Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about 2010 FIFA World Cup. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Names of Host Cities 2010

A decision of the specific names of the host cities has been taken and for a number of host cities. (Link) Luckily the old names are still mentioned in brackets behind the new names.

I think this should be added immediately so people & press will start using them as well. Host cities affected by the name changes are Pretoria, who’s new name will be Tshwane, Bloemfontein, which is being renamed Mangaung, and Port-Elizabeth which new name will become Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality.

For these South African 2010 host cities both old and new names will appear on the soccer tickets issued for the 2010 World Cup tournament. The new name will be on the ticket, with the old name behind it between brackets: Tshwane (Pretoria), Mangaung (Bloemfontein), Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality (Port-Elizabeth). --Ghoemalive 18:35, 29 October 2007

Those names aren't the names of cities, but rather the municipalities, which in most cases encompass more than one city. For example, Nelson Mandela Bay consists of the cities of Port Elizabeth, Uitenhage, the town of Despatch, Eastern Cape and several villages. It's all rather political, the government is pushing for the names of the municipalities to be used as place names though. 41.247.32.85 (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why are written names of the german cities in the map ?

Simply vandalism, which was soon reverted by the vandal himself/herself. —JAO • T • C 09:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Exact Date

Is there an exact date to when the 2010 World Cup starts? For example, on the Euro 2008 page there is a date listed:

"...from 7 June to 29 June 2008."

How about a similar phrase for this page? It'd also help me out too. Thanks. JJMan 22:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

10 June 2010, so far as I know. I'll need to check up on it for confirmation though. — Imp i 00:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

10 June 2010? Thanks very much, I can use that :) I'll just check back every so often to see if there's any updates. JJMan 9:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a countdown timer at http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/tournament/index.html When I calculate it out the start is June 12th, 2010 South Africa time. 24.237.218.205 (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It starts 10 June 2010. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 06:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Qualified teams

Whats this about Qualified teams? Scotland? This has just been made up SouthEastLad 08:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Scotland in the world cup? Must be a joke.

Ok so can everybody please stop trying to predict the World Cup on the Article, you are welcome to say who you think will win on this page Chaza93 17:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The IPs involved have been warned about the edits they made Chaza93 18:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Mexico have qualified yet, but they are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LeftBoot (talk • contribs) 02:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Bids - Nigeria?

The article reads "On May 15, 2004, FIFA's Executive Committee voted in Zürich by 14 votes to 10 to award the finals to South Africa over Morocco. Egypt received no votes."

In the statements prior to this, Nigeria is mentioned as having bid. Explanations are given for Tunisia and Libya (both withdrew), South Africa (14 votes), Morocco (10 votes), and Egypt (0 votes). What about Nigeria? Did they withdraw, or receive any votes? - Slow Graffiti 17:26, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

IIRC, Nigeria didn't bid. Vaud 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Last world cup ever?

With all that has been speculated from what will happen on December 21th of 2012, could it be that this might be the last world cup ever? El Chompiras 20:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi El Chompiras and welcome to Wikipedia. Although Wikipedia is familiar with the end of the world, we need to abide by a number of guidelines formulated over a considerable period of time by numerous editors. One of these is Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and, hence, we do not take such matters into account in articles dealing with subjects such as the World Cup. Once again, welcome to Wikipedia. -- Alias Flood 02:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

At least there will be a Euro before that in 2012 ;) User:Drogo 22:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Dragonlord kfb 07:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

If this is the last world cup ever, expect the USA to win it outright. It just might be our year... finally... maybe...[jk] XD 24.255.152.91 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

USA win the world cup? As long as Argentina, Australia, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Spain, Czech Republic, and Portugal have a team, that will never happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.95.3 (talk) 08:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Cape Town Venue

This page http://www.stadiumguide.com/wc2010.htm states that the already existing Newlands Stadium will be the venue in Cape Town while Wikipedia state a new stadium will be built. Who's right? --84.57.73.64 16:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say that the Newlands stadium is already existing? It says the stadium will be Inaugurated in Nov. 2007, which means it will host its first game then, sounds to me like its being built. Vaud 14:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Note that Newlands stadium is a well-known stadium that has been used for the last several years as a rugby union venue - notably in the Rugby World Cup 1995, as well as for annual major Tri-Nations rugby games vs New Zealand and Australia. The stadium seat about 60 000 which is fine if the city wants group games and maybe a quarter-final, but not quite enough for a semi-final - therefore a new stadium is on the card in the nearby area of Greenpoint which can seat 80 000 plus - this to ensure that Cape Town, one of South Africa's and the world's top tourist venues gets maximum value from the 2010 event - Michael, Cape Town

Contingency plan

According to the source [1], FIFA officials not only discussed a move to the US, but also discussed the possibility of staging the tournament in Germany again, or have I misread that? Blur4760 19:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you're right. Kingjeff 19:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You are right. I read the article a little fast, partly because the US rumors have been floating around US fandom for a few weeks now. --198.232.63.43 21:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

This has since been dismissed by the FIFA President. I updated the article with a reference to reflect this. I think it was just another example of undue 'Afro-pessimism.' Lionchow 23:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Australia are now talking about their chances, should FIFA pull the tournament away from SA [2] Muzza79 21.09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crime Expo

The information that has cropped up about the Crime Expo South Africa web site seems promotional or at least POV. I have cleaned it up a bit, but I'm not sure if it should even stay on the page. I think that crime information is important in the build up before the Cup, but I'm not sure if this is promoting this web site and what Wikipedia's policy on that is. Also the section just does not fit where it is and it's formatting is pretty poor. Even the Expo page itself is pretty poorly formatted, but that should be discussed on that page and not here.

Thoughts? --Rballou 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I've deleted it. I would encourage anyone wanting to reinsert it to seek consensus here first. To me it seems like a one-man campaign and therefore pretty non-notable. --Guinnog 19:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Could you perhaps then point to South_Africa#Crime at least? (from 198.54.202.82 at 16 August 2006)

I will work on adding a link to this information. --Rballou 02:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop adding information about the crime expo to this page. I have added a link to the South Africa Crime section. This is not the page to add information about the crime expo. The expo has it's own page and it's inclusion in Wikipedia should be discussed there, not on this page. --Rballou 17:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

YES FIFA 2010 is a page to add information about crime in South Africa. A significant number of South Africans are concerned with crime. There is absolutely no way that this event can take place in South Africa in four years time with crime at the existing levels or anywhere near it! Crime is important in this discussion! Do not impose cencorship by removing the crime discussion. In thirty-one days of war in Lebanon (July-August 2006) over 1,100 people died in that conflict. During the same period, 1750 people were murdered in South Africa over the same 31 days - that is 57 people a day! (The source for this statistic is the Democratic Alliance chief whip Douglas Gibson in a debate in the South African parlament.) Surely crime is of critical importance to visitors to FIFA 2010?

Crime is a valid concern. Linking to this scare site does not seem ok to me. --Guinnog 12:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That site has no place whatsoever in this page, and I wish people would stop trying to spam every single South Africa-related page on Wikipedia with it. At most, it requires its own page, it certainly is not notable enough (or representative enough) to be used every time crime is mentioned with regards to South Africa. Furthermore, South Africa's crime rate is no worse than it was when FIFA's technical committee judged South Africa capable of hosting the 2010 World Cup, with the committee reporting that crime was not bad enough to be a showstopper. This really shouldn't be a surprise, the country hosted the 2003 Cricket World Cup and the 2002 World Summit without a hitch, despite both events bringing in tens of thousands of naive tourists whom one would think would have been ripe for criminal pickings. Nobody denies that crime is a problem, but it is nowhere near bad enough to prevent the successful hosting of the 2010 World Cup, and nor is living in SA in any way comparable to living in an actual warzone. Further, it seems to me that the objective of Mr Watson and those who so vehemently back his site is not to find the best way to reduce crime, but rather to scare away tourists and attempt to have the 2010 Cup moved to another country. I've yet to see any credible explanation of how such tactics will help reduce crime and make tourist areas safer, instead they seem calculated to help turn SA into the failure such people evidently desire it to be. Imp i 16:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A Wikipedia article should be balanced. Wikipedia should not favour one article above another. There is a link from the Crime Expo SA website to the 2010 FIFA world cup. Why can’t there be a reference back to it?

