Talk:FIFA World Cup

An event mentioned in this article is a July 30 selected anniversary

Archives
June 2004 – December 2005 December 2005 – February 2006

???

Well... What's this? Conscious 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

What's the question? I believe they're allowed to copy it but they have to license it under GFDL... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 12:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

They don't even mention GFDL, neither do they credit the authors. Conscious 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no contact details on the site, and a WHOIS gives postal details only, so I've sent a standard letter to the postal address and listed it on Wikipedia:Mirrors and Forks. Oldelpaso 19:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is mentioned on the about page. The site does also appear to have correct attributation on bottom of everypage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.181.183 (talk • contribs) .

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

Appearance table removed

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

Host selection

From the FAC: "*Weak oppose. I'm not sure how much information is available but the "Selection of Hosts" section has only one sentence for every WC between 1930 and 1998, and then almost a paragraph each for 2002, 2006 and 2010-2018. I'd like to see more info on how the host is actually selected (submission process, shortlisting, voting, ???) and then maybe also a subsection on controversies, of which I'm sure there have been more than just the hoax bribe for 2006. I'm willing to help out with this, just didn't think it should be featured until there is a bit more info in this section. Thanks AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)"

I think the best way to sort that section out is to provide a clear description of the current voting process (Robdurbar has made a good change), and to move material to a new article FIFA World Cup host selection controversies, rather than a subsection. This could encompass other hosting controversies, such as boycotts of 1938 by Uruguay and Argentina due to an anticipation that it would be held in South America, and things like Henry Kissinger considering sueing FIFA after 1986 was given to Mexico instead of the USA. I have a book (Great Balls of Fire by John Sugden and Alan Tomlinson) which has a lot of info about this sort of thing. Oldelpaso 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

If we have enough info then I don't see why not, the internet prove fairly fruitless :).

Perhaps if the page was more simply called FIFA World Cup host countries then it could be a more comprehensive page mentioning the selection of each country and the methods used to chose them; this article would then include a summary of the whole thing Robdurbar 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's far more logical than my suggestion. Oldelpaso 10:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made the page FIFA World Cup hosts, feel free to mercilessly edit it -- it's not perfect by any means... more historical information would be nice. Suggestions, comments, questions? All can be placed at that article's discussion page. Cheers! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 09:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured!

This article is featured now. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it! Conscious 06:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd also like to put forth my congratulations also (especially Oldelpaso and Conscious, for tireless copyediting and whatnot). Now, our next step is to take it to Main Page FAs, and reserve our spot for June 9 (opening day of 2006 World Cup! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add my congrats message about this. It is fitting that this artice should be a featured piece of work as soccer is the most popular sport in the world. The World Cup is also more popular than the Olympic Games. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 16:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Siva1979, remember to always cite such broad claims as "The World Cup is also more popular than the Olympic Games." Oh, sorry, that was WP:FA talking. My bad :P — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed for this claim?! No wonder, you are living in the USA! It is widely accepted worldwide that the World Cup is much more popular than the Olympic Games. This view is held by Singaporean journalists. However, I admit that I can't seem to find official confirmation for this remark. Thus, I need the help of European football (notice I did not use the term 'soccer'!) fans to support my claim. Does anyone have any official reference for this claim? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Siva, are you sure you have read this edit summary? Conscious 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Coming from a place where losing a game of ball could cost you a limb, I'm going to have to say that at least where I am football is much more popular than anything Olympic. Of course, I'm no official source. Correction officer06 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

28 billion people?

The article says that the cup gets 28 billion viewers. That can't possibly be right, seeing as there aren't that many humans alive at any given time. Does anyone know the correct figure? The linked reference says that 37 billion people watched it, so that's even less helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbophobe (talk • contribs)

I think it means cumulative, ie the same person is counted twice if they watch 2 matches. It's probably impossible to estimate how many individual viewers watched at least one match. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Presumably one person watching two matches simultaneously would be counted twice. Abut 13:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it explicitly states that the figure is cumulative. Badgerpatrol 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Unofficial World Champion

I just discovered this Who are the unofficial 1966 World Champions? and Unofficial world champions from 1930. I think it might make an interesting article (needs to be updated). Jooler 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See Unofficial World Football Championship (p.s. its Romania). Robdurbar 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Ahh well there you go. Thanks! Jooler 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Most successful World Cup Teams since 1966

