Talk:FIFA World Cup/Archive 3

message: -Is it not getting a little ahead to include South Africa 2010 in the winners Summary list? It might serve to inform that SA will be the next hosts but this could be done elsewhere. The empty line to Germany is appropriate as this is a current event and will soon be filled, but SA 2010 is 4 years away and seems out of place in a summary of historical results.
-in the list of this year world cup some one had put france were in the final when they havent got though yet i have fixed this and put italy who are though and germany in a runners up place like they are if you have a problem with this please contact me at my talk page before reverting as it is vandalism to delete things if they are not wrong with out consulting the person who did it --Hunter91 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Summaries table

message: Well... What's this? Conscious 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's the question? I believe they're allowed to copy it but they have to license it under GFDL... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They don't even mention GFDL, neither do they credit the authors. Conscious 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no contact details on the site, and a WHOIS gives postal details only, so I've sent a standard letter to the postal address and listed it on Wikipedia:Mirrors and Forks. Oldelpaso 19:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: That's a welcome development. I'll update the status on the mirrors and forks page, Oldelpaso 07:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ??? 

message: I removed the table of the top 10 nations by appearances, as concerns about the number of tables have been voiced in the FAC. I judged the appearance table as the least valuable, particularly as a fuller version is present in National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup. Oldelpaso 21:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Appearance table removed

message: This article is featured now. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it! Conscious 06:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Siva1979, remember to always cite such broad claims as "The World Cup is also more popular than the Olympic Games." Oh, sorry, that was WP:FA talking. My bad :P — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Citation needed for this claim?! No wonder, you are living in the USA! It is widely accepted worldwide that the World Cup is much more popular than the Olympic Games. This view is held by Singaporean journalists. However, I admit that I can't seem to find official confirmation for this remark. Thus, I need the help of European football (notice I did not use the term 'soccer'!) fans to support my claim. Does anyone have any official reference for this claim? --Siva1979Talk to me 21:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Siva, are you sure you have read this edit summary? Conscious 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured! 

message: The article says that the cup gets 28 billion viewers.  That can't possibly be right, seeing as there aren't that many humans alive at any given time.  Does anyone know the correct figure?  The linked reference says that 37 billion people watched it, so that's even less helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbophobe (talk • contribs) 
:I think it means cumulative, ie the same person is counted twice if they watch 2 matches. It's probably impossible to estimate how many individual viewers watched at least one match. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Presumably one person watching two matches simultaneously would be counted twice. Abut 13:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it explicitly states that the figure is cumulative. Badgerpatrol 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  28 billion people? 

message: I just discovered this Who are the unofficial 1966 World Champions? and Unofficial world champions from 1930. I think it might make an interesting article (needs to be updated). Jooler 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Unofficial World Football Championship (p.s. its Romania). Robdurbar 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahh well there you go. Thanks! Jooler 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: pps. Its Uruguay, and has been for about a month now. Philc TECI 15:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unofficial World Champion

message: Tournament                       	1966 	1970	1974 	1978 	1982	1986	1990	1994	1998	2002 	
1. Brazil                        	Group	WON 	4    	3    	Rnd2	QF  	Rnd2	WON 	2   	WON  	
2. Germany                       	2    	3   	WON  	QF   	2   	2   	WON 	QF  	QF  	2    	
3. Argentina                     	Q/F  	DNQ 	Group	WON  	Rnd2	WON 	2   	Rnd2	QF  	Group	
4. Italy national football team  	Group	2   	Group	4    	WON 	Rnd2	3   	2   	QF  	Rnd2 	
5. England national football team	WON  	QF  	DNQ  	DNQ  	Rnd2	QF  	4   	DNQ 	Rnd2	QF   	
6. France national football team 	Group	DNQ 	DNQ  	Group	4   	3   	DNQ 	DNQ 	WON 	Group	
7. Netherlands                   	DNQ  	DNQ 	2    	2    	DNQ 	DNQ 	Rnd2	QF  	4   	DNQ  	
The above table was removed from the article. I don't think it really adds anything and repeats info from other tables on Wikipedia (and need to be formatted anyway); its also subjective, and starts arbitrairily in 1966; but I've left it here just in case anyone thinks it could be worked into an article or this article? --Robdurbar 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already such table. Conscious 06:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most successful World Cup Teams since 1966

message: Hey, just wondering what everybody would want the box to look like, if the article were to go as the featured article of the day on June 9... I've drawn up the following as a suggestion. Any thoughts for a better picture (though it doesn't look as bad as I thought it would, we need a better picture for the main page)?
 
