![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
-Is it not getting a little ahead to include South Africa 2010 in the winners Summary list? It might serve to inform that SA will be the next hosts but this could be done elsewhere. The empty line to Germany is appropriate as this is a current event and will soon be filled, but SA 2010 is 4 years away and seems out of place in a summary of historical results.
-in the list of this year world cup some one had put france were in the final when they havent got though yet i have fixed this and put italy who are though and germany in a runners up place like they are if you have a problem with this please contact me at my talk page before reverting as it is vandalism to delete things if they are not wrong with out consulting the person who did it -- Hunter91 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-I second that; it's obviously wrong to try and predict results like that. However for the summary section, isn't it appropriate to fill out the finalists/future venues? They may not have happened yet, but they are still informative and historical. Maybe the 'results' heading could be changed to something else to include this? - Aheyfromhome
Well... What's this? Conscious 04:23, 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) .
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)
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)
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. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 16:42, 17 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)
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 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)
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.
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)?
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)
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)
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)
Should we tag this as a current event? -- Robdurbar 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Here it goes:
Conscious 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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, 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. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:32, 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)
The trophy is not in the shape of a cup. 205.174.22.28 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
So calm down and get a life. Abut 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Team | Titles | Winning years | Runners-up | Third-place (please fill in) |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
5 | 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002 | 2 ( 1950*, 1998) | 2 ( 1938, 1978) |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
3 | 1934*, 1938, 1982 | 2 ( 1970, 1994) | 1 ( 1990*) |
![]() |
2 | 1978*, 1986 | 2 ( 1930, 1990) | - |
![]() |
2 | 1930*, 1950 | - | - |
![]() |
1 | 1966* | - | - |
![]() |
1 | 1998* | - | 2 ( 1958, 1986) |
![]() |
- | - | 2 ( 1934, 1962) | - |
![]() |
- | - | 2 ( 1938, 1954) | - |
![]() |
- | - | 2 ( 1974, 1978) | - |
![]() |
- | - | 1 ( 1958*) | 2 ( 1950, 1994) |
![]() |
- | - | - | 1 ( 1930^) |
![]() |
- | - | - | 1 ( 1954) |
![]() |
- | - | - | 2 ( 1974, 1982) |
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 10:00, 16 June 2006 (EST).
I'd also like to add that in the particular instance of the 1930 3rd place debate, the notice of the two semi-finalists (with no 3rd place match) is fantastic. But, adding the 3rd place column let's people know that FIFA eventually did rank the USA and YUG as 3rd and 4th respectively, in addition to highlighting the importance placed on the 3rd place match (which was instituted in '34). Just some thoughts.
If we can agree, could you (or someone) please take the initiative to cite the USA 3rd place column with the link I posted above, in whatever manner you deam appropriate. I would do it myself, but I can't figure out the syntax. Thank you. -Steve from Maryland
Thanks! And again, my apologies. - Steve from Maryland.
Third Place 1934 "
Nazi Germany": It's common in the media to precede the name of a country with the name of its leader or his/her ideology.
In factual sporting results, however, normal practice is to use the country's official name, or a neutral short-form. In this case it's sufficient to note "(1970 as West Germany)" under "Third place".
It's great that Wikipedia makes important information accessible to lots of people, but let's try and keep the right information in the right place.
Also, Poland should link to the
team, not the
country.
Abut
17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In the 1934 Section of the table, it shows the country Germany using the flag with the swastika in the middle, but wasnt the official flag the black, white, and red bars until some time in 1935? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.236.162.160 ( talk • contribs) 13:53, June 16, 2006 (UTC).
I noticed some inconsistencies in the flag icons in the article and wanted to run them by everyone before changing anything (due to the FA and likely high traffic right now). I understand for the Franco Spain, Hungary 1940, and Kingdom of Yugoslavia we don't have SVG versions, but the Flag of England is sometimes implemented as the bordered PNG and sometimes as the SVG (I think the non-border SVG is better personally). Also, keeping with history, the 1930 US flag should be a 48-star version, and I'm not sure why the SVG for the current 50-star US flag isn't being used. Any reason not to make these changes? Craig R. Nielsen 07:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The flag icon for Germany in the year 1934 is wrong. The nazi-flag with the swastika was used officially since 1935. The correct flag icon would be the flag of the German Empire: black-white-red.
