Talk:Adidas Teamgeist

I've been hearing in the news that a few players (Robinson, Roberto Carlos) criticize this ball as being too light and like a "polo ball". Perhaps some of this criticism should be in the article. Because at the moment it reads like an Adidas press release.

More info here: http://football.guardian.co.uk/worldcup2006/story/0,,1791838,00.html http://www.sptimes.com/2006/06/02/Sports/Champs__New_ball_fall.shtml 82.32.218.107
 * Fully agreed, I've heard a bunch of griping about this ball, both flom players and various media. I'm not saying that the ball isn't good, but the tone needs scaled down, and ambiguous terms like "scientific tests" should be explained more thoroughly, maybe with statistics from adidas, who, last I read, hadn't even released the results from their artificial leg test in the lab.--Josh Rocchio 03:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The standard football is a truncated icosahedron, not an octahedron Bwysock 05:50, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a criticism section but the quality is quite low, I'm not a great writer. Could somebody improve it please? 82.32.218.107

Chopped a lot of the adidas puffery out etc --Snori 15:56, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The article also contradicts itself- it claims 40 balls for training purposes in the first paragraph, but later changes the figure to 20. Anyone have the correct info?
 * Clarified - 40 of the std match balls and 20 of the final/Berlin version are provided--Snori 02:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think that there should be a list of world cup balls over the years: ie fervanova preceeded by tricolore, succeeded by teamgiest. Im happy to do it myself --Skydivemayday 08:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, there's History of association football balls, if you haven't seen it. Only a couple of balls have articles; if there were more, perhaps some succession boxes would be in order? Melchoir 09:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can base them on this? : http://www.soccerballworld.com/HistoryWCBalls.htm --Skydivemayday 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

--Skydivemayday 20:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

After the game
I think it sould be said about FIFA wanting the balls back after each game, and how injusticed was the player Fred (Brazil), who, after scoring his first goal in a world cup (in the first match he played in it), was so happy and wanted all players (of both teams) to sign the ball so he could give it to his father. A few minutes after announcing this in tv, FIFA was there and took the ball back. Where's FIFA's heart? :( Where's the fair play in "we don't want the player's happiness, we want money"?

Plus sign
This article should not use the plus sign, except maybe once at the top, and it should never use the trademark sign. Such unpronouned, non-English decorations are discouraged per Manual of Style (trademarks), and they are usually dropped by the press; under various sections of Naming conventions they are also inappropriate for the title. If anyone feels strongly about inserting a plus sign into the article title, please take it up at Requested moves. Melchoir 00:58, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Nobody wants to insert a plus sign, as it is already in the name of the product, see de:+Teamgeist and de:Teamgeist. But why do people want to remove it? Why not removing minus signs from other names, too, like CocaCola? Afterall, its only a small dot in that logo anyway.--Matthead 09:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * See, that's a great example; Coca-Cola would probably like us to use a dot, but dots aren't a part of English grammar, and neither are minus signs. The shorter hyphens are a part of English grammar, and media sources use the hyphen in their name, so we do too. The plus sign serves no grammatical purpose, and there is no symbol that ever precedes a proper name. To put it simply, the name of the ball effectively is Teamgeist, but its creators decorate it with meaningless artwork for their own purposes (vanity and trademark protection), and these are purposes we do not share. As for the German Wikipedia, they need to disambiguate between the ball and the concept of team spirit; we do not. Melchoir 19:28, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * and? If the football is called now +Teamgeist, this article must be name +Teamgeist. --Emijrp 21:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * +Anima, (+44), +D, +DOG+ ;) --Emijrp 21:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If you check Google News, the ball is called (usually) Teamgeist. I haven't checked those other articles, but I bet they're a different story. And unlike a couple of your examples, no one ever says "plus teamgeist". Melchoir 21:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, you've moved it again? Seriously, if you want to include a plus sign in the article name, take it up with WP:RM. Melchoir 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

move denied per MOS:TM. + sign is used for trademark, decorative purposes only. Joelito (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Teamgeist → +Teamgeist – +Teamgeist is the real name for this football

Survey

 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with  ~ ''


 * Support --Emijrp 08:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Support - It's the real name. And there seems to be no technical obstacle to put a plus sign in an article name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abu badali (talk • contribs)
 * Support - there are many minus signs in article names, so why no plus sign? --Matthead 22:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NC(CN) (+ is usually omitted from common usage) and MOS:TM (+ is an unpronounced decoration for trademark purposes) Melchoir 21:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Can I just remind everyone that we don't have articles with minus signs, only grammatical hyphens; and that the "real name" of a thing is subjective and not particularly emphasized by Wikipedia convention? Melchoir 21:42, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Nickname
Has anyone started calling it the peanut-ball? That's what a few locals called it.--Omnicog 18:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard that here...then again, I'm in the U.S. Any idea why they're calling it that? --Cirus206 20:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * A friend of my called it "the sanitary napkin ball". But this information is far from encyclopedic, of course. :) --Abu Badali 21:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Commerical availability
Is this ball commercially available? As the article stats, the official replica is merely a traditional ball with the graphic design superimposed on top; that's the only version I saw at the local sporting goods store. Yet I have also read that some WC players had ordered their own supply of the balls before the World Cup in order to practice; perhaps it was only available to players? Even if it isn't (or wasn't, as the cup is now order) generally available, I imagine it will eventually be made so? Pimlottc 22:12, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * About it being available to players, you may be thinking of this: "Each of the 32 qualified federations receives 40 match balls for training purposes.". That was taken from the article.  As for your other question, I imagine it will eventually become available. --Cirus206 00:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wherever the actually ball can be bought as opposed to the replica it seems to cost an awful lot more; whether the cost is caused by the low supply of real match balls for general sale, or the fact the balls aren't for sale because they cost too much at the moment, is up for debate.


 * I have seen the original Teamgeist for sale in Estonian (!) stores as early as the beginning of August 2006. They should theoretically still be available worldwide. And the high cost is probably a combination of the complex structure and low availability. PeepP 15:11, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Champions League
I've seen the ball used in UEFA Champions League matches. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article - provided there's more information, I suppose. Number 8 11:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section
Does anyone else feel that this article is showing a slight bias by mentioning the fact that the players who liked the ball were sponsored by Adidas? I'll wait a couple days before deleting it... opinions in the meantime? 72.87.63.14 (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well i dont feel like waiting. It's pretty glaring. haha. 72.87.63.14 (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

World cup finals ball
For the other versions of the teamqest ball, the golden world cup finals ball should be added. [user:androo123] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.203.182.78 (talk) 18:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)