Talk:FIFA World Cup/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

German 1934 flag

flag of germany in 1934 world cup should be nazi not flag of german empire —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.4.84.4 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, between 33-35, both the Empire and the Swastika flag were used interchangeably. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

At any rate, there is currently a flag inserted above "Germany" in the chart which is unrecognizable to most in the 21st century. If we cannot get over red & white flag w/swastika, then let's have the black/red/gold flag of modern Germany. And if that is unacceptable, then leave the flag space blank. It should also be noted that precedence is already established in this chart: just have a look at the earlier Italian flags. Frankly, I feel that the swastika was the emblem of the regime at the time, and not of the people of Germany, and should therefore not be used. I prefer to use the modern German flag there (one who all concerned will still recognize). In a side note here: In strategic military maps of D-day and other actions during WWII, Canadian positions are often shown (though inaccurately) with the modern Canadian flag. Conversely, some maps use the red Dominion of Canada flag w/emblem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.132.101 (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Usual standard at Wikipedia, quite rightly I believe, is to use the contemporary flag: it would be entirely incongruous to post a flag unknown in Germany in 1934. As to why editors consider it unthinkable to make tables without decorating it with flags, I have no idea. Kevin McE (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Argentina flag

I have noticed that on the results table, in 1930 and 1978 the variant flag of Argentina (without the sun) is shown whereas in 1986 and 1990 the official flag (with the sun) is shown. I suggest changing the ones of 1930 and 1978 to the official flag.(Brunoptsem (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2010 (UTC))

I have proceeded with the changes. (Brunoptsem (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC))

Results - Most Appearances in finals

It says: "Brazil and Germany have both made the most appearances in the final, with seven". But in 1950 the was a final group, not a final match. Thus only Germany played seven finals. Should the passage be rephrased?

Well, the final group was the final. If anything, there could be a clarification. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

JULES RIMET

why Jules Rimet is not mention in the begining as the creator of the world cup ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.28.120 (talk) 00:22, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

English crest world champ star?

It says that Uruguay are an exception to the unwritten rule, but I can't see a star in the English crest, even though they won one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.127.97 (talk) 19:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

See File:England Away Shirt 2010-2012 (crest).jpg. Nanonic (talk) 19:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Results

Folks are trying to add results for the 2010 Cup, but that isn't for a few days. Anyone for agreeing not to add that to the table until after the game on July 11? Paxsimius (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

yeah, oh and someone linked this to the scores http://www.goatse.fr/, don't watch it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Claudiu7boss (talk • contribs) 21:37, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, for some odd reason the Host country for 2006 reads "FATTY"... I've heard a number of ways to say Germany (Deutschland, Almanya, Alamanya, Alamania, etc) but never have I heard Fatty. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.212.81.3 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

"3rd/4th Place Play Off" v "Bronze Match"

The definition of this match is different in different countries. Not only by the public at large but even by the players. In the UK it is only known as the 3rd/4th place playoff and when England met Italy in 1990 there was a relaxed feeling of a kickabout in a park and nothing was taken seriously. It didn't seem to matter who won. Nobody chased loose balls and nobody went in too hard for a 50-50 ball. After the match the teams mingled together and waved to the crowd as one. Nobody (or very few) in the UK is even aware that bronze medals are awarded to the third place team. In Sweden the entire nation know this game as the "Bronze Match" and when Sweden played Bulgaria in 1994 the Swedes came out with a completely different attitude of fighting spirit. Every tackle and every situation was contested as if it had been the final itself. Sweden won four nil and came home to national celebrations because they had "won the bronze". To this day there is not a single person in Sweden who will say that Sweden came third and nobody ever refers to this match as a third place match. As for the article on Wikipedia I think it would be interesting to explain this. Is it just Sweden that has this "winning the bronze" mentality? Knowing which countries see it as a bit of a joke and which countries see it as a chance to win the "Bronze" and something far more serious would help TV audiences understand how teams perform in this match. Further more in Sweden the team that wins the world cup is said to win the "World Cup Gold" and the losing finalists "win" the "World Cup Silver". As 2-3 billion people are watching from 207 different countries it would be interesting to know how widespread the Swedish terms are. If someone could compile a list it would be interesting. Or is it just Sweden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.64.60 (talk) 15:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox change from "most successful" to "most titles"

