Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

World Cup Seeding

I've noticed that the page does have any reference to FIFAs seeding for the world cup. I think this should be added. Maybe bracketed next to the seeds instead of their pot number reference?? Jamie 11:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and added it as I see no good reason why the 2005 rankings have any useful significance to the tournament apart from the seeding, which I have explained and documented. The only thing that may be useful is having a seperate list for the seeds in numerical order?? Thoughts? Jamie 12:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't want to disrespect your efforts by deleting the seedings, but I think it is a red herring to describe there having been any seeding other than of the top eight nations. The distribution of other teams between pots in the draw was on geographical grounds, not historical acheivement in the tiournament/FIFA rankings. Can anyone enlighten as to why Serbia and Montenegro, rather than any other European unseeded team, was chosen for a pot of its own? Kevin McE 18:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I've found an answer for my own question: Serb & Mont. was the lowest ranked UEFA qualifier in November 05 (the time of the draw). Typical of FIFA to be so inconsistent as to use two different classification tables to determine the same draw (a composite table for the top 8, the rankings on a particular date for the 14th UEFA team) Kevin McE 19:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
See Rankings for more details on the discussion on keeping the 2005 rankings. If you are willing to implement the changes discussed, that would be great.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by IanManka (talk • contribs) .

Never mind, I should probably read the article changes before commenting :P — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 12:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

An editor has pasted in from another page of wikipedia a lengthy table and explanation of the seeding: is this really necessary given the concise description already in the article? I don't like to delete the well meaning contribution of others, but this strikes me as unnecessary duplication, to an unnecessary evel of detail (the link is already there for anyone who wants to know the full details), in an article that is very well structured, if rather lengthy. Any opinions? Kevin McE 23:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Well we definately now have it twice so one bit should go. As this page already contains quite a lot of tables/lists I'd be quite happy to remvoe the 'new' section. --Robdurbar 08:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I was bold and split it off into its own article. Hope that was ok with everybody. --Guinnog 09:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I'm completely new to all this editing, so hope I'm not speaking out of turn here. The seedings shown in brackets here do not seem to correspond with the seedings shown elsewhere. For example, Czech Republic is shown as the second seed, but England are second on the seeding table. RBroome

Nhgaudreau had erroneously replaced some of the seedings with world rankings. I have restored the info shown to the seedings for the tournament (although they are largely irrelevant) Kevin McE 22:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Last Day

Could someone add a reference to which is the last day that the national teams have to present their squads to FIFA ? thanks

Group Criteria

The Official Regulations, available in PDF from the official site, state:

The ranking of each team in each group will be determined as follows: a) greatest number of points obtained in all group matches; b) goal difference in all group matches; c) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches.

If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings will be determined as follows:

d) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned; e) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned; f) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned; g) drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup™.

Your page incorrectly states that the group sorting criteria used in the qualifiers will apply. I agree it is strange that head-to-head was the primary tie-breaker in the preliminaries but not the final.

Yeah, the page is wrong, i've corrected it with the source. Robdurbar 08:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

It's still wrong the way it is. The following applies if two teams have the same number of points: 1) goal difference in all group matches; 2) greatest number of goals scored in all group matches. 3) greatest number of points obtained in the group matches between the teams concerned; 4) goal difference resulting from the group matches between the teams concerned; 5) greater number of goals scored in all group matches between the teams concerned; 6) drawing of lots by the Organising Committee for the FIFA World Cup™.


The current number 1 (result of the match between the tied teams) is in fact merely number 3, whereas the current 2 & 3 are actually 1 & 2. I corrected it now. 134.226.1.136 14:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In the list of criteria, whats the point of items 3, 4 and 5 being separate items. If the teams are still tied using item 3 (ie - they drew the match between them), then they will inevitably still be tied when you use items 4 and 5 (as they both scored the same amount of goals when they played each other - hence the draw).--Ukdan999 23:43, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It would come into play if 3 or 4 teams were tied. --Robdurbar 07:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Mastercards/tickets

Was this claim true or not? I seem to remember that I had to get a mastercard to buy tickets? Its been removed by someone claiming it was not true, however - what do people think? --Robdurbar 21:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I have a source; Mastercard was the original set-up but it was changed after a media campaign - http://www.which.net/campaigns/other/competition/worldcuptickets.html --Robdurbar 21:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Just as a side note, when I got my tickets for the 2006 Winter Olympics in Turin, you could only buy them through a Visa card or Italian bank transfer i.e. very similar to the situation with the World Cup. But I don't remember that contravening EU laws. Oh well -- Lord Tau 13:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article

