Talk:FIFA Confederations Cup

2007 Tournament
The confederations cup through history has been held every two years. I know that there is some debate as to whether the 2007 tournament will be held but I have not found any source that difinatively states that it will only be held one year previous to the world cup. Is there a source for this?
 * See here: "Furthermore, the Executive Committee upheld a decision reached at its meeting on 6 October 2004, stating that from 2005 onwards, the FIFA Confederations Cup will be staged in a four-year cycle, with the World Cup host nation organising it in the year before the FIFA World Cup™. However, the South American and European champions will no longer be obliged to take part." --Gabbec 02:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

King Fahd Cups
While acknowledging the role played by the King Fahd Cups in bringing about the creation of the Confederations Cup, we can't count the KFCs as real Confederations Cups. Not all the confederations were invited to send their champion clubs to these, and they weren't official FIFA-sanctioned tournaments. The first tournament to feature all the confederations was the first official FIFA-sanctioned one in 1997. That was the first genuine Confederations Cup. Jess Cully 08:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC) Seven years after the preceding comment, I wonder why are King Fahd Cups stats still polluting those of the official FIFA-sanctioned tournament? Why isn't the King Fahd Cup only a note as a historical precedent? What does it take to make this Wikipedia page accurate, truthful? 177.142.35.120 (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Because the FIFA itself also names those two tournaments as part of the Confederations Cup historie. FIFA took over the organisation from the Saudi's and renamed it, so it's the same tournament. 213.124.185.10 (talk) 5 june 2016

Qualification
Does some know official rules for qualification to tourtment. As for article, vacant place is occupied by World Cup runners-up. But there were exclusions: (1997 - UAE, 1999 - USA). These teams were continental runners-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiusnick (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . 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. 

Move. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Requested move
Confederations Cup → FIFA Confederations Cup – per FIFA World Cup, the full official name should used Matt86hk   talk  12:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~


 * Support, per proposal, plus possible confusion with the CAF Confederation Cup (and create some disambig for Confederation Cup, currently redirecting here). --Gabbec 16:53, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support and make Confederation Cup a disambig page per Gabbec. TJ Spyke 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, obviously. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:20, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Support, official name. Chanheigeorge 00:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
Add any additional comments
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Vandalism?
Why is Iraq listed as the 1997 3'rd place team? It should be Czech Republic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dac545 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

General Statistics
Someone eliminated the percentage section of this table (it was the percentage of "points" that the team picked up in all matches played). I'm fine with this, but we need to decide a way that we should order the teams. Currently they are still ranked by this old percentage. Someone making their first visit to the site wouldn't understand why they are in the order that they are.

