Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1

Why 3rd vs 4th first in group F?
Why in Group F (🇦🇺 australia vs 🇯🇵 japan) come before (🇧🇷 brazil vs )

in all other groups always 1st vs 2nd then 3rd vs 4th, so why in group F 3rd vs 4th first? --Zayani 21:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Probably b/c of scheduling and date issues. check [www.fifaworldcup.com here] for official info. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

automatic qualification
Does the home team (Germany) get an automatic bid? -- Zoe


 * If by 'bid' you mean automatic qualification for the finals, then the answer is yes. Until 2002 both the host country and the winner of the last World Cup automatically qualified, but the rule has been changed for 2006 so it's only the host that qualifies without playing, which is rather hard on Brazil. -- Arwel 00:26 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Whoever made this page made a couple of errors... jamaica should have a capital J, and Cuba didn't beat Costa Rica... Costa Rica won on away goals. check www.fifaworldcup.com if you want. Also I think the decision to give Asia 4 teams is a disgrace! In the world cup, Japan & S Korea qualified as hosts and did OK with the help of referees, but China & Suadi Arabia, both of whom had qualified to get there, were awful, losing all their games and not scoring any goals - the only teams to fail to score (except France, lol). The World Cup would be better with some more mediocre European teams instead - asia should go back to having 2. Prehaps this should be reflected in the article too. -- Benjamin, 01:14 24 June 2004
 * Talk about the allocation could be put in the general World Cup article (if it isn't already). Though I don't think it would be right to put opinion in it like that, unless there are specific articles from FIFA stating that the allocation should be based purely on recent WC performances. Perhaps they would rather not have a World Cup consisting of 32 European nations and no others. ;) Peoplesunionpro 02:05, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Preliminaries
Looking at the official site, qualification has been going on for a year already. Is any of this being tracked on Wikipedia? Should it be? -- Avaragado 21:43, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * The European zone qualification only started this last weekend, but I don't think we need to keep track of all the qualification matches, just have final tables when the qualifications are finished. For the Oceania zone, while we haven't shown the individual stage results, we have noted that the Solomon Islands have qualified with Australia, instead of the expected New Zealand, for the playoff to decide who'll meet the South Americans. CONCACAFs' results seem to be comprehensive. -- Arwel 00:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I can see how hard it might look to keep track of all the qualifying results (in the European section, there are 8 groups ; 3 of which will feature 42 matches each, the other 5 consisting of 30 matches each - an overall total of 276 matches) but this is an online encyclopedia - we dont have to worry about wasting trees. I think we should attempt to catalogue as much information as possible ; to this end, I am looking into the feasibilty of writing some script that will go around the official FIFA site for the championship and scoop it up so we can regurgitate it in a nice wiki-friendly manner.  I know of a few progs going around which create customised TV listings by harvesting info from websites in this manner - I dont see that creating a nice simple place to list a few football results is going to be much more difficult.  I did quite a bit of work on maintaining the events pages for Swimming at the 2004 Summer Olympics earlier this year and that's the technique I used - I certainly didn'y type out all those event results by hand!!


 * If such an implementation were to be successful, the amount of data generated could be considerable - the qualification pages would need to be split away from the "finals" pages ; perhaps even each confederation's qualification matches would have to heave their own page. If you think it's a bad idea, then please do say so - but if we're trying to be truly encyclopedic, why not try to do it properly? -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 20:48, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, this has been nagging away at the back of my mind too. For instance, on current sports events there are results from European club championships, but no World Cup national qualifiers, which seems a little lopsided. It would be good to summarise the results there and to link to more extensive information in these parts. I agree that the volume of data suggests a qualification page per confederation. -- Avaragado 07:48, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Just a quick update - making very good progress in unscrambling the contents of the official FIFA website - it's all laid out very logically and the Match Reports all follow exactly the same format. This means that it's definitely very feasible to harvest information from the website so it can be presented in a suitable manner on wikipedia.   With a following wind, I'll be able to start doing significant updates of all qualifying matches by the end of the week.  The only question is - how much information do we want to display - everything is available - full-time/half-time scores, full player lists, substitutions, red/yellow cards, goals, referee and other match officials, venue, time/date.  I'll work out a few potential layouts so we can see which works best. -- Zaphod Beeblebrox 21:41, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

World Cup 2006 - European Qualification Details
Hello all - my FIFA data-mining program is now nearing completion - I have already used it to post a complete article which details all of the matches invovled in Football World Cup 2006 - European Qualification Groups. I can post articles of equal detail for each confederation with ease now.