  • This page's detail and design is exquisite. With the event only a month away I'm going to nominate it unless anyone has any objections. pattersonc 11:32, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how to nominate a page for Today's Featured Article, otherwise I would have done it when this became FA. That, and I feared that it was too far away. Go for it! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 22:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
From what I can see, the article isn't currently a Featured Article. It needs to pass that first, and then it can be nominated as a "Main page" feature article. -- Chuq 22:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Just nominate FIFA World Cup. The 2006 FIFA World Cup will be "in the news" for the month (possibly its own little corner, just like the Commonwealth Games had?), so both will be linked to from the main page. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 00:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Sky Sports HD

Have Sky confirmed whether this channel will be showing the World Cup in HD? I would have assumed that they will be. Or is it just the BBC in the UK as the article curently says. Jooler 11:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I Noticed that BBC have an HD channel now so I would imagine the World Cup would be shown in HD from the BBC. This isn't confirmed though. Telewest have confirmed they will show the World Cup in HD. Jamie 07:49, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is confirmed (BBC that is), don't know about Sky HD though. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4834322.stm Jooler 09:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, the BBC and ITV will both be showing the World Cup in HD. The BBC service is available on SkyHD and Telewest, while the ITV games are only on Telewest cable. Sky Sports does not own the rights to broadcast the World Cup, so it won't be on Sky Sports HD. Bluejam 15:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Would somebody who might know the situation with Italian broadcast rights like to tidy up footnote 13: it is quite incomprehensible as it stands. Kevin McE 00:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Venues Images

Can you help me? http://de.worldcupwiki.org/index.php/Testseite

• Berlin
• Munich

I would like the salm. Thank you--132.230.128.15 11:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

The error is caused by your Vorlage:Bild label, that is meant to look like this template. I'm not sure how that works, but the text is positioned differently on the Wikipedia page then yours, even though the syntax is the same. Maybe this is an extension-thing, or you are using an out-of-date MediaWiki version. Oh, and I recommend using the SVG versions of flags. not the PNG versions, as they scale horribly, see your own main page for evidence. +Hexagon1 (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
You need to install the Parser Functions extension, or simplify it to only use integer inputs (multiply x * scale and y * scale by hand). ed g2s • talk 10:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--217.233.109.253 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Slogan

Can i include the 32 finalists world cup slogan in the this page which release on May 8??? Aleenf1 06:40, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

slogans? --Robdurbar 09:26, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

See here[1] Should be include??? Aleenf1 17:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
To be honest a lack of press attention should indicate that this is FIFA nonesense. If these are used during the tournament on a regular basis, or included onto team logos, or whatever, then we could include them, but at the moment it seems like some sort of website stunt. --Robdurbar 20:52, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I like the Korean slogan: "Never-ending legend, united Korea", I'd've thought that it'd be considered too politically controversial for an official slogan. Also, unfortunately I have to admit that my native Sweden's slogan is clumsy and one of the cheesiest of the lot: "Fight! Show spirit! Come on! You have the support of everyone!" (Very bad rhythm, you probably have to be a dancehall deejay to make that rhyme...) 惑乱 分からん 23:26, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good, but not quite as good as "2006, it's Swiss o'clock".... Skittle 17:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Commercial Names of the Stadiums

The Name of the Stadiums are the Commercial Names the "real Names are:

  • Berlin: Olympiastadion
  • Dortmund: Westfalen stadion
  • Frankfurt: Waldstadion
  • Gelsenkirchen: Arena Auf Schalke
  • Hamburg: Volksparkstadion
  • Hanover (Hannover): Niedersachsenstadion
  • Kaiserslautern: Fritz-Walter-Stadion
  • Cologne (Köln): Müngersdorferstadion
  • Leipzig: Zentralstadion:
  • Munich (München): Stadion München
  • Nuremberg (Nürnberg): Franken-Stadion
  • Stuttgart: Gottlieb-Daimler-Stadion

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.56.165.203 (talk • contribs) .

Concerns over the trafficking of women during the World Cup

I see someone objects to the reference to trafficking of women during the World Cup. Can you tell me why? This wikipedia article is about the World Cup. This is an issue connected to the World Cup. What is the objection?

And it has not just been raised from one small source but it is widely discussed in the media and by many organisations, from Amnesty International to the Council of Europe and the Nordic Council. Even President Bush and Chancellor Merkel were to discuss it. [2]

Is the objection because ‘it’s a bit political’? Well, remember the Moscow Olympics? Or the Munich Olympics? Sometimes wider events are connected to sporting events. Chwyatt 10:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, as it stands now, the connection seems a little far-fetched (although I don't doubt there is a connection, mainly because of the increased tourism.) Also, it appears a little moralistic and preachy, pointing out that it is a great problem, without getting into any detail about the connection to the cup. I think it probably should stay, but it needs to be rewritten, and probably fleshed out some, with different points and further angles. 惑乱 分からん 13:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


  1. It's totally fucking irrelevant! People read this for world cup info not for prostitute info. Nobody gives a shit and it should go! Makes sense! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by American champagne (talk • contribs) 17:14, 15 May 2006.


