Talk:Unofficial Football World Championships

message: I'm happy enough for NB to have been moved to being a section rather than a criticism, but I wonder whether, for the sake of consistency, the same should be done with the VWC:  I have a notion that one day, when I have more time, I'll make an article for each of them.   Kevin McE 11:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have had a change of mind re VWC. I hope you don't mind if I revert to my original intro to it; phrases like "some people don't like" are not very encyclopedic. Kevin McE 12:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nassazi and Virtual World Championship

message: Would such a list be unwieldly or could it work? Please tell me if it could.Toonmon2005 02:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Title Changes

message: The all Ireland team that took the title in 1903 is now the Northern Ireland national football team - see that page for details. Does anyone know when the team now called Republic of Ireland first took the title? Timrollpickering 09:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 30/03/77, beating France 1-0 in Dublin.  They held the title for 2 months, with a home draw against Finland before losing it to Bulgaria in Sofia.  Their only other reign was Mar-May 2004, gaining it from Czech republic and surviving 2 challenges before losing it to Nigeria.  Kevin McE 16:51, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ireland

message: ufwc.co.uk is no more. I seem to recall Uruguay being on the verge of entering  the top 10, but I'm not sure. Does anyone have the full rankings saved anywhere?  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  19:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The data from the previous matches is on the two other sites linked from the article page, but their tables are calculated on different formulae: RSSSF has a table of how many days the title has been held for, and WPFC (not updated since November last year) has a rather complicated set of weighted average points in championship matches.  The number of championship match victories (which is what UFWC's table recorded) could be reconstructed fairly easily from that info.  But does anyone know why UFWC.co.uk dissappeared so suddenly? Kevin McE 23:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Awesome.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  21:16, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Website

message: There is no one method of ranking the holders of this title: RSSSF uses number of days as title holders, WPFC uses a variant on 3 points for a win, one for a draw, UFWC uses victories in title matches. I think that if the infobox on this article shows one of those, then it is almost tantamount to promoting one source over another, and therefore promotional. 
All respect to those who have done so much work at UFWC, but I do not think that a Wiki article should present it as superior.  
I would propose, therefore, a table similar to the one I have made at List of winners of Unofficial Football World Championships which could list all the credible ranking criteria, possibly with the position a country wouldhold in brackets in each column, thus indicating that Scotland would be (1) for No of days, wins, and matches as champion, but (2) for number of spells as champion, and about (40) for time since title last held.  The corrolary to this acknowledgement of multiple criteria would be removal of the rankings field in the infobox.  Thoughts?  Kevin McE 11:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No comment has been passed on my suggestion in more than a week, and so I have been bold and made the changes I proposed above.  Kevin McE 21:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rankings

message: I am dissappointed that someone took it upon themselves to post a prod without discussion of the issues here first.  The opening statements in the article draw on a near 40 year history of discussion, and the fact that this article cites, and draws upon data from, 3 independent websites, which have been referenced in Four Four Two and the Guardian, among others, proves that it is not original research. Kevin McE 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I listed the Rugby one for deletion - and it was deleted - which I think was the logic behind prodding this; but its fairly obvious that this has had a number of published sources, books, articles etc. discussing it outside of Wikipedia. --Robdurbar 08:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: AfD prod

message: I just integrated the 'next match' infobox into the top infobox. If anyone thinks the old format was better, I'm open to their opinion.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox 

message: The criticisms in the section thus named are unsourced, and if they are no more than queries/observations thrown up by editors here, they are WP:OR.  Addition of the rebuttal of these is to make the article page itself a place of debate, which does not seem to be appropriate for an encyclopaedic piece.
I would propose that we take the sort of action proposed for trivia sections: that which can be verified and cited should be placed in more appropriate sections: that which cannot should be deleted as OR.  Thoughts?  Kevin McE 09:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with deleting the whole Criticisms section as it really is no more than a discussion about the merits or flaws of the UFWC. Someone else posted the criticisms, I posted the replies in response to a general request by the UFWC webmaster. The lack of official status is already mentioned at the top of the article; the reference to FIFA's response to it could be inserted elsewhere; the rest is just opinion. The section wouldn't be missed. Jess Cully 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Editing articles to include non-verifiable information requested by the subject of the article would seem to be to be a conflict of interest. --Pak21 07:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The criticisms are no more verifiable than the rebuttals. If either is removed, the whole section should go. Jess Cully 22:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms and right to reply 

