Talk:World cup

message: Without disputing the necessity of this article or its location, I propose turning this into a redirect until after the FIFA World Cup. This article could be moved to something like World cup (sports), and we could have a redirect back from the top of the FIFA page. Consider that:
* 'World cup' is the most natural way to search for the event. Few will search for 'FIFA World Cup' and even fewer for 2006 FIFA World Cup, which is the main way to get to the article now.
* This page will get an immense amount of traffic over the next month and a half, 99.9% of which will be looking for the FIFA cup.
* The link at the top of the page is hardly eye-popping - a redirect would be more user-friendly.
* This page is really pretty unimpressive.
The current structure feels a little bureaucratic to me, and it's not a great face to present new users during such an important event. --Zambaccian 11:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redirecting for the time being? 

message: The FIFA World Cup predates the cricket and rugby world cups by 45 and 57 years respectively. According to the list of world cups and world championships, it was the only world cup in existence for its first 23 years – not counting the World Cup of Baseball, which followed after only eight years, but which even many baseball commentators seem to be unaware of (according to its own Wikipedia article). In the same way that the
World Series is the baseball World Series, despite the subsequent existence of various other World Series, the World Cup simply is the FIFA World Cup. Grant 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In Oceania, I would say that the the term would refer to Rugby, rather than football (I disagree with the above poster regarding Australia, the current sporting events may beg to differ, but most Australians would not be refering to soccer when just saying WC). That being said, who actually goes around throwing the term around so loosely? Apart from countries where rugby union, cricket, rugby league is not played, the single term is ambiguous. Also, what is the point? World cup shouldn't just be a page for soccer to gain norotity. I mean I'll admit, in those countries where the RWC, CWC etc dont have much coverage, the single term refers to soccer, but having a map of where soccer is the most popular sport in a world cup article is just pov, it shouldnt really get into what the most popular sport in the world is. This article should represent a worldwide view, and (in my opinion) shouldnt just be trying to push aside other sports that stage world cups. Cvene64 01:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Who actually goes around throwing the term around so loosely?" Well, I'm glad you asked that, because it is precisely the question that the section attempts to answer. And the answer is: Everyone in Britain for a start – whatever their own chosen sport. If Tancred is mistaken about his own country, and it really is uncommon for Australians to do so too (with reference to whatever sport), that just demonstrates that the difference between those countries where the World Cup is the World Cup and those where it is not is more than just a degree of ambiguity or a choice of sport. If someone who is not aware of this comes across the expression, and looks it up on Wikipedia, surely they are entitled to know which world cup is known simply (if not, perhaps, universally) as as the World Cup. They'd certainly find that out if they looked it up in a dictionary. Rugby union, cricket and rugby league are all widely played in the UK – in fact, they were all invented there – and some would consider cricket to be England's national sport. Also, England are the current holders of the Rugby World Cup. Notwithstanding all this, in the UK the World Cup is the football one. Unambiguously. All the other world cups were named after (long after) the original, just as the short-lived cricket World Series was named after the baseball World Series. Baseball has virtually no following in the UK, but the term World Series is always understood to refer to the baseball one. On Wikipedia, "World Series" even bypasses the disambiguation and goes straight to baseball – a move rightly rejected in the case of the World Cup. I put the map in (before I checked the dictionaries) in order to meet a request for a citation. You're right; it shouldn't be necessary. We don't even need a whole section. All we need is a statement near the beginning of the article to the effect that: "Throughout much of the world the expression 'the World Cup' means the FIFA World Cup." It was probably the attempts of people who don't believe what to half the world is self-evident to qualify and water down a simple statement of this kind (despite the fact that they need TLAs to distinguish the various other world cups) that caused it to expand to a section in the first place. I've no intention of garnering notoriety for football, either here or elsewhere; I'm simply trying to prevent the censorship of a fact that for whatever reason appears not to chime with some people's world view. Grant 21:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, maybe Iam overreacting, and you do have good points, but, I really disgaree with any atetmpts to try and say that soccer has a universal relationship with the term, and as for the other posting, I'm not simply disagreeing with him, I'm also Australian, and I'am confident that rugby holds the term over soccer here, and we can't forget about places like Fiji, Tonga and Samoa, and of course, New Zealand. Hmmm, I guess the page just has too much of a Euro-focus, I mean we can't just push aside Oceania and so on, and I think thats what the danger is with trying to make claims to a universal reference. I mean, the page is not massively bias, but I would definantly prefer that the soccer map was removed. Your suggestion "Throughout much of the world the expression 'the World Cup' means the FIFA World Cup." is alright, but why cant the lead be The most notable world cups are Football, Rugby and Cricket. and then, it would be less pov to emphasize ther relevence of current events to the single use, but go onto say how footballs large popularity in some countries sees the single use refer unconditionally to soccer...though in some areas the term is more likely to refer to rugby union......but I do think the current events explaination is mch more important....I dont know.Cvene64 06:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, truly, honestly: If you think that the meaning of the term to most people on the planet is dictated by the currency of a particular event, then you just haven't got it. That's understandable, because you live in a country where association football is probably not in the top six sports, and consequently people there don't 'actually go around throwing the term around loosely'. End of story as far as Australia's concerned: Wikipedia doesn't have to explain something that never happens (although Tancred assures us that it does happen, and when it does it's in reference to football). In most of the rest of the world, people do throw the term around 'loosely' – except that to them it's not loosely, because it has a precise meaning. I would never talk about 'the FIFA World Cup' or 'the football World Cup' outside the unique situation of Wikipedia. Take the second paragraph. After user 213.121.207.34 pruned the genuinely 'not true' last bit, what's left is meaningless waffle: "The meaning behind the unqualified use is most obvious when a competition is current. For example, during June and July 2006 many English people will refer to the FIFA competition in Germany as simply the "World Cup"." I can assure you that all British people with any awareness of sport refer to the FIFA competition simply as 'the World Cup' all the time. It's not even to do with football's popularity. It's to do with history. Grant 13:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Cvene64 - I would have to agree with Tancred concerning Australia. Over here in the West "The World Cup" refers to football (soccer), as opposed to 'the Rubgy World Cup' or 'the Cricket World Cup, which must be specifically mentioned to avoid confusion. The only exception to this would be when talking to South Africans or New Zealanders. I for one vote for the "World Cup" to refer to football (soccer).Skooter 13:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Historical argument