Gentlemen, some reference to the crime situation in South Africa must be made. It's true that there are irresponsible individuals trying to exploit the crime issue, however it must be understood that this is a very serious issue. Given the current lack of law enforcement in South Africa, it would be irresponsible to whitewash the problem.

Balance 2010 FIFA World Cup article

Wikipedia articles should have as much information as possible relevant to an article. Crime is an enormous problem in South Africa. South Africa has one of the highest crime rates in the world.--NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The crime was also high in South Africa at the time FIFA awarded the 2010 World Cup to South Africa, but it does not justify the removal of links to articles that show the high crime rate in South Africa. --NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The South African tourism industry does not want any references to crime. People supporting them would therefore want to remove all articles pointing towards the high crime rate in South Africa. Therefore they want to suppress access to information by deleting the link to the Crime Expo SA website.--NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Indicating, and pointing towards criticism of the Crime Expo SA article balanced the Crime Expo SA article. This article on the 2010 FIFA World Cup should also be balanced.--NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This article should not favour any point of view on crime in South Africa. It should just show the facts. The reaction of Politicians in South Africa towards the Crime Expo SA website indicate that it has struck a “raw nerve”, therefore all the critic and reaction. [3] These people would not like to have any references to the Crime Expo SA article for personal reasons. This should not play a role in a Wikipedia article.--NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not favour one article above another. There is a link from the Crime Expo SA website to the 2010 FIFA World Cup article. Why can’t there be a reference back to it?--NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Because the 2010 FIFA world cup is linked to South Africa, it is justifiable to have a link to the Crime Expo SA article. It would not have been appropriate if the World Cup was held in another country.--NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It appear as if there is people here that are very anti Crime Expo SA.These persons want to remove the link for personal reasons. Personal opinion does not belong here. I am not for or against this article. All I want to do is to create a balanced article, based on available information & research, that show all the relevant facts. These facts cannot be changed.--NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

IN ORDER TO BALANCE THE ARTICLE, A REFERENCE SHOULD BE MADE TO THE CRIME EXPO SA ARTICLE IN THE 2010 Fifa World Cup ARTICLE.--NdlovuX 01:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't shout. See Impi's point above. A link to this article is not needed here --Guinnog 01:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I have added a link to the South Africa section on Crime on this page and I do not think we need to link specifically to this site or article. If we did, we would need to link to all of the pages that relate to crime in South Africa, not just the crime expo page (and this is not an acceptable solution). If you search news about the world cup, crime rarely comes up, at least at this stage and so I feel that heavily endorsing crime related articles creates a unbalanced lean towards the viewpoint of Mr. Watson and others. Currently, most people feel that crime is a problem in SA, but not a deterent for the event. This page is not the right place for this link. --Rballou 15:46, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Disagree The crime expo SA website was created to warn 2010 FIFA world cup supporters about crime in South Africa. It is therefore very relavant to this article.--NdlovuX 00:54, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is also very interesting that there is alledged corruption in FIFA, where personal interest is placed before the interest of FIFA supporters. (see wikipedia article of Andrew Jennings). The Crime Expo site also made the remark that people in the SA tourism indistry is more concerned about making money from the FIFA 2010 World Cup, than about the safety of tourists (FIFA supporters).--NdlovuX 01:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

First of all, Crime Expo SA does NOT represent the views of all S.Africans, nor is it even close to being an authoritative source when it comes to crime. At most, it is a controversial aspect of the debate over crime, but no more than that. It does not belong on every single S.Africa related page, nor even on any of the pages dealing with crime in SA, except where the public debate is discussed. Secondly, you have yet to explain why SA was able to handle the 2002 World Summit and 2003 Cricket World Cup without a hitch (or significant criminal activity against the thousands of tourists), yet would somehow be unable to host the 2010 Football World Cup because of an identical level of crime. In fact, all the available evidence, including FIFA's own Technical Committee report (no allegations of corruption there, btw) is unanimous is stating that SA's crime level will not prevent a successful hosting of the World Cup. So tell me, just what is your agenda? — Imp i 16:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no good reason to include any references about crime on this page at this time. By 'good reason' I mean a reason that fulfills wikipedia's requirements for inclusion. There is no reference to a reliable and reputable source for this assertion just for starters. Provide that or delete it. I'm tagging it now and will delete it soon if no one does so. Even if someone can provide that, I will still argue that it should be deleted. Lionchow 21:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Since no one provided a source for the crime statement, I deleted it. Next time when someone makes a claim, they have to make a reference to a reliable and reputable source. Lionchow 16:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Crime Expo South Africa website was created to inform 2010 FIFA World Cup supporters about the crime situation in South Africa. It was the reason for its creation, and is therefore relevant on this page. There should at least be a reference to the Crime Expo South Africa Article in the Article. This article should be informative, and readers should be informed about the existance of the Crime Expo South Africa website on this article. In the interest of "Freedom of speech" and "access to information", information should not be deliberetely withheld from a Wikipedia reader. Therefore a reader should decide if he / she want to do any further reading, and other editors should not prohibit wikipedia readers from obtaining information, due to personal opinion or interests.--NdlovuX 21:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Does it strike anyone else that the article is imbalanced as it stands at the moment? The lead-in sentence is fine, but then the article immediately goes into SA not being ready and the World Cup being moved etc. This casts a very strong POV on the article. The main content of the article should be about the sporting side of the event itself, with another section devoted to the organisation of the event. The concerns about SA's readiness should be in a sub-heading dealing specifically with that issue and what has been stated by FIFA, SAFA, the government, etc. It has after all received much press coverage so reliably sourced and balanced viewpoints are not hard to find. On the other hand the concerns over crime are misplaced and should not be overly represented. After all, the Cricket World Cup was only 3 years ago, and last year we were bidding for the Rugby World Cup 2011. I don't recall a single squeak about crime surrounding either of those events. Zunaid 10:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed and I have created a new heading for it to keep the intro clean and simple. By the way, all other World Cup articles intros seem to follow a standard layout (when it was held, when it was awarded to the host city etc.) perhaps we can correct this article to that form too? --Deon Steyn 10:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I also had a look at the 2006 FIFA World Cup article, which seems to be presented in a fairly logical and consistent manner. However, that is mostly due to the tournament being finished and there being a lot of material to write about. Since the 2010 tournament (or even the qualifying) hasn't started yet, there is very little info we could include here. For the time being (i.e. the next couple of years) it is likely that the format and style of this article will differ from the "standard layout". Zunaid 12:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Crime in South Africa & 2010 FIFA World Cup

Here is an article that shows the crime in South Africa, with a refernce to the 2010 FIFA World Cup.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1159998616870&call_pageid=968867503640&col=970081593064&t=TS_Home

"South Africa is plagued by violent crime. There were 19,000 homicides there in 2004, the second worst per-capita rate in the world aside from Colombia (a country which, incidentally, gave up the 1986 World Cup). Plans are in place to hire 11,000 police officers and dramatically increase electronic surveillance."

Therefore a refernce to the crime in South Africa is very relevant on this page, because it is one of the major problems faced by the 2010 FIFA World cup to be held in South Africa.--NdlovuX 20:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

We've been through this before on the South Africa page. The CrimeExpo website is found to be biased, factually unfounded and harmful. Get a more balanced website if you want to post this kind of thing up. Until then, www.crimexposa.co.za has been decided by the majority of Wikipedians to be non-suitable for any South African page. Please stop posting it up.

Here's one then http://freecape.com/2007/03/24/world-cup-warning/

Stuart Steedman 08:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, it would be irresponsible to link to crime expo south africa, see True crime expo You can see under the heading '2010 world cup' what Fifa said and under "Tourism in SA" there's some crime stats pertaining to the 2003 cricket world cup.

