Jump to content

Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup final

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Spain in semi-finals before?

[edit]

Spain reached the last four in 1950, so they have gone past the quarter final stage! I think it is an irrelevant point anyway as there have been a couple of world cups without Quarter finals (1950 and 1982).... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.45.118 (talk) 20:53, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tournament was played differently back then. 1950 FIFA World Cup#Final Round shows that it was a round-robin format between the four teams who finished first in the four groups. They didn't win a single match (one draw; two losses). In short, had this been the modern tournament format, they would have likely been eliminated in the quarter-finals. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err no,

  1. I know it was a round robin if you look at my wording i said last four not semi final...
  2. If it had been based around the current format then there would've been a quarter final against runner up from another group, so no it would've have been likely that they would've been eliminated at the quarter final stage, I dunno where you get that idea... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.45.118 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But since it's not the current tournament format, it's all moot and speculative. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Total solar eclipse

[edit]

Solar eclipse of July 11, 2010 - a total solar eclipse will occur on July 11, 2010, exactly at the time of the match (Begin of total phase: 18:15:15 UTC = 20:15 local time; End of total phase: 20:51:42 UTC = 22:51 local time). Should this ultra-rare interesting case be mentioned in the article? Eternal Triangle (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it affects game-play. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, from astrological point of view, total solar eclipse is a sign of something very very important/extraordinary/etc... Eternal Triangle (talk) 01:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. The information should be on an astrological page. I can't really imagine how it will affect the game though. If there was a crime committed during the game that stopped play, it would be worth mentioning. If something else happened and was a result of the game, we should report it. There are a great many coincidences that will occur. I don't know how many we should report on in the article. Since this article is about the game, shouldn't we focus on that? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is possibly the most ridiculous discussion topic I've ever seen on Wikipedia. – PeeJay 07:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It woull have been relevant if not for the fact that it gets dark in S. Africa at this time of year at around 5pm anyway. MickMacNee (talk) 20:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

[edit]

This is the first World Cup final ever to not include any of the four traditional 'giants' of Brazil, Argentina, Germany and Italy. Could this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.61.205.84 (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of trivia is discouraged. There's already a mention in either this article or the main one that neither German nor Brazil are in the final. That happened for the first time at the last tournament and again this tournament. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it needs to go in - this is the first final without any of those teams. It's been mentioned a few times in the coverage I'm seeing. MickMacNee (talk) 21:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The section is World Cup firsts. A citation would be really useful to avoid claims of WP:OR. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not with you. It is just a first is it not? It's a basic fact. I had ignored it before because I hadn't realised it was ever, not just 'a lot'. MickMacNee (talk) 21:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it's a first, hence the suggestion that we get a citation. Your addition looks good. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason for a citation, it's a basic fact that is proven simply by looking at the list of previous finals - perhaps add a link a page showing previous finals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.3.148.25 (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree – I think a source is required. Not so much to verify the data, but to establish that this is a notable fact worthy of mentioning. If we can't show that it has been observed in a reliable source, or two, we are using our own POV to declare it noteworthy. If one were to trawl statistics, one could probably find dozens of 'firsts' which to an outside observer would seem equally worthy. AJCham 22:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and I've now added one. AJCham 22:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup?

[edit]

Add 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup? 99.155.152.70 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Attendees

[edit]

I was watching CBC and they showed actor Morgan Freeman walking into the stadium with his agent to watch the final. Someone should update the attendee list 70.75.177.150 (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw several well-known people, including Jan Peter Balkenende and Theo Maassen, to name but a few. However, we need sources. Skysmurf (talk) 18:14, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here: http://www.sindhtoday.net/news/2/155021.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.177.150 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Queen Sofia, Prince Felipe, Princess Letizia, Rafa Nadal and Pau Gasol were also in the stadium.--Darz Mol (talk) 00:42, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the definition of "notable attendees"? Who qualifies and who doesn't? Calistemon (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I like Morgan Freeman as much as the next guy, but he doesn't belong on an article about the World Cup. 69.129.145.181 (talk) 09:18, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

extra time

[edit]

Is it worth mentioning that it was the 6th final to go to extra time? (34, 66, 78, 94 and 06 being the others) (see FIFA World Cup#Results) 188.221.79.22 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"may have been"

[edit]

Robben had another chance at goal with a break-away late in regulation time but may have been pulled away from the ball by Carles Puyol. No call was given.