message: Greece, while UFWC holders, played a friendly against Czech Republic on 5th Feb 2008 but this match was not listed at FIFA.com, and therefore is not regarded as a title match.  Similar matches of disputed status have occued in the past (e.g. Colombia vs South Korea), but since 1980, FIFA have logged all "A" international matches, and inclusion in their listing is the criterion for this title's deciding matches.  In the event, Greece won the match, and so any difference would only have been in statistics of number of matches for Greece, and not for tenure of the honour.  Kevin McE (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't understand why that match against Czech Republic is not listed while that one against Finland is. I'm talking about FIFA not wikipedia. - Sthenel (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlisted match 

message: An editor tagged this article as lacking notability and references in January.  I replied on his/her talk page thus "I am surprised at the tags that you have posted on the UFWC article. It has a section that refers to some of the media references, the external links list all matches in which the title has been at stake. If anyone wishes to verify the information on the pages, the resources are there to do it." on 29 January 2008.  The tagger, who had made no explanation of his objections at the time, made no response here, on my talk page, or on his/her own, within a week, so I removed the tags, explaining my actions in an editnote.  Today, again without explanation, he/she has replaced the tags.  I cite the above comments that I made to FN in January as the justification in removing them, and ask that he/she raise what are thought to bethe shortcomings of the article here before placing tags again.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just put references in and demonstrate notability? A single dead link does not constitute references Fasach Nua (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  It might have been more constructive if you had politely pointed out that the link was dead first time around, or when an enquiry was made in January.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged 

message: You will see that I have a draft table posted, partly prompted by editors wanting to record the absence of the title from the forthcoming Euro 2008.  Is the new addition appropriate/welcome/accurate/adequately formatted?  I know that I have taken a short cut in not linking country names to nft articles: I can do that if the table is deemed keep-worthy.  
Is it worth making something similar for the European or S American championships?  I see strong arguments against doing so (it is a world, not a continental title; there will be far more non-appearances of the title; some might say we should list all Asian/CONCACAF/African/Oceania championships as well to avoid bias) but with Euro 2008 about to start (without the title), some readers might look for it, so I've had a go.  
Thoughts?  Kevin McE (talk) 09:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  UFWC at the WC 

message: Can't this statistic be included? The statistic of most wins is included, but most lost finals could also be quite interesting.  21:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most lost finals 

message: What would be the case if a team were to cease to exist without having any succesor teams?
An example that springs to mind is if East Germany had been UFWC at the time of German reunification then there would have been no champion as the German football team only uses the results of the West German team in its' records and statisitics.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.249.141.26 (talk) 12:18, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt there is a formalised rule for this - the situation never occurred, so there is no precedent for that, and the UFWC rules don't include a provision for that scenario. My suggestion to solve it if it were ever to occur would be to draw analogies to boxing, where the idea for the UFWC came from. The World Boxing Association, on of the sanctioning bodies awarding world championships in boxing, has rules for the situation that, e.g., a title holder dies. Essentially, the title is declared vacant, and a fight for the title between two contenders chosen by a committee will follow. Generally, the two highest-rated fighters available should be chosen. SchnitteUK (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is a very good question.  In the example cited, where East Germany held the title at the time of German unification, another option might be to assume the united German team has inherited the title.  What if the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia had held the title during their country's breakup?  Would the title have been inherited by Russia or Serbia?  What if the country holding the title is banned by FIFA from playing any international games for, say, three years for some flagrant rule violation, would it hold the title during this period? Juve2000 (talk) 18:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if a team ceases to exist whilst being UFWC? 

