Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

TV production

A lot of people have taken notice of the very high quality of the live TV production of the matches, in terms of slow motion details, instant and well-timed replays, and enough cameras to seemingly catch all incidents from all angles. Someone with factual information about the production should add it to wikipedia. --Kvaks (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

UEFA team failings

Under 2010_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stage, I think something should be added about how this is the WORST performance of all time by European teams in a World Cup. According to National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#UEFA_.28Europe.29, there has never been a World Cup quarterfinals with only 3 European (UEFA) teams. In 1970 and 2002, only 4 teams made it to the quarterfinals, which was the previous worst. 1930, 1950 and 1982 didn't have quarterfinals. In 1950, 6 European teams placed in the Top 8. In 1982, 10 of the 12 2nd round teams were European (and the semifinalists were all European). The inaugural 1930 tournament is a little trickier. Only 4 European teams entered. Serbia, then Yugoslavia, (4th), France (7th) and Romania (8th) placed in the Top 8, tying this year for fewest Top 8 placed teams. Belgium finished 11th in 1930, the other European entrant. However, there was no official quarterfinals.

I believe a statement should be added after "This is the highest number of South American teams in the final eight since the 1930 tournament". Something like:
"Only three European teams progressed to the quarter-finals. This is the lowest number of European teams in the final eight ever."
or
"Only three European teams progressed to the quarter-finals. This is the lowest number of European teams in the final eight since the 1930 tournament."

As I don't have the power to edit this, I hope someone will take this into serious consideration since it is making headlines everywhere and merits inclusion. Cheers!--Bru0017 (talk) 04:39, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. Teams from Europe generally don't do well outside of Europe and are knowen to do well inside Europe. Kingjeff (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that we ARE talking about how well South America is doing. Seeing as only South American and European teams have ever made the Finals, it is WELL worth mentioning that European teams have had their worst performance of all time in this World Cup. If we have information about all the other federations, and details on them, too, then there logically should be something additional said about Europe. Furthermore, the fact that their poor performance as a continent has been the worst ever is such an overwhelmingly obvious thing to add to this article, especially in light of the content of the rest of that section. Wouldn't rational people agree?--Bru0017 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Check out National_team_appearances_in_the_FIFA_World_Cup#Results_by_confederation--Bru0017 (talk) 04:58, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Kingjeff, that's not actually true. European teams are know for not winning. But not known for not doing well. Just have a look at the quarter-finals in 1994. 7 European teams. But it's been steady with quarter-finals and semi-final and final appearances in the Americas and Asia. Last time a European team failed to qualify for the actual final was 1930. The last time a team failed to make the top 2 was 1950. chandler 06:24, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

As it stands now: "South American teams continued their strong performance in the round of 16, with the maximum possible four out of five progressing to the quarter-finals (Uruguay, Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay won, while Chile lost to Brazil). This is the highest number of South American teams in the final eight since the 1930 tournament. Of the European teams, Germany, the Netherlands, and Spain progressed; Germany's 4-1 defeat of England marked that nation's worst ever defeat at a World Cup finals. Ghana defeated the United States to become the third ever African team to reach the last eight (along with Cameroon in 1990 and Senegal in 2002). The two CONCACAF teams (the USA and Mexico) and the two Asian nations (South Korea and Japan) lost in the round of 16."

It's pretty obvious that a remark about the European teams' worst performance ever is very fitting for inclusion here. Perhaps right after "Spain progressed."--Bru0017 (talk) 05:02, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the tournament had the same structure in 1930 so it's no more correct to refer to that tournament than to say "to date". "Ever" is not correct since it includes the future as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Have many reliable sources made this observation? If not, it doesn't strike me as particularly notable. Knepflerle (talk) 11:30, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Chandler, I was specifically refering to the fact that European teams not winning outside of Europe. I may be wrong about this, but isn't the only time a South American team that won inside Europe was in 1958? Kingjeff (talk) 21:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This has been in the article since before the original post in this thread. 2010 FIFA World Cup#Group stage said and says: "Only six UEFA teams progressed to the last sixteen, a record low in the 32-team era. Because those teams all had European opponents in the second round, just three UEFA teams made the last eight, another record low." We shouldn't repeat this in the Knockout stage section. By the way, UEFA was given 13 of 32 slots corresponding to 40.6%. 6 of the last 16 is 37.5%. They met in 3 matches so of course they also had 37.5% of the last 8. UEFA has done as one would expect if their number of teams was fair. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Colour in tables

(restored from archive, as not yet acted upon)

The information given in tables only through the use colour shading needs also to be conveyed through symbols, to make it accessible for text-only browsers, black-and-white displays, the colour blind and page readers. Knepflerle (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

What in particular? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Any information only given in colour - for example, in the first round group tables at the moment the qualifying and non-qualifying teams are indicated by shading alone, but this information isn't accessible to the users mentioned above. Over the sets of articles on this World Cup, I expect there are other examples. Knepflerle (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps an additional text column to indicate when a team advances or is eliminated.--The Three Headed Knight (talk) 16:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

That would work. Knepflerle (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Could someone have a go at implementing this? Knepflerle (talk) 11:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

The article already says the top two in the group stage advance. This information is not indicated by shading alone, it is indicated by the advancing teams being at the top of the table. The color is only for illustration. Reywas92^Talk 16:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

