2010 Fifa World Cup Group A

167.107.191.217 (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it should be included because the while you're correct the match is ongoing, it won't be ongoing for ever thus the edit is not withstanding and will be removed at the end of the match so there's point in including it.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Only soccer fanatics know what time it's currently in South Africa. 167.107.191.217 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

To me it was quite intuitive. When I saw the score was in italics, I figured that the match was still ongoing. Now that the two matches of today are played, I see that both score are in regular font. I could live without an explanation.

However, it might be an idea to introduce a static footnote ("ongoing match") at the bottom of a page. A label for this footnote could then be place at scores of ongoing matches. When the group is completed the footnote could be removed. Tomeasy _{T C} 22:32, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I reckon the people who are interested enough to look at this article during a match will already know what's going on. No need for over-the-top explanations. Bazonka (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

In this article, referees are named and the name of their country is written. At the bottom of the section for each match, assistant referees and 4th officials are named, with the flags of their countries. Due to their colour, flag images appear more prominent and striking than words, and so to me it looks totally incongruous for the (more important) referees to have no flag whilst their (less important) assistants do.
Therefore I added flags for the referees, but these were removed with the comment "flags are shorthand for not writing nation, the refs have the nation written hence no flag, as usual". In a normal textual article I would understand this, but given the statistical nature of this article, I think it is an inappropriate and inconsistent reason. This and similar articles are full of flags next to country names - for example, look at the group table at the top, and every time a team's name is given.
I can see absolutely no harm in including flags for the referees' nations, and whilst they may be stricly unnecessary, they make the article look better and remove the striking inconsistency with the assistant refs' names. Bazonka (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see someone has now removed the flags again, but to be fair, they've also removed the assistant refs' flags. This is at least consistent. But I would still prefer the flags to be shown - what do others think? Bazonka (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
According to WP:MOSICON, images should not be used as a replacement for text, particularly when text does a perfectly adequate job as it is. Therefore, there is no need to use the flags for the referee and his assistants. – PeeJay 09:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I understand that, but then why is this article littered with flags next to team names? Seems like double standards. In any case WP:MOSFLAG has a specific section entitled "Accompany flags with country names", so it is certainly not disallowed. I see no problem with including them. Bazonka (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
But including flags in the middle of prose doesn't really make sense. I realise that the referees' names are usually only two or three words and therefore not quite prose, but inserting a flag for no apparent reason might seem a little confusing. Nevertheless, this is the format that football articles have taken for a few years now; just take a look at any of the last three or four Champions League Final articles. – PeeJay 10:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that's not prose at all, and just because the current model for football articles doesn't use refs' flags, doesn't mean that that model can't or mustn't change. As I said in my post at the top of this thread, whilst I accept that these flags are strictly unnecessary I think they would make the article look better, and I fail to see how anybody could be confused by them. Having said that though, I am fairly content with the article as it stands at the moment (it is not inconsistent). I would be interested to hear whether other people would also like referee flags to be used. Bazonka (talk) 10:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the images for the line-ups to the original ones as they are incorrect. In the opening game Tshabalala played on the left (from where he scored the goal) and Modise was played on the right. The line-up for Uruguay-France match is also incorrect. Despite what FIFA has provided, in the form of expected line-ups, anyone who actually saw the match will know that Uruguay played a 3-4-1-2 (Muslera - Vitorino, Lugano, Godin - M. Pereira, Arrevalo, Perez, A. Pereira - Gonzalez - Suarez, Forlan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.86.173 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

This may sound cold, but what you actually saw on the television is irrelevant. The only sourceable formations we have for these games are the ones provided by FIFA, so those are the ones we should go with. – PeeJay 10:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, but that's bull. Tshabalala is a left winger - he scored the opener with left foot playing from the left. Just because FIFA put him on the right wing in the documents does not make it true. Anyone who watched last night's match will have also seen with their own eyes that Uruguay played with a 3-4-1-2 (http://img.fifa.com/worldcup/news/newsid=1232774/index.html). The tactical line-ups are created by a FIFA official based solely off the "start list" provided by the manager. If you look at the actual positions pdf you will see Uruguay played a 3-4-1-2 and France played a 4-2-3-1.

