Talk:National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup

message: Reason: The table in this page is basically a summary of the table in World Cup Teams. It would be helpful if the two tables are put in the same page. Chanheigeorge 19:16, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I. Makes perfect sense to me, having the table in this article. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose merge from [[World Cup Teams]] 

message: Should we list the 207 teams that have attempted to qualify in the history of the World Cup? The main article points to here within the same breath as mentioning qualifying teams: "In all, 207 teams have competed to qualify to the World Cup (see National Team Appearances In The Football World Cup), but only eleven have made it to the final match, and of those eleven, only seven teams have actually won."
What do you think? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:09, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would draw the line on those who actually played the final stage (i.e.: the World Cup itself). 207 teams seems a little bit too long. Sebastian Kessel Talk 23:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, where does the number 207 come from? Can we verify it to be correct or not? Chanheigeorge 00:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly have no idea. But it makes sense, with defunct nations added, that it'd be over the current total of 190 nations. I hope to find out the real number soon... Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 05:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  List? 

message: What if we made the "Comprehensive team results in each World Cup" table so that all years before their first World Cup a dark gray (%75 black, maybe) to help illustrate the first appearance by each team. What do you think? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 05:34, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's unnecessary, and involves too much changes. It is clear right now from the table what each team's debut appearances are. Chanheigeorge 23:06, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What if...? 

message: And if no one else uses these but me, that's fine too...
Ranking of each team in each World Cup (PDF) Not just "R1," but more specific, like "14." I have started to add these to the article, more yet to come. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 09:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some links to consider for future use 

message: I remember Greece was in 2002 world cup and got quite far, how come it is not listed in the table? 147.8.206.177 09:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I remember Beckham's last-minute goal against them in the qualifiers which meant England topped the group and Germany finished second. Greece failed to qualify. Maybe you mean Euro 2004. Greece did okay there.Slumgum | yap | stalk | 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Greece was dead last in the 1994 FIFA World Cup. That's their only appearance so far. Sebastian Kessel Talk 20:54, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Factual error?

message: Props to DaveOinSF for the new tables.
From his stats, I've noticed that:
*When the finals have been held in Europe, at least 3 semi-finalists are European.  
*When the finals have been held in S.America, 2 semi-finalists are S.American. 
*When the finals have been held in Asia, there's 1 Asian semi-finalists.
*When the finals have been held in N.America, there's 0 N.America semi-finalists.
This means that when the finals are held in Africa, either 4 or -1 semi-finalists will be African. Fact.   SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  00:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Performance by Confederation 

message: I'm sure there is a valid reason, but I'm not seeing it so could someone explain why Asia and Oceania are grouped together in the section "Performance by confederation". Thanks. --Colourblind 09:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a lot of gray area for Asia and Oceania.  Oceania prior to 1996 wasn't even an official confederation, and was often just one of the qualifying groups within Asia.  And, in the entire history of the World Cup, there have been only three teams which are typicallly regarded as part of Oceania which have qualified - Australia in 1974, New Zealand in 1986, and Australia in 2006.  And Australia won't even be part of Oceania anymore after this year.  Israel's qualification in 1970 technically was out of the Oceania pool of teams competing for Asia'a spot, even though they're considered part of Europe now.  In any case, there's not enough of a history of Oceania participation to merit a whole separate table.  If you want to make a table completely filled with Zeros with the exception of a 1 in 1974, 1986 and 2006, be my guest.--DaveOinSF 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oceania had a seperate qualifying group since 1986, and the winner of the Oceania group allways had to compete in intercontinental playoff. Until 1982, Oceanian teams competed as part of the Asian zone. Therefor, only Australia in 2006 and  New Zealand in 2010 should be considered Oceania's representative.--Nitsansh (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asia and Oceania 

message: The 1982 featured a group stage made up of 24 teams divided into six four-team groups.  Advancing from this round were 12 teams which then competed in a second group stage consisting of four three-team groups.  The winners of each of the four groups advanced to a knockout semifinal game.  A "quarterfinal" is typically interpreted as being a knockout game involving a total of eight teams.  While I've taken some liberties with some of the earlier rounds (calling the final 4 in 1950 a semifinal, and the final 8 in 1974/1978 a quarterfinal) at least in those tournaments the right number of teams were participating.  In 1982, there were 12 teams which had advanced to this second round, so I think it's more appropriate to call it "Round 2" rather than "Quarterfinal".--DaveOinSF 15:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1982 tournament 

message: I this section really meaningful? I mean, the teams qualify in different competitions, why is this important?--Panairjdde 23:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes its meaningful, perhaps not for comparison sake, but if you come here you can use that table to clearly see how many times a certain team has appeared in the finals. Batman2005 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ranking of teams by number of appearances 