message: :::::I'm interested to know what is understood in India/Bangladesh/Pakistan by "the World Cup". --Dweller 14:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anecdotal, I know, but when I was in Calcutta in 2003 my Indian companion showed me the stadium "where India beat Pakistan in the World Cup Final".  Being English, I was about to retort that - as far as I knew - those countries had never competed in the [football] World Cup, before it dawned on me that he was talking about another sport.  Mind you, I'd earlier been in Munich, where my German host showed me the stadium "where Germany won the World Cup", and on that occasion there was no ambiguity at all, I'm afraid. 62.231.145.254 10:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps, as he was showing you a cricket stadium, he assumed you knew he was talking about cricket. Grant 11:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead picture on the front page of the online Times of India (21 June 2006) is of a Portuguese player doing a stretching exercise. The caption doesn't mention football, or even the World Cup. Presumably the paper expects its readers to take for granted that the picture relates to the World Cup. At the bottom of the page, there is a list of World Cup story links under the heading 'World Cup 2006', suggesting that even in India people are more likely to need reminding what year it is than that the World Cup is about football. Grant 11:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: (indenting back here to help readability) Firstly, a warning - that URL caused 4 annoying pop-ups on my PC. Argument cuts both ways - this article  on the same site, refers to a cricket world cup as "World Cup". I'd be more interested in sub-continental print sources anyway, as these would undeniably be written for the consumption of the local population. --Dweller 11:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's hardly the same, is it. This (non-sport-based) article refers twice to the "2007 World Cup", in each case clearly establishing the cricketing context in the same sentence. Obviously, once the context is tightly constrained, the specific sport doesn't have to be appended to the term. The article should establish what is meant when no context has been established – and that is quite definitely football. And what percentage of those relying on the Times of India web site for their World Cup news (rather than astrological predictions about Indian cricketers and the Gandhi dynasty) would you expect to be from outside India? Even if the online version really is aimed at a primarily international audience, and the editors really have omitted any explicit reference to FIFA or football from their World Cup headings for their benefit, surely that says something about the international perception of the World Cup. It must do if it's worth (apparently) confusing more than a billion Indians. Grant 19:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Indian subcontinent

