![]() | 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. |
Someone has moved the scorers of teams in the matches and now it looks all moved. Someone please fix it.
Brilliant work on a fantastic set of articles! Well presented, always updated. So much voluntary work by so many people. A showcase for Wikipedia's collaborative methods. Awesome! -- Dumbo1 23:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree, great work by wiki on the world cup. Wikipedia is a million times better than the crooks at FIFA, I am sickened. This world cup has been a joke. This is not even real football with the crooks runing this Cup. It really is sad, how they block korean users, cover up the 3 yellow cards against suminic....how can they do this??? They make excuses for the refs....it really is pathetic, and what they are doing to their website with users...Bravo to wikipedia for truth Flyintothesky
I just wanted to mention this here before I start doing it - the detail of the matches is to be moved to the 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A etc. pages, with only result summaries here. The group sections will look like this:
|
|
This was discussed at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 4#Sandbox for redesigned Group section (post first round) with virtually no opposition. (Note: I have made VERY minor layout changes to the example shown there.) -- Chuq 05:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the above set-up needs to be used on the Groups pages as well. You could start by using it there, and then seeing if people like it enough to use it here. At the moment, when you load a page, say for Group A, you have to scroll a long way down to see the results, and they are not all grouped together. Similarly, for the current World Cup article, you have to scroll a long way down to get to the "Round of 16". I'll add a link in the introduction. Carcharoth 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I vote for the new layout. Not many are interested after a while about the points scored, goals for and goals against. Proposed layout gives brief information and if user wants more, it is always available separate article.
One more point also that, can we remove the group match details from this article? Article size is really huge and it slows down the browser very much.
24.5.19.13 17:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Santhosh.
I think that the above layout should feature on the main page (in place of the detailed match info) and the group pages (in addition to the detailed match info). I have a layout suggestion though: move the right-hand box down so that the "Date" and "Teams" headings are horizontally in line with the "Team", "Pts", "Pld", etc., headings of the left-hand box. I'd also shift the right-hand box a little more to the right. Otherwise, I think it looks great. -- Hux 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the "Group A" example above to use some elements of the Greek wikipedia's article, you can compare it to the previous layout by checking Groups B, C and D on my sandbox page at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Group, and also have a look at how I think the group pages should look: 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A. -- Chuq 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned this earlier - but I don't think I've ever heard the term "Round of 16" before. The other night Gary Lineker on the BBC coverage said something like - "So France are now through to what the American's annoyingly call the 'Round of 16'." - and in The Guardian on Thursday, Nicky Campbell wrote "CNN is ever-present in German hotels and guest houses and it is terrible. Most galling are its British journalists who adhere to company policy, spewing out guff like "a one to nothing victory", "the opening half", and "scoreless tie". And, worst of all - "the round of 16". I don't care what anyone else says, I yearn for Motty". [1] Jooler 08:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My understanding, probably wrong, is that the terminology is "first stage" for the group stage, which has three rounds of matches. Then there is the "second stage" or knock-out stage, where losing teams are automatically knocked out of the tournament. This second stage has four rounds: the Round of 16 is the first round of the second stage; the Quarter-Finals is the second round of the second stage, etc. So there are 7 rounds in total at the finals of the World Cup (preceded by various qualification and play-off competitions), but divided between 2 stages. Dunno what you would call the third-fourth play-off. Pointless? :-) Carcharoth 11:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The excel sheet of the fantasy football competition of FIFA/Yahoo! shows Round of 16 too though. Eighth-finals would be the British equivalent i guess, but I'm not sure this point deserves all this discussion. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 11:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel that "Round of 16" is fine. It lets us know how many teams are in this round... just like in quarterfinals we have 8 teams, semifinals we have 4 teams, etc. Kiwi8 12:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm a bit confused as to why we are having such a discussion. If FIFA calls it "Round of 16", why would we do otherwise? -- Deville ( Talk) 22:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Batman2005 that we should call it the Round of 16, like FIFA do. Batman, do you agree that there should be a footnote mentioning the other names for this round? And talking about commentators being annoying, the BBC commentators made an annoying error tonight. They mistakenly thought that Torrado (for Mexico) was mistakenly booked for a foul made by Castro a few moments previously. It was obvious that the referee had booked Torrado for kicking the ball away, not for the foul. The commentators then made a big thing out of it, saying three or four times that the card would be rescinded, and that (later in the game when Castro got booked) that it would have been a red if the earlier "mistake" hadn't happened, and saying that Mexico would "quite rightly complain". I've never heard such bilge. I want a Wiki commentator that I can rewind and correct!! :-) Carcharoth 22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, and to make the, ahem, discussion, slightly more relevan to the article, what is happening with Hernan Crespo's "goal". Are they giving to him because of the slightest of touches he made on the ball? Does that turn the defender's header (and own goal) into a deflection? Surely that is only if they can be sure Crespo's touch had sent the ball towards the goal. Carcharoth 23:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I may have been wrong, but didn't we agree that for the Knockout stages map, we can keep the participants of the group in the group stage so that we know at a glance a knockout qualifier came from? Kiwi8 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The introduction was looking a bit dated and incomplete, so I rewrote it. I think the last paragraph could still be rewritten, but left it there for others to play around with:
The 2006 FIFA World Cup is a high profile international football championship, the finals tournament of which is being held in Germany. The championship began in December 2003 with the draw for a series of qualification tournaments and play-offs that resulted in 31 national teams qualifying for the finals tournament. Germany, as the host country, brought the total number of teams to 32. The finals tournament of the 2006 World Cup began on 9 June 2006 and will end on 9 July 2006. The first stage was the Group stage, where the 32 teams were divided into 8 groups of 4 teams. The teams in these groups of four competed in three-round round-robin tournaments to find two teams from each group (a total of 16) to advance to the knock-out stage. The Group stage was completed on 23 June 2006. The knockout stage starts on 24 June 2006, and progressive elimination of teams through quarter-finals and semi-finals, will finish with the World Cup Final, the final match on 9 July 2006. The World Cup Final will determine the World Cup champion and will be played in Berlin.