Tournament	1966	1970	1974	1978	1982	1986	1990	1994	1998	2002
1. Brazil	Group	WON	4	3	Rnd2	QF	Rnd2	WON	2	WON
2. Germany	2	3	WON	QF	2	2	WON	QF	QF	2
3. Argentina	Q/F	DNQ	Group	WON	Rnd2	WON	2	Rnd2	QF	Group
4. Italy national football team	Group	2	Group	4	WON	Rnd2	3	2	QF	Rnd2
5. England national football team	WON	QF	DNQ	DNQ	Rnd2	QF	4	DNQ	Rnd2	QF
6. France national football team	Group	DNQ	DNQ	Group	4	3	DNQ	DNQ	WON	Group
7. Netherlands	DNQ	DNQ	2	2	DNQ	DNQ	Rnd2	QF	4	DNQ

The above table was removed from the article. I don't think it really adds anything and repeats info from other tables on Wikipedia (and need to be formatted anyway); its also subjective, and starts arbitrairily in 1966; but I've left it here just in case anyone thinks it could be worked into an article or this article? --Robdurbar 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I like the look of the table - Gives a quick synopsis of each of the top countries performances at a quick glance - I haven't seen this elsewhere on Wikipedia. No reason it seems to start at 1966 I agree and the ordering from 1-7 is subjective but for me the concept is good and it should be tidied up and added to the core page or to a new page.

There is already such table. Conscious 06:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Featured Article of the Day box

Hey, just wondering what everybody would want the box to look like, if the article were to go as the featured article of the day on June 9... I've drawn up the following as a suggestion. Any thoughts for a better picture (though it doesn't look as bad as I thought it would, we need a better picture for the main page)?

1990 copy of the World Cup Trophy awarded to West Germany.

The FIFA World Cup is the most important men's competition in international football. The world's most representative team sport event, the World Cup is contested by the men's national football teams of Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (the sport's largest governing body) member nations. The championship has been awarded every four years since the first tournament in 1930 (except in 1942 and 1946 due to World War II). However, it is more of an ongoing event as the qualifying rounds of the competition take place over the three years preceding the final rounds. In 1991, FIFA added a separate Women's World Cup.

The men's final tournament phase (often called the "Finals") involves 32 national teams competing over a four-week period in a previously nominated host nation, with these games making it the most widely-viewed sporting event in the world. In the 17 tournaments held, only seven nations have ever won the World Cup Finals. Brazil is the current holder, as well as the most successful World Cup team, having won the tournament five times, while Germany and Italy follow with three titles each. The next World Cup Finals will begin in Germany on June 9, and will continue until July 9, 2006. (More...)

Note that this is only a draft (I just copied the lead section). Any ideas of how to improve it? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed last sentence, as when this is planned on being the featured article, the Finals will be going on. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Yay! We finally found a decent picture. I am going to submit this right away. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Posted. See it here! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

A minor change - the last sentence really ought to 'till July 9th'; 'through' is an Americanism so may not be understood by people speaking other variants of English (or at least sounds a little odd). Is there some template that the change can be made at or should it just be edited on the tomorrow's featured article page? --Robdurbar 12:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The change has been made: through => until. I will recopy the box into Tomorrow's featured article page so that we have the same copy here and at that page. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 14:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Posted on my talk page earlier today: "You requested FIFA world cup be the main page FA for June 9, the day it starts. Featured artilce is not supposed to conflict with other sections on the main page (the selected anniversaries or in the news). The FIFA world cup article will definitely be linked from the news section on June 9, so that's out. I am willing, however, to put it up on the 8th. Raul654 05:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)"

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

What about the day of the final? That would mean leaving it till July 9 though. If that's a clash too then yeah, probably the 8th as it will help up the excitement! --Robdurbar 11:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We got selected for June 8. Go us! — Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Current Sports Event

Should we tag this as a current event? --Robdurbar 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Naw, wait until June 7 or so. By then, we will most likely be lined up for Main Page FA (keep your fingers crossed), and then we can start making final changes and whatnot. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 01:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

The template says "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses", I'm not sure if it's necessary because the information in this article in principal shouldn't change very much at all. But it would be nice to have something at the top to direct people to the 2006 article in order to prevent insignificant detail about 2006 being added to this article. But yeh if it does get put on, wait till june 7 as ian said. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

{{dab_current}} looks like the tag to use. Oldelpaso 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Nice find AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 08:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We might want to add this information...