American champagne, it’s a shame you cannot discuss things without swearing. So you decide what people think do you? Someone else suggests it should stay (even be fleshed out). And other people have put it back on the article after you deleted it. It is an issue connected to the World Cup. Some fans are going to Germany for the World Cup and the prostitution and brothels are using the tournament for publicity. Makes sense! Someone else has made a comment about a German bank account breaking EU competition laws. That has nothing to do with football, but it is connected to the tournament. This is the same thing. Give me a real, logical reason why it should go (other then you find it boring or whatever) and I won’t post it again. I have added it to the ‘Miscellaneous’ section so it’s less prominent as a compromise. Can we leave it at that? Chwyatt 16:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For what my voice is worth I'd definitely say this should stay in - very relevant as a wider impact of the tournament. Iancaddy 19:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think it is irrilevant...but connected! so we have to write it... maybe people wouldn't read it...but if we should see only what people in fact reads...we should half this encyclopedia! --necronudist 20:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems cool as it is now. --Robdurbar 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If it is notable it should be included. The way it is now does it justice. Alias Flood 00:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Leave as is, but if it grows beyond a paragraph, should be moved to its own article. ed g2s • talk 12:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and Montenegro?

Now that Montenegro is independent from Serbia, are they still entering the cup as one squad? I haven't heard anything as the split occured on May 22, 2006, the same day as this comment was added. However, I feel it would be important to look into and confirm to maintain the accuracy of this fine article.

They aren't separate yet - they have only had a vote for independence approved by the population. I don't think 17 days is enough time for them to get through all the paperwork (so to speak), give the national football federation time to separate and establish new federations, regroup two teams, and then get FIFA to decide which of the two teams is allowed to compete in the cup! -- Chuq 04:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Upon further inspection, I apologize for my faulty comment seeing that Chuq is correct. They are to be split within a 60 day period of May 22, 2006. This gives them plenty of time to participate in the World Cup as one state union causing no conflicts. Of course the possibility still remains for this conflict to occur, but it is highly unlikely.
They'll likely be independent by 13 July, but no matter their actual status, they will compete in the WC as a single team. Similar things have happened before... —Nightstallion (?) 11:19, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeh didnt a "Confederation of States from the Former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics" or something enter the World Cup/European Championship/Olympics... Philc TECI 23:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), for Euro 92, and also the 1992 Summer Olympics Chanheigeorge 07:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Group order

Are the national teams in each group listed according to the order they were drawn or by their seeding?--211.212.69.199 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

During the draw, teams were not only drawn into different groups (ie. "Group C") but positions within that group (ie. "Position 2 in group C"). The positions aren't necessarily the order in which they were drawn either. I haven't looked at a recording of the draw to compare, but I would imagine that would be the order in which they are listed here. -- Chuq 11:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It is. -- Arwel (talk) 11:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Just An Idea... Articles On Previous World Cup Matches?

Hi, I'm a fairly irregular Wikipedia user! I just wondered if there were articles on individual World Cup matches from the past such as semi-finals and finals, I did have a look around but there didn't seem to be any? TG312274 17:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they are not. Except perhaps for Maracanazo, but it goes beyond the match itself. There are also articles about notable WC goals Hand of God goal, and Goal of the Century. Mariano(t/c) 11:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The 1966 FIFA World Cup Final has its own page. --Robdurbar 15:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks guys, was just thinking of writing some articles on important matches from the past, maybe something like the England v West Germany 1990 semi-final as it was such a dramatic game? TG312274 17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that anything other than semi-finals or finals would stuggle to get through a deletion vote, unless it was a paticularly notable game for some other reason, such as a MAJOR upset or some political context - England v Argentina quarter final in 1986 comes to mind; USA v England in 1950; perhaps even USA v Iran at France 1998? All finals could certainly deserve their own. --Robdurbar 17:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

UTC+2?

Isn't Germany only one hour ahead of the UK? So, shouldn't it be UTC+1?--Sir Edgar 01:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The UK is presently UTC+1 for summer saving as is Germany. UTC+2 is therefore correct. Alias Flood 01:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


Kit (jersey) colors assigned to teams in group matches?