The 2006 finals are the eighteenth to be contested. The host country and football federation is Germany, who in June 2000, won the right to host the event, beating bids from South Africa (who will host the 2010 World Cup), Brazil, England and Morocco.
Carcharoth 12:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Individual_scorers doesn't distinguish between players whose teams are still in the tournament, and those who are not. Would it be possible to have a colour marking those who are still active, so we can see who is still in the running for the Golden Boot, and who isn't? I don't know how to do this, but it would be informative piece of formatting. Also, if someone in the list is injured, that should be noted as well. Carcharoth 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I corrected some unupdated information in the Group G, the results of the last two matches of the group here wrongly implemented in the score table. Also, the colours of the eliminated teams of groups F and G were wrong. Note: Is UNUPDATED a real english word? PlaGa701 6/24/6 11:24 (GTM -4)
PlaGa701 12:39, 24 June 2006 GTM -4
Please, do not update the Knockout stage table before the end of the matches. It makes no sense and can be misleading, especially if someone doesn't know that the match is still being played. Afonso Silva 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between these two? when rendered it looks like that, ANGf is shown as Portugal.
24.5.19.13 17:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Santhosh
I know this has been thoroughly discussed, but the article just has to be at least semi-protected during games and for several hours after them. The vandalism and early updates are just out of control. There are many good contributors, but there are lots of people trying to update the same statistics creating conflicts. Phoenix 2 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can fully protect just the group stage results? There's no need to keep it open. Kingjeff 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What would be possible is to create templates for the group tables, and then protect the templates. This could be extended to anything involving results, but would rely on an admin being there to update results and/or unprotect as soon as the game is over. Carcharoth 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I think we should do that. Group stage is over and no need to edit that section. Kingjeff 22:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Titanic (magazine)#Football World Cup 2006 Bribery Affair
The longer german article de:Wie Titanic einmal die Fußball-WM 2006 nach Deutschland holte. Trans(I hope :): How take Titanic once the world cup 2006 to germany.-- LaWa 00:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a new logo being purportedly sported by FIFA for the '06 world cup. Whomever made and published the ridiculous graphic of a Microsoft Paint created swastika kicking an oblong blur should 1. work on their wit and candor to attempt to offend someone, 2. be banned from wikipedia for vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martjoseph ( talk • contribs) .
One thing I noticed for the matchups in the knockout stages that while it reveals where the game is being played the link is to the location, not the stadium. Is it alright to change the links to saying Berlin instead of Berlin. -- Lummie 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
For those who are paying attention to World Cup on TV, dont the soccer fields look smaller now in the Group of 16 games than they did in the first round of 32? The players are so close together and one can see both flanks of the filed in one screen shot. Does anyone know why or can anyone explain?-- Xlegiofalco 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
They are using the same pitches, dont ask such stupid questions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.130.141 ( talk • contribs).
Obviously, the pitch is the same. And changing pitch dimensions is not that easy, you must remove the paint and paint it again. If the pitch looks smaller it's your impression. Afonso Silva 19:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether it's a good question or bad question or stupid question, it's really doesn't matter. Kingjeff 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The pitch size can´t be changed (at least the length) because the goal posts are firmly set in concrete shafts; they also couldt simply dig new, closer holes because most pitches have a heating grid below the soil. One reason why the players might seem closer together now could be that the teams in the finals are generally more mobile and fitter tan some of the contenders in the group stage - the players are simply more capable of closing the gaps.
Could it not be that they have moved the camera's to a better angle? enabling the whole width of the pitch to be seen? Arnie1066 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Great site. But there's no information for what cards are being given out.
Did this match set a new record for most cards in a game ? sikander 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It was funny seeing the sent-off players Deco and van Bronckhorst (who are Barcelona clubmates) sitting together discussing the match. :) Kiwi8 21:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Portugal in its best! We rock!
Afonso Silva
21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
In the next match we'll beat the English once more, we have 23 players and Ronaldo is going to recover, Merche Romero will help. The English are in bad position, Rooney will have to work on his McDonalds part time, Beckam has a schedule in the hairdresser and Crouch will be in the mechanic. Afonso Silva 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
How bout you all make a better referee controversy subsection in the 2006 Fifa World Cup article? Some have been absolutely atrocious... -- Palffy 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering that most people will be looking at that now, it makes sense to me that that should be at the top. I don't want to be rash and move it up there without any prior notice, though. Comments and criticism welcomed. eszett talk 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That will just be temporary. leave it where it is because that is more logical long term. Kingjeff 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
2006 FIFA World Cup#Refereeing_controversies is tagged as unreferenced. I added one, but it needs several more before removal of the tag is justified.