message: Despite the extensive discussion above, I want to try again to settle this whole world cup mess.
Please let me know what you think:
#It is my belief that the phrase "World cup" should be capitalized as such: "World Cup." Very few (if any at all) competitions title their event _____ World cup. I feel that this should be capitalized.
#Currently, we have three pages dealing with the term "World Cup." The first is this page (World cup -- changed to such a name after I performed some page moves which swapped around names). This page is a glorified dictionary definition in my opinion. The second is World cup (disambiguation), which lists competitions named "World Cup." The third is List of world cups and world championships, a very extensive list, which includes (to the best of my knowledge) all of the competitions already mentioned at World cup (disambiguation).
#In terms of international viewership, the FIFA World Cup is the most widely-viewed sporting event in the world, with 1.1 billion people watching the 2002 tournament final. source It is the goal of all editors to ensure that when users type in something in the search window and hit "Go," that they will find what they are looking for within a reasonable amount of time.
That being said, I propose:
#Capitalize "World cup" appropriately, on World cup and World cup (disambiguation).
#Either:
##Merge the current World cup page into World cup (disambiguation).
##Move the current World cup page to World championship. This would allow the generalized form of the term "world cup" (which will be reserved for competitions actually named as such) to serve a purpose at its new name -- "World championship" refers to a contest for teams or individuals to compete for a title of being the world champion of some sort -- the same goal of a World Cup (in any sport).
#Redirect World cup to FIFA World Cup. This is the most common usage of the term, as measured by international viewership. See above. To relieve confusion, the  template would be used, redirecting users to one of the following:
##World cup (disambiguation), as it would (a) list all contests named World Cup, (b) give a link to a more extensive list, and (c) either (1) have the general definition/explanation of "World cup/championship" or (2) have a link to the World championship page, depending on the results of what we do with the World cup page.
##World championship, with another  template directing users to either the extensive list of competitions that are the world championships, or the World cup (disambiguation) page.
In an effort to gauge consensus (and possibly take some action on the fronts stated above), I've set up some votes/polls (depending on your view of Wikipedia is not a democracy). Please vote only once per proposal. Each will be numbered according to the above list. If you want to add any proposals that I haven't thought of, please do so, but only add new additions to the bottom of any lists to maintain numbering. Ian Manka Talk to me! 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 

message: :Though it violates some rules of capitalisation, it is certainly what is used most commonly. Sam Vimes 09:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: #The reason the term is seen more commonly capitalized than not is that 99% of the time it refers to a particular world cup, rather than to world cups in general. Why blur a useful distinction by capitalizing the generic use? It's quite simple: a world cup (like a king) is not a proper noun, and so does not require capitals. But, like the King (of whatever country or musical genre), the World Cup (whether in reference to football or to a previously identified other sport) is – and does. Grant 17:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: Merge the current World cup page into World cup (disambiguation).
==== Support ====
#
==== Oppose ====
# See 2.2. Besides, the article serves two different purposes if we're going to include a list of every world cup in addition to a general treatment of the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Vimes (talk • contribs) 
# The net effect of 'merging' this article with the disambiguation page would simply be to delete the article. If the undoubtedly useful information from this page were added to the disambiguation page, it would cease to be a disambiguation page – if it ever was. In fact, looking at it again, it is the disambiguation page whose creation was misguided. It falls between the two stools of this article and the list page, achieving nothing. I would delete the disambiguation page, and replace the 'other uses' reference to it in the note at the top of this article with a link to the list page – moved from the 'see also', which could then be deleted (as the World Series link has no place here). Grant 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2.1 

message: # See 2.2. Besides, the article serves two different purposes if we're going to include a list of every world cup in addition to a general treatment of the concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Vimes (talk • contribs) 
# The net effect of 'merging' this article with the disambiguation page would simply be to delete the article. If the undoubtedly useful information from this page were added to the disambiguation page, it would cease to be a disambiguation page – if it ever was. In fact, looking at it again, it is the disambiguation page whose creation was misguided. It falls between the two stools of this article and the list page, achieving nothing. I would delete the disambiguation page, and replace the 'other uses' reference to it in the note at the top of this article with a link to the list page – moved from the 'see also', which could then be deleted (as the World Series link has no place here). Grant 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: Move the current World cup page to World championship.
==== Support ====
# I like this one - I think "World championship" is probably the proper place to host a general article on the concept, while someone typing in World Cup is probably looking for information on his favourite World Cup. It should be mentioned on the World Cup page, though, something like For a general article on the concept of awarding a title to the champion of a particular sport, see World Championship or somesuch (better phrasing requested) Sam Vimes 09:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was do not redirect. Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal 2.2 