"The article already says the top two in the group stage advance" - if that were sufficient, we wouldn't use the shading. All it needs is some sort of extra column, or an indicator in an existing column. When tables are used, users should be possible to pick out the relevant information from the table without hunting around the article for interpretation. Knepflerle (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

David Villa's goal

Why is David Villa's goal against Portugal listed as offside? It wasn't, and at the very least it wasn't as clear offside as the other Tevez goal. Please provide a reliable source conclusively proving that it was offside. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.140.167.5 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Because too many editors work on this article and it's hard to keep track of information that shouldn't even be in this article. It looks like it has already been "corrected". While not a controversial as the other items, Villa received the ball after being in an off-side position that was not called. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Referees dismissed

Several referees have been dismissed after the First Round. Should we make such a note? http://www.africanews.com/site/list_message/28831 Metallurgist (talk) 10:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

That article says nothing about referees being dismissed, as far as I can see. Some of the first-round referees aren't used in the later stages, but this is entirely normal - three-quarters of World Cup matches are in the group stage. Knepflerle (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that selection for the knock-out rounds is based, in part at least, on performance in the group rounds. I suppose that is a bit of semantics as to whether or not certain refs are "dismissed" vs. certain other refs being "selected" for the knock-out rounds, but it just might be useful to indicate which refs did advance or go home. Wschart (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Too much info on goalscorers

I don't think that every person who scores even one goal should be listed here. We already have a separate page for statistics. I think this main page should only list players who scored two or more or three or more. Wrad (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Statistics are recorded elsewhere as are matches, team rosters, etc. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thirded; I'd just mention the current top-scorers, and point to the full table in the statistics article. Knepflerle (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Very much disagree, it's not been any problems for previous World Cups or European Championships or Copa Americas. chandler 10:10, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: [1] - I am very disappointed in you, Chandler, for you know better than to act like this. Your opinion is still in the minority, even if there were only three people supporting scaling back (now four) - ignoring the other views above and bludgeoning through your opinion when you know that you are in the minority is really poor form. Can we have less of this, please, and instead try and get consensus for your arguments through discussion first?

I don't think the "precedent" argument is a strong one at all - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a great argument, perhaps the other articles need changing too? When it comes down to it, we are an encyclopaedia not a statistical almanac - we're supposed to be giving our readers prose, not endless lists and tables. There's a clear link to the full table, and a summary of the most important information, per WP:SUMMARY. Perhaps you could suggest further additions to the prose summary instead - what information from that table is really important to the average reader of a World Cup summary article? Knepflerle (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with OP. The exact same information is at the very top of the statistics page, repeating it in the main article is pointless. A summary regarding top goalscorers makes more sense and is more relevant to this article, in-depth analysis is much more suited to sub-articles. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with chandler. Goalscorers in such a huge event i.e. World Cup, Summer Olympics football tournament, Copa America, etc. are too important to omit. Jamen Somasu (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not really been omitted - any really notable facts about the goalscorers can be included in the prose summary on this page, and the full list of raw statistics is just a click away. Are there any other particularly notable facts from the raw statistics that you think should be added to the prose summary? Knepflerle (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, the goalscorers table was the best thing about this page.--77.233.84.111 (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It can be the highlight of 2010 FIFA World Cup statistics, then. Knepflerle (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Wrad: the fact that Fabio Quagliarella (to take a random example) scored at WC2010 is relevant to his article, and possibly to this collection of results: if the focus of the article is the whole tournament, then the fact of goals, rather than the identity of every scorer, is relevant. Wikipedia is not an almanac. Kevin McE (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagreed. It was one of the most useless pieces of information on this page. However, would you be willing to remove the match results in favour of including the redundant goal scorers table again? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Walter - maybe I've misread KevinMcE's comment, but I think he was agreeing with you (and me), and that the scorers of individual goals are more suitable for including in the statistics, players' and nations' articles - correct me if I'm wrong Kevin! Knepflerle (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you don't like the goalscorers table then please go and remove it from all previous World Cups too. Let's keep some uniformity. --77.233.84.111 (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no expectation of conformity. Previous world cups did not have statistic articles the way current ones do. If they did, then the section could be removed. Since they don't, it's important that the information be presented somewhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Why exactly is "uniformity" so important? Are we expecting that all readers of this article will go and read the whole set? And/or that they will be confused by a link to the table if there wasn't one in another article? The inclusion in this article should be judged by its merits at this article. Knepflerle (talk) 22:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Please, remove the goalscorers section or move it somewhere else. The article is already too long, and everyone who scored just one goal does not belong to the main article of the World Cup.--81.36.241.221 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Regions

This sentence "The last two North American and last two Asian teams were eliminated" in the group of sixteen is not quite correct. They're not North American but CONCACAF nations. Had it been a Caribbean nation or Honduras the adjective would have been different. I believe that it's a similar issue with calling them Asian teams. I believe the confederations are more appropriate, unless I've missed the discussion on this earlier. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Because Mexico and the United States are in North America, while South Korea and Japan are in Asia. The summary paragraph is the "jist" of what happened. If we say "CONCACAF" and "AFC" we may be slightly more technically correct, but the whole point of the sentence will be lost on a large number of readers. The ones that want to can look closely and see the finer details. Facts707 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA President apology during round of 16 should be mentioned

This information was apparently removed from the "Round of 16" section:

"The round was marked by some very controversial referees' calls, including: A disallowed goal by England in its 4-1 loss against Germany, where the ball appeared to touch the ground well inside the goal when shown on television broadcasts; An allowed goal scored by Argentina in its 3–1 win over Mexico, where Argentine striker Carlos Tévez appeared to be well offside when shown on television broadcasts. FIFA President Sepp Blatter took the unusual step of apologizing for both decisions, saying "Yesterday I spoke to the two federations [England and Mexico] directly concerned by referees' mistakes [...] I apologised to England and Mexico. The English said thank you and accepted that you can win some and you lose some and the Mexicans bowed their head and accepted it."[53] Blatter also promised to re-open the discussion regarding devices which monitor possible goals and make that information immediately available to match officials, saying "We will naturally take on board the discussion on technology and have the first opportunity in July at the business meeting."[53] Blatter's call came less than four months after FIFA general secretary Jerome Valcke said the door was "closed" on goal-line technology and video replays after a vote by the IFAB.[53]"

This is probably too important to go only in the "Controversies" subarticle, since clearly the missed (or incorrectly allowed) goals in the Round of 16 have dramatically caused a change to FIFA's position on goal technology. Facts707 (talk) 08:30, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (updated) Facts707 (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather hyperbolic to claim that the "history of football is changed": concession to renewed discussions has been voiced, and that is only in relation to goal-line technology, therefore irrelevant to offside decisions. Kevin McE (talk) 08:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it is "hyperbolic" (exaggerated). Clearly the controversy over the two goals has forced FIFA to not only apologize but to also basically pre-announce a reversal of their position against the use of modern technology to review goals in football. I would think that counts as an important milestone in football history and deserves at least a mention here.Facts707 (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC) (updated) Facts707 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

No: Blatter said, "We will naturally take on board the discussion on technology and have the first opportunity in July at the business meeting.": that is not pre-announcing a reversal, or anywhere near it. The decision is not FIFA's anyway. Kevin McE (talk) 10:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the apology quote doesn't belong here. But we should insert a short summary of the controversies in the corresponding section. Tropical wind (talk) 10:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I think we are all correct. The controversy section here should have a summary of the different controversies, and the round of 16 section here should have at least a mention of the two goals and the FIFA apology, with a link to the controversy section lower in the page. Facts707 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Match stats

I can provide match stats for all preliminary group articles, similar to what I did here: 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. The argumentation is that since we do not have much prose to describe the matches, the stats will give the reader a good picture of how the match proceeded (which is important). Do you agree with my idea? Tropical wind (talk) 13:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviations or Country Names?

For the goalscorers list, should we use abbreviations or country names? Since there are flags too, personally I think abbreviations would be enough. Also, since WP:MOSFLAG requires adding some text to state the country name (either abbreviations or the full names), should we go ahead and use Template:flagathlete for the other World Cup articles too? --The does (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Flags are not visible/understandable to all users, including those using screen-readers, text-only browsers, monochrome displays etc. There is also no single standard, universally-understood set of abbreviations - see Comparison of IOC, FIFA, and ISO 3166 country codes.

Instead of having our readers play memory/guessing games with abbreviations and flags, why not just use the names everybody can just read? Why hope that most of our readers can guess what CMR or PRK means, when they can all read "Cameroon" or "Korea DPR"? Knepflerle (talk) 22:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Please do not add names of the country qualified for SF unless confirmed

Someone just put Germany in the SF spot. Please refrain from such endeavours.

Thanks, Kaushik Kdg81 (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for first qualification?

Are the {{Citation needed}} tags really needed in the list of qualified teams? This info (Slovakia and Serbia's first qualification as independent countries) is easily verifiable through previous World Cup articles but not as easily citable. Do we really need to cite every little thing in the article? RaLo18 (talk with me • my contributions) 21:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does the fact that this is Slovakia's and Serbia's first FIFA Cup even need to be mentioned? It just seems like irrelevant trivia. Either way I don't see the need for citation, looking at the wiki articles for previous World Cups seems sufficient. Hell Hawk (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The original text (which keeps getting erased) was that this was the first WC without any debutants - because FIFA regards Slovakia and Serbia as having retained the records of TCH and YUG/SBM. This was viewed as notable. However, that point has been replaced by the "first appearance as independent" note. The citation needed thing was probably put in because the statement that these teams are playing their first WC finals is technically false. Jlsa (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

In which case the record, with the clarification, should be restored, rather than no reference to it at all as at present. Proposed text: "This was the first World Cup finals in which no team was making its first appearance at this stage. Neither Serbia nor Slovakia had previous appeared under their present names or borders, but Serbia are considered by FIFA to be inheritors of the records of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Mentenegro, and Slovakia share with Czech Republic the acheivements of Czechoslovakia." Kevin McE (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I presume the editor who added them did so because Serbia is the solve inheritor of Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegros record and Slovakia are together with Czech Republic inheritors of Czechoslovakias record chandler 23:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

One line paragraph in lead to tell readers what round the Cup is in

I think it would be useful, for many readers who don't follow the World Cup until the later rounds, to have a short one line paragraph at the bottom of the lead to tell readers what round we're in and give them a quick link to get to the right section. Especially since it's such a long tournament with rounds that last several days. Even for World Cup followers and those comfortable with Wikipedia, it gives a handy link to find the current section.

