Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup Group C

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Low‑importance This article 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

What is the rationale for creating a Summary section to contain match summaries? I think Lee Vilenski created one for Group B article. Thanks. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 11:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me it's a much better option to split the prose and statistical tables in this way; I think it's a lot easier to work through the article as a reader. I use this on snooker FAs (see 1985 World Snooker Championship, or 2022 Welsh Open (snooker)) and it works similarly on articles such as these. I'd recommend doing this. At the moment, I'm focussing on the main article and Group B, but I might do some work on the other groups if I get time. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a much better option as it was before: summaries split between matches. That way one can go directly to read about the match it's interested about. For example, I like to read about the previous matches between teams in the match and I think that information is easier to find in the category pertaining the said game. The categories are made for a reason. The summary of summaries looks quite bulky. Besides all other World Cup group article are written that way: divided match summaries. Frequent Wikipedia soccer readers are used to that. I respect your decision, but I don't agree with it. ProofR (talk) 14:27, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles being written in a different way is not a reason to change anything. "Frequent soccer readers" are kind of not all that relevant. We are an encyclopedia, a coherent summary of a topic - not just a list of things that happened. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article states that "Salem Al-Dawsari finally buried Mexico's hope of progress in the 5th minute of added time with a goal [...]".

I claim that it was not so. Mexico needed a third goal to advance (as the other match had finished), both before and after the Saudi Arabian first goal. Or put in other words: a Mexico 3-0 or 3-1 win was equally benficial to them (while 2-0 was not). Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"buried Mexico's hope" is editoralising at its finest, so shouldn't comment like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi Arabia buried Mexico's hope, yes. They did it, however, not by scoring that goal, but by not letting Mexico score a third time. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the article says that messi passed the potm award to maccalister and that there is no motm specified on the fifa website - thats a lie. [1]https://play.fifa.com/budweiserpotm/ - here you can see maccalister being named potm of the match and there is no reliable mention of messi being the first one to recieve it anywhere

afaik this claim originates from random twitter pages and has no reliable sources 31.146.75.248 (talk) 23:44, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]