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

Women World Cup

Since this article is clearly about men WC, and since it i longer that it should, and since we have a "See also" section reference to Women WC, why not removing the part about the Women WC? In particular, why should we be interested in the difference about how ranking is handled?--Panairjdde 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The ranking stuff can go, I agree. I'll make an edit in a few seconds that should fix your concerns. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It has been changed. I've taken out the women's rankings portion and have moved the Men's ranking down to the "final tournament" section. What do you think? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It is better, but now the fact that FIFA created a women WC in 1991 is repeated two times. I would remove them both, and put a note.--Panairjdde 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I removed the second mention -- I didn't realize that the same thing was mentioned twice. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

How are team strips selected

I've looked everywhere to find out if 2 teams have the same colour strips how is it decided which team should wear their away strip? It would be good if someone could explain this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.104.42.153 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC).

Unless they can agree, I believe they just toss a cooin to decide, although I have no source for this. Badgerpatrol 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

No, one of the teams is always "hosting" the game. For example, in Poland-Ecuador (June 9) Poland are hosts (that's why their name is given first). Conscious 16:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Unsourced claim removed from the article

Here it goes:

FIFA have announced that if Brazil win the trophy for the 3rd time in 2006 it will be retired and a new trophy will be designed for the 2010 tournament.

Conscious 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You did the right thing. According to newspaper articles in Singapore, this claim is false. Brazil will have to return the trophy back to FIFA if they win it again. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

France 1938

"The decision to hold the second of these, the 1938 FIFA World Cup in France was controversial, as the American countries had been led to understand that the World Cup would rotate between the two continents. Both Argentina and Uruguay thus boycotted the tournament." must be an joke... Your note never say that! Argentina was not in France in 1938 not because of a boycott but for financial reasons at the last minute. There were riots in Buenos Aires for days after that argentian abandon. Uruguay et United States (you forgot them?) didn't go for financials and political reasons. 84.103.176.100 01:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Utilisateur:Clio64 on the french WP)

Any sources for this? Conscious 10:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Clean up

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

Finally!

Finally, this article is featured as Today's featured article on June 8, 2006. It is about time as well, considering the importance of this tournament. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 02:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's far more important than it should be. The FIFA World Cup's popularity is the perfect example of the commercial sector and peer pressure teaming up to enforce a hype upon the world up to the point where part of me secretly hopes that terrorists will target the very first official World Cup match with something non-lethal like sleeping gas so that for one day at least the news will be blessedly devoid of all the jammering on about Football. Yes I understand that football is fun for the fans, now it's time for the fans to understand football is not as fun for the rest of us who would like to finally resume eating food that isn't doused in one's country's national colours. Rant over, nothing to see here. Robrecht 04:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a soapbox, and it most definitely isn't a place for you to contemplate terrorist activities in, Robrecht. —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 05:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

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

The World Cup only comes along once every four years. It is and should be a very important event for all humanity. There is no other time when people all across the world are more united or happy. Beyond the football, that's the incentive: the world just comes closer together during the World Cup. The lives of millions of people will be dominated by this tournament in this next month. That's not a bad thing; we all want to forget the rigors and monotony of our daily lives every once in a while. Now, of course, if either Brazil or the Netherlands win, then I'll be particularly happy.UberCryxic 02:44, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Cup?

The trophy is not in the shape of a cup. 205.174.22.28 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Could it be that we've all been calling it the wrong name all these years? Disaster! Quick, we have about 2 million tickets to recall and reprint by tomorrow afternoon! Badgerpatrol 04:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The current trophy is the 2nd of its kind. Does anyone know if the 1st (which, if memory serves, was stolen in Brazil in the 70s and supposedly melted down) was shaped like a cup? Raul654 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

To an extent. It was cup-esque I suppose- certainly more than the modern one. see here. Badgerpatrol 04:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia, of course, has an article - see FIFA World Cup Trophy. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Second largest?