The FIFA World Cup is the most important men's competition in international football. The world's most representative team sport event, the World Cup is contested by the men's national football teams of Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (the sport's largest governing body) member nations.  The championship has been awarded every four years since the first tournament in 1930 (except in 1942 and 1946 due to World War II). However, it is more of an ongoing event as the qualifying rounds of the competition take place over the three years preceding the final rounds.  In 1991, FIFA added a separate Women's World Cup.
The men's final tournament phase (often called the "Finals") involves 32 national teams competing over a four-week period in a previously nominated host nation, with these games making it the most widely-viewed sporting event in the world. In the 17 tournaments held, only seven nations have ever won the World Cup Finals. Brazil is the current holder, as well as the most successful World Cup team, having won the tournament five times, while Germany and Italy follow with three titles each. The next World Cup Finals will begin in Germany on June 9, and will continue until July 9, 2006.
(More...)
Note that this is only a draft (I just copied the lead section). Any ideas of how to improve it? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed last sentence, as when this is planned on being the featured article, the Finals will be going on. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yay! We finally found a decent picture. I am going to submit this right away. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted. See it here! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The change has been made: through => until. I will recopy the box into Tomorrow's featured article page so that we have the same copy here and at that page. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 14:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Posted on my talk page earlier today: "You requested FIFA world cup be the main page FA for June 9, the day it starts. Featured artilce is not supposed to conflict with other sections on the main page (the selected anniversaries or in the news). The FIFA world cup article will definitely be linked from the news section on June 9, so that's out. I am willing, however, to put it up on the 8th. Raul654 05:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: So, do we just let FIFA World Cup be Main Page FA on the 8 June? That works for me. In my opinion, just getting it on the Main Page is really cool. Any suggestions for other suitable dates? I'll give everyone a day to respond, then I'm just going to say "yes" to Raul. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We got selected for June 8. Go us! — Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured Article of the Day box 

message: Should we tag this as a current event? --Robdurbar 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Naw, wait until June 7 or so. By then, we will most likely be lined up for Main Page FA (keep your fingers crossed), and then we can start making final changes and whatnot. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 01:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template says "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses", I'm not sure if it's necessary because the information in this article in principal shouldn't change very much at all. But it would be nice to have something at the top to direct people to the 2006 article in order to prevent insignificant detail about 2006 being added to this article. But yeh if it does get put on, wait till june 7 as ian said. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  looks like the tag to use. Oldelpaso 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Current Sports Event

message: Check out Silver medal#World Cup. I think we should: (1) Merge this information into the article (or a similiar one -- I don't which one) and (2) find a source for this information. Any ideas? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  We might want to add this information... 

message: Since this article is clearly about men WC, and since it i longer that it should, and since we have a "See also" section reference to Women WC, why not removing the part about the Women WC? In particular, why should we be interested in the difference about how ranking is handled?--Panairjdde 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ranking stuff can go, I agree. I'll make an edit in a few seconds that should fix your concerns. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It has been changed. I've taken out the women's rankings portion and have moved the Men's ranking down to the "final tournament" section. What do you think? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is better, but now the fact that FIFA created a women WC in 1991 is repeated two times. I would remove them both, and put a note.--Panairjdde 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the second mention -- I didn't realize that the same thing was mentioned twice. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Women World Cup 

message: I've looked everywhere to find out if 2 teams have the same colour strips how is it decided which team should wear their away strip? It would be good if someone could explain this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.42.153 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless they can agree, I believe they just toss a cooin to decide, although I have no source for this. Badgerpatrol 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, one of the teams is always "hosting" the game. For example, in Poland-Ecuador (June 9) Poland are hosts (that's why their name is given first). Conscious 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are team strips selected 

message: Here it goes:
:FIFA have announced that if Brazil win the trophy for the 3rd time in 2006 it will be retired and a new trophy will be designed for the 2010 tournament.
Conscious 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You did the right thing. According to newspaper articles in Singapore, this claim is false. Brazil will have to return the trophy back to FIFA if they win it again. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced claim removed from the article 

message: "The decision to hold the second of these, the 1938 FIFA World Cup in France was controversial, as the American countries had been led to understand that the World Cup would rotate between the two continents. Both Argentina and Uruguay thus boycotted the tournament." must be an joke... Your note never say that! Argentina was not in France in 1938 not because of a boycott but for financial reasons at the last minute. There were riots in Buenos Aires for days after that argentian abandon. Uruguay et United States (you forgot them?) didn't go for financials and political reasons. 84.103.176.100 01:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any sources for this? Conscious 10:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  France 1938 