Robben was pulled away. Period. Merely because the referee didn't give the call, it should say "may have been"? The free kick Sneijder took "may have been" a corner, but no call was given. That's nonsense as well, right? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 09:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, Puyol had his shirt but no evidence to say he pulled it or impeded him, whereas the corner was clear-cut. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcclh (talk • contribs) 14:43, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, evidence was clear: Robben protesting. 81.68.255.36 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free Kick or Corner

[edit]

This next sentence is not accurate to the incidents of the match and should be removed. It's showing the point of view of the dutchs players. These article must end with the goal of Andres Iniesta, not with the complaint of a dutch fan.

"Just before the goal was scored, the Dutch team had a free kick that hit the wall and got a touch from Casillas before going out. Despite the deflection, a goal kick was given to Spain, starting the play that led to the goal, although the Dutch actually had possession of the ball near the Spanish penalty area in between the incidents. Joris Mathijsen was yellow-carded for his protests after the goal, and other Dutch players criticised Webb for this decision after the match.[14]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.98.66.252 (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually showing the POV of anyone who saw the replay. It wasn't a free kick either, it was a goal kick. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"World Cup Firsts" First sentence

[edit]

I think that the first sentence of this section,
"It is the first time since the 1978 final, when Argentina beat the Netherlands, that neither of the finalists has previously won the World Cup."
is rather confusing. Does anyone else agree? "It is the first time that neither of the finalists has previously won the Word Cup" doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts on how to change it? ANotTakenUsername (talk) 20:58, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Complaints about Netherlands' players' behavior

[edit]

I just saw a report on BBC television stating that some observers have criticized the behavior of the Netherlands' players during the game, namely, for diving, screaming for penalties, complaining demonstrably when they didn't get them, arguing with the ref, and throwing tantrums. My own personal observation, having watched the game, is that the Netherlands' players weren't acting any worse than at least half of the other teams in the tournament. Their playacting, if that is what it was, was nowhere near that displayed by Italy or Portugal. I just did a Google search and couldn't find any other media outlet discussing the same thing. Cla68 (talk) 05:10, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was classless of you to single out Italy and Portugal as playacting in your comment. I think most, if not all countries are guilty of it. I watched the final, and in my opinion Spain was guilty of the same play-acting, or even more if you watch closely. What the Dutch were angry about in the end was the corner kick not given to Holland just before Spain scored their goal, an obvious error by both the referee and his assistant.Juve2000 (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a section on criticism of the Dutch fouls. Please don't be so hasty to remove talk page threads because they move off topic (I didn't, however, restore the comments that moved off-topic). Cla68 (talk) 22:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just added a citation request for your weasel word. You also over-stated the cautions by indicting nine yellows and one red when it fact it was seven players with one yellow and one player with two. The second caution found him ejected. The official FIFA stats don't indicate the second yellow. So you will have to pick wither it was eight yellows and a red or nine yellows. It's too bad there weren't Olympic diving judges. The Spanish could have picked-up a few perfect scores there as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:46, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's as sore a comment as I've ever seen... it's good this is the discussion page.Fsoto1969 (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs

[edit]

So far we don't seem to have any free-use images of this game. We have got them for many other matches in the World Cup but not this one (the one being the only one with a dedicated page). I'll keep an eye out and see if any come up on Commons. If anyone else sees any on any sites like Flickr then if you could record the link on this page and when I get time I'll see about transfering them. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brodcasting

[edit]

