question[edit]

How many of them were from argentina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.232.122 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? Or are you trying to make a point? – PeeJay 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina colours[edit]

the Socks were black. http://fr.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1/photo/526/451/picture.html#526463

The shorts were grey http://fr.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1/photo/526/451/picture.html#526463 or light blue http://fr.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1/photo/526/451/picture.html#526451 Sportin (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[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) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2022[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: all moved. The supporters have made a fairly straightforward case that the MOS:CAPS threshold isn't met, while the oppose !votes, rather than rebutting that argument, instead consist largely of personal preferences and misunderstandings of the relevant guidelines. When the strength of arguments is considered, therefore, there is (despite what the raw !vote totals might suggest) a relatively clear consensus to move. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]



– Rather than being bold and getting reverted (particularly with the 2022 article), I felt it would be best to open a discussion on these articles. Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, final should be lower case as the event is not a proper noun. This would be consistent with the consensus at Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final#Requested move 19 November 2022. I also feel a consensus here would have more weight for future moves given the higher profile of the World Cup to a continental competition. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know about that, my apologies. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: I thought you and I were usually on the same wavelength on these questions, so rather surprised to see that you would oppose this proposal. What policy or evidence-based rationale is there not to move? Per MOS:CAPS and ngram evidence below, it seems an open-and-shut case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of sources (certainly for the 2022 WC) use Final rather than final. So WP:COMMONNAME applies, as Final is part of the event title. Also, it does feel wrong to suggest moving the 2022 article again just a few days after there was a reasonably xlesr consensus not to move it. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is about using commonly recognizable names. The proposed and current titles are identical outwith the capitalization so neither is more recognisable than the other. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: that doesn't seem correct. Have a look down the results at a simple Google search... does it not look like the majority say "final"? And as I've mentioned many times, the bar is not even a simple majority but a substantial majority... the other RM seems to have overlooked that point altogether. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opened this in good faith unaware of the previous discussion and have apologised above. It was not an attempt to subvert anything. I will take this as a learning opportunity for anything similar I take forward in future. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement for the "vast majority" of sources. Per WP:MOSCAP Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources. "Usually" is interpreted to mean "more often than not" and in the absence of a long list of sources that explicitly do not capitalize "Final," the "usually" criteria of MOSCAP is met, and the capitalization of this title should stand. (striking comment, this list is included above. However I maintain opposed to this move based on the recent consensus not to move on the 2022 WC Final RM). Frank Anchor 19:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus from that discussion has led to all the other UEFA Women's Euro "Final" articles being moved to "final" without any opposition so they are now all consistent. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How ridiculous that the one outlier should serve as the model for the rest. If the 1995 final was the only one not to have a capital letter, why did every other page move to create consistency when it would have been far simpler (and, in my opinion, more correct) to move the one article? – PeeJay 19:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand this because a discussion was started which led to a consensus which has since been implemented to no complaint. It might have been easier to move one article but just because something is easy, doesn't mean it is right. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever possible contrary arguments might be made based on WP:COMMONNAME, it seems to me that that policy is essentially silent on the issue of capitalisation, and that this is made obvious by the long list of examples which it quotes, all of which consist of substantive differences between the two possible names, not minutiae of spelling such as capitalisation. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I could honestly see both sides in this, but imo it just looks kind of strange to me without the capital F. Also, I do see consensus that the title should be what it's most commonly referred to, but it appears to be split depending on which source you go to (which would make the argument go on forever). So I think it should just stay as it is, just because I don't think there is consensus for either side. Phrogge (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria is not whether "it looks kind of strange to me" or not: to me it looks strange with a capital F. And COMMONNAME is not about the minutiae of capitalisation as pointed out above. MOS:CAPS is the relevant bit, and that is as clear as daylight that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized" should be capitalised here. The abundance of sources, including even FIFA, which in fact consistently don't capitalise is the nail on the coffin. 173.179.105.16 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this should be top level instead of under someone else's !vote Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest not. The discussion for both is really around whether or not the two individual events are proper nouns. It is entirely possible for consensus to be that one is a proper noun and the other isn't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a major event doesn't make it a proper noun. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 00:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it did. Only that people saw it individually identified the event and referred to it as the World Cup Final. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
only less than half. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without evidence, this is nothing more than an expression of personal opinion: the (perceived) significance of the event is a complete red herring. With evidence, as shown above, 'common parlance' amongst reliable sources - which is what actually matters, MOS:CAPS is rather clear enough - such as the BBC, the NYT, ... is actually to not capitalise. 173.179.105.16 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking for evidence and only found overwhelming evidence against my argument (with 1 exception). So I am changing my vote to Support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly reminder that it’s a !vote Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support all in line with Amakuru's points about MOS:CAPS. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.