Template talk:2010 FIFA World Cup finalists

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Football This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles

Should the teams be grouped in their groupings when the draw comes out?

Yes, and then we will arrange the template like the one of the 2006 world cup 201.160.155.201 (talk) 04:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made two suggestions on this pages sandbox, for how it could look when the groups are starting to end

The most important there, should we divide the groups like that to save space? Should they go 1 or 2 (like it is now)?

chandler 07:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2nd one seems better. Also is it possible to arrange them in 4 columns by 2 rows instead of the current 2 columns by 4 rows. It looks like that could fit also since space in this template seems to be stressed in the vertical sense not the horizontal. Transaction Go (talk) 11:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a br command before Serbia twice now. Both times it has been reverted. Chandler posted an image showing why he thinks it is a bad idea at http://i.imgur.com/4HxDj.jpg. I have uploaded an image showing why not having the br is a bad idea File:2010 FIFA World Cup finalists example 20100624.png.

The problem is obviously skin related. I use Classic skin not Monobook. In Classic skin all the teams are on separate lines, so each group is 4 lines tall - except for Serbia which squeezes in with Ghana. In Monobook they are all on one line. The correct solution is almost certainly to get the template to have each group on one line in Classic skin. However I don't know how to make the separator template do that. -- SGBailey (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem with Classic either [1], there seems to be a problem on your end. chandler 09:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does it on two different PCs, both run XP with MSIE7. However it doesn't seem worth getting excited about if the bulk of folk see it correctly. -- SGBailey (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

121.7.6.23 here, gonna bring this to the talk page since there were people who don't agree with what i did for revision 370274393, which got reverted by 187.152.0.31, would just like to get some opinions from others whether its a good idea to list it the real chronological way(most recent results below) or to set it up such that the teams which advanced further are on the top of the list. 96.48.138.34 went ahead and did it the way i did before so i know there's at least 1 guy behind me, but i would like to avoid any form of edit warring plaguing some of the other talk pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.6.23 (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Following the revision by 96.48.138.34 which again added back the remainder of the teams eliminated in Round of 16 back to the list, i personally think its a good idea to create a new group listing the Quarter-finalists on top, which Walter Görlitz had disagreed upon. While it may be slightly troublesome to add newly quarter-finalists and beyond to the list, there are some people who may go to the template to navigate to the advanced teams and their pages directly from the template. And while i agree that my next point might not be exactly neutral and may be slightly out of point and worse, possibly in violation in regards to possibly some wikipedia policies that i do not know about, but i also believe that while articles designate themselves as neutral, the readers are not. There are possibly people from all over the world who want others to see the glory that their country has achieved so far, that they've made it to the Quarter-finals and seeing their countries' names on the correct groups make them feel proud. Some of the editors over here are more than fine with taking that extra mile and effort just to see it through that every reader is satisfied. Once again, while i know this point may not be exactly neutral and thus might be frowned upon by some people, and that there may be a one-sided POV in the editing, but what would be in the template is listed as true facts, since it is not an article but a template after all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.6.23 (talk) 21:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I to assume that the next set of edits to arrive will remove the Group of 16 and then after that we'll have eliminated in the Quarter finals and start the semi finalists list, etc? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This shaped-up nicely. Before we get into edit wars about whether Spain are the champion or champions I would like to point editors to Template:2006 FIFA World Cup finalists where Italy were the champions. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]