message: While I think this article is great, and take off my hat to those who wrote it, I think perhaps the Awards and Records and statistics section should either be turned into prose, or removed off the main article as the somewhat random lists do not reflect well on the quality of the rest of the article. Any thoughts? Páll (Die pienk olifant) 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: Finally, this article is featured as Today's featured article on June 8, 2006. It is about time as well, considering the importance of this tournament. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's far more important than it should be. The FIFA World Cup's popularity is the perfect example of the commercial sector and peer pressure teaming up to enforce a hype upon the world up to the point where part of me secretly hopes that terrorists will target the very first official World Cup match with something non-lethal like sleeping gas so that for one day at least the news will be blessedly devoid of all the jammering on about Football. Yes I understand that football is fun for the fans, now it's time for the fans to understand football is not as fun for the rest of us who would like to finally resume eating food that isn't doused in one's country's national colours. Rant over, nothing to see here. Robrecht 04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and it most definitely isn't a place for you to contemplate terrorist activities in, Robrecht. —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 05:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Quote - "Someone said 'football is more important than life and death to you' and I said 'Listen, it's more important than that'." Bill Shankly -- Alias Flood 05:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Finally! 

message: The trophy is not in the shape of a cup. 205.174.22.28 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could it be that we've all been calling it the wrong name all these years? Disaster! Quick, we have about 2 million tickets to recall and reprint by tomorrow afternoon! Badgerpatrol 04:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The current trophy is the 2nd of its kind. Does anyone know if the 1st (which, if memory serves, was stolen in Brazil in the 70s and supposedly melted down) was shaped like a cup? Raul654 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To an extent. It was cup-esque I suppose- certainly more than the modern one. see here. Badgerpatrol 04:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia, of course, has an article - see FIFA World Cup Trophy. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cup?

message: I think that I once read, or saw on TV, that the FIFA World Cup is the second largest sporting event in the world, second to only the Olympics. Makes sense to me, but I wasn't able to find any sources that prove this. Maybe you guys have better sources. What do you recon? —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the source claiming Paralympics are the second largest: . If you define it in terms of number of participants, the World Cup if far behind (23*32 << 4000). Conscious 05:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

text: See National sports. Grant 10:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second largest? 

message: At the end of the Successful National Teams subheader, there is currently a link for the term "supportive crowd" that redirects to the 12th Man.  Does anybody else think this should instead link to Home field advantage?  Runch 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a big deal IMO. In addition, the 2 articles you mention are interlinked. Maybe they should be merged? Conscious 17:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that the two are pretty well interchangeable on this occasion. There is already a proposal that they should be merged and discussions to this effect where opinions are invited. Please see the articles themselves for links to the discussions. Alias Flood 18:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home Field Advantage 

message: If what the footnote states - that there were no third place - is correct, then why is there two teams on third place. If nothing was awarded, then surely no teams should be mentioned either? If we can agree they did not finish third, and they did not finish fourth, then they shouldn't be in the table. Poulsen 06:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I lost that argument already, see thar first archive above. That was my position about 6 months ago, but another user kept changing it. The argument ended up on WP:LAME and what we have now is the compromise solution. Jooler 07:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it was that recent argument that made me think, if consensus is that no secondary places were awarded, then it would be logical not to have the table appear so. Especially User:Johan Elisson's link to FIFA World Cup All-time Awards page made me think so. But if this has reached a kind of compromise, I wouldn't start anything again :) Poulsen 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then again if you look at http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/p/pwc/1930.html - and the bottom of the page it says - "Official FIFA World Cup™ Awards" - it lists Winner and Second, but not 3rd or 4th. Check out the other World Cups and you will note the difference. I am going to be bold and remove the USA/Yugoslavia. The person who was complaining last time User:Supersexyspacemonkey has not contributed here for a while. 07:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am being bold too, and replacing USA and Yugoslavia.  Please note that semi-finalists are recognized in the very same format on European Football Championship. Uris 00:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No you're putting USA under a heading that says 3rd and Yugoslavia under a heading that says 4th and then just changing the uppoer heading from 'Third Place Match' to' Semi-finalists'. Jooler 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you want to make it more like European Football Championship, please do.  But it works better than deleting the teams.  I'm not sure I have the capability of changing the headers of the table twice and having it come off cleanly.  You're right, it would be even more correct that way... but either way is more appropriate than deleting the semi-finalists completely. The "and" with the link to explanation makes this quite understandable that there was no match played and were both semi-finalists, as in the Euro table. Uris 00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In what way is it "better" to say that the USA finished 3rd and Yugolslavia finished 4th, when that is just not true. A factual error is "better". You must be using some strange definition of the word "better" that I haven't come across before. Jooler 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, it's saying "USA and Yugoslavia" were semi-finalists.  Yes, the line-up in the 3rd and 4th place columns, which isn't so bad since they finished in 3rd and 4th place.  If you can fix it though, please help out. Uris 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: In order to avoid any more grief with this I've reverted it to the consensus that was agreed last year. Jooler 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we could make it even better if it was like the Euro chart for years they didn't play the Third Place match... I will try to get it done at some point (if anyone can help, it would be appreciated). Uris 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Just to clarify your position - would it therefore be equally acceptable to you to put Yugoslavia under the 3rd column and USA under the 4th? I should point out that I have absolutely no intention of doing that because that would lead to the false impression that Yugoslavia finished 3rd and USA 4th which would still be a factual error. But I just want to know if you would find that acceptable, if you came to this page and saw it laid out that way.  Jooler 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not about 3rd or 4th, it's about recognizing all semi-finalists even when no game was played. Again, see the Euro Results Table which does the same thing. Alphabetical order would seem to be the standard practice. Uris 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right so you would accept Kingdom of Yugoslavia under the 3rd column and United States under the 4th then? Jooler 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a moot point now, but obviously no one would accept that because the team played as Yugoslavia, not Kingdom of Yugoslavia.  You seem to have an ax to grind, with no apparent rationale. Uris 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. The way it is now is fine- it is grossly misleading to put either the USA OR Yugoslavia in 3rd/4th; it simply isn't true. The table as it now stands makes it clear (to my eyes at least) that those two were the semi-finalists, and that there was no 3rd place match. What else need by said? Badgerpatrol 08:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay no problem. That is the compromise that was agreed before. Jooler 09:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, Badgerpatrol, the compromise solution is the most logical, and most people seem fine with it.--Supersexyspacemonkey 23:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1930 World Cup - 3rd place 