I am debating with myself as to whether I should go one step further and give each match it's own report - complete player listings, substitutions, yellow/red cards, goal scorers, names of referee and other match officials ; 85 percent of the program to do exactly that is written...

Let me know what you think of the article I have posted for the European qualifiers - if there is any way in which it can be improved/tweaked.

I look forward to receiving any feedback you can offer. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 09:42, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup 2006 (qualification)
Since now the teams are beginning to qualify, I split off the qualification info into the FIFA World Cup 2006 (qualification) article, to help control the size of this article. It might be wise to put links to specific continental qualification sub-articles here as well. --Dryazan 14:31, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Everyone seems to have missed it, but the Dutch are mathematically qualified, I added them.
 * No they haven't - see Talk:Football World Cup 2006 - European Qualification Groups Cursive 00:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I didn't know they removed the points taken from the 7th team. All along I thought it had been unfair for teams in the other groups, well it turns out it wasn't.

Hannover
True, I stand corrected. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:02, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

PS: Check here, maybe the english name of the city is wrong here in Wiki.


 * The traditional English-language spelling of the name is with one "n". The reference you give just underlines my lack of faith in the accuracy of the CIA! -- Arwel (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I did too, but look in Talk:Hanover, it is a little clearer for me after that. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:04, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Times of matches
Does anyone know when the 3rd-place playoff and the final will take place? I know they will be on 8 and 9 July, but I would like to know what time they are expected to be played. --Gareth Hughes 22:28, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Germany will be switching to daylight saving time on 2006-03-26. Wouldn't that make all time UTC+2 ? The current UTC+1 is a little confusing. 195.135.221.2 16:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Template used
Is it possible to make the all national football team in templates i.e. or  similar to those in the tables. This will be easy for other-language Wikipedias to just copy and paste. I have one in Thai Wikipedia. --manop 21:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Mascot?
Shouldn't the article at least mention the mascot? Is there one this year? Borisblue 05:38, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes. It's World Cup Willy er.. I mean Goleo VI. See Football World Cup mascot. Might be some kind of omen there. Jooler 09:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I've never seen or heard of him before. Should we have a picture of him in the article? I think that will qualify as fair use. Borisblue 18:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Alignment
Is there any way to align the countries for their match schedules by flag? It looks very irregular as it is currently aligned from the middle by name.--Sir Edgar 05:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It is actually a right-align on the left-hand side and a left-align on the right-hand side. The idea is to get the names align with respect to the score. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

139.30.123.28 Vandalism
Kepp an eye out for this childlike vandal. Persistent vandalism of the finals structure by putting a Germany 2 Portugal 1 score in the final. If he persists i'll recommend a ban. Jamie 12:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Venue Names
Can we please restore the correct venue names with a note that explains why FIFA will call them otherwise? It is ridiculous that 80% of the stadiums are named the same. Ideas? Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The following FIFA document regulates the writing of stadium names, etc. in detail:
 * http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/i/eu/fifa/event3.pdf
 * --Copper04 15:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * In The official WC Site Frankfurt's stadium is not changed. Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I know, but many informations on www.fifaworldcup.com concerning stadium facts are outdated. The above linked PDF document is from Nov the 15th and it contains the latest name changes. --Copper04 17:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Which I read. It is very good. But besides that, I believe we should use the stadium names and leave a footnote to the effect that FIFA will use the non-sponsored names for the WC. I just think is ugly to have all the stadiums named almost the same. Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I have changed the page to reflect the above point by Sebastian Kessel, how do you think it looks? IanManka 20:22, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Anyone? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it looks good but I am still torn between the ugly look of the "official FIFA names" and the non-official status of the stadiums. I'm still for keeping the original stadium names throughout the article, we don't necessarily need to abide by FIFA's rules. Sebastian Kessel Talk 21:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not create a table of original stadium names and the FIFA Stdium names. Remember FIFA only are renaming the stadiums so that there isn't a conflict of interests with regard to sponsorship Jamie 08:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not a half-bad idea. I'm terrible with tables though, so someone else would have to do it. I'd look at it, and give you my opinions. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 14:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've tried to do what has been suggested, criticism welcome! Poulsen 14:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Looks spiffy and nice. I think Sebastian Kessel will be pleased! Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 16:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I couldn't be happier! :) Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Capacity quotas
A dumb question: The article reads that due to terracing not being allowed, several stadiums are having seats installed--but that reduces the capacity? Is this requirement replacing a standing-room-only section with seats? The article might be clarified a bit on this point. --EngineerScotty 20:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, seats are installed to replace standing-room-only areas, therefore capacity goes down. Sebastian Kessel Talk 00:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * And the difference between regular seating capacity and FIFA World Cup seating capacity is because of the need to change seating areas into media zones (with desks and monitors). --Copper04 10:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Final Table Graphic
This table comes from the French Wiki - I think it looks very smart but don't know if it could be used here. It's here for reference, maybe it can be incorporated somewhere?