It is also tagged as NPOV. Again probably justified. Needs some rewording and some citations to fix this.
Finally, it's tagged for cleanup. Bad grammar and repeated phrases mostly. Should be fairly easy to get it to a state to remove the cleanup tag. -- GraemeL (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I did a little work on it. Hope it's a start. Kingjeff 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
One thing that bothers me, regarding the request for citations is that, for example, the television commentators on the BBC commented on the numbers of yellow and red cards issued. This is, of course, without on-demand playback, which is often not available, uncitable, but nevertheless true. How does one go about justifying things said by commentators live, but no longer available? M0RHI 23:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I renamed the section to "Refereeing controversies". I think that it's more accurate. It would be "Referee controversies" if the controversy was over the selection of referees. -- GraemeL (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"In the same match, Russian official Valentin Ivanov also came in for criticism for ignoring the pleas of two Dutch players who seemed obviously to have been fouled in the penalty area near the end of the first half, first when striker Dirk Kuyt appeared to have been hauled down by Portuguese defender Ricardo Carvalho,[citation needed] and moments later on the same play when Arjen Robben was kicked in the shoulder and brought to the ground by a high-flying lunge from Nuno Valente, but was out-ruled by an offside awarded to the Dutch attack.[citation needed]. In the other hand, Portugal complained about a red-card deserving harsh foul over Cristiano Ronaldo, who had to be substituted. Also, Deco's sent off was considered ridiculous, since the fault was clearly done by the Dutch player."
^ This section is POV and has elements of bias, I for one disagree with most of the examples as did English TV commentators. May be more sensible to label said decisions 'contentious' or 'debateable'.
I am inclinded to disagree, in that at the very least Graham Poll's refereeing of Croatia v Australia (unprecedented 3 yellow cards) and the recent Portugal v Netherlands game (record breaking red cards, record equalling yellow cards, nature of the game in general, its importance) should warrant a mention somewhere within the article.-- Anthonymous 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's all. Skinnyweed 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In what way? Kingjeff 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In a format such as [title] [publisher] [author] [date] and optional [date of access]. Skinnyweed 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I THINK THAT PART SHOULD BE DELETED FROM PAGE, REFEREES ARE HUMAN , MAKE MISTAKES, ERRORS OCCURS IN EVERY COMPETITION IN EVERY SPORT SO I THINK IS AN USELESS AND POINTLESS ARTICLE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.114.28.174 ( talk • contribs).
I can't find the section, but I think it has become more relevent based on Sepp Blatter's critical comments [4]. -- Ellis kev 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the current player should be in bold because it stands out better, what do u all think?. 01sbrightwell 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) I totally agree Kingjeff 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism on england's game. Please correct it
Should we have a section for controversial referee decisions? I think we ought to as those matches will be remembered. For instance italy vs usa, portugal vs netherlands, and now italy vs australia. I think everyone would agree that these were controversial matches. However, the section will have to be NPOV and that might be hard to do. sikander 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this world cup is so controversial, there has been a lot of mistakes by the refs, but that's normal. It's part of this game, players are human, and the refs are too. I don't think that's enough material to call this a controversial world cup. If you read on more "neutral" press, you'll discover that isn't really so controversial, they all make reference to certain mistakes, but didn't call it a setted up cup like four years ago... that was real controversy, there was teams like Korea or Brazil that has one-sided referees in a lot of games, but in this world cup the mistakes are for every side. Portugal against Netherlands was a tough game, but Ivanov show cards to the two teams, all the sent-offs were by double yellow. Italy-usa was the same; Criminal elbow to the face, criminal kick to the ankle deserves red cards. In today's game of Italy, they were 45 minutes with ten men because a polemic red card to Materazzi, Australia didn't score and there was a polemic penalty kick to Italy, but that's not controversial, call it bad refeering, but no controversial. You can't say Italy got the ref help, they were with the water on their neck all second period. Same for Portugal or Netherlands, no one got help. And are specific games, if this world cup is setted up controversy should be in Germany games, but those have been very good matches. The refs makes mistakes and that's part of the most beautiful game of the world, it makes it more human. By the way... yesterday game of Por vs. Ned was really good, expulsions and the heat ofall players make it one of the best of this tournament. -- Bauta 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should put in brackets the scorers of penaulty sgoot outs because it is a goal, but i know it dosent count for the boot , what do u all think? 01sbrightwell 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The record amount of players who have scored in their third world cup during the current tournament, plus the count by ESPN which I find inaccurate, plus a recent edit in the Raul Gonzalez article saying he was the 4th ever to do it, lead me to enter my list here, to see if someone can comment on this, on whether this is an agreeable list, or correct any errors. Thanks in advance. ChaChaFut 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Players who have scored in at least three world cups
(First 14 not necessarily in exact order)
