Talk:FIFA World Cup/Archive 2

Improvements to this article
First of all, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!

After some editing, I think this article has a lot of information, but it's just not very organized. I think we should divide the sections more clearly, and move some information to other articles (as we've been doing), so it becomes more readable. Here are some sections I can think of: Hopefully this article can be as good as the one on Olympic Games eventually. Feel free to offer any ideas you have! Chanheigeorge 10:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) History
 * 2) Format
 * 3) Results
 * 4) Trophy
 * 5) Awards
 * 6) Records and statistics
 * 7) Host selection process
 * 8) Social and economics aspects


 * Yeah, I tried to clean it up recently, but, quite frankly, it's still a mess. This looks like a good format, but "host selection process" and "social and economic aspects" might be tough to build, especially the latter. But, it looks like a good way to rebuild and reorganize, so I'm for it... I'll assist the best I can, depending on what others say. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 18:03, 24 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think we should focus on #1-#6 for now. Chanheigeorge 22:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 08:11, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I've made a stab at rearranging to reflect above structure... much work lay ahead. Merry Christmas! Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 08:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I think there should be a section on qualifying (perhaps under Format?). A reader made a comment on this talk page that it did not explain how a team qualifies, and I'd have to agree. As mentioned in the article, the actual World Cup goes for 3 years, it's just the finals that the main tournament is for. While the finals obviously deserve the most attention, qualification is a vital part as well. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I suggest we start FIFA World Cup qualification and put all details and history there, and describe the format of the finals and the outline of the qualification in this article. Conscious 13:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Great idea. I support this creation. Have links to all the qualification articles, list of teams who have tried to qualify, give detailed explanations of the various ways each continental zone have qualified (be it round robin, knockout, groups, etc.) Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:10, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I've drafted the "Format" section. Conscious 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What about moving the "Début of National Teams" section to National team appearances in the Football World Cup? Conscious 20:07, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought about it when originally revamping the article, but decided against it in case people objected. I wouldn't mind, personally. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:05, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Move

 * Concious - You've put a move request, but not indicated why, or put up the usual voting template stuff. Jooler 13:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, Jacoplane has put it, and I've just listed it at WP:RM. Is the voting to start at once, or should another discussion take place? Conscious 15:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh please, not again... Sebastian Kessel Talk 16:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was going to do it later since I had to run off when I added the template before. Thanks for completing it ;) I thought it would be a good idea to get this consensus on this now that it's going to be the football AID.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the debate was move. Football World Cup → FIFA World Cup – template was added to the talk page today, previous discussions failed to reach consensus Conscious 12:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Add #Support or #Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 