By the old standard, Spain should be #1 (they have picked up maximum points from their one game) but we could do something different if anyone has suggestions.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dac545 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest lose the colour bands and the ranking column, and make it a sortable table, then the reader can decide the order. Kevin McE (talk) 23:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In the absence of other suggestions, I have done as I proposed here. Kevin McE (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a template in this section saying that the information is out of date, but it looks perfectly fine to me. Is there something on the table that needs to be updated or is the template no longer needed? Christophee (talk) 11:37, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Results summary
The table to report a summary of results can have no meaningful content until the final placings are settled. There is no merit in placing an essentially blank line at the bottom of the table. The only possible advantage of it is to give a link to the current event, but that is already available at the top of the page. Please do not re-insert such a line prematurely unless there is a clear perceived advantage in having it there, in which case such benefit can be explained here. Kevin McE (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It provides a link to the current event that's not hidden in the text, and it lists the hosts. Most of the other sports articles list the current event, as it's a very useful way of navigating. Removing reduces the usefulness and navigability of the article dramatically, since most people will be coming to this article because of the current event. Greenman (talk) 18:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin McE, it looks like you have reverted 4 other editors who have added information about the current event. Please respect the consensus, both here and what seems to be at most other sports articles, and do not remove this information. Greenman (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no information there: I am removing empty fields. There are already 4 links to the current event on the page: why would anyone need more than that?  I am only removing the current event from the RESULTS section, because of the precise nature if results in a sport: they are not known until the conclusion of the event. Kevin McE (talk) 19:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please don't edit war, and there's no need to SHOUT. As explained, there is information there - a link to the current event, a mention of the host. It also adds to navigability. That's why it's done on most other sports articles. Shouting and running a one-man edit war is a waste of energy. But as you wish, the event will be over soon, and your reverts will need to be undone soon anyway. Greenman (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would appear that you did not read my reply. There are already 4 links to the current event, 2 of which mention the host, on the article.  Obviously, by next weekend, there will be results: then, and only then, will we be able to summarise the results of this event.  I don't like shouting, but sometimes people seem determined not to listen.  Kevin McE (talk) 08:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see the edit warring has continued, and you've now reverted about 8 different editors. Perhaps you can admit you are in the minority, and let the line stand, rather than reverting yet again? I read your reply perfectly well, but you didn't address any of the issues. You just seem to have a pedantic "results is results" attitude, and seem determined to ignore all the other editors who clearly disagree. Please respect the consensus, and leave the line as is this time. Continually reverting is a waste of your energy (and the editors who in good faith keep adding the line), and contributes nothing to Wikipedia or the quality of this article. Greenman (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Consensus is the result of discussion, not of editors acting with disregard to the talk page and edit history. The only "issues" you raised were navigability (and I pointed out that there are already 4 links to the current event on the page), and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is not a valid argument.  You have not addressed the facts that no new info is presented, and that results cannot be summarised for a future event. Kevin McE (talk) 16:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Since Kevin McE has such a problem with the "Results" phrase including future items and blank boxes (heaven forbid!), why don't we call the section "Tournament summaries" or something? After all, we have a subsequent section called "Participating teams and results", and that's a little redundant. Simple but powerful  04:22, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Apart from the obvious fact that something that has not happened cannot be summarised, what is the point of boxes that will be empty for many years, regardless of what header the section has? An encyclopaedia is for reporting what we know, not what noone can know. Kevin McE (talk) 21:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
 * However many times future/current hosts may be mentioned earlier in the article (though I can't find any mention aside from the table in question), it's still helpful to visualize in the table the fact that the next couple Confederations Cups are going to be held in Russia and Qatar and will take place in 2017 and 2021. As Greenman pointed out, that's something that's covered by the table and that we do know.  The emptiness of the boxes (we can fill them with "TBA" if we like, but I am fine with leaving them blank) is not a problem in an ever-expanding encyclopedia; after all we do know that there will be first, second, third, and fourth-place teams in the tournament's future editions, and this knowledge can be represented by the extension of these boxes into the future.  Your argument, Kevin McE, is no more valid than this point I have just laid out - one which many share with me.  So, in absence of a strict policy on the matter, the consensus prevails.  I haven't heard a word against the empty boxes other than yours.  Simple but powerful  03:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction
There is a contradiction as to the forerunner of the tournament:

At start of history section: "The tournament was originally organised by and held in Saudi Arabia and called the King Fahd Cup (or Intercontinental Championship), contested in 1992 and 1995 by the Saudi national side and some continental champions."

At end of history section: "The first forerunner of the Confederations Cup was the Mundialito, or Copa D'Oro. The Artemio Franchi Trophy, contested in 1985 and 1993 between the winners of the Copa America and European Football Championships, is considered a precursor to the Confederations Cup[2] and was effectively replaced by the tournament in the same way that the Intercontinental Cup club tournament preceded the FIFA Club World Cup."

If they were both forerunners this needs to be clarified. Also 1 should be moved so that they are next to each other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.194.180 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

South American Champions
I am making a table for the teams in each Confederation for future references. Mr Hall of England (talk) 15:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but what are these for? They don't seem to comprise or invite discussion about the article, which is the purpose of a talk page.  If they are your proposal for additional info in the page, then I would suggest that teams declining an invitation is more relevant to the articles for each edition of the cup, not this one.  Beware of OR: "these are the teams that would have (note: have, not of) been eligible had the rules at the time been that the champions of each confederation were to take part". Kevin McE (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Reinstate Brasil as host per 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup
Reinstate Brasil as host per 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup 99.39.184.89 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