message: According to the monument to world champions outside the Estadio Centenario (The stadium in Montevideo where the first world cup was held), Belgium won the gold medal in 1920. Can someone check that info and add it?--Rataube 13:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Conscious 14:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1920's olympic games 

message: The image of the world cup champion nations needs revision.  Brazil is not shown and south america is cut in half. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.8.68 (talk • contribs) 
:It is shown, but perhaps your screen resolution is set to only 256 colours and it has turned the pale blue/grey into white, or perhaps your contrast/brightnedd needs adjustment. Nevertheless, whoever made the map made a poor choice with regard the colours. Jooler 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map image needs revision 

message: The 1950 scores shouldn't be in the table of finals and third place matches. Although those games ended up deciding the winner and the third-placer, they were games in a group format. The famous Uruguay-Brazil match differed from a final in one significant respect : a draw would have given Brazil the Cup. Mentioning the scores of the games in the footnote is enough. Jess Cully 22:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1950 scores 

message: Suggestion:  In the table showing the results of the world cups tournaments, the links on the country names should point to the pages of the respective national teams, rather than to the countries themselves.
:The link you are talking about is the host of the tournament though. It wouldn't make sense to link it to the team. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 06:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links underneath the flags 

message: For the record, this article is not UK-centric and thus does not require UK spelling. Not to mention that the US has been a part of World Cups for longer than England has. There is no reason to revert the spelling of the article to the old British style, but I won't put up a big fuss about it. Uris 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't embarass yourself, hedpeguyuk. It certainly is not Wiki policy that it is best to use British or 'Commonwealth' English for all non-US centred articles- see the MOS . If the main bulk of the article has been written in one style or the other, then that is the way it should stay- whether it is in US or any other dialect of English. Exceptions are made only if there is a specific and irrefutable tie between an article's subject and a particular national language variety. Life is too short to look through the history and check which variety of English has priority on this article- I trust everyone can sort it out like adults rather than resorting to petty edit wars or nationalistic chest-beating (however light-hearted) a la the above comment. Badgerpatrol 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: That's alright then, you're forgiven ;-). (Sadly I've been worn out this week by some fairly tiresome America v the ROW arguing over on the main page talk re World Cup scores on the main page- apologies if I misinterpreted the tone of your comment). I wouldn't say that football is so identified as British so as to necessitate the use of British english; it's an international game. However, if Uris is unilaterally changing the pre-existing precedent for one or the other language style, then it is he who is in the wrong (as laid out in the manual of style). PS- I also noticed that comment; I wonder what he meant by 'island nation'. Hopefully as in 'a nation that makes up part of an island' rather than 'a nation that makes up the whole of an island'- I'm not English either ;-). Maybe we should start a geography wiki? It seems there could be a use for it... Badgerpatrol 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, the article had US English spelling originally ("organized") and it was changed to UK English ("organised") and the reason given was that this is not a US-centric article and thus must be UK English (which is obviously wrong).  Also, I said that England is a "small island nation", which is true... just because they can't claim more than half their island for England doesn't mean they aren't an "island nation", does it?  Would we not consider Haiti to be an "island nation" as well as Cuba? I should pride myself on being just about the only American I know who actually knows the difference between England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. Almost everyone on this side of the water thinks that either the term Great Britain is outdated and/or meaningless, or they think that it means the exact same thing as United Kingdom. Do I fault Americans for not much caring about British geography, or do I fault the Brits for making everything more confusing than it should be?  Perhaps a little of both... either way, for my part I know my world geography quite well, thank ye! I can even point out Monaco, San Marino, Romania, and Ukraine on an unmarked European map... how many Americans can do that?  (Not many, because it's not tested in our school system... granted, our educational system doesn't teach much until the college level.) Uris 13:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, this is the first relevent diff I can find to assist us in making a decision: , from 2001 I believe. It seems to establish the use of Commonwealth English per the MOS, but I must stress that this shouldn't be a big deal- what we don't want is any edit warring over something as insignificant as which mode of the language to use. So long as the article is internally consistent and we can all understand it, then that's all that matters. Cwealth English has priority in this case as a matter of procedure, but that needn't be taken to mean anything outside of a technical matter. Apologies for making everything confusing btw; an elegant solution might be to use large quantities of dynamite to detach England from the rest of the country and float it off across the Atlantic, thus simplifying things  here at home. I would venture that this might be quite a popular solution amongst certain segments of the UK population, particularly at the moment. ;-)  Badgerpatrol 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That does seem to establish Commonwealth English for this article... so even though "organize" may have made it into the article before "organise" ever did, I'm okay with this new change. I want to say though that I have nothing against island-dwellers.  In fact, I currently reside on an island myself! As a final remark though, I must point out to all that football (soccer), like many contributions of lasting value from the UK mistakenly credited to England, was likely invented in Scotland. This information, as with all else, I have gleaned from the Wikipedia article on the subject. Uris 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: There is nothing uniquely American about using the Greek/Latin-derived 'organize' in preference to the French-derived 'organise'. Both are perfectly good British English. Grant 12:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Wait, so why should we prefer one style over another? I naturally assumed Commonwealth spelling because it is more universal than American. --Hurricane Angel 03:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If by that you mean more widespread geographically and demographically, that may or may not be the case, and has been the subject of various lengthy debates in the past. However, Wikipedia policy on this issue is laid out clearly in the MOS (see my link above). It really isn't worth getting worked up about- simply put, whatever has been the prevailing style up till now should stay, whether US, Commonwealth, or whatever. Badgerpatrol 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

text: If england is an island nation for being on an island, every nation is an island, becasue every piece of land is completely surrounded by sea. Philc TECI 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you an elementary school child? Many elementary school children, when first learning geographical terms such as these, correctly point out that all continents are surrounded by water too, and are thus technically islands themselves. See here. (Either way, touché!)   Uris 13:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changing American to British Spelling

message: In the 1934 Section of the table, it shows the country Germany using the flag with the swastika in the middle, but wasnt the official flag the black, white, and red bars until some time in 1935? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.236.162.160 (talk • contribs) 13:53, June 16, 2006 (UTC).
:The Empire Flag you are talking about was not banned in Nazi Germany until 1935, but the Nazi flag was increasingly the flag of choice since its introduction in 1933.  As for that particular World cup, I found a description of the Nazi flag being flown at the '34 World Cup here. I can't find any evidence of the Empire flag ever being flown at the '34 tournament. Uris 21:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This was discussed here ages ago it's in the archive somewhere. In 1933 the Nazi flag was adopted as a co-national flag and flew alongside the State flag . The link you provided specifically says that the team arrived with Nazi flags for the award ceremony, suggesting this this was unusual or unexpected.  I notice that FIFA avoids the use of flags for 1934 and 1938 unlike every other WC on that site.Jooler 10:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: However, in 1934 FIFA did use the German Empire flag () on the official  poster. So it seems that as far as FIFA was concerned in 1934, the German team was playing under the German Empire flag, and that flag should be used here. --Wine Guy Talk 19:52, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well spotted! - That concludes the argument for me Jooler 19:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1934 

message: I noticed some inconsistencies in the flag icons in the article and wanted to run them by everyone before changing anything (due to the FA and likely high traffic right now).  I understand for the Franco Spain, Hungary 1940, and Kingdom of Yugoslavia we don't have SVG versions, but the Flag of England is sometimes implemented as the bordered PNG and sometimes as the SVG (I think the non-border SVG is better personally).  Also, keeping with history, the 1930 US flag should be a 48-star version, and I'm not sure why the SVG for the current 50-star US flag isn't being used.  Any reason not to make these changes?  Craig R. Nielsen 07:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flag icons 