message: In the case of other nations that have changed name/flag, there has been a reign under the current incarnation, thus we can include West Germany's record under Germany, and Czechoslovakia's under Czech Republic etc without dificulty.  In the Serbian/Yugoslavian case, it is not as clear cut, as the current name/flag combo have never been title holder.  We have had for some time Serbia in the table, with a footnote to explain, a solution that I may have posted, but have never been totally happy with.  An editor today put up a multi-flag solution, but that seems most inconsistent with what we have done for other cases: We don't have the Hammer and Sickle alongside the Russian flag.  Maybe it is more appropriate to show the most recent "version" of the country to have won it: display  with the footnote edited to read "FR Yugoslavia (holders in 1995) were credited by FIFA with the records of the national teams of Kingdom of Yugoslavia (title holders in 1939), and SFR Yugoslavia (holders in 1984) until they in turn had their record assumed by Serbia."  Opinions?  Kevin McE (talk) 16:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's quite a good idea. Put it like that. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to treat Various Yugoslavian/Serbian reigns 

message: The infobox colour was changed to red when Spain won the title bout. Then it was changed back because 'colour scheme long predated Dutch reign'. Why should it not be red? I think that's a good touch. And on the flipside, why is it orange? --Half Price (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted away from red, because I assumed that whoever changed to red did so on the assumption that it was orange because of Dutch reign.  It had been orange for all but the first 15 hours of the existence of the table, and the editor who hit on orange hasn't been active since November '05, so his/her original reason is unknown.  But the orange is preferable to the dark red shade that had been there as a good contrast colour with the black text.  I don't think it should change every time there is a new title holder: it is a colour for the title, not for the current holder, and some colours will be less suitable than others. Of course there are other colours that it could be: there are other colours of shirt that I could have put on this morning, but once one was chosen, it seems churlish to change for the sake of it.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm yea I can see the issue of having it suit team's colours. Orange does seem a bit odd though. It looks nice, but usually infoboxes are just blue/gray. --Half Price (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox Colour 

message: The UFWC website lists nations in the table by the number of "title matches" won, whereas the list here goes by matches as "champions". In a few cases, this leads to a different ranking. I'm just wondering if we should go by the same criterion as the website when displaying the rankings here. Ը२ձւե๓ձռ17 23:53, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Other sites, as the text explains, use different criteria.  Our table is sortable, so the reader can look at it in whatever order he/she might wish, and it does not issue positions.  Kevin McE (talk) 09:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table 

message: Are there any informations for the Unofficial Women's Football World Championships? Maybe there could be some interesting statistics for discussion.. Celtic Angel (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That certainly would be interesting, but has someone else done it?  If we made it up ourselves, I'm afraid it would fail notability and would be original research.  --Coemgenus (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: http://www.ufwc.co.uk/2011/05/england-women-defend-unofficial-title-against-sweden/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettadeadthanred (talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, go for it.  I'd enjoy reading it. --Coemgenus (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unofficial Women's Football World Championships? 

message: I had a quick google, and I can't seem to find anything up to date and authoritative for Nasazzi's Baton or the Virtual World Championship, and I'm not sure the Pound for Pound World Championship is that notable (website here). Anyone mind if we just cut this section? LukeSurl t c 23:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any references for the "[[Unofficial Football World Championships#Similar concepts|Similar concepts]]"? 

message: What if there's a UFWC game that will be later awarded by FIFA to either team because of, e.g.,  the fielding of an ineligible player? Or stopped for any reason and then awarded (like the Euro qualifier Italy vs Serbia)? Schnapper (talk) 14:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Has any title match happened like that yet? If not, then it's not an issue at this moment. But Italy - Serbia was awarded pretty quickly, it's only when results are overturned months late rthat it might need mroe discussion. Druryfire (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Should such complications arise, I think we basically follow whatever ufwc.co.uk do - they seem to be the "official" authority (irony intended). Nevertheless, there's no need to cover this in the article unless such a situation actually occurs. LukeSurl t c 01:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Game awarded 