In section 3.2 ("final tournament"), it would be nice to explain how the "drawing of lots" in the case of a tie is performed. I realize it is the same term as used in the official regulations (Ref.14), but for a novice reader this does not mean much (and is even confusing -- e.g., does it refer to a new "coin toss" performed when the need arises, or does it refer to the drawing of teams into groups that was done before the final stage of the Cup?)
Dear editors and readers, please share your opinion on whether it is appropriate to put scores of Uruguay-Brazil and Sweden-Spain matches in the results table. I think that it is, because the matches have decided 1st and 3rd place, and the footnote gives a very clear description of the status of these matches. I'm asking because one user repeatedly removes the scores, and I want to know what others think. Conscious 09:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"The FIFA World Cup (often called the Football World Cup, the Football World Championships or, more usually, just the World Cup) is the most significant competition in international football and in world sport."
I Googled for the terms listed in this opening sentence (and one other – bracketed), and extrapolated the first couple of pages of search results. The outcome was as follows.
FIFA World Cup: 52.7 million
Football World Cup: 3.4 million
(Soccer World Cup: 5.6 million)
Football World Championships: 14 thousand – of which most were nothing to do with the World Cup
World Cup: 520 million – of which more related to the FIFA World Cup than to all other sports combined
I think it is clear that the World Cup is not often known as the Football World Championships. I suspect that the myth derives from the fact that the name of the World Cup in other languages does often translate literally as 'World Championship'. But this is the English Wikipedia.
It is also apparent that it's the same people who don't call football football who also don't just call the World Cup the World Cup. Nonetheless, if we list football World Cup, we should really list soccer World Cup too. When, for reasons of ignorance or otherwise, it is felt necessary to specify the sport, more people seem to use the word 'soccer' than 'football'.
Also, if the World Cup really is "the most significant competition... in world sport", why mention that it's "the most significant competition in international football" too? Personally, I think it's POV to state that the World Cup is more significant than the Olympics. Grant 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The usage of "championship" is prevalent in some countries (not English-speaking). Conscious 07:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
What are the terms used to refer to the finals and the qualification process? Is it correct to say that when people say they are going to/competing in "the World Cup", they usually mean the finals tournament? And if so, when you describe, say, the 2006 FIFA World Cup should you describe the whole process from the initial entries and draws for the qualification tournaments to the end of the finals tournament? In other words, when someone asks "what is this FIFA World Cup competition", do you tell them it is the finals tournament or do you say it is a cyclic championship that starts with qualification tournaments and culminates in a finals tournament? And do people use the term "FIFA World Cup" to refer to both things? This is all to do with phrasing things correctly in the introduction I've been writing at 2006 FIFA World Cup. Advice and assistance would be appreciated. Carcharoth 18:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Many of the edits today have been either vandalism or insufficient removals of vandalism. As a result, much residual vandalism remains. Could someone that has the time sort it out? Thanks. -- A bit iffy 12:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's probably not a big deal, but why are we using Hungarian flag adopted in 1940 for the 1938 tournament? According to [8], they used a flag similar to current at the time. Conscious 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone still puts the Nazi flag on for the earlier German flag. It needs to be fixed. The user that keeps doing that should be banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.19.94 ( talk • contribs) .
A bit more clarification above. -- Wine Guy Talk 19:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
At certain points throughout the article there are references to the above. Can I just point out that there has never been any countries called "West" Germany and "South" Korea and I don't just mean in the English language versions of the names. I think you will find that the official names (in English) are Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of Korea respectively. "West/East" and "South/North" were lazy Cold War terms used to differentiate between the politically partitioned states but I believe the fact the communist states were/are called German Democratic Republic (the now defunct DDR) and Democratic People's Republic of Korea does that anyway! I see no reason therefore why you shouldn't just use the name "Germany" (can't use FR Germany as it didn't exist prior to 1949) throughout the article and in Korea's case the following: "Korea Republic" (for South Korea as used by FIFA itself) and DPR Korea (for North Korea). Currently we differentiate the two Congo's not by calling them "east" and "west" but by "Congo" and "DR Congo" (Democratic Republic of).
