Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup

Article is too long and messy

I think there needs to be a major cleanup of this article. It is far too long and messy. For instance in the "Knockout Stage", we do not need all that is on there since there is already a knockout stage article that has all that information. It will be much more useful if that section is simplified and a bare minimum summary is used. I think this goes for some other aspects of the article such as the "Group Stage", etc. This article really should not be so long.Frombelow (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

It is too long and a great deal of redundancy exists.Several of us have tried to reduce the information that exists in other articles, particularly around the matches, and have been shouted-down and edits have been reverted. I was even blocked from editing because I reverted several changes and another editor reported it. Apparently the rules of Wikipedia are that any reverts, even reverting vandalism, count towards breaking WP:3RR. Someone in the "match results are the reason for this article" camp then moved large sections of prose into a sub-article. I think that article was deleted and the contents all restored here, but I can't remember completely and so many edits happen here it's hard to keep track. I do plan on waiting for a while after the end of the tournament to clean-up the article. It will be at a time after the results of the matches, which I doubt anyone is trying to find in this article any longer anyhow because of the length of time it takes to load, are no longer breaking news. You're welcome to reduce the volumes of information or try to come to some conclusion outside of of editing it. I doubt anyone in that other camp will listen to you since they think this is the only article related to the tournament and they're convinced no visitors will click to other articles even though FIFA's main page on the tournament has only the current match results in a pull-out section. It's a good thing that the people who will oppose your efforts to clean this article up don't earn their living off designing web pages for I fear they would be in the poorhouse sooner rather than later. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

IMO reducing redundancy in WP is always laudable goal. Years back I made certain suggestions about the DRY principle but as I recall, no one really took them seriously for WP. Regarding WC articles, I think as much as possible should be offloaded to the more specific articles (except for the very rudimentary -- e.g. match scores). Then comments in the general article would be helpful to dissuade well-meaning new editors from adding that stuff back in the wrong place. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

We have it at 90k. 2006 is at 77k. Somewhere around 80-85 should be our goal because there are a lot of new things in this tournament. However, what we need to do is have discussion about what should stay and what should go. What we should not have, as Walter Görlitz continues to think is his divine right, is unilateral decisions deleting major sections. Walter, you continue to act like you own this article. You do not own this article. You have already been sanctioned once for your actions. Remember, consensus and discussion. I fully support reducing the size of this article, but not with unilateral decisions made up on the spot, with no regard to the article needs and past precedent (we have 18 previous articles to go on, 2 of which were contemporaneously edited as well). Propose sections to be deleted or modified here, why, and then await a discussion and consensus. That does not mean wait a day for one guy to agree with you. Metallurgist (talk) 22:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please comment on the content and not the editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

With that said, does the number of bytes matter? Page load time is not dependant on the number of bytes but the number of tables and templates. The fewer of those, the better. So if a template takes up only a few bytes but represents a large volume of data, it may be better removed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the comments from Frombelow and PhilipR it seems that the consensus is that material that is contained in other articles should not be repeated here. That might be a good place to start editing since this is not the only article on the tournament. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The length of the article is insane. I dont think anyone is advocating to remove the information. But this article should summarize everything to do with the WC and there should be sup-articles that include the details. Its just logical to do it that way. This was done with the "Event Effects" section, so why should it not happen with the rest? If you go to the 2008 Olympics page, all the sections have links to "main articles" for more details. The Venue section of the 2008 Olympics is short because the details on the venues or in separate articles dedicated to that subject. This should be changed ASAP.Frombelow (talk) 05:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How big is that "cumulative TV audience," really?

"Hundreds of broadcasters, representing about 70 countries, are transmitting the Cup to a cumulative TV audience that is predicted by FIFA officials to reach more than 26 billion people." I realize that this comes from the official FIFA page at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1223134/index.html, but there are not in fact 26 billion people on the planet.