message: The games of 2013 King's Cup are not listed by FIFA as official, which happened because a bureaucratic notification did not arrive on  time. By Paul Brown's decision, these games were counted as UFWC title matches. While there are other cases of similar controversy, most recent being South Korea's win in 1995, they all took place when the procedure for official FIFA recognition was not well-established. Thus, UFWC has become Paul Brown's OR as of 23 January 2013.  Netzakh[ˈneʦaħ] 17:16, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: While I agree with you that the UFWC has lost credibility over this (I certainly no longer have any interest in maintaining this page as it has ceased to follow any tenable definition of the title), we have no right to hold Paul's website to our standards and definitions of what is acceptable research, and given that this article remains based on that site, this article is not OR.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul Brown is the UFWC. He created it, he runs it, and he decides what is what. This is an article about the UFWC competition. The UFWC is Paul Brown's original research as much as Hamlet is William Shakespere's. LukeSurl t c 19:48, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not entirely true: it was tracked at RSSSF and, until the site went down, at WPFC.  Brown's site is the only one kept currently (or at least until last week) reliably up to date.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:44, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The RSSSF page on this began in 2002 which predates any of Paul Brown's publications on the subject.  This Wikipedia page should be modified to make it clear that RSSSF first published the concept, and that Brown is not (and never was) a definitive source, even if he did come up with the idea independently of the RSSSF authors, which seems unlikely given that (at the time) RSSSF was by far the most likely place for him to gather his list of results.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.110.214 (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research 

message: All right: the Mundialito is no part of the Confederations Cup-history. However, couldn't we insert a paragraph on title changes during 'minor tournaments'?Jeff5102 (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm opposed really. I think the article is too long and detailed as it is, paying too much attention to the constructed history of something invented in 2003 borders on WP:Original Research. We have Chronology of the Unofficial Football World Championships which lists as a table the basic statistics of the  progression of the championship. Frankly I'd prefer to condense "tracking the championship" and "UFWC at major championships" into four or five paragraphs of prose. We have to remember that this is an encyloepdia page about the UFWC, rather that an "official" UFWC tracker. --LukeSurl t c 11:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor tournaments 

message: I tried correcting the rules, but somebody changed them right back. According to the rules, a match doesn't have to be FIFA-accredited to be a title match. It should be enough being considered an A-match by the teams involved, which these matches were. Someone please correct this, so that the controversies over the title could come to an end. UFWC rules<Nukualofa (talk) 01:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Controversies over the rules do exist: it is our duty to report them, not to cover them over.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The rules are as followed:  "A UFWC title match is any international ‘A’ match involving the current UFWC title-holder. According to FIFA: ‘An international ‘A’ match shall be a match that has been arranged between two national A associations affiliated to the Federation and for which both Associations field their first national representative team.’ This includes most friendly matches."http://www.ufwc.co.uk/about/rules/ At no place does it mention that the match needs to be FIFA-accredited, it simply uses the FIFA definition of an A-match. Both Sweden and Finland considered this an A-match, and by all means North Korea did too. Saying that "whether or not the match is considered a title match is at organiser Paul Brown's discretion" is misleading. It is correct because he set the rules, but it is misleading because those rules were followed in the King's Cup matches. The facts that the King's Cup matches have a history of being A-matches, the involved FAs considered them A-matches, the squads mainly consisted of established internationals, and that the only reason these matches are not considered A-matches are because of an organizational fail, any dispute should be put aside by now.{Nukualofa (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made a subtle changing of wording: "The next full international (now defined by the standards of a FIFA-accredited international 'A' match) involving the title holder is considered a title match." I hope this helps. LukeSurl t c 10:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The rules are wrong 

message: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Unofficial Football World Championships resulted in the separate Chronology of the Unofficial World Championship page being deleted. The results were pretty split between merge and delete but I found a good compromise between the two camps: I went ahead and merged the data from the Chronology page into the main page using a collaspable wikitable. That way everyone who wants to see the list can see it and it is out of the way for everyone else. I personally feel that the list is vital to the article. I don't see having one without the other, especially seing as the history section of this article pretty much is a summary of that list. Tavix |  Talk   21:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record I agree with the complete erasure that  is enforcing. The deletion wasn't about just space, rather its to make sure Wikipedia isn't being used as a statistical database, which is effectively a form of original research. In my opinion the "Tracking the championship" section should be reduced to a couple of paragraphs and should not attempt to be comprehensive. This article is meant to be an overview of the UFWC as reported by reliable sources, and not a place to output all results from what is essentially a three-line algorithm. --LukeSurl t c 07:47, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, from my point of view I would prefer to delete all the stats/results tables that are already covered elsewhere, or are entirely WP:OR! But with the "Chronology" list in particular, this was discussed at AfD and a decision was reached that it wasn't appropriate for Wikipedia in any form. If you disagree with that decision you should take the AfD to Deletion Review. Sionk (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