How long after that winning penalty kick was the page updated? What, 5, 10 seconds? :) 70.178.172.207 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"The championship has been awarded every five thousand years since the first tournament in 600 A.D., except in 1942 and..." every 5,000 years, since 600 A.D.?
When the article is unprotected, please remove the stadia information from the summary table. It doesn't add much, can be easily accessed through the individual tournament articles, and just clutters the table. Conscious 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list anywhere on Wikipedia of all the penalty kick shootouts in the history of the World Cup finals tournaments (participants and who won, with links back to the relevant World Cups)? If not, would it be OK to create it, and where? I was just wondering because I know Italy have had a ridiculous number of penalty shootouts. Most of the time they lose, but I was pleased to see them win this time. Which is why I'd be interested in a list of the penalty shootouts in the previous World Cup finals tournaments. Carcharoth 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone put in the best finishes table that the USA won in 2010.
It is clear that nobody will be there to argue for Zidane, because, of course, that head butt was a foolish and dangerous activity. And every body who saw the incident would say he deserves such a send off. But what made him to turn into such a furious activity in the last moment.
He forgot the world cup final, his last match, the referees and tens of thousands of spectators.
So what Materazzi said would be a serious abuse. Only two people do know that the said one and the heard one. Here is another insufficiency of football law has been revealed. There is no punishment for fouls done by tongue. That must be dangerous, perhaps will create more political, more than a sports controversy. There already arose some rumors about what Materazzi abused Zidane. Some reached such extend that he said a world such as son of a terrorist.
There must be a reconstruction in football laws, referees must depends upon TV replays, and there must be arrangements to ban abuse word used in the ground. Everybody knows that Italian players are well learned to use abuse words in the ground to make fury to their counterparts. Actually what happened is Zidane fell into the web made by a spider named Materazzi.
Zinadine Zidane would be the most perfect football player born in this earth ever. But he kicked the pot in the last steps. He could overwhelm Maradona and Pele. The world would remember him as a messiah of the football. But zissou, why did he do that in the last moments of the game? Of course, that was the last international game of his life. It is clear; Matteraassi had showered abuse on him. But he could be more patient, because, he is a very experienced player. But a moments misdeed spoiled everything; Some times French team could have lifted the world cup if Zidane were with them in the last moments. And it could be a kingly farewell for him. And the world could remember him as a legend. But Zidnes head butt was dangerous, and everybody who saw it would say he deserves the red card. The football world has got another tragic hero, after Maradona, he ended his career with a ban for using drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.11.169 ( talk • contribs)
The ranking of the most successful World Cup nations, is in the article based on a very primitive algorithm. Basically it weighs first place as infinitely more important than second place, which is in turn weighed as infinitely more important than third place etc. This is statistically unsound. Behind the idea of a "successful World Cup nation" lies the notion of statisticall overrepresentation. Surely, a team which places second place five times, is more successful than a team which wins the World Cup once, but never again qualifies. Football matches being played by two teams, the resulting tournament is binomially structured. Thus, to quantify the "unlikeliness" of reaching a certain position n (n=1 equals gold, n=2 equals silver, etc.), we may assign the point value 1/n for each team in each tournament, and then add these values up, where the greatest sum belongs to the most statistically high-reaching team. I have done this procedure, for a couple of teams from the table based on first to forth place finishes (n=1, to n=4). The ranking thus produced is (where I have multiplied the values by 12 for clarity):
Brazil 83 Germany 75 Italy 67 etc. (I do not have time to go through the entire table, but the ranking is already apparently somewhat different).