I added this line: "On 2 July, the quarter-finals round of the tournament's knockout stage began with the eight remaining teams."

When the tournament gets to the semi-finals, we can change the sentence, and when it gets to the last 4 we can briefly mention the finals and third place match. Once those matches are over, we can just give a quick summary of winner, runner-up, and third-place match.

What does everyone think? The alternative for a newcomer is to scroll way down in the article to try to find out what's happening currently. Facts707 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it, and on the grounds that we should not publish what we know will be superceded within days, it is more encyclopaedic not to have it. But I can be pragmatic and admit that, for all we repeat the mantra that Wiki is not a news ticker, people do use it for information updates (as indeed I do myself in other areas); if this were a !vote, I guess I would be a mild oppose. Kevin McE (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Using Kevin's argumentation, I would give a mild agree ;-) I am more inclined to treat pragmatically the reality of Wikipedia usage than to impose our policies strictly. The issue will be obsolete in 2 weeks anyway. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It is wholly redundant to the schedule hatnote, which was the only legitimate concession to people who want to use this article like a news ticker. If we can't have basic things in the lede like what the major controversies have been so far without referencing in triplicate, then this minor transient info doesn't need to be there either. This article is already a complete structural and content disaster, at the very least it should have a compliant lede, before readers see the horrow show that is below it. MickMacNee (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with not including the round information in lede. What's next, including the score and time of the current game? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Err...

'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. '

26 Billion??? How many planets are we broadcasting to?? 86.15.88.163 (talk) 15:06, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a cumulative number. 26 Billion across 64 matches. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ahh... I thought it meant 26 Billion for each game! got worried there! Ooops... 86.15.88.163 (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It still sounds weird: "cumulative TV audience that is predicted by FIFA officials to reach more than 26 billion people." Hope it got changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.76.138.135 (talk) 11:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Top scorers in infobox

It may only be a short term issue, but while there have been more than one name in the top scorer field there has been frequent messing around with the order of them. Rather than have constant reversion and editing, can we agree on the basis for ordering them: alphabetical by name (my preference, alphabetical by nation (per the full goalscorers' list), or in chronological order of reaching 4 goals? Kevin McE (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Semi-finals

They just disappeared? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.102.224.212 (talk) 16:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

They were removed 10 minutes before your post [2] and brought back 4 minutes later. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Dubious records

It looks like we are adding dubious records/events here for indvidual players. Where should Messi's "most shots taken in a world cup without a goal" go? Goal scorers?66.190.31.229 (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Into the statistics article if anywhere. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:49, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

FIFA all-tiime records should always be mentioned. If Klose passes the all-time record goals scores, do you think it will be hidden in some archaic glob of "stats" . Messi holds the all-time record for shots without scoring goal. take it up with Messi if you don't like it.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

"Most shots without scoring a goal"? What a trivial statistic. It definitely doesn't belong on the main page. Stick it in a dedicated stats article. – PeeJay 22:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Uncharacteristically agree with User:PeeJay2K3. Goals scored: important. Shots: trivia. Were they shots on-goal or simply crosses that missed and some statistician decided were shots? Leave it buried on some stats page. Golden boot is important. Setting a scoring record important. Shots, meh. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Confederation success

Right now, in the Group Stage section, it is mentioned that all CONMEBOL sides have survived the first round, and that CONMEBOL is the only confederation to have achieved this feat (several times, now). However, the same 100% success rate was also achieved by the OFC in 2006, when their sole qualifying nation (Australia) reached the round of 16 to be beaten by Italy. Should this be added, or a note be added that the CONMEBOL are the only association with more than one qualifier to achieve this? Or should it just be left as is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply not edible (talk • contribs) 07:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

if it's not factually correct it should be deleted.Whatzinaname (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Date Problem.

It states in the bracket that the final is supposed to take place at Johannesburg on July 11th. However, the third place match in Port Elizabeth is between the losers of the July 11th match....and takes place on July 10th? *head explodes* Draconiator (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

No, the third place match at 2010 FIFA World Cup#Knockout stage says "Losers of Match 61" and "Losers of Match 62", while the final is between the winners of those matches. 2010 FIFA World Cup#Semi-finals shows that match 61 and 62 are the semifinals. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Move results to a new article

This article is about the World Cup event as a whole and should contain more prose than bulleted information. WP is an encyclopedia which includes aspects of almanacs and gazetteers. We should present the almanac style information (the results) in a dedicated article to free up this one for more descriptive text and photos. At the moment there is hardly space to insert relevant photos in each section. Zunaid 09:13, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Octofinal

Why do you call the round of the last 16 clubs in this tournament "Round of 16" and not "Octo-Final"? In Germany we speak from: Achtelfinale (Octo-Final), Viertelfinale (Quater-Final), Halbfinale (Semi-Final) and Finale (Final). The description: "Runde der letzten 16" ("Round of the last 16") is also used, but not for headlines or in charts. I would recommend a similiar approach in this and other articles. Michael Belzer --MBelzer (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Round of 16 is what fifa calls it here. I have never heard Octo-Final before (but it does sound cool). --Boy.pockets (talk) 11:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Generally in English it's referred to as the round of 16 or last 16. I can't say I've heard Octo-Final before but I like it! Definitely a good reflection of the hideous eight-legged creature that it is. 94.173.100.191 (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In Spanish we call it the Octavos de Final, or "Eighth Finals", but "Round of 16" appears to be the common English usage.Rodface (talk) 17:46, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I am hispanic by origin, I have been a fan of this sport since I was 5, paid attention to it in Spanish, English, Italian, Portuguese and German and this is the first ever time I have heard of the "Octofinal" LOL Jamen Somasu (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I have heard the expression "eighth finals" used on occasion in the US for similar stages in other knock-out competitions; in the NCAA basketball tournament it is often referred to as the "Sweet Sixteen", but Octofinal sounds to me like their letting that German octopus decide things. Wschart (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Eighth-finals is only a translation from Spanish of octavos de final. First time I hear Octo-finals though. --MicroX (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you call the round of the last 16 clubs in this tournament Round of 16 and not Octo-Final?

Because the former is English and the latter isn't, and this is English Wikipedia. Why do you call the round of the last 16 clubs in this tournament Achtelfinale and not Round of 16? See how that works? Languagehat (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

What in the original question suggests that MBelzer is unaware of the difference between English and German terms? I suppose you could object to it being out of scope on a Wikipedia talk page rather than at Wikipedia:Reference desk.

At any rate, I'm not sure there's a good answer to the question. My idle speculation is that the English terms derived when it was rare to have a single-elim tournament with 16 teams. It doesn't help that eighth is an awkward word. And in the US, our sports entities have an aversion to calling any game a fraction of a final. ("AFC Championship Game" = semifinal, "Divisional round" = quarterfinals, etc.) Octofinal does indeed sound cool, but wouldn't "eighth-final" be a better literal translation of Achtelfinale? - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 05:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What in the original question suggests that MBelzer is unaware of the difference between English and German terms?

The fact that he went on to say "I would recommend a similiar approach in this and other articles" suggests that he thinks "Octo-Final" is a plausible term to use in an English-language context. Languagehat (talk) 11:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

In that case, Oppose. It is not a common term and would constitute WP:OR or something similar. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per Walter. I overlooked his advocacy; thanks for pointing it out. - PhilipR (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

grammar and usage in the article

I have seen a number of edits (and was involved in one or two myself) in the battle between the Queen's (International/U.K.) and Webster's (American) English. The most recent was this and this one. So let me state this unequivocally: the date formats, grammar, and general usage on this article is international English. While it may seem odd to people who live in North America, such as myself, to see dates written as "11 July" to see collective singular nouns written as plurals ("hosts", and "Winners"/"Losers"), it is quite acceptable and we shouldn't be wasting our time injecting our personal cultural bias on the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide a reference for the equivalence of UK and international English as regards Wikipedia? Or can you provide a reference that the collective subject/verb agreement is international rather than UK-specific? - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No. Sorry. It may just be U.K.-specific and may be my mistake. In which case, it's U.K. English, but not worth arguing over. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree. As I understand the principles in Wikipedia:ENGVAR, I'd suggest that the variant we should use is South African English. But one could argue that WC 2010 doesn't have a "strong connection" to South Africa. In that case, "When an article has evolved sufficiently for it to be clear which variety it employs, the whole article should continue to conform to that variety...." - PhilipR (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Someone should put a language template on this talk page, then, possibly {{British English}} or {{South African English}}. -- Radagast3 (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

English is English if you get all confused when colour is spelt with a "u" or without a "u", then you've got some real issues that Wikipedia won't be able to help you with.

Minor copyedit needed

{{editsemiprotected}} In section 3 "Preparations" the currency comparison should indicate that it is to US dollars. "Construction costs were expected to be R8.4bn (just over $1.0bn.)" changed to "Construction costs were expected to be R8.4bn (just over US$1.0bn.)" 61.68.126.160 (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Done AJCham 02:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: It currently says under Goal Scoring Stats section that Germany and Uruguay are still in the competition but they aren't now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elwright (talk • contribs) 20:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If they're not in the tournament any longer, the match on Saturday will look pretty stupid. 60,000 people sitting around watching a referee and four other officials standing on the field. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzelas

Is it worth mentioning that at least one player has claimed to have not heard the referee's whistle as a result of the vuvuzelas? Mahrooq (talk) 09:38, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

In the section on Vuvzelas, yes, but only if a WP:V source can be found. There have been a lot of questionable plays attributed to the noise of the Vuvzelas. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

More vuvuzelas

I don't think there was any legitimate cause to delete this sentence introducing the vuvuzela section:

The 2010 finals have been notable for introducing the sound of the vuvuzela, a long horn blown by fans throughout matches, into international public consciousness.

The only reasoning given in an edit comment was:

1. Somehow the 2009 Confederations Cup nullifies the pop-culture impact. This argument is spurious because the Confederations Cup doesn't make a similar impact to the World Cup finals on international public consciousness. It's perfectly reasonable to assert that some aspect of South African culture was present at the 2009 CC but didn't gain wide international attention until the 2010 WC.
2. There were, according to this editor, enough references -- but all the preexisting references refer either to player complaints or to fan complaints. At the very least, deleting a sentence of neutral-to-positive vuvuzela content, without another word of pro-vuvuzela content in evidence, yields a section even more in violation of NPOV.