message: Dear FIFA,
I am a contributor to Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Currently there is a dispute about how rankings were determined on the Infoplus publication "FIFA WORLD CUP™ ALL-TIME RANKING 1930-2002," especially for earlier World Cups when standards such as goal difference and goal average were not even used. 
The Wikipedia community has observed that some of the rankings of earlier World Cups appear to be based on goal difference. Goal difference was not used in the World Cup finals until 1970. Goal difference was not used in the World Cup prior to 1970; the scheme commonly used was goal average, introduced in 1962. 
Goal average was only used as a tiebreaker if two teams remained tied after a replay of a previous match -- the last step before the drawing of lots.
The different methods (goal difference, goal average) can result in strikingly different results. One side of the argument says that "it is absurd to retrospectively rank teams from past competitions using criterion that was not in use at the time of the actual competition."
In conclusion, it would be of great help if your organization would provide and/or produce the following, to ensure that accurate histories and rankings are kept on Wikipedia:
1. A table for each tournament that lists the teams' overall records and their positions.
2. The criteria for ranking the teams in any given tournament. And if a method to rank teams was not in place at the time of the competition, how is this justifiable?
The community of Wikipedia would greatly appreciate a response in this matter. Also, if it is possible, would you please make an Infoplus document explaining ranking procedures? Thank you very much for your time, and we hope to hear from you soon.
Signed,
Ian Manka, on the behalf of the editors of Wikipedia
Here's a draft of the letter. Feel free to make changes (it's the Wiki way!), and after the World Cup, I'll print out whatever version we have, and I'll mail it (post it). Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should ask FIFA to provide a table for each tournament, listing the teams' overall records and their positions. Then we ask FIFA what is the criteria for ranking the teams (right now appears to be points, goal difference, then goals scored), and whether this is justifiable (especially for tournaments before goal difference is used). That way we can at least double-check the rankings. And I think we should rephrase the comments a little bit.... Chanheigeorge 00:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If somebody uses a different ranking system from those by FIFA, that's original research, and should be taken out. Chanheigeorge 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Looks good. Just say you're writing on behalf of the editors of Wikipedia. Chanheigeorge 00:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changes have been made. Any final thoughts before I copy this into Microsoft Word, print it, and send it? Ian Manka Talk to me! 18:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Criteria is plural. It should be a criterion, unless you consider it part of a real quotation.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  18:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  If any rankings are going to be used they should be the ones FIFA put out, regardless of whether or not its a statistical deception or not.  If FIFA says France finished 28th in the 2002 World Cup, then no matter what anyone says, they finished 28th.  Further, I think if anyone actually sends a letter to FIFA that it'll be the subject of great laughter around the break room table. FIFA likely doesn't give a damn what is on wikipedia. Batman2005 18:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it extremely unlikely that you will get a reply to this. I've sent emails to FIFA in the past and not had a reply. But if you are going to send this, you might aswell point out the situation in 1950, where poor old Bolivia ended up a in a group of two with the eventual winners Uruguay. They only played one game in the group stage which they lost. Mexico played 3 group games and lost them all. Yet Mexico is placed above Bolivia (presumably because of goal differce/average). Bolivia weren't given a chance to redeem themselves with a win or a draw, because they had no-one to play. It is plainly unfair to place Bolivia last. Jooler 18:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, what the hell -- it's worth a shot, right? We have less of a chance of getting a response if we don't send a letter on. Plus, it gives me something to do. We'll see what happens. Edit the letter as you so choose such that it is accurate. Or, how you want it to look Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed FIFA Letter

message: How are teams that qualified for the finals but withdrew prior to the start treated for the purposes of these tables?  It seems they should be mentioned, especially since before the first table it says "A total of 78 national teams have qualified for at least one World Cup tournament"  Technically, Austria qualified for the 1938 WC, but withdrew.  There are other cases of teams withdrawing (Scotland, Turkey and India in 1950), so perhaps a note should be added that these teams qualified but withdrew and that it isn't technically being counted as an appearance.--128.205.153.176 18:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The words "appear" are now always used instead of "qualify", so those countries are not included. Chanheigeorge 00:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I feel that these teams at least merit a footnote for qualifing for the tournament, even if they chose not to participate for whatever reason. --Billdorr 23:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Qualified Teams that Withdrew 

message: In the table of comprehensive team results in each world cup I located 2 mistakes, but cant fix it. Maybe someone can.
Spain should not be listed as 13th in 1982 but 12th
Slovenia should not be listed 20th in 2002 but 30th
:Thanks. Fixed. Chanheigeorge 23:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two mistakes 