text:  - Yes, I think this should be done. --LukeSurl t c 15:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology of the UFWC list 

message: The big rankings table was problematic to me. It was pretty squarely original research, as the calculations to create it from the list of all-time results were far beyond the realms of WP:CALC. I assume for the most part its accuracy relies on each successive editor assuming it was already accurate before updating it in regards to the latest match - this is not a good system. Additionally the finer details of the ranking system were arbitrary with no references to suggest this is the 'correct' way of ranking.
I therefore have WP:BOLDly replaced the table with a table that replicates and references the UFWC site's table. Critically, this is verifiable in a way that the current table is not. I am keeping it to the top ten teams for neatness, and mentioning the ranking of the current champion (and an explanation of Scotland's dominance) in prose at the table base. --LukeSurl t c 22:46, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The big table... 

message: Edits to this article by various users are being reverted by IPs without explanation. Further to the notifications on their talk pages, can I please invite  and  to discuss their edits here. --LukeSurl t c 09:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Reply to  request: I reverted to the last best version I could find and I warned both IPs for edit-warring.  I will watch the page and the IP users and will report them to admin if they continue.  We also might have to request page protection, but decided to try this first. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  (User:Wtwilson3)  — 13:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

text: Please see my comment in #The big table... above. While the full table contained more information, it was not verifiable, which is a key principle regarding how Wikipedia operates. --LukeSurl t c 13:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: After removing Luke's request for a Third Opinion (dispute resolution won't accept requests where there's been less than thorough talk page discussion), I took a look here and have re-reverted and re-warned . Everything said above by Luke and Bill W (who must have have lots of friends) is right, but I'd add that the restoration of this unsourced material also violates BURDEN. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continual reversion by IPs 

message: I think it would add value to the article adding a table in the section Tracking the Champioship / current year of the last (say...) 10 title matches, something like:
Team 1	Score             	Team 2	Date      	Occasion                   	Location
      	1 : 0 aet         	      	2014-07-13	2014 FIFA World Cup Final  	Rio de Janeiro
      	0 (2): 0 (4)(pen.)	      	2014-07-09	World Cup Semi-Finals      	São Paulo
      	0 (4): 0 (3)(pen.)	      	2014-07-05	World Cup Quarter-Finals   	Salvador, Bahia
      	1 (5): 1 (3)(pen.)	      	2014-06-29	World Cup Round of 16      	Recife
      	0 : 0             	      	2014-06-24	2014 FIFA World Cup Group D	Belo Horizonte
      	0 : 1             	      	2014-06-20	2014 FIFA World Cup Group D	Recife
      	1 : 3             	      	2014-06-24	2014 FIFA World Cup Group D	Fortaleza
      	2 : 0             	      	2014-06-04	Friendly                   	Montevideo
      	1 : 0             	      	2014-05-30	Friendly                   	Montevideo
      	1 : 1             	      	2014-03-05	Friendly                   	Klagenfurt
Teams listed in Bold were the holders at the end of the match.
It gives a quick glance on the last title holders, as well as good examples of some of the title's rules. What do you think?146.155.157.13 (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be a bit redundant to the top table, and its quite awkwardly placed in the article. I'm going to remove it. --LukeSurl t c 19:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last title matches? 