• Start list - http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/24/04/92/02_0611_uru-fra_start.pdf
• Actual player positions - http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/01/24/08/06/02_0611_uru-fra_actualformation.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.86.173 (talk) 11:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The actual formations are properly sourced, so this information can and should be used. Bazonka (talk) 11:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
My point is that the "Tactical Line-ups" listed are the presumed, not the actual, formations for the teams (based off the "Start list" provided by the managers). The fact that a FIFA official decided on the probable formations prior to the match does not make them correct, as shown in the analysis of the average player positions in the "Actual positions" report that show that both formations are incorrect. See http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/round=249722/match=300061454/documents.html for the list of all documents related to the match. 79.64.86.173 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
Fair enough. However, this does mean that we will now have to change a lot of line-up graphics for past matches. That said, I'm fairly sure it was agreed a couple of years ago that (for consistency between all matches) we should use the tactical line-ups provided for teams before the start of the game, as average positions are not always available. – PeeJay 22:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
I raised a similar issue in the discussion of New Zealand's game in Group F and agree that the actual formation .pdfs should be used wherever possible if they will portray games more accurately. While it may be difficult to go back to previous tournaments, find the equivalent information and edit accordingly, I think it would be best for us to use it here while it is available. Thecomaboy (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
But what about in cases where a team uses two wingers who swap wings throughout the game? Their average positions would likely be nowhere near the wings. And then we have the case of attacking full-backs, whose average positions would likely be much more advanced than their nominal positions would suggest. – PeeJay 14:42, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Managers from countries different from the teams that they manage have a flag next to their name. There's no explanation of what country these flags represent - some people may not be familiar with the flag. So in order to clarify this, and to make the managers' details more consistent with referees' details, I replaced these flags with the country name. User:PeeJay2K3 reverted this with the summary "completely disagree". Could you please explain your logic, PeeJay? Bazonka (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed PeeJay's reversion edit summary of my similar edit on 2010 FIFA World Cup Group B was "don't be petty", which I actually find quite offensive. It's consistency, not pettiness. Bazonka (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
I find it petty that you would make a point about referees' flags by removing the flags from the managers. Anyway, the reason why I restored the managers' flags is because, in similar templates for club matches, all of the players have flags indicating their nationalities, as do the managers. Because of this, my revert has maintained a far greater level of consistency than you are aware of. – PeeJay 21:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
That reason makes sense, I understand. However I feel that you should have explained that in the edit summary, rather than making disparaging comments. Bazonka (talk) 21:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, probably, but there is only a limited amount of space in the edit summary box. – PeeJay 12:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I know that Mexico and Uruguay advance with a win or tie, but what about the rest? Purplebackpack89 20:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The scenarios currently in place are correct. Please don't change the scenarios without discussing it first here. Sasank (talk) 01:18, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested slightly different idea - could probably be refined further but gives more information than the current set-up.

On the next matchday (22 June), the following teams (group winner - runner-up) will advance:

If:	Mexico win	/  draw	Uruguay win
France win	MEX - URU[2-4] or FRA[6+]	URU - MEX	URU - MEX[2-3] or FRA[5+]
/  draw	MEX - URU	URU - MEX	URU - MEX
South Africa win	MEX - URU[2-5] or RSA[7+]	URU - MEX	URU - MEX[2-4] or RSA[6+]

Numbers in brackets designate the total margin of victory (so, in the first cell, Uruguay will advance if the total margin of victory is 2, 3 or 4 goals, France if it is 6 or more.
Where the total margin is in between the two ranges, the team that scores the most goals in its three matches will advance.
If teams are still level, Uruguay would advance over South Africa and Mexico over France. If another combination of nations is unable to be split by goals scored, the runner-up will be determined by drawing of lots. Jlsa (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. This table is incomprehensible. I mean if you say "IF: France defeat South Africa AND Mexico defeat Uruguay either Uruguay and France would qualify"??. I think it should be changed back to the way it has always been. Team by team. Or a little more explanation I don't know. Please discuss. Tony0106 (talk) 01:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
That seems a little busy to me. Whatever happened to "Mexico will advance if ..., Uruguay will advance if..." And why did somebody above think I was going to place inaccurate information in the article? Purplebackpack89 04:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Some of us process information differently, and to me, this table makes all the sense in the world. It's the long sentences of "if FRA do X and MEX do Y or URU do Z" that get me confused. Kingnavland (talk) 15:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have provided match stats for this group. In my opinion this is important, to give the reader a good picture of the corresponding match's events and how the game went, including stats on ball possession, et cetera. I will provide them for the other "group" articles as well, if no one objects. Tropical wind (talk) 16:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I object. Wikipedia is not a repository for any and all minute stats. A prose account of each match should suffice if someone will add them. – PeeJay 21:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't think possession% or shots on goal are "minute" stats; they are very important and are presented in almost every match report by the sports media. Tropical wind (talk) 19:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)