I would like to contribute to this Wikipedia community for a project I am doing for my English class. I believe I could contribute to this Wikipedia site by talking about the campaigns which will be present in this years World Cup,"20 centers for 2010" part of the Football for Hope movement and “Win in Africa for Africa.” This will demonstrate how soccer (football) can have a positive worldly effect and show how soccer can utilize its popularity to help to improve the problems in the world.Kaylanicole9 (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Readiness for the tournament section

I suggest the criticism section to be expanded. Currently it gives too little information, especially as details about the indicivual commonly accepted criticisms against the decision to award SA the 2010 WC. I can start off with a few. Comments and suggestions please. --WickedHorse 14:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the tag, it was not used appropriately, because the section is no longer a stub. The section can be modified like any normal Wikipedia article, in fact some would argue that it is already too long. I don't see entire sections listing every instance of criticism in other World Cup articles. This section should be kept in check, because there aren't any "commonly accepted criticisms against the decision to award SA the 2010 WC". There are only some reports, mostly from a limited sections of – conservative/right wing – South African media sources. Almost the entire world and South Africa support the decision to host the World Cup in Africa for the first time and South Africa in particular. Dedicating large sections of the article to this non neutral pov is incorrect. --Deon Steyn 05:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The title of the article is The 2010 FIFA World Cup, not The Decision To Award SA the 2010 WC. As such, the section on "Criticism" should cover sufficient issues against the 2010 FIFA World Cup, not just about the decision to award SA the 2010 WC. It is also clear from many of the links in the References section that the criticism are of a global and international nature, not just from South African media sources. --WickedHorse 10:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

A section does not have to and only have to be a stub in order for it to warrant an expansion tag. Moreover, the expansion tag added was for request for expansion of the section, not the article. Please refer to WP:RFE for details. Moreover, up to this point there have been no other person other than you to argue here that the section is already too long. --WickedHorse 10:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I was merely quoting you, when you mentioned criticism of the decision. WP:RFE offers not explanation guideline as to when a sub section should be tagged as such. This section is most definitely NOT empty or only a stub section so it does not warrant an expand tag simply, because you enjoy the topic and would like to see more, it is sufficient as it is now. The fact that other editors have already moved it to the bottom of the article shows what they think of it's importance in this article. --Deon Steyn 12:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You have no basis to assume that (a) sections moved lower in any arbitrary Wikipedia article implies lower importance and (b) that that is the reason why an editor (just one, not more, contrary to what you state) moved it lower. The Reference section is also in the bottom of every article but that does not mean that it is the least important part of an article, it is merely because that is the commonly excepted place to place References in any Encyclopedia, scienfific or reference work, to name but a few. Secondly, WP:RFE was the closest I could find to a guideline as to when a sub section should or could be tagged as an expandsection: "Sections in particular need of expansion within an article may be tagged with expandsection." Nevertheless, in an act of Good Faith I will not put it back again, unless other editors think it may be necessary. However, claiming that I want to see more of the topic because I enjoy it, is the same like me saying you want to see less of it because you hate it. Arguing like that leads nowhere. Please remember to maintain WP:Civil and furthermore acklowledge the fact that there is no problem with expanding this section because is clear from many of the links in the References section that the criticism are of a global and international nature, also contrary to one of your other statements above. There is thus no doubt that criticism against the execution of the 2010 FIFA World Cup in SA, is a global, substantial and valid concern, thus any attempts or suggestions that the Criticism section should not be expanded further, should be avoided. --WickedHorse 12:56, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The "closest you could find to a guideline", but that still doesn't make it a guideline. The sentence states "Sections in particular need of expansion...". The section is not in particular need of expansion, it is not a stub and it already contains more than enough information. MORE THAN ONE editor feels it is not important to begin with. Reference sections are at the bottom of articles in accordance with guidelines (Wikipedia:Guide to layout) (and common sense) while this section is at the bottom, simply because it is not important. --Deon Steyn 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I still see just one editor that moved the section lower, and why sections lower in an article means by default that it is less important. Nevertheless, the section is where it is now, and is open to expansion. --WickedHorse 13:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

So okay, let us assume that it is stupid to start an article with "Criticism" section, and because of its lower importance it should be bumped to the bottom or near bottom of the article. Then you would have no problem with the Flaws in Volkstaat Proposal, which appears at the top of that article and even above the Historical background section (!), to be bumped to the bottom? --WickedHorse 14:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The Readiness for the tournament section is improving, with the exception of the following:

contains too much information, quotes and references to the event unlikely to be moved (removing the Colombia/Mexico statements helped, but is still not enough), should contain more about the issues pertaining to the Readiness For The Tournament, as per the section title
Paragraph too long

--WickedHorse 15:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the section as a whole is maybe getting too long and needs to be trimmed or maybe just summarised a bit more concisely. The reason that the balance of the section leans towards "quotes and references to the event unlikely to be moved", is because the idea that the tournament MAY be moved is rumour and speculation - no one in authority (or otherwise) has come out publicly to say that it WOULD be moved, or even that there is an official backup plan - while the idea that it will NOT be moved was categorically stated by several prominent individuals (FIFA and SA president etc.). Thus the balance of the section is correctly weighted in favour of the more authorative viewpoint. Zunaid 13:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The content of the section is too much about the unlikeliness of the event being moved, than about the Readiness of SA for the Tournament itself. Therefor I propose that it be significantly rewritten, containing sufficient information about both of the above, or that the section be removed completely (I would suggest the latter). --WickedHorse 10:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have re-inserted the comment from Blatter that he is concerned about the fact that building on the stadia has not begun yet. This is what this section is about. Otherwise, the section should be renamed "Rumours about moving the event" or something. The section is about the Readiness of SA for the event and the rumours (and untruth thereof) of moving it to a different country, is only one aspect of the Readiness. There are lots of more aspects to this, like the fact that construction has not started yet, therefor the added Blatter comment. More comments and content will follow soon to this section as needed. --WickedHorse 13:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah so! Sorry, I misunderstood you before. Okay, firstly I think it should be renamed to Preparations for the tournament (or simply just Preparations). I don't think the entire section needs to be deleted, but the back-and-forth about the event being moved could be removed since it is purely based on rumour. On the other hand it could be kept in its own section since it was widely reported in the press and was deemed serious enough to bring a reaction from both FIFA and SAFA. I prefer it to be kept as it is very well referenced and is important in the context of the build-up to the tournament. Perhaps later when we start writing about the tournament itself the section could be removed, as by then it would be of no use. For the time-being then the Preparations section would be a stub as information about preparations will only really start coming in during the next few years as stadia get built/revamped and supporting infrastructure created. Zunaid 13:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Excellent, 100% agreed. You want to do the honours with the renaming of the section? --WickedHorse 13:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Sigh, I don't know how much more simply I must put it the basic concepts of English grammar to you WickedHorse, a sentence should not read: "I am a human, although the sky is blue", the two parts have nothing to do with each other. That is why I have changed the phrase you keep inserting into the sentence: "Sepp Blatter, president of FIFA, has also expressed his confidence in South Africa's ability to host the event, although he urged on October 1, 2006 that construction of the stadia needs to start soon." As for the claim that South Africa will "implement special measures to ensure the safety and security of local and international tourists attending the matches". Two sources link to the same page – feel free to untangle the mess yourself – but all of them miss the point: these measures make it sound like there will be special measures because crime is so bad while in fact the only source you cite (the gov pdf) only lists STANDARD (not special) measures required by FIFA at stadia. And I assume a bias POV on your part, because you only support negative sentiments and add criticism to the article. If you spent all your time looking for criticism of the World Cup in Germany you will find it... in fact why don't you rather do that so that all the World Cup articles are equal? --Deon Steyn 13:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved your comment above to the Readiness for the tournament section in this talk page, out of the Venues section, I presume you placed it in error.

The criticism statements which were once part of the lead section, became a section on its own, and is now two sections, seperate and ready to be refined, as it should be. I am happy with the progress.

