Talk:List of 2010 FIFA World Cup matches

Some strange dude is vandalizing the article.
Seriously, who the hell is this guy? He comes here every time editing the article, by saying that South African time is GMT-8 or GMT-6, which it's wrong. Please, protect this article, so that only registered users could edit.

Be Col.

Are we adding the Warm Up Matches for the World Cup??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.120.9 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Africa_Standard_Time the local time is UTC+2 not +3... --95.90.63.147 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the times presented here are an hour later than those presented in the referenced FIFA PDF. --95.90.63.147 (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, some guy from an Egyptian address (resolves to host-41.232.111.164.tedata.net) changed it to UTC+3, which is of course local for Egypt! Changed it back to UTC+2. --Saforrest (talk) 22:10, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I said this last world cup. I think someone needs to put in a count down timer until the next game.  This would help all the people looking at this article just trying to figure out what time the next game will be on.  Who want to spend 15 minutes figuring out what the conversion is to their own timezone and what time the game will actually air?  Not me.  --98.110.211.182 (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Then check your local TV guide. This article is here simply to provide a chronological list of the matches at the World Cup, not to remind you when to switch your TV on. – PeeJay 18:53, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess someone else thinks adding a count down timer is a good idea... look at http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.30.224 (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a timer there now. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Côte d'Ivoire
Ivory Coast not Cote divore, put all nations in English or all in native language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.132.44 (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Well there's the interesting thing anonymous, Wikipedia's English-language article for the Ivory Coast is redirected to Côte d'Ivoire. That is the name we're supposed to be using in English. I'm not fond of that either, but it's their choice. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Irregularities in the order of the group matches
Has the FIFA given an explanation why some of the group matches are not played in the normal order? For example France - Mexico in Group A is played after the second matches of Group B. Also the group D match Germany - Serbia is played before group C while Ghana - Australia (the other group D match) is played in between the Group E matches. Finally, on June 24th the final matches in Group F (afternoon) and Group F (evening) are switched. This confuses me a lot. --85.146.209.49 (talk) 16:49, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from HereIAmYes, 11 June 2010
editsemiprotected

South Africa and Mexico draw 1-1 in opening match source: http://www.montrealgazette.com/sports/Tshabalala+scores+first+goal+World/3142014/story.html

HereIAmYes (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * C T J F 8 3 pride 17:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Date & Time presentation based on user timezone preference?
Can the game times be presented based on the reader's timezone preferences? That would be particularly useful on not only this page, but on many pages based on current events. Jeff Carr (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It might be related to this thread? https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14286#c8 Jeff Carr (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

new suggestion to include game odds
One more column in regards to the favourites to win can be listed, it is of uncyclopaedic value where one can then see the upsets, etc. Students of sports/freelance researchers can be interested in this. One thing is to decide which source to use, i've cited Betfair for now, but that can change.Lihaas (talk) 06:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Un-encyclopedic and WP:OR without multiple WP:V sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * its certainly not original research because im not making up numbers, each is cited. As for other sources, yes i've recommended discussion on more sources. I dont think its incyclopaedic to state the favs. But what reasons would you give for this, so we can then dicuss it out.
 * Ive not precluded the fact of other sources. and addition of more sources are not grounds for removal, they can be improved and signaled so with a requisite tagLihaas (talk) 07:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Against WP:CRYSTAL as far as I'm concerned. Yes the numbers can be cited, but they are just numbers, not really substantial information. In any case please obtain consensus before re-adding it. --Tikiwont (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously, these are juts constantly changing betting numbers. I cannot even access them form here because of a state monopoly for gambling.--Tikiwont (talk) 08:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually its not "Crystal ball" because it is not "a collection of unverifiable speculation," on the contrary it is cited by widely used organization and it is by nature the pre-game favourites. You cant have post-game favourites.
 * They are not constantly changing, they are asserted as numbers (even the already finished game is cited on pre-game favourites) Simply because one person cannot access them because of their laws on gambling is not grounds for removal. It is legal by wikipedia and the outlet has its own wikipage. Editors are encouraged to be WP:Bold, I then added a comment on talk. Through discussion we can come to a better understanding. Removal will not encourage discussion and finding the alternative mentioned above. Please, review your edits because your summary was deceptive, you removed all content. Also consensus on removal was not made.Lihaas (talk) 09:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The mention that i cannot access them right now was an afterthought, but not the grounds for removal. The main problem with betfair and the like is that it is a primary source and in my opinion as a commercial gambling side not a good one. We have articles on many things that we do not necessarily cite or link to. If Students of sports/freelance researchers are interested in this, the can write something about it and then we see, not the other way round. But I see no trace of that happening. Nor do I see how my edit summary was deceptive as I removed a recently added column, mentioned here, but without previous consensus. Bold is fine but this is a high profile page so reverting a bold addition with which I disagree is not inappropriate nor does it impede discussion. I came here as well after my edit. Your reinsertion based on your own sole opinion is not appropriate nor does it help to call my revert blind. (Sorry for reverting more than I intended to, though). At this point I am more interested in other opinions to what extent and on which actual and not hypothetical reliable sources pre-game favorites should be added to what essentially simply is a schedule.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Umm the favourites for the first match isn't showing up but the [5] reference is still there.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.69.184 (talk) 10:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * is this section relevent to the article? no other sporting pages carry the odds of matches so why should this one? odds of the game outcome can differ between bookmakers. it has nothing to do with the competition itself or the spirit of the game. i would suggest that this section is removed and a external link to a betting comparison website is added at the end of the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smithdan86 (talk • contribs) 12:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only not relevant, it's completely against precedent of past tournaments and it's non-encyclopedic, and WP:OR. I'm sure others could find other favourite ratios. Which is correct? Please remove immediately. There was no consensus to add it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh and I mention it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football, which is where it should have first been discussed. It was immediately met wit opposition and someone came in and deleted it as WP:SPAM. Feel free to discuss it further there. The discussion here should not continue. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Once again, you didnt seem to have read the comments. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS means old articles are not a godsend, new articles can feature new info. Per OR it is clearly not because it is SOURCED, what is original about the research, if you want to cite this again then can you cite the relevant info that makes you see it this way? The onus is on the challenger to get consensus, a statement to "please remove immidiately" is a diktat and not consensus. I've already asked myself very nicely that let's discuss and come to an agreement (As the string above shows) but you dont seem to want to discuss this. The thread over there was met with ONE reply in 6 minutes based on his opinion that it is spam and without consensus, that is almost grounds for vandalism.Lihaas (talk) 15:01, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was trying to discuss with you but you do not seem to see that the 1 editor here is yourself and readding it repeatedly with 4 editors having seen problems is disruptive. The onus is on you. --Tikiwont (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Does you "source" meet WP:RS? Even if you could prove that it does, as a commercial venture, it may have, as I mentioned earlier, values that are different from other wagering locations. What are the Vegas odds? What are the odds as calculated in other locations. This means that your "odds" are just one possible set of odds and therefore there is not reasonable way of stating that these odds are the only odds. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, any counter to the WP:SPAM claim? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not build in a few hours. I have already agreed above that the other editor has a good suggestion to come to agreement, but Walter Goritz doesnt seem to want to consider that suggestion to discuss it, he simply wants to revert it. Please go back and read the sugegstion where i said the agreement sounds good.
 * The first arguement was that it was "Crystal Ball" when that was debunked then "Original research" comes in, then "Spam" becomes the new arguement. Per WP:Consensus (and this is verbatim quote) : "Be bold in editing; you can also use the talk page to discuss improvements " {done} and "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree" --> "The quality of an argument is more important than whether it comes from a minority or a majority." so the fact that 3 to 1 has determined in a few hours doesnt constitute consensus, changing arguement repeatedly certainly doesn't build consensus. Furthermore as per consider the objections of those who disagree I have said before that I agree with the recommendation above and am more than willing to accept, but the other 2 editors don't seem to want to discuss that. Instead the demands goes that i must "immediately remove" it.Lihaas (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the "spam" claim, my issue was that i did agree and even said in the very beginning that we discuss out adn come to an agreement. Not to "immediately remove" content.
 * Now that you have your version are you willing to discuss the recommendation above? If not then the change must go right back up because consensus is not build by numbers nor in a hours. Furthermore, you can add the tag back to the top. Why was that [blindly] reverted?Lihaas (talk) 15:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Bold is one thing. Adding this is another and it should not have been added without consensus as it is not only controversial, it's unencyclopedic. Also, whose odds do you end up using? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what i asked above. come to an agreement as to what source to use. To alter an improve is different from removing altogether. To say it should not have been added is absurd thats what the wikipedia guideline is for. Perhaps i too was overzealous with the reverts, though.
 * Anyway, as per the spam request, it is not spam becasue 1. it CITED material it doesnt advertize, and 2. (another possible suggestion) like in such articles as List of designated terrorist organizations a couple of odds from different outlets (the most credible ones that we agree to here) can be tacked on to the side. Alternatively the suggestion above is also a compromise. We have 2 possible solution then.
 * At any rate, the "tally" at the bottom is absolute nonsense for the reasons listed above. it doesnt mean anything if a 100 people votes "yes" and 10 people voted "no, because XXX." It is also condescending a "WP:NPA" (while the off page talk facility is a completely biased discussion being asserted, each side was certainly not discussed) (Lihaas (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So we stand a credible juncture to discuss the addition. So do any of the people above want to discuss the content to come to agreement, or will the demands that X,Y,Z dont like it so it must be removed be the last line? THat doesnt hold water, at the end of the day.Lihaas (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * SPAM is SPAM not because it's not cited, but because it's obviously commercial. It should be removed because it should not have been added. You still have not addressed shy the odds you have chosen are the correct odds as opposed to all the hundreds of other odds out there that could be cited. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I see three problems and you're only addressing one of them.
 * There are no universally credible odds-makers. First you have the gambling centres to consider: Las Vegas, Atlantic City, Monaco, etc.; the gambling houses of the UK and Europe; individual national sources for odd. There is no way to say that the American odds for a specific game are more valid than the British odds, and then against the Latvian odds.
 * The underlying lack of encyclopedic worth to the adding odds to the matches.
 * You've offered one source which is apparently SPAM. Other sources are equally SPAM-worthy. This however leans heavily on item as well.
 * I don't see a solution to these. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not responding, I was on a WP:FSF (Why doesn't that link to a football/sleep/football policy... it really should do :-) cycle. I reverted largely for 2 reasons - any odds are opinion; one outfits idea of what may happen. Ladbrokes have different odds to Betfair, to Totalisator Agency Board etc. They change daily/hourly/minutely and are not in my opinion part of the enduring annals of history, therefore do not belong in an encyclopedia. Additionally, Wikipedia has a strong non-commercial policy. Linking to any such agency is WP:BIAS and an easy abuse of WP:SPAM as they are all commercial. Per WP:BRD it was boldly added, under same guideline I removed... and here we are.-- Club Oranje T 00:31, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Good grief.. obviously not enough of the "S" bit. Basically exactly what Walter Görlitz said above, sorry for repeating. Anyhoo, I'm off to football...-- Club Oranje T 00:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's a something that lists a collection of odds.
 * http://www.oddschecker.com/football/internationals/world-cup/win-market —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.176.73 (talk) 17:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Tally

 * Pro
 * Lihaas


 * Con
 * Walter Görlitz
 * Tikiwont
 * User:Smithdan86 "is this section relevent to the article?"
 * User:ClubOranje (from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football) - WP:SPAM
 * User:MickMacNee. Just a really bad idea for a number of reasons, and totally unprecedented. Please get rid of the ugly content tag placed on this high profile page immediately, this proposal hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding. MickMacNee (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC) I've done it anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral
 * 218.101.69.184

warm up matches
as per a suggestion above a list of warm up matches immediately preceding the world cup (some in RSA some abroad) can be added in a new section.Lihaas (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You made the suggestion and decided it was OK. It's not. Create a new article but do not place the matches in this article. They are not part of the 2010 WC schedule which is the topic of this article. Link it to the articles of the teams who played in the warm-ups, but not directly related to this article either. If you actually want to discuss it, take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I didnt make the decision not did i say it is okay. I was discussing it here first (actually the editor above was in his right to be WP:Bold until challenged)
 * Anyhoo, your suggestion is agreeable to me too. If the editor above wants to make a new article he can do so with a link from here. Pretty easy consensus built, no? Anyways, Messi's about to do some damage off to see ;) Lihaas (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Being bold is one thing "...but please be careful. Though the boldness of contributors like you is one of Wikipedia's greatest assets, it is important that contributors take care of the common good and not edit recklessly." "If you're unsure of anything, just ask for advice.". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Saturday 10 June should be corrected to Thursday 10 June
I don't understand why the article states "Saturday 10 June" when 10 June is a Thursday? Ganschwann (talk) 07:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC) Edit: Apparently this has been fixed. Thank you.

Country name: Ivory Coast
Is there a particular reason that we are using Côte d'Ivoire instead of Ivory Coast? And before you answer that it is a French speaking country and this is its official name, what about the use of Germany, Spain, Switzerland, Italy, etc etc? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.152.105.193 (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * FIFA uses the name Côte d'Ivoire as the team name and bcuz thats a FIFA related article than the name will be Côte d'Ivoire, see for exemple - groups and teams.
 * In addition acording to the country article - "Although it is commonly known in English as Ivory Coast, the Ivorian government officially discourages this usage, preferring the French name Côte d'Ivoire to be used in all languages." -- HonorTheKing (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * And I have noticed that as of a few years back, all official (read 'respected') media refer to it as Côte d'Ivoire, only cheap sources still say Ivory Coast-- Club Oranje T 08:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * True, sources say that offiically this OR to create Ivory Coast. Support the change.Lihaas (talk) 07:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No odds, but seed ranks?
Before people wanted to put in match odds. This isn't a good idea - not present in other wiki pages - but maybe someone could put in the seed ranks? i.e. order the world ranks from 1 to 32. This is done in tennis tournament pages, I think it works well. e.g. 2010 French Open – Men's Singles

Here they are:
 * 1) Brazil
 * 2) Spain
 * 3) Portugal
 * 4) Netherlands
 * 5) Italy
 * 6) Germany
 * 7) Argentina
 * 8) England
 * 9) France
 * 10) Greece
 * 11) United States
 * 12) Serbia
 * 13) Uruguay
 * 14) Mexico
 * 15) Chile
 * 16) Cameroon
 * 17) Australia
 * 18) Nigeria
 * 19) Switzerland
 * 20) Slovenia
 * 21) Côte d'Ivoire
 * 22) Algeria
 * 23) Paraguay
 * 24) Ghana
 * 25) Slovakia
 * 26) Denmark
 * 27) Honduras
 * 28) Japan
 * 29) Korea Republic
 * 30) New Zealand
 * 31) South Africa
 * 32) Korea DPR

Just a suggestion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.74.34 (talk) 04:03, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Purely WP:OR. FIFA has their rankings and they can be found on the FIFA site. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think this is at all necessary. – PeeJay 06:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This is another good compromise and not OR in the least. the FIFA world ranking is perfectly correlated by the FIFA World cup. (although if 1-32 is not acceptable the FIFA numbers can be set in. (even tennis if a player ranked X does not player someone doesnt replace him as X, X is simply missing and Y and Z compete. so in like measure, the world ranking for North korea, say, would be listed as 100+ (whatever it is))
 * Of course ranking change so the ranking immediately preceding the tournament would take precedence.

2nd round group stage
Anyone know why the second group stage matches are played out of group order compared to the first and final round of group games? It might be worth noting the reason in the article. MickMacNee (talk) 15:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC) I see this is also reflected in the funky match numbering, so the must be some reason right? MickMacNee (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Round naming
Hmmm, I'm not sure sure whether | this edit was a good idea. However, I'm hesitant to undo it without consensus, so I figured I'd open it up for discussion.

Personally, I find the new naming somewhat odd. Saying things like first round and second round in my opinion suggests that we're already in a knockout phase while in reality we're still in the group stage. I also find the term "group knockouts" not making a whole lot of sense.

So, I suggest undoing this edit. Skysmurf (talk) 14:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed, I've changed it back. It's not a good idea to be using the terminology of 'rounds' without qualification. MickMacNee (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Infact I don't think I've ever heard of the knockout stage being referred to as the 'fourth round', but someone correct me if I'm wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Also reverted to the grey. The pastel salmon colour was unappealing as well. He was well-intentioned though. I understand that he's trying to make it easier to read and follow. Possibly an American who is continuing the tradition of making soccer more understandable for fellow Americans. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * @MickMacNee: I think you are right. In my experience, the first knockout round is usually referred to as either second round or eighth finals, although the latter seems less common in English than in some other languages.
 * I don't really care much about the grey vs. salmon thing though.Skysmurf (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

FIFA schedule refers to "Stage 2", not "Knockout matches"
The FIFA schedule refers to "Stage 2", not "Knockout matches", although the tournament regulations mention "knockout stages" in passing. Where did the term "Knockout matches" come from and why was my edit of 'Stage 2 or "knockout stage"' reversed? Facts707 (talk) 21:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC) Actually, the term "knockout" does not appear on the schedule at FIFA.com at all. And the term "knockout match" appears on the FIFA.com site only five times in the past year, and only in news stories about particular matches played. Facts707 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Citation for Stage 2? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 'Stage 2' means nothing to the vast majority of readers I would bet. Just because FIFA call it that doesn't necessarily mean that is the commonly used or understood term. The Round of 16 onwards are the 'knockout matches', because, well, they are the matches where teams get knocked out. It's no more mysterious than that. MickMacNee (talk) 21:47, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The citation is in the References section, #2: Matches - Stage 2. That is one of the references used for this article. If you are going to insist on a different name, then you should provide a citation for it. Facts707 (talk) 21:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, never mind, now that "Knockout stage matches" (with the "stage") is used here. There are 370,000 odd Google hits for +"knockout stage matches" +"World Cup 2010". There was only about 470 for +"knockout matches" +"World Cup 2010", and no mention of "knockout" on the FIFA.com schedules, so I was concerned "knockout matches" might be a more localized or rarer term. So no worries, and enjoy the matches! Facts707 (talk) 22:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad to hear that you (and presumably all of us) are at peace with the way it is worded now. On a slightly more personal note, I was a bit hesitant to reverse your initial "first round, second round, third round, fourth round" edit right away because it was a) undoubtedly in good faith and b) such a substantial edit that I thought it better to discuss it here on the talk page first. With 20-20 hindsight I think you probably ought to have done the same and were perhaps a little bit too WP:BOLD (after all, the article had been like it was for quite a while already, which at least should have made you wonder).
 * But anyway, we seem to have reached consensus in good Wikipedia fashion, so I presume all is well. Cheers! Skysmurf (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

split into two sections "Group stage" and "Knockout stage" - takes too long to scroll down to see Round of 16
Hi, I hope everyone doesn't mind I split the article into two sections "Group stage" and "Knockout stage". It was just taking me too long to scroll down to see the Round of 16. If it doesn't work for everyone, please feel free to reverse it. I would have discussed it earlier, but I'm already planning my schedule for the Round of 16 and thought many others most likely are as well. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 23:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * This will certainly make editing (to add results) easier, thanks.Skysmurf (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not as clean, but understandable. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've undone it. This was a sub-optimal solution at best. There are easier ways to do this than just a simple two way split, which, seeing as this is a daily schedule for the whole tournament, didn't really make sense. We already have plenty of articles split up like this, there's no point having another one. This whole page is just a simple table, there is a benefit to the reader in keeping it that way. I am pretty sure that compact TOCs and span id's can be used to link to each stage if its really necessary, not just group and knockout, if people really think a couple of pushes on the spacebar is a hassle. MickMacNee (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * In your comment you say there's a more elegant way of doing this. Please apply that more elegant way. While it may be better for readers (which I question) it's certainly not better for editors. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure how to do it, but it would involve using a compact-toc type template to link to span-ids placed inside the table. We most definitely should not be changing the page just to suit editors. MickMacNee (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It is actually possible to put section headers inside tables, so perhaps what I just did is acceptable for everyone?Skysmurf (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I really cannot see what it brings for the reader. It frankly now just looks odd, it has a sort of hybrid table/article appearance now. It's just downright distracting to have edit links embedded in what is notionally one big table, and not having anything written above the TOC is a basic MoS violation surely. If this really needs to be an article with several editable sections such that we need a great big TOC at the top for ease of editors, then that's simply what it should be. But as I said, then we just have something that we already have in at least two other articles that I know of. My idea was actually for an unobtrusive compact TOC, such as those in Template:CompactTOC8, and not to use headers but span id's which are invisible page section anchors. But I'm buggered if I can figure out the nuts and bolts of how to do it. I guess I will just have to stop looking at this page and go back to my 20th Century tech wallchart. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that this should not be done just for the ease of editors. And I personally don't need a TOC, but it appears that there actually are readers who find the page too long. I've been trying to figure out how to do what you described, but couldn't find it either, that's why I went with this instead. And the edit links inside the table can of course be easily removed.
 * If somebody thinks that what I did was a very bad idea, feel free to undo it. Skysmurf (talk) 19:35, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

interwiki
Please add an interwiki link for German de:Fußball-Weltmeisterschaft 2010/Spielplan --78.34.233.179 (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Live scores
Do we really need to provide live scoring on this page? This is already being done on the match page (in this case here).

Personally, I think it's a bit of double work (as we say in Dutch) but don't really have grief objections either.Skysmurf (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There's only one answer to that - how would you ever stop it? But we certainly don't need the annoying GOOOOOOAAALLL!!! edit summaries. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that was intended excitement on my part...forgot the page is semied and on watchlists. It was meant to draw attention to the goal update.  My bad, I'll cease that kind of summary.


 * I'm interested in what happens in the case of a penalty kick shootout. It's about to go to sudden death right now.


 * As for live updates on the page; why not? I saw it being done the other day and think it's a good idea.  That way anyone watching knows it's in progress and doesn't have to click further forward unless there are interested.  CycloneGU (talk) 20:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the live updates: yes, I've seen it done too. But I've seen it being reverted just as often. This page is merely a schedule, meant for final results only. As you can see in the edit logs, there has already been one attempt (not by me, though) to change the current score back to Match 50.Skysmurf (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Noting extra time and penalties
We now have extra time in the first knockout game. Unless a better solution comes up or is already out there, I suggest we denote extra time scores like this:

and penalties like this:

MickMacNee (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why not just...


 * I for one don't know what a.e.t. means. If I don't, someone else won't.  CycloneGU (talk) 20:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * (It should be noted I see the Wikilink - I just never have seen a.e.t. before.) CycloneGU (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * a.e.t (after extra time) is standard on wikipedia and in football generally. If you just have 'extra time', then given the fact we are doing live updates, that could create confusion as to right now, as to whether it's over or not. MickMacNee (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If it's standard, then by all means. All I did at the final whistle was remove "in progress" - which is what I would normally take to mean the game is ongoing, "extra time" by itself doesn't tell me that.  But again, standard is standard. =)  CycloneGU (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's usually (pen.) not (pen). --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right. Template adjusted. Skysmurf (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

New templates are fine

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:After_extra_time&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:After_extra_time&action=history


 * created earlier today
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:After_penalty_shootout&action=history
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:After_penalty_shootout&action=history

They save time, space, and are easier to use. Thanks for the additions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * also created earlier today.


 * You know guys, after Walter Görlitz came up with (or at least started using) the match in progress template, I created the other two in an attempt of being helpful. I do think they make things easier and if used on other pages can provide a uniform appearance (if they need further editing/augmentation/customization/whatever, of course feel free to do so or ask me to). It was not my intention to disrupt anything and I won't be offended if they are rejected, provided there's a good reason.


 * If there is a good reason for not using these templates then by all means explain it here, possibly citing earlier discussions elsewhere, so that we can at least agree on it instead of getting dragged into an edit war. Regards, Skysmurf (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * user:PeeJay2K3: there is no need to use templates for this purpose!. Is there a reason not to use them for this purpose? Since it was for this purpose that they were designed. Unless PeeJay2K3 can respond with a good reason not to use them, I will be restoring or someone else should feel free to restore the templates. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I don't know exactly where the regulations for template usage lie, or I would quote them, but as far as I am aware, templates should not be used as a replacement for simple text/code. Since aet is easily replaced by  (a.e.t.)  and after penalty shootout can be replaced by  (5 – 3p) , then they definitely should be. And before you ask, the replacement text I have suggested is standard; you can see it in usage on any of the UEFA Champions League season articles (and many more). – PeeJay 19:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfect! Both 2009–10 UEFA Champions League and 2008–09 UEFA Champions League use (p) to indicate penalties (and (a) to show aggregate goals). Much more of a standard than the two examples. Now, we can go in and change the template and we only have to make the change in one place. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And I didn't create the mip template, I simply discovered that it was being used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, the (a) in the Champions League articles indicates a win on away goals. But that's by the by. I'll make the changes now. – PeeJay 14:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes. I knew that away goal rules was indicated with an (a). I should have made that clear in the parenthetical comment. It's how my favourite European side advanced to the finals this past year. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * And now that that has been corrected, we can restore the template to correctly display the information. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But why do we need a template? As I have just proven, the function of the template can be performed perfectly well with plain text code, so why put extra strain on the servers by forcing the transclusion of a template? – PeeJay 15:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not quite. You showed that the it can display the same text. However, if it's decided, at some future time, that we want to show a different value for penalty shootout (football), then the articles that have used the template can be updated by simply changing the template however all other articles would have to be updated manually. Once at every location where the previous value was used. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We aren't supposed to worry about the servers. Using templates seems eminently sensible, if the goal is a standard format across all football articles. MickMacNee (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

editsemiprotected
editsemiprotected Please pipelink "Knockout stage matches" to 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. --87.79.58.109 (talk) 17:58, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 18:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --87.79.86.238 (talk) 10:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Penalty Shootout = pen. not p.
The current results, except the ones changed recently, all show (pen.) for the penalty shootout or penalties. Also see I understand your point: ⚽ 42' (pen.) shows pen. and links to penalty kick. Perhaps you should seek consensus across all of the current tournament pages rather than boldly changing one in isolation. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * (pens.)
 * To be honest, I find this to be a piffling matter hardly worth discussion. For once, I just can't be arsed to argue over it. I will say, however, that it seems daft to have one standard for Champions League articles and one for World Cup articles. I'm sure there are other sets of articles that fall into one of those two standards, and I'm even more sure that there are a few mongrel articles that use a combination of the two. If we can agree that an overall standard needs to be set, I would be more than happy to change all of the World Cup articles to read "p" for penalty shootouts and "aet" for extra time (since the full stops in "a.e.t." are unnecessary). – PeeJay 00:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


 * a.e.t and pen. seem eminently more sensible to me, being more easily understandable, as does keeping the scores in line and not pushed over to the side just for extra time games. If PeeJay2K3 keeps his promise not to make this one of the many issues he freely edit wars over, I suggest they be put back to this format. MickMacNee (talk) 16:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As you will notice in my above comment, a single "p" is the standard abbreviation for results determined by penalty shootouts. By the way, you would be best not to comment on other editors. It's not productive. Instead, why don't you try putting forward a decent argument for why we should depart from an accepted convention. – PeeJay 16:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * (a.e.t.) and either (p) or (pens) as Pee has stated. The use of (pen.) should be reserved for an actual spot-kick. However, I still think using would make this easier. That way we simply insert the template (on the proviso that it's not a huge amount of overhead for the server to convert that to HTML) and then we can debate what that template actually displays. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's eminently productive. Had I seen anyone else but you make the changes from the old format, I likely would have reverted and sought discussion. However, seeing it was you, I knew full well it would be totally pointless, so I left it, even though it looks horrendous. As Walter is probably realising by now too, it takes three or four reverts to even get you onto the talk page, at which point, things don't really improve. I have no doubt that whatever you think is standard, has likely come about because you have edit warred fiercely to make it so, using logic no better than 'it's better this way', a.k.a I like it, so I've no wish to go down that road. Been there, done that. Walter can try, but more fool him if he does tbh. When it comes to PeeJay2K3, just avoid, is my advice. MickMacNee (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You may not have noticed, but for the last couple of weeks, I barely used this site at all. I didn't have time to read discussions, so I just made edits where I saw fit. Don't make accusations about my editing habits when you don't have all the facts. – PeeJay 21:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree: 'Pen' seems like it would be more clear to readers that are unfamiliar. Jeff Carr (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Closing ceremony
Given that the opening concert and ceremony are mentioned in this schedule, shouldn't the closing ceremony (going on as I am writing this) be mentioned as well? Skysmurf (talk) 16:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)