User talk:Kingjeff/Archive3

Footnote 39
Citation 39 was meant to be the Report for Australia vs. Japan. Thx. Wikipedia Stubmechanic 10:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Brazil/Croatia Ref
The Ref for the game is not that Egyptian guy, I believe the announcers said that the ref was Mexican. But, I do not know his name, so tha is an edit we need to make where the ref is listed for this match.

yeah his name was like Carlos Ameda or something....

Aus vs. Jpn
Would Cahill's and Aloisi's scores mean that this was the first match that was determined by subs?Wikipedia Stubmechanic 11:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt it as i'm sure in the past a sub has come on and scored the only goal in a 1-0 game. Batman2005 18:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll trust you on that one, seeing as you're an avid football enthusiast.thx. Wikipedia Stubmechanic 09:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"# David Villa of Spain became the first player in 72 years to score twice in his World Cup debut, when Spain played Ukraine on June 14" ... shouldn't this should be Cahill on June 12? 125.209.153.161 21:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)snaxalotl

Why is South Korea called the "Korea Republic"?
this doesn't make any sense. the country is called South Korea for a reason, god damn some of you are dumb.
 * I suggest you read South Korea. The country is officially called the "Republic of Korea" (North Korea is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea"). AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

dude, shut up, so then why don't we just call Germany "Deutschland"?

Because, DUDE! Germany sn't called Deutschland in English!!
 * And we don't call the Republic of Korea "대한민국" (Daehan Minguk) in English, either! -- Arwel (talk) 09:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the main reason is how FIFA call South Korea . Though for what reason? I don't know. --WinHunter (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably because that's how the country wants to be referred to, similar to the Côte d'Ivoire argument. Personally, I would go with what is accepted in general use as the name of a country, hence South Korea (not Republic of Korea), Côte d'Ivoire (not Ivory Coast), Taiwan (not Republic of China), and Germany (not Deutschland).  This approach avoids confusion; the average reader when presented with a country of "Republic of Korea" wouldn't normally be able to say whether that is North or South Korea.  If the reader wants to find out more about the country, they can go to the article of that country, and it's there that they'll find the "official" name of a country.  As with articles on people, the article is named after the common name of a person (and references to that person in other articles are also the common name), but the person's article contains their "official" name - e.g. Pelé (not Edson Arantes do Nascimento).  So my two pennorth is that it should be South Korea.  Robwingfield (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

What counts is the official name according to FIFA. Nevertheless the official names are still wrong, Korea Republic should be South Korea, Czech Republic should be Czechia and so on. The official names often deprecated and to be corrected.


 * I've never seen South Korea referred to as anything other than "South Korea" at all sporting events. I say we change it. Andymarczak 08:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * ??? Well at the two biggest sporting events (this and the Olympics) they are referred to as Korea. See Korea at the 2004 Summer Olympics, Korea at the 2000 Summer Olympics. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 00:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, on here maybe. On the Olympic website the medal winners are referred to as coming from "Korea (South Korea)". It's all very random. Andymarczak 11:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've never seen Czech Republic referred to anything other than Czech Republic... and this is the first time I've ever seen "Czechia"! Robwingfield (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If it is not supposed to be "South Korea", shouldn't it be "Korean Republic"... it doesn't look right without the "n". - Deathrocker 00:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * FIFA refer to "Korea Republic" or "KOR". Please see here. In the main, we follow FIFA. -- Alias Flood 01:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that we should use whatever FIFA does, but of all the possible choices for South Korea, this seems like a really bad one. Does anyone know why they've chosen it?--Deville (Talk) 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Interwikilinks
Why is there no interwikilinks in this article? Did the got lost or are they left out for an akward reason? --AndersL 16:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Matches in progress
I strongly believe that no change should be made to the lines referring to specific matches until the game is over. This way we avoid allocating points or indications of draws or victories that have not yet been won, and avoid all the debate about how to indicate goals in a match in progress. I would point out that the section is headed Group stage RESULTS capitals: my emphasis Wikipedia is not a news feed. Kevin McE 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

The tables should be left until the match has finished (as that is when the points are awarded). Goals however, should be added when they are scored. - Deathrocker 19:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Why should they be? There is no result until the match is over. Kevin McE 19:48, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The tag at the top of the article states "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses." A goal is an "event", hense why they are added "rapidly" as they occur. - Deathrocker 19:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * (after edit conflict) Kevin's proposal is eminently reasonable and consistent with our handling of, for example, Super Bowl XL and 2006 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament (neither is a perfect analogue, but the spirit underlying the handling of each is consistent with the proposition that no changes should be made to the lines referring to specific matches until the game is over. As Kevin intimates, celerity isn't a paramount concern here, inasmuch as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a news service (of course, certain pages, e.g., Current sports events, are contemporaneous news aggregators [cf., though, breaking news reporters]), but consistency across mainspace is important; we should always err, in situations such as these, on the side of being late, which proposition here applies if only because there are scenarios in which a game might be invalidated, with all concordant goals vitiated, such that in our rush update the page, we will have been exorbitantly presumptuous.  Joe 20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, we (meaning usually I) do not update the scores on Current sports events until the individual match is completed. In any case, I'd rather watch the matches than be continuously in an edit conflict on here... -- Arwel (talk) 20:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I meant only to suggest that if scores/goal tables ought to be updated anywhere whilst a match is in progress, Current sports events would be the place (even as I don't think we should make any such edits). Joe 20:42, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Interesting attempt at a compromise by 68.239.210.52, although obviously a sub-section under Referees is not the appropriate place. Kevin McE 20:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I see no problem updating the goals/score columns in the actual match box...The results listing should be left alone until the game is completed. So if Argentina are up 2 on Ivory Coast, listing the score and goal scorers is ok in my opinion as they're not going to change, but leave the W/L/T table alone until there's an actual result. Batman2005 21:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I also see no problem with updating goals during a match. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so there's no need to have information updated the second it occurs. This is not a news source. But at the same time, just because it is not necessary, that does not mean it should be prohibited. If an editor feels motivated to add some new fact to the encyclopedia they shouldn't be prevented from doing so just because the fact is too recent. --DavidConrad 17:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know, maybe I was too bold in editing articles. Feel free to get rid of that awful notice. Maybe have a few people who are regulars to update the goalscoring, and keep the notice? I dunno. Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Heck, people are going to edit the page anyway, before, during, and after the game. Why spend valuable time debating about this? If you don't want people to edit it during games, then protect it. Otherwise just let'em. --Biolife 00:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Cards
Will we be keeping track of the players who get yellow and red carded?


 * Done, but copuld somebody please arrange it so that the country flags and names are left-, rather than centre-, aligned. Kevin McE 12:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the table should be inverted (at least for the teams), as it should try and be an indication of who will win the FIFA Fair Play Award. Ian Manka Talk to me! 13:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've no objection to it being changed thus, but the one on the FIFA site is this way around. Does anyone know the criteria for deciding the Fair Play award? (No of bookings? No of fouls? Bookings per match? How many bookings does a red count as?) Kevin McE 17:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * How will 2 yellows in a single game be handleded? Will they be changed to 1 red and the yellows removed from the tally or will both the yellows and red show up, because I think thet skews the totals.

Official match reports
Hey, I had the idea up the page a little bit ago to include each match's "FIFA Match Report" to the game boxes...you know where they show the score, who scored, etc. Do you know how to add this information to that box? I sure as hell don't. Batman2005 22:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like the match reports were featured on UEFA U-21 Championship 2006 ?? jaco ♫ plane  23:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've added an example in the group A section. jaco ♫ plane  23:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That works. We need to put the text in the cell below the score because it's offsetting the alignment. Arsonal 23:25, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It is? Looks fine in Firefox as far as I can tell. jaco ♫ plane  23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed it to what I meant, these are the match reports I was talking about. The ones that FIFA puts out that talks about substitutions, goals, cards, etc. Batman2005 23:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, we should use the Wikinews match reports found here. Would give a good boost to our Journalist brethren. What do you think? jaco ♫ plane  23:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No actually I agree that the links you've used are best to use. jaco ♫ plane  23:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I think so, they provide a solid source for when people disagree about whether or not Beckham scored a goal today or whether it was an own goal. If FIFA says its one thing in their match report that's what we should be following. So I too think these are the best ones to use. Batman2005 00:03, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Matches in progress
I have added/currently am adding a notice to the top of each results section instructing contibutors to not edit the matches until they have completed. The notice is invisible to people browsing/reading the site, but is quite noticeable to editors. Hopefully this will reduce the amount of people rushing to put in the most recent goal. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The notice reads:

Where was a consensus reached about this? Batman2005 01:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a democracy. I don't care myself, but with all of the discussion and more discussion above, I just decided to be bold and do something, instead of endlessly discussing. But, if you feel so strongly about this topic, we can hold a straw poll and increase the amount of bureaucracy there is involved. Or you could be bold and revert my changes - I really don't care. Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Top Goal Scorers or Golden Shoe
Someone took my ametuer list of goal scorers down. It looked bad, but I was working on it, and it is a good idea.


 * I removed it because the information is already in the article. See 2006 FIFA World Cup. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it should be noted that tests should take place in the sandbox, not the main article namespace. Ian Manka Talk to me! 01:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

My Bad Bornagain4 02:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No worries, mate. Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, looking at the top scorer list, Rosicky has 2, not one goal. Ant

Actually change that I realised all the others in the list also have two - it isn't very clear, is there any way to format it better? Maybe by indenting equally all those on two goals? Ant

Just Deal With It...
If someone scores a goal and it gets added to wikipedia, just deal with it...the goal isn't gonna come off the board. Its pointless to sit around arguing about when a goal should be added to the page. If somebody adds it when it happens, who cares? Wikipedia isn't a news source, yeah...i've heard that too. But just deal with it, we could all find much better things to argue about...like for instance whether or not Carlos Gamarra is gonna get shot by drug cartels when he gets home like Andres Escobar. I vote no. Batman2005 02:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care myself, but with all of the discussion and more discussion above, I just decided to be bold and do something, instead of endlessly discussing. But, if you feel so strongly about this topic, we can hold a straw poll and increase the amount of bureaucracy there is involved. Or you could be bold and revert my changes - I really don't care. Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No no no, personally, I couldn't care less, i'm too busy actually watching the games to be adding stuff during the games. Batman2005 02:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Eh, cool beans. Me too. ;) Ian Manka Talk to me! 02:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I know its not what wikipedia is meant for, but when I'm away from the TV, wikipedia is the only one updated quickly, it often beats the BBC by two or more minutes. So I trust it more :D Edd8990 17:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Game Calendar
Dear contributors, How you consider how much we are needed in the paragraph Game calendar? As on me it simply duplicates the information going below and litters this article. SteveGOLD 10:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur.Hektor 10:22, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * We had something similar on Euro 2004 . ed g2s &bull; talk 10:25, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I partly agree. Though it repeats the information from a following section, I think that this is more relevant to me since the information displayed is chronologically arranged, rather than arranged by the World Cup groupings, which is probably more important for those following this event on television. However, the problem of this section lies in its general appearance. One look at it and I already has a headache--it is certainly a feast for the eyes--lots of information, with flags, time, groupings, place, etc.--but the presentation of the information is not up to standards. Why not move this to a separate article (just leave a link for this section), and rearrange the information by row, instead of by column. One column each for the date, grouping, match, time, place, etc. And it is arranged chronologically from top to bottom. In that way, the information on this site won't be duplicated by another section, but at the same time, a new section/link can give another view/presentation/organization of the information provided here. Joey80 10:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I created the page 2006 FIFA World Cup calendar and linked to it from the 2006 FIFA World Cup page for exactly these reasons! In my opinion it should be kept seperate with a link from the main page. — Dan1980 10:35, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, please keep this separate! I just wanted to print out the calendar and was pretty dismayed to find the page to be merged into the huge main article. 84.144.121.21 10:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I have now moved the page back and added an extra link under the Game Calendar heading. — Dan1980 10:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)