message: This section seems excessive and redundant to the prose description in the Tracking the Championship section. Any objections to removing this section on WP:INDISCRIMINATE grounds? --LukeSurl t c 15:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I've done it. --LukeSurl t c 08:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi . I removed the section after no-one objected to this notice. Would you be interested in joining this discussion? --LukeSurl t c 15:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove UFWC at major championships 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Unofficial Football World Championships. 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/20110724094308/http://www.theawayend.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=377:pound-for-pound-world-championships&catid=64:world-champions&Itemid=128 to http://www.theawayend.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=377:pound-for-pound-world-championships&catid=64:world-champions&Itemid=128
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A recent edit by 1joe60 (June 21 2018) added that East Germany statistics have been combined with West Germany in the Germany statistics. The UFWC website states:
Therefore, should this be included, seeing as no East German statistics are merged into German statistics?
--Philk84 (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: *Looking through the matches, E Germany played 5 UFWC matches, but never won it. Regardless, we follow the source which explicitly excludes E Germany rather than making our own calculations. --LukeSurl t c 09:23, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification LukeSurl --Philk84 (talk) 09:31, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the ranking table includes matches played and not just matches won then it includes East Germany's title matches. Without East Germany's matches Germany should only be listed as having played 62 matches. The 5 East Germany matches can be found on the official UFWC website's results page. 1joe60 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Philk84 I think your interpretation of that quote is incorrect. Although East Germany have no ranking points to combine with the united Germany they still combine statistics overall. In the case of UFWC "ranking points" are only wins however the table also tracks matches played and evidently that includes East Germany's matches. 1joe60 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you are right? I did a search on the results page for "Germany", and Germany, East Germany and West Germany appeared in a total of 67 games, which matches the total number of games played on the rankings page. When they talk about "ranking points", I thought they were referring to all statistics - as there isn't a "points" tally displayed. --Philk84 (talk) 12:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not entirely clear but my interpretation is that the author is mentioning that East Germany does not matter for "ranking points" because they never won. It can't be that he ignores East Germany completely because that contradicts his official ranking table's "matches played" column. Perhaps I should reach out to the author and seek clarification? 1joe60 (talk) 13:20, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

text: As for which nations to include a footnote for in my opinion it should be based only on nations who have actually combined statistics. Since East Germany have played matches it should be noted that their stats are included. FIFA recognized successor teams that did not participate in the UFWC should not be included such as Saarland for Germany. 1joe60 (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, it seems you are right (and the UFWC FAQ is misleading). My apologies. --LukeSurl t c 12:50, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Germany 

message: Why does "Own goal" get removed from the list of scorers in the infobox? The first French goal against Croatia was an own goal, so now the list of goalscorers (which implies 3 goals have been scored) does not reflect the scoreline (where 4 goals where scored). I'm assuming there is some logic to this, but I'm not sure what it is. Can someone clarify this? To me it seems odd to omit this. --Philk84 (talk) 06:46, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Own Goals 

message: I have reverted an edit which added a "list of champions", which was a table listing all of the games where the championship changed hands. This is too much statistical information (see WP:NOTDATABASE and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chronology of the Unofficial Football World Championships already deleted similar content on these grounds. We already summarise the passage of the championship in prose in the "Tracking the championship" section and have summary statistics in the "All-time rankings" section. I appreciate that constructing this table must have been a significant amount of work, but I cannot say I see a place for it in this article. --LukeSurl t c 20:36, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of champions 

message: According to the article,  Czech Republic took the title from the Netherlands at the 2004 Euro. Then it says they defended a few things before losing it to the Republic of Ireland,  but they lost in the Euro to Greece (in overtime, if I recall correctly). Is there a mistake? 2601:189:8180:2EA0:5977:F2FA:20D2:224A (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: No obvious error. The UFWC wasn't taken into the 2004 Euros. The title moved betweeen European nations in qualifiers, but at the time of the finals the UFWC title was in Africa. --LukeSurl t c 16:25, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euro 2004 (Greece and Czech Republic) 

message: Acording to UFWC website, Croatia has played 22 matches but here it is listed 21.
The official website includes matches when Croatia was part of Yugoslavia and during the puppet state years during WWII. 2800:B20:111A:1771:65A4:738F:BF9E:62 (talk) 17:58, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Croatia Matches played. 

message: Why do we consider the goal scorers orignal research when we list the top ten scorers for pretty much any league in the world?   If one is orginial research then both should be considered original research (2601:543:4404:D170:D53F:127B:94CA:2C1C (talk)) 2601:543:4404:D170:D53F:127B:94CA:2C1C (talk) 03:23, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  original research?