I think that I once read, or saw on TV, that the FIFA World Cup is the second largest sporting event in the world, second to only the Olympics. Makes sense to me, but I wasn't able to find any sources that prove this. Maybe you guys have better sources. What do you recon? —Michiel Sikma 「Gebruiker/Overleg」 05:51, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Found the source claiming Paralympics are the second largest: [1]. If you define it in terms of number of participants, the World Cup if far behind (23*32 << 4000). Conscious 05:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

This depends obviously on how you calculate 'size'. The Football World Cup is generally regarded as the largest sporting event because: it generates the most interest in terms of TV viewers, media coverage and sponsorship; it generates the most revenue; it involves the most nations (207 FIFA Countries vs 203 Olympic). It would also presumably have the largest number of participants if you included the qualifying matches.130.237.175.198 10:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If all 207 countries were to use an average of 20 competitors, it would bring out a larger figure than the parlympics. Bear in mind that not quite all FIFA nations enter the World Cup every year - there's usualy 2 or 3 who don't - so the figure is probably something like the 4000 who compete in the paralympics, if we include the qualifying. --Robdurbar 10:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Unequivocally, the World Cup is by far the largest sporting event in the world, and will be until something can replace football as the dominant sport on Earth. Currently, about 75% of all sports fans on the planet are primarily football fans. That gives you an idea on how important the World Cup is. TV viewership for the World Cup practically breaks a record every time. Something like two billion people saw France and Brazil in 1998; no equivalent numbers for any other event, be it in sports or something else.UberCryxic 02:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

How many countries list football as their national sport? Jooler 08:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Home Field Advantage

At the end of the Successful National Teams subheader, there is currently a link for the term "supportive crowd" that redirects to the 12th Man. Does anybody else think this should instead link to Home field advantage? Runch 16:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big deal IMO. In addition, the 2 articles you mention are interlinked. Maybe they should be merged? Conscious 17:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the two are pretty well interchangeable on this occasion. There is already a proposal that they should be merged and discussions to this effect where opinions are invited. Please see the articles themselves for links to the discussions. Alias Flood 18:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

1930 World Cup - 3rd place

If what the footnote states - that there were no third place - is correct, then why is there two teams on third place. If nothing was awarded, then surely no teams should be mentioned either? If we can agree they did not finish third, and they did not finish fourth, then they shouldn't be in the table. Poulsen 06:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Because I lost that argument already, see thar first archive above. That was my position about 6 months ago, but another user kept changing it. The argument ended up on WP:LAME and what we have now is the compromise solution. Jooler 07:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC) See Talk:United States men's national soccer team, where the argument about 3rd place was recently re-ignited. Jooler 07:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was that recent argument that made me think, if consensus is that no secondary places were awarded, then it would be logical not to have the table appear so. Especially User:Johan Elisson's link to FIFA World Cup All-time Awards page made me think so. But if this has reached a kind of compromise, I wouldn't start anything again :) Poulsen 07:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Then again if you look at http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/p/pwc/1930.html - and the bottom of the page it says - "Official FIFA World Cup™ Awards" - it lists Winner and Second, but not 3rd or 4th. Check out the other World Cups and you will note the difference. I am going to be bold and remove the USA/Yugoslavia. The person who was complaining last time User:Supersexyspacemonkey has not contributed here for a while. 07:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am being bold too, and replacing USA and Yugoslavia. Please note that semi-finalists are recognized in the very same format on European Football Championship. Uris 00:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No you're putting USA under a heading that says 3rd and Yugoslavia under a heading that says 4th and then just changing the uppoer heading from 'Third Place Match' to' Semi-finalists'. Jooler 00:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want to make it more like European Football Championship, please do. But it works better than deleting the teams. I'm not sure I have the capability of changing the headers of the table twice and having it come off cleanly. You're right, it would be even more correct that way... but either way is more appropriate than deleting the semi-finalists completely. The "and" with the link to explanation makes this quite understandable that there was no match played and were both semi-finalists, as in the Euro table. Uris 00:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In what way is it "better" to say that the USA finished 3rd and Yugolslavia finished 4th, when that is just not true. A factual error is "better". You must be using some strange definition of the word "better" that I haven't come across before. Jooler 00:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, it's saying "USA and Yugoslavia" were semi-finalists. Yes, the line-up in the 3rd and 4th place columns, which isn't so bad since they finished in 3rd and 4th place. If you can fix it though, please help out. Uris 00:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