Support

 * 1) Support. I prefer official, current name. Conscious 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. If there is a WP standard of not naming articles by their official names, it is one that I am not aware. See: Rugby Union World Cup, FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup, FIFA Women's World Cup, UCI World Cup. Jacoplane 18:52, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Support. The official competition name is better. Carioca 20:35, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Support. If you see my comments on the improvment drive voting page, you'll see my reasoning. I like the official name: I searched for this first when trying to find the article on Wikipedia. Makes more sense to new users. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 23:02, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 5) It makes far more sense to call the article about the entire competition its current name, rather than outdated, previous names. Individual Cups, however, could reason themselves to be called by the old name. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 02:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Each tournament is given a name specific to that tournament. In 2002 and 2006 FIFA have prefixed the tournament with the words FIFA for marketing. If could just as easily be the 2006 McDonald's World Cup. And who know's in 2010 it might very well be called just that. The current name of the trophy is the FIFA World Cup the competition is the World Cup (Coupe de Monde). Jooler 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Move, move, and thrice move to FIFA World Cup. My opinions on this matter have been stated before: it's the official name, it's a commonly used name, it's not ambiguous, it fits all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the current page title has only persisted due to inertia. It's just totally obviously the Right Thing to do. sjorford (talk)  23:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 8) *Support 'Football' is too ambiguous; I've never heard anyone mention it as the Football World Cup, and FIFA World Cup is its official name.  Plus, the number of hits for "FIFA World Cup" in google, is an order of magnitude higher than for "Football World Cup"Rousseau 03:48, 29 December 2005 (UTC) This vote is not valid under this username.  The vote on this page is the user's very first contribution to Wikipedia. BTW How many of those hits are for the XBox and Playstation game? [previous comment unsigned] (I've indented this vote so it no longer increments the totals. FtC 1232, 2.01.06)
 * 9) Support as per statements at the WikiProject_Football/Article_improvement_drive. Football world cup to my mind seems contrived, whereas while World Cup serves as a disambig page due to the other less prominent world cups, FIFA World Cup may be better. Two big reasons for this: 'football' as a term seems to be disambig'd to a large extent on wikipedia, and really should be association football or football (soccer) in the title in this case. Plus 'football' really has 2 world cups - the men and women's tournaments. Really in this case we should have a move to FIFA World Cup, with statements on naming in the article itself stating that it is normally known by the standalone "world cup", and by the arguments above that it didn't really used to be called the FIFA World Cup. - Master Of Ninja 11:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 10) Support The article should have the name that the tournament is currently referred to by. Even if FIFA World Cup was first officially used only for the trophy, this is what the competition is called now. I don't think the aims of FIFA behind the name change matter here, what is important is what it is called, not why. We should mention in the article though, when the current official name was adopted. -Aabha (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 11) Support Julien Tuerlinckx 11:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 12) Support To use the current official name, much like how European Cup redirects to UEFA Champions League, with a article subsection/intro mentioning the official name change from World Cup 1998 to FIFA World Cup 2002 as described by User:Jooler. Poulsen 12:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 13) Support. – ugen64 22:28, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 14) Support. "Football" is not a disambiguator, it's an ambiguator, and the names "World Cup" and "FIFA World Cup" are common for it (at least where I live) with "Football World Cup" being unused (mostly, no doubt, because "football"'s ambigous and refers to a completely different sport where I live). —Felix the Cassowary 14:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 15) Support. Use current name. There should also be a separate vote for how we should treat the individual pages on the competitions. -- Elisson • Talk 16:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 16) Support. Use the official name with 'Football World Cup' as a redir. Ben davison 21:41, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 17) Support. It's the official name and it removes ambiguity.  Raggaga 00:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 18) Support. --Lysy (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 19) Support. The lesser of 2 evils. josh (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 20) Support. Football is ambiguous. Secretlondon 21:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose. I'd rather keep in line with WP standards ( World Cup). Sebastian Kessel Talk 18:16, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose. The use of FIFA prefixing the real name of the competition is just for marketing purposes. The competition has always been called Coupe du monde or World Cup. Football is a disambiguation. Note for example that during the 2006 competition the stadiums will be renamed e.g. the Signal Iduna Park becomes the FIFA World Cup Stadium, Dortmund, the Waldstadion becomes the FIFA World Cup Stadium, Frankfurt. The name FIFA World Cup has only been in use since the new trophy was created and it originally only referred to the trophy, therefore referring to the 1930 FIFA World Cup etc.. (up to 1970) is not correct. After the '98 tournament, FIFA began an aggressive worldwide campaign of trademarking all possible variations of "FIFA World Cup"; including the retrospective use of "19XX FIFA World Cup" for previous competitions, and pursuing legal action against anyone who used the words World Cup for commercial gain without crediting FIFA. Only from roughly 1999/2000 do you start to see "FIFA World Cup" all over the place (like on the official ball, where previously it only said World Cup, see above). Regarding this page - if no disambiguation was needed this page would be at "World Cup", but we need to disambiguate the sport, so it is at 'Football World Cup, just like on French Wikipedia where it is at Coupe du monde de football and not "Coupe du monde de football de la FIFA" Jooler - see previous discussions further up the page. 20:45, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose Keep the article where it is. The competiton is the World Cup of Football, which happens to be organised by FIFA; it has not always been the FIFA World Cup; indeed, were another organisiation to organise an event like this, it would be known as the X World Cup, showing the brand name changes whilst the event name does not. This is football's world cup event, and Wiki has a precedent for [Sport]World Cup in its titles; FIFA World Cup is simply pandering to the rebranding. doktorb | words 11:26, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose the introduction of 'FIFA' to the title is only part of Sepp Blatter's agenda anyway Robdurbar 15:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose stick with original familiar name --Henrygb 22:18, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose It's not an appropriate name to describe the pre-2002 competitions. -- Arwel (talk) 02:45, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose stick with original familiar name Bob Palin 23:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * 8) Oppose. Provide a redirect from FIFA World Cup to this article. --Daveb 00:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) Neutral. The problem is not in the naming of the article but in the standard of naming such sports events in Wikipedia. If anything should be resolved, there should be a systematic way of naming such articles (ie. theres the same dispute between "Track and Field World Championships" or "IAAF World Championships"). --Hurricane Angel 22:53, 28 December 2005 (UTC) - still awaiting clarification of voter's intention see (User Talk:Hurricane Angel)
 * Neutral. I have no problem with either option, provided the "losing" option is maintained as a redirect. Oldelpaso 11:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC) - vote withdrawn.
 * Neutral as above. Unless there is a specific reason for putting it at a certain one (eg if there was once a completely different and separate football world cup), we should defer to the standard of Wikipedia, which apparently has not been resolved. Watch and wait? AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 01:51, 29 December 2005 (UTC) - vote withdrawn as per user's request. Jooler 14:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Previous Viewpoints/Current Counterpoints