Because there was no valid reason cited to remove this text, I have restored it. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As said last time this sentence was posted, we cannot claim that vuvuzelas came to "international public consciousness" when they were so prevelant at, and in commentary upon, the 2009 Confederations Cup, as 111,000 Ghits affirm. The two citations given to support its newness to the wider world are about download of ringing tones, and one is not in English. This article is about a football competition, mention of the vuvuzela is obviously valid, but the tracking of the spread of "pop culture impact, or of international irritation about the wretched plastic tube, (if such a thing is actually verifiable, and the current citations don't prove that it is) belongs in its own article. None of this is new to the discussion: it appeared in these talk pages weeks ago. Identification of the claim as suspect and unsupported by the sources, with large google-count to the contrary, is, I would contend, most definitely valid reason to remove. But at least we are discussing it, rather than having the proposed edit war (see PhilipR's editnotes) Kevin McE (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed wording to indicate that WC2010 amplified rather than introduced the vuvuzela into public consciousness. I've added more links from the vuvuzela article, not just about cell phone downloads, although cell phone downloads are most certainly indicative of public awareness. Per WP:NONENG non-English sources are valid, but English-language sources of equal quality are preferable. If you know of good English-language sources indicating that awareness of the vuvuzela isn't confined to the US, feel free to substitute them. (For reference, this is an automated translation of the Mexican article. If you'd like me to translate any part of that article manually, I'd be happy to do so.) - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Vuvuzelas in Youtube?

What do you think about adding this? http://techcrunch.com/2010/06/23/bzzzzzz-youtube-gets-a-vuvuzela-button-seriously/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.233.234.109 (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I used that article as a reference for the general assertion about 2010 amplifying public awareness. It could be worth a separate sentence, although IMO a lot of the v.-related detail should go in vuvuzela rather than here. (DRY - better to have the info one place.) - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

It's not just original research, it's also speculative. There's no way you can tell what this match is gonna be remembered for in five, twenty, eighty years from now. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 22:54, 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)

Edit request from 175.144.254.140, 11 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} 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)

I think the OP may have been confused. Only 2 members of the starting line up weren't booked (and one of those had left the field so couldn't be booked) excluding the goal keeper which I guess was what the OP was referring to. Note of the onfield team only 4 weren't booked (again excluding the goal keeper because the OP did). Of course Spain weren't much better in this regard since they had 5 unbooked (excluding the goal keeper) i.e. only 1 less. However I agree this doesn't belong. Nil Einne (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

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)

Agree. It's a noteworthy curiosity. Not sure where that statement was placed, but I don't think it's worthy of inclusion in the lead since it didn't affect the outcome or legacy of the tournament. Perhaps it should go in the group-specific section? - PhilipR (talk) 22:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Was this a vote? If this trivia is mentioned it should also be mentioned that they also managed to not win a single game and as a result of three draws were eliminated at the group stage. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Font choice is just to clarify my agreement, not a "vote". (I.e. consensus-building, since few day-to-day editing matters are settled by formal vote on Wikipedia.) NZ's elimination at the group stage is obvious from that country's omission in the knockout rounds. - PhilipR (talk) 02:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Add link to 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup?

Add link to 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.54.140.58 (talk) 23:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

is it normal to have a link to the next confederation's cup? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Bloating the lead 2

Precedent isn't strictly normative on Wikipedia, but a cursory comparison of the four-paragraph lead here with that of the 2006 or 2002 counterparts suggests that things are getting a bit bloated. Association football is always evolving and this tournament had a lot of firsts, but I don't think it's got three times as much lead-worthy material as the 2002 edition. I moved Spain's win up to the head of the 3rd graf for clarity, but there's still lots of work to be done. - PhilipR (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC) (Bloating the lead 1)

Apparently a few editors are planning on paring it back over the next few weeks. I will not be one of them. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

However, you should add that Spain didn't win single-handedly given that they were working in tandem with the referees. 24.68.50.170 (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

POV. Can't be added. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

As a general rule, I believe we should avoid generic World Cup information in the leads. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 17:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If there's a link to a generic world cup article, this makes excellent sense. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Khader sami, 12 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Under the match ball section is says "A special match ball with gold panels, called the Jo'bulani, will be used at the final to be held in Johannesburg."

Presumably this should say "A special match ball with gold panels, called the Jo'bulani, was used at the final to be held in Johannesburg."

Khader sami (talk) 06:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done  Davtra  ^(talk) 06:58, 12 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: [3]. 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)

Simply indicating the number of fouls does not indicate it affected game play. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

And speaking as a disappointed Dutchman: it also doesn't indicate the refereeing errors ;) 94.212.31.237 (talk) 05:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It also says 13 yellow cards were given, but it were in fact 14, two of which resulted in a red card. 82.171.1.253 (talk) 14:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is the official record:

1. Robin VAN PERSIE (NED) 15'
2. Carles PUYOL (ESP) 16'
3. Mark VAN BOMMEL (NED) 22'
4. SERGIO RAMOS (ESP) 23'
5. Nigel DE JONG (NED) 28'
6. Giovanni VAN BRONCKHORST (NED) 54'
7. John HEITINGA (NED) 57'
8. Joan CAPDEVILA (ESP) 67'
9. Arjen ROBBEN (NED) 84'
10. Gregory VAN DER WIEL (NED) 111'
11. Joris MATHIJSEN (NED) 117'
12. Andres INIESTA (ESP) 118'
13. XAVI (ESP) 120'+1

--Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Heitinga received a second yellow at 109'. It's listed in the game report under expulsions, but Heitinga's line notes "2Y=R". So, statistically, that would be the 14th yellow, since he didn't get a straight red. —C.Fred (talk) 14:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Detailing prior/future tournaments in the lede

For a long time, the following line was included in the lede:

• "The World Cup is held every four years; the previous tournament was held in Germany, while the 2014 finals will be hosted by Brazil."

I think this is more than relevant for this article, and it is certainly wrong to just assume readers know that the World Cup is held every four years, or where it was held before, or where it is already chosen to be held next. This is probably why it remained for nearly the entire period of the tournament, before it got removed when the lede was remodeled on the 1930 article [4], but that article also notionally refers to the prior tournament, and it can hardly sensibly refer to it being held every four years, or where the next tournament was being held, as these were likely concepts not even known then. Thoughts? MickMacNee (talk) 15:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a question of relevance. It's a question of whether it's so essential that it belongs in an already-bloated lead.

Neither Germany 2006 nor Brazil 2014 is essential information to this World Cup. I can't speak for the person who removed that material, but that would be my reasoning. I'd constructively suggest that, keeping in mind that the lead is already about twice the size it should be (IMO), you consider whether this piece of information is one of the most essential. The 2006 and 2010 sites are marginally relevant, and that information should be easily accessible to those who seek it.

Incidentally, if that info is not easily accessible, be bold and make it so. For example, I think the FIFA World Cup template in the footer is extremely useful, probably more useful than the other 4 navboxes. A new user would not know to look down there for the list of World Cup hosts. Frankly, I think moving that template way up in the article somehow would be beneficial. If you have ideas, go ahead and try them. We can always roll back and discuss.

Of course all the above is opinion, not consensus. If you can build consensus to include the sites of the 2006 and 2014 tournaments in the lead, go for it!

(Related: We should avoid generic World Cup information in the leads.)

Regards, PhilipR (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I feel it is important. If the information is not in the infobox (previous/prior and following) then it makes sense in the lede. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps this project can provide presentation ideas: Wikipedia:WikiProject Succession Box Standardization. Might one of the standard succession templates fit in the infobox? - PhilipR (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm disturbed when anyone says this lede is too long right now. For an event and article this huge, it is actually woefully crap and wholly too short imho, it doesn't cover even half of the most notable aspects of the 2010 tournament, half of which have been buried wholesale into equaly poor sub-articles for similar poor intertepretations of the summary/detail model of lede/main and main/sub architecture. I really really dislike the idea that the generic World Cup article, the entire thing down to the nuts and bolts of how formats have changed each tournament, let alone basic info like basic period and what's next/before, is required reading, to be able to even begin to be allowed read the lede of this article in one go. I find it most scary frankly, and wholly inaccessble to non-football readers. MickMacNee (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry you're disturbed. Aren't there guidelines for how long a lede should be? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Max four paragraphs, and cover all important aspects. That's as detailed as any guidence gets as far as I know. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

It's actually quite a bit more detailed, but not really all that specific. See MOS:BEGIN. - PhilipR (talk) 19:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"the entire thing down to the nuts and bolts of how formats have changed each tournament, let alone basic info like basic period and what's next/before, is required reading" - That doesn't really make the case that it needs to be repeated in each article. If it's literally required reading, then put it one place and link it in a way that highlights its importance. DRY. - PhilipR (talk) 18:41, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, you've got me wrong. I am not calling for the whole article to be repeated here, I am saying that nobody should be made to read that entire article when including just the pertinant bits of it that relate to this one is not an onerous task. It is not repeating oneself to do that, it is simply good practice. It is simply not fair to just assume people are aware, or are happy to go and find out, that for example, this tournament had a group stage of 32 and a knockout of 16, or that it came four years after Germany and before Brazil, and thus, just not include it in the lede. This is basic stuff from an accessibility perspective as far as I can see. And I really can't see how it can be done any better with targetted links, because far too many World Cup articles are ironically, totally unfocused. There isn't even for example just a basic list of winners. Frankly, an easter egg link to History_of_the_FIFA_World_Cup#Format_of_each_final_tournament for people to go read and jump back here, doesn't stirke me as prefereable to simply explaining the group/knockout format. In that respect, people will probably just read this entire article themselves and figure it out anyway, I know I would, which pretty much negates the point of having a lede section if people are forced to do that. MickMacNee (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the line mentioned by MickMacNee should be present in the introduction; it is good to know that this tournament is part of a continuum. The intro is good as it is - not too long, not too short. Only the play itself could perhaps be described in a bit more detail. For example that the first round was boring, and there were widely spread concerns about quality of play, but then it got much better. Tropical wind (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

According to MOS:BEGIN that's pretty much correct -- four paragraphs is about right for a long article. I was substantially wrong about the target length for a lead. I suspect some of the paragraphs could be trimmed up a bit, though. And I still think DRY is important to keep in mind for some of the tournament specifics that don't change from year to year. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 19:56, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Mentioning the nations that hosted the previous World Cup and will host the next World Cup is not appropriate to this article. People come to this article to read about the 2010 World Cup, not the 2006 or 2014 World Cup. If they want to know where those tournaments were/will be held, they can read FIFA World Cup, 2006 FIFA World Cup or 2014 FIFA World Cup, but no one would expect to find that information here. – PeeJay 21:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