In order to avoid any more grief with this I've reverted it to the consensus that was agreed last year. Jooler 00:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I think we could make it even better if it was like the Euro chart for years they didn't play the Third Place match... I will try to get it done at some point (if anyone can help, it would be appreciated). Uris 00:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify your position - would it therefore be equally acceptable to you to put Yugoslavia under the 3rd column and USA under the 4th? I should point out that I have absolutely no intention of doing that because that would lead to the false impression that Yugoslavia finished 3rd and USA 4th which would still be a factual error. But I just want to know if you would find that acceptable, if you came to this page and saw it laid out that way. Jooler 01:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not about 3rd or 4th, it's about recognizing all semi-finalists even when no game was played. Again, see the Euro Results Table which does the same thing. Alphabetical order would seem to be the standard practice. Uris 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Right so you would accept Kingdom of Yugoslavia under the 3rd column and United States under the 4th then? Jooler 08:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It's a moot point now, but obviously no one would accept that because the team played as Yugoslavia, not Kingdom of Yugoslavia. You seem to have an ax to grind, with no apparent rationale. Uris 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Come on guys, we've been through all this already. Having them placed in 3rd and 4th is tendentious, so we either have both on the 3rd plcae column or not having them at all. Mariano(t/c) 08:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Okay no problem. That is the compromise that was agreed before. Jooler 09:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

1920's olympic games

According to the monument to world champions outside the Estadio Centenario (The stadium in Montevideo where the first world cup was held), Belgium won the gold medal in 1920. Can someone check that info and add it?--Rataube 13:58, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

According to the article on Football at the 1920 Summer Olympics Belgium did win the medal. Should we add it?--Rataube 14:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. Conscious 14:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Map image needs revision

The image of the world cup champion nations needs revision. Brazil is not shown and south america is cut in half. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.8.68 (talk • contribs)

It is shown, but perhaps your screen resolution is set to only 256 colours and it has turned the pale blue/grey into white, or perhaps your contrast/brightnedd needs adjustment. Nevertheless, whoever made the map made a poor choice with regard the colours. Jooler 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

1950 scores

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

Links underneath the flags

Suggestion: In the table showing the results of the world cups tournaments, the links on the country names should point to the pages of the respective national teams, rather than to the countries themselves.

The link you are talking about is the host of the tournament though. It wouldn't make sense to link it to the team. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 06:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

British Associations withdrawl from FIFA

The article currently says "British teams withdrew from FIFA in 1920, partly out of unwillingness to play against the countries they had been at war with, and partly as a protest against a foreign influence to football." - The second clause is not quite correct. The FA and the associations of the other "home nations" did not wish to play against the former Central Powers (Austra, Hungary and Germany), but they were not alone, the French, Belgian and Luxembourg Football Associations also refused to play them. At a meeting in Brussels on 29 December 1919 a meeting proposed that these nations break with FIFA and form a new body that was going to be called "The Federation of National Football Associations". The countries that had been neutral during the war called the rebel associations' bluff. The president of the Belgian FA then wrote to the President of The Football Association mellowing their position he wrote - "It is certain that an uncompromising attitude on our part would, speaking in a sporting sense, throw several neutrals into the arms of the Central Powers. ... let them [the former neutrals] come to a decision of their own free will rather than to force them to declare themselves in our favour". He (The Belgian President) then went on to say that they would still refuse to play the former Central Powers during the upcoming Olympics (and as it turned out they were banned from the whole compettion anyway) and would await further discussions following the Olympics. The FA then jumped the gun an unanimously withdrew on April 23 1920 quickly followed by the other home nations. So it wasn't so much the "foreign influence" as much as the majority of the former foreign neutrals. Pages 304-306 History of The Football Association Geoffrey Green (1954) Jooler 10:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Quote from [2]:

The four British football associations - those of Scotland, England, Northern Ireland and Wales - had withdrawn from football's governing body FIFA back in 1920. There had been arguments over the suitability of playing teams with whom Britain had recently been at war, and more importantly a general feeling that there was now too much foreign influence in what was surely a British game!

Please correct the article if you want but do not omit this opinion. Conscious 10:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of the author of that piece? Jooler 10:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Conscious 10:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not trying to be obtuse but you're confusing me. You think that the article should include the opinion of the author of that piece, someone working for Scottish Cultural Resources Access Network, that the reason that they left FIFA was because, to use an appropriate idiom, the FA said it was the their ball that everybody was playing with anyway. Jooler 11:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I thought that was a BBC article. Conscious 11:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it is actually. My mistake, it is the pictures that are © SCRAN. But whatever there's no author pinned to article. I still don't see what that author's opinion has to do with it. Jooler 11:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

They rejoined in 1924 but left once more in 1928, this time in protest about the practice among a number of other Associations whereby players were technically playing as amateurs and eligible to play in the Olympics but were receiving backhand payments. The FA had resolved this problem in England 40 years earlier by making the distinction between amateur players and professionals very clear. Jooler 10:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Changing American to British Spelling

