Talk:FIFA World Cup/Archive 1

message: The old table was much better. We also appear to have lost the footnotes. Mintguy (T) 02:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Table (this was before the New New Table)

message: I very much appreciate work put in on the "new new" table. The "old new" one that replaced the "old old" one was was all cocked up and I had it on my TODO list to fix it. So I like the "new new" table but... I think it should be ordered the other way up, having 3 blank rows at the top looks odd. Mintguy (T) 23:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New New Table

message: For Germany in 1934 we display the Nazi Swastika.
According to http://www.nationalflaggen.de/flags-of-the-world/flags/de1933.html the Nazis re-instated the Red White and Black (the old Imperial flag) when they came to power in 1933. This flag flew jointly along with the Swastika (representing the ruling party) until 1935 when the Swastika became the flag of the German state. For accuracy sake should we be showing the Red Whit and Black flag? See also Flag_of_Germany. Jooler 09:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazi flag

message: Do we really need a disambig message for the Women's WC? If this page was at "World Cup", sure, but this way I don't think it's really needed, as I don't see many people coming here looking for the Women's tournament, and if they are, there are links at the bottom. But I am not sold either way. --Dryazan 12:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one cares, I'm removing the disambig. --Dryazan 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambig message

message: Hello, would some kind football person take a look at my translation from German of The Miracle of Bern (on the 1954 World Cup game) and check that the football terms are correct? I'm a native speaker of English but not a football fan! Thanks... Saintswithin 19:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Miracle of Bern]]

message: *Why are ther six or seven medals in that cabinet, each with a different design?
*1. http://www.worldcup.isn.pl/en/cups/1930.htm "There were no medals - participating teams received souvenir plaquettes" Jooler 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  bogus medals 

message: There was never any argument here, there was never any pretense of superiority; there was merely a presentation of available evidence.
So now, FINALLY, after what feels like centuries of tolerating an exaggerated, utterly groundless hostility and infantilism, I now see before me very reasonable counter-evidence, proving I was wrong, WHICH IS ALL I WANTED TO SEE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Please, get off the pedestal Jooler, the aim of posting here is not to make empty claims, or to exploit the data to insult dissenters or make them feel like idiots; the point is to politely PRESENT the data and make one's case; it is about objective exchange of information.
You have finally realized that you are not above having to back up your claims, and by sharing this data there ceases to be a controversy, because my aim was never to force one desired outcome, just to analyse.
I came here to get to the bottom of things, not to point my finger and make snide, sarcastic remarks to make others out to be fools simply because they disagree, much as you have done and continue to do. It might give you intense pleasure to rub the "truth" in my face, but fortunately for me the truth is all I wanted to see. God knows, it certainly never gave me any pleasure to "prove Jooler wrong with my data," I don't even know you; you are just another screenname on a public internet site, so this massive undercurrent of indignation you have towards me is rather...  dumb.
>>gives Jooler authentic replica gold-colored plastic medal in honour and recognition of winning an inconsequential debate in an inconsequential discussion board with a perfect stranger<<
--Supersexyspacemonkey 01:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, Bogus Medals, and also Bogus Argument. Lose the Attitude 

message: While this matter is under review I would suggest that the anon user aka supersexymonkey, desist in changing the article to reflect his own interpretation of other peoples' arguments. I would also appreciate it if that user would desist in personal attacks. Jooler 12:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Jooler 12:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I love how your emphatic "re-iteration of facts" conveniently and selectively ignores those "facts" you wish to ignore, like the fact that an official FIFA source states a 3rd place ranking, in direct contradiction to your claim that no criteria existed in 1930. Of course, I do accept, given certain links you have provided, that the official sources offer contradictory information, and being a reasonable person, I am willing to accept compromise rather than impose the solution I had originally preferred, but I certainly do not resort to evading those facts I do not like, and then passing off an incomplete list as if it were a final, comprehensive, and intellectually honest analysis, when it is not.
--Supersexyspacemonkey 03:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that many complained of the players on the USA team as not actually being American but of British descent, which were called "ringers". While that doesn't change what happened 70 years ago it does counterbalance the solidity of the Americans' 3rd place rank.--Hurricane Angel 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I heartily, but respectfully, disagree Hurricane Angel, the old "ringers" accusation is largely a fantasy, and the descent of some of the players does absolutely nothing to "counterbalance" the solidity of anything. The fact is they did not learn to play football in Britain; they were merely born in Britain, came to America at very young ages, and learned to play in the States. Some of them later went on to play in European leagues, but only after the World Cup. There were all perfetly legitimate American nationals who played for their home country, and used their country's footballing skills to achieve the final result. The United States was not a week footballing nation at that time, and the persistent idea born by some that these players necessarily had to have been "imports" in order for the States to secure such a final standing is a product of mostly modern bias/confusion regarding the history of Associaton Football in the USA. 
--Supersexyspacemonkey 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: re-iteration of facts

message: Theres alot of talk and no progression. Instead of simply drawing out facts, and figures (the same ones, over and over), how about a vote? Three options: To set them both in the same place (3rd or 4th), USA 3rd - Yugoslavia 4th, OR keep them both completely off just like it is currently. Good idea or nay? (originally posted without a sig) - --Hurricane Angel 
While this matter is under review I would suggest that the anon user aka supersexymonkey, desist in changing the article to reflect his own interpretation of other peoples' arguments. I would also appreciate it if that user would desist in personal attacks. Jooler 12:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: Looking through the article I see that Uruguay has been listed as hosts for the 2030 World Cup, I find this hard to believe myself, I am an avid football fan and yet have never heard any word or evidence about this at all, and it would be incredibly strange for FIFA to award a World Cup 25 years in advance, historical importance (due to the 1930 edition) or not. Especially considering that Uruguay could never host a tournament that has ballooned into the massive worldwide competition that the World Cup is now, and wasn't in '30. Can anyone actually prove this is indeed true, or that this listing, as I believe merely someone hoping against logical thought FIFA will award it to Uruguay. Ajp100688 15:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: 2030 World Cup Hosts ?

