belong to Federal Republic of Germany (West) nor German Democratic Republic (East).
And, reply to Philc, the "fairies" in this story is American, British, and French.
" But the western allies [American, British, and French] remained the ultimate political authorities there. West Berlin was run by an elected Mayor and city government at Rathaus Schöneberg, but this government formally derived its authority from the occupying forces, not its electoral mandate. West Berlin was not considered to be a Bundesland, nor part of one, and the Grundgesetz (constitution of the Federal Republic) had no application there. "
-- 172.177.190.229 00:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What the hell is going on here? The first column shows all four team in the group and the NEXT column shows who ended up 1st or 2nd. Knocking out a flag in the first column if a team cannot mathematically fill that slot means that you will eventually end up with just 1 flag which will duplicate the entry to the immediate right. Someone now has just duplicated all the little flags in the second column minus Poland in the 1st slot in Group A. What the hell was that about? Not only does it look awful it's completely pointless. Jooler 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
If you're going to remove the flags of the teams that have been eliminated from those spots, at least get them correct... England has clinched the top spot in Group B, but their flag is shown in the #2 position for Group B in the bracket. In the other Group B box (where England should be), the flags for Sweden and Paraguay remain, but I don't believe T&T has been eliminated yet. If Sweden and Paraguay tie this afternoon, and T&T beats Paraguay and Sweden loses to England, than T&T goes to the second round as the #2 team from Group B, correct? 68.37.208.190 14:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with whoever it was above that said that the flags shoudl be left as a means of having a complete record of the tournament, and that this version shoudl be used for the older world cup articles as well. Even though the section is about the knockout stage itself how the teams in that stage got there (who they competed with) is relavent information for such a section. All the flags of countries who competed at all for a slot in the knockout section shoudl be shown. Keep in mind this is not a news site its an encyclopedia. From a historical perspective its more intresting to have as much info about the tournament in such a useful format is possible. Dalf | Talk 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I came to this article wanting to find out who could qualify in what positions. I then found a column called "Possible Teams" for the last 16. But then I saw Poland were still listed as a possible "1st in Group A". I removed the Polish flag and got reverted. This is silly. Regardless of pedantic arguments that countries could be ejected from the competition, I want to see something in the article about the possible permutations. I was also hoping to find some discussion or listing of the possible permutations that still allow Poland to qualify for the last 16 and Germany to fail to qualify for the last 16.
So please, is it possible to have:
At the moment, the a,b,x,y superscript labels are not clear. Colours would be better. They also do not make clear who could meet in the last 16. Removing the flags from the "Possible teams" column would make this clearer - eg. team finishing second in group B cannot play Poland. For example, if England win tonight and Sweden draw, then England have clinched first and will not play Poland. Removing flags as the permutations get less would make this clearer. Carcharoth 12:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
An example of permutations is at Talk:2006_FIFA_World_Cup_-_Group_A. This sort of thing may not be suitable for the main article, and can get rather tedious anyway, but is there a precedent for this sort of thing in other Wikipedia sports articles? Please note that the text has been written in an encyclopedic style as if someone was reading about Group A of the 2006 World Cup 10 years from now. It is not, of course, written "news" style... Carcharoth 13:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I also feel that the 4 countries' flags should not be removed even after the group games have finished. This is to show the group that any group winner or runner-up came from. Kiwi8 14:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This is the sort of thing I am talking about: User:Carcharoth/World_Cup_table. Carcharoth 14:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
As this issue is currently being debated, I would suggest that everyone refrain from making changes to the knockout section until a clear consensus is established, lest we start an edit war. -- DKNeko 15:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Some people in this discussion seem to think that all 4 country flags will remain in column 1 even after the group games have finished. In fact, the intended process is to switch from Template:Round16-waiting to Template:Round16, when 'only the last 16 will be shown. Carcharoth 15:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we rename the "Possible Teams" heading to something like "Teams in Group." "Possible Teams" is too confusing for the average reader. The knockout stage should have all four teams in the graphic. Only when the group is finalized should the graphic be updated. In each individual group, we should have colors to indicate who has qualified (which, at the time of this writing, Group A had the top two teams colored green). No color should be for eliminated teams, nor should a color be added for second-place teams. I think the superscript letters are rather confusing, and should either be (1) removed, or (2) revised to make logical sense. As for scenarios, I propose: [Example, Group A]:
What do you think? Ian Manka Talk to me! 15:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that removing the flags from the knockout section is the procedure for World Cups 1998 and 2002. Might I suggest that we follow the trend? -- DKNeko 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The words "Possible teams" were added to the template by User:Palffy and confused matters. Jooler 18:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm getting dizzy with all this changing. Last time I came the key said x & y, then I get reverted with an angry message on my talk page saying it's green, yellow & red, I come back and use that, and some other guy decides green simply means qualification. Can't we simply decide? And as we're at it, I think the page should be semi-protected. It's awefully difficult to keep track of petty vandalism with all these numbers flying around and at the same time the traffic would be reduced somewhat (it's simply frustrating to get 5 edit conflicts in a row, and while you're checking what went wrong another edit occurs; races against time make no good edits). └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 21:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Now because User:Palffy can't have it his way he decides to make it even less useful by replacing Template:Round16-waiting with Template:Round16. I'm way past the 3RR and I know for sure he is. This is just ridculous. I would call for a vote but voting is evil apparently. Also using that template we've got no idea what should go in the boxes as the groups are not shown. I think this is called WP:POINT - Jooler 21:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
If you want to compromise between something right and something wrong you end up with something half-right which is no good to anyone. The way it was before you started fiddling with it was right and your half-right counter-proposals were all poor choices. I have just changed the 2002 FIFA World Cup page to use the Template:Round16-waiting - which I think looks much better as you can see who teams were competing against to get to the last 16 and shows the whole compeition in one graphic. Jooler 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's is what every World Cup edition would look like according to Jooler, which I something I can agree to [3]. Does anyone have any issues with this? -- Palffy 04:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Unless there is serious objection, I'm going to go ahead and remove the listing of own goals under the top scorers section. It's not really something that you pay too much attention to in football. I mean, just as you wouldn't have a list of who commited the most errors in a World Series in baseball, no one keeps a tally of own goals in football, especially as its unlikely anyone will score more than one. Hammer Raccoon 12:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's actually its own subheading under the "Goals Scored" section. Presumably to eventually preempt any confusion when the goals scored tally at the top doesn't match the one from the bottom if we deleted the own goal.
Batman2005
13:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
It's not true that Tim Cahill or David Villa were the first people in 72 years to score twice in their world cup debut. It's happened in at least the last THREE tournaments. Miroslav Klose got three in his debut game in 2002 against Saudi Arabia. In 1994 Gabriel Batistuta scored three goals in his world cup debut game against Greece. Marius Lăcătuş scored two goals for Romania during his World Cup debut game in 1990. Batman2005 13:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Here's another one...Yaremchuk scored twice against Hungary for Russia in his debut game in 1986. Batman2005 13:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Journalistic convention is to write goal times as 45+1' or 90+3' (for example), rather than 46'+ or 93'+. See Champions League converage on ITV. Mjefm 15:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
FIFA convention is to record them as 93+' we've discussed this already and chose to go with FIFA as we're using FIFA for sources on each game, not ITV. Batman2005 15:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there any reason why the first round after the group stage is referred to as the "Round of 16" and not the "Second Round"? I've never heard it referred to as anything but the latter... Dtsazza 15:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
The Round of 16 has 16 teams in it. It is the second round of the tournament. Therefore both are correct. Kingjeff 13:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I read somewhere (I don't remeber where , though) that Round 1 is the group stage, and Round 2 is everything else (ie - the Round of 16, quarterfinals, semifinals, third place match and final). So, Round of 16 and Round 2 are not the same thing. Now, to find that source... Mind matrix 15:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think you mean stages and not rounds. Within the knockout stage, you have the round of 16, Quarters, semis and the final. Kingjeff 15:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand the confusion now. It was over two meanings of "Possible teams":
I still think people will come to this page wanting to see who has qualified, who can still qualify, and to where they can qualify (ie. which position in the last 16). Superscript markings won't be very helpful - colours are better. And having each last 16 position filled with four candidates that are gradually eliminated is a graphic way of illustrating the process. Maybe a new template is needed that will show both the whole group, and the whittling away of teams that are eliminated. Carcharoth 15:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
England can come in second, Sweden and Paraguay can still come in first, Trinidad and Tobago can still go through, the only scenario that can't happen at this point is England NOT going through to the second stage or Trinidad finishing first! Batman2005 18:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Trinidad and Tobago is not out yet. They have a chance, and depending of the outcome of today's second game in the group, it may turn out to be a good chance actually. (Especially a draw, or even a Praguay win.) --
TimBits
18:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I never said they were out, just that they can't finish first as if they win their next game they'll have 4 points to Englands already established 6. Batman2005 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I know, I wrote in support of you and against the removal of the T-T flag. --
TimBits
18:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Here is the situation as it stands: England just beat Trinidad and Tobago 2-0 to go to 6 points; second is Sweden, on 1 point; Trinidad third, 1 point; Paraguay bottom, no points.
The three remaining games are Paraguay - Sweden (tonight), England - Sweden (next Tuesday) and Paraguay - Trinidad (Tuesday).
If Sweden beat Paraguay tonight, that puts them on 4 points; then beating England in their final game will put them top of the group on 7 points and England second on 6.