For the record, this article is not UK-centric and thus does not require UK spelling. Not to mention that the US has been a part of World Cups for longer than England has. There is no reason to revert the spelling of the article to the old British style, but I won't put up a big fuss about it. Uris 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes there should, it's wiki policy. It's always best to use Commonwealth English unless it is specifically a US article, even if it's a "neutral" one such as this. Incidentally, if we are to use American stylings on the article why not go around and call it "soccer". Although it's true a great fuss shouldn't be made, even US English is never really American as it still originates from England/Britain - a time when there was no standardised spelling. On a lighthearted note, England may be only "half" an island but it still helped to conquer 1/4 of the world and, as part of the UK of GBNI is still a major world power. Not that I'm an imperialist or anything. hedpeguyuk 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't embarass yourself, hedpeguyuk. It certainly is not Wiki policy that it is best to use British or 'Commonwealth' English for all non-US centred articles- see the MOS [3]. If the main bulk of the article has been written in one style or the other, then that is the way it should stay- whether it is in US or any other dialect of English. Exceptions are made only if there is a specific and irrefutable tie between an article's subject and a particular national language variety. Life is too short to look through the history and check which variety of English has priority on this article- I trust everyone can sort it out like adults rather than resorting to petty edit wars or nationalistic chest-beating (however light-hearted) a la the above comment. Badgerpatrol 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Nationalistic chest-beating?!?! And I'm not even English. OK, I apologise...It's just Uris made a remark of England being a small island nation (sic) as if its size (area) had any great revelance. Anyway, I would like to suggest that as Football is a largely British creation (even if the World Cup is not) then, in this instance, there is a tie between the article's subject and a particular variety regardless of "who played in it first". But if someone does want to change it to US Eng. I'll live and let live. hedpeguyuk 23:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

That's alright then, you're forgiven ;-). (Sadly I've been worn out this week by some fairly tiresome America v the ROW arguing over on the main page talk re World Cup scores on the main page- apologies if I misinterpreted the tone of your comment). I wouldn't say that football is so identified as British so as to necessitate the use of British english; it's an international game. However, if Uris is unilaterally changing the pre-existing precedent for one or the other language style, then it is he who is in the wrong (as laid out in the manual of style). PS- I also noticed that comment; I wonder what he meant by 'island nation'. Hopefully as in 'a nation that makes up part of an island' rather than 'a nation that makes up the whole of an island'- I'm not English either ;-). Maybe we should start a geography wiki? It seems there could be a use for it... Badgerpatrol 00:01, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

For the record, the article had US English spelling originally ("organized") and it was changed to UK English ("organised") and the reason given was that this is not a US-centric article and thus must be UK English (which is obviously wrong). Also, I said that England is a "small island nation", which is true... just because they can't claim more than half their island for England doesn't mean they aren't an "island nation", does it? Would we not consider Haiti to be an "island nation" as well as Cuba? I should pride myself on being just about the only American I know who actually knows the difference between England, Great Britain, and the United Kingdom. Almost everyone on this side of the water thinks that either the term Great Britain is outdated and/or meaningless, or they think that it means the exact same thing as United Kingdom. Do I fault Americans for not much caring about British geography, or do I fault the Brits for making everything more confusing than it should be? Perhaps a little of both... either way, for my part I know my world geography quite well, thank ye! I can even point out Monaco, San Marino, Romania, and Ukraine on an unmarked European map... how many Americans can do that? (Not many, because it's not tested in our school system... granted, our educational system doesn't teach much until the college level.) Uris 13:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is the first relevent diff I can find to assist us in making a decision: [4], from 2001 I believe. It seems to establish the use of Commonwealth English per the MOS, but I must stress that this shouldn't be a big deal- what we don't want is any edit warring over something as insignificant as which mode of the language to use. So long as the article is internally consistent and we can all understand it, then that's all that matters. Cwealth English has priority in this case as a matter of procedure, but that needn't be taken to mean anything outside of a technical matter. Apologies for making everything confusing btw; an elegant solution might be to use large quantities of dynamite to detach England from the rest of the country and float it off across the Atlantic, thus simplifying things here at home. I would venture that this might be quite a popular solution amongst certain segments of the UK population, particularly at the moment. ;-) Badgerpatrol 15:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