I just have to ask, before this might get added to the trivia section... a quick look at the previous results show that not only are the Swiss the only team to not give up a goal in a World Cup tournament (as far as I know, no champion has pitched all clean sheets), but I believe that they may be the first team to not score at all in a penalty shootout, when they went out 0-0 (0-3) to Ukraine. Wjmorris3 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I added something about it. Kingjeff 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The statement on least PK scored is also correct. The worst shooting team in a single PK shutout had until now been Mexico, with 1 goal (recorded twice, in 1986 and 1994). ChaChaFut 02:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As much as I'm sure the Portugese would love it, Portugal has not yet beaten Argentina 5-4 in the World Cup Final. Please remove this from the knockout ladder. -- Australian Matt 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that add a semi-protection to this page to avoid some unregistered super-fans vandaling this page. Daylight 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Serious efforts need to be made to bring the size of this article down from 60+ KB to a manageable 32 KB. I recommend making the changes discussed here. Making said changes would reduce the amount of extraneous information. Further splitting of the article is impossible. Efforts should be made to trim article size. Thoughts, comments, suggestions? Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I shouldn't worry about the 32 limit. That old standard no longer applies and we have plent of articles large than that. Jooler 05:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
For more information, see 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group E
Italy [Points, GD, W/T/L, etc.] USA 0-3 CZE Ghana [goes here ] ITA 2-0 GHA Czech Republic [ ] CZE 0-2 GHA USA [ ] ITA 1-1 USA CZE 0-2 ITA GHA 2-1 USA
Match scores would be linked to the very detailed match report in the daughter article. Thoughts? Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
2006 FIFA World Cup
number of edits 7511 number of minor edits 1699 (22.6%) first edit 12/12/2002 14:34 (Mintguy) most recent edit 06/27/2006 07:38 (IanManka) mean time between edits 4:07 h unique editors 2558 (1573 IP addresses) average number of edits per user 2.9 number of edits within last day 263 number of edits within last week 2201 number of edits within last month 5964 number of edits within last year 7279
Take a look at those statistics! Over 5900 edits in the past month. Thanks to everyone who has worked on this article so far. Retrieved from [10]. Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I added a trivia section, and today it has been removed. Why? Couldn't it be easier to keep up with the trivia when it is added as soon as it happens? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.138.75 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should be s-protected during match times, and unprotected during other times.--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 (review me!) 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
On the scores for the games, it lists Spain beating France 5-0, when the game hasn't even taken place for another hour or so... -- Slappy.McGee 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have heard a lot about it should Fussball because FIFA is locationed in Switzerland, but not is not a good reason becuase the World Cup isn't in Switzerland. It is in Germany where they would use Fußball. Please give some better reasons, I will listen. -- Je suis t\ c 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any objections. Kingjeff 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay people who object, why in the 2002 world cup page did they use Korean and Japanese, shouldn't there be a language that is spoken in Switzerland, obviously that can't be right, I should go to that page and change into Swiss German, French, or Italian, maybe even Romanish. Also you can't just put one thing of the swiss german dialect in there it has to all be different compared to standard German. Or hey let's change to french becuase that is the offical language FIFA, but make sure it is the correct dialect Swiss French! -- Je suis t\ c 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that Swiss German dialect is anyway involved in this "ß/ss" debate. The fact that FIFA is swiss is simply pointless. When the cup was hosted by Italy they used the italian name and the same happened in France, so there's no reason why they should use Swiss now instead of German. But it is allowed, under certain conditions, to write standard German with some translitterations (for example when you are writing in German on a US keyboard). So you can find "Mueller" instead of "Müller" or "Strasse" for "Straße". FIFA may have decided to write Fussball because it is an allowed form of German which is immediately (and correctly) readable by most people. 130.251.4.11 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
On the official World Cup website, FIFA uses 'fussball.' Maybe it's because they're Swiss, maybe it's because its easier to read, maybe it's because someone was too lazy to type a special character and maybe it's for no reason at all - but the fact is that that is the official spelling and is therefore the one we should use. Moszczynski 13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought this page is semi-protected...I just saw all countries flags were switched to U.S.A. flag, and a match just finished too.
Article is currently protected against anon edits. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed numerous times here, here, here, and here. As per WP:PPOL#Uses
Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Italy the only team in this year's world cup so far never to have had another team score against them?
How about an article on the burgeoning Portugal v England rivalry?
We have England and Germany football rivalry and Argentina and England football rivalry; but we're still missing THE BIG ONE England and Scotland football rivalry. England and Portugal doesn't really match up. Jooler 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
They met in the '66 World Cup, '86 World Cup, Euro 2000, Euro 2004, World Cup 2006. I said it's a burgeoning rivalry. But you are right, an England-Scotland article is needed.
What does "to come here:" means?, the quarters finals section have been altered, Why? PlaGa701 28 June 2006 9:52 (GTM -4)
The link we have for the GER-ARG match report ( [11]) already has the final score filled in! 2-1 to Germany aet. Very unprofessional from Fifa, but what's new? How long before someone realises? SLUMGUM yap stalk 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see a list of scorers by clubs. As I write this I think Chelsea have 8 World Cup Goals, Arsenal 7. Not sure about Real Madrid. 86.17.246.75 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Chelsea players have only scored 6 goals. Kingjeff 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Shevchenko isn't an epl player till July 1st. Kingjeff 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning, perhaps with a footnote, that now that Montenegro is independant from Serbia they will play as two different nations in future world cups? Wikibout- Talk to me! 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems difficult to notice the link to the 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany page under the heading == See also ==, so I gave it a separate heading. -- Oden 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Someone has moved the scorers of teams in the matches and now it looks all moved. Someone please fix it.
