This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Japanese goalkeeper's jersey in the match against Paraguay is grey, not purple. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuaa ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not fact that Netherlands will finish first in their Group, so that it doesn't make sence to put Netherlands into the match E1-F2 -- 95.112.4.245 ( talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Why the insistence on calling the first knockout round "the round of 16"? What's wrong with the perfectly good (and used by the BBC, among others http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/groups_and_teams) "last 16"? Sameoldcabbage ( talk) 09:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't very helpful to write Winner of Game number 61 against Winner of Game number 63, if we don't label the games with their numbers.-- 137.82.36.209 ( talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the tree says that the final is match 64. Down in the match description, it says the final game is 63. kcmooooo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.40.144 ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I ask this because all of this information can already be found at 2010 FIFA World Cup. So I am going to nominate this article for deletion, with this as my justification.-- Subman758 ( talk) 16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should insert the image and request that the image be corrected. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought flags were needed for everyone. I won't add them again. It was Good Faith. Nineko ( talk) 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot watch the match live on television but is Argentina really wearing blue shorts like the article suggests? Aren't they wearing their normal black shorts? The blue shorts are part of the second kit! This is confusing! -- 83.128.68.213 ( talk) 19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The picture of the scheme and the starter players of this match says Gutiérrez instead of Otamendi. That needs to be fixed. -- Andres arg ( talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In the line-ups for the last 16 match between Netherlands and Slovakia both team's wingers are given on a different wing than they actually played. I guess this is done by the coach to confuse the opponents? Should we follow the tactical line-up or is there a way to determine the actual places the players mostly played in? In the tactical for NED line-up it says Kuyt played on the right wing and Robben on the left, while it was actually the other way around. Also the official SVK left-winger Stoch was mostly playing on the right with Weiss mostly on the left. -- 83.128.68.213 ( talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In the bracket, the USA-Ghana match does not include the a.e.t. designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.40.244 ( talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this article needs a bit of prose rather than just information tables. So I'm planning to add a short paragraph or two for each match. Feedback welcome of course. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Would not improve this article if we provided match statistics for each match, similar to what I just inserted in the Uruguay vs. South-Korea match? They can all be found from the FIFA homepage. Like here: [1]. Tropical wind ( talk) 10:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If everyone agrees, I can insert a similar table for the other matches too. Since we do not have good prose descriptions of the matches, it would be very important to at least have basic stats, such as shots on target and possession%, to give the reader a good picture of how the match went. Tropical wind ( talk) 10:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are the stats fine for the final, but not here? Tropical wind ( talk) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is currently at 77KB and we're only one quarter-final down. What do others think of separate articles for the QF, SF and Final stages? I think it makes sense structurally - someone coming to read about a semi-final won't want to scroll down a massive page of Round of 16 matches. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming that there's already a discussion somewhere on why we don't include missed penalty kicks in the scoring summary of the games, so instead of arguing about it (I'm obviously pro including them), can someone just direct me to the conversation? Thanks! Bds69 ( talk) 20:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What's so shocking about the Netherlands beating Brazil? It is currently ranked fourth in the FIFA World Rankings and first in the World Football Elo Ratings ... it's not that big of a surprise and makes the winn seem like some freak accident rather than a match between 2 of the best footbal nations in the world... please remove the wording. 77.169.3.175 ( talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Wasnt there a Felipe Melo own goal? I know it was controversial and couldve gone either way. It seems FIFA has changed its report though. Should we mention that it was originally an own goal, but later changed? Metallurgist ( talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We need to unlock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awsomerigs ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The short description of each match is, almost without exception, full of opinions and thoroughly unencyclopaedic in tone. Who determines when a chance is "good", or even "excellent", or whether it is good attacking play or failure to defend effectively that allows a chance? How fast does something have to be to merit description as "swift": how long is a long pass? It looks like the page has been written by frustrated would-be sports journalists, rather than compilers of an encyclopaedic record of fact. Hence the POV tag. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
plz delete
Jonathan0007 ( talk) 17:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Jonathan0007
I just saw the whole game in replay, and the short description is not only not neutral, it doen't fit the game at all. "Early in the second half, Argentina pressed Germany and came close to scoring on a number of occasions, but..." Sorry, but there was not one good goalscoring chance for Argentina. One long range shot by Angel Di Maria, which wasn't much of a threat. The best chance of the game for Argentinia was probably the situation in the first half in which they equalized, but the goal was ruled out because 4 Argentinians were in offside position.
For everyone who wants to check for themselves, the complete game is online here: http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x1pqai_2010GermanFootball_argentina-germany/1#videoId=xl4nnr
Since football games are highly emotional and often controversial, a consensus between diffrent groups of fans is usually hard to achieve. Even more so, because there is no accepted scientific method to decide what is a good goal chance, what is a esthetic gameplay, what is fair... and so on. My suggestion: Only post facts. Who scored, who got the assist, who got a yellow/red card, who got substituted, who won. Including quotes made by players an coaches regarding the match could be acceptable, but in my opinion not helpful, because these quotes and especially their selection by the author can be used for bias. The best way: post the facts. Cut out everything else, eveything that has the touch of an opinion. Focus on the naked facts, leave the opinions and evaluations to the newspapers an the blogs.
Jonathan0007 ( talk) 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Jonathan0007
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sa2010.gov.za/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Chile used their white away kit vs Brazil, not their home kit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.31.121.37 ( talk) 21:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Nevermind, i figured out how to fix it and done it
This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Japanese goalkeeper's jersey in the match against Paraguay is grey, not purple. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsuaa ( talk • contribs) 02:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not fact that Netherlands will finish first in their Group, so that it doesn't make sence to put Netherlands into the match E1-F2 -- 95.112.4.245 ( talk) 21:06, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Why the insistence on calling the first knockout round "the round of 16"? What's wrong with the perfectly good (and used by the BBC, among others http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/world_cup_2010/groups_and_teams) "last 16"? Sameoldcabbage ( talk) 09:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It isn't very helpful to write Winner of Game number 61 against Winner of Game number 63, if we don't label the games with their numbers.-- 137.82.36.209 ( talk) 21:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
In the tree says that the final is match 64. Down in the match description, it says the final game is 63. kcmooooo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.40.144 ( talk) 23:00, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
I ask this because all of this information can already be found at 2010 FIFA World Cup. So I am going to nominate this article for deletion, with this as my justification.-- Subman758 ( talk) 16:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps we should insert the image and request that the image be corrected. -- Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I thought flags were needed for everyone. I won't add them again. It was Good Faith. Nineko ( talk) 15:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I cannot watch the match live on television but is Argentina really wearing blue shorts like the article suggests? Aren't they wearing their normal black shorts? The blue shorts are part of the second kit! This is confusing! -- 83.128.68.213 ( talk) 19:10, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
The picture of the scheme and the starter players of this match says Gutiérrez instead of Otamendi. That needs to be fixed. -- Andres arg ( talk) 03:14, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In the line-ups for the last 16 match between Netherlands and Slovakia both team's wingers are given on a different wing than they actually played. I guess this is done by the coach to confuse the opponents? Should we follow the tactical line-up or is there a way to determine the actual places the players mostly played in? In the tactical for NED line-up it says Kuyt played on the right wing and Robben on the left, while it was actually the other way around. Also the official SVK left-winger Stoch was mostly playing on the right with Weiss mostly on the left. -- 83.128.68.213 ( talk) 17:36, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
In the bracket, the USA-Ghana match does not include the a.e.t. designation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.213.40.244 ( talk) 21:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
I think this article needs a bit of prose rather than just information tables. So I'm planning to add a short paragraph or two for each match. Feedback welcome of course. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Would not improve this article if we provided match statistics for each match, similar to what I just inserted in the Uruguay vs. South-Korea match? They can all be found from the FIFA homepage. Like here: [1]. Tropical wind ( talk) 10:21, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
If everyone agrees, I can insert a similar table for the other matches too. Since we do not have good prose descriptions of the matches, it would be very important to at least have basic stats, such as shots on target and possession%, to give the reader a good picture of how the match went. Tropical wind ( talk) 10:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Why are the stats fine for the final, but not here? Tropical wind ( talk) 19:24, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
This article is currently at 77KB and we're only one quarter-final down. What do others think of separate articles for the QF, SF and Final stages? I think it makes sense structurally - someone coming to read about a semi-final won't want to scroll down a massive page of Round of 16 matches. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm assuming that there's already a discussion somewhere on why we don't include missed penalty kicks in the scoring summary of the games, so instead of arguing about it (I'm obviously pro including them), can someone just direct me to the conversation? Thanks! Bds69 ( talk) 20:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
What's so shocking about the Netherlands beating Brazil? It is currently ranked fourth in the FIFA World Rankings and first in the World Football Elo Ratings ... it's not that big of a surprise and makes the winn seem like some freak accident rather than a match between 2 of the best footbal nations in the world... please remove the wording. 77.169.3.175 ( talk) 10:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
Wasnt there a Felipe Melo own goal? I know it was controversial and couldve gone either way. It seems FIFA has changed its report though. Should we mention that it was originally an own goal, but later changed? Metallurgist ( talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We need to unlock... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awsomerigs ( talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
The short description of each match is, almost without exception, full of opinions and thoroughly unencyclopaedic in tone. Who determines when a chance is "good", or even "excellent", or whether it is good attacking play or failure to defend effectively that allows a chance? How fast does something have to be to merit description as "swift": how long is a long pass? It looks like the page has been written by frustrated would-be sports journalists, rather than compilers of an encyclopaedic record of fact. Hence the POV tag. Kevin McE ( talk) 14:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
-- JeffGBot ( talk) 12:24, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
plz delete
Jonathan0007 ( talk) 17:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Jonathan0007
I just saw the whole game in replay, and the short description is not only not neutral, it doen't fit the game at all. "Early in the second half, Argentina pressed Germany and came close to scoring on a number of occasions, but..." Sorry, but there was not one good goalscoring chance for Argentina. One long range shot by Angel Di Maria, which wasn't much of a threat. The best chance of the game for Argentinia was probably the situation in the first half in which they equalized, but the goal was ruled out because 4 Argentinians were in offside position.
For everyone who wants to check for themselves, the complete game is online here: http://www.dailymotion.com/playlist/x1pqai_2010GermanFootball_argentina-germany/1#videoId=xl4nnr
Since football games are highly emotional and often controversial, a consensus between diffrent groups of fans is usually hard to achieve. Even more so, because there is no accepted scientific method to decide what is a good goal chance, what is a esthetic gameplay, what is fair... and so on. My suggestion: Only post facts. Who scored, who got the assist, who got a yellow/red card, who got substituted, who won. Including quotes made by players an coaches regarding the match could be acceptable, but in my opinion not helpful, because these quotes and especially their selection by the author can be used for bias. The best way: post the facts. Cut out everything else, eveything that has the touch of an opinion. Focus on the naked facts, leave the opinions and evaluations to the newspapers an the blogs.
Jonathan0007 ( talk) 17:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)Jonathan0007
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 ( talk) 14:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:25, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sa2010.gov.za/When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Chile used their white away kit vs Brazil, not their home kit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.31.121.37 ( talk) 21:32, 30 August 2017 (UTC) Nevermind, i figured out how to fix it and done it