This approach has the virtue of quantifying the success of a team more realistically, whereas in the more primitive approach, a team that won a million silver medals, would still be deemed less "successful" than a team that won but one gold medal. -- 217.210.227.9 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the list of logos as a gallery of fair use images is incompatible with the fair use policy. Oldelpaso 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the newly created World Cup Teams Ranked by Most Medals article (recently added to See Also links on the FIFA World Cup page) is acceptable. The methodology seems arbitrary (why apply an Olympics-style system, with top 3 rather than top 4, and 3rd given the same value as 1st?), and the text is definitely NPOV. Perhaps original research? Thoughts? Is it salvageable? -- Wantok 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Note the World Cup Teams Ranked by Most Medals article is now formally proposed for deletion. Please comment there rather than here. -- Wantok 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there was one tournament in which Oceania had one guaranteed berth in the final tournament - New Zealand qualified (much to the chagrin of Australians). Whilst the comment that Oceania "has never had a guaranteed position" in the World Cup final tournament is not intentionally misleading - it is inaccurate.
Obviously, the gold, silver, and bronze medals. Unlike the Olympics, coaches recieve medals as well. (At Euro 2000, the runner-up team recieved a plaque along with their silver medals.) But at Korea Japan 2002, there were also medals for fourth place Korea, although I'm not sure if this was in the other FIFA World Cup tournaments. Could anyone elaborate on this? GoldDragon 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
"Of the ten World Cups staged in Europe, only one saw victory by a non-European team, that being Brazil in 1958. When held outside Europe, the competition has only been won by South American teams. Only two teams from outside these two continents have ever reached the semi-finals of the competition: the USA (in 1930) and South Korea (in 2002)." Does this mean that you are placing North and South America as 2 different continents? But both region make a single continent named America. El Chompiras 00:37, 06 October 2006 (UTC)
While the article is great, the lead could use some fixes. In particular, the third paragraph (and the largest one) is just Trivia and statistics, is not suitable for the WP:LEAD and does not represent a summmary of a part of the article. Could someone change and fix this? Thank you. CG 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
-Is it not getting a little ahead to include South Africa 2010 in the winners Summary list? It might serve to inform that SA will be the next hosts but this could be done elsewhere. The empty line to Germany is appropriate as this is a current event and will soon be filled, but SA 2010 is 4 years away and seems out of place in a summary of historical results.
-in the list of this year world cup some one had put france were in the final when they havent got though yet i have fixed this and put italy who are though and germany in a runners up place like they are if you have a problem with this please contact me at my talk page before reverting as it is vandalism to delete things if they are not wrong with out consulting the person who did it -- Hunter91 17:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
-I second that; it's obviously wrong to try and predict results like that. However for the summary section, isn't it appropriate to fill out the finalists/future venues? They may not have happened yet, but they are still informative and historical. Maybe the 'results' heading could be changed to something else to include this? - Aheyfromhome
Well... What's this? Conscious 04:23, 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) .
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)
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)
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. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 16:42, 17 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)
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 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)
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.
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)?
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)
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)
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)
Should we tag this as a current event? -- Robdurbar 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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).
Here it goes:
Conscious 15:00, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
"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)
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, 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. -- S iva1979 Talk to me 02:32, 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)
The trophy is not in the shape of a cup. 205.174.22.28 04:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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:
So calm down and get a life. Abut 20:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Team | Titles | Winning years | Runners-up | Third-place (please fill in) |
---|---|---|---|---|
![]() |
5 | 1958, 1962, 1970, 1994, 2002 | 2 ( 1950*, 1998) | 2 ( 1938, 1978) |
![]() |
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) |
![]() |
3 | 1934*, 1938, 1982 | 2 ( 1970, 1994) | 1 ( 1990*) |
![]() |
2 | 1978*, 1986 | 2 ( 1930, 1990) | - |
![]() |
2 | 1930*, 1950 | - | - |
![]() |
1 | 1966* | - | - |
![]() |
1 | 1998* | - | 2 ( 1958, 1986) |
![]() |
- | - | 2 ( 1934, 1962) | - |
![]() |
- | - | 2 ( 1938, 1954) | - |
![]() |
- | - | 2 ( 1974, 1978) | - |
![]() |
- | - | 1 ( 1958*) | 2 ( 1950, 1994) |
![]() |
- | - | - | 1 ( 1930^) |
![]() |
- | - | - | 1 ( 1954) |
![]() |
- | - | - | 2 ( 1974, 1982) |
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 10:00, 16 June 2006 (EST).