message: In section 3.2 ("final tournament"), it would be nice to explain how the "drawing of lots" in the case of a tie is performed. I realize it is the same term as used in the official regulations (Ref.14), but for a novice reader this does not mean much (and is even confusing -- e.g., does it refer to a new "coin toss" performed when the need arises, or does it refer to the drawing of teams into groups that was done before the final stage of the Cup?)
:Is it better now? Conscious 09:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "drawing of lots" needs an explanation 

message: Dear editors and readers, please share your opinion on whether it is appropriate to put scores of Uruguay-Brazil and Sweden-Spain matches in the results table. I think that it is, because the matches have decided 1st and 3rd place, and the footnote gives a very clear description of the status of these matches. I'm asking because one user repeatedly removes the scores, and I want to know what others think. Conscious 09:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see that it might be misleading to put these games in a table showing finals and 3rd/4th place play-offs. It is only good luck that things worked out this way so that you don't have to redo the table layout. Just out of interest, if this hadn't been the case, how would you present the information within the table? Similar to how the USA/Yugoslavia 3rd/4th place non-existent play-off is dealt with? Also, it needs to be clearer that, unlike a true final, a draw would have been enough for Brazil to win the title. Carcharoth 18:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a draw would have been enough for Brazil and that is why the Maracanazo was not a final. The 1950 World Cup had no final or third-place play-off, because the tournament wasn't organised that way. These two matches just happened to decide who came first and third, but that was pure chance. The table should reflect the tournament's official structure - there was no final and no third place play-off. Jess Cully 08:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1950 "final" and "third place match" scores 

message: "The FIFA World Cup (often called the Football World Cup, the Football World Championships or, more usually, just the World Cup) is the most significant competition in international football and in world sport."
I Googled for the terms listed in this opening sentence (and one other – bracketed), and extrapolated the first couple of pages of search results. The outcome was as follows.
FIFA World Cup: 52.7 million
Football World Cup: 3.4 million
(Soccer World Cup: 5.6 million)
Football World Championships: 14 thousand – of which most were nothing to do with the World Cup
World Cup: 520 million – of which more related to the FIFA World Cup than to all other sports combined
I think it is clear that the World Cup is not often known as the Football World Championships. I suspect that the myth derives from the fact that the name of the World Cup in other languages does often translate literally as 'World Championship'. But this is the English Wikipedia.
: Yes, this is english Wikipedia but the article is about *World Cup*, not about language. Sure the wording was bad but IMO this article should make a reference to the fact that around the world the competition is often called or even known as the Football World Championships - In languages other than English, like in Swedish, German, Danish, Spanish, Italian, Portugese etc... Hardly football nobodies (3 out of 4 quarterfinalists) - G3, 06:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google is not the world. When Queen Elizabeth II opened the 1966 World Cup she said "I now declare the 1966 World Football Championship's Championships open", as seen on Goal! World Cup 1966 Jooler 13:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Google may not be the world, but I think that several hundred million Google results are probably more representative of current worldwide usage than one mention by the Queen on a formal occasion forty years ago. And forty thousand to one is a pretty impressive ratio. Are you sure about that apostrophe? Surely Her Majesty would have said "is open" if that's what she'd meant. Grant 13:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: No that was my typo. Jooler 22:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I would use "championship" (because it is to determine a champion) or "competition" to refer to the World Cup, but not "tournament" - I'd reserve that for sections of the competition. It is a cyclic competition, over a four year period, consisting of several qualifying tournaments and play-offs, plus a finals tournament. Carcharoth 00:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Often known as the Football World Championships?

message: Many of the edits today have been either vandalism or insufficient removals of vandalism. As a result, much residual vandalism remains. Could someone that has the time sort it out? Thanks. --A bit iffy 12:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This looks quite decent: . Conscious 12:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism today [[28 June]] [[2006]]

message: It's probably not a big deal, but why are we using Hungarian flag adopted in 1940 for the 1938 tournament? According to , they used a flag similar to current at the time. Conscious 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hungary flag

message: Someone still puts the Nazi flag on for the earlier German flag. It needs to be fixed. The user that keeps doing that should be banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.19.94 (talk • contribs) .
:See discussion above. It seems this is the correct flag to use. --Guinnog 08:20, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you read the discussion above you will see that the Nazi should be used for 1938 but not for 1934. Jooler 08:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In that case it seems I was wrong and I apologise. --Guinnog 11:51, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Germany flag