If Sweden draw with Paraguay, that puts Sweden on 2 points and Paraguay on 1, at which point England's group lead is unassailable and second place depends on whether Sweden can beat England (Sweden second), or if that match is a draw then the winners of Paraguay - Trinidad, goal difference pending (or Sweden if it's drawn).
If Paraguay beat Sweden tonight, that puts Paraguay on 3 points - but they can't overhaul England's 6 points because England beat them already. Second place then, again, depends on both results.
In summary; any team can still come second, but only England or Sweden can still come first.
Kinitawowi 18:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
What happens if next Sweden lose to England 1-0. And Trinidad & Tobago beat Paraguay 1-0.... Sweden and Trinidad will have exactly the same points and goal difference... the match between the two was a draw, so it couldn't be decided by that, what would happen? - Deathrocker 20:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Will someone please clarify the "During World Cup" link that sits below the two Archive links at the top of this page? It leads to a redirect that leads nowhere. -- Alias Flood 18:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Woah! Do we really need all these forks??
Are all these topics really encyclopedic?? Is anyone going to look at the list of broadcasting rights even one day after the tournament is over? And how about "miscellany"? You might as well just call it "random trivia". I really don't think that all these forks are really warrented. — 199 19:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
This list has expanded... At the very least, the naming of all these articles should be standardized. I've gone ahead, been bold and did that as well as fixing any double redirects...
These separate articles are going to be hard to keep updated and synched (not to mention well referenced within each article...). For example the disciplinary record section has been added to in the main article, but the larger more comprehensive article is out of date now... the info needs to be added to the correct locations... This is becoming a rapid pain in the ass... Paul C/ T + 21:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
I like it Bornagain4 01:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes '&' is used, sometimes 'and'. Is this just for spacing reasons or can all instances of '&' be replaced with 'and' as per the article naming scheme? Paul C/ T + 22:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Say the scores come out like this for Group B.
England - 6 Trinidad - 4 Sweden - 4 Paraguay - 0
How do they decide who advances for #2?
This page has been linked from time.com http://www.time.com/time/europe/2006/wcup/blogs/060615crumley.html Borisblue 02:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to see what other users thought of having all the Group Tables in one section instead of having them under each group section. I know its usually normal to have the table under each group but I think having one section to see all the groups and qualification at this point of the tournament would help instead of having to scroll down and look at each table. The tables could be put back as soon as the qualification rounds are complete. Any thoughts?
I've made a little Nav Box - it need logo, colour work, layout etc, but it's a start. Over to you...
Rich Farmbrough 09:27 16 June 2006 (GMT).
Can we have a policy about external links? I think what we have now is fine with the possible exception of the charity and ESPN. But can we agree to remove any added external links unless there is agreement on the talk page? They have a similar policy on the
Sudoku (
Talk:Sudoku#Proposed External Link) page
Jooler
11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In the Golden Boot section, it is asserted that Just Fontaine is the top goal-scorer ever in a World Cup, yet on his own article it states 'This tally secured him the Golden Boot for that tournament, and his total of 13 remains the second greatest number of goals scored in a single World Cup tournament.'... I sense a conflict here... 130.195.86.37 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Now, i'm generally all for photo's on wikipedia articles, but do we really need the stadium photos on this page? We've already got a list of venues with each's wikipedia page linked...simply clicking on those pages will take you to the exact same photo's we have here. As is all the stadium photos are doing is making the page longer and more difficult to navigate. Opinions? Batman2005 14:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Serbia and Montenegro are not mathematically eliminated yet, Netherlands loosing the next two games and a Serbia and Montenegro win could result in a three-way tie for second place. Dcorrin 15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah agree. I think there're still a lot of people who still think that 6 points equals automatic qualification and 0 points with 1 game to go equals automatic elimination. Hope that there will not be such assumptions in future. Kiwi8 15:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
The article currently says
If teams are even on points at the end of group play, the tied teams will be ranked as follows:
|
Surely 4 is irrelevant. If you can't break the tie on 3, then the two teams must have played to a draw in which case the "Goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned" will be the same. Jooler 15:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Can someone explain this to me in English. The "futbol" speak is confusing me.
Thanx, it really did.
I think the editing has gotted very chaotic. Do you guys agree that we should restrict editing to users with user names? Thanks in advance. Kiwi8 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that the new table looks are an improvement to what it was before. The table with the Stadiums (Stadia?) has the huge map now embedded within it. It unnecessarily stretches the page. Is it possible to thumbnail that map like the "qualified natiosn" map? (I would do it... but the details of the pic looks a little weird to me...) ScottNak 17:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
What happened to the equation part underneath the group sections?
Bornagain4
17:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)- :moved to the group articles I think.
Rich
Farmbrough 17:54
16 June
2006 (GMT).