I'd also like to add that in the particular instance of the 1930 3rd place debate, the notice of the two semi-finalists (with no 3rd place match) is fantastic. But, adding the 3rd place column let's people know that FIFA eventually did rank the USA and YUG as 3rd and 4th respectively, in addition to highlighting the importance placed on the 3rd place match (which was instituted in '34). Just some thoughts.
If we can agree, could you (or someone) please take the initiative to cite the USA 3rd place column with the link I posted above, in whatever manner you deam appropriate. I would do it myself, but I can't figure out the syntax. Thank you. -Steve from Maryland
Thanks! And again, my apologies. - Steve from Maryland.
Third Place 1934 "
Nazi Germany": It's common in the media to precede the name of a country with the name of its leader or his/her ideology.
In factual sporting results, however, normal practice is to use the country's official name, or a neutral short-form. In this case it's sufficient to note "(1970 as West Germany)" under "Third place".
It's great that Wikipedia makes important information accessible to lots of people, but let's try and keep the right information in the right place.
Also, Poland should link to the
team, not the
country.
Abut
17:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
In the 1934 Section of the table, it shows the country Germany using the flag with the swastika in the middle, but wasnt the official flag the black, white, and red bars until some time in 1935? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.236.162.160 ( talk • contribs) 13:53, June 16, 2006 (UTC).
I noticed some inconsistencies in the flag icons in the article and wanted to run them by everyone before changing anything (due to the FA and likely high traffic right now). I understand for the Franco Spain, Hungary 1940, and Kingdom of Yugoslavia we don't have SVG versions, but the Flag of England is sometimes implemented as the bordered PNG and sometimes as the SVG (I think the non-border SVG is better personally). Also, keeping with history, the 1930 US flag should be a 48-star version, and I'm not sure why the SVG for the current 50-star US flag isn't being used. Any reason not to make these changes? Craig R. Nielsen 07:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
The flag icon for Germany in the year 1934 is wrong. The nazi-flag with the swastika was used officially since 1935. The correct flag icon would be the flag of the German Empire: black-white-red.
In section 3.2 ("final tournament"), it would be nice to explain how the "drawing of lots" in the case of a tie is performed. I realize it is the same term as used in the official regulations (Ref.14), but for a novice reader this does not mean much (and is even confusing -- e.g., does it refer to a new "coin toss" performed when the need arises, or does it refer to the drawing of teams into groups that was done before the final stage of the Cup?)
Dear editors and readers, please share your opinion on whether it is appropriate to put scores of Uruguay-Brazil and Sweden-Spain matches in the results table. I think that it is, because the matches have decided 1st and 3rd place, and the footnote gives a very clear description of the status of these matches. I'm asking because one user repeatedly removes the scores, and I want to know what others think. Conscious 09:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"The FIFA World Cup (often called the Football World Cup, the Football World Championships or, more usually, just the World Cup) is the most significant competition in international football and in world sport."
I Googled for the terms listed in this opening sentence (and one other – bracketed), and extrapolated the first couple of pages of search results. The outcome was as follows.
FIFA World Cup: 52.7 million
Football World Cup: 3.4 million
(Soccer World Cup: 5.6 million)
Football World Championships: 14 thousand – of which most were nothing to do with the World Cup
World Cup: 520 million – of which more related to the FIFA World Cup than to all other sports combined
I think it is clear that the World Cup is not often known as the Football World Championships. I suspect that the myth derives from the fact that the name of the World Cup in other languages does often translate literally as 'World Championship'. But this is the English Wikipedia.
It is also apparent that it's the same people who don't call football football who also don't just call the World Cup the World Cup. Nonetheless, if we list football World Cup, we should really list soccer World Cup too. When, for reasons of ignorance or otherwise, it is felt necessary to specify the sport, more people seem to use the word 'soccer' than 'football'.