That does seem to establish Commonwealth English for this article... so even though "organize" may have made it into the article before "organise" ever did, I'm okay with this new change. I want to say though that I have nothing against island-dwellers. In fact, I currently reside on an island myself! As a final remark though, I must point out to all that football (soccer), like many contributions of lasting value from the UK mistakenly credited to England, was likely invented in Scotland. This information, as with all else, I have gleaned from the Wikipedia article on the subject. Uris 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so why should we prefer one style over another? I naturally assumed Commonwealth spelling because it is more universal than American. --Hurricane Angel 03:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If by that you mean more widespread geographically and demographically, that may or may not be the case, and has been the subject of various lengthy debates in the past. However, Wikipedia policy on this issue is laid out clearly in the MOS (see my link above). It really isn't worth getting worked up about- simply put, whatever has been the prevailing style up till now should stay, whether US, Commonwealth, or whatever. Badgerpatrol 03:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

You really should read the MOS, guys. Badgerpatrol is right, this article should use the style that it mostly uses. And there's no default style for Wikipedia. Conscious 06:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

If england is an island nation for being on an island, every nation is an island, becasue every piece of land is completely surrounded by sea. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Are you an elementary school child? Many elementary school children, when first learning geographical terms such as these, correctly point out that all continents are surrounded by water too, and are thus technically islands themselves. See here. (Either way, touché!) Uris 13:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Given that this article uses football rather than soccer throughout and has done since it was first created five years ago; anyone thinks that this should suddenly start using US English is just being belligerent. Jooler 10:17, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Listen everyone, you need to understand both UK and US English. Some points to bear in mind:

• A consistent style is helpful. By all means, call it "football" throughout. It is recommended [5], that one standard of English (e.g. UK, US, AU) be used throughout a Wikipedia article.
• But do not get upset by variations, e.g. words ending in "-ize" or "-ise", "-or" or "-our", "-g" or "-gue". If it does annoy you, then solve that problem within yourself.
• Where UK and US words differ, it's helpful to include both, e.g. nappy (diaper). That's just an example, not a reference to anything on this page.
• Since you probably encounter both standards (and other varieties) of English every day, you need to be able to cope with variation. That's a fact that no policy or standard will change.

So calm down and get a life.   Abut 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Table moved from article

Team	Titles	Winning years	Runners-up	Third-place (please fill in)
Template:BRAf	5	1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002	2 (1950*, 1998)	2 (1938, 1978)
Template:GERf	3	1954, 1974*, 1990 (all as West Germany)	4 (1966, 1982, 1986, 2002) (all but latest as West Germany)	2 (1934, 1970) (Nazi Germany and West Germany)
Template:ITAf	3	1934*, 1938, 1982	2 (1970, 1994)	1 (1990*)
Template:ARGf	2	1978*, 1986	2 (1930, 1990)	-
Template:URUf	2	1930*, 1950	-	-
Template:ENGf	1	1966*	-	-
Template:FRAf	1	1998*	-	2 (1958, 1986)
Template:TCHf	-	-	2 (1934, 1962)	-
Template:HUNf	-	-	2 (1938, 1954)	-
Template:NEDf	-	-	2 (1974, 1978)	-
Template:SWEf	-	-	1 (1958*)	2 (1950, 1994)
Template:USAf	-	-	-	1 (1930^)
Template:AUTf	-	-	-	1 (1954)
Poland	-	-	-	2 (1974, 1982)

* = hosts

^ = no 3rd place match was ever played. FIFA has since ranked the United States as the 3rd place team for the 1930 World Cup Tournament (please cite).

Whoever created this table, please finish it before putting in the article. It's a featured article and it shouldn't contain comments like "please fill in". Additionally, I'm not sure third places should be included at all. Conscious 10:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I added the table, and I apologize for not finishing it. Bad form. Regardless, it's finished now and I put it back up. The only thing I noticed I wasn't able to do was cite the 1930 3rd place finish of the USA. As we all know, there was no 3rd place match, but FIFA has since ranked the USA as third, which can be seen by going here:

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/releases/en/fwc_origin_en.pdf (page 2)

Also, I think this link should replace the link "FIFA Official Ranking of All Participants at Finals 1930-2002 (PDF)" since it is missing the second page presented in the link I posted.

I do think it is important to list the 3rd place match, since the winners of 3rd place are given a medal. Indeed, it is the only match of the knock-out round where each participant has already lost a match in the same round. Bottom line, if 3rd place didn't matter then FIFA wouldn't organize the game. -Steve from Maryland.