Brodcasting data is not clear, as the majority of spaniards viewed the match on giant screans, or in bars (Spain is the country in the world with more bars/pop.) Your 15.6 M are only home viewers, no real stadistics are available yet, but I live in Spain & dont know anybody (its true) that didnt see the match, real numbers are sugested in 43M viewed part or all the match. --Elloza (talk) 20:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can only publish WP:V items. Do you have a source for the 43 million people? And do you really know all of them? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For exaple:http://www.expansion.com/2010/07/12/empresas/medios/1278922619.html
http://www.abc.es/20100713/medios-redes/cuantos-espectadores-vieron-holanda-20100713.html a must read and WP:V —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elloza (talk • contribs) 00:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Most spanish media recall on the fact that these stats come from Barlovento comunicacion, and only include home users. As I said its typicall in Spain to see the matches at a bar & most did. Most medium and large populations, put up giat screans on plazas and squares, http://www.elmundo.es/mundial/2010/2010/07/10/espana/1278784600.html they were all crowded as most local newspapers had numbers of attendance, in their own town.
Most probably next INE stats published would give real numbers.
--Elloza (talk) 00:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I've put down USA ratings and Canadian ratings to the bottom, but I'm eager to just delete them. What use is it if we put every country's single rating in here? I could see why we put in the ratings of both finalists, but any other number I think should be global or continental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.146.8.186 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think stats on USA & Canada are important, as they reflect the growing importance of this sport in those countries. Soccer in the USA has a seccion on popularity.
Erm, so what? Football is growing in popularity in lots of countries; should we add the TV viewing figures for New Zealand and India too? I think not. – PeeJay 07:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be a great addition, especially if they are record ratings. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Spain has a bar for every 129 citezens twice the EU has (Cyprus 1/124), and a deep bar culture, a fact that should be stated to explain the incorrect TV audiences, other errors on TV audiences are explained in above links, I have no problem on translating them correctly for you.
3. Giant screans on public places were set up on both countries as you can see on any youtube video they where totaly crowded. I think it is extremely important to state this, as MILLIONS of people saw the match in public.
4. The social impotance of two devoloped countries completly paralized during the 3 hours the match lasted is exyremly significant and must be part of this article, & it will also help non soccer fans to understand the imortance of this event.
--Elloza (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finals firsts: Six different finalists in three consecutive WC finals

[edit]

For the first time in the history, 6 different teams without repeating any of them qualified to 3 consecutive WC finals (Germany x Brasil, France x Italy, the Netherlands x Spain). Definitely a "first" in the department of WC finals, what´s more, perfectly fitting in the section "Finalists" of the article because only Spain and the Netherlands as a couple of finalists completed that record by qualifying themselves. Should this "first" be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.221.133 (talk) 00:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already reverted as WP:OR. No WP:V source was offered. First, it would have to be qualified since the current one-game final format is required. Also the question is, is this information significant or merely trivia? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely not such a trivia like the previous clumsy and awkward statistic sentence "It is the first time since the 1978 final, when Argentina beat the Netherlands, that neither of the finalists has previously won the World Cup.", and many many other similar stats. This information does not require any WP:V, I am sure about it. It belongs to the section "Finalists". It is definitely a "first" in WC finals, no matter how you consider 1950 final group. If you took everything so strictly as you did in this case, you would have to delete a majority of statistic items related to WC finals just because there was no final in 1950. "No repeated finalists in 3 consecutive finals for the first time" is a true information, no matter how you consider it. Nobody else than you is oposed to it, so please let it be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.221.133 (talk) 09:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's still WP:OR since no WP:V or reliable source is offered as a reference. And in my opinion is trivia, just like most of the "stats" news agencies drag out to use-up allotted air-time. The one you listed as counterpoint is just as trivial, but at least it has WP:V sources. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then tell me why you don´t go and delete tons of trivia throughout Wikipedia and you only concentrate on some of them. This was one of my first contributions to Wiki, I originally wanted to create an account etc. but now I see that I simply have not power to lead nerve-wrecking battles against self-appointed censors. So good luck and so long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.161.166.110 (talk) 17:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because
  1. I don't follow the articles you're talking about, although I have started on some of the articles I do follow, like this one, and
  2. It's probably not WP:OR like the one that this thread is discussing. Find a WP:V source that says this and I don't think anyone will remove it.
Hope that helps you get over your persecution complex. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But I can see no external source for the previous statement in the article ("It is the first time since 1978 final etc.") nor for many other statements up and down which you should probably delete, unless you have some specifically-focused persecutor complex. My contribution may be verified by anyone just by going through 19 Wiki pages on the respective 19 WC finals. Regarding importance, I am sure the information that for the first time no national team was able to repeat WC final in 8 years and none of them is thus dominant in world football as Brasil or Germany once were is much more interesting than that bullshit about broadcasting, notable spectators, Paul the octopus etc. But I can create Trivia section for my contribution, if you wish (and don´t tell me you don´t care because you DAMN CARE!), only don´t bother me with verifiability and simply go through 19 Wiki pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.161.103.73 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that there are un-cited statements. Many of them have citations in other articles. They should be cited here as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offside controversy?