message: At certain points throughout the article there are references to the above.  Can I just point out that there has never been any countries called "West" Germany and "South" Korea and I don't just mean in the English language versions of the names.
I think you will find that the official names (in English) are Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of Korea respectively.
"West/East" and "South/North" were lazy Cold War terms used to differentiate between the politically partitioned states but I believe the fact the communist states were/are called German Democratic Republic (the now defunct DDR) and Democratic People's Republic of Korea does that anyway!
I see no reason therefore why you shouldn't just use the name "Germany" (can't use FR Germany as it didn't exist prior to 1949) throughout the article and in Korea's case the following: "Korea Republic" (for South Korea as used by FIFA itself) and DPR Korea (for North Korea).
Currently we differentiate the two Congo's not by calling them "east" and "west" but by "Congo" and "DR Congo" (Democratic Republic of).
:Good point; technically, South Korea is Korea Republic national football team according to FIFA. Never the less, the West German football team is always called "West Germany" or "Germany", regardless of the exact name of the state. smurrayinchester(User), (Talk) 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Germany is represented since 1908 by the Germany national football team of the DFB. Only due to the existence of two (at least!, or four in total) other German states after 1949, the colloquial term "West Germany" was used until 1990 to tell them apart. Basically, only the size of the (West) German state (Federal Republic of Germany) has grown, as former East German states joined in 1990. This has not affected the fact that the pre-1990 and post-1990 German team remained the same, being fielded by the same association, the DFB. It is misleading to distinguish between "West Germany" and "Germany", as both describe the Federal Republic of Germany. --Matthead 02:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "West" Germany and "South" Korea 

message: How long after that winning penalty kick was the page updated? What, 5, 10 seconds? :) 70.178.172.207 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the other hand, I suspect this edit was original research rather than from a verifiable source - but with something like one billion people watching I suppose there's a pretty good argument that this was common knowledge :). -- Rick Block (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  And that's why I love Wikipedia.... 

message: "The championship has been awarded every five thousand years since the first tournament in 600 A.D., except in 1942 and..."
every 5,000 years, since 600 A.D.?
:Just some vandalism. Conscious 21:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ? 

message: When the article is unprotected, please remove the stadia information from the summary table. It doesn't add much, can be easily accessed through the individual tournament articles, and just clutters the table. Conscious 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, it was semi-protection. Conscious 21:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadia in the summary table 

message: Is there a list anywhere on Wikipedia of all the penalty kick shootouts in the history of the World Cup finals tournaments (participants and who won, with links back to the relevant World Cups)? If not, would it be OK to create it, and where? I was just wondering because I know Italy have had a ridiculous number of penalty shootouts. Most of the time they lose, but I was pleased to see them win this time. Which is why I'd be interested in a list of the penalty shootouts in the previous World Cup finals tournaments. Carcharoth 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind. I found this and that took me here, so I'm happy now! Carcharoth 15:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penalty kick shootouts in World Cup finals tournaments 

message: Someone put in the best finishes table that the USA won in 2010.
:It's called vandalism..--Andeh 04:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Funny 

message: It is clear that nobody will be there to argue for Zidane, because, of course, that head butt was a foolish and dangerous activity. And every body who saw the incident would say he deserves such a send off. But what made him to turn into such a furious activity in the last moment. 
He forgot the world cup final, his last match, the referees and tens of thousands of spectators. 
So what Materazzi said would be a serious abuse. Only two people do know that the said one and the heard one. Here is another insufficiency of football law has been revealed. There is no punishment for fouls done by tongue. That must be dangerous, perhaps will create more political, more than a sports controversy. There already arose some rumors about what Materazzi abused Zidane. Some reached such extend that he said a world such as son of a terrorist. 
There must be a reconstruction in football laws, referees must depends upon TV replays, and there must be arrangements to ban abuse word used in the ground. Everybody knows that Italian players are well learned to use abuse words in the ground to make fury to their counterparts. Actually what happened is Zidane fell into the web made by a spider named Materazzi.
Zinadine Zidane would be the most perfect football player born in this earth ever. But he kicked the pot in the last steps. He could overwhelm Maradona and Pele. The world would remember him as a messiah of the football. But zissou, why did he do that in the last moments of the game? Of course, that was the last international game of his life. It is clear; Matteraassi had showered abuse on him. But he could be more patient, because, he is a very experienced player. But a moments misdeed spoiled everything; Some times French team could have lifted the world cup if Zidane were with them in the last moments. And it could be a kingly farewell for him. And the world could remember him as a legend. But Zidnes head butt was dangerous, and everybody who saw it would say he deserves the red card. The football world has got another tragic hero, after Maradona, he ended his career with a ban for using drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.11.169 (talk • contribs) 
:Let's equip each player with a mic and have another referee listening to them all and sending people off for foul language :P Conscious 17:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is there no punishment for fouls done by tongue? 