I have corrected the faulty reference, the statement about the special security measures now refer to three seperate reliable sources. I do not know what your problem is with the IOL News references, do you doubt their reliability? --WickedHorse 20:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the IOL reference, because it simply does not make ANY mention of the government making or planning special arrangements so it has absolutely no bearing on the sentence. The one remaining reference (a pdf file) is relevant, but I have also had to adapt the sentence to show that these step are standard FIFA requirements not something extraordinary for South Africa. --Deon Steyn 06:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This section is starting to become a messed up piece of tripe, with everyone trying to see how many quotes (many from the same person) can be shoved into it, filling it up with quotes instead of reasonable content. IMO the section should be cleaned up, re-written, or some of the quotes that say basically the same thing, removed. It looks ridiculous. --WickedHorse 20:47, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Venues

I suggest we move the stadia costs figures completely out of this section, to the Criticism section, since the high costs of the stadia are one of the criticisms against the preparation of the event. The statement about the SA tax payers having to pay R9.1bn is particularly inappropriate for this Venues section. --WickedHorse 13:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The statement about taxpayers should be removed completely. Only the costs of the stadia, and the fact that these costs are far above projected, should remain. The fact is that not all this money will come from governemtn, a large portion will be from the private sector in terms of sponsorship etc. Adding the taxpayer bit implies a POV, which we should avoid doing in Wikipedia. It is also incorrect to move it to the Criticism section. The cost of the stadia is a cold hard fact. Presenting the facts as criticism implies a POV. However, it would be appropriate to present the criticism of the costs by various reliable sources in the Criticism section. Zunaid 13:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Zunaid, leave the figures where they are and strip out the right-wing, afro-pessimistic hysteria. We need to also limit and isolate the dubious POV "criticism" section as much as possible... NOT ADD TO IT! At most we could move that remark about taxpayers to "criticism" and then have another look at it the statement itself. --Deon Steyn 13:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, normally the statement that the tax payer would have to pay the R9.1bn would not need to be in, unfortunately if you look at the website reference, it does state that the tax payer could have to pay the R9.1bn. Personally I feel it must get out, but if the source state it like that? Or remove the sentence altogether, if it is not placed in the Critisicm section instead. More comments? --WickedHorse 13:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Deon, you (and anyone else) are welcome to balance any non NPOV statements or facts that are currently (or added in future) in the Criticism section, with contradictory or explanatory statements (properly cited of course). Merely suggesting that the section must not be added to, does not constitute an increased non-NPOV, as the above suggestion by myself would solve (for instance). Refer to many other Wikipedia articles for examples how to achieve that balance. And no, there are absolutely no "right-wing, afro-pessimistic hysteria". --WickedHorse 13:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The total sum of how much it would cost to build the stadia, is irrelevant to this section and should be removed altogether in my opinion. Ditto for the cost of each statium next to the stadium name, in the table. --WickedHorse 15:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

None of the cities in which the world cup will be hosted have more than one name. It is, at present, incorrect to name Pretoria as Tshwane just as it is incorrect to name Polokwane as Pietersburg. Doing so may spark controversy given the immense weight of the issue, and that really has no place in this particular article.

Given that this is a discussion of FIFA's World Cup, the fact that FIFA's website refers to the venue as "Tshwane/Pretoria" (Link) means that Tshwane needs to be included.Jlsa 15:10, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

- Then, they are ignorant of the fact that the name has not changed yet, and they are inaccurate in calling Pretoria Tshwane. Perhaps a note should be included alerting international readers that the name Pretoria may change to Tshwane.

IOL references

Wizzy claims that IOL references require a login after a while. That was his reason for removing my IOL reference in the "Rumours of tournament being moved" section. Can anyone confirm this? If so, then the Reference number 5 (Sepp Blatter denies SA may lose 2010 World Cup) should also be removed since that is also an IOL link reference? Then a difference cite should be found for that statement in the section. --WickedHorse 09:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK they don't. I've even searched the IOL archives for stories going back before 1999 and have never had to log in to retrieve them. Zunaid 10:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Wizzy, can you give us an example of IOL and AllAfrica.com news articles that require a log in, to prove your point? --WickedHorse 10:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a correction, the original link was allafrica.com. I changed it (a while back) to iol.co.za, because iol does not expire stories. WickedHorse reverted to allafrica - I changed it back. I noted: (rv - please do not cite allafrica.com - their pages need a login after a week or so. IOL is the same story) - which I realise now is subject to mis-interpretation. I meant the article was the same, not the expiry of pages. For allafrica, check July_2006_in_Africa, July 14. Wizzy…☎ 12:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And, while I am on a roll, this is what I do: If I see an allafrica.com ref, I google for some long string in the middle of the article, and if it is a source I am familiar with, I substitute that story. Otherwise, allafrica expires, and we cannot even get a string to google to replace the ref. Wizzy…☎ 12:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the tip! --WickedHorse 21:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Too much vandalism

The page has been completely destroyed. Apparently someone smart guy using the IP 201.1.120.61 thought it a good idea to "predict" the results and name Portugal the champions of said Cup. EDIT: Sorry, forgot sig. RageSamurai21655 22:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC) EDIT: I have placed ban on non-registered users and less-than-4-days users because of the vandalism.

AUSTRALIA- winners of WC

Someone has made Austrlia the winners of the WC. They've also put in some number as the total attendace and written Tim Cahill as the highest scorer ! Something wrong ? 10:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)Angi, 13th Nov 2006

Yeah :

A) Australia will never win it, nor will cahill be top goal scorer

B) It hasnt happened yet

¢нαzα93 Talk Contribs 15:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

world cup berths

has FIFA announced how many berths each confederation will get —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mick foley (talk • contribs).

Yes, they have. It will be the same as the 2006 FIFA World Cup, but with minor differences in the playoff structure. The berths will be as reported in the article. See also this article. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

when it has the bit about possible hosts shouldnt the hyperlinks be to south african FA instead of their football team???

what i just sed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.132.66.141 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

2010 Logo

Apparently a number of South Africans were not so happy about the 2010 logo and were also not pleased by the way it was commisioned. It was allegedly given to one design company to produce yet on previous events national competitions were held and designers from all over would submit their designs. South African Designers started a website to submit their own options. http://www.notthe2010logo.co.za 216.104.196.22 10:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC) Chanetsa

Weather

I am suprised there is no mention of the weather. This World Cup will be being played in Jun-July the depth of the Southern Winter. At most venues it will be bloody freezing.

you'd be suprised, in RSA it is generally guite warm Chaza 1000 17:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

To say atleast there is SOME SNOW in south africa.Like were i live,when its hot in my city the weather gets cold or snowy in argentina,chile,and RSA.

File:Flag of Italy.jpg Italy Qualified?

Im sorry but should Italy have qualified already as defending champions?(As winning the previous world cup).

No. Jlsa 22:57, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

OFCOURSE!!! Learn the rules of Football Fernercc —Preceding comment was added at 23:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Defending champion isn't automatically qualified.

"Lippi's first task it to qualify Italy for the 2010 World Cup in South Africa"

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/football/07/01/italy.lippi.ap/index.html?eref=edition_football

"'The World Cup finals won't be easy,' said Lippi. 'And neither will the qualifiers. Only after we have emerged from the qualifiers can we talk about the World Cup'"

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=553065&sec=worldcup2010&campaign=rss&source=soccernet&&cc=5901 Elsonlam1 (talk) 06:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

France were the last defending champion to get a free ride into the next world cup when the were not required to qualify for Korea/Japan 2002. Brazil had to qualify for Germany, and Italy will have to qualify for South Africa. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank for posting that. Here's the link http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/world/2001-11-30-cup-qualifying.htm France was the last team to be able to get a free ride.Elsonlam1 (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Future sporting events tags

Real encyclopedias do not use things like "future event" tags anywhere in their articles, let alone at the top. Again, I repeat what I have stated previously in edit summaries: inclusion of this tag is a blatant insult to every thinking person that comes to this page (yes, yes, I know, and many others like it). Of course things might change. That is in the nature of what we call the FUTURE. It does NOT mean that we have to warn people of this fact, it is a given. The example of the 1986 World Cup means nothing, other than perhaps to show just how rare significant changes really are (that is, if you have to go back over twenty years to find an example of something major that would ostensibly justify such a tag.) Anyway, it doesn't matter. Do you know what you do when the events change from what had originally been anticipated? You change the article!