[edit]

Shouldn't something be mentioned about the offside controversy that surrounds/surrounded the goal? Here's a reference and here's another one. I mean, it wasn't offside but the dutch whined for days if not weeks that it was. So shouldn't a line or two be added in the reactions stating that there were claims of off-side but it was not the case? 123.243.177.52 (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Away shirt in WC final

[edit]

This is not the first time since england '66, but the third! The first team was brazil against sweden in the 1958 World Cup, the second team was england against germany in 1966 World Cup and finally the third is Spain against Netherlands in 2010 World Cup! Greetings from Italy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.146.101.90 (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you just contradicted yourself by way of your less-than-perfect grasp of the English language. If the winning team wore its away shirt in 1958, 1966 and 2010, then 2010 is the first time since 1966. Do you understand? – PeeJay 18:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Position Iniesta

[edit]

Change the position of Iniesta with Pedro in image formation. Iniesta plays on the left, on the other side. Someone change it please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.235.233.40 (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:56, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2010 FIFA World Cup Final. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:54, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Final/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: The Rambling Man (talk · contribs) 13:59, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Comments

  • " at the Soccer City" the?
  • "900 million " non-breaking space.
  • "goalkeeper while" I would have a comma after goalkeeper here.
  • Just FYI, "penalty area" needs no piping or disambiguation.
  • Why is Webb referenced in the infobox, and nothing else is?
  • "being sent off" could link.
  • "win for Spain. .... Spain's win " bit repetitive.
  • "from the 2006 World Cup" not sure you need "the" inside the pipe.
  • "Jo'bulani is the" maybe "became the"?
  • "of the Jo'bulani ball used" why italics here?
  • "in 1978.[2]" overlinked.
  • "when single elimination" hyphenate?
  • "Spain were the reigning European champions, having won UEFA Euro 2008" how did the Netherlands get on there?
  • "the two major tournaments for European international teams." citation?
  • You link and hyphenate half-time in the route to the final but not in the lead. Check the other instances in the article for consistency.
  • "firing home" minor journalese flag.
  • "a Japanese clearance" this sounds like some kind of specific move....
  • "had already qualified for" not sure you need "already".
  • "with a penalty after" pick the association football-specific link here.
  • "beaten Italy in their final" overlinked.
  • "past the goalkeeper" could name him.
  • "by Sneijder.[20] Sneijder then" repetitive.
  • "faced five-times champions" maybe world champions?
  • "The Netherlands then ... The Netherlands then..." repetitive.
  • "was sent off for" link.
  • Diego Forlan is missing a diacritic.
  • "header shortly" link header.
  • "They were drawn in ..." then drawn (so as not to confuse with previous sentence).
  • "Switzerland.[31][17] Spain" ref order.
  • "Spain began their campaign" finals campaign.
  • You've linked goalkeeper, but not defender?
  • "picking up a loose ball " not literally.
  • "had fouled Torres" link foul.
  • "to tackle" link?
  • "group winners.[36][3]" ref order.
  • "pass, with Villa scoring into" -> pass who scored into...
  • "ball into the goal shortly half-time, but the goal" dual use of goal, did the goal fall over?
  • "Oscar Cardozo" is missing a diacritic.
  • "the 1974 final.[44" overlinked.
  • Why is fifth official Toru Sagara linked while the two assistant refs are not?
  • "around a watering hole" dab page.
  • isn't "wheel chair" normally one word?
  • "Royal Families" no caps needed.
  • "attending included Charlize Theron (actress),[" odd wording and no need for (actress).
  • same, no need for tennis player, basketball player, unless you want to introduce them in the sentence. I dislike the parenthetical bit.
  • " a free kick " link.
  • "then picked up the loose ball, " not literally...
  • "Stekelenberg prevented this" he intercepted? would be better than the "this".
  • "Kuyt picked up the ball" not literally...
  • "was able to deflect his" -> "deflected his".
  • "into the side netting. On" overlinked.
    It's a glossary link.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "also receiving one" perhaps "also being shown the yellow card..."
  • "was claimed by" caught?
  • "and crossed the ball" overlinked.
  • "and on 58 minutes" and two minutes later (perhaps?)
  • "his shot and was also" the shot was offside? perhaps "missed his shot although he was deemed to ..."?
  • "deemed to be offside.[56] Spain" overlinked.
  • "and on 70 minutes" similar to above, maybe "and three minutes later"?
  • "had their best chance thus far" [according to whom?]
    Actually I don't think anyone said it directly. I was reading between the lines of the Grauniad report. Chopped.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "following a one-two with" overlinked.
  • "was unmarked " link for "mark"?
  • "later, Fàbregas, who" first mention, Cesc and link.
  • "end of normal time" regular?
  • "FaFàbregas" marvellous typo.
  • "made a pair of " two.
  • "either side of" mildly confusing, did they make two subs, each side of half-time, or one sub before and one sub after?
    I've just removed "two" altogether, which should make it more clear
  • "Spanish wall and" link to gloss.
  • "[47][63]" put those refs in a table caption.
  • Table should have row and col scopes too.
  • "They also became the" who?
  • "Spain's World Cup victory. Spain had" repetitive.
  • Link kit.
  • "guard of honor" is this article in Brit or US Eng?
  • "Spain captain Iker Casillas " link captain, and you've already linked Iker, so just unlinked surname.
  • "FIFA president" article for this.
    I suppose, but is a link to it really necessary here? It's a fairly self-explanatory title and those who really need to know can always get to it through Blatter's article. I'll link to it if you insist, though.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "questiongin" typo.
  • "captain Giovanni van Bronckhorst and" overlinked.
  • "Order of Oranje-Nassau " Orange?
  • "Renowned German footballer Franz Beckenbauer criticised" I don't think you need "Renowned" but if you want context for him then perhaps mention his successes with Germany?
  • "was negative and positive criticism" mixed?
  • "FIFA estimated" overlinked.
  • Non-breaking spaces check again here.
  • What happened to the Netherlands in Euro 2012?