Also, if the World Cup really is "the most significant competition... in world sport", why mention that it's "the most significant competition in international football" too? Personally, I think it's POV to state that the World Cup is more significant than the Olympics. Grant 12:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
The usage of "championship" is prevalent in some countries (not English-speaking). Conscious 07:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
What are the terms used to refer to the finals and the qualification process? Is it correct to say that when people say they are going to/competing in "the World Cup", they usually mean the finals tournament? And if so, when you describe, say, the 2006 FIFA World Cup should you describe the whole process from the initial entries and draws for the qualification tournaments to the end of the finals tournament? In other words, when someone asks "what is this FIFA World Cup competition", do you tell them it is the finals tournament or do you say it is a cyclic championship that starts with qualification tournaments and culminates in a finals tournament? And do people use the term "FIFA World Cup" to refer to both things? This is all to do with phrasing things correctly in the introduction I've been writing at 2006 FIFA World Cup. Advice and assistance would be appreciated. Carcharoth 18:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Many of the edits today have been either vandalism or insufficient removals of vandalism. As a result, much residual vandalism remains. Could someone that has the time sort it out? Thanks. -- A bit iffy 12:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
It's probably not a big deal, but why are we using Hungarian flag adopted in 1940 for the 1938 tournament? According to [8], they used a flag similar to current at the time. Conscious 15:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Someone still puts the Nazi flag on for the earlier German flag. It needs to be fixed. The user that keeps doing that should be banned. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.118.19.94 ( talk • contribs) .
A bit more clarification above. -- Wine Guy Talk 19:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
At certain points throughout the article there are references to the above. Can I just point out that there has never been any countries called "West" Germany and "South" Korea and I don't just mean in the English language versions of the names. I think you will find that the official names (in English) are Federal Republic of Germany and Republic of Korea respectively. "West/East" and "South/North" were lazy Cold War terms used to differentiate between the politically partitioned states but I believe the fact the communist states were/are called German Democratic Republic (the now defunct DDR) and Democratic People's Republic of Korea does that anyway! I see no reason therefore why you shouldn't just use the name "Germany" (can't use FR Germany as it didn't exist prior to 1949) throughout the article and in Korea's case the following: "Korea Republic" (for South Korea as used by FIFA itself) and DPR Korea (for North Korea). Currently we differentiate the two Congo's not by calling them "east" and "west" but by "Congo" and "DR Congo" (Democratic Republic of).
How long after that winning penalty kick was the page updated? What, 5, 10 seconds? :) 70.178.172.207 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
"The championship has been awarded every five thousand years since the first tournament in 600 A.D., except in 1942 and..." every 5,000 years, since 600 A.D.?
When the article is unprotected, please remove the stadia information from the summary table. It doesn't add much, can be easily accessed through the individual tournament articles, and just clutters the table. Conscious 21:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Is there a list anywhere on Wikipedia of all the penalty kick shootouts in the history of the World Cup finals tournaments (participants and who won, with links back to the relevant World Cups)? If not, would it be OK to create it, and where? I was just wondering because I know Italy have had a ridiculous number of penalty shootouts. Most of the time they lose, but I was pleased to see them win this time. Which is why I'd be interested in a list of the penalty shootouts in the previous World Cup finals tournaments. Carcharoth 23:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
Someone put in the best finishes table that the USA won in 2010.
It is clear that nobody will be there to argue for Zidane, because, of course, that head butt was a foolish and dangerous activity. And every body who saw the incident would say he deserves such a send off. But what made him to turn into such a furious activity in the last moment.
He forgot the world cup final, his last match, the referees and tens of thousands of spectators.
So what Materazzi said would be a serious abuse. Only two people do know that the said one and the heard one. Here is another insufficiency of football law has been revealed. There is no punishment for fouls done by tongue. That must be dangerous, perhaps will create more political, more than a sports controversy. There already arose some rumors about what Materazzi abused Zidane. Some reached such extend that he said a world such as son of a terrorist.