Look, printed encyclopedias, which have publication cycles in excess of a year, would have far more justification for "future events" tags than Wikipedia, since their product is, undoubtedly, always behind the latest information when it arrives at people's homes. Yet they don't feel the need for a future events warning, because they know what some editors here do not: People are not stupid enough to need such tags. Anyone who can read this article already knows that events—yes, even including venues—may change from what is currently in the article. In the real world people do not write informative material apologizing or explaining that their prescience is imperfect. It just isn't necessary and it makes the writers look stupid for thinking that it is necessary to explain it.

Maybe I'm not seeing something that many of you are. Explain it to me. Because this just looks pointless. Unschool (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

It is a tag on an article on wikipedia. Not exactly something to get so wound up about. Chill out. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 22:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for that logical and reasoned response. If I was at all agitated, it was due to my edit being twice reverted without a response to my point. You are right, the world does not ride on this matter; nonetheless, I confess to feeling less than admiring of those who continue a practice because of inertia, and use the fact that "that's the way it's done" as a substitute for considering ways to make this a better project. Perhaps you are completely satisfied with all practices herein, or perhaps you are simply apathetic about it. That is your privelege, and I sincerely respect it (despite the tone of the opening sentence of my reply to you). Please show no less respect to those who question the way things are done and seek answers and understanding. While this is may not be what you consider to be an intellectual community, it is nevertheless one which ostensibly holds reasoning in some small regard. Cheers. Unschool (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Look mate, not everyone is as enlightened as you, and they may not realise that the 2010 FIFA World Cup is a future event. Also, it can also be used as a reminder to editors that just because someone makes an outlandish edit doesn't mean it's necessarily vandalism, as circumstances can change quite dynamically. – Pee Jay 22:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

How is it possible for a person to not realize that an event which takes place in the year 2010 takes place in the future? Oh, yes, there are such persons, but they can't read. Unschool (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And if by some chance someone comes across the title "2010 FIFA World Cup" and actually does not realize that 2010 refers to the year, then I suspect that the opening sentence of the article: The 2010 FIFA World Cup will be the 19th FIFA World Cup, an international tournament for football, that is scheduled to take place between 11 June and 11 July 2010 in South Africa. is likely to clear things up. Therefore, the tag informs no one of anything. It is a garnish, serving no purpose other than perhaps to make the editor who first placed it on the article feel as if he contributed something significant. Unschool (talk) 23:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Unschool, I didn't show you any less respect than you had toward me, I simply replied. You are perfectly entitled to question things. In addition I did not state nor imply anything about what I consider this site to be, intellectual or otherwise. Your sarcasm though in the message above isn't helpful either. It is not about being apathetic, more about levels of importance. A tag on an article is not going to affect how we all edit wikipedia, especially one which is on numerous articles. What I don't understand though is why you are so bothered about the tag being on this specific article when it is on hundreds of articles. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 23:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for any sarcasm. I've been up for about 33 straight hours and I'm probably not in the best condition to edit. Okay, now the editor who replaced the tag stated that "That is a matter of Wikipedia policy, mate. Take up the issue elsewhere please.". Question. Is it a matter of policy? Could somebody show me the policy that says that a future sporting event must have this tag? I don't think he is correct, but of course, I could be wrong. And if it's not a matter of policy, then it's something that editors can discuss, in good faith. To this point, no one has addressed my reasons for the suggestion that this tag may not be needed. That is what I am looking for—an honest discussion of the merits of this tag. Why here? Why not? Unschool (talk) 01:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, that long without sleep I am surprised you are still active! Please don't take this the wrong way, but perhaps you need to check the category to which the tag links (when you have had chance to get some sleep maybe?!). There are literally hundreds and hundreds of articles that contain the tag. This article is just one among those and as such it is not the place to discuss the general useage of the tag, which is what seems to be your point. That is "why not", as you are focussing on one specific article rather than the general use of the tag. If you wish to discuss the general use of the tag then this really is not the place to do it.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 04:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

South Africa's Pot

Because South Africa is the host, will they be placed in Pot A along with the likes of Brazil, Germany etc? In 2002, Japan and South Korea were both in pot A —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.197.184 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 5 December 2007

I'm pretty sure that, as hosts, South Africa will be put in Pot A for the finals draw, but you would have to ask FIFA for a definite answer. – Pee Jay 20:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not only should they be in Pot A - they should be placed in spot A1. FIFA Regulations.Article 39(2). The FIFA Organising Committee will divide the teams into groups by seeding and drawing lots in public at the final draw that will take place in South Africa at the end of 2009, whilst taking sports and geographic factors into consideration, as far as possible. The host country, South Africa, will be seeded as team A1 (see World Cup Regulations) Jlsa (talk) 12:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

FIFA website 0, Jlsa 1. Aheyfromhome (talk) 12:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Venues and Dates

FIFA has announced the venues and dates for the World Cup matches. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/preldraw/2010fwc_matchschedule_50656.pdf

72.42.134.253 (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Confederation number

Would we count Oceania into the confederation number? My idea is, they have join the qualification round, so they are one of the confederation. So I said there are 6 confederations. However, someone said they are not guaranteed at the Finals, so counting into 5. Which one should be accepted? Raymond "Giggs" K o 05:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Every other World Cup article only counts the number of confederations that were actually represented at the tournament, and WC2010 should be no different. Since Oceania is not guaranteed a spot in the tournament, "5 or 6" confederations is correct. – Pee Jay 06:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

And even then the method of counting is not 100% transparent. Australia was (by the time of the 2006 finals) a member of the AFC rather than the OFC, so there were no OFC members in Germany, although there was a team that qualified when it was still a member of the OFC (although the AFC had already announced they would be accepted into that confederation even at that time) and was a member of the OFC at the time of the finals draw - albeit in a limbo state really. Also, Australia didn't qualify from the OFC, but through an interconfederational playoff. So how many confederations were really represented in Germany 5 or 6. Personally I think this particular statistic is quite silly and should be eliminated. Jlsa (talk) 06:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC) (supplement - the OFC website itself in its history page says the same thing. I think this is why using wikipedia as a source is such a dangerous game :) )

As far as I know, although it was decided before 2006 World Cup that Australia will move into AFC, they *officially* became AFC members after the World Cup, and ~~participated~~ represented OFC in the tournament ~~as an OFC team~~. Also, the fact that Australia qualified for Germany through an intercontinental play-off should not make a difference - they do not become a member of a different confederation if they qualify that way; besides, there was no other way for them to qualify :) AR TYOM 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia played AFC Asian Cup qualifying matches in February and March 2006, and according to that article and two others, they officially joined AFC on January 1, 2006 after AFC, OFC and FIFA agreed to it in early 2005. (That said, I realize that's all unreferenced and I shouldn't be using Wikipedia as a source.)