 * There have been two previous discussions of this move, first between four users (2/2), second also between four users (2/1/1). Both failed to reach a consensus. Some of the arguments used were that:


 * articles on other sports' championships are titled "Foo World Championship"
 * "football" is ambiguous
 * FIFA World Cup is now an official name of the tournament
 * The competition has been World Cup (not FIFA World Cup) since its inception. The trademark World Cup is owned by FIFA and they vigorously defend this specific trademark - see for example http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0034.html - FIFA now prefix their name to the competition for marketing and to try to stop anyone using the words World Cup for commercial gain without crediting FIFA. Jooler 14:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite true. FIFA defend the trademarks FIFA World CupTM and World Cup TM equally, but it is the actual trophy that is FIFA World CupTM. Only since 2002 have they prefix the name of the tournament itself with FIFA and then FIFA World Cup is only part of the name of the competition. For Instance the next competition's official title is 2006 FIFA World Cup Germany TM. In 1998 the official title of the tournament was France 98 Coupe du Monde" or World Cup France '98. Thus referring to the 1970 FIFA World Cup is not correct.
 * FIFA World Cup is a name used since 1970
 * Clarification. The new trophy was made in 1971/1972 and it is only since the last tournament (2002) that the worlds FIFA World Cup has been used as part of the name of the actual tournament, (as opposed to the trophy) as you can see from all official merchandising up to that point. Right up until 1998 only "Coupe Du Monde" appears on the official logo with no mention of FIFA. After '98, FIFA began aggresivily defending their trademarks when the words "World Cup" were used for commercial gain without crediting FIFA.
 * Until relatively recently FIFA used to take a backseat in the organization of the competititon, leaving it to the local organizing committee to make most of the arrangments.
 * Each tournament is given a name specific to that tournament (e.g. Italia '90 etc..). In 2002 and 2006 FIFA have prefixed the tournament with the words FIFA for marketing. If could just as easily be the 2006 McDonald's World Cup. And who know's in 2010 it might very well be called just that. The current name of the trophy is the FIFA World Cup the competition is the World Cup (Coupe de Monde). Jooler 11:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to ask everyone not to forget about improving the article while discussing this issue. Conscious 17:12, 28 December 2005 (UTC) | I rearranged the arguments to make a more fluid arguments and counterpoints evident. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Comments on individual votes
''Comments on Rousseau's vote:
 * Your vote is not valid under this username given that your vote on this page is your very first contribution to Wikipedia. BTW How many of those hits are for the XBox and Playstation game?