message: The ranking of the most successful World Cup nations, is in the article based on a very primitive algorithm. Basically it weighs first place as infinitely more important than second place, which is in turn weighed as infinitely more important than third place etc. This is statistically unsound. Behind the idea of a "successful World Cup nation" lies the notion of statisticall overrepresentation. Surely, a team which places second place five times, is more successful than a team which wins the World Cup once, but never again qualifies. Football matches being played by two teams, the resulting tournament is binomially structured. Thus, to quantify the "unlikeliness" of reaching a certain position n (n=1 equals gold, n=2 equals silver, etc.), we may assign the point value 1/n for each team in each tournament, and then add these values up, where the greatest sum belongs to the most statistically high-reaching team. I have done this procedure, for a couple of teams from the table based on first to forth place finishes (n=1, to n=4). The ranking thus produced is (where I have multiplied the values by 12 for clarity):
Brazil 83
Germany 75
Italy 67
etc. (I do not have time to go through the entire table, but the ranking is already apparently somewhat different).
This approach has the virtue of quantifying the success of a team more realistically, whereas in the more primitive approach, a team that won a million silver medals, would still be deemed less "successful" than a team that won but one gold medal. --217.210.227.9 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Such a system would be original research, and thus not suitable for Wikipedia. Oldelpaso 14:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is the usual way of doing things. Medal tables always count the number of gold medals first and only use silver and bronze as tie breakers. Plus the only successful team at each World Cup is the winner. I'm sure Holland would trade in every final and semi-final place for just four years with the Jules Rimet. josh (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table of most successful nations statistically unsound 

message: I have removed the list of logos as a gallery of fair use images is incompatible with the fair use policy. Oldelpaso 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: List of logos

message: I'm not sure whether the newly created World Cup Teams Ranked by Most Medals article (recently added to See Also links on the FIFA World Cup page) is acceptable.  The methodology seems arbitrary (why apply an Olympics-style system, with top 3 rather than top 4, and 3rd given the same value as 1st?), and the text is definitely NPOV.  Perhaps original research?  Thoughts?  Is it salvageable? -- Wantok 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Delete. It's a duplicate of the table here, with the 4th place data omitted, an arbitrary points system and a POV intro.  I think there are tables in this head article that would better be moved to their own separate pages; but "moving" is not the same as "copying & disimproving". jnestorius(talk) 18:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Cup Teams Ranked by Most Medals article 

message: If I recall correctly, there was one tournament in which Oceania had one guaranteed berth in the final tournament - New Zealand qualified (much to the chagrin of Australians). Whilst the comment that Oceania "has never had a guaranteed position" in the World Cup final tournament is not intentionally misleading - it is inaccurate.
:If you mean 1982 (the only time New Zealand qualified for the World Cup), you're incorrect. Oceanian teams played in the Asian zone (for the last time), so no berths are guaranteed for Oceania. Check 1982 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC and OFC), or Oceania Football Confederation#World Cup Qualifiers for the complete info. Chanheigeorge 19:23, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oceania "never having a guaranteed place" 

message: Obviously, the gold, silver, and bronze medals. Unlike the Olympics, coaches recieve medals as well. (At Euro 2000, the runner-up team recieved a plaque along with their silver medals.) But at Korea Japan 2002, there were also medals for fourth place Korea, although I'm not sure if this was in the other FIFA World Cup tournaments. Could anyone elaborate on this? GoldDragon 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is the chance that maybe they gave those medals since Korea was the host, maybe they were some special prize. El Chompiras 00:37, 06 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medals 

message: "Of the ten World Cups staged in Europe, only one saw victory by a non-European team, that being Brazil in 1958. When held outside Europe, the competition has only been won by South American teams. Only two teams from outside these two continents have ever reached the semi-finals of the competition: the USA (in 1930) and South Korea (in 2002)." Does this mean that you are placing North and South America as 2 different continents? But both region make a single continent named America. El Chompiras 00:37, 06 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't prevent you from making the disticntion. You could say Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, since those are the three South American teams to win. It's just a way to be more specific than saying just The Americas. Mariano(t/c) 08:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  America as 2 separated continents? 

message: While the article is great, the lead could use some fixes. In particular, the third paragraph (and the largest one) is just Trivia and statistics, is not suitable for the WP:LEAD and does not represent a summmary of a part of the article. Could someone change and fix this? Thank you. CG 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it a little bit, see if it's better. Chanheigeorge 20:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Much better now. Thank you a lot. CG 19:59, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the lead