Brilliant work on a fantastic set of articles! Well presented, always updated. So much voluntary work by so many people. A showcase for Wikipedia's collaborative methods. Awesome! -- Dumbo1 23:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Completely agree, great work by wiki on the world cup. Wikipedia is a million times better than the crooks at FIFA, I am sickened. This world cup has been a joke. This is not even real football with the crooks runing this Cup. It really is sad, how they block korean users, cover up the 3 yellow cards against suminic....how can they do this??? They make excuses for the refs....it really is pathetic, and what they are doing to their website with users...Bravo to wikipedia for truth Flyintothesky
I just wanted to mention this here before I start doing it - the detail of the matches is to be moved to the 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A etc. pages, with only result summaries here. The group sections will look like this:
|
|
This was discussed at Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 4#Sandbox for redesigned Group section (post first round) with virtually no opposition. (Note: I have made VERY minor layout changes to the example shown there.) -- Chuq 05:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I think the above set-up needs to be used on the Groups pages as well. You could start by using it there, and then seeing if people like it enough to use it here. At the moment, when you load a page, say for Group A, you have to scroll a long way down to see the results, and they are not all grouped together. Similarly, for the current World Cup article, you have to scroll a long way down to get to the "Round of 16". I'll add a link in the introduction. Carcharoth 12:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I vote for the new layout. Not many are interested after a while about the points scored, goals for and goals against. Proposed layout gives brief information and if user wants more, it is always available separate article.
One more point also that, can we remove the group match details from this article? Article size is really huge and it slows down the browser very much.
24.5.19.13 17:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Santhosh.
I think that the above layout should feature on the main page (in place of the detailed match info) and the group pages (in addition to the detailed match info). I have a layout suggestion though: move the right-hand box down so that the "Date" and "Teams" headings are horizontally in line with the "Team", "Pts", "Pld", etc., headings of the left-hand box. I'd also shift the right-hand box a little more to the right. Otherwise, I think it looks great. -- Hux 18:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I have edited the "Group A" example above to use some elements of the Greek wikipedia's article, you can compare it to the previous layout by checking Groups B, C and D on my sandbox page at User:Chuq/Sandbox/Group, and also have a look at how I think the group pages should look: 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group A. -- Chuq 03:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I mentioned this earlier - but I don't think I've ever heard the term "Round of 16" before. The other night Gary Lineker on the BBC coverage said something like - "So France are now through to what the American's annoyingly call the 'Round of 16'." - and in The Guardian on Thursday, Nicky Campbell wrote "CNN is ever-present in German hotels and guest houses and it is terrible. Most galling are its British journalists who adhere to company policy, spewing out guff like "a one to nothing victory", "the opening half", and "scoreless tie". And, worst of all - "the round of 16". I don't care what anyone else says, I yearn for Motty". [1] Jooler 08:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
My understanding, probably wrong, is that the terminology is "first stage" for the group stage, which has three rounds of matches. Then there is the "second stage" or knock-out stage, where losing teams are automatically knocked out of the tournament. This second stage has four rounds: the Round of 16 is the first round of the second stage; the Quarter-Finals is the second round of the second stage, etc. So there are 7 rounds in total at the finals of the World Cup (preceded by various qualification and play-off competitions), but divided between 2 stages. Dunno what you would call the third-fourth play-off. Pointless? :-) Carcharoth 11:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The excel sheet of the fantasy football competition of FIFA/Yahoo! shows Round of 16 too though. Eighth-finals would be the British equivalent i guess, but I'm not sure this point deserves all this discussion. └ VodkaJazz / talk ┐ 11:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I feel that "Round of 16" is fine. It lets us know how many teams are in this round... just like in quarterfinals we have 8 teams, semifinals we have 4 teams, etc. Kiwi8 12:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I have to say that I'm a bit confused as to why we are having such a discussion. If FIFA calls it "Round of 16", why would we do otherwise? -- Deville ( Talk) 22:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Batman2005 that we should call it the Round of 16, like FIFA do. Batman, do you agree that there should be a footnote mentioning the other names for this round? And talking about commentators being annoying, the BBC commentators made an annoying error tonight. They mistakenly thought that Torrado (for Mexico) was mistakenly booked for a foul made by Castro a few moments previously. It was obvious that the referee had booked Torrado for kicking the ball away, not for the foul. The commentators then made a big thing out of it, saying three or four times that the card would be rescinded, and that (later in the game when Castro got booked) that it would have been a red if the earlier "mistake" hadn't happened, and saying that Mexico would "quite rightly complain". I've never heard such bilge. I want a Wiki commentator that I can rewind and correct!! :-) Carcharoth 22:22, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
More to the point, and to make the, ahem, discussion, slightly more relevan to the article, what is happening with Hernan Crespo's "goal". Are they giving to him because of the slightest of touches he made on the ball? Does that turn the defender's header (and own goal) into a deflection? Surely that is only if they can be sure Crespo's touch had sent the ball towards the goal. Carcharoth 23:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I may have been wrong, but didn't we agree that for the Knockout stages map, we can keep the participants of the group in the group stage so that we know at a glance a knockout qualifier came from? Kiwi8 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The introduction was looking a bit dated and incomplete, so I rewrote it. I think the last paragraph could still be rewritten, but left it there for others to play around with:
The 2006 FIFA World Cup is a high profile international football championship, the finals tournament of which is being held in Germany. The championship began in December 2003 with the draw for a series of qualification tournaments and play-offs that resulted in 31 national teams qualifying for the finals tournament. Germany, as the host country, brought the total number of teams to 32. The finals tournament of the 2006 World Cup began on 9 June 2006 and will end on 9 July 2006. The first stage was the Group stage, where the 32 teams were divided into 8 groups of 4 teams. The teams in these groups of four competed in three-round round-robin tournaments to find two teams from each group (a total of 16) to advance to the knock-out stage. The Group stage was completed on 23 June 2006. The knockout stage starts on 24 June 2006, and progressive elimination of teams through quarter-finals and semi-finals, will finish with the World Cup Final, the final match on 9 July 2006. The World Cup Final will determine the World Cup champion and will be played in Berlin.