message: I maintain that SCG are making their debut in the 2006 World Cup. The Yugoslavia of 1930, indeed the Yugoslavia of 1992, is not the Serbia and Montenegro of 2005. The nation is new, technically and literally, and has never qualified in its current state before. It is making its first appearance in its current form, and that is why I have added it to this debut list. doktorb 07:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree 100%, we did mark Croatia and Russia as first timers, we should do the same with SCG. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 15:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I disagree and agree! The name Serbia and Montenegro is making its debut, but it is the same territory as Yugoslavia was in 1998. I agree though it is different to the Yugoslavia team that play in finals between 1930 and 1990. I have amended the article explaining this. Phildav76 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had already debuted in 1998, and that nation was politically Serbia and Montenegro under a different name. Croatia was named as a debutant because of their preference to independence while Serbia/Montenegro hailed itself as the direct successor of Yugoslavia. Even so, you mean to tell me that we're not actually listing the debut of countries but just their names? FR Yugoslavia is enough and it reveals the true debut of the nation, they don't need a third first-time entry into the world cup. --Hurricane Angel 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I wrote that statement thinking about the 1990 Yugoslavia, not the 1998. --Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for this. I think the edit is more than enough to explain the situation, so I will gladly concede that all that could be done has been. A rare occurance of disputes not taking that long to sort!=) doktorb 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia & Montenegro 

message: There seems to be some toing and frowing regardign the Yugoslav flag for 1930. The correct flag for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for 1930 can be found here. Note that it includes the royal crest. Jooler 12:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some research on this issue, but postponed it because there are very few sources on waht the state flag was for the KofY/KofSCS. I assumed that the flag with the crest was a naval/presidential flag, because not too many national flags carry a crest on it. I guess that source is the most accurate I've found eyt and will upload the crested flag once a larger/higher quality image is found. --Hurricane Angel 17:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Yugoslavia Flag

message: There's no info on the World Cup page to explain how teams qualify for the tournament.  What does it mean to "qualify" or how does a country (national team) do so?  [Karl]
66.202.69.46 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes there is, just click on the "Qualification" link or here Football World Cup 2006 (qualification). Sebastian Kessel Talk 19:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: HELP: Missing Info

message: I think that the number of appearances for Germany and West Germany should be combined since it is really the same national soccer association. kingjeff
:And what about the appearance of East Germany in 1974? Jooler 02:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Total appearances for a united German side is neither 4 nor 6, it is 5 isn't it?  1934,1938,1994,1998 and 2002? Jooler 07:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like you're right with Ger. But it can't be considered the same country as WG or we would need to do the same with Russia and Yugoslavia. A different country is a different federation, inherently. Sebastian Kessel Talk 04:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm neither for nor against, but there is a slight difference with Russia and Jugoslavia: Germany united wereas the slavic countries splet. The real problem is that East Germany also participated of 1974 FIFA World Cup (actually beated West Germany in a match); that means we have to count that double to Germany? Or count East Germany as a country, but Germany and West Germany as the same?? Are each of the 3 by itself? I'm for the later. Mariano(t/c) 07:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly. Jooler 07:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, they are 3, Germany pre-post division, and 2 Germanies (E and W) divided. It only makes sense. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Officially, FIFA attributes results of Deutscher Fußball-Bund representing West Germany to Deutscher Fußball-Bund (identical body) representing Germany. See FIFA official statistics -- 80.137.117.115 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: For this reason, Germany as World Champions of 1990 (then West Germany) did not need to qualify for the 1994 finals in the USA. -- 80.137.117.115 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Germany/West Germany World Cup Appearances''' 

message: I recently split National Team Appearances In The Football World Cup and Football World Cup Awards off into their own articles to help reduce the article size. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article size implementation is to reduce needlessly large files into more manageable sizes. However, this being the world's largest sporting event it is probably natural to be so large, I've been editing it since last summer and I didn't see any problem with the "this article exceeds xxKb". The only real question is whether or not National Team Appearances deserves to be in the World Cup page, or in an individual page. Personally I'd like to keep it in the world cup. --Hurricane Angel 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I just recently saw the xxKb template, and I saw it was at around 52 Kb. I know it'd be huge, but appearances in the cup took up a large portion of the article, and I thought it was sufficient to split into a new article. It looked to bulky in my opinion. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 03:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the split, the article is cleaner, although maybe the "Top 5" appearances (or some kind of summary) should still stay in the article for information sake. Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the table to a top 10 list. Hopefully it's clearer than before. Chanheigeorge 08:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New pages split from this article