message: I just realized the 1998 and 2002 FIFA World Cup rankings were used for the 2006 World Cup finals draw , so I've added the information in the article. Chanheigeorge 01:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings used for finals draw 

message: I think we should go back to combibining Asia and Oceania.  Technically, only Australia's 2006 appearance was out of OFC (both Australia in 1974 an New Zealand in 1982 were out of AFC), and Australia is rejoining AFC anyway.
Otherwise, we can insist that the divisions are _geographic_ rather than based on _confederation_ in which case we can keep it pretty much as it is, only change all references to "confederation" so that it says "continent" instead.  Future appearances by Austrlia will then still count towards Oceania--DaveOinSF 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current classificiation is okay. It's clear that in 1974, 1982 and 2006 the three teams represented OFC (it's natural that there's no Ocenaia zone before 1986 when there are so few teams). From now on, Australia will represent AFC. Of course, we should merge if AFC and OFC ever merge. Chanheigeorge 03:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFC/OFC Again 

message: What is the criteria for this table? There are extensive footnotes explaining where the debuts listed in the table do not conform with FIFA's official attribution of World Cup history. Surely this table should align with FIFA's position, given that it's FIFA's tournament. 203.221.201.182 (talk) 01:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing of Countries by Debut 

message: Where a country has changed it's name and/or jurisdiction, and has subsequently qualified for a WC, it is entirely right and proper that they are listed under the new name, thus allowing consistency in the presentation of such countries' reords in these tables.
However, in the cases of Dutch East Indies/Indonesia, and Zaire/DR Congo, I would suggest that it is more appropriate to give the contemporary name of the team when it qualified.  No RS will state that Indonesia played at the 1938 WC, and I remember watching the 1974 tournament, in which the epiphet "Democratic Republic of" was only applied to East Germany.  One cannot say that Indonesia appeared at the 1938, also the link will direct to that team: one can (in a footnote) say that Indonesia is the current name of one of the teams that did so.  Kevin McE (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contemporary names 

message: I am not at all certain what each of the colums in the overall chart are supposed to be. I can guess at some of them, but others are completly opaque. Can someone who knows more create a legend/key?Naznarreb (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean the host country flag and number? The article does say For each tournament, the host country and the number of teams in each finals tournament (in brackets) are shown. Nonetheless I think the current table runs contra to WP:MOSFLAG. I'm not sure we really need the flags in at all so have moved them. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the "Overall team record" section, the columns after "Team" are labeled Pld, W, D, L, GF, GA and Pts; it is not clear what those headings mean.Naznarreb (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Column Headers of the overall chart 

message: I wonder if this article could have a list of nations by semifinal appearance. It is widely used as a measure of success for the national teams and such lists are included in other competitions' relative articles. - Sthenel (talk) 11:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  List by semifinal appearance 

message: Yugoslavia (1998) and Serbia and Montenegro (2006) was the same country. The only difference is the name, but it was the same country. Why they are considered as different countries?--Igortxo2 (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Yugoslavia and Serbia and Montenegro 

message: Currently both semi-final & final and 1st-4th are listed.  What about doing away with the semi-final and final and just list them as "round 1, round 2, quarter-finals, 4th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st" one thing this would fix is 1950. As there was no semi-final or final (or you count the final group as one as a final.) in 1950 it currently is sort of misleading. So this is how 1950 would look for UEFA
             	1950  (13)
Round 1      	6
Round 2      	—
Quarterfinals	—
Fourth place 	1
Third place  	1
Runners-up   	0
Champions    	0
 chandler 14:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tweaking the recent changes on results by confederation 

message: Is there is an information that Slovakia has asked to FIFA that their records were separated from Czech Rep. and cancelled from the former Czechoslovakia?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.153.226.150 (talk) 23:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slovakia records 

message: In the map of appearances Trinidad & Tobago are coloured in grey, as if they never went to the World Cup, but they did in 2006... Can anyone fix the mistake?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.98.98 (talk) 11:02, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in map of appearances 

message: I believe India was qualified for the 1950 edition, but they withdrew because of the travel expenses. Therefore, they should be listes as (..) - "qualified but withdrew"  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.121.192.189 (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  India 

message: The table under Debut Teams has the key at the bottom, "#Qualified but withdrew". However, none of the teams are marked with #in the table? Grunners (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "#Qualified but withdrew" 

