Talk:1994 FIFA World Cup final

players position in the little green field
There are some mistakes on the positions of the Italian players. Mussi started the final as the right back, so Benarrivo was the left back. And Berti was the left midfielder, so Dino Baggio was the centre midfielder with Albertini. Everyone can check this on You Tube watching the TV presentation of the 2 teams before the start. --87.6.18.121 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you could send me a link to the Youtube video you're referring to, I'll make the necessary changes to the graphic. – PeeJay 23:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, Mondiali USA 94: Brasile - Italia (Parte 1/4), in italian, it's a report from ESPN classic. There is only an error, they put Berti on the right side, but he played the game on the left.--79.2.208.131 (talk) 13:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the link? – PeeJay 16:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

copyright violation
Hi,

About the reversion my edit on the 1994 WC final, I restored the file so as a long time colaborator on Commons, I know that the use of non-PD-US files is not forbidden in Wikipedia, as stated on this discussion on Commons; in fact, there are a lot of articles with PD-AR-Photos/not PD-US-URAA.

Reverting an edit alleging "bad spelling" is not only harsh but also unaccurate (a bad spelling can be fixed by any willing editor). Therefore I have restored the file on the article, and if you don't agree with that, you can open a discussion on the article's talk page. But please, don't revert this without valid reasons to do it. - Fma12 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I reverted for two reasons. That it is a copyright violation, and that is enough to preclude its use here, even if it's not enough to remove it from use from commons. However, the typo can easily be fixed. Do not add the copyvio back. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:39, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
 * so nice of you to continue the edit war and threaten. I have brought the issue to a larger body: see Copyright problems/2020 January 13. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , your arguments are falacious, as I told on your page before you reverted my edit. It was you who started this edit warring when reverting my edit twice 1, 2 on 1994 FIFA World Cup Final, alleging "copyright violation in the US", which is unaccurate so the URAA issue was already discussed on Commons and closed in 2014 as "URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deletion" . Moreover, I don't know any rule that forbid the use of non-PD-US images on this project. In fact, other articles such as Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup) or 1986 FIFA World Cup Final have files with the same licenses.
 * Don't worry, for your non-collaborative behaviour and any will to reach a consensus at all, I'll make a report. Thank you. –Fma12 (talk) 10:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I am showing quite clear and collaborative behaviour and brought the discussion to a location where an actual consensus could be reached.
 * Now speaking of fallacies: WP:BRD is clear. You were quite bold to add a copyright violation here. I reverted and used the copy vio as a valid reason. Then you edit warred rather than discussing. It was only after you reverted that you came to my talk page, not to see consensus but to explain why you you felt that a clear copyright violation was allowed. Yet your logic (it's allowed in the commons) is not a valid reason for inclusion on the English project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You again and again talking about "copyright violation" about a file which is PD in Argentina (country of origin). Have you read the Commons link that I posted on your talkpage? I dont' think so. Regarding your arguments, could you please tell me WHERE it is stated that a non-PD-US photo can't be included into the En.Wiki? In case that MOS exists, I'll decline my request. - Fma12 (talk) 12:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * What you posted on my talk page was moved above, and there's nothing to read on the page you linked. However, there is a clear copyright notice on the image in commons making it clear that the work is not in the public domain in the US (Canada, UK and many other locations) where copyright rules vary.
 * Copyright rules on the English project are clear: WP:COPYOTHERS and WP:COPYLINK. We cannot include copyrighted material and we cannot link to copyrighted material. The whole page . Did you read any of the page discussing copyrights on English Wikipedia? Both the warning template and the copyright page make it clear that you can be blocked for repeatedly posting copyrighted material. You might want to self-revert and remove the image until this has been resolved. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * In the same way, I removed your warning from my talk because all of my edits are in good faith and I'm not the person who usually uploads non-allowed images or vandalises articles. The only non-free images I have uploaded to the En.Wiki were copyrighted logos, with their proper license. Therefore, "being blocked" because of good faith edits of PD-AR files sounds a bit irrational.
 * Of course I'll await until this dispute concludes to go further. Besides, you are free to go to Commons and nominate the image for deletion if you're convinced it is completable unacceptable in this project. Fma12 (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the image copyrighted in the United States? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the image is copyrighted. Is it allowed to be used here? As it is posted and accepted on sister projects. Is there a MOS or guide where I can provide me information about the topic? Fma12 (talk) 15:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for recognizing the copyright status. There is no Manual of Style about this, there is only the policy that I've linked to multiple times. All of them state that copyrighted works may not be included on the English project. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Why "soccer"?
I understand that the host was the United States and all, but that should not be a factor on employing AmEng on a global event where "football" is the preferred term. CharlieBroadway (talk) 17:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd imagine MOS:TIES was applied because it was hosted in the U.S. In any event, if it has been stable, we usually don't go and change styles per MOS:RETAIN.—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus, "soccer" is a perfectly acceptable and universally understood shorthand for "association football" in all English-speaking nations. In fact, Great Britain may be in the minority in using "football" to mean exclusively association football. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Great Britain isn't the end-all of the English-speaking world, though. Nigeria alone has far more people than the UK, with over 200 Million, compared to their 67M. Also take in account that France (whose national team are the current champions) also uses the term "football" despite being English. In fact, out of the entire Francosphere, only French-speaking Canada says "soccer", and that's still a paltry 7.8 million out of nearly 77 million worldwide.CharlieBroadway (talk) 02:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the tournament was played in the United States, where they do call it "soccer". It may not be what most of the world calls it, but it's the appropriate term for this article. – PeeJay 10:52, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for my belated reply, but I disagree with that notion. The nomenclature of the host nation shouldn't be the decisive factor on choosing a lesser-used nickname for a sport contemporaneous spectators and global audience refer to as "football". CharlieBroadway (talk) 06:57, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * While consensus can change, there hasn't been any other support in the past year.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The nomenclature of the host nation is what defines TIES and that's clearly what we are dealing with here.
 * It's not a nickname, nor is it lesser-used. Last I checked the combined population of the US, Australia and Canada far exceeded that of the British Isles. If we're just counting speakers, the sport is called 足球 in the most populous nation in the world. It has the most native speakers on the planet. Should we use that term instead? or perhaps, the next most common language, fútbol (that's Spanish in case you did not know). Since England lost a recent match to Italy, perhaps we could call it calcio in honour of that defeat. Or we could just observe TIES. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * And there's Names for association football—soccer is not just an Amer thang.—Bagumba (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That argument actuallt favors the use of football over soccer. Both Cuju and Calcio refer to "kicking", and considering what part of the body is used to kick, it makes the most use of semantics to employ football. "Soccer" is merely a nickname for the word "association", and stricly speaking can be used as a nickname for non-sporting associations.CharlieBroadway (talk) 23:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
 * From your indenting it's not clear if you are responding to me or to Bagumba. The name of the current sport, not earlier, similar sports, is what is at question. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

For the sake of consistency and compliance with TIES, we should probably correct the misuse of non-American English in all tournaments hosted in the U.S. Same goes for the date format, which some editors keep trying to switch around even in violation of DATETIES.  Sounder Bruce  08:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup Final which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:32, 12 December 2022 (UTC)