The 2006 finals are the eighteenth to be contested. The host country and football federation is Germany, who in June 2000, won the right to host the event, beating bids from South Africa (who will host the 2010 World Cup), Brazil, England and Morocco.
Carcharoth 12:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
2006_FIFA_World_Cup#Individual_scorers doesn't distinguish between players whose teams are still in the tournament, and those who are not. Would it be possible to have a colour marking those who are still active, so we can see who is still in the running for the Golden Boot, and who isn't? I don't know how to do this, but it would be informative piece of formatting. Also, if someone in the list is injured, that should be noted as well. Carcharoth 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I corrected some unupdated information in the Group G, the results of the last two matches of the group here wrongly implemented in the score table. Also, the colours of the eliminated teams of groups F and G were wrong. Note: Is UNUPDATED a real english word? PlaGa701 6/24/6 11:24 (GTM -4)
PlaGa701 12:39, 24 June 2006 GTM -4
Please, do not update the Knockout stage table before the end of the matches. It makes no sense and can be misleading, especially if someone doesn't know that the match is still being played. Afonso Silva 17:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What is the difference between these two? when rendered it looks like that, ANGf is shown as Portugal.
24.5.19.13 17:33, 24 June 2006 (UTC) Santhosh
I know this has been thoroughly discussed, but the article just has to be at least semi-protected during games and for several hours after them. The vandalism and early updates are just out of control. There are many good contributors, but there are lots of people trying to update the same statistics creating conflicts. Phoenix 2 21:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Is there anyway we can fully protect just the group stage results? There's no need to keep it open. Kingjeff 22:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
What would be possible is to create templates for the group tables, and then protect the templates. This could be extended to anything involving results, but would rely on an admin being there to update results and/or unprotect as soon as the game is over. Carcharoth 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok. I think we should do that. Group stage is over and no need to edit that section. Kingjeff 22:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Titanic (magazine)#Football World Cup 2006 Bribery Affair
The longer german article de:Wie Titanic einmal die Fußball-WM 2006 nach Deutschland holte. Trans(I hope :): How take Titanic once the world cup 2006 to germany.-- LaWa 00:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I noticed a new logo being purportedly sported by FIFA for the '06 world cup. Whomever made and published the ridiculous graphic of a Microsoft Paint created swastika kicking an oblong blur should 1. work on their wit and candor to attempt to offend someone, 2. be banned from wikipedia for vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Martjoseph ( talk • contribs) .
One thing I noticed for the matchups in the knockout stages that while it reveals where the game is being played the link is to the location, not the stadium. Is it alright to change the links to saying Berlin instead of Berlin. -- Lummie 09:36, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
For those who are paying attention to World Cup on TV, dont the soccer fields look smaller now in the Group of 16 games than they did in the first round of 32? The players are so close together and one can see both flanks of the filed in one screen shot. Does anyone know why or can anyone explain?-- Xlegiofalco 15:22, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
They are using the same pitches, dont ask such stupid questions —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.37.130.141 ( talk • contribs).
Obviously, the pitch is the same. And changing pitch dimensions is not that easy, you must remove the paint and paint it again. If the pitch looks smaller it's your impression. Afonso Silva 19:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Whether it's a good question or bad question or stupid question, it's really doesn't matter. Kingjeff 19:59, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
The pitch size can´t be changed (at least the length) because the goal posts are firmly set in concrete shafts; they also couldt simply dig new, closer holes because most pitches have a heating grid below the soil. One reason why the players might seem closer together now could be that the teams in the finals are generally more mobile and fitter tan some of the contenders in the group stage - the players are simply more capable of closing the gaps.
Could it not be that they have moved the camera's to a better angle? enabling the whole width of the pitch to be seen? Arnie1066 07:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Great site. But there's no information for what cards are being given out.
Did this match set a new record for most cards in a game ? sikander 21:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
It was funny seeing the sent-off players Deco and van Bronckhorst (who are Barcelona clubmates) sitting together discussing the match. :) Kiwi8 21:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Portugal in its best! We rock!
Afonso Silva
21:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
In the next match we'll beat the English once more, we have 23 players and Ronaldo is going to recover, Merche Romero will help. The English are in bad position, Rooney will have to work on his McDonalds part time, Beckam has a schedule in the hairdresser and Crouch will be in the mechanic. Afonso Silva 21:32, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
How bout you all make a better referee controversy subsection in the 2006 Fifa World Cup article? Some have been absolutely atrocious... -- Palffy 21:44, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Considering that most people will be looking at that now, it makes sense to me that that should be at the top. I don't want to be rash and move it up there without any prior notice, though. Comments and criticism welcomed. eszett talk 21:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
That will just be temporary. leave it where it is because that is more logical long term. Kingjeff 22:00, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
2006 FIFA World Cup#Refereeing_controversies is tagged as unreferenced. I added one, but it needs several more before removal of the tag is justified.
It is also tagged as NPOV. Again probably justified. Needs some rewording and some citations to fix this.
Finally, it's tagged for cleanup. Bad grammar and repeated phrases mostly. Should be fairly easy to get it to a state to remove the cleanup tag. -- GraemeL (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I did a little work on it. Hope it's a start. Kingjeff 22:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
One thing that bothers me, regarding the request for citations is that, for example, the television commentators on the BBC commented on the numbers of yellow and red cards issued. This is, of course, without on-demand playback, which is often not available, uncitable, but nevertheless true. How does one go about justifying things said by commentators live, but no longer available? M0RHI 23:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I renamed the section to "Refereeing controversies". I think that it's more accurate. It would be "Referee controversies" if the controversy was over the selection of referees. -- GraemeL (talk) 23:35, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
"In the same match, Russian official Valentin Ivanov also came in for criticism for ignoring the pleas of two Dutch players who seemed obviously to have been fouled in the penalty area near the end of the first half, first when striker Dirk Kuyt appeared to have been hauled down by Portuguese defender Ricardo Carvalho,[citation needed] and moments later on the same play when Arjen Robben was kicked in the shoulder and brought to the ground by a high-flying lunge from Nuno Valente, but was out-ruled by an offside awarded to the Dutch attack.[citation needed]. In the other hand, Portugal complained about a red-card deserving harsh foul over Cristiano Ronaldo, who had to be substituted. Also, Deco's sent off was considered ridiculous, since the fault was clearly done by the Dutch player."
^ This section is POV and has elements of bias, I for one disagree with most of the examples as did English TV commentators. May be more sensible to label said decisions 'contentious' or 'debateable'.
I am inclinded to disagree, in that at the very least Graham Poll's refereeing of Croatia v Australia (unprecedented 3 yellow cards) and the recent Portugal v Netherlands game (record breaking red cards, record equalling yellow cards, nature of the game in general, its importance) should warrant a mention somewhere within the article.-- Anthonymous 04:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
That's all. Skinnyweed 00:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In what way? Kingjeff 00:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
In a format such as [title] [publisher] [author] [date] and optional [date of access]. Skinnyweed 01:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I THINK THAT PART SHOULD BE DELETED FROM PAGE, REFEREES ARE HUMAN , MAKE MISTAKES, ERRORS OCCURS IN EVERY COMPETITION IN EVERY SPORT SO I THINK IS AN USELESS AND POINTLESS ARTICLE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.114.28.174 ( talk • contribs).
I can't find the section, but I think it has become more relevent based on Sepp Blatter's critical comments [4]. -- Ellis kev 16:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the current player should be in bold because it stands out better, what do u all think?. 01sbrightwell 14:20, 26 June 2006 (UTC) I totally agree Kingjeff 13:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism on england's game. Please correct it
Should we have a section for controversial referee decisions? I think we ought to as those matches will be remembered. For instance italy vs usa, portugal vs netherlands, and now italy vs australia. I think everyone would agree that these were controversial matches. However, the section will have to be NPOV and that might be hard to do. sikander 17:03, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think this world cup is so controversial, there has been a lot of mistakes by the refs, but that's normal. It's part of this game, players are human, and the refs are too. I don't think that's enough material to call this a controversial world cup. If you read on more "neutral" press, you'll discover that isn't really so controversial, they all make reference to certain mistakes, but didn't call it a setted up cup like four years ago... that was real controversy, there was teams like Korea or Brazil that has one-sided referees in a lot of games, but in this world cup the mistakes are for every side. Portugal against Netherlands was a tough game, but Ivanov show cards to the two teams, all the sent-offs were by double yellow. Italy-usa was the same; Criminal elbow to the face, criminal kick to the ankle deserves red cards. In today's game of Italy, they were 45 minutes with ten men because a polemic red card to Materazzi, Australia didn't score and there was a polemic penalty kick to Italy, but that's not controversial, call it bad refeering, but no controversial. You can't say Italy got the ref help, they were with the water on their neck all second period. Same for Portugal or Netherlands, no one got help. And are specific games, if this world cup is setted up controversy should be in Germany games, but those have been very good matches. The refs makes mistakes and that's part of the most beautiful game of the world, it makes it more human. By the way... yesterday game of Por vs. Ned was really good, expulsions and the heat ofall players make it one of the best of this tournament. -- Bauta 17:33, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
I think we should put in brackets the scorers of penaulty sgoot outs because it is a goal, but i know it dosent count for the boot , what do u all think? 01sbrightwell 00:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The record amount of players who have scored in their third world cup during the current tournament, plus the count by ESPN which I find inaccurate, plus a recent edit in the Raul Gonzalez article saying he was the 4th ever to do it, lead me to enter my list here, to see if someone can comment on this, on whether this is an agreeable list, or correct any errors. Thanks in advance. ChaChaFut 02:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Players who have scored in at least three world cups
(First 14 not necessarily in exact order)
I just have to ask, before this might get added to the trivia section... a quick look at the previous results show that not only are the Swiss the only team to not give up a goal in a World Cup tournament (as far as I know, no champion has pitched all clean sheets), but I believe that they may be the first team to not score at all in a penalty shootout, when they went out 0-0 (0-3) to Ukraine. Wjmorris3 02:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I added something about it. Kingjeff 02:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
The statement on least PK scored is also correct. The worst shooting team in a single PK shutout had until now been Mexico, with 1 goal (recorded twice, in 1986 and 1994). ChaChaFut 02:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
As much as I'm sure the Portugese would love it, Portugal has not yet beaten Argentina 5-4 in the World Cup Final. Please remove this from the knockout ladder. -- Australian Matt 03:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting that add a semi-protection to this page to avoid some unregistered super-fans vandaling this page. Daylight 04:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Serious efforts need to be made to bring the size of this article down from 60+ KB to a manageable 32 KB. I recommend making the changes discussed here. Making said changes would reduce the amount of extraneous information. Further splitting of the article is impossible. Efforts should be made to trim article size. Thoughts, comments, suggestions? Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:55, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I shouldn't worry about the 32 limit. That old standard no longer applies and we have plent of articles large than that. Jooler 05:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
For more information, see 2006 FIFA World Cup - Group E
Italy [Points, GD, W/T/L, etc.] USA 0-3 CZE Ghana [goes here ] ITA 2-0 GHA Czech Republic [ ] CZE 0-2 GHA USA [ ] ITA 1-1 USA CZE 0-2 ITA GHA 2-1 USA
Match scores would be linked to the very detailed match report in the daughter article. Thoughts? Ian Manka Talk to me! 16:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
2006 FIFA World Cup
number of edits 7511 number of minor edits 1699 (22.6%) first edit 12/12/2002 14:34 (Mintguy) most recent edit 06/27/2006 07:38 (IanManka) mean time between edits 4:07 h unique editors 2558 (1573 IP addresses) average number of edits per user 2.9 number of edits within last day 263 number of edits within last week 2201 number of edits within last month 5964 number of edits within last year 7279
Take a look at those statistics! Over 5900 edits in the past month. Thanks to everyone who has worked on this article so far. Retrieved from [10]. Ian Manka Talk to me! 08:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Yesterday I added a trivia section, and today it has been removed. Why? Couldn't it be easier to keep up with the trivia when it is added as soon as it happens? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.226.138.75 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the article should be s-protected during match times, and unprotected during other times.--May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 (review me!) 16:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
On the scores for the games, it lists Spain beating France 5-0, when the game hasn't even taken place for another hour or so... -- Slappy.McGee 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I have heard a lot about it should Fussball because FIFA is locationed in Switzerland, but not is not a good reason becuase the World Cup isn't in Switzerland. It is in Germany where they would use Fußball. Please give some better reasons, I will listen. -- Je suis t\ c 20:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any objections. Kingjeff 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Okay people who object, why in the 2002 world cup page did they use Korean and Japanese, shouldn't there be a language that is spoken in Switzerland, obviously that can't be right, I should go to that page and change into Swiss German, French, or Italian, maybe even Romanish. Also you can't just put one thing of the swiss german dialect in there it has to all be different compared to standard German. Or hey let's change to french becuase that is the offical language FIFA, but make sure it is the correct dialect Swiss French! -- Je suis t\ c 22:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think that Swiss German dialect is anyway involved in this "ß/ss" debate. The fact that FIFA is swiss is simply pointless. When the cup was hosted by Italy they used the italian name and the same happened in France, so there's no reason why they should use Swiss now instead of German. But it is allowed, under certain conditions, to write standard German with some translitterations (for example when you are writing in German on a US keyboard). So you can find "Mueller" instead of "Müller" or "Strasse" for "Straße". FIFA may have decided to write Fussball because it is an allowed form of German which is immediately (and correctly) readable by most people. 130.251.4.11 13:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
On the official World Cup website, FIFA uses 'fussball.' Maybe it's because they're Swiss, maybe it's because its easier to read, maybe it's because someone was too lazy to type a special character and maybe it's for no reason at all - but the fact is that that is the official spelling and is therefore the one we should use. Moszczynski 13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought this page is semi-protected...I just saw all countries flags were switched to U.S.A. flag, and a match just finished too.
Article is currently protected against anon edits. -- Dante Alighieri | Talk 21:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
This topic has been discussed numerous times here, here, here, and here. As per WP:PPOL#Uses
Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Is Italy the only team in this year's world cup so far never to have had another team score against them?
How about an article on the burgeoning Portugal v England rivalry?
We have England and Germany football rivalry and Argentina and England football rivalry; but we're still missing THE BIG ONE England and Scotland football rivalry. England and Portugal doesn't really match up. Jooler 22:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
They met in the '66 World Cup, '86 World Cup, Euro 2000, Euro 2004, World Cup 2006. I said it's a burgeoning rivalry. But you are right, an England-Scotland article is needed.
What does "to come here:" means?, the quarters finals section have been altered, Why? PlaGa701 28 June 2006 9:52 (GTM -4)
The link we have for the GER-ARG match report ( [11]) already has the final score filled in! 2-1 to Germany aet. Very unprofessional from Fifa, but what's new? How long before someone realises? SLUMGUM yap stalk 02:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be interesting to see a list of scorers by clubs. As I write this I think Chelsea have 8 World Cup Goals, Arsenal 7. Not sure about Real Madrid. 86.17.246.75 11:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Chelsea players have only scored 6 goals. Kingjeff 13:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Shevchenko isn't an epl player till July 1st. Kingjeff 18:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Is it worth mentioning, perhaps with a footnote, that now that Montenegro is independant from Serbia they will play as two different nations in future world cups? Wikibout- Talk to me! 16:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
It seems difficult to notice the link to the 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany page under the heading == See also ==, so I gave it a separate heading. -- Oden 16:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)