Just the refs to go. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 19:40, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Refs, this version applies...

  • Ref 1, ref 6, ref 85: just publisher = FIFA will suffice, no need for the expanded version nor fifa.com.
  • Ref 4: Can link Bleacher Report (which Wikipedia doesn't italicise).
  • Ref 9: RSSSF italics or not?
  • Ref 10: don't link 11v11 but you could link AFS Enterprises to the Association of Football Statisticians?
  • Ref 14: BBC Sport? (like ref 19?)
  • Ref 22: +The for NYT.
  • Ref 30, ref 35, ref 39, ref 56, ref 59: spaced hyphen... run the script.
  • Ref 32: +The for DT.
  • Ref 36, ref 38, ref 60, ref 89: consistent italics or no for BBC Sport.
  • Ref 44, ref 46, ref 48, ref 50: the->The and link.
  • Ref 45: link Indy.
  • Ref 51: link Algemeen Dagblad. And it's a work.
  • Ref 52, ref 54: missing work/publication details.
    Removed anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 53, ref 55: Link Marca (and it's a work).
  • Ref 62: previously was Sky Sports and no BSkyB.
  • Ref 66: this is a footnote, not a reference.
  • Ref 68: in BritEng, it's Encyclopædia Britannica.
  • Ref 70: Wikipedia italicises Guinness World Records.
  • Ref 72: no need for website title in reference title, and previously was just ESPN.
  • Ref 73: link JT.
  • Ref 74: link Grauniad.
  • Ref 75: what makes the blog RS?
    Improved. And the figure was seemingly 700,000 across the whole canal system, rather than 200,000 which was in the museum square.
  • Ref 76: tagged as permadead.
    Replaced.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 77: was just ESPN earlier.
  • Ref 78: Link Goal.com as you did in one of the much earlier refs.
  • Ref 79: isn't that Deutsche Welle?
  • Ref 80: RS?
    Removed. The other two cover it anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 81, ref 82, ref 86: link Bleacher Report (not in italics here).
  • Ref 83: is that Today?
  • Ref 84: Link Yahoo!.

That's all I have on refs. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 08:17, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I think I've dealt with all your points in the review, both the prose and refs. All the above actioned, with some of them commented upon above.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:34, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands went on to reach the semi-final, where they lost in a penalty shoot-out to Argentina while Chile in the Round of 16.

[edit]

What's this supposed to mean? Splićanin (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_FIFA_World_Cup_final&oldid=1243243683"