Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Group D

Not a Group of Death

That's my two cents, anyway. Darcyj (talk) 22:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful contribution mate Nath1991 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I remember that here in Germany people were very happy after the group was drawn for it is considered a relatively easy group. (If it is easy enough for Germany remains to be seen :)

I would propose to remove "Group of Death" statement, because references claiming the opposite may be easily provided. Tomeasy_{T C} 12:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that Germany will find this group very easy. However, the runners-up spot could go to any of the remaining teams, and that is why the group has been labelled as a group of death. – Pee Jay 22:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Group of death means that its teams are much stronger than in other groups, and not what you are constructing - a fight for runners-up. That is anyway in every group very much undetermined apriori, as is the first place as well. Tomeasy_{T C} 23:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True, "group of death" often means that the teams are stronger than those in other groups, but - more generally - it means that the teams in the group are all of a similar quality. Admittedly, Germany is of a slightly higher level than the other three, but Australia, Serbia and Ghana are all very strong too, and considering this is the World Cup, where anything can happen, all four teams have a very good chance of qualifying for the round of 16. – Pee Jay 00:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "more general meaning" that you seem to feel applies to all groups, doesn't it. As you say all four team may qualify for the next round, isn't this true for all of the groups.

If I may add, this is not because it is a world cup, but where else would you see national teams competing in one group - perhaps during the Confed cup, and there the results are just as difficult to predict as anywhere else in football.

I think we should consider whether the group of death statement, in its commonly understood meaning, applies to this group in a NPOV way. That is, are commentators more or less agreeing that this group is much stronger than an average group. I tend to think that this is not the case. Shall I look for references? Tomeasy_{T C} 09:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not apply to all groups. I don't think anyone is seriously considering that New Zealand, North Korea or Algeria has a chance of qualifying for the Round of 16, but Germany, Serbia, Australia and Ghana all have a very good chance. In fact, I would say that this group is more of a group of death than the other group that has been given that title, as that group only contains Brazil, Portugal, Cote d'Ivoire and North Korea. Sure, Brazil, Portugal and Cote d'Ivoire may qualify, but North Korea? Please. – Pee Jay 12:52, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing matches

Being reverted with the comment "wrong matey" [1]is anything than funny in my eyes. If you disagree with something, you can bring it up here, which I am doing for you now.

Just so you know, during the past days, it worked perfectly fine to update scores while matches were ongoing. I see no sense in you trying to forbid that from happening. Tomeasy_{T C} 09:58, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a news service. It is not our job to report the scores as they come in as they are not official until the referee submits his report after the game. It is true that a lot of Wikipedians ignore this fact and update the scores anyway, but they are not supposed to, and we should not be encouraging them. – Pee Jay 12:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree this source for the current ongoing game is fine. While the referee hasn't yet submitted his report, we can still update it and if the "match is abandoned" as you speculated before we can simply revert it. No harm, no foul.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you this has been discussed umpteen times before at WP:FOOTY, and the consensus has always been the same: that we should not do live score updates. – Pee Jay 15:35, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CONSENSUS, consensus can change. Either way, can you link to this discussion?--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:38, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It hasn't been discussed in a while, and I can never remember specific discussion titles, so no I can't. There is a search function for the WT:FOOTY archives though. – Pee Jay 15:41, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just had a search, and it does seem that the last discussion about the topic resulted in a neutral opinion, although one user did note that WP:NOTNEWS prohibits the special treatment of breaking news, which the italicisation of live scores would definitely be classed as. – Pee Jay 15:45, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since as you said the opinion there is neutral and from August 2009, maybe a new discussion is in order?--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. Would you like to start it or shall I? – Pee Jay 15:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can start it if you wish.--Giants 27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 16:14, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. – Pee Jay 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be agreed on in this discussion that we will not fight against these edits. Everyone agrees with this conclusion? Tomeasy_{T C} 18:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to agree on this. WP:EDITWAR applies to this article just as it would to any other one so anyone fighting over those edits will be risking sanctions. A solution to this "problem", if so desired even, can only be sought by discussion and changing current policy/guidelines to forbid such edits explicitly, after which the article may be (semi-)protected or editors be blocked. Regards So Why 18:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is something we can agree on as registered users. We could conclude that live updating is not acceptable, and make this policy or at least guideline. Following this, we could revert such edits and request sanctions against the (mainly) IPs violating this. ::Or, we could reason that it is more harmful to Wikipedia to go on warring against a huge Phalanx of IPs out there willing (in good faith) to update immediately.

As I understand the referred discussion, we have decide to go for the second option. Tomeasy_{T C} 19:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manager flags

See Talk:2010 FIFA World Cup Group B#Manager flags. – Pee Jay 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]