"No one would expect to find that information here". What is your supporting evidence for these sweeping statements? Infact, what on earth is in the above statement for you to make this bizarre claim that its inclusion represents making people 'read about the 2006/2014 world cup'. If learning the date and location represents 'reading about the tournament', their own articles must be very short indeed. Several people here have already said it is relevant, and the statement was in there for what must have been a mind bogglingly cumulative amount of page views without anyone objecting, before it was removed once, and then you started to edit war over it. And you still are even now. Pointing others to the talk page where you effectively just restate for anyone who didn't know already that any content version you endorse is the correct version for Wikipedia, does not get you off in that regard. MickMacNee (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

My point is that this article is not about the 2006 or 2014 World Cups, so why are we talking about where they were/will be held? Why would anyone expect to find that information here? – PeeJay 22:53, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I can think of hundred and one reasons, but it really would be a major time waste even explaining them to you with your declaration that nobody would want to know it. Let's just start with the simple fact that the statement that this was the first ever tournament held in Africa simply just begs the question where it was held last time, and see if that registers in your capacity for holding views outside of your sphere of consciousness. I'm not hopeful. No, the thrust of my question relates to where you get off continually mistaking your own opinion for Wikipedia consensus, and edit warring to make this a reality. This is really starting to look like a major behavioural disorder frankly, you don't even seem prepared to acknowledge you even do it. MickMacNee (talk) 23:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Why are you making this about me? Try being civil. Anyway, it's clear that I'm not the only one who is obdurate on this issue, so why not let someone else make a comment instead of carrying on with the mud-slinging of which you seem so fond. – PeeJay 23:13, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Man you really do have a real self-perception problem don't you? It's about you because you are the one being UNCIVIL with your incessantly bad practices, namely edit warring and bizarre inability to consider other people's views. Try reading CIVIL once in a while, your modus operandi is very much considered just as much a breach of civil conduct as if I simply sat here and called you names all night, which, while tempting and very much deserved imho, would be a waste of both our lives. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The consensus has been to keep it in the lede since it was added 2010-06-24. Unless you can show that there is consensus to remove it, I don't think it's something necessary to reduce the lede. For instance the format of the tournament is unchanged and so "In the first round of the tournament finals, the teams competed in round-robin groups of four teams for points, with the top two teams in each group proceeding. These sixteen teams advanced to the knockout stage, where three rounds of play decided which teams would participate in the final match." is redundant. And the "The 2010 finals marked the first time" section is trivial. We also mention twice that Spain won in the lede. Finally, the sentence "The opening ceremony marked a return to this tradition, following a cancellation of the previous one" feels like an orphan since "this tradition" is not explained due to an earlier removal of content. So if you want to reduce the lede, there are better places to prune. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

About you, because you're the only one fighting to remove it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Infact, to ram it home again, the idea that this prose represents forcing readers to read all about those tournaments is just really ludicrous, but to run with it anyway, probably the singularly best reason this line should exist is to provide in the lede the actual links to the next and previous tournament articles, in prose, so that the readers who do want to know about those tournaments in detail, can, aswell as also providing in the opening the basic contextual info for this tournament, which is no bad thing, because, despite your magical powers for knowing exaclty what readers do and don't want to find here, you have not one idea how readers actually get to this article in the first place. This basic navigation usage is after all a function which is considered so important it forms part of the infobox. But infoboxes never were intended to replace main text, which is why it should also be in the lede. And frankly on a general point, to have nearly half of what is mentioned in the infobox as 'must know immediately' information for this article, but then to have it simply absent from the lede, is just sloppy practice all round. MickMacNee (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully the spirit of compromise will help us reach consensus. I'd suggest that sort of a middle ground is to accept that information about the other tournaments can be included tangentially, but not at length, and only to the extent that it provides a context for this tournament and doesn't grow the lead beyond the length guidelines.

As for that context -- I'd suggest that a formatted template of some sort is more readily understandable than prose. On several occasions when the old succession template was in common use, I would scroll to the bottom to find a previous coach or succeeding home stadium or whatever. Better still would be a template at the top of each World Cup's infobox. See Second Spanish Republic for an example, except that I don't recognize all those Spanish flags. I'd suggest a small flag of the host nation or small version of the tournament logo, and then the simple text "Germany 2006" or "Brazil 2014". Seems the best of both world -- succinct yet easy to navigate. Thoughts? - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The disputed sentence is 24 words long, yet you describe it as information at length. I'm sorry, but I just don't see this at all. And there is the very real and very sensible principle on Wikipedia that infoboxes do not replace prose. There are many readers who simply don't even bother to look at them for a start. It's ironic but it's probably only due to the fact there is an infobox, that a lede of a few lines looks incredibly 'long' to some, yet still effectively says nothing, and certainly doesn't summarise the main points of this event. If you want to fiddle with the ibox and make the succession clearer and more prominent, and no doubt that will upset someone in the football project, I'm certainly not going to object to that, but it's not a solution to the dispute as far as I'm concerned. It is akin to arguing that the massed ranks of stats and tables and flags and all the other wallchart cruft is somehow a replacement for summary prose about the gameplay (and yes, someone has actually tried to argue this in this mad article). MickMacNee (talk) 11:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)