Overall, I agree with Jlsa, this is a pointless statistic and should be removed. - MTC (talk) 19:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Your information and memories are correct - unlike both the current Olympic games pages which claim there are only entries from 5 confederations. Can we just vote to eliminate this pointless number? Jlsa (talk) 12:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You could !vote on it, but you'd definitely get an "Oppose" vote from me. I always find it interesting to note how many confederations were actually represented at the tournament. Also, Australia entered the 2006 World Cup as an Oceanian nation. Sure, they moved to the AFC before the World Cup took place, but they participated in the Oceanian qualification tournament. – Pee Jay 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Really!! I mean, at present it's just a "did an Oceania team qualify to make up the numbers" notice, and nothing else. And, while Australia played in the OFC qualification tournament, they didn't qualify solely through it - for Trinidad the playoff was a "detour", for Australia it was "the way". Jlsa (talk) 14:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

The play-off is a convergence of two confederations' qualifying processes, IMO, and so is "the way" for any team that enters it. The fact that the only way an Oceanian nation can qualify for the World Cup is through a play-off is irrelevant. – Pee Jay 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, spoken like someone who hasn't had to go through it I suppose. Believe me, it's extraordinarily relevant Jlsa (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I hope it's not so extraordinarily so that you can't explain its relevance to me. – Pee Jay 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I though I already had (the "detour" vs "the way" difference). I'll try and be more obvious. You want to get into a house. Person A can get into a house by walking through the front door or wrestling a lion and then walking in the back door, Person B can only wrestle the lion and then go in the back door. I claim the difference is relevant. Jlsa (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I still believe that Australia competed at the World Cup as an Oceanian team, although they were already in AFC. They qualified through OFC qualification process and thus represented OFC. However, interestingly, FIFA.com has a different point of view about this issue... AR TYOM 21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, what would THEY know. (On an unrelated thought, if you change nationality, I'm pretty sure the medals you win in the Olympics go to your current country, not your past country). The AFC also regarded Australia as an AFC team for WC2006 (with their AFC@WC website - some name of that sort), but they probably aren't the best side. Given that much of what we put in here needs "citation", doesn't your find on FIFA.com imply only 5 Confederations were at the 2006 finals? Jlsa (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC).

~~I guess so... But then there should probably be a note on the World Cup article that Australia qualified as an OFC team, but moved to AFC before the tournament started.~~

I am not sure, because it turned out that FIFA.com also lists Australia under AFC on the teams page for 1974 World Cup [4]. Australia obviously was not a member of AFC then, and represented OFC during the tournament. AR TYOM 02:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Australia was not a member of the OFC then either (we resigned around 1973-ish IIRC), and the qualifying was done via Asia (there was no OFC qualification - New Zealand and Israel were also involved - I'm not sure what Israel's situation was at the time, either officially or effectively). So, in no sense could Australia be defined as an OFC side for 1974. There is some justification in defining them as an AFC side. Jlsa (talk) 03:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that Australia was a member of OFC then - accroding to Oceania Football Confederation#History, Australia was one of the founders of OFC in 1966, and has been a member since then until 2006. It's just that during the qualification for 1974 World Cup, AFC and OFC teams were mixed in one qualification route (see 1974 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC and OFC)). AR TYOM 03:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly incorrect. We resigned in 1972 and rejoined in 1978 (see here). Jlsa (talk) 03:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC) (supplement - the OFC website itself in its history page says the same thing. I think this is why using wikipedia as a source is such a dangerous game :) )

Wow. That's crazy! Well, then probably the best thing to do on the WC2006 article is to put a note regarding the number of confederations. I also wouldn't like that statistic removed. Regarding WC2010, the current "5 or 6" looks fine to me. AR TYOM 03:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Odds

Some sites are already giving odds on who will win the World Cup. http://www.betfred.com/?fimsId=72 is one site, you have to navigate to the odds, but current favorites are Argentina and Brazil. 72.42.134.253 (talk) 03:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Footballboxes?

I revised the article to include {{footballbox}} templates for group stage matches, but it was undone by User:PeeJay2K3. I think the extra info the template provides -- namely, the time of day and match number -- is important and is not "too much detail." Interested in others' thoughts. Agmonaco (talk) 15:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If you compare to the other world cups 2006, you'll see the common style, information like that will go in the group articles when they're created.. but 1½ years away it might still be unnecessary early to create them (probably appropriate when the draw has been made) chan dler · 15:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Venues map

I've change the point names on the venues map from stadium name to city name, and removed the second point for Jo'burg. My reasoning:

Having two points for Johannesburg seemed redundant and added extra clutter.
I personally find it more likely that someone interested in locations would be looking at city first, stadium second. I myself am considering going if New Zealand qualify, and when making travel arrangements, I'd be booking flights (city level) first, buses/taxis (stadium level) last. In the case of Johannesburg, whether the All Whites are playing at Soccer City or Coca-Cola Park doesn't matter until I get there.
The 2006 article uses cities rather than stadiums, so for the sake of uniformity I'd continue this.

If anyone disagrees or has anything to add/debate, feel free to do so here. Cheers. Gialloneri (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates

Why are all the dates bluelinked like 2010-06-18? Without date preferences turned on (like most of our readers) the dates read as 2010-06-18; i.e. a wierd non-natural format. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, all dates should be unlinked. – Pee Jay 17:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree obviously. What format should used for the dates; 18 June 2010 or June 18, 2010? Your answer on a 3" by 5" card ( or should that be 3 inches (7.6 cm) by 5 inches (12.7 cm) card) please. :-) -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Of course, this is WHY they were made links in the first place. (However, I do think in sentences they should never be linked, but in tables I actually don't see why they shouldn't to ease presentation. I do also disagree than 2008-06-18 is unnatural, that is probably a value judgement). Jlsa (talk) 03:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The dates should not be linked anywhere because they do not ease presentation, their only benefit is that it avoids arguments between editors. I deliberately turned date preferences off so that I could see what casual readers see when they look at our articles. Nowhere in the English-speaking world is 2010-06-18 a natural format for the date. Until such time as date formatting is improved etc. we need to pick a format and run with it. I am not associated with this article and only came across the article through curiosity after watching Australia qualify so I don't feel my opinion on the proposed format is important but I will say that 2006 FIFA World Cup uses "18 June 2006" formatting. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "international" date format should be used, i.e. 18 June 2006. – Pee Jay 10:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any way to add the start/kick-off times for the group games on the main page rather than having to click on each group link to see those times? These times are listed for the knock-out rounds but not the group games. —Dmakagon (talk • contribs) 21:19, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Key Players ?

I removed this section because I don't see why it was there at all. Tt had no references and seemed to be purely from an editorial standpoint. Not to mention that there were numerous grammatical/spelling errors and such. If anyone has any argument, I'll be happy to hear it out. Methodicmadness (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Tie-breaker

Let's assume 3 teams are tied within a pool, which means we skip over tiebreakers 2 and 3 and go to #4. That's tied, so we go to #5 and one of the 3 teams separates out (either above or below the other two...matters not). Are the remaining two teams then ranked according to #6 or #2? Thanks.Alanmjohnson (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, t'is the question. I think you'll carry straight onto #6 and then go back to #4. I think one of the the Euro2004 groups with Sweden, Denmark and Italy finished the same way under similar rules. Aheyfromhome (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

If three teams are tied, they are put into a mini-league together in which the only results that are counted are the ones between those three teams. Each team is then ranked according to their results against the other two teams in the mini-league. Only if two teams are equal in the mini-league are the criteria re-applied for those two teams. Hard to explain, I know, but I hope I've got the message across. – Pee Jay 22:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Draw

It's getting close to the draw date - is there anything official setting out how it will be done? I can't find anything. Eg, how the seeds will be selected, how the remaining teams will be allocated to pots, etc? Maybe some of it will have to wait until all the finalists are known. --Matt _Chat 12:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The official tournament regulations are very sketchy about the organisation of the final draw. In fact, pretty much all they say is that a draw will take place, but nothing about how the teams will be seeded. I assume that they will be divided into four pots with the seven teams ranked highest in the FIFA World Rankings placed in Pot A, followed by the next eight teams in Pot B, the next eight into Pot C and the final eight into Pot D. Of course, that's just my assumption and probably not what will happen at all. – Pee Jay 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, that's almost certainly not what will happen, because FIFA wants cross-continental spread in the groups. Probably, they will do something very similar to last time: host + 7 seeded sides in first pot, the remaining European sides in another, and the unseeded non-European sides divided into two pots. Depending on exactly how many seeded teams each confederation ends up with, this has to be tweaked a little (like last time, Serbia and Montenegro was given a pot of their own and drawn first to ensure that the seeded side in its group would be non-European). FIFA won't know exactly how it needs to be tweaked until qualifications are over (or at least nearly over), which is probably the reason for the sketchy information. —JAO • T • C 10:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

serbia's WC history

i just noticed that serbia has been given the same history as yugoslavia in the qualified team section. this is INCORRECT, serbia is NOT yugoslavia and therefore cannot claim previous successes. i dont know what they're highest placing with serbia&montenegro was, but i dont think they got past the group stage last year. as they are playing as serbia only in 2010, their history should be nil. can someone plz fix this, i am new to wikipedia and dont know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.118.241 (talk) 05:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, whilst were at it, why does it say that America's best placing was third in 1930, when there wasn't a third-place play-off then? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 08:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