message: Can we expand the color scheme of the Comprehensive results table?  Gold/silver/bronze is perfect, of course, for 1/2/3, and blue's... as good a color as any for 4th, I suppose (it'd be neat if someone knew how blue came around to denoting 4th place, for curiosity).  Since there are so many stages of progress that can be distinguished, how about colors for the quarterfinal, first knockout, and group rounds?  The color scheme could be translated for the years where there was a different format, into roughly equivalent stages of progression. Are there any articles with tables having an elaborated color scheme that could be applied to this one as well? Simplebutpowerful 04:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive results color scheme 

message: I was wondering why India was included on this list. They have never made the finals, and that seems to be opening a very big 'can of worms' as some 200 nations now attempt to qualify for the world cup. If India is included, why isn't Samoa, American Samoa, Fiji, Papa New Gunnie, Iceland, and so many others who compete w/o reaching the finals? I will remove them if no once can give an explanation. Thank you.PeaceKeeper1234 18:23, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: India qualified for the tournament by default. Thus, they qualified. Those other teams never qualified. LordAtlas (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comprehensive team results (India) 

message: The list - "Ranking of teams by number of appearances" , isn't this kind of historical ?
Then I don't think we should include Brazil's qualification for Russia 2018 already.
I suggest that list is updated first after the WC in Russia. (They haven't appeared 21 times already) Boeing720 (talk) 17:16, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Counting Brazil's qualifier already ? 

message: For countries like Cameroon, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Jamaica, Morocco, Nigeria, Senegal, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago and Tunisia it states in the Comprehensive team results by tournament table that they were either part of the United Kingdom or France before independence. Now, is that really correct? Weren't they part of the British Empire and French colonial empire instead of being integral parts of the two countries? To my knowledge, only Algeria, and there only the three coastal departments, were politically part of France. 203.3.24.23 (talk) 23:13, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that labeling former colonies as "Part of [Country]" is misleading at best, especially when there are and have been other not-fully-sovereign territories competing in qualifying and even the finals (Dutch East Indies). I think we should reserve the "Part of [Country]" indication for countries that were fully constituent parts of another country before becoming independent (e.g. East Germany, Slovakia, former parts of Yugoslavia or USSR). Former colonies should simply be classified as "Not affiliated to FIFA" where applicable. Wburrow (talk) 15:18, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Part of France or the United Kingdom instead of the colonial empires? 

message: The article states Defending runners-up are 15-for-18 in qualification efforts for the following World Cup.  What does that mean?  Is "15-for-18" some obscure English expression that I have never heard of (it might be; English is not one of my best languages), or is it just wrong? :) Fomalhaut76 (talk) 13:34, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Defending runners-up 

message: The fact sheet that is referenced above the table for "Comprehensive team results by tournament" only goes as far as 2010.  What is the source or methodology for the 2014 and 2018 rankings? 2A02:C7D:39C:1B00:C803:7101:6EB9:290 (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source or methodology for 2014 and 2018 rankings 

message: Fifa states unambiguously that the former German Democratic Republic team is not to be intended as a successor team to Germany, and therefore there have been 79 participants to World Cup from 1930 to 2018. With Qatar taking place in the 2022 edition, that'll make it 80.
See this document from the FIFA site: all time ranking 1930-2014 -> https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/1785d394c2baed36/original/nynltbogj47gfjtfszqr-pdf.pdf
Please reinstate the German Democratic Republic entry in the ranking as a standalone country consistently with FIFA communication.
Thanks
I have already corrected this page twice earlier on, only to have my changes undone. Please edit the page as I explain above. Note that up to 2021 or so, there correctly was an entry for the German Democratic Republic. 2603:3024:1824:D00:B0E6:D5E3:9EA5:B20D (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the  template. If your edits are being reverted, please establish consensus rather than attempting to edit war via edit requests. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2022 

message: I was looking for a list of debutants per World Cup.  It seems Qatar (as host) is the only debutant in 2022, and was wondering if that was the least number of debutants in a World Cup yet?  It would be nice to have a list here.  Walrasiad (talk) 03:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. It's the very first list. I must have been blind. Walrasiad (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debutants list? 

message: I don't see how the decision was reached to merge this article with FIFA World Cup records and statistics - it certainly hasn't been discussed at either of the two articles - but in any case the claim that all the information that was here can be found at the other article is now false, since nearly all the information formerly present here has been removed from the FIFA World Cup records and statistics (again, as far as I can see, without discussion). Under these circumstances, the merging is no longer justified and has been reverted. Kostja (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. I thought the loss of this article had happened without due process and discussion, and lost very useful information.doktorb wordsdeeds 23:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Aquatic Ambiance says this page was undue, and the whole idea was to get all info on one page. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 02:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The merging of this article with FIFA World Cup records and statistics has been reverted