message: # I like this one - I think "World championship" is probably the proper place to host a general article on the concept, while someone typing in World Cup is probably looking for information on his favourite World Cup. It should be mentioned on the World Cup page, though, something like For a general article on the concept of awarding a title to the champion of a particular sport, see World Championship or somesuch (better phrasing requested) Sam Vimes 09:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: # There is a case for a world championship article – but in parallel with this one, not instead of it. Then the bits from here that are not related to world cups could be combined with other types of world championship not covered here, such as the challenge type (boxing, chess etc.). There is a difference – as evinced by the fact that some sports have both a world cup and a world championship. Grant 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: * If we were to move World cup to World championship, then World cup (disambiguation) would be moved to World cup, and List of world cups and world championships would either:
*# Be merged into the new World cup article after the World cup → World championship (that is, the disambiguation page)
*# Be listed as a "see also" section at the bottom of the new World cup page, as well as the World championship page
* The italicized heading at the top of the new World cup page would read something along the lines of:
** This is a disambiguation page of uses of the term "world cup." For an article about the concept of world cups as a whole, see World championship.
* So, that's what it would change to, if this proposal would pass. Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was do not redirect. Ian Manka Talk to me! 07:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: # Though World Cup is mostly used in connection with football only, there are so many other world cups that it may be expected that people will complain about a simple redirect. Sam Vimes 09:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: Why oh why does this page not directly link to the Football world cup?  I've read all the arguements below but it's still not in any way convincing.  World Cup is taken to mean the football world cup by almost everyone in Europe, East Asia, West Asia, South America and by many people in the USA and Canada.  Only a few countries (India, Pakistan, Australia, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and the Carribean) would use the term to refer only to the Cricket World Cup.
You had a vote on the matter but like all Wiki votes it's worthless - only those strongly opposing will bother to vote.  Only techies will vote and not ordinary non-geekie Wiki users.  Why doesn't Wiki just have statistics to see what page people who visit 'world cup' visit next?  Wiki votes are a joke. Xania 18:03, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are the only diplomatic procedures we have, and everyone is entitled to have their say. We can't just say an opinion is right "because", we need consensus, from people that are willing to build one. Without that, we're all just acting unilaterally and that leads to edit warring.
Out of interest, the countries you name that wouldn't consider the Football World Cup the primary World Cup, may only be few in number but consist of a great deal of the population of the planet, around a quarter by a quick guess. Erath 01:16, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Football world cup?

message: Several other languages Wikipedias articles are linked here as the translation, but they are not, as they should be translated World Championships - like Weltmeisterschaft in German (instead of Weltpokal or Weltcup), Championnats du monde in French (instead of Coupe du monde), also Portuguese Campeonato do Mundo is surely the World Championships and I am sorry I cannot read the Korean and Japanese language. I only repaired the link to the Czech Wikipedia, where the situation was just the same. Okino 02:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong links to other languages Wikipedias 

message: After reading it, I feel that I have gained no information whatsoever. It contains Weasel Words ("However, in some sports the Olympic title carries at least as much prestige."), Vagueness ("Some sport governing bodies prefer the title world championship", and I'm not sure it represents a world view. (As "World cup" means many things depending where you hail from, but the page lists fifa world cup, and only two of the potential world cup formats, without examples)
Looking back over the discussions, I see there's lots of (valid) points and suggestions made, but at the moment, this page just seems to be solving a problem that doesn't exist. At the least, cites and examples are needed. Personally, I feel this information would be better condensed down, and used as an opening paragraph for either the disembarkation page, or the list of world cups page. 81.149.182.210 02:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something is wrong with this page 

message: Is there currently any objection to this rather thin but accidentally much-visited article being moved away somewhere (like World cup competition)? This would be in preparation for making World Cup either a disambiguation page or a move destination for FIFA World Cup, depending on the result of the move debate.--Kotniski (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to be bold and do this.--Kotniski (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose speedy move

message: The IAAF World Cup doesn't fit in to either of the types described here. Geschichte (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another format 

message: 59.101.76.18 (talk) 06:37, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - This is not a "spot the difference competition" Please suggest any changes in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2016