There must be a reconstruction in football laws, referees must depends upon TV replays, and there must be arrangements to ban abuse word used in the ground. Everybody knows that Italian players are well learned to use abuse words in the ground to make fury to their counterparts. Actually what happened is Zidane fell into the web made by a spider named Materazzi.
Zinadine Zidane would be the most perfect football player born in this earth ever. But he kicked the pot in the last steps. He could overwhelm Maradona and Pele. The world would remember him as a messiah of the football. But zissou, why did he do that in the last moments of the game? Of course, that was the last international game of his life. It is clear; Matteraassi had showered abuse on him. But he could be more patient, because, he is a very experienced player. But a moments misdeed spoiled everything; Some times French team could have lifted the world cup if Zidane were with them in the last moments. And it could be a kingly farewell for him. And the world could remember him as a legend. But Zidnes head butt was dangerous, and everybody who saw it would say he deserves the red card. The football world has got another tragic hero, after Maradona, he ended his career with a ban for using drugs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.93.11.169 ( talk • contribs)
The ranking of the most successful World Cup nations, is in the article based on a very primitive algorithm. Basically it weighs first place as infinitely more important than second place, which is in turn weighed as infinitely more important than third place etc. This is statistically unsound. Behind the idea of a "successful World Cup nation" lies the notion of statisticall overrepresentation. Surely, a team which places second place five times, is more successful than a team which wins the World Cup once, but never again qualifies. Football matches being played by two teams, the resulting tournament is binomially structured. Thus, to quantify the "unlikeliness" of reaching a certain position n (n=1 equals gold, n=2 equals silver, etc.), we may assign the point value 1/n for each team in each tournament, and then add these values up, where the greatest sum belongs to the most statistically high-reaching team. I have done this procedure, for a couple of teams from the table based on first to forth place finishes (n=1, to n=4). The ranking thus produced is (where I have multiplied the values by 12 for clarity):
Brazil 83 Germany 75 Italy 67 etc. (I do not have time to go through the entire table, but the ranking is already apparently somewhat different).
This approach has the virtue of quantifying the success of a team more realistically, whereas in the more primitive approach, a team that won a million silver medals, would still be deemed less "successful" than a team that won but one gold medal. -- 217.210.227.9 13:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the list of logos as a gallery of fair use images is incompatible with the fair use policy. Oldelpaso 17:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether the newly created World Cup Teams Ranked by Most Medals article (recently added to See Also links on the FIFA World Cup page) is acceptable. The methodology seems arbitrary (why apply an Olympics-style system, with top 3 rather than top 4, and 3rd given the same value as 1st?), and the text is definitely NPOV. Perhaps original research? Thoughts? Is it salvageable? -- Wantok 13:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Note the World Cup Teams Ranked by Most Medals article is now formally proposed for deletion. Please comment there rather than here. -- Wantok 05:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, there was one tournament in which Oceania had one guaranteed berth in the final tournament - New Zealand qualified (much to the chagrin of Australians). Whilst the comment that Oceania "has never had a guaranteed position" in the World Cup final tournament is not intentionally misleading - it is inaccurate.
Obviously, the gold, silver, and bronze medals. Unlike the Olympics, coaches recieve medals as well. (At Euro 2000, the runner-up team recieved a plaque along with their silver medals.) But at Korea Japan 2002, there were also medals for fourth place Korea, although I'm not sure if this was in the other FIFA World Cup tournaments. Could anyone elaborate on this? GoldDragon 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
"Of the ten World Cups staged in Europe, only one saw victory by a non-European team, that being Brazil in 1958. When held outside Europe, the competition has only been won by South American teams. Only two teams from outside these two continents have ever reached the semi-finals of the competition: the USA (in 1930) and South Korea (in 2002)." Does this mean that you are placing North and South America as 2 different continents? But both region make a single continent named America. El Chompiras 00:37, 06 October 2006 (UTC)
While the article is great, the lead could use some fixes. In particular, the third paragraph (and the largest one) is just Trivia and statistics, is not suitable for the WP:LEAD and does not represent a summmary of a part of the article. Could someone change and fix this? Thank you. CG 13:59, 15 October 2006 (UTC)