 * Sorry; you can ignore my vote then (or erase it). The video game's addition to the hits is a non-issue since the game is exclusively about the FIFA World Cup.  If the video game was about some other subject or genre, then you might have a point.  But since the game is about the World Cup, it seems dubious to ignore those hits. [User:Rousseau|Rousseau]] 18:05, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments on Jooler's vote:
 * The fact that it's being used for marketing purposes is not really relevant IMO. However, you do make a good point in that it was not always called by this name. Perhaps a structure similar to UEFA Champions League is in order. After all, that used to simply be called the European Cup. Jacoplane 09:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * But that change was marked by a complete change in the nature of the competition, whereby is was modified from a simple knockout cup competition. Jooler 13:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Note that the French and German Spanish  Wikipedia artles on the Champion's League do not use UEFA in the title. Jooler 14:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The German does - UEFA Champions League. Poulsen 15:00, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm just a suspicious type, but: Liga de Campeones de la UEFA does mention UEFA in the title. Even though I don't believe in the tyranny of the majority, here's the stats on CL naming: Of 26 wikis (including dialects) I count 10 without UEFA in the titles, and 7 I can't make out. No matter the precise number, it's around half of each, but the argument shouln't be based on the number of articles named UEFA CL or FIFA WC, but on what the tournament is actually called. Poulsen 15:25, 31 December 2005 (UTC) Poulsen 16:20, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Spanish article was moved less than a week ago, the interwiki from the English page was not updated and the link now links to a disambiguation page. The German page was moved in June. In each case (and when the English article was moved last year (2004), the only reason that UEFA was added was to disambiguate it from the CAF Champions League and the AFC Champions League. In the case of the World Cup such a disambiguation is not required. We merely need to disambiguate the sport and not the governing body. Jooler 17:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The game is produced under licence to FIFA. Before FIFA went about suing everybody who used the words "World Cup" for commerical gain without crediting FIFA, all the games licenced by FIFA (since World Cup Carnival in 1985/1986) did not prefix the name of the game with FIFA. See Football World Cup video games. Jooler 11:09, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Moved comments on Jooler's vote from bottom of following discussion to above so that comments on individuals votes could be read together. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 02:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

 * I have also never heard it referred to as "Football World Cup." I hope we can get a clear consensus on this issue this time 'round. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 04:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure you haven't, you're an American! - So what do you expect? - Football is the disambiguation. The proper name for the tournament since its inception had always been simply World Cup - read the discussion. Jooler 07:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being American, then. I am voting simply on how I see it. I voted to change it to FIFA based on current naming. If you want, I'm sure it could be arranged that names for individual World Cups to stay as "football," when the Cups were named, or referred to as such (i.e. keep "Football World Cup 1934"). However, the main article should always be the current name. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 05:27, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The name of the competition over its entire history is simply World Cup and FIFA vigorously defend this specific trademark which they originally coined. This is my point. FIFA just prefix it with FIFA for marketing and to stop people using the words World Cup for commericial gain without crediting FIFA. Jooler 10:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Sir, if your intention is for me to change my vote, then your efforts are in vain: I have voted in the manner which makes the most sense to me (and, evidently, makes sense to nearly everyone else, too). Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 10:59, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * ?!? Your vote is cast and indeed you were one of the original proponents for the move. I don't expect to change your mind. This section is for people to read an informed discussion and then make up their own minds. I think perhaps you have become upset that I pointed out that you were American. No insult or im-plied slur was intended, I was merely pointing out that as an American "Football World Cup" is probably an alien phrase as most Americans would probably expect this phrase to be somehow related to American football. Yoiu might be interested to know that when Shaun Wallace won the 2004 BBC Mastermind competion (a highly prestigious television quiz) one of his specialist subject was specifically "'Football World Cup" (not "FIFA World Cup", or even "World Cup" but specifically "Football World Cup"), so if the BBC chose to use that phrase then it cannot be as obscure as you might believe. Jooler 11:14, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'll concede that I thought it was an attack on Americans when you said the phrase originally. And maybe you are right about the American public thinking a "Football World Cup" would relate to American football, I hadn't thought about that. Maybe the term "Football World Cup" is a strong England-centric term for the game. And before you bring up the issue of other Wikis using "Football World Cup" instead of "FIFA World Cup," consider this: the other Wikis may have been modeled after the English Wiki for naming conventions. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 02:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that on nearly every other foreign language Wikipedia (importantly using language of prominent football playing nations) - like the French, German, Dutch, Italian, Spanish,Portuguese articles (about about 20 other languages) - FIFA is not used in the title of the article. I think perhaps that the a certain cultural influence which does not have a rich history of enjoying the World Cup is at work. Jooler 11:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * What it's called in other language Wikipedias is of no consequence to the English one. "Football" (and its calques) is a word that appears to mean something different in English compared to other languages: In other languages, it seems to refer to soccer. In English, it refers to the most common code of football in a region. Thus, "Football World Cup" isn't a disambiguator. If it can't be "World Cup", we've got a few options for disambiguation, such as "FIFA World Cup" or "World Cup (FIFA competition)" or "World Cup (Association Football competition)" or some such like that. —Felix the Cassowary 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Football World Cup has served us well and it's part of the WikiProject Football so the use of that word has been quite well established to be predominatnly used in with its international rather than any of the parochial meanings. Jooler 11:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "Football World Cup" has clearly not "served us well", else why would there be this discussion in the first place? (When I came looking for the article on the World Cup and noticed I was sent off to "Football World Cup", I thought to myself that that's a great way to brew up a storm, and seems I was right.) As to "football" meaning "soccer" internationally and other definitions being "parochial", I think you'll find that's not only a little offensive & inappropriate, but completely bizarre. Far more English speakers live in a country that has "Football" by default meaning a sport other than soccer than live in a country that has "football" by default meaning soccer, and seeing as English is not French nor German nor Dutch nor Spanish, what happens in these languages and countries which speak them is irrelevant; a text must be translated anyhow. (I'm not, by the way, trying to argue we should change the meaning of the world "football", nor am I saying that twenty-odd per cent is an insignificant minority. I'm trying to argue that "football" is inheritely ambiguous in English and its use as disambiguator is completely inappropriate.) —Felix the Cassowary 12:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The corresponding German and French Wiki articles, as mentioned below above, do not mention FIFA in the titles. doktorb | words 12:38, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * CommentWell the current title is quite incorrect - it is rarely described as the 'football world cup'. Obviously, however, the article could not be on the 'world cup' page. Similarly, FIFA World Cup is technically incorrect for pre-2002 world cups, and is not often used by anyone other than FIFA and their sponsers. Therefore, how about World Cup (football)? Robdurbar 12:57, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * "World Cup (football)" makes it look like a kind of football, which it's not. Also, "football" is ambiguous between soccer, gridiron, the two kinds of rugby, Gaelic football, Aussie Rules, International Rules etc. In different contexts, these are all called "football", and although I think it unlikely, confusing the World Cup for being an Interantional Rules game would be understandable by someone who knew next to nothing about both. I would therefore suggest, if "FIFA World Cup" is considered unacceptible "World Cup (FIFA competition)" or "World Cup (Association football competition)". —Felix the Cassowary 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Football World Cup is good enough for H2G2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A565148 . Note that as you say it should be simply World Cup, in fact as FIFA own and vigorously defend that specific trademark (see http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0034.html) we should use primary topic disambiguation and have the page as World Cup. Britannica uses simply "World Cup" (http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9077485?tocId=9077485) -but I think if we HAVE to disambiguate then we should use the sport like all of the other articles, and Football World Cup is more pleasant than World Cup (football) Jooler 13:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * H2G2 is from England. In England, "football" means "soccer". Therefore, it's a poor source for an internationally-acceptible disambiguation. Observe how "Queen Anne" is acceptible to H2G2 but not to the wikipedia. —Felix the Cassowary 07:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * 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.

Adding Example to Signify Magnitude of Event
I think it might be beneficial to beginners (especially Americans who think the Super Bowl is the most viewed sporting event) if we give numbers after the following statement of the opening paragraph: The World Cup final tournament, which has been held every four years since 1930 (except when cancelled due to World War II), is the most widely-viewed and followed sporting event in the world, exceeding even the Olympic Games.

For example, we can show that 300 million people viewed the 2006 World Cup Drawing, while the most watched Super Bowl ever only had a viewing audience of 144 million (or so the NFL says). And according to ask google, the 2002 World Cup Final--the source disagrees with the NFL's 144 million viewer claim--was an order of magnitude higher than the next highest watched sporting event in recent history.

I think showing such examples might more accurately, and quickly, get the impact and power of the World Cup to beginners.

Any thoughts?Rousseau 07:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The "is the most widely-viewed and followed sporting event in the world" statement must be supported by the reference(s). Can anyone find it? Conscious 12:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's patently obvious that if the highest estimated figures for the Olympic Games were 127 million watching the opening ceremony in 2002 and and the highest for Euro 2002 was 153 million (exceeding the superbowl's 144 million), that the World Cup will have a still higher audience. The actual figure and where it comes from is irrelevant as it can only ever be an estimate. Jooler 13:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I could only find these two: and .  The first one is from FIFA, and it states that 2002 World Cup was the most watched sporting event in world history; the second link (from the Business Refrence Service) seems to regurgutate the first link's statement.  Still, this only compares the 2002 World Cup to the Olympic Game; whether we can make the reasonable assumption that previous World Cups out-viewed previous Olympic Games is arguable.Rousseau 16:26, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Found . The first one gives an aggregate figure of just under 30 billion, which averages to about 450 million a match. The second one compares it with the olympic aggregate, which around 17 billion. I can't get hold of decent figures for the final but general concencus is around 1.5 billion. josh (talk) 20:51, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * While I'm weary of using FIFA's numbers to back FIFA claims, other sources seem to use FIFA's numbers withoutqualms. One issue, however is that Broadcasting of sports events says the Olympics is the sporting event with the largest audience.  The article has no references however, while we appear to have numerous to support the contention. I'm going to make the changesRousseau 21:08, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Request vote extension
I think the vote for this page should be extended (by a week) for several reasons. Firstly it is a very heavily linked article with many sub-pages which use the same name and a move of this page will affect a very large number of sub-pages. Secondly during this holiday period a large number of people will not be using Wikipedia as they normally would and a number of the people who regularly contribute to the football articles will not vote. Indeed they have not as yet voted, their voice has not been heard. Jooler 10:34, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I support this extension of the vote for the reasons outlined by Jooler. (I am, however, yet to consider the matter itself and vote). --Daveb 14:02, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm neutral on extension. While I respect Jooler's arguments, 24 users have already voted, and IMO it's representative enough. Conscious 07:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The vote is now 16:3:6. The neutral votes have to be taken into account in order to judge the majority. Therefore they count as a 1/2 vote for and against the proposition. So the vote is equivalent to 17.5:7.5, thus the current majority is 70%. The usual requirement for a move is a two thirds majority or 0.66% so things are still very much in the balance. Jooler 09:50, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually I forgot to discount Roussaeu's vote, so it's actually 15:3:6 or 16.5:7.5, total votes = 24, majority = 16.5/24 = 68.75%. Jooler 09:53, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note that WP:RM says to move if there is 60% support. Conscious 10:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as I can remember the figure quoted has been 2/3rds majority. When did it change? Jooler 10:39, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Consensus is different for different decisions. For WP:AFD, a 2/3 majority is needed. Jacoplane 10:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I've indented Rousseau's vote so that it no longer increments the "support" vote count. Future counts need not explicitly exclude him. —Felix the Cassowary 12:34, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Okay after some clarifaction if we ignore Hurricane Angel's vote the vote currently stands at 14:6 which is a 70% majority. DaveB has said he is still to decide and I expect more will still vote. Jooler 18:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Mascots
Football World Cup mascot already existed when FIFA World Cup mascots was created. These need to be merged. -Aabha (talk) 21:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

done --Happyhaydn 21:28, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction
I think the introduction needs to be shorter and crisper, this is too complicated to be effective. Most of the details can be moved to Format and Results. Does anyone have any objections? -Aabha (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and a "Media coverage" section could be useful. It would deal with all these TV figures. Do mascots conut as the media coverage? They could be also included there, there's hardly enough information about them for a separate section. Conscious 21:23, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Football World Cup records
I've created the article Football World Cup records, which lists records on the Football World Cup. Feel free to add any information, but make sure to verify their correctness beforehand. Thanks! Chanheigeorge 02:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Any ideas if the section Football World Cup is nessessary at all? If yes, what should it include? (If no, we can just move everything to Football World Cup records and add a link to it in the "See also" section.)
 * I think you need some in the article... most goals and appearances are probably the most "important" records IMO. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 11:08, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Unsuccessful national teams
Section text was:


 * 26 nations have managed to qualify for the World Cup only once; a further nine have done so twice. Under some definitions these teams may be judged as unsuccessful "whipping boys" for more experienced World Cup teams.


 * However, some argue that frequent qualifiers who seldom perform well are more appropriate recipients of this title. Tunisia has qualified four times (including for 2006) but has never made it beyond Round 1, winning only one game in 1978 and none thereafter. Scotland has qualified 8 times, including five consecutive appearances between 1974 and 1990, but despite the occasional impressive result has never made it to Round 2.

I've removed this section. I think it's inappropriate here. Speaking of unsuccessful teams, American Samoa is the one (with their record of worst defeat). Conscious 08:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You think it's inappropriate. OK, fair enough. You haven't offered any reasons for this, however. American Samoa has never qualified for a FIFA World Cup, I have no idea where you pulled that one from. Nach0king 14:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that there is no good definition of what "unsuccessful national team" is. It may be the team which qualified only once or the team that was always eliminated in the first round. In my opinion, teams that have never qualified for the final tournament are even more unsuccessful. The first team that comes to mind is American Samoa national football team, which holds a world record for a worst defeat (31-0) in an international match, set in the World Cup qualifier.


 * I think that another important thing is that even if the term were well-defined, it shouldn't be here. This information is (IMHO) far less important than information on the most successful national teams. Anyway, FIFA World Cup records looks like a suitable place for this section. Conscious 14:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, thank you for offering an explanation this time.
 * This article is primarily about the final tournament, not being unable to qualify. I did not select my criteria arbitrarily; they were chosen based on information that was primarily available in this article. If your never-qualified statement is to be true then surely all the tables in this page should include every team that's ever tried to qualify. No such table exists, therefore I restricted my examination to teams that had qualified for the final tournament; appropriate in an article about the final tournament. So, I think the term is well defined.
 * Still, I take your point, and I will see about re-working the information and adding it to the World Cup records article that you linked me to, or perhaps to another article as that records page seems to be about "absolutes" and this is, in fairness, rather subjective, even though I did pick it based on important facts. Nach0king 14:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

It would also be good if you removed speculation from the section (that is, last sentence of the first paragraph and first sentence of the second). Also, given that the information is drawn from the table in National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup, it may be a good idea to place it next to that table. Conscious 15:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

What does this mean?
Under "successful national teams", the following was listed:

"Six of the seven teams have won a world championship while playing in their own homeland at least once: therefore, nations actively lobby to be selected as World Cup hosts."

Huh? What does this mean? Here is the context:

"In all, 207 teams have competed to qualify to the World Cup (see National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup), but only eleven have made it to the final match, and of those eleven, only seven teams have actually won. As a consequence of this exclusiveness, the World Cup inspires a great deal of enthusiasm and national pride amongst the tournament's fans.

Brazil, by a clear margin, is the most successful World Cup team overall, having won the tournament five times in total, as well as having finished as runners-up twice. Brazil is also the only nation to have participated in every World Cup so far.

South America holds the most titles at nine, followed by Europe at eight. The two countries with the most appearances in the World Cup final match are Germany and Brazil, each with 7 appearances in the final match (Brazil won 5 while Germany won 3).

A total of 78 national teams have qualified for the final tournament at least once. The top 10 national teams in terms of the number of appearances are (includes appearances in the upcoming 2006 Football World Cup):

Six of the seven teams have won a world championship while playing in their own homeland at least once: therefore, nations actively lobby to be selected as World Cup hosts. The only previous winner not to have won on home ground is the otherwise extremely successful Brazil, who famously lost the deciding match when they hosted the 1950 tournament. Even traditionally "weaker" nations have been successful during their spell as hosts, most recently South Korea, who made it to the semifinals while hosting the 2002 World Cup. Both England (1966 FIFA World Cup) and France (1998 FIFA World Cup) won their only World Cups while playing as host nations."

Any thoughts? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 05:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC) || edited section excerpt to further illustrate point 05:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It means that history has proven that the hosts are usually favoured to win or do very well. Brazil being a notable exception. So countries are always looking to be a host to get that home advantage. --Hurricane Angel 06:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It means "unless you're Brazilian, the only way to win the World Cup is to host it; that's why everyone wants to host it". I think that's not quite correct and should be reworded. There are more reasons to host the World Cup including economic interests and simple national pride (but I agree home advantage is also a factor).


 * This section also says "only seven teams have actually won. As a consequence of this exclusiveness, the World Cup inspires a great deal of enthusiasm and national pride amongst the tournament's fans" (I emphasized it above.) That's not true either, methinks. Conscious 07:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess the most confusing for me is that the table mentions the top 10 national teams (by appearances, then goes on to talk about world champions, and the like... Huh? Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 20:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Images
I've been looking for a free image to use on this page without success. Perhaps the most likely source is the 1978 World Cup, which was hosted and won by Argentina. The image tag PD-AR-Photo states that images registered in Argentina over 25 years ago are public domain. Maybe a Spanish speaking user would have more luck finding a free image. Oldelpaso 10:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we take a fair use image, such as this or this?

There are many pictures from 1978 World Cup, not sure how to find out if they are public domain. Conscious 15:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not know much about what does or doesn't class as fair use, but in the absence of any suitable free images, I presume a low-res fair use image would be OK. Oldelpaso 16:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to find an image, but I don't want to jump into the murky waters of image copyright status. ideally, we'd like an image of the World Cup itself, but that's only my opinion. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 21:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)