FIFA considers USA to be the third place finisher and Yugoslavia the fourth. [5][6] This also anwsers that FIFA considers Serbia the inheritor of Yugoslavia's records. cha ndl er 09:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's tricky, of course, but note that Serbia national football team states: "However, the Football Association of Serbia is a FIFA member since 1921 and a UEFA member since its creation in 1954. The Serbia national team is recognized, thanks to a mutual consent between both FIFA and UEFA, as the direct descendant of the Yugoslavia national team. Hence, the new national team formed in 1992 inherited of the full status, results, and achievements from Yugoslavia, which was not the case for any other country resulting from the breakup of Yugoslavia. Consequently, it did not have to apply to obtain a FIFA and UEFA status.". If that is correct, and I assume it is, then I don't see why we should not follow FIFA's example and count them together. A similar situation (on USSR/Russia) has been a long-standing topic of discussion at Talk:Ice Hockey World Championships, where I think the consensus has been to do whatever the IIHF does. —JAO • T • C 10:35, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Seeding

Have they decided the formula for doing it yet? If yes, somebody should start the 2010 seeding article...there's a redlink for it in the 2010 World Cup navbox at the bottom of the article Purplebackpack89 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, they haven't - I guess they're waiting to see if France and Argentina qualify before deciding the seeds. (For reference, the draw for the 2006 groups was on 9 December 2005, with the seeds announced the previous Tuesday (i.e. 5 December).) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But have they decided the formula for seeding yet, or are they waiting on it? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

They haven't announced it - they may have decided, they might not have, it's their tournament. However, one FIFA official made some comments at a press conference last week that made it sound like they might just be using FIFA Ranks to seed the top group (and confed-type pots for the rest). That would actually match what they have in their own regulations - but we don't know. Jlsa (talk) 06:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

The seeds have not been announced. The source is an article projecting the seeds Drewguy (talk) 17:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)drewguy

slovakia's WC history

FIFA seems to list both Slovakia and Czech Republic as inheriting Czechoslovakia's results. Should we add them as well? (Bobo55 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC))

Probably best to centralise discussion somewhere, perhaps at Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup qualification#Slovakia's appearance at the 2010 world cup is their first and not their 9th --Pretty Green (talk) 09:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Tunisia

Somebody edited this page to include Tunisia as having qualified when they haven't yet. According to the edit history, somebody removed them, and when I went to edit the page, they didn't show up, but they still show up when I try to view the page (along with the incorrect info). What is going on? Smartyllama (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Sometimes there's lag involving edits and stuff with wiki. Just try refreshing the page when it happens, or wait a minute. It can't be helped. Aheyfromhome (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

There's a mistake

Egypt National Football Team isn't in 2010 World Cup yet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.122.170 (talk) 19:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The Chile-Switzerland game on 21 June (Group H) is actually in Port Elizabeth, transcribed with the other game (according to fifa.com) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexq elbulla (talk • contribs) 20:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. —C.Fred (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Venue Names and Sponsorship

Ellis Park Stadium in Johannesburg is being referred to by a commercial name in the article. Also, other venues have different names in the article than the FIFA website or ticket applications. I intend to change that later this week and would welcome anyone who opposes the change to discuss it here. My rational is that 1) FIFA refers to the stadium as Ellis Park Stadium in its literature and website. 2) FIFA has not used commercial names for stadiums in the past . 3) Wikipedia has honored this for previous World Cups. I understand that there were unfounded rumors that FIFA would honor the commercial name in this case for cynical reasons, but that rumor, based on the FIFA literature, is false. Until FIFA announces any venue name changes, we should use the names they use on tickets and other information. Johnn 7 (talk) 13:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. All stadium names should be their actual permanent name. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Germany's WC history

Germany won 3 world cups as the "Federal Republic" and it's still known by that name. Saying that it participated as "West Germany" is just sloppy and seems to be a common Anglo-mistake. This is their 15th world cup as the "Federal Republic" (it never ceased to exist, East Germany just joined West Germany). Jrielaecher (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.91.153 (talk)

I have to agree. 7th appearance as Germany is plain wrong in two aspects, as not countries, but FIFA-recognized football associations do take part, similar to NOCs in the Olympics. And it was the DFB, founded over 100 years ago, which took part 17 times, every time except 1930 and 1950, no matter how foreigners call the German team, Weimar Republic, Nazi Germany, West Germany or Germany. The existence of a separate East German state and team had barely any influence on the German team, save for one game in 1974. It is an annoying problem on Wikipedia that some not only prefer the convenient "West Germany" over the proper Federal Republic of Germany, but also try to claim that West Germany has ceased to exist, or that it was something different from todays Germany, even though only the number of federal states has changed (three times since 1949, BTW). For comparison: The US is listed with "Third Place (1930)", even though it had only 48 states back then, and a different flag. Why is that not pointed out in similar fashion, like Competed as Contiguous United States until 1962; nth appearance as United States? Or how about the British Empire loosing many colonies in the 20th century? How about Ireland, Northern Ireland, India, Hongkong? Why are those political changes not annotated to the English team ("Winners (1966)") in similar fashion? Or France being the French Fifth Republic only since 1958, also having lost colonies since? -- Matthead Discuß 23:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Aus

Didn't Australia qualify before Japan but yet we are below them?

Simba1409 (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

No, it was a few hours later. Jlsa (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

France

regardless of your feelings on the outcome, what's done is done. If you could stop altering the page to include obscenities that would be appreciated

--Puckeater8 (talk) 22:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think vandals bother reading this page. But it's worth a try. Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Ireland are appealing the decision now, calling for a rematch, should some mention be made of that, considering they do actually have some weight behind it? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 15:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I had put a sourced line stating that the Irish FA had appealed to FIFA, but because it wasn't included on the FIFA website, it was "not worthy". FIFA rejected the appeal, but the French captain has called for a re-match. I think it's quite bad that no mention is made that the situation is not as simple as Wikipedia suggests...Hrcolyer (talk) 16:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Very funny russian fan...

In the list of qualified teams section, someone put russia as the winners of 2010....very funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.13.157 (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Serbia and Yugoslavia, not the same!

Can someone delete the previous best preformences of Serbia? Because those facts are belonging to the former Yugoslavian soccer team. Serbia was a republic in Yugoslavia (just like Croatia, Bosnia and Herc....,....,..), it became independent in 1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.249.26.75 (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

When a country goes out of existence and is divided (E.g. the Soviet Union fragmenting about twenty years ago), FIFA assigns its record to one of the countries which succeeds it (in the Soviet example, Russia inherited the old Soviet record presumably as it comprised the largest part of its predecessor). I assume this has happened here with Serbia inheriting the record of the former Yugoslavia, so it would not be entirely incorrect to say they were both seperate entities in footballing terms. Therefore, it might be best to err on the side of caution with this case. Fieldday-sunday (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

FIFA give Serbia Yugoslavia's record. Like it or loathe it, we have to go with that too.Aheyfromhome (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No new nations

Officially this is the first ever World Cup not to include ANY debutant participants, should this not be mentioned? Arguably both Serbia and Slovakia are competing for the first time, at least as separate entities, but not according to FIFA's official criteria (Serbia have appeared in various guises, Slovakia as part of Czechoslovakia.

