Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 7

CONDENSE?
Since the 2006 World Cup is over, I think the article needs be condensed. When someone (Say in 2010)wants to look at the overall overview of the tournament I don't think they want to scroll through all the goal scores in every game to see the whole jist of the overview. I think the scores can be condensed w/o goal scores for each game and have all of that go into the respective GROUP article or knock out round article. I think the top scorers should be listed with a page to all the scoring and what not if people what the goal scorers more in depth. I loved it when the tournament was going on, but to be a continous box score...I hope the article is shortened for more favorable reading of an overview of the tournament. It is a consideration, but great job to all of those who contributed.--Jerluvsthecubs 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree... but I think it's important that this is done in the right way. We already have articles for the knockout-round and the group stage. How about condensing the group stage section, but having an article for the whole group stage, which would just be a copy of the section in its present form... --StuartBrady (Talk) 02:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If anything, to maintain consistency with the articles for the past world cups. Jmount 05:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. you have a point, but there IS a table of contents so there's not much of a point in shortening it... if you really want to have a shorter article then make a new page. '2006 Fifa World Cup Overview' or watev. HyperSushi21 06:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been working on an alternate layout for the group round section - see User:Chuq/Sandbox/Group. About an article called 2006 FIFA World cup overview, the main article is supposed to be an overview. -- Chuq 23:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro shortened
I have shortened the intro by moving the last two paragraphs to a new heading 'Tournament summary'. Events before the start of the tourney are now in the Intro while events after the start are in Contetnts. BlueValour 18:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I did Wrong?
Yesterday i just delete image and also awards. However, someone just put it back and have a warn to me. I want to ask, i did wrong? Honestly. i just edit because in the past, the image was deleted after someone put it. And isi't awards need to put in this page, i saw page FIFA World Cup awards created, didn't awards should put there? Aleen f 1 05:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the awards each world cup belong in that cup's main article. You certainly can't get rid of the "2006 World Cup Winners" part. --StuartBrady (Talk) 02:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

A winner is Italy
Someone wrote that but someone also erased that why? Cuzandor 20:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was erased in two reverts that were executed because half of the article was deleted in constant editing. &mdash; Super-Magician (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count ) &#x2605; 20:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Constant editing is preventing restoration
Constant editing is preventing restoration of deleted parts of the article. We need to clean it up. I know the sprotect was just removed, but its hard to fix it if everyone is all editing at once. &mdash; Super-Magician (talk &bull; contribs &bull; count ) &#x2605; 20:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Try using the tag if the situation warrants its use. See Edit lock for details. -- Alias Flood 02:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Someon please get rid of the colors.
The fillcolors of the labels above the bracket are annoying, and really add nothing positive to this article. The names are just good enough...

FIFA's World Cup squad of the tournament
What is this section? It needs (a) an explanation and (b) a citation. Otherwise it should be removed. -- SGBailey 22:44, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added a brief explanatory note with references. I've also renamed the section to reflect the award's official title. --Muchness 00:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've modified my initial wording from "performances up to the second round" to "performances through the second round", as this is the wording used in all sources I can find (including the cited reference). See, , , etc. This rewording for accuracy to sources has been reverted as "vandalism" twice. --Muchness 07:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Awards section
It would be nice to have a short paragraph explaining how award winners are chosen in the Awards section above the awards. --MZMcBride 00:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes there should be. Kingjeff 00:16, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Any sources for Ricardo being named best goalkeeper? According to (in French) it was Buffon. Moszczynski 00:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Has anyone check the official site of the world cup? Kingjeff 00:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nothing there. I suspect it was an over-zealous Portuguese fan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.105.139.176 (talk • contribs) 00:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC).


 * Official site was the first place I looked. But it doesn't even mention a 'Yashin award' (I searched for Yashin), nor is there a link t the goalkeeper award in the sidebar under the tournament tab, though the other awards (golden boot, golden ball, best young player) have them. Moszczynski 00:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do know there is a Yashin Award. But I haven't heard who the winner is. Kingjeff 00:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been awarded to Buffon, and it's really called the Lev Yashin Award. http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/060710/1/8ren.html

Regarding Portugal winning the Most Entertaining Team, does anyone have a source for this? According to this voting is still on-going. --Lieftastic 03:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here. I think they must've kept the voting program going even after they tallied them and declared a winner. Moszczynski 03:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Most Entertaining Team award is not an official award and probably shouldn't be mentioned at all. If it is mentioned it needs a disclaimer that it was awarded based solely on public internet voting and the results are heavily skewed due to countless manipulation attempts. --Illuminaut 17:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I created this section because I have no idea how the award selections are made (i.e. who votes, who can vote, how the nominee lists are made, who counts the votes, etc.). Could somebody add a paragraph in the Awards section about this info, please? --MZMcBride 04:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

So I again added the Yashin award winner Buffon, I donno who keeps deleting it.Squadoosh 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Zidane wins Golden Ball: Squadoosh 10:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we really need references for all these awards? I'd say these are hard facts and the obvious source for all of them is FIFA's world cup website. --Arkan5 11:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No we don't. I think the references were just because right when it was announced people would be like "well where is the link?" but now I think everyone knows who won what. Those should be removed. Also, there is no need to put the silver and bronze balls, I will remove that.Squadoosh 02:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Individual scorers
2002 FIFA World Cup has a 'Top scorers' section. 1998 FIFA World Cup has a 'Goal scorers' section. This article has 'Individual scorers'. Could we have a vote, please? Cheers, --StuartBrady (Talk) 02:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as it is all-inclusive, let's go with 'Goal scorers'. If it is a best-of, 'Top scorers' gets my vote. --Guinnog 02:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm going for Goal scorers, makes the most sense. Okkam's razor.Squadoosh 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ... why not just 'scorers'?? seems to be the simple-ist choice...HyperSushi21 06:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. In soccer you can score only goals. So "scorers" includes "goal". --Calippo 11:17, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd much rather have "Goal scorers". "Scorers" on its own doesn't sound right. --StuartBrady (Talk) 13:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, "Goal scorers" sounds better. --Arkan5 14:43, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've renamed it to "Goal scorers". --StuartBrady (Talk) 15:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know
WHAT THE FUCK HAPPENED TO ZIDANE!?
 * This video might explain some. Looks like some unnecessary touching going on by the Italian player. — ceejayoz talk  05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Really? That's why Zidane nerfed him? See your doctor. Moriori 06:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ... I call it sexual harassment...there's no reason for that Italian dude grabbing Zidane...that and cultural relativism (sp?)the Italian probably insulted Zidane too...it wuzn't fair for the Frenchy tho... the Italian provoked him.


 * Early reports are that the Italian defender said something to provoke Zidane. The French camp says it was something racial, the Italian camp says nothing happened.  The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.  It doesn't matter though, violent conduct like Zidane's header has to be punished and i'm glad that it was.  He was out of line, and likely cost his team a better chance at the trophy. Batman2005 07:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Was Zidane really not allowed to receive his medal at the ceremony? As long as I don't see a credible reference for this I rather believe that he wanted to be alone. I don't think it's still considered "field of play" at the time of the ceremony, otherwise nobody besides the referees and the 21 active players would be allowed on the field. --Arkan5 15:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * According to the FIFA announcers last night (Canadian TV just buys the basic official feed), players who are dismissed are not allowed back on the pitch under any circumstances - meaning that if France had won, Zidane would not have even been allowed to hoist the cup. Moszczynski 15:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just heard on the news that the Italian called Zidane's mom a slut (whore to be exact)...they used lip-readers. HyperSushi21 07:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Tournament summary
Should be more over-all information about the tournament in general. I don't think information about a sending off incident in the final is relevent here. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 07:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Nor do I, nor do I think it was the most important incident of the game, surely the winning of the tournament was more important than the foolish actions of one player. I say remove the section or re-write...devoid of anything about the Zidane incident and cover only the final, lets we talk about the 27 other incidents that lead to red cards. Batman2005 07:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe there is a better page to place the episode? Don't know, maybe controversies? --80.165.167.118 13:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the Zidane comment deserves a couple sentences in the main article, just as the the Hand of God goal gets in the 1986 FIFA World Cup summary. The problem is that we really need to provide more of a narrative of what happened in the whole tournament instead of just the final. Moszczynski 14:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. mebbe add a clip of what happened too. HyperSushi21 07:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Golden Boot link that was just added
The stupid tossers at CNN say Zidane won the Golden Boot instead of Golden Ball. Jooler 10:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

'Americans' changed to 'Italians'
Some jerk had added "The World Cup Final played in Berlin, saw the Americans triumph over France.". I changed this to Italians. Goneja 17:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Do not make personal attacks on other people. Skinnyweed 14:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Top scorer award
Under awards it says Golden Boot. Under Goal scorers it says Golden Shoe. <= confusing. HyperSushi21 07:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's all the same. But the official name is Adidas Golden Shoe. —Lesfer (talk/@) 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Public Viewing
I think one of the most outstanding and important incidents with this WC was the introduction of public viewing events. More than 20 million people joined the official fan areas alone, thus creating a cultural meaning none WC has had in former years.

Maybe this should be mentioned in the summary? '' —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.163.91.195 (talk • contribs). ''


 * Sign your comments. And yes, I think this fact should be mentioned. —Lesfer (talk/@) 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it is sad that there are long articles about 2006 FIFA World Cup controversies and 2006 FIFA World Cup crime concerns and nothing about the cultur around the Word Cup (opening ceremony, special events ...) and nothing about the Fan-Feste. "The tournament was most notable for the number of yellow and red cards given out." - What a negativ POV. It is easy to rocognize that no one of the main autors of this article has been in Germany in this time. I am also very sure that this was not the most important for the visitors and TV-viewers all over the world. It even seems to contain Anti-German prejudices. The chance to be a victim of Rasism is not higher in the vast majority of East Germany than in New York or Paris or Italy - but nothing about "crime concerns" in 2006 Winter Olympics. There have been also reports albout Rasism in Italy in this time but someone think it is always only worth mentioning for Germany, because some newspapers make a big deal of this topic. Sure there are problems with Rasism in Germany and there have been some very sad cases of violence against foreigners (not only in East Germany by the way) but this are problems also in the US or France and the most countries and nothing special to Germany or the World Cup. Maybe many people in London are more tolerant ablout foring looking people than in some little poor villages in East Germany (what a wonder!) but nevertheless the chance to get in trouble (also for reasons of Rasism) is much higher in London than for example in Leipzig. Germany is one of the savest countries in the world (watch the police peports) and maybe a black person have a little risk of trouble more than a white person because there is a chance that he meet some of the few violent Neo-Nazis alone at night on a quite place but he is still much saver in Leipzig than in New York. Leipzig the only East German World Cup town was reported by many visitors as one of the best hostcites and big and very happy party for people all over the world - but this seems not important for some old World War II - Fans? The article about "Crime concerns" could be deleted in my opinion and it would be enough to make two or three sentences. This is no relevant article for an encyclopedia, because there was no significant Hooliganism compared to other events of this scale, there was no important Rasicm (I have heard nothing) and there was no Trafficking of woman in a scale worth mentioning. --Knarf-bz 09:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "italy being disqualified" rumors
Someone deleted a comment on this topic, but I'll elaborate:

The article Zinedine Zidane contains a suggestion at the bottom (supported by an article in a German publication) suggesting that the Italians could be disqualified if Materazzi were to in fact have uttered an ethnic slur against Zidane, based on anti-discrimination policies of FIFA. The explaination given sounds very unlikely--as the FIFA rule appears to refer to "public" statements and such, not insults hurled about the pitch, but it is a rumor bubbling around the sports media. I wouldn't mention it in the article at this point (and I consider headbutting a more serious offense than taunting), but it is out there. Just FYI. --EngineerScotty 20:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I've proposed the paragraph be stricken from the article on Zidane. While Der Spiegel is a reputable publication; the article in question appeared to be speculation from a sports columnist, rather than a report that FIFA is really considering such a thing (my German isn't the greatest, so my understanding of the column could be in error).  --EngineerScotty 20:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, pure speculation. Italy disqualified for Materazzi words? The author of this article only managed to show he doesn't know scheisse about FIFA or the game. Poor guy, pathetic. —Lesfer (talk/@) 20:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Flags
I have changed the Template:Country flag alias ENG. Now it uses the normal english flag instead of the bordered one, and I have added a border when needed with the "border" command. If you like it I will do the same with other flags like Japan and South Korea.--Calippo 16:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it back, because it didn't work properly. I already experimented with the command, but this changes the formatting somehow. --Arkan5 22:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What were the problems? On my PC it looked fine. --Calippo 08:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Your version used 2 lines for the English players, one for the flag, the second for the player name. Maybe someone else can explain why, I didn't find a reason for it. --Arkan5 13:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

TF1
My act is not forgivable," Zidane said. "But they must also punish the true guilty party, and the guilty party is the one who provokes."

"I tell myself that if things happened this way, it's because somewhere up there it was decided that way," he said in a later interview on TF1 television. "And I don't regret anything that happened, I accept it."

In a later interview with TF1 television, Zidane said he was "going to rest, and then move on to something else."

Pour Zidane, "la réaction doit être punie", mais "le coupable, c'est celui qui provoque", a-t-il insisté. Dans un entretien accordé à TF1, l'ex-numéro 10 a dit ne pas savoir si sa présence sur le terrain jusqu'à la fin du match aurait changé l'issue de cette finale. De toute façon, il ne changerait rien si c'était à refaire.

"Je laisserais ça comme ça parce que là-haut, on a décidé que c'était comme ça et je crois qu'il faut simplement accepter les choses telles qu'elles sont, a confié l'ancien Ballon d'Or sur TF1. J'ai toujours cru en moi, en quelque chose de fort, je ne me suis jamais étendu là-dessus mais je me dis que si ça s'est passé comme ça, c'est qu'en haut, on en a décidé ainsi et je ne regrette rien de ce qui s'est passé, je l'assume."

"Par contre, prendre une licence amateur dans mon quartier de toujours (la Castellane, à Marseille), pourquoi pas. Et de temps en temps y retourner pour jouer avec les potes", a dit Zidane, qui a confié à TF1 qu'il voudrait également retourner en Algérie, la terre de ses parents.

The above account of the TF1 interview is incomplete. Here is the complete interview where Zidane answers "no" when the interviewer asks if Materazzi made racist statements. Orbifold 21:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The user claims that the above interview, which my computer has thus far not yet played successfully, contains a rather important statement which has gone unreported in the English or French language press. Not a single English or French language source which cites that same interview mentions that statement. The user did provide an Italian source which supports the user's claims.

Of great interest would be if there is a transcript of the above video from a verifiable source or corroboration of the Italian source.--DaveOinSF 21:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

A verifiable source is the video itself. Nothing can be better than that. Orbifold 21:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

My PC succeeded in playing the tape. The interviewer asks Zidane if the statements were "racist... or family" and Zidane says "no...yes" clearly saying "no" to the former and "yes" to the latter and then continues with the descriptions of what family insults mean. If I remember correctly his "no" superposed with the interviewer's word "family"; indeed I had to play the tape twice to understand the word "family" clearly, while the word "racist" was clear. Orbifold 21:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide the playing time where this exchange occurs?--DaveOinSF 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The exchange occurs in the first few minutes. Orbifold 21:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are links to English and French articles which discuss this interview, from which I culled the quotes above: and --DaveOinSF 21:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Now also the first page of Corriere della Sera says "ma non erano offese razziste". Orbifold 21:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the Italian-language article which is the only source that mentions that the exchange the user describes took place. --DaveOinSF 21:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This newspaper article is not the only source. The original source is the TF1 interview that my PC plays and the PC of this user cannot. I guess that many other PC's can play the TF1 video linked above. Orbifold 21:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, the video is 13.5 minutes long (and in French) and I do not have the time to translate the thing. I still maintain drawing my own conclusions from it would be original research anyway.  However, it would be helpful if you could please let us know more precisely where in the video the exchange occurs.


 * Also, google News searches of "Zidane and TF1" and "Zidane and TF1 and racism" turn up hundreds of hits, all of which discuss the video and none of which mention the exchange you and the Corriere della Sera cite. I tried "Zidane and TF1 and racist" and "Zidane and TF1 and race" as well and only got 2 unrelated hits.


 * Searching French google, I came across this:, which has the following description:


 * A la question de savoir si les insultes étaient à caractère raciste, Zidane a répondu non. Mais il a refusé de dévoiler avec précision ce qu'avait dit Materazzi. Il a été interrogé pour savoir si la réalité «recoupait» ce qu'avaient rapporté les tabloïds anglais qui, s'appuyant sur des spécialistes en lecture labiale, ont accusé l'Italien d'avoir dit: «On sait tous que tu es le fils d'une pute terroriste.» Zidane a juste répondu: «Ben oui.»


 * Which I attempt to translate as:


 * To the question of knowing if the insults were of racist character, Zidane answered no. But he refused to disclose with precision what Materazzi had said.  He was questioned for knowing  if reality "recrossed" that whch had reported the English taboids who, relying on lipreading specialists, accused the Italian of having said "We all know that you are the son of a terrorist whore".  Zidane just answered "Yes."


 * Much of my interpretation hinges on the translation of "recoupait". So Zidane said he did not characterize the insult as racist, but it may indeed have been along the lines of "terroist whore"?--DaveOinSF 01:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You can find a translation of what he told the TV channel Canal Plus about the Materazzi incident here -- Alias Flood 02:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it's not Canal+, it's TF1.--DaveOinSF 02:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * BETTER TRANSLATION:


 * To the question of whether the insults were of racist character, Zidane answered no. But he refused to disclose precisely what Materazzi had said. He was asked if reality "matched up" with what the English tabloids, who, relying on lipreading specialists, had accused the Italian of having said "We all know that you are the son of a terrorist whore", reported, Zidane just answered "Yes."


 * So, in essence, Zidane agrees that Materazzi said "you are the son of a terrorist whore" but he doesn't consider that racist in character. So where we currently stand:  the Swiss paper reported both parts, the Italian paper reported only that second part, and all the other thousands of papers reported NEITHER.  Maybe the ambiguity is why people have avoided characterizing exactly what Zidane said?--DaveOinSF 03:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This quotation is confusing, because it does not report Zidane's exact talking, but a mix of words between quotation marks and words that are not between quotation marks. Any attempt to pass this as a document is misleading. The original video is the only source. You are just climbing up the mirrors because you deleted an important sourced improvement of the article. Orbifold 07:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I have watched the TF1 movie again. There is no exchange like the one claimed by DaveOinSF and Tribune de Geneve. The claims " He was asked if reality "matched up" with what the English tabloids, who, relying on lipreading specialists, had accused the Italian of having said "We all know that you are the son of a terrorist whore", reported, Zidane just answered "Yes." " does not correspond to the truth in TF1 video. The TF1 video does not contain anything like that. Anybody can watch the video and confirm. Asked if Materazzi's statements were racist, Zidane answers "no". There is no ambiguity in the TF1 video about that. No later comment invalidating that "no". This user has been spreading out a lot of confusion and ambiguity about this case all day long, first claiming that a French source is not a source because it is not in English, then claiming that a video source is not a source because it is a video, finally browsing over the internet to look for ambiguous transcripts of the video. The video is just there and anybody can watch it. Orbifold 10:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

My statements are confirmed by a French user on the French Wikipedia Talk page about Zinedine Zidane, who writes "L'article du Monde (dont le lien figure sur l'article de Zidane) semble dire que Zidane confirme la version des propos racistes soutenue par de nombreux Tabloids anglais. Or hier Zidane a nié les insultes racistes (en particulier durant l'interview de TF1 ou Claire Chazal lui a directement posé la question). Je pense donc qu'il faudrait supprimer cet article du Monde et le remplacer par un autre qui ne déforme pas la réalité." Therefore I suggest that a statement such as "Later Zidane said in an interview to the most important French TV channel TF1 that Materazzi's statements were not racist." be put back on the turnament page of the article, together with the link to the video. I think it is not fair to ignore this important interview in the English page. I won't do it myself because there is a user who keeps deleting my improvements on ungrounded claims. Orbifold 12:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible Rematch???
French lawyer plans challenge to World Cup result PARIS, July 13 (Reuters) - A French lawyer plans to ask a court to intervene in the controversy over Zinedine Zidane's sending-off in the World Cup final.

Doubts over whether a match official relied on video evidence of Zidane's head butt to Italian defender Marco Materazzi meant the final should be replayed, lawyer Mehana Mouhou said.

"I am going to ask the judge to question all individuals concerned and to reconstruct the end of the refereeing," Mouhou, who is based in the northern town of Rennes, told Reuters on Thursday.

"If it is proved that the fourth referee used video evidence, FIFA can have the final replayed," he said.

Mouhou said he was acting on behalf of a number of clubs and associations whose names he would reveal once the application had been filed with the Tribunal de Grande Instance in Paris, one of France's main civil courts.

French captain Zidane was sent off in extra time in Sunday's final in Berlin after he head-butted Materazzi, apparently in reaction to comments by the defender. Italy went on to take the World Cup after winning the match on penalties.

The incident went unseen by the referee and his two linesmen. The referee was informed about the head butt by the fourth match official who said he had witnessed the action.

French team officials have challenged this version of events, saying the official knew what happened because he saw a video replay.

FIFA rules prevent referees from using video evidence during the course of a match.

"The divergence of opinion means that the justice system should decide," Mouhou said.

"If it is proved that video was used, I will ask for the match to be nullified."

http://sports.yahoo.com/sow/news;_ylt=AnQxOmVSsfupdloKvHUEawQmw7YF?slug=reu-zidanecourt&prov=reuters&type=lgns


 * There is absolutely no way that the match will be replayed. The lawyer in question isn't acting on behalf of the french national side, he's acting independently, he was not hired by the french football federation or anything. Batman2005 00:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Attendance as compared to earlier World Cups?
Was the attendance particularly high, at least as the percentage of the available seats? Seems the stadiums were full for the most part. Is there any evidence that this was a particularly well-attended World Cup? -- Mareklug talk  00:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Final Penalty score?
"penalty shootout followed, which Italy won 5-3." A question. Was it 5-3 -- If I remember correctly France never took the last shot, as it was a moot point at that stage. Would it be better to state that France never shot their last penalty shot? --Ravend 05:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that is never mentioned, the score is always simply reported in terms of the penalties which were scored, which in case was 5-3 ChrisTheDude 06:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there no punishment for fouls dcommited by tongue? anaz www.anazcp.com

Fußball vs. Fussball revisited
I read the archives on this subject, and I thought some more about the situation. I think that the German-language version used in the Wikipedia article should reflect the German as written in the host country (Germany: Fußball), not Switzerland (Fussball) as is the case right now. In other (previous) World Cups, the host country's language is included below the English name. So how FIFA spells it (because it is a Swiss organization) is quite besides the point here. For the Japan/Korea World Cup we have it spelled in Japanese and in Korean. So for a Germany World Cup we should have it spelled in the German used in Germany -- it's simple parallelism. -- Mareklug talk  00:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds quite reasonable. --StuartBrady (Talk) 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "For the Japan/Korea World Cup we have it spelled in Japanese and in Korean" Whaaat? They use a different script so that's not really an issue is it. The official site in German uses fussball even though it uses strafstoß for penalty kick. Jooler 06:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So tempted to take this to WP:LAME doktorb wordsdeeds 08:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Couldn't resist &mdash; I've added it. Wow, that page is funny. --StuartBrady (Talk) 12:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe it is lame, but I think what you wrote on the page is not entirely correct. The German WP writes Fußball whenever actually refering to the sport, and only once Fussball, refering to the official trademark, which to me makes sense (mostly because I developed that policy). And by the way, I initially changed Fussball to Fußball and now keep changing it back, because to me, it seems correct to write the official name of the event according to the way the host writes it (after all, there is a (tm) after the name. (I know I sound too grave... must be my German heritage). Blur4760 13:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess this is lame, but since I'm idle, I guess I support the use of "ß" . -- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|)  08:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It does not matter, if on the official world cup website maintained by FIFA it is Fussball then it needs to be that way on here. We can't just go around changing official names just because they don't translate well into a particular language.  We've been over this time and again, and it has always come down to "go with what FIFA uses" and they use Fussball.  End of discussion. Batman2005 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FIFA Fussball Worldcup is a trademark. If you refer to the cup, use ss, if you refer to the 'german' word for Football (soccer), use "ß". This is really a non-issue! Snakemike 07:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Fußball: Traditional German spelling (but still used by many Germans today.]). Fussball: German spelling reform of 1996. [...] if you refer to the 'german' word for Football (soccer), use "ß" [...] Since the new spelling is used in offical texts, it was named Fussball and not Fußball. Hope this helps. --89.53.62.243 12:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The reform did not change the spelling of Fußball (because the u here is a long vowel). In Germany the spelling Fussball is simply wrong, but acceptable if you use capital letters or don't habe the means to write an ß. Btw. I'm German. --146.107.43.107 11:19, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Lame again
Perhaps this might go to WP:LAME aswell.. but... can anyone give me a good reason why we shouldn't now use the Template:Round16-waiting as used on Portuguese Wikipedia Jooler 09:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was quite suprised when we switched away from it, but I suppose you could argue that it's too verbose. --StuartBrady (Talk) 12:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Footballboxes
Is there any technical reason that each football box should be on only one line? Or is it okay if I add line-breaks? (Editing them is a bit awkward without this.) --StuartBrady (Talk) 12:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

All Star Squad
Do they ever play as a team? if so, against who? 22:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Crystaliser (talk • contribs).


 * No they didn't.  Slumgum   T.   C. ''  22:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Extra time/Penalty shootout style in footballboxes
An anonymous editor (81.104.118.2) just made an edit which changed the style of the scores in the footballboxes, for extra time and penalty shootouts. To me, it looks like a step backwards. Should it be reverted? --StuartBrady (Talk) 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I am neutral on the style, althoug I think the links should remain. I did notice that all other world cup articles in which penalty decisions occured were changed from that IP address. They might want to explain their reasons for the change. - ChaChaFut 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be a little less wound up if they discussed it with me before simply reverting the edits I'd been making to a few of the other articles. Luckily, I hadn't got especially far. The fact that they seem to break at least as much as they fix isn't helpful either. (See my fixes to the 1994 FIFA World Cup article.) As for the style, I'm not especially bothered which one we use... --StuartBrady (Talk) 23:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Man of the Match awards
I just re-added the section on the Man of the Match awards. I don't know why it was deleted, as it is obviously relevant. The section contains a link to the 2006 FIFA World Cup: Man of the Match Awards page. Ordinary Person 00:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Comparison to earlier World Cups"
This seems odd to me. I don't disagree with having a section comparing goals and cards to previous editions, but I feel the second paragraph (as of the current version) could possibly be on the borderline of violating WP:NPOV or some other sort of policy. Maybe it just has to be reworded. Is this just me, or does anyone else see something going on? Ian Manka Talk to me! 05:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Andrea Pirlo
I have reinstated his three MOM under 'Awards'. I think that three awards including the final well merits a mention on the main page. BlueValour 19:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have indicated previously, I do not think that Andrea Pirlo deserves any more mention on the main page than do other winners of the Man of the Match award in his capacity as a MOM winner. He is already mentioned by name for winning the Bronze Ball, and there are other multi-MOM winners who are also not mentioned on the main page (Michael Ballack, Miroslav Klose, Patrick Vieira, Agustin Delgado, Ze Roberto, Alexander Frei, & Arjen Robben). DaveOinSF also seems to support my position. Unless a significant number of users come out in support of Pirlo being mentioned in this capacity on the main page, I think it should remain as it is without him. 68.48.174.174 17:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. It was even debated at the start of the tournmaner whether Man of the Match awards were noteworthy enough to be included in Wikipedia at all.  Pirlo already gets his pat on the back in the main article for having won the Bronze ball, and his accomplishment is duly noted on the man of the match page itself, which has a prominent link in the awards section.--DaveOinSF 00:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest edit
If on the other hand Materazzi's words would be proved of having been racist, Italy could be disqualified from world cup final (according to revision of Article 55 FIFA Disciplinary Code) - come on, that is sooooo not going to happen..... ChrisTheDude 07:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * that's why I included so much 'woulds' and 'coulds' into that sentence. When Zidane's possible golden Ball loss is mentioned this should be mentioned as well (as it IS possible).--BSI 07:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It might be possible, but so are a lot of other things. It's possible that I might get into the World Cup, but it's still not going to happen. It's possible the world will blow up next year, but really, what are the chances? The 2006 Fifa World Cup is over for most of the world. There's not much point in including either of the 2 statements cuz it's just not probable. And anyways, didn't Zidane say that it wasn't racist? ~Sushi 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well of course your incredible funny comparisons are all 'possible' as well, the possibility of Zidane getting striped of the award or Italy getting disqualified is quite a bit more realistic. While it would need something like a doomsday device to change the chance of the world will blow up next year to 'kinda probable', it only needs the decision of the FIFA the change the chances for Zidane/Italy getting stripped their awards. And this would be influenced heavily if Zidane would state that Materazzi used racist words.
 * And anyways, didn't Zidane say that it wasn't racist?
 * Materazzi said it wasn't racist, but Zidane didn't say anything at all (about if it was racist or not). Zidane so far only said that Materazzi used very unkind words and that he insulted him and his family. If I should be wrong about this, please post a link. But that's what I know from Zidane's TV-interview and Materazzi's interviews (I don't even know what those words mean or something like that...) last week.--BSI 11:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Squads
There is no reason we need to have a subheader titled "Squads" that offers no substance and only directs the reader to a different page. This page is linked to from the introduction, the See Also section, and the 2006 World Cup links box at the bottom of the page. It is true that pages for earlier versions of the World Cup contain such a section, but that doesn't mean we can't improve upon the past.

Either EVERY sub-page gets a subheader followed by a "see also" link, or none of them do.--DaveOinSF 04:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree, precedence was set with the previous world cup pages to input the squads in that manner. Your argument that we should "change those pages not this one" is ridiculous.  Any information concerning the squads (i.e. when the teams had to have them in, number of player, how many goalkeepers, etc.) should be listed under the heading "Squads."  Batman2005 15:32, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added some basic stuff under this heading, as I think a section should contain some kind of general info, not just a "see also" link. - ChaChaFut 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

this world cup
was the worst ever... watching the final match almost gave me a cerebral attack... my god, that was boring!! --Killergon2 22:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel this way, but this is not a blog or a forum. 201.53.14.58 05:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research
The "Analysis" section contains a large amount of original research and POV. The first para is fine, since it's common knowledge (though it could do with some references):

"The tournament once again proved that European teams dominate on European soil, while South American teams dominate on non-European soil, a trend broken only once with Brazil's win at the 1958 FIFA World Cup in Sweden."

However, the next para:

"Although the host nation failed to repeat its 2002 trip to the final match, many counted Germany as one of the winners of this World Cup for organizing such a smooth tournament. The stadia and transportation systems were fantastic, and the German people were constantly lauded for their hospitality and enthusiasm. One big innovation, which South Africa has already declared it will emulate, were the Fan Fests. Germany also benefited by the sudden increase in patriotic spirit with unprecedented flag waving whenever the German team played."

This is obviously POV and OR. Please look into this and provide references, as well as tone down the use of terms like fantastic, etc.-- May the Force be with you! Shr e shth91 ($ |-| ŗ 3 $ |-| ţ |-|) 10:10, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added two reference that provide support for the material in the 2nd paragraph. I went ahead and removed the "original research" tag.  Other wikieditors please add/improve on the section, as well as the article itself.--Riurik 16:35, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The "The tournament once again proved that European teams dominate on European soil, while South American teams dominate on non-European soil, a trend broken only once with Brazil's win at the 1958 FIFA World Cup in Sweden." part is not even factual. Sure, it's generally been the rule that the winners of the euro WCs are european and vice versa, but not "dominate", since the 50s there is maybe 2 south american teams on average in finiashing in the top 4 of world cups. That's not "dominating".(meanwhile, in europe, there is sometimes none and sometimes one, averageing less than one I'd imagine, a bit more close to "domination" but still debatably not. Gonna remove whole section. Not really acceptable or useful without numerous qualifications.Ernham 07:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bracket
Hopefully, you won't all jump on me and tell me it's a terrible idea, but I think the bracket can be made a lot less cluttered. First, the wrap on penalty shootouts is kinda ugly, so the score box should be expanded to be able to include 0 (0), or at least 0 (0). Second, the bracket (and the article as a whole) suffer from severe over-linking. Every instance of a team has a flag and a link, whereas Mos:L says links should not be excessively repeated in an article/table. Lastly, the match info line frequently wraps, which can be fixed by removing the time. The time is still in the detailed info below, so the information isn't lost, just the table becomes less clear. I did some fixing up of the table, and got this bracket, which I admit looks a little bland, but flows smoother. If you want the first round to have flags and links, that can work (though then Argentina (AET) will wrap). What do you think? Jonpin 18:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Some things to consider: old brackets (2002 FIFA World Cup) use the old format. Also, the PK goals could be confused with a common notation for what the score was in the first half of the game. For example, a score of "0–1 (0&ndash-0)" would mean that it was nil–nil at half. Obviously it doesn't work out in most cases in the bracket (nil–nil final with 3–4 goals scored in the first?), so I'm not sure how strong of a criticism that really is. The only other thing is that Italy is italic in the last bracket, which I'm not sure is necessary. Other than that, I don't feel strongly either way except for historical reasons... --Rballou 21:39, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Top scorers vs Goal scorers
I went through all the world cups and changed boh of these to just say "Scorers". Top scorers seemed daft to me when all the scorers are listed, and Goal scorers seemed redundant; what else can you score but goals? I hope you agree it is better, as well as more consistent now. --Guinnog 21:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Consolidation
Now that the tournamant is over, I think some cleanup and removal of trivia from the various articles that have sprung up is in order. Most of the 2006 FIFA World Cup something articles are way too list heavy - is it really necessary to list every booking in a long table in 2006 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record? This information is already in the various group/knockout stage articles. Thoughts about a few of the things I think should happen to some of the articles:
 * remove itemised bookings table in 2006 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record, and merge with 2006 FIFA World Cup officials
 * merge content in 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany to the relevant players/teams etc and then get rid of the article - wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
 * Decrease the number of lists in the main article. Remove most of the results, they are covered exhaustively in subarticles, leave only the group standings and the bracket, plus the details for the final (and maybe the semis).
 * If every scorer is to be listed, it shouldn't be in the main article. Oldelpaso 18:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.--Riurik 21:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think its fine as is. Batman2005 20:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has a long way to go. I beg to disagree; it is not "fine as is."  Have you seen the same article on Port. Wiki?  Here


 * My thoughts on each of the items above:
 * I disagree with deleting 2006 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record. The article effectively summarises disciplinary action as a whole. In my opinion, here's what we should do with each of the sections:
 * "By referee": merge into 2006 FIFA Woirld Cup referees
 * "By team": useful for how teams stood in the FIFA Fair Play Award; keep
 * "By individual": not necessary: do we really need to know every player that got only one yellow card? I don't think so. This infomation could be accessed from match articles. And for those who got removed from the game via a double yellow or a red card are already included in the "by team" section.
 * "Additional discipline": Again, a nice, centralised place to keep this sort of information.
 * I agree with the suggestion of merging appropriate, relevant content in 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany to relevant players/teans and then delete the article.
 * Agree with reducing each match summary. At most, only should have a summary of the scores. If we can find a way to make this proposal work and have it centered, this would be ideal. It was discussed here. Ian Manka Talk to me! 00:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think 2006 FIFA World Cup miscellany is the most interesting article of the bunch and it definetely shouldn't be deleted. There are many similar articles on Wikipedia, and it serves it's role well listing sll important milestones that happened throughout the tournament. Dispersing this information to several articles does no good to the reader who wants this information in one place.  Grue   20:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I already came up with a basic format of the tournament that is very comparable to the ones before. It still has the usefull info while leaving most of the ireevalant stuff. Gethomas3 23:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your edits the other day were appreciated. However, you did cut out a lot of information that was very useful, and replaced it with a bunch of es and a poorly constructed summary of the tournament. I mean, there was already a very good summary of the tournament, so why replace it with an inferior one? Personally, I believe that the thing that needs cutting out the most is the summaries of the knockout stage matches. They already exist at 2006 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, so there's no use in duplicating them. - PeeJay 00:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So should we do the same to every world cup before 2006 because that is the same format. Gethomas3 02:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? To be honest, I don't think changing things for the sake of uniformity is a very good reason. - PeeJay 07:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Which is why I already made a good summary, you be the judge on that one, and a good page to reflect on 2006.Gethomas3 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you've misunderstood me. There is already a good summary in place, so why are you writing a new one? - PeeJay 23:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To take out a lot of useless info! No one wants to know that a defender scored the first and last goals of a tournament, that italy lost the 1994 final on penalties (everyone knows that), or how the teams were seeded and the host selection to name a few. And those last two already have pages dedicated to them. Someone who knows nothing of this tournament would not have any idea what went on because all it talks about is Germany, Italy, France, the quaterfinalists, the seeding, and the hosting procedure. Almost or nothing on everyone else. That is far from a good summary. Gethomas3 00:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

France was not granted a second penalty ?
This statement in the text creates an unbalance. It infers that there was a possible refree mistake, which damaged the French, while no mention is made of the dubious judgement in the penalty granted to the French (which was contested by the Italians and criticised by large part of the commentators). Proposals for amendment: 1) mention that the penalty granted to France was contested for an alleged Malouda's dive OR 2) remove the statement —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gvisenti (talk • contribs)

Agreed. The first penalty was indisputably controversial, and there are many sources for that. I support retaining "controversial" in the text as appropriate encyclopaedic content. Interestingly, here in Australia, the one camera angle that showed that Materazzi did not in fact touch Malouda before he somersaulted was replayed several times. -- Wantok 02:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I think either a source is provided that backs up the controversial statement (like a match report, or a pundits view), or it is removed. I seem to remember the BBC's pundits debating whether Pirlo's corner for Italy's goal went out of play before it curled back in. And they also seemed to think the French penalty was justified. In my view, either both goals are labelled as 'controversial', or neither are. And like I said, this probably needs to be sourced. Hammer Raccoon 20:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There are many sources. A simple google search reports several hundred pages in which the dive is repeatedly alleged, showing that the penalty is the facto "controversial" (controversy=a prolonged argument or dispute), as rightly proposed by Wantok. If you want pundits, the search returns also some news articles: http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/minbymin/0,,1788448,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,28749-2263533,00.html http://www.cbc.ca/sports/worldcup2006/storyview.html?/story/sports/national/2006/07/09/france-italy-worldcup.html I could not find so much on Pirlo's alleged out-of-play corner. Although I recall that the BBC's Gary Lineker questioned his peers on the corner, this issue does not seem controversial at all. Besides, during the same BBC broadcast of the match, Marcel Desailly (a Frenchman)was asked at midtime about the penalty. He said that there was no ground for penalty. Gvisenti 21:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA
This article failed the Ga nominations because this article is overpopulated with lists. Might I also suggest that you add a "Public Reaction" section to mention the public point of view as well as a section that talks about preperations for the games? --Tarret 23:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Bring back the match summaries of the first round matches
I don't know who moved them away, but to summarize the group stage of the tournament, which is 75% of the matches, by eight group standings, looks pretty bad to me. Every FIFA World Cup tournament article includes all the match summaries, and I suggest this one should do so too. On the other hand, I think we should move all the seeding material to 2006 FIFA World Cup seeding. I don't think which team is seeded where and how is that important months or years after the tournament. Chanheigeorge 01:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe the argument said that users should go to the subpages (or whatever you'd call them -- perhaps "daughter pages?") for match summaries. While I agree with that argument, I wouldn't say that we shouldn't have scores of individual matches. I think there was some push to make another table on the right hand side of the page that would recap the scores, minus attendence, goalscorers, etc.
 * I also agree to move the seeding information to 2006 FIFA World Cup seeding. Just my opinion. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure when and where the discussion took place, but that's a bad idea. Now if I want to look at the scores and info of all 64 matches, I had to click on 8 different pages, a big inconvenience. This page now contains the fact that Angola was seeded in Pot B, but not the score of Germany vs Costa Rica. I'm pretty sure the latter is much more important than the former in the context of the tournament. Chanheigeorge 05:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. Here is the discussion. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 13:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There! I managed to create a page that summarizes everything while not taking too much space. Enjoy!SuperSonicx1986 (talk) 23:20, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And I reverted it. The general consensus is that the article is fine as it is. If you want to view match summaries from the group stage, then go look at the individual group articles. – PeeJay 23:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Who says? Get off your high horse, you German. There was a lot more in the World Cup then just the Europeans. Be thankful to America that you even have computers to do this crap on.
 * Get stuffed, mate. You have made no attempt to reach a compromise here, therefore I will treat any major edits you make as vandalism. Have a lovely day :-) – PeeJay 17:15, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Blatter's apologies
See Talk:Australia national football (soccer) team#Blatter's "apologies". Martin tamb 01:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If there's a quote about this tournament by a high ranking soccer official, then it should be on this page. Kingjeff 01:38, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For those who do not understand, the discussion is at Talk:Australia national football (soccer) team#Blatter's "apologies".--Panarjedde 13:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed, there already is a link to that page. Kingjeff 17:12, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Some smart guy answered here instead than there, so I wanted to help, making him notice this is not the place for the discussion.--Panarjedde 17:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you're not that bright. But when a comment is in relation to this tournament, then of course this is the better place. Kingjeff 22:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Your last comment shows who is not bright for sure.--Panarjedde 11:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please stop making personal attacks, both of you. Oldelpaso 11:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Addition to External Links: Official Artistic and Cultural Programme
Hi all - I would like to add the following sentence to the FIFA article, under 'external links' :

"Official Artistic and Cultural Programme to the FIFA World Cup 2006™" curated by André Heller

Tim Sperber 13:54, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Photos
I think that the two photos of Italy team and Zidane sent off aren't Public domain; but they are tagged with these IMHO erroneus license. The camera indications there aren't too! --Leoman3000 14:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Germany vs Argentina
Was it just me who saw Podolski give a Nazi salute when he scored his penalty.-the-muffin-man- 21:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Considering the number of media representatives who would have been watching him, and the lack of media reports saying so, I would say yes, it probably was just you :P -- Chuq 00:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

look i did some reserch and i think he did give a nazi salute it can be seen http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnf0GQl9AfQ at 3 mins 20 sec -the-muffin-man- 14:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Er.. that is a wave to the crowd, not a nazi salute. -- Chuq 08:15, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Ye ok could be a wave to the crowd but at a certain angle it did look a bit like a nazi salute-the-muffin-man- 22:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)


 * the-muffin-man is a freaking moron. Podolski is Polish born and Polish by ethnicitiy. He is in no way a German nationalist; in fact he often refrains from singing the German national anthem before games because of his Polish heritage . This is the definetly one of the dumbest remarks I have ever seen on an article discussion. BTW the nazi salute is illegal in Germany and if Podolski had done it he would have been imediately fired from the team, possibly arrested, and become a total outcast in Germany. Truly an idiotic comment muffin.--84.153.71.238 14:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No personal attacks, please, although you are correct in that that is clearly not a Nazi salute ChrisTheDude 14:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

World Cup Audience
Surely what is written in the first few lines of this article is ridiculous - obviously there was not "30 billion" people watching the tournament, considering that there are only about 6.5 billion people on the planet...does anyone know the actual figure? Riskbreaker2987 22:40, 16 January 2007 (UTC)Riskbreaker2987
 * 30 billion is a cumulative figure, obtained by adding up the audiences for each game. Oldelpaso 22:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Standings" section which was added the other day
Seems fairly pointless. somewhat arbitrary, and I'm sure it was put in and deleted after a discussion on the talk page at least once before..... ChrisTheDude 07:57, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I like this tree-like design of the knockout stage
Where can I learn about this? I would like to be able to create something like this on my own. I took copy - paste, and used this as a template to my only article. (I was just having fun with this) And I would like to make some changes to it, so it would be better to create a new one. If you can help, please leave me a message on my profile talk page cheers Csabadapp 14:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Match report links are now dead
Just thought it should be pointed out to whomever maintains this article that all the (Report) links are now broken. aLii 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why has this article no images?
There are countless images on Wikimedia Commons from the event, why are none of them used to illustrated the article? Any particular reason? -- EnemyOfTheState 00:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

some are now added Krayziegunts (talk) 04:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Route To The Final?
This section seems to be biased towards the Italian football team. Does anyone else agree?  Ka5hmir  Talk To Me!  12:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree.


 * Well, they did kinda win the tournament, you know? - PeeJay 00:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Completely agree - this really can't be described as encyclopaedic writing. In need of surgery, I suggest. I've just done a minor edit to more fairly represent controversies in the Aus vs Italy game, but the whole section needs a rewrite. Wantok (toktok) 05:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The entire section was pov and OR. Used wording commonly associated with football fan magazines, not encylopedias. 74.142.90.195 19:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not a very good reason for it to be deleted. You guys could at least attempt to improve it first. - PeeJay 19:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, POV, OR and Weasel Wording = 3 good reasons for deletion. Once again PeeJay displays his "my way or the highway" approach to editing. 74.142.90.195 02:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Deleting a whole section because it appears to contain weasel words and be POV is not how to improve an article. The first thing should be to try and re-word it so that it is NPOV and without weasel words, and not simply remove a whole section without even trying to improve it. Also, Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 02:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Removed it again after it was snuck back into the article. I've looked at all the other World Cup pages and none of them have a "Route to the Final" section. Nor is one necessary.  The "route to the final" is clearly spelled out in the group stage sections, the match result sections and the goal scorers sections.  Basically, this section is one persons ranting about how great Italy played, about how surprising France was and their little commentaries about certain games.  There is no need for this section, it has been removed several times now and PeeJay is the only one who keeps putting it back in.  There is no need to improve it, it's an unnecessary section of the article, and certainly would fail all NPOV tests and all Original Research tests; to say nothing of the fact that it sounds and reads as if it was written by a sports writer.  This is NOT an encyclopedic section, and it is certainly not necessary. Batman2005 21:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Additionally, the pages for the Euro Tournaments, the Champions League, the Gold Cup and Copa America do not contain a route to the final section either. Further proving that it's a worthless section. Batman2005 21:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Edit warring
There has been some adding and subtracting of text from the article. I have protected it for four days to cool things down. What opinions does everyone have in regards to the versions of this article that keeps getting reverted? What are the problems? Discuss.

Revisions that may or may not be the same for comparision. Please remove any duplicates.    

Thoughts? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have tried to engage one of those involved in the edit war, Gethomas3, and asked them to discuss changes rather than continually reverting, especially without an edit summary explaining the edits, but they chose to ignore that and continue the edit war, and by doing so break the 3RR instead. I am not sure what is the best version of this article or why it is such a problem, but the way to sort this out is to discuss the changes on here and reach a consensus. ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 20:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Further edit warring has occurred, so I have fully protected the page to encourage discussion here. Can we PLEASE discuss the elements of the controversial edit? People, I just want to say, you know, can we all get along? If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I did try and reason with one of those involved in the latest edit war, and asked them to discuss the edits on this talk page and for there to be a consensus reached on the edits, but just got told I was apparently a son of a bitch for doing so :) ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 18:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well it doesn't look likely that anyone involved in the edit warring is going to discuss the issues at all so perhaps the page should be unprotected now? Or maybe at least amended to semi-protection? ♦Tangerines♦ · Talk 18:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

best player Zindane?
a thoroughly contentious thing to put in and not factual. For one thing, Zidane was inconsistent (witness France's form in the opening round). There were many more consistent and I believe warrant such a title...regardless I think it is a silly thing to have on a factpage such as this...I suggest removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.101.15.182 (talk) 10:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Zidane was the tournament's best player, as determined by FIFA, as you can see here: http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/germany2006/awards/index.html – PeeJay 10:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)