I know that FIFA assigned team colors to all group matches ahead of time. Can this information be obtained for all the teams? If not to be included in this article, perhaps it could be spawned off to its separate article, say 2006 FIFA World Cup assigned team colors. -- Mareklug talk 01:58, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

FIFA has no authority to assign colours to teams: the national federations will have informed FIFA of their kit designs and colours. There are links aplenty for each competing team to their nft page, and these pages have kit details. Kevin McE 09:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I may have misspoken, but FIFA has, for example, told Poland that they will play one game in their customary red shorts-and-white-jerseys, one game all red, and one game all-white. This information appeared in the daily Gazeta Wyborcza, and these 3 distinct variations/kit combinations were assigned to specific games, with visibility of both teams being the issue, I would think. Similar 3-game assignment, I am sure, has been made for other teams, based on whatever their kits are. So, this is the information I would like to have -- for each game of the tournament; at present, for each game of the group round. -- Mareklug talk 10:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I can find no details on FIFA's tournament page about which games are to involve kit changes, but the obvious ones in the group stage would be would be Germany-Poland (according to FIFA, Poland's first choice kit for the tournament is white shirts and red shorts), Paraguay-Trinidad & Tobago, Angola-Portugal, Ghana-USA, Brazil-Australia, Switzerland-Korea and Tunisia-Saudi Arabia. I believe that the second named team in each case, determined by the order in the groups at the draw, are the ones who would need to change. Why Poland would be required to change to an all white kit for the game against, I assume, Costa Rica I am not sure. Kevin McE 12:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The usual arrangement is that the team declared the "home" team for a particular match, i.e. the team that appears on the left, decides what colours they wear and then the "away" team choose a non-conflicting strip. It's entirely upto the "home" team whether they wear their own "home colours", "away colours", or pink-polka-dots or whatever, and I can't see why FIFA should have any right to dictate what a team wears, beyond the bounds of decency and taste. Jooler 13:26, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not beleive that a "home" team can simply choose whatever kit it wishes in most tournaments: at least basic colours, if not all the details of design and trim, are revealed before the competition starts, and the "home" team would usually need exceptional reason to wear anything else. Practice in league football would suggest that the "away" team can choose to wear an alternative kit even if it is not necessitated by a colour clash, and can choose between previously revealed alternative kits: the referee can insist on a change of kits if he deems the two teams are too similar in their attire. I suspect that FIFA might be a little more fussy for the World Cup: each team has 2 kits displayed on their page within the FIFA site for this tournament. Kevin McE 14:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
FIFA does pay attention to the smallest details of the official kit for the World Cup finals. In the case of Poland, they were displeased with the prominence of the watermarked image of a winged hussar on the newly redesigned white shirt, and as a result of this displeasure, the watermark was to be attenuated. And they definitely set which version of the kit or variation thereof is to be used in each World Cup group game. -- Mareklug talk 21:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The England kit manager made known to a BBC commentator on 30th May that England will be wearing their change kit of red shirts for their 3rd match of the group stage, against Sweden. Whether this is a matter of the FA's choice, or because FIFA wish kit difference to be obvious to those who might be watching on black and white television, was not revealed. Kevin McE 00:18, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

German racism and skinheads

I took this down as it did not even slightly resemble the MSN reference it was supposedly based on. Guinnog 21:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

referees

The article lacks a list of the referees who will be in the world cup. Arnemann 19:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Not any more it doesn't, although the ist could perhaps be wikified a bit (past my bedtime...) Kevin McE 00:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Crime or Sex trade in World Cup

Prostitution is not a crime in Germany; but himan trafficking is. The only crime mentioned deals with the sex trade. Therefore using the word crime is too inclusive. If we added other crimes: ticket scalpeling, violent fans, drus use then the title would fit. John wesley 11:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The concern is over the crime - human trafficiking. It also includes the threat of neo-nazi violence, hence the tile 'crime'; and why not add something on touting too? A good idea I think. --Robdurbar 22:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought the tickets for this world cup couldn't be touted as they had passport details of the purchaser on them. Philc TECI 23:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Those sold to the general public do, those allocated to sponsors and hospitality do not, and merely carry the name of the sponsor. According to fans organizations, this is where most black market tickets come from e.g. [3]. There's definitely scope for an article about touting. Ticket tout is a redirect to the stub tout. Touting in the football sense currently has a single paragraph in ticket resale. Oldelpaso 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the various forms of crime, from human trafficking to racism (and if, heavens forbid, any hooliganism) associated with the world cup should be kept in one section and ‘Crime and the World Cup’ seems like an OK section title. Chwyatt 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)


"Fans may be taken off naked" [[4]] [[5]] [[6]] :-))

Sorting of Group Matches

Wouldn't it be more logical to sort the matches within each group completely chronologically, rather than listing the match involving the #1 seed before all other matches on a certain day? I.E. on June 12th in Group E, the Italy-Ghana match is listed before the USA-Ceska match, even though the Italy match is three hours later than the USA match. Just a thought. -DMurphy 23:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Jooler 23:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)