I think we should mention it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 16:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

~~I agree, something like "the first world cup with no official debutants" and explain in the ref that Fifa considers Serbia as successor of YUG/SCG and Slovakia as successor of TCH~~ someone had already added it :D cha ndl er 11:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute This is NOT the first World Cup with no new nations. doktorb _words^deeds 12:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

And which one are you referring to? Which one on this list is wrong? cha ndl er 13:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Saw that you changed to "no new associations", but that would probably be wrong, seeing as it's the first time for Slovakia under the Slovak Football Association (which co-existed during the Czechoslovakian area). I think team is a better word to use. cha ndl er 13:48, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

group standing table

Could we change the group standings tables to this

Team
South Africa	.
Mexico		.
Uruguay			.
France				.

I don't know what that would add, since there are only so few matches they're all shown just below with the vital information. And half of the boxes would be empty since the games aren't two legged. If we look at old world cups or european championships I think that style is preferable cha ndl er 23:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with chandler. Aheyfromhome (talk) 23:52, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with chandler. Furthermore, the black cells are a huge eyesore! – Pee Jay 02:28, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, as I could see, it is too troublesome for shifting the teams when the position change. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 18:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

An apologize on an edit summary

On 17:13, 1 December 2009 UTC, I made an edit on the article, to modify the date of request rejection for making Repulic of Ireland as the 33rd competitor. However, I used an extremely intolerable language on the edit summary. It is very inrespect to DitzyNizzy, the editor who added the rejection section, and the editors who respects to the other editors. I apologize to all of you, and promise that I would not do so at the future. Sorry to all of you. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 16:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Good man. I was suprised when I saw that. Aheyfromhome (talk) 17:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, mate. I, too, was surprised to see you use that sort of language over something so minor. I assume there was something else on your mind that was bugging you, but we don't need to go into that. – Pee Jay 21:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. It surprised me (particularly on that edit). Jlsa (talk) 22:02, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

All I have to say is that I thought Emily could go OTT at times. But saying "f*** you" over a bloomin' typo? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 20:06, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Rumoured results

Someones predicted scorelines. Stop them quick!!!

I am very interested to know what you think posting on here will actually do. Aheyfromhome (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It got the article protected. –Nav ^{talk to me or sign my guestbook} 19:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It might have done, if the rapid vandalism edits, my appeals in the edit summary, and Momusufan's protect request didn't have anything to do with it. To be honest, I'd be startled and greatly humbled if it was this post that started it all. Aheyfromhome (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

It's the kind of article that's a vandalism magnet, though I think it's the France–Ireland vandalism that put it over the top. I'm not surprised it was protected so soon after the Final Draw. —C.Fred (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

FIFA's Contributions to Africa

Hello I was wondering if I could contribute to this Wikipedia page by demonstrating how soccer is more than a sport. It can be used as a medium for making the world a better place. The sport of soccer can do this because of its popularity amongst countries around the world. It is very popular; therefore, soccer can reach out to many diverse cultures by sending important messages. Within this year’s upcoming 2010 World Cup, FIFA will utilize this power through mass media to spread the awareness of Africa’s issues.The main focus of this year's World Cup is Africa’s problems. Through the Football for Hope movement they are building “20 centers for 2010.” These centers will be built all across Africa and will help to address social challenges in disadvantaged areas by developing the educational and health services. Part of the reason why Africa struggles in these areas of development is because of the amount of money, there simply is not enough. Therefore the Football for Hope movement will do wonders in improving the quality of life there. I believe adding this information could help to make your page stronger. Kaylanicole9 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is an encylopedic article about the 2010 FIFA World Cup. I don't believe any of your issues are appropriate for the page. Perhaps you can create an article about FIFA's Football fo Hope program, and it could be linked to in the article. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

FIFA is sponsoring the "20 centers for 2010" through the 2010 World Cup. This is showing the humanitarian side to FIFA and this year's World Cup in general. So I was wondering why the issues I have proposed are not appropriate for this article? FIFA, the football governing body, is using this year's World Cup to help Africa through some of its problems. By FIFA raising money and establishing centers it is using the World Cup as a platform to promote awareness of positive social reform in Africa.Even if all of these ideas do not apply could some of it not be mentioned?Kaylanicole9 (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I may be misunderstanding what your intent is. The focus of the article is on the Finals football tournament. There are other surrounding subjects, which are rightly mentioned briefly in this article (or at least should-be) for reader awareness but have their own articles elsewhere. The Football for Hope program sounds worthy of its own article, and because of its relevance to the World Cup, could be mentioned briefly on this article. I may have read too much into what it is that you are proposing, but I'd just like to say that having a fully explanatory section on Football for Hope in this article would excess to this article's focus. By all means it can be mentioned, but I think it would be best for Football for Hope and its good works to have its own article if the content is too volumous. Aheyfromhome (talk) 16:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok that is all I was interested in. So would it be alright if I included a synopsis of the impact the 2010 World Cup will have on Africa's social and civil development?Kaylanicole9 (talk) 21:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. The page unlocks at 1914 UTC tomorrow. Aheyfromhome (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph was removed a few minutes ago by Frombelow. It was overly promotional in tone, contained peacock terms (words that tell us that something is important, rather than showing us why), did not hold a neutral point of view, and did not cite reliable sources to back up the claims that it made, meaning the information could not be verified. Wikipedia is not here to improve the reputation of FIFA. Xenon54 / talk / 16:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok I can fix these errors. Could you give me some advice as to how to make what I am saying not sound as "promotional" as it seemed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaylanicole9 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

First, read all of the linked pages (except Frombelow's userpage) and understand why the things mentioned in the pages are necessary for Wikipedia to survive. Then, apply those things to the paragraph you wrote. Most importantly, the material can not be added to Wikipedia without being backed up by reliable sources that, when correctly cited, serve to verify the information that is presented. These are most often news stories and such. Material from FIFA's website will not be considered to be reliable in this situation. Then, get rid of the flowery PR language ("do wonders in", "FIFA will utilize this power"...you get the point), and, if possible, add opposing viewpoints. Xenon54 / talk / 19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Coca-cola?

Why is it necessary to include Coca-cola in "FIFA/Coca cola rankings"? Seems unnecessary advertisement to me... 77.167.250.126 (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ι agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 11:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello I have done a lot of research on this topic of the upcoming World Cup. I was wondering how I could contribute to this wikipedia page because it is locked.Kaylanicole9 (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The page becomes unprotected on the 11th December. Although it may be reprotected if the vandalism starts up again. Aheyfromhome (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hatnote

{{editsemiprotected}} A hatnote should be added along the lines of

like in 2002 FIFA World Cup and 2006 FIFA World Cup. The reason for this is that while on non-FIFA World Cup years the most plausible redirect is to the EA video game's respective edition, for FIFA World Cup years the most plausible course of action is a redirect to the World Cup page, with a hatnote in that article. --87.79.52.63 (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Xenon54 / talk / 14:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --87.79.52.63 (talk) 14:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Former Matches between National Teams

Is it possible create an article with informantions about former matches between these national teams in former World Cup with date, place, score and WC phase ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.254.144 (talk) 00:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be very specific and would probably get deleted. Give it a try though if you want.Aheyfromhome (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm searching. For example: South Africa X Mexico 1st match Uruguay X France 6/2/2002 - 0x0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.254.144 (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree that it's a little too specific for the article, even as often as I've heard the US team's record against its pool opponents on US TV. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In Group A, for example, the former matches in World Cup were: South Africa X Mexico: 1st match; Uruguay X France: 15-Jul-66: URU 2 X 1 FRA (1st Phase); 2-Jun-2002: URU 0 x 0 FRA (1st Phase); South Africa X Uruguay: 1st match; France X Mexico: 13-Jul-30: FRA 4 X 1 MEX (1st Phase); 19/06/1954: FRA 3 x 2 MEX (1st Phase); 13-Jul-66: FRA 1 x 1 MEX (1st Phase); Mexico X Uruguay: 19-Jul-66: MEX 0 x 0 URU (1st Phase); France X South Africa: 12-jun-98: FRA 3 X 0 RSA (1st Phase). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.254.144 (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It is definitely too specific for the article, but wouldn't it fit perfectly in the seperate group articles? The information above could surely be added at 2010 FIFA World Cup Group A. Pelotas^talk 01:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)