Tableau final
fr:Modèle:Tableau phase finale attente 

doktorb | words 12:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It seems the second template doesn't work. The blank one looks quite nice, but I don't know how we could utilize it in one of the articles. I'd take the blank one to the discussion pages at Football World Cup and see what they say there. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 14:44, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The second template link was User:Doktorbuk's attempt to use the French template, which was unsuccesful as it's only available in the Fr: database, so I made a direct link to the blank. Poulsen 14:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

It gives something like this:

Khardan 13:53, 1 January 2006 (UTC).
 * I love it... very nice, looks snazzy. Put it in! Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Yes, Yes!! Sebastian Kessel Talk 04:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added it in just under the group stage, but above the Round of 16 match schedule. If you can find a better place, please move it. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

POV removed
I removed the sentence refering to Group E being the "Group of Death". The same could be said of Group C. Either way it is POV to say that either of these groups are "groups of death", also in whose opinion??. Jamie 12:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Earlier, both Groups C and E were described as groups of death; then someone removed the reference to group C on the grounds that it is "weaker" than group E. (There seems to be some debate within the football community as to whether or not a tournament may have more than one "group of death"; or at most one).  Regarding whose opinion--the selection of E and C as GODs is the opinion of numerous football commentators, whose writings on the matter are easily citeable.  As noting the groups of death is, I believe, encyclopedic--I would suggest the following language:
 * After the draw was completed, many football commentators remarked that Group C and/or Group E appeared to be the groups of death in the Cup. (insert reference here)
 * This language, I believe, would satisfy NPOV requirements, as Wikipedia would not take sides on the controversy regarding whether group C, E, or both is deserving of the "group of death" label. (As no commentator seems to consider any other group to be a GOD, it isn't a NPOV violation for Wikipedia to exclude Group A, for example, from the list of possible groups of death). --EngineerScotty 17:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, insert your revised sentence. Sounds good. Jamie 09:01, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Special Pot
I've restored ARG, BRA and MEX to the special pot. Those who watched the draw will agree with me that there were three balls in the special pot to represent the groups where SCG could possibly go. Let's try to keep it this but if somebody has other ideas, let's hear them here and not start an edit war.

Sebastian Kessel Talk 04:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe they should be removed. It implies the countries themselves were in that pot, whereas it was only used as a method of working out which group SCG would be put in.  Perhaps put a description in the text ("There was 1 white ball and 3 black balls which represented etc etc...") but don't just list in the "Pot X" column.

Does anyone have any details on previous world cup draws - as in, not the results - the full details, such as anomalies like this? -- Chuq 06:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure about thew above, but there was only ONE side officially in the special pot Robdurbar 09:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But there WAS a pot with three black balls. What are we calling that? Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I orginally tried to explain this pot, but without much success. Here's what I can come up with, and someone can edit it (REWORD IT, especially) so that it makes some sense: The pot was drawn in a way so that Serbia and Montenegro was drawn first (white ball), then one of the three non-European teams (black ball) who would each head a group (i.e. seeded teams) would be drawn. The team that was drawn was the group S&M would go into. The other two teams were drawn and shown to avoid controversy. The draw was so that S&M, a seeded European team, and another European team drawn from Pot C would not appear in the same pot (3 teams from a continental zone in same pot = bad). [I don't exactly recall the timing of the special pot draw, but I know it was after the seeded teams draw.]