Arguably the statement should stand since it appears to be literally true that "FIFA officials", or at any rate FIFA web-site maintainers, have asserted this. However, it adds a rather silly note to the article. —Pnh (talk • contribs) 15:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

See wikt:cumulative. Also see this and that. In any case, this sentence may need editing, seeing as how it causes reader confusion so regularly. --Illythr (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed multiple times. Please don't reinvent the wheel. Someone changed it to 2.6 billion and I changed it back yesterday. There are 64 matches. It means just over 405 million viewers per match. That's not particularly silly for those who know how to do math. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

An editor tried to "fix" a problem that has been solved already in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), vis.

• The named numbers billion and trillion are understood to be short scale, 10⁹ and 10¹² respectively (see Long and short scales). After the first occurrence in an article, billion may be abbreviated to unspaced bn ($35bn). The prefixes giga-, tera-, and larger and their symbols G, T, ... should be limited to computing and scientific contexts.

There is no need to indicate 26 000 million based on the style policy. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The British have officially used the short scale since 1974 and so it's a false issue. Pelase see Long and short scales. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason not to paraphrase the FIFA assertion into something more reasonable-sounding, e.g. "...are transmitting the Cup to a TV audience that FIFA officials expect to exceed a cumulative 26 billion viewers." So I'm making that edit. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Heyy, its not about a single match. Its about the whole tournament. A single match may generate less viewership, but in the whole tournament, the total no of viewers of a single match would be multiplied by 64, so its not that surprising as you are thinking.--Karyasuman (talk) 00:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

intro

should say it is the first time an European team wins the cup outside of Europe. 18.111.54.113 (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, somewhere in the summary. But after we get a winner, though it is obvious that it will be an European team. --Tone 21:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Round of 16

In the Round of 16 section, when you talk about the controversial referees' calls, there's one you can add: David Villa's goal against Portugal was off-side. It can be very hard to notice it if you watch it fast, but if you watch it with attention and carefully, you can clearly see that it was off-side. The referee didn't count it off-side and the goal was valid. This has created controversy in Portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.216.88 (talk) 23:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give us a reference about the controversy in Portugal? Determining whether the call was correct is out of scope for Wikipedia, but documenting the controversy is appropriate. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

It was in the article. The ref was in Brazilian Portugese and so I removed it. Villa was not off-side. Xavi was possible a step off-side. You may watch it and http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Sports/2010%20FIFA%20World%20Cup/Match%20Highlights/ID=1533382767 the goal is at 1:30 in the highlight footage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My understanding of WP:NONENG doesn't prescribe deleting references because they're in a non-English language. Is that the common interpretation? Deleting references about a controversy based on your own viewing of the video is pretty much precluded per WP:NOR isn't it? - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 03:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to restore it. One source is fairly dubious though when there should have been dozens if not hundreds from which to choose.. I didn't delete the reference based on my own viewing, I deleted the reference because it was not in English and no translation was provided. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that most of these so-called citations seem to be from Portuguese "sources." Now, I'm not saying that there's anything wrong with sources in foreign languages, but it does make it seem like a case of sore-losing rather than any factual happening. This seems to be a "controversy" among a small number of fanatics, and nothing that has been covered or noted by any major broadcaster. I've followed the games on Univisión, and they spent a lot of time discussing the other examples of controversial and questionable refereeing, in particular, England's un-awarded goal over Germany, but not once did they question the legitimacy of David Villa's goal against Portugal, and none of the Portuguese players, that I recall, claimed his position to be off-side. For these reasons, I think it's quite alright to remove the claim altogether. There's always going to be a select few that will question the opponent's legitimacy, specially when these select few happen to be rooting for the losing team. T.W. (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

What he said.Jlsa (talk) 00:15, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

CBC is Canada's official broadcaster of the games. The national sports broadcaster commented on several of the refs' calls including the offside goal. However, the comments were all live and I can't cite them as a result. That's why I was aware of it. Canada has no team in the finals. They have fans representing most countries and a large Spanish contingent. Sorry I don't have a source for you though. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok so the news outlets commenting on it:

• Canada's main sports network (CBC)
• Australia's main sports network (Fox Sports)
• Brazil's main sports network (TV Globo)
• The world's biggest sports network (ESPN)
• Every major sports network & newspaper in Portugal. (Sarcastically referring to record, maisfutebol, abola and the other portuguese footballer newspapers as "sources" and a small number of fanatics is perhaps, shall I say, somewhat racist? bigoted? certainly uneducated)

Perhaps it's more of a case of anglocentricity and xenophobia that is causing some users to have an issue with disclosing this entirely factual, scientific, video evidence based controversy. T.W., do your research (i understand that you probably have an issue dealing with "languages") - in the references I provided, pepe, carvalho, danny, queiroz, etc all said the goal was offside.Utopial (talk) 06:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually Sportsnet and TSN are Canada's main sports network (two stations owned by a competitor). CBC simply won the rights to broadcast the games. However, it was not in their official capacity as the broadcaster in which these comments were made. They were made by a sports news personality in conversation with the morning show host in Vancouver, BC the day after the game. It would have happened around 06:45 the day after the game. This is, however, assuming that this is based on my information not based on another report. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Similar in Australia - SBS won the rights (I wasn't home to see if they said anything, although I heard that they discussed it), but Fox Sports was able to use the footage and put the offside in each of their world cup news segments & 24/7 rolling news channel as "and we can exclusively reveal for the first time that another world cup goal shouldn't have been allowed" (since FIFA banned the live replay), showing the video/computer analysis. As with you, this is based on my information only as I can't find it online.Utopial (talk) 08:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've trimmed the number of references down here, to include at least one decent english language source and a two quality portuguese ones that act as citation for everything in that section. The rest was just shock and awe. (see WP:CITEKILL.) - Chrism would like to hear from you 14:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any issues with languages. I understand Spanish and Portuguese quite well, thank you. As for the racist claims... why do you assume I'm of a different race than the majority of Portuguese people? All I said was that the fact that most of these claims came from Portuguese sites does take credibility away. The World Cup is an event seen worldwide, and if the happening had been such an actual controversy, there should be plenty of sources in all languages bringing it to light. Keep in mind, I'm not saying that there aren't, but I won't take on the task of finding them. T.W. (talk) 15:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Octopus Paul

Need to add info on this phenomenon, who predicted all the matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.165.122.172 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Worth a mention somewhere, perhaps. The problem is that it only predicted Germany matches. Metallurgist (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably not in this article. However, after all the publicity it merits a separate article. --Tone 08:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It already does: Paul the Octopus. In fact there were two for a while. There is a link to it in the Also see section. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you think this article should mention Paul the Psychic Octopus? He has had quite a lot of coverage in news reports of the World Cup 2010 where I live (the United Kingdom). ACEOREVIVED (talk) 23:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Must we really make mention of this poor journalism? This whole story really is just filler. Yes, the odds of the octopus picking the correct team (which it wasn't really doing anyway!) 11 times out of 12 are very slim, but it's not impossible. Octopuses are not psychic! – PeeJay 00:09, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, did you guys think the Octopus was going pick on where LeBron James was going to end up next year? You may think that my comment was random but I don't know why we're even talking about this on Wikipedia. – Michael (talk) 03:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

No. The octopus was in a German aquarium and they were only asking it Germany-related match questions. Last time I checked, LeBron James wasn't German. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I know he's not German, I didn't say anything about that either. But why are we even discussing this on wikipedia? – Michael (talk) 03:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it has also predicted for Spain to win the final. If it does, it should be duly noted. Especially considering its global media coverage. Sort of like the inofficial, psycic mascot. Btw Pee - I think it's not completly impossible for octopussies to be psychics. Probably very unlikely, but not impossible. ;) Perhaps after this world cup, there will be some scientific studies on the phenomenon. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.226.104.192 (talk) 20:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why not mention all the "psychic" animals that got it wrong? Oh no wait... you never here about them of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

If they get it wrong, then they're not obviously not psychic. Since Paul got one wrong I would argue that he's not psychic either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:19, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It's just a coincidence. You get 100 animals "predicting" the results, but the media only report the 1 that gets it right. As soon a Paul gets a few wrong he'll be in a salad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.19.42 (talk) 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It likely is coincidence, but I doubt that he'll be in any salads soon since he's a zoo animal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Goalscorers

Someone has deleted the list of goalscorers from the page and decided that a sub page was adequate. Goalscorers are and always have been an integral part of the World Cup and the articles. There is enormous precedent in this regard, as well as logic and obvious need. I fully support condensing the article, but not in the key areas. Also, it appears no consensus or discussion was made on whether this section should be deleted. As such, I will be reverting the change and restoring the goalscorers. I ask whoever was involved (and I have one guess) to await a discussion here.

I also remind all editors, that Wikipedia is not MY encyclopedia or YOUR encyclopedia, it is OUR encyclopedia. We work here by discussion and consensus, not unilateral "I think it should be done this way. F off" or effective possession of articles. One person in particular has been acting like this is their article. This is not some minor specialist article. We all have a vested interest in it.

Metallurgist (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, several editors have removed it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion in either direction, other than a general opinion against long, poorly organized "catch-all" articles. But the status quo with match scores and a nearby link to more detail seems to me a perfectly adequate compromise. Goal scorers are essential match data, but they're only a click away and better organized like this. Precedent is not the sole criterion in Wikipedia. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 22:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

"it appears no consensus or discussion was made on whether this section should be deleted." - this was discussed by a number of editors, and rejected here. "Precedence" is an incredibly weak argument indeed; WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This article is designed to be a prose summary, and long lists of statistical detail belongs in the statistics article per WP:SUMMARY.

Are there a particularly important detail that you think needs to be added to the prose summary? Knepflerle (talk) 22:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry. When I read the section the consensus seems to be to remove the goal scorers section. Two editors in favour of keeping with four in favour of removing. Also consensus seems to have been reached in the editing of the article. Am I mis-reading it? The fact that there's an entire article dedicated to statistics and the goal scorers is a sub-section of that, I'm not sure why it needs to be duplicated in the article that discusses the tournament in general. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Bloating the lead

I moved a bit of material from the end of the lead to the final section:

(for the first time since 1978, when the finalists were the Netherlands, which lost, and Argentina, which was also that year's host country). Netherlands and Spain are the only teams to have won all their qualification matches for the 2010 World Cup, with the Netherlands also winning all games on their way to the final.

It seems to me there's a tendency for a bunch of "first ever" and "first time since" statements to bloat the lead, whereas only a few of them (such as a first-time WC winner) really belong in the lead. I left a comment advising future editors to consider what belongs in the lead. This is especially true between now and Sunday, after which the lead will need to undergo a revision anyway now that we'll know the winner. If any of this is out of line w/o consensus, feel free to adapt as appropriate. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice work. The lede feels too long and I agree that there is a lot of statistical silliness going on throughout the various articles on the tournament. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Final is the first...

In the part about the final being the first of whatever, the last one reads "the first final without Brazil, Italy, Germany or Argentina in it." - now is this really neccesary? I mean with four teams in that list I think it is a bit too many to count as a real stat - do we keep updating this list - ie if the 2014 one has two new teams, does it become "first final without Brazil, italy, germany, argentina, netherlands or spain" - it jsut feals like something that has been put in just to be put in. While the others are a definative first since one particular year, this lists an arbitrary number of teams with no inbdication as to what the maximum number of teams in the list can be. 217.30.113.50 (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah, just wait a couple of days after the finals when we write the final summary. It should all be easier then. --Tone 08:56, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I heard the same comment about those four teams on the radio. It shows that basically the same few countries have played in the final every year. You may as well throw in Netherlands and France and point out this is the first final with any participant besides those six since 1966. Conversely, you could take Argentina out and point out that all but two previous finals, 1930 and 1978, have involved one of the other three. I have a hard time getting an intuitive sense of how remarkable the four-team version really is with 18 previous finals, but if various media organizations are pointing it out as a "first" I'd err on the side of leaving it in. -- Regards, PhilipR (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was a lower number then maybe, but four just feals like an excuse to keep extending it: "First final without [one team]" - fine, "first without x or y" - probably, "first without x,y or z" - hmmmm..., "first without w,x,y or z" - just feels like too many to be notable. 217.30.113.50 (talk) 09:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s - 1966 had germany 217.30.113.50 (talk) 09:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It also had a participant besides those six, to wit England. - PhilipR (talk) 16:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Originally first without Brazil or Germany. Someone added the other two a few days later. I'd like the article to be without any of it as well as the related 2010 FIFA World Cup Final‎. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

{{current sport}} - revisit?

I naively added it back before searching the talk archive. However, in Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup/Archive 2 it appears that consensus was never reached, and that the template instance was removed citing non-existent consensus. So my understanding is that it's fine to leave it unless consensus is reached that it doesn't belong. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 08:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Does it belong? Make the case. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong right now as no sporting element of the World Cup is taking place at this moment, so no major aspect of the article is likely to be undergoing rapid changes. – PeeJay 13:57, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Well its the world cup final thats started. Nevertheless the Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup/Archive_2#current_tag was removed WITHOUT consensus, and especially AGAINST the grain of consensus on the whim on an editor!Lihaas (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

racism much?

I've noticed there is an eerie lack of anyone mentioning the blatant racism of Europeans before the finals began in South Africa. Stories were peddled in national medias about the impending carnage of allowing Africans to hold a tournament this size. Someone should at the very least mention that despite the calls of impending doom, no one has been eaten alive ... yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.221.125 (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any sources, much? Grsz¹¹ 01:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

"Netherlands also winning all games on their way to the final"

Walter Görlitz, I don't really have a dog in this fight either way, but it occurs to me that the comment that you deleted was likely intended to emphasize the fact that the Netherlands hasn't lost (or drawn) a single match in this World Cup, while Spain had a 2-1-0 record in the Group Stage. It seems to me that might be worth mentioning but, like I said, I'm not overly concerned about it. Just food for thought! Regards, • CinchBug • 15:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Misread the section. You are correct. It has been reverted. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. There's probably a better way to phrase it, so as to avoid any misinterpretation. But I'll leave that to folks who are wiser in the ways of soccer than I. Regards, • CinchBug • 15:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 175.144.254.140, 11 July 2010

Can someone add to the section on the final: With their entire on field team bar the goal keeper booked and numerous other offences, the Netherlands gained the record of the worst cheaters in a World Cup final. In the end the world had the last laugh as Netherlands were deserved losers. I don't have a specific source but I haven't heard any commentary which doesn't basically say the same thing. It wouldn't surprise me if even the Dutch commentators agreed.

175.144.254.140 (talk) 21:24, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:BIAS 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

also factually untrue as at least 5 players weren't booked. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

De Jong's foul

My edit

The 2010 final will be remembered for Netherlands persistent fouling and Referee Webb's failure to produce a red card for De Jong's high studs first boot into the chest of Alonso

was reverted by user Dapi89 with the notation "(no evidence it was seen.)" in spite of my linking a youtube video showing the yellow card and the foul in a TV braodcast expected to be seen by 1 billion people. Joking, surely!dinghy (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, you shouldn't be putting in your own research. I take "research" in this case to include watching a video and interpreting it as dirty play. If you want to cite a credible source about De Jong's tackle, I'm sure you can find something in the English-language media (and failing that, in Marca or AS). - PhilipR (talk) 22:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Elimation chart

Can we have a elimination chart like the 2006 article ranking the teams in the order of elimination?--Cooly123 21:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooly123 (talk • contribs)

New Zealand Unbeaten

Unsure why this was removed from the article, I think it is a relevant and valid sentence: New Zealand was the only undefeated team in the tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaunyboy129 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Number of fouls

I have an issue with the way one statement in the section about the final is sourced: "The match was affected by a large number of fouls, particularly from the Netherlands." This is based on one source, and it is totally unclear what the basis for the journalist's claim is. I propose replacing it with this link: [1]. These are FIFA's match statistics, which show that the Netherlands committed 28 fouls, against 19 for Spain. That is much better proof of the assertion than the Sky News article. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 22:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)