What does the blue mean?
Maybe I'm being dumb here, but it's not immediately obvious: why are three of the Cups listed in the table (1995 King Fahd Cup, 2003 Confederations Cup, 2009 Confederations Cup) highlighted in blue? Robofish (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * they aren't on my screen. Kevin McE (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Participating teams and results
Can we add some color background to the teams and results section to help with distinguishing the various places teams have achieved? Something similar to the table in National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup? Simple but powerful  15:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Australia's colour on the best results map needs to be changed to reflect the Runner Up achievement during 1997. Currently it is showing 3rd place from 2001. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peircey86 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 9 July 2013

Awards
How come there are an uneven amount of Golden Balls, Golden Boots, and Golden Gloves listed? Shouldn't one have been given out for each tournament Adamh4 (talk) 15:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Team rankings
FIFA does not rank the teams in their places for the FIFA Confederations Cup, not as the FIFA World Cup or other tournaments. --190.137.33.139 (talk) 10:05, 18 June 2015‎ (UTC)

In the final of each edition, the FIFA World Cup always ranks the teams in their respective places (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, etc.). Instead, the FIFA Confederations Cup not, that's the difference. --190.137.33.139 (talk) 10:31, 18 June 2015‎ (UTC)
 * Could be. Any source for this? -Koppapa (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Mate dont worry, Tahiti competed in 2013 anyways and have surely the worst team to ever participate😂 Cris trzer28 (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Map
This was broaght up: "Whoever is in charge of editing the FIFA Confederations Cup map needs to change Saudi Arabia to a runner-up finish based on the result of the 1992 King Fahd Cup, instead of the fourth place finish. The map is otherwise inaccurate." It's the truth. -Koppapa (talk) 05:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I saw that someone pasted that exact text in the article. They should not have done that. Esb5415 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC) Esb5415 (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Winners
Why isn't there a section called winners? People need to know who are the winners. Notch505 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in FIFA Confederations Cup
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of FIFA Confederations Cup's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "regulations": From 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup:  From 2014 FIFA World Cup:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:17, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
2021 FIFA Confederations Cup &rarr; FIFA Confederations Cup. Given the nature of the tournament at the moment, with FIFA announcing plans to scrap the tournament, and the troubles of finding a host in the years before these plans came to light, I think it's fair that the idea of this tournament not going ahead would be the assumption that needs to be proven otherwise. I do not get the impression that there are plans to hold this tournament as of yet. No recent sources can be found proving that this tournament is currently being organised, and there are more sources pointing towards this tournament being scrapped altogether. Unless adequate sources can be found to prove that this tournament is indeed being held, that hosts are currently being considered, ect., I don't believe there's much of an incentive to have a separate article on the originally intended 2021 tournament when the very minimal information that currently exists in the 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup can be noted in a section in the FIFA Confederations Cup article. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 17:10, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As of now, the Conf Cup is planned and speculation on its cancellation are still relevant to the article. Nice4What (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You haven’t cited proof that the tournament is going ahead. This was my main point of concern in the first place. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk &middot;&#32;articles &middot;&#32;reviews) 03:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As the article states, the 2021 Confederations Cup could be abolished. So at the moment, it is planned to happen (As if usual) but it may be cancelled''. Nice4What (talk) 04:25, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose per above. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even if it is cancelled, it will still be notable enough to warrant an article. Other articles about cancelled events exist (eg Manchester Gorton by-election, 2017, Third Eurovision Dance Contest, 1940 Summer Olympics). Whether it actually takes place or not is less important than whether it meets WP:GNG; if it has significant reliable independent coverage (which it seems to), then the article should stay even if the event doesn't. Lowercaserho (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This is about the next edition. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Still notable whether it happens or not. Chris 1834  Talk 11:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If this article about 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup merged with FIFA Confederations Cup, how do you deal with all the Confederation Cups successfully held before? Even if it is cancelled, it's necessary to keep this page for noticing. Phenolla (talk) 07:58, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Парк Кубка Конфедераций в Сочи 14.jpg