If you have any questions, please leave a note on my talk page. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 03:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Page is too long
Apparently the page is about 31 KB right now... any suggestions of any articles we can split? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 04:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'ld suggest moving all matches (or in a less radical solution, only the group stage) to a seperate page, and only keep the Graphical schedule - when reading the article (and all other World Cup pages for that sake) too much time and space are waisted on boring match templates. It would be more informative to have som actual text on the group stage and final rounds, and then link to a subpage with the hard facts. Poulsen 07:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

map
A map of Germany and where the venues in the WC are would be nice... Arnemann 22:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Kick-off
Are the kick of timess known yet? Jooler 08:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They are known, and have been posted within the page. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rankings
I edited the rankings, to update them for Feb 05. The reason I did this was because they had been updated since the 'pre-draw' rankings, without this explained in the text. My reasoning behind updating them to Feb, rather than just reverting, was as it occured to me that we could update these till the end of May 'O6, thus showing the rankings on entering the tournament.

I (equally) see a validity in keeping them as pre-draw rankings. However, I should point out, that the current text, and the main argument as given here, that the draw was based on these rankings, is false. The rankings were a contributing factor, but not the only one - hence England were officially '2nd seeds'.

I'll make an edit to ensure that this is indicated, and that current page reads with the pre-draw rankings, and not those updated by an anonymous editor for now. I wonder whether people feel that pre-draw, or pre-world cup, rankings would suit this page better? Robdurbar 22:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see it now. I had forgotten that the rankings were only a part of the final assignments of pots. I still feel we should keep the Dec 2005 rankings because they were essentially the only rankings that contributed to the pot draw...


 * Should we create a new section to state current ranks of qualified teams? In any case, I feel that we should always have a section dedicated to how pots were assigned... we could have a separate section describing current ranks.


 * Or, possibly, a table, showing the progression of rank as we edge closer to the World Cup?


 * Let me know what everyone feels, and we'll proceed from there.


 * My apologies to the users who were updating the ranks to the current date. I was rash in my decision to revert any changes to the December rankings. Regards! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not at all, its better that these things are thrashed out here first. We could leave it as Dec 05 rankings until the tournament, and then update them at the end of may. This reflects the fact that at the moment, the draw is more important, but become more irrelevant once the tournament approaches... Robdurbar 10:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, what might be ideal is if we can find a list of the FIFA coefficients used to do the draw? Robdurbar 10:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * The criteria used were 1/3 FIFA World Cup 98 points for certain levels of qualification, 2/3 FIFA World Cup 2002 points for certain levels of qualification, combined with the December 2005 rankings. I'll try and find a link soon. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 20:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


 * As viewed here (PDF), the rankings were created as follows:


 * Two parts, World Ranking and Performance in past Cups.
 * World Ranking: 1/3 Dec 2005, 1/3 Dec 2004, 1/3 Dec 2003.
 * Past Performace: evaluated on a graduated scale developed by FIFA; 2/3 FIFA World Cup 2002, 1/3 FIFA World Cup;
 * World Ranking + Past Performance = Total Points; Sorted by Total Points, arranged into pots.

See the PDF for more details. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

So should we include an explanation of the co-efficients in the draw section and have the rankings updated until may in the other bit? Robdurbar 12:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not entirely sure... A table perhaps of coefficients used to align pots (rip 'em directly from the PDF?), then a second one charting the progress since then or a system currently? What do you think? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't quite see the relvance of a progression table, to be honest. Why not have the coefficients of the seeded teams (as these are the only relevant ones) by their names in the draw pots, leave the rankings as dec 05 and then update them to may 05 when they come out. Robdurbar 09:19, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Ehh, whatever. I like your solution. Carry it out, and we'll see how it looks. Thanks! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Football World Cup 2006 → 2006 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions. --Pkchan 10:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved per apathy. Jooler

Hannover >> Hanover
Please be aware that in English I think Hanover is written with a single "n". Ok this is not a big deal ;-) Kaloskagatos 16:23, 13 March 2006 (UTC)


 * According to my atlas (The Times Atlas of the World), the city has two N's, but in the index "Hanover, Germany" is listed as "see Hannover, Germany" so maybe either is acceptable? Starfighter Pilot 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Use of FIFA World Cup Images on Websites
Just found this article on the FIFA World Cup site: FIFA World Cup™ restrictions lifted for web media. It's about the use of images on websites, and says that FIFA and World Association of Newspapers have "reached an agreement to lift all restrictions on digital publication of photographs of the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ in Germany". Presumably this would include Wikipedia as well? Just thought this might be useful for updates during the tournament. Starfighter Pilot 17:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC)