Talk:FIFA World Cup/Archive 4

Inclusion
There are about 50 Articles regarding various FIFA World Cups (i.e. FIFA World Cup 2006, FIFA World Cup 1954). It struck me that this article (FIFA World Cup) would be made a lot better if ALL those other articles were included here. This would make a huge article, that could be split into sections, rather that a lot of smaller articles, which would be hard to navigate around. This is worth considering --Will James 03:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Generally wikipedia tries to avoid articles that are very long due to the technical restrictions of some users' internet browsers. --Robdurbar 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the list of most goals scored in the world cup should regard a single tournament rather than all of them. For example, Just Fontaine holds the record of scoring 13 goals in one tournament. Surely Ronaldo did not beat that.

Historical ranking table
I have reverted the recent edits adding a historicak ranking table using 3 points for a win and one for a draw over all World Cup matches, as it is original research. Oldelpaso 18:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not again! I was involved with this a few months ago. I support your action. --Guinnog 18:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see we have acquired rankings for the world cups. I will remove them as they are unreferenced original research. --Guinnog 19:59, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The number of tables of statistics also seems to have increased, some of them should be moved to a daughter article. Oldelpaso 20:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have removed the OR and messaged the editor who added it. --Guinnog 20:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * May I add that some of the newly added tables in the section are a bit unimportant, e.g.,  and . Chanheigeorge 20:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I would support moving these to separate articles or deleting them, as appropriate. I would add the Match officials lists to this category as well. --Guinnog 07:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

stupid thing deleted
there was a stupid thing that someone had that said only two continents had hosted games (south america and europe) when south korea and asia hosted one a few years ago and mexico have and the usa has. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.136.46.232 (talk) 17:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

2030
Well, as it is the 100th anniversary tournament. I would guess Uruguay(1930) will get it if they want it... CHANDLER 06:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I would actually think that the UK or England (homeland of football) should bid for a world cup of 64 teams anniversary edition (only this World Cup), or, all the teams ever qualified go to the World Cup -  ¢нαzα93   16:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Should we add a festival section? For example, adding 1980 Mundialito into the festival section. KyleRGiggs 14:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because it is a minor tournament which just happens to have been contested by former World Cup winners, and is nothing to do with the World Cup itself. Oldelpaso 16:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, all the teams that enter the World Cup of Champions in Uruguay 1980 brought in their first class teams to the tournament. The reason England declined is because of financial troubles and player irregularities. It should be counted as the tournament is not to see the best like the normal World Cup but to see the best ot the best Gethomas3 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, great idea.... Your right ! it should be 64 countries, uruguay or England should host it... I hope someone from FIFA already knows about this terrific plan !

Yeah but wait, there isnt a world cup in 2030...:( 217.151.224.29 (talk) 17:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)Mr.Sabra
 * Of course there's a World Cup in 2030. It's the 100th anniversary of the first World Cup, and since 100 can be divided exactly by 4, there must be a World Cup in 2030. – PeeJay 01:27, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, 2010, 2014, 2018, 2022, 2026, 2030. chandler · 01:47, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah Sorry 217.151.224.29 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)als123217.151.224.29 (talk) 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

England shirts at 1970 World Cup finals
During this tournament England sported three separate shirts, examples of which are White vs Brazil, Sky-blue vs Czechoslovakia and Red vs FR Germany. What was the rationale for having so many strips? Was it because they were the defending world champions? Are England the only international team to have worn three different shirts during ANY major tournament? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.45.222 (talk) 23:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

2nd & 3rd placers
Could you, please, rearrange the map, where you show former republics, like USSR, East Germany, and Yugoslavia. In the smaller map, you show, that craotia won third place - it was, but, its boundaries are not in those borders. You involved Bosnia and Hercegovina in its bounderies. Thanks Do they receive anything? Like a trophy or medals? -- Howard  the   Duck  05:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

3rd place receive bronze medals--Blain Toddi (talk) 19:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd and 3rd place receive medals, first place receives the cup and medals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.79.54.47 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

partners
worth mentioning the everpresent sponsors or "partners" of the tournement the likes of adidas, coca cola, gillete, mastercard, toshiba, philips, mcdonalds, fuji film, -Numberwang 18:36, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

3 times win
If a team win 3 times would that team keep the cup for ever like Brazil in 1970 ? I mean if one of Germany, Italy , Argentina and Brazil win in 2010 ?--Blain Toddi (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The original FIFA World Cup Trophy cannot be won outright anymore, as the new regulations state that it shall remain FIFA's own possession. . So the answer is no. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

204 teams in qualification
This is really question, i know FIFA announced 204 teams will be participating, but few teams withdrew before the qualification start, 2 from Asia and 2 from Africa, so 200 teams are really took part, the question, should we change this in infobox, or keep 204 teams? --Aleen f 1 05:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Table of captains and managers
I don't think this belongs in the main world cup article, so I have removed it. However, I think it should have a place somewhere, I'm just not sure where. In the interim, I'm moving it here until deciding where it can go permanently. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Fully protected
Right, had enough of this. Recently this has clogged up my watchlist. Discuss your issues here and now instead of edit-warring. WP:3RR went by a while ago really. This little dispute will endanger the FA status which was only just reaffirmed. Please discuss your problems here and come to a consensus. Seek help from WP:FOOTY if needed. Woody (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Since, I made the last revert, I'll add my tuppence and reason why I reverted. I saw the first change by SuperSonicx1986 and was in two minds whether to undo it, but swayed on the side of not doing so. When another editor agreed with my first thoughts, I made the final revert. I feel SuperSonicx1986's edit, while little wrong with them, added nothing that the list currently didn't. However the final par of his edit "Below is a list of the 24 teams that have finished in the top four in a World Cup" is clearly wrong since there are only 11 teams on the chart. Peanut4 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, the problem is he's adding back material previously deleted without actually checking whether it matches the new material. The "24 teams" statement does not match the new table, and there were also two same images as a result. Those material were deleted by me (or somebody else?) because of the recent peer review saying that there were too much statistics and trivia in this page. As a compromise, I've put those material in the article FIFA World Cup Finals, which I think is the more appropriate page. Chanheigeorge (talk) 21:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion 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 proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

8 April 2008
Please move this article to the sole name "World Cup". It is a registered name that does not need the additional FIFA acronym. - Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * World Cup is a very generic term used to describe the Rugby World Cup, the Hockey World Cup, and a lot of other sports. It wouldn't be feasible to put the football one as the only World Cup usage. The "FIFA" is used for disambiguation purposes. Woody (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "World Cup" could refer to any sport's world championship, not least the Rugby World Cup. There's even the FIFA Club World Cup which could lay a claim to the "World Cup" moniker. – PeeJay 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose as per User:PeeJay2K3 above. - fchd (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - One hears the full name regularly enough. - Dudesleeper / Talk  19:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - "World Cup" is the most ambiguous name an article could have, when you don't specify what you're referring to. There's at least a basketball World Cup, a volleyball World Cup, a rugby World Cup, and a couple of association football World Cups. --Angelo (talk) 19:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - 1st of April is a little outdated. --necronudist (talk) 20:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose due to the existence of multiple world cups in various sports. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  20:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose pile on/snow etc, bad idea. --Dweller (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

9 April 2008

 * Oppose because although the soccer World Cup is the biggest by far in the world, it's a bit disrespectful to other World Cups and is sort of saying the soccer World Cup is THE World Cup, which isn't correct. Normy 05:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Despite the overwhelming opposition I actually think this is a reasonable request per WP:COMMON. What were the recent worldwide television viewing figures for the World Cup, as opposed to the cricket or rugby world cups? And official name isn't necessarily the common name. I think this is a case of officiousness, protectionism and vanity over common sense. As if a particular reader has the reasonable expectation to get to Volleyball World Cup from World Cup. Daftness. MickMacNee (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you think you can remain civil, please? I don't appreciate being called officious, protectionist, vain or daft and I certainly don't want to be called all four. There's no need for name-calling. Play the ball, not the man. --Dweller (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I did play the ball, the words are toward the action, not the voters, and I don't appreciate your 'formal warning' for something so obviously meant as such. MickMacNee (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mick's point is perfectly valid. COMMON SENSE. Seems lacking at times. Look at any football resources, people talk of the World Cup.  Given it's the largest global sport... I mean, comparing Volleyball World Cup? Given people seem to get their knickers in a twist over this, why not have a World Cup page redirecting to the FIFA World Cup, which might appease sensitive souls. Minkythecat (talk) 07:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah plenty of world cups, the World Cup page should be a dab and this should be the FIFA World Cup regardless of shouting and incivility. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Move it - why on earth do we make things so hard for our readers?. The great majority of readers typing in "World Cup" are looking for the FIFA tournament.  They are certainly NOT looking for the existing article at World cup, which is effectively nothing more than a dicdef and provides practically no useful information at all.  So we've already sent them to the wrong place.  Even worse, unless the reader sees the link to FIFA World Cup, they then have to visit the dab page (if they even see the hard-to-see link to that!) and then click again to find the right article.  Why make it so hard for people?   Even if the few people that are looking for World Cups in other sports end up at the wrong page, that's still better than EVERYONE ending up at the wrong page!  So -
 * Move World cup to World cup (sports)
 * Alter World cup to be a redirect to FIFA World Cup
 * put an template on the top of FIFA World Cup leading to the dab page
 * I don't see a single good Oppose above that gives a good reason why this move would not help the great majority of our readers, and in the end that is the only reason to move a page or not. At the very least, World cup should be a dab with a link to the FIFA tournament in bold at the top. Black Kite 07:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dude, people aren't stupid. If they type in "World Cup" and come across a page they weren't expecting, they'll either click on a link on the page they find, or they'll try another search term. Anyway, I'm not surprised that you guys see the football World Cup as being the World Cup, seeing as most of you are probably football fans yourselves. I would be willing to bet money that if you asked a rugby fan about the World Cup, they'd assume you were talking about the Rugby World Cup. Does that mean that the Rugby World Cup deserves to be located at World Cup? No, of course not. Basically, the situation we have now is the best one available to us, and all World Cup articles should remain where they are. – PeeJay 09:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironically PeeJay, actually most of those opposing are members of WP:FOOTY. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is true. In fact, I'm also one of them ;) – PeeJay 10:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * People aren't stupid, but they often aren't familiar with wikipedia or how the links system works, and this arrangement is plain confusing. It is clearly not the best option available when the majority of people looking for a certain article are sent to the wrong one, with no obvious link to the correct one.  It's common sense - what are most people looking for when they type "World Cup" into the search box?  Answer = FIFA World Cup. As I said, even if we don't move FIFA World Cup, then World cup definitely needs to be the dab page with an obvious link to it.  The current arrangement helps no-one at all, especially inexperienced readers.  Incidentally, I'm more of a cricket fan than a football fan, FWIW. Black Kite 10:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - as above, 'FIFA' acts as a disambiguation, making sure people know we are referring to football and not rugby, cricket etc. GiantSnowman (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose after some thought (and move the current World cup page to somewhere like World cups, making World cup a disambiguation page). People looking for other world cups might well type in "World Cup" in the search box, to save on typing or because they're not sure exactly what the article they're looking for is called. They expect to find themselves immediately on a disamb page from which they can select the world cup of their preference. Those (admittedly probably the majority) typing in "World Cup" to get to the football world cup probably won't be too surprised to find themselves on that disamb page too.--Kotniski (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You can do a simple thought experiment. Think of any region on Earth where they probably assign World Cup to something else. Then in a miracle of quantum physics, split yourself and walk in all directions, stopping every mile or so and asking them what they thought of the World Cup? I guarantee that you could start anywhere on Earth, you will always get to a person that thinks you mean the FIFA World Cup before you stop meeting people who think you mean the Rugby/Cricket/Volleyball/Tiddleywinks World Cup. It is quite clear that maintaining the ambiguity is to uphold minority local interest views. As opposed to all the other Cups, who in normal conversation ever calls it the Football World Cup? No one, and for good reason, there is a reason why it is talked about as the Rugby World Cup. FIFA adds the fifa part for commercial trademark reasons only, it is in no way meant as a aid to common disambiguation in their eyes. MickMacNee (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

10 April 2008
199.125.109.88 (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree. I think in Australia, NZ, SA, and even the UK/Ireland or Carribean (possibly even the US, I'm not sure), if the rugby or cricket world cup has taken place recently, then that may well be on more people's minds than the footy version.--Kotniski (talk) 12:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Doubtful. In the US there is only 1 World Cup.  Anything else is a Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, World Championship or similar.  In the UK I think we probably put a qualifier on the "Cricket World Cup" just in case anyone thought we were talking batty about a Football World Cup featuring Sri Lanka.  Not that I support the move, but I've seen disambiguations given for lesser things.--Koncorde (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Support I suspect we are getting a swamp load of oppose votes from people from the United States where football means Peyton Manning and not David Beckham. If you look at the World cup article which lists a ton of World Cups it says "There are a number of notable world cups in popular sports, but it is the FIFA World Cup (a football tournament, first held in 1930) that is widely known simply as 'the World Cup'." If you look at the FIFA World Cup article it says it is "usually referred to simply as the World Cup." If you look at traffic stats you can see that the FIFA World Cup is by far and away the primary usage:
 * World Cup viewed 15094 times
 * FIFA World Cup viewed 97966 times
 * IFAF World Cup viewed 524 times
 * Cricket World Cup viewed 15869 times
 * Rugby World Cup viewed 16233 times
 * Rugby League World Cup viewed 4000 times
 * IAAF World Cup in Athletics viewed 474 times
 * FINA Swimming World Cup viewed 351 times
 * Baseball World Cup viewed 2241 times
 * Volleyball World Cup viewed 1261 times
 * World Cup (men's golf) viewed 545 times
 * Women's World Cup of Golf viewed 420 times
 * Alpine Skiing World Cup viewed 5256 times
 * Nordic combined World Cup viewed 265 times
 * This is the most convincing argument as far as I'm concerned. Looking at those figures it's overwhelming, and just reflects the common sense and common name view that everyone refers to the only two realistic alternatives as the Cricket World Cup and Rugby World Cup for a very good reason. Even if you look at the official FIFA site, they don't bother to put football in their logo, whereas Rugby feels the need. The cricket world cup appears not to even have a website. MickMacNee (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you need to check your facts concerning the editors in this debate. The vast majority are "soccer" fans, primarily involved in Premier League articles. Most are football fans who see FIFA World Cup as the correct term for this. Bringing nationalities into this is smoke and mirrors. Woody (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: It might be a convincing argument if the number of views on simply "World Cup" were of a similar order to those to "FIFA World Cup", which would suggest that people are navigating from one to the other. As it stands, it may be that many people are following internal links which have been added with  (or, I least, I hope it's been subst:ed).  A factor that is also significant is that sticking "World Cup" into Google throws up our article "FIFA World Cup" as the third result.  So, on the whole, the case for a move is not all that compelling, since it can't be demonstrated that the current situation is broken.  In fact, it would appear that most people are getting to where they want to go.  We don't move pages for the convenience of a small number of editors that have inserted links to World Cup when they meant FIFA World Cup.  217.36.107.9 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or in this case where they really mean World Cup (read the articles, that is what it is called). The number of hits to World Cup is a similar order of magnitude (within 1:10 or 10:1) and clearly shows that people are typing in World Cup when they really want "World Cup", which we currently have as "FIFA World Cup". Google will for a while after the move still show FIFA World Cup as the #3 result, which will be a redirect to World Cup. See for example Prohibition which was recently moved to Prohibition of alcohol. We will not "lose our place" on Google as a result of the move. About 70% of people get to articles from links and search results, and none of them would be affected, other than the ones that got sent to the wrong place, which would after the move be sent to the right place (there are dozens of links to World Cup that are intended to be links to this article). We aren't moving FIFA World Cup to World Cup because it's broken, we are moving it because it is incorrect. 199.125.109.98 (talk) 18:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The one thing it is not is incorrect. Also, how do you know what anyone else "means" when they type a term into a search engine or anywhere else? - fchd (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well they don't mean the current article named World cup, because there is no content there, and they don't mean rugby or cricket, because those cups are not called the World Cup. Only one cup is called the World Cup. By incorrect I mean it is not the correct title of the article based on Wikipedia guidelines for naming articles. 199.125.109.96 (talk) 20:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

11 April 2008

 * According to the IRB and the ICC, those competitions are called World Cup. I would say your argument was full of holes, but it doesn't have any substance in which to make them.  No move - as someone said above, the traffic numbers don't support it.  You can't claim that most people coming to World Cup are looking for FIFA World Cup on the basis that it's where most clickthroughs are going when it has more views than the page that's supposedly taking them there.  Moves are inherently disruptive, since they change the order of things, so you should have a good reason for moving things around.  As has been said, you stick "World Cup" into Google, the first Wikipedia result you get is for FIFA World Cup - mission accomplished, need to cause problems by replacing the head subject at World Cup.  81.110.106.169 (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Really? IRB call it world cup, eh? http://www.irb.com/tournaments/index.html. ICC? http://icc-cricket.yahoo.com/icc-events/cricket-world-cup.html. Well, clearly no substance there whatsoever, which less than 2 minutes googling found.  So, based upon the official websites of the main rugby and cricket prefixing "World cup" with the actual sport, can people point out how they know more than the governing bodies of those sports? Minkythecat (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what I just found? Civility and No personal attacks. Quite interesting really... Woody (talk) 21:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, quite interesting indeed. Assume you're referring to the anon whose false point was destroyed? Found WP:OR... Minkythecat (talk) 21:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It was a specific reminder to the IP, but also a general reminder, can we keep this civil please. We all have our own opinions and thoughts. No need to turn this into a warzone, or worse, a courtroom. Woody (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:NLT ;) Minkythecat (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

This discussion is ridiculous.(With all due respect) The term World Cup is a registered trademark of FIFA. Simple as that.So please, move this article to the sole name World Cup. For any other sport World Cup please add a term accordingly. Ok?..Thanks.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

12 April 2008

 * Guys, I give you until May 8, 2008 to quickly come to a resolution. (This is taking too long and I don't really want this to look like a senatorial decision)Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or else what pray tell? MickMacNee (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Or else..nothing, we simply move it according to the opinion of everybody. If there is more people opposing than supporting the move, we leave it the way it is, otherwise, we will move it. It's a nobrainer.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't operate on votes. It operates on what makes sense. 199.125.109.88 (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take a fanatic stand point. We are doing it on the world's common sense of calling the World Cup World Cup, or in other languages Copa del Mundo or Copa do mundo. Thanks.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The title of the official homepage for the tournament is titled FIFA World Cup. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And www.worldcup.com redirects to FIFA.com. The FIFA addition to the name is a commercial protection, not a disambiguation, and is done precisely because the term World Cup has enormous worldwide recognition for one thing. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you propose Do it yourself should redirect to B&Q, owners of www.diy.com? There is no precedent and no policy support for moving this article to World Cup, especially since it will not make the article significantly easier to find.  81.110.106.169 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course not, the cases are not even comparable. MickMacNee (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose I'm a big football fan, If i hear someone say "the World Cup" (and the equivalent in Swedish "VM") the thing i think about is this world cup. But seriously FIFA World Cup is a really good name, escpecially when there are so many other World Cups for other sports. I think it's more helpful to get to a dab page when writing in World Cup, I know I used it to find the Rugby WC article once. We got away from Soccer in the Football article title that was good, this is unnecessary. You'd also have to think about all the YYYY World Cup articles. Chandler talk 16:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I understand the alternative arguments, but "FIFA World Cup" is a good way to disambiguate. Many pro-soccer editors seem OK keeping it here, so I do not think it would trouble readers too much; alternatively, moving it so the presumption is made that readers want the soccer article may rankle the thousands who do not. Compulsions70 (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

13 April 2008

 * FYIImportant! A big opposition comes from users from the United States where football soccer is an unpopular sport.citation neededThanks.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 05:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * On what evidence do you base that statement on? From looking at the debate above (and it is not a simple vote), several of the 'oppose' opinions are from British contributors. And even if it were true, the opinions of American contributors are as valid as yours or mine. - fchd (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will repeat what I said above: I think you need to check your facts concerning the editors in this debate. The vast majority are English "soccer" fans, primarily involved in Premier League articles. Most are football fans who see FIFA World Cup as the correct term for this. Bringing nationalities into this is smoke and mirrors. Keep the discussion on topic. Woody (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Voting table removed, because article matters are decided primarily through discussion, not polling. Also, the general lead time on requested moves is around a week, not a month. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to close - it's fast becoming evident that there is enough opposition to suggest no firm consensus for this move. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Oppose What, there's a world cup besides rugby? -- Relata refero (disp.) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

14 April 2008
Sorry guys. The discussion is becoming the subject of vandalism with unregistered users deleting the voting box. Please, do not remove it. Cast a vote and give your opinion respectfully. It would be great if some users didn't hide their identity behind an IP number and like ME, would have a way to contact them when an editing occur. If you don't want to vote, fine, but please be respectful to other wikipedians. Especially the registered ones...and please for the love of God. World Cup is a registered trademark of FIFA. It is so simple that they can perfectly sue anyone else who uses it. So please, use the right copyrighted registered trademark World Cup. Thanks! Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What is the matter with you guys??? what part of registered copyrighted trademark don't you understand? World Cup is a registered trademark by FIFA. This article's correct and official name is World Cup. Why in the world are you making it so difficult?. Please do move this article to World Cup, for any other use of world cup add a term accordingly. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 01:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Look if nobody believes what i say, and how much FIFA has struggle for the protection of the term World Cup, then go and read this article: http://english.gov.cn/special/2006-06/21/content_317805.htm Camilo Sanchez (talk) 02:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That article refers to the protection of FIFA and World Cup logos to prevent the manufacture of pirate FIFA World Cup merchandise - not the words "World Cup" themselves. - fchd (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Camilo is right. If you look here (scroll down to 4.2) it confirms that "World Cup" is a FIFA trademark. Considering FIFAs history of litigation regarding its trademarks I'm suprised they haven't tried to take Wikipedia to court for daring to suggest that World Cup could mean something other than theirs. josh (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose. List of world cups and world championships shws that even within football (soccer) there are 3 World Cups. Leave World Cup as a disambig page. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of "world series", yet only one is known only as the World Series. Same with the world cup. 199.125.109.64 (talk) 15:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wrong. In a rugby context, people refer to their world cup in everyday speak as "The World Cup". In a cricket context, the same. In a biathlon context - the same. See a pattern emerging? While the FIFA World Cup is far and away the biggest World Cup, it is not the only World Cup. Therefore, the current set up of article naming is the best way to handle the situation. - fchd (talk) 15:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Even wronger. taken a look at the official sites for rugby and cricket?  What's that? They refer to "Rugby World Cup" and "Cricket World Cup"... see a pattern emerging? Minkythecat (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said in "everyday speak". Even so, following your reasoning, on virtually every reference on the FIFA site, the competition is explicitly named "FIFA World Cup". Either way, there still seems to me to be no sensible reason for this page move. - fchd (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Requested move optional
Since there seems to be no consensus for this move, what do people think about moving the dab page to World cup, and the existing page to something like World cup (sports)?. At least then, people searching for the primary term (FIFA World Cup) by typing in "World Cup" will not be presented with an irrelevant page, and will easily be able to find their objective, whilst not establishing the primacy of any particular sport. Black Kite 12:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was pretty sure that World Cup had the FIFA link in db text at the top anyway, somebody must have removed it. MickMacNee (talk) 12:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The hat-note is indeed there. You may have missed it because of the maintenance tag that accompanies it. I thought the wording was rather confusing so I just edited it. Happy for others to tinker with what I put. --Dweller (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the FIFA World Cup link used to be there specifically. MickMacNee (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was in this revision, and was removed for no apparent reason in this diff. Black Kite 12:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. My mistake. --Dweller (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And it was this nice bit of work that made the dablink a nonsense. --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've put the explicit link to the FIFA World Cup back in. Hopefully that's a reasonable compromise, though I'd still like to see the dab moved. Black Kite 13:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone even further and put in a list of other links to major(ish) world cups (which can probably be improved). I also agree that World cup should be a dab page, but I'm not sure what you mean by "see the dab moved", because I couldn't find an existing dab (World cup (disambiguation) redirects to List of world cups and world championships).--Kotniski (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I've now moved the previous World Cup page to World cup competition, and made World Cup into a disamb page (to which more world cups could probably be added). If this move proposal is accepted, then of course this disamb page would need to be renamed World Cup (disambiguation).--Kotniski (talk) 11:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Option 2
On further examination, the text content of World Cup and World Championship would appear to be duplication (describing participinats, formats, relative prestige etc). I suggest the text content of both be merged into a lead few paragraphs of List of world cups and world championships, and both World Cup and World Championship become some sort of db page for each term. And the partial list in World Championships seems redundant. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable.--Kotniski (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Above Discussion

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion 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. 

I notice that the discussion above can't be modified, so, is it over? are they gonna leave this article as FIFA World Cup? This is really disappointing that a bunch of users are acting with this lack of common sense and respect for a name that is actually protected. Why are you guys doing it? In so many other articles on Wikipedia when something is well known it remains as the first article and above you place an other uses redirecting link. Why can't we do it here?. Imagine for a second a user goes online. This is an unschooled, uneducated user. Let say for the sake of argument he doesn't speak english as his first language, but his first language does not have a Wikipedia with +1000.000 articles. Let's say he wants o find out football soccer's World Cup. But he has no idea about the existence of FIFA, in fact he doesn't even know what it is, all he knows is that there is a worldwide known thing that takes place every four years where even the poorest person in this world knows about and that is World Cup. Now, this guy, goes online and he is in the db page, then he has to face a bunch of terms with additional terms. He doesn't know anything about FIFA, so how is he gonna know which one is the right one?? Now. This is an extreme example, but come on. If we know we have the power to making it easy on him, then why don't we? Why is it so hard to name an article the way it REALLY is. Look, if World Cup wasn't a protected name, I probably wouldn't care. If I had the slightest doubt about this, I wouldn't be so stuborn. But this is really wrong. Having a db page called World Cup is a big mistake. World Cup should at least redirect to FIFA World Cup and then it should have an other uses link. Please someone help me out here. Thanks Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well.. right now at the World Cup dab page (didn't bother looking at the history, so it might have been added very recently) it says "FIFA World Cup (men's football; widely known as "the World Cup")"... That should probably guide them through сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 20:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (E/C)In terms of your hypothetical argument: it is highly flawed and it doesn't need responding to. The consensus of editors is that we do need to have a dab page for World Cup. Try and put your effort into developing that page instead of flogging a dead horse. This discussion has been archived, the majority of people did not agree with you. Woody (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Dead Horse? Let me tell you something you disrespectful user.This little mafia that you have here with your friends trying to make things the way you want and not the way they should be is what makes this Wikipedia lose its credibility. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 20:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's understandable you feel strongly about this; it's always been a difficult decision. But if you read through the above discussion, you'll see that there were very good arguments made on both sides, and it just has to be accepted that there isn't a consensus among the community in favour of a move (and it's hardly likely that all those opposing are each other's friends). Let's put this discussion aside (though I fear it will come up again as 2010 approaches) and move on to more important things.--Kotniski (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys check this link out. This is what we have here.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_bias Camilo Sanchez (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How on earth is a decision by consensus an application of Systemic Bias? - fchd (talk) 05:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll tell you why Ricky. Because there is a bunch of users here that have been working together on English football articles and are basically owning this area of the wikipedia to fit it the best way they like. If this was about real consensus we would probably have to add a note on every article that includes the term World Cup around this Wikipedia. Too bad a few ones are really disrespectful towards some well protected names. This is really sad and dissapointing. Call me what you want.Idgaf. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone has such a hard time accepting that people don't think the Volleyball World Cup deserves the same status as the World Cup, to the extent they feel they are justified in dismissing it as 'not needing a response'. It's been shown quite clearly above that there are barely two reasonable alternative intended targets that a non-expert reader might want when clicking 'Go', which is well within the scope of the db hatnote policy, with all other less notable articles in a (disambiguation) page, well within the disambiguation policy. It really isn't rocket science from where I'm standing. MickMacNee (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I am telling you. This little club they have here man. They arrange these articles how they please. This is basically their notebook, we are only mere spectators. I guarantee you that if we make an edit on any part of this article we will have fchd, or Woody deleting it right away. I had proposed an extended period of time for the discussion and they just closed it. I wish there was a topmost authority paying attention to people who have at least a good argument, but apparently here, saying that World Cup is a protected name is a flawed argument. Walob. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, what have I deleted of yours? I think it is clear from the above posts that you have a difficult time with the concept of consensus.   Oh, and by the way "FIFA World Cup" is also a registered trademark. - fchd (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus??? Your buddies' consensus, that's what it is. k.m.a. Consensus, go ask and african kid about World Cup to see what he tells you!!!Camilo Sanchez (talk) 19:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * tl;dr version: None of your arguments were sufficient to convince people that removing "FIFA" from the title was a good idea. 81.110.106.169 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just because one kid in Africa hasn't heard about other World Cup's, doesn't mean they don't exist. And no one (i think) i saying the FIFA World Cup isnt the most notable and most known under the name "World Cup". But to have the article on "FIFA World Cup" is very good for distinguishing it from the other World Cups. сʜʌɴɒʟєʀ ♠ тʌʟκ 23:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To wit, the whole "protected mark" issue is moot for two reasons. Wikipedia could not care less about trademarks, though on the other hand we are making a direct association between FIFA and their "World Cup" mark.  If you check their own website, you rarely find one without the other.  81.110.106.169 (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And there is a very good reason why you won't, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia disambiguation, or that readers of fifa.com (which incidentally as said before, worldcup.com redirects to) might suddenly get confused while reading their site and forget which world cup site they are on. To use this fact as a reason as to what to name the article on Wikipedia doesn't stand up to any logical test at all. MickMacNee (talk) 00:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you missed the tl;dr summary then. Accept it, and move on.  81.110.106.169 (talk) 00:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, people should accept it. After all, an encyclopedia ( or something billing itself as such ) shouldn't strive for facts or accuracy; as long as consensus is allegedly met, facts are irrelevant. Minkythecat (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, yes we should strive for facts and accuracy - the official name of the competition we are talking about is the "FIFA World Cup" and that is where the article is situated. What facts are irrelevent or inaccurate here? - fchd (talk) 07:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The common usage of the term, and common sense, and accordingly, the wikipedia policies on common usage and common sense. Unless you really are going to assert that every article of a 'thing' has its official name as the article title. I find it odd you take this position here, yet are reverting the user pushing the 'official' position at UEFA Cup records to make the article reflect the title, however, you are also insisting on adding F.C. to the common name of football clubs, another odd interpretation of the idea of common usage/name. A strange combination of opinions. MickMacNee (talk) 13:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The only accurate fact here is that SOME users feel like they have the right to end a discussion whenever the hell they want. If this was about consensus then this discussion would continue until a middle point had been reached (read that as eliminating the db page we have right now) At least this humble User of yours is willing to accept some middle points. On the other hand, what do I get? A bunch of senseless disrespectful users, that think this is the place where they can decide what has to be done and when it can be done (referring here to the closing of the above discussion) you guys probably do it because this is the only area of knowledge where you feel brave enough to behave in such a way.(Except for Ricky who is a master in the area of corn). So, the conclusion here is that if you guys had at least a little bit of common sense at least, just at least would reconsider this whole issue. Look, you gotta thank god you can hide behind a computer of else I would have provided you with a beautiful Colombian necktie. My apologies for that last remark. I am just frustrated with the lack of common sense of the overwhelming majority of rugby players in here. Ygs!. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh you guys are awesome, check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Camilo_Sanchez, I just received a warning that they are gonna block me because of my comments here. Ok, it's over.I will see you in 2010.Camilo Sanchez (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

"World champion(ship)" ?
After reading this article, I am wondering why there isn't a single mention of the term "world championship" to easily explain the role of World Cup in football. The winner is called the "world champion" in the text, therefore the tournament serves as the de-facto football world championship. It's even officially known as the "football world championship", and not as world cup, in several languages such as German and Italian. So I'm wondering why the text deliberatively (?) avoids the use of the simple explanation "world championship", but at the same time (inconsistently) describes Uruguay and Italy as "world champions"? EnemyOfTheState (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * As far as any conspiracy to actively prevent the term, I haven't seen any evidence of it. You could just be bold and fix what you think needs to be fixed. But whatever the world cup is called in other languages is irrelevant in the English wikipedia, we have enough trouble convincing people what it's called in English by the English speaking world. MickMacNee (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Because its not the World Championship, its the World Cup. &mdash; chandler &mdash; 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Bad data deleted
It said here that Brazil had participated in every final, its source a CNN webpage which stated the same. Unfortunately this is not true, so... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.55.173.76 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
 * A misunderstanding caused by failure to appreciate the difference between "finals" and "the Final". Brazil have indeed participated in every finals, but only contested the Final seven times. 90.201.136.137 (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Controversy
FIFA has been criticzed for things such as:

1) Only 32 countries are allowed to enter, many wish this number to be increased, since the number of nations have increased rapidly.

2) More European teams are allowed to join than African or Asian teams. European teams are allowed to join even though Africa/Asia consists of more nations and more populated than Europe.

3) FIFA is a private organization.

4) The rotation of hosts are poor. Countries who have hosted FIFA World Cup can be hosts again.

5) Arranged games are possible and had happen, and still is happening, mostly due to gambling of the games and bookmaking.

6) FIFA has been seen as a way of controlling/entertaining the masses (FIFA is the modern form of gladiators) Latin: Panem et circences (bread and play) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.16.213 (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * What sources are you getting this stuff from? If it is just your own opinion it doesn't add anything.--John (talk) 14:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Substitutes
I wonder whether there should be anything included here about the use of substitutes. Teams were allowed a maximum of two substitutes starting in 1970, and I forget when it was increased to three. Also, in the tournaments during the 1980s at least, teams had to name five players from whom any substitutes would have to be selected. Again, that was later changed so that all remaining squad members could be picked from, except in the case of suspensions, etc. Someone with a better knowledge of these developments could perhaps add a brief note somewhere? 91.107.82.110 (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

most widely-viewed sporting event in the world?
Not anymore. Better say "it was the most widely-viewed sporting event in the world" or something to that effect. -- Howard  the   Duck  19:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It's difficult to find good sources for those claims. It's also difficult to compare different events. Note that the article makes comparision between one basket game and one football game, not between the complete events. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's hard to take those numbers seriously, particularly given the disclaimer at the end of the article. As FIFA (and everyone else) has been shown to massively inflate their numbers -- seen here: -- it's reasonable that FIBA is doing exactly the same thing. After all, was 90% of China really watching? Might want to consider revising the numbers in the article, though I'm new and don't know how to do the cites properly. 70.29.15.116 (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2009 (UTC) Jason

Grammar
Third paragraph "and Germany is next with three". I don't know if the "and" is needed. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.176.119 (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The grammar in the third paragraph on the first section was atrocious. Countries and even national teams simply named for their countries should be treated as singular nouns ("Italy is" not "Italy are" or "the Italian national team is" not "the Italian national team are").  If these teams had some kind of plural mascot, then a single team could be referred to has a plural noun.  Anyway, fixed it.  I also think "reigning champion" would be better in the infobox than "current champion." Ajgwm10 (talk) 00:06, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The plurals are British English for sports teams as used consistently throughout the rest of the page. Peanut4 (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Map of results / French Guiana
On the "Map of countries' best results", French Guiana is crowned world champion. This, of course, is untrue. Who can (and will) change it? (77.162.87.248 (talk) 01:49, 30 March 2009 (UTC))
 * Thanks for noticing, I'll fixed it. chandler · 08:56, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I might be wrong, but isn't French Guiana part of France? Peanut4 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right, and although it has a representative team that enters CONCACAF competitions, there is no national federation that is a member of FIFA, and so FIFA presumably see it as part of France (which is at least more accurate than their opinion that the Channel Islands are part of England). There is no distinction in French nationality law between those born there and those born in Metropolitan France, and so French Guianese players can, and do, represent France (eg Jean-Claude Darcheville and Florent Malouda).  The map should indeed show French Guiana and all parts of the country of France, including (if the scale of the map were large enough) at least Guadeloupe, Martinique and Réunion, and probably Mayotte, Saint Barthélemy, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Wallis and Futuna, but not, due to FIFA's inconsistency French Polynesia.  Kevin McE (talk) 22:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be misleading, especially as all(most?) of those dependencies have own FA's and national teams who are memebers of CAF or Concacaf (but not fifa) chandler · 22:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well French Guiana, the principle subject of this discussion, doesn't have a national FA; the Ligue de Football de Guyane is under the authority of la Federation Francaise de Football, just as the Isle of Wight FA is a constituent part of the Football Association; French Guianese are as French as Alaska]ns are [[American; and have no less right to the passport and national team of the country that their territory is part of than Gotlanders. Kevin McE (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Uruguay and its 4 world championships?
Should it be mentioned in this article that Uruguay are 4 x world champions, or atleast a footnote? Here are uploaded links from FIFA documents stating that the 1924, and 1928 Olympics games (organized by FIFA) are equivalents to the 1930 World Cup. (Stated in 1914 before the 24, 28 Olympics, in 1930, 1950 and then 1978).

1- http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/553/img0003lad.jpg (backwards but still readable, there are more pages if you'd like me to download them)

http://forums.soccerfansnetwork.com/showthread.php?p=1199107#post1199107 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.44.37 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FIFA may have organised the early Olympic football tournaments, but the Olympic football is completely separate from the FIFA World Cup, so Uruguay's Olympics triumphs are completely irrelevant to this article. – PeeJay 06:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, one more thing to consider. My grandfather, who used to be an executive in the french football association, recently gave me a history book with cited official FIFA documents stating that the 1924, 1928 Olympic games were and are considered Equivalents to the world cup (the only two in history to do so). I have the scanned and cited proof of this. All I need is the word and i will send and translate it. I think this warrants atleast a footnote on this article.

Here are some points I translated from the documents:

- Jules Rimet (3rd President of FIFA), stated in 1914 that (quote) "Under the conditions that the Olympic Football tournament be organized in agreement with FIFA rules, the competition would be recognized as a World Championship." - In 1930, Jules Rimet stated that the World Cup would be the third World Championship played. The only reason it was renamed was because it was the first not to be played during the Olympic games. - In a 1932 update of FIFA regulation, it states that all Olympic Tournaments post 1930, were not to be considered World championships anymore. This was proposed by Jules Rimet himself, who later in 1950 confirmed that 1924 and 1928 were the first two FIFA World championship tournaments. - In the 80th anniversary of FIFA, they Article 9 (Page 72) of their regulation handbook, again restates that the 1924 and 1928 Olympic games are the only two tournaments to hold the same value as the 1930 FIFA World Cup. - In 1950, FIFA officially recognized Uruguay as the first nation to become 4 Time World Champion.

Just say the word and I can have these scanned :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.185.83 (talk) 13:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * FIFA even have them as separate on their own website, see honours on the right. But the issue is generally one of semantics, if Uruguay have been said to be the first nation to become four time world champions - fine, add it to the Uruguay national football team article with references, because we're only talking about World Cup wins on this page. Nanonic (talk) 13:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'll add it to the Uruguay section. But thought it was relevant to write (as footnotes) that 2 tournaments in history were held equivalent to World Cups. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.151.185.83 (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it could be relevant to add it under the Winners and finalists section, where the article mentions World Cup winners adding stars to their crest. 190.108.6.4 (talk) 03:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re-organize Main Table
When I looked at the main table for the first time and several times afterwards, it is unbelievably confusing. People easily identify the host nation as winners. Does anyone have anything against changing the table in the format of the main table on UEFA European Under-21 Football Championship? PS My background is in computer science (including web design, usability, user-interface, internet architecture) so if its confusing to me its confusing to average joe encyclopedia user.--Medic [ talk ] 10:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

FIFA's Contributions to the World
I would like to contribute to this Wikipedia site by talking about the campaigns that will be present in this year’s World Cup, "20 centers for 2010" part of the Football for Hope movement and “Win in Africa for Africa.” This will demonstrate how soccer (football) can have a positive worldly effect and show how soccer can utilize its popularity to help to improve the problems in the world.Kaylanicole9 (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is an overview of the entire subject of the World Cup – all the tournaments from 1930 to present and everything that entails. To include a whole section on FIFA's recent community initiatives, a relatively minor aspect, would be undue weight. I note that Football for Hope is a bluelink, perhaps your material would be more suited to that article. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe how I worded what I was interested in doing before was ambiguous in nature. I wouldn't want to discuss only the 2010 FIFA World Cup. I was just demonstrating how what this year's World Cup is doing is relevant to what I would like to discuss on this page. I would just like to put a small paragraph on this page about how soccer in general can be an influential and charitable sport in itself. I would talk about how the World Cup is used as a platform to promote issues throughout different societies and cultures of a variety of nations. Even if all of these ideas do not apply could some of it not be mentioned?Kaylanicole9 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

FIFA Men World Cup
I suggest that the term "men" be included as the title as this is a male-only World Cup and there IS a Women's World Cup. Ideas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.208.202 (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I am vehemently opposed to this idea. FIFA calls the tournament the "FIFA World Cup", so that is what we should call it. It is not up to us to change that just because we think it might be a little un-PC. – PeeJay 01:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * seconded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.137.242.166 (talk) 14:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - officially it is just the FIFA World Cup. Also is there actually any rule prohibiting women from playing? Starwrath (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes there is: mixed soccer above the age of 11 has no competitive recognition. Kevin McE (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean by that. I meant, is there any rule specifically stating that a national team cannot include a woman on their team that they send to the World Cup.  If there is a rule, where is it? Starwrath (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * For anyone over the age of 11, all competitive football is single sex. Kevin McE (talk) 23:16, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have a FIFA source that states that? That's what I was asking for. Starwrath (talk) 05:54, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Turkey last 4 table
LOL, who replaced Brazil with Turkey? ROFL ROFL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.67.151 (talk) 20:20, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

2022
where on wikipedia can I get info on 2022 ? Palx 13:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it would be held at 2022 FIFA World Cup; but as there is no info on something so far ahead, it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article. --Robdurbar 17:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Unlike the 2022 Winter Olympics or the 2024 Summer Olympics ? Palx 10:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup. Qatar is hosting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.14.81 (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thamk you: Palx had probably noticed some development in the 4 years + since his enquiry. Kevin McE (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Issue
In the winners list, the 1950 has as winner the team of Brazil, yet it was Uruguay who ultimately won the final's "group", defeating Brazil in the last match. 10:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That is what we call vandalism &mdash; chandler &mdash; 21:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree. If it's a personal opinion, it does not belong on Wikipedia.Kisstudent08 (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Useful External website (unofficial)
On my extensive research into a paper i'm writing I came across the following website - http://www.world-cup-statistics.com - which I believe is an extremely useful resource for any football fans, football statistician or football historian (like myself). As usual PeeJay2K3 removed the link without probably even reading some of the content on the site. I wanted to get further opinion on the quality of this website and statistics that are offered. Don't mind if people think its useless or useful - I just came across it on my studies and thought it might be of interest. Football nut (talk) 10:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * External links chandler 10:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're actually going to use it to source a particular fact in the article, then I'm sure that's fine, but adding it to the list of external links is pointless. – PeeJay 11:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree I believe that it is a useful resource relevant to the topic in question that many football statisticians would find immensely useful. Football nut (talk) 11:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's that useful, then surely you'll be able to find a fact that could be sourced from the site. If not, then surely people are managing just fine with the official sources, i.e. FIFA.com. – PeeJay 11:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Found one - Brazil are the leading scorers in the World Cup having scored 201 goals in 92 games, whilst Germany are the second highest with 190 goals in 93 games - already included within the text. When you give me the go-ahead I will add the website to the external links. 12:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Football nut (talk • contribs)
 * Now that you've added a link to the site via a reference, there is no need to add it to the External links section. The External links section should be kept exclusively for links to official websites of the subject of the article. – PeeJay 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be more credible if it were clear as to who the publisher of the site is, but while the site is anonymous, it is hard to consider it a reliable source. Kevin McE (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * FIFA World Cup on RSSSF....it doesn't get any better than that as an external link. Every single page in here can be cited even by person so stop crying about little things. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restyle of the "Summaries of previous tournaments"
I based my edits on the List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners table.

It's a bit more compact, I think it should follow all guidelines etc. chandler 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah: neat and informative. I would suggest that the asterisks and daggers serve their function perfectly well without needing to have a coloured background as well.  There is a need to include an explanation, with the extra charcters do: there is no reason for these games to to claim extra attention, which is the effect of the coloured background. Kevin McE (talk) 08:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why there's a background colour, it might be some important reason, but there's not much different without the colour imo.chandler 14:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the table. In particular: See what you think. Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Do we really need the 3rd-place match score? That's probably the least important match of the whole tournament....
 * 2) I've changed the notes format a bit and moved them to the relevant cell, instead of having another column on the far right, which is quite inconvenient.


 * Notes


 * I have to totally disagree with the removal of the third place match not being shown, not only because I find them very informational, but I don't agree that it's not important. The reason to have notes separate is because of style guidelines I think.chandler 17:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Another reason I removed the 3rd place match, besides my belief that it's unimportant because it hardly qualifies as information that you'll put in a summary of a World Cup, is that in the table you made, the 2nd and 3rd place team are bunched together, so visually those two teams form a "group", which is not preferable. Contrast this with the table in the current page, which has a separator between the finalists and the semifinalists. So I think at least you need a separator similar to the one we have now. Not sure about the "style guidelines", but since all notes are on the final score, it seems weird to put all the notes on the far right, which is not quite "accessible" to the reader. And one more thing, bold the champions. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They're hardly more grouped together than the host nations and winners, so I hardly think there's a reason to put in something that just takes up space. I think it's very good important information to put in not only because when there's actually been a match played for 3rd and 4th omitting that information the reader will not see how they got 3rd or 4th. For example your table does not include the information on how the 3rd and 4th places were decided in 1930 and 1950 (which notably did not follow the same format as the rest of the tournaments), this is one reason to have a separate notes section. The reason bold is not there is again because of style guidelines MOS:BOLD. Again I followed the style of List of European Cup and UEFA Champions League winners which is a Featured list and very probably has it right. chandler 18:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply put, no. It doesn't provide the scores the third-place match (and that match is too important to be excluded). The format right now is perfect for the World Cup and it should be left as so. Right now, you should be trying to provide additional information and references, not change what already works. After all, it is a feautured article. Also, it is nice to see the final and third-place match slighly separated so it doesn't become a pain trying to look at a long table.


 * And one last time...what works for UEFA doesn't work on everyone else. That is among the basic of the basics of common sense (no offense). Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Most widely viewed
The intro says the World Cup is the most widely viewed sporting event, however it is also the most widely viewed event in general (which is what the source actually says). I was thinking of just taking out the "sporting" part in the intro, but I wasn't sure if that sounded right, and figured I'd ask what other people thought. If no one replies, I will just remove the "sporting" so that the intro reads "The World Cup is the most widely-viewed event in the world" 129.133.206.180 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I reverted it: FIFA are scarcely an unbiased source for such a claim, the claim is not very clear, the basis of comparison is totally lacking in the source. Are FIFA claiming that there have been more viewings of the 2006WC final than viewings of Armstrong on the moon or the planes hitting the WTC?  Even the current claim is uncertain, as there is no directly comparable info: more people in China apparently watched the opening ceremony of 2008 Olympics than watched Italy-France worldwide.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:50, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. I'm glad you explained it so nicely, because now I completely agree. 129.133.142.139 (talk) 04:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Taking Men to the Wold cup
Nowhere in this artical does it explain how you must take 23 men on the plain to the World Cup. I also think it should explain the 30 man squad. I still don't know if you have to pick 23 players out of the 30 man squad. If you do please tell me.--Kinghenrimck (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That sort of thing belongs on the qualification pages of each World Cup, not the main article. It has varied greatly every edition. Jamen Somasu (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok manKinghenrimck (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.156.195.209, 11 June 2010
In the opening where it says "During the 18 tournaments that have been held, seven nations have won the title", it should say "During the 18 tournaments that have been held, seven national teams have won the title".

86.156.195.209 (talk) 10:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Done Spigot  Map  12:17, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

jabulani - suggestion for a new section on the new 2010 soccer ball by addidas
http://www.soccerballworld.com/Jabulani_2010.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.255.10 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already a section on the appropriate article. Kevin McE (talk) 20:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Chart under Results: Team/	Titles/	Runners-up/	Third place/	Fourth place
please add a subsection title/break to the second Chart under Results so that people can see it on the article menu and link directly to it:

Historical Standings Statistics
Also, it would be nice to have the chart columns sortable.

24.78.167.139 (talk)


 * Subheading added, but table not made sortable: it is not so long that finding a particular country is difficult, it is already sorted by number of wins, with number of second places as a way of subsorting etc. The likelihood of readers having a pressing need to know which teams have been 4th most often is negligible.  Kevin McE (talk) 12:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh come on, that's so easy to do, just copy the code above, what can it hurt?! 24.78.167.139 (talk) 04:47, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, looks like someone did it anyway, thanks 24.78.167.139 (talk) 04:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Duration of the Championships (who is crazy here?)
Respect,

I would pray that someone intelligent explain to me, because my brain can not comprehend, and because, obviously, I'm the only one stupid man among the billions of people, so I think that obviously someone is crazy here (most likely the people in these arenas, or in front of TV, mostly working class and the poor) - to which trick FIFA World Cup lasts a whole month, and the Olympic Games always lasts for two Weeks. Who is idiot here? I would be very thankful that we are to explain, by sport - technical reasons, not by COMMERCIAL reasons.

Thank you in advance

--195.29.56.182 (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Teams reaching the last 4 play 7 matches. If a finalist is one of the teams to play on the first day, the requirement on them would be 7 games in 31 days, which is consistent with playing at a high level.  A team who are in group H and play in the 3rd place play off have 7 games in 25 days, which really is at the limit of top level play.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Soccer World Cup
FIFA World Cup comparison to Soccer World Cup. In the original link to FIFA World Cup, I noticed it was being referred to Soccer World Cup which is inaccurate. There is currently NO Soccer World Cup, unless those nations wish to host one. FIFA governs the nations that play Football and the rules governing the game of Football and not Soccer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Darksycthe (talk • contribs) 22:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Awww, someone doesn't understand that Football and Soccer are the same thing... – PeeJay 22:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Technically Soccer is "Association Football". It was I believe originally used by English Public Schools (Harrow, Eton, etc) to distinguish it from the game of Rugby Football which were both played by Public Schools. I do hate the term Soccer, as it seems to be solely used within the USA to distinguish it from the game of football played with a pointy ball that resembles Rugby League. Personally I think that the American game should be renamed, not the worldwide game of football. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.189.231.18 (talk) 14:15, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You're right PeeJay, I didn't know Soccer and Football are the same. Perhaps the reason those countries playing Soccer will never win a FIFA World Cup is based solely on the name of the game they play; but what do I know. Lord Darksycthe (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Group Tie Breakers.
I used this article to check to group tiebreakers today. I wanted to know what came after head to head result and goal differential in two team ties and what was the case with three team ties. The section on this issue simply gets it wrong, although it cites to the correct rules.

The World Cup regulations quite clearly spell out that in ties of any number of teams, the first tiebreaker is goals scored in the matches between the tied teams (which works out to be head to head result for two teams and also applies to three team ties: Team A: W-L, Team B: T-L, Team C: W-T would have Team C advancing etc.)

So I'm editing to fix the mistake, but I just wanted people to know that although the source is correct, the tiebreakers are wrong, which we might have discovered in a day or so anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.28.112 (talk) 20:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

1934 German flag
Since the Imperial flag was the "national flag of Germany" from 1933-1935, that seems to be the best option for Germany in 1934. Although the Nazi flag was being used as an official flag as well, I think the latter should only be used during the time in which it was the exclusive flag of Germany. Also, I believe Hindenburg was still the President at the time of the World Cup, so this makes some sense politically as well.

Also, the Nazi flag is considered vandalism of the page. I temporarily changed it back to the Nazi flag (which it had been from the start of the World Cup until today or late yesterday) while I tried to figure out how to post the Imperial flag, and I got a message saying, "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at FIFA World Cup. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed."

But at any rate, the current German tricolor flag (one of the tricolors being gold and not white) should not be used, since that flag was expressly NOT the German flag at the time. We don't retroactively change other flags.Theknightswhosay (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The 1934 FIFA World Cup shows the nazi flag, but the only reference that was offered to support that is to a page long since changed. However, the official promotional poster for the event uses the empire flag (immediately to right of player).  That seems suitable evidence to me: empire flag it should be.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I checked the dates, by the way. The World Cup was played in May and June.  Hindenburg (who was a right-wing imperialist but not a Nazi) was President until August 1934 (when he died), and the Nazi flag didn't become the one official flag until September 1935, after further consolidation of power by the Nazis.  I would definitely think, especially in light of that poster, that the empire flag was probably more accepted for international purposes at the time of the 1934 World Cup.Theknightswhosay (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Cuban team
There is a question at Talk:Cuba national football team about its World Cup participation. Specifically, the article says FIFA didn't accept Cuba's applications in 1954 and 1970, and the team withdrew in 1994. Does anyone here know why? -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

For the first time...
We have a host team that hasn't made it into the second round of a World Cup tournament, moments ago. Fanatix 15:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Successor states/Inheritors of records
We should really have the officially recognized inheritors on the "Teams reaching the top four" table, not Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia or the likes. FIFA says Slovakia were runners-up twice, so if they were to become runners-up in 2010, they would have been runners-up three times. As the table currently stands, we would have Czechoslovakia with two and Slovakia with one runner-up position. I understand that this is problematic, and FIFA made it even more problematic by recognizing two countries as successors of Czechoslovakia, but let's try to keep this in line with the official FIFA records and not make it into Original Research. Rimush (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not OR, because there are thousands of published sources that correctly state that those teams, under their previous names, did fonosh in those positions. Our usual, rather sensible, way of dealing with it is to leave the successor names off until that name earns a place in a table, and then post an aggregate record, with a footnote that the earlier accomplishment was made under a different name.  Kevin McE (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, if the aggregate record will be posted, then it's ok as it is. Rimush (talk) 20:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Trivia question
Maybe this isn't the right place to ask the question, but I wonder if there ever has been a tournament where two teams have met twice during the same tournament, i.e. first meeting during the group stage and later again at the knockout stage? 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 11:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * All the information you will need to answer that question is either on, or linked to, this page. Enjoy the hunt. Kevin McE (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I now see that at least Brazil and Sweden met twice during the 1994 world cup. (I have a vague memory of that, since it was a big event in Sweden at that time.) Apparently, it would be a rare occasion, since, as far as I could make out, two teams from the same group must go on to the top four. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I can remember Sweden-Brazil in 1994 and Turkey-Brazil in 2002. chandler 15:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)