I have recommended the change from "most successful" to "most titles" in the infobox for the Cup. Previously, Brazil was listed as most successful. The term "most successful" is subjective. For an encyclopedia, we need WP:NPOV. Therefore, I advise we move to most titles and list Brazil with 5. If we were having a legitimate debate about "most successful", we need to define what that means, and I don't see a clear consensus there. Germany might be more successful due to fewer appearances yet more top 4 finishes. Germany, after all, has been in the top 4 for 11 of the past 15 World Cups (the modern era). So, again, we should move towards using "most titles", which is objective instead of "most successful". Obamafan70 (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. Success must be in number of titles. Would anyone say that Holland were successful last night? No. They lost. The most successful team must mean Brazil as they have been successful (at winning the world cup) more than any other team. Success can hardly be applied to any of the 31 losers who came home from South Africa without winners' medals. In fact Italy and Uruquay with four wins each are more successful than Germany. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.64.60 (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I actually agree with this change. Obamafan is quite right that "most successful" is a tad subjective. And anyway, "most titles" uses less characters. – PeeJay 21:36, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, PeeJay2K3. Also, Uruguay does not have four titles; Uruguay only has two. Germany has the most top 4 finishes, and they seem to make the semifinals every World Cup despite the perception that they lack sufficient talent for such a run. And again, the anonymous statement, "Success can hardly be applied to any of the 31 losers...." is the perfect embodiment of my point about the subjectivity of "success" without a proper definition. The entire nation of Uruguay is celebrating its success right now (with warm welcomes for the players on return visits). Paraguay is also celebrating as it made the quarterfinals for the first time.Obamafan70 (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

This is silly. Success must mean winning the World Cup and nothing else. Even if lesser teams amaze themselves by getting a long way before being knocked out (as losers) they have failed to succeed in winning the World Cup. Compare to the Olympics, success is only measured in Gold medals, no amount of silvers and bronzes can beat a Gold Medal. Thus a nation who wins 0 Golds, 37 Silvers and 48 Bronzes are placed below a team winning a single Gold. In all football records its the number of wins that are counted. Compare (UK). FA CUP, Top Flight Champs, Europeans Cups, Doubles. Teams are always placed in order of success of the number of actual titles. I am sure Rutland would be happy with a trip to Man U in the 5th round and see it as a bit of success even if they were slashed 8-0. So please stop this silliness, Success = Victory. Anyway, sidetracking - Uruquay HAVE won four World Cups. Its explained elsewhere. But here goes again.... Jules Rimet stated that the 1930 World Cup would be the third. In a 1932 update of FIFA regulation, it states that all Olympic Tournaments post 1930, were not to be considered World championships anymore. This was proposed by Jules Rimet himself, who later in 1950 confirmed that 1924 and 1928 were the first two FIFA World Cup tournaments. - In the 80th anniversary of FIFA, they Article 9 (Page 72) of their regulation handbook, again restates that the 1924 and 1928 Olympic games are to be counted as FIFA World Cup wins. In 1950, FIFA officially recognized Uruguay as the first nation to win the World Cup four times. The mistake people have made is that the trophy used from 1930 to 1970 was known as the Jules Rimet trophy and it was decided that the first team to win it three times would keep it. So the main interest was who would win the Jules Rimet three times and this overshadowed Uruquay's first two World Cup wins as these were not for the Jules Rimet trophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.64.60 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

"Success must mean winning the World Cup and nothing else." You completely miss the point -- Wikipedia is in the business of objectivity, neutral point of view, WP:NPOV and the dissemination of knowledge (i.e. facts supported by evidence). Your statement is not a material fact; Brazil having won the most titles is a material fact. Given the existence of a factual alternative (which is the vehicle of your interpreted meaning, anyway!!), we are obligated by WP:NPOV to prefer it.Obamafan70 (talk) 02:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I find it ridiculous that we are arguing over the wording of a parameter in a template. Which reminds me, this discussion should be moved to Template talk:Infobox football tournament. – PeeJay 10:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

1966

3rd place - portugal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.177.73.52 (talk) 17:15, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Eighth-finals

I tidied up the text yesterday and inserted the correct name for the Eighth-Finals. The term "Second round" has been collectively used to describe all 32 games after the initial round rubbers. This is used on wall charts and iPhone Apps. Round of 16" sounds childish, why not call the Quarter-Finals "Round of 8", or the Final "Round of Two. The term "semi-", "quarter-" and "eighth-" have been used for years in other tornaments. The World Cup has only had "Eighth-Finals since 1986. Somebody (probably from outside the UK) reverted the text back to the incorrect version. I have now re-corrected it and hope it stays this way. Any further reversions will be seen as Wikipedia Vandalism that could result in account suspension. Note that the Wikipedia article confirms this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-elimination_tournament. It would be incorrect to name some rounds from the "Competitor count" column and some rounds from the "Fraction of final" round. The Nomenclature is clear, the round is the Eighth-finals. The following links (various sources) confirm that the name of the round is most widely known as the "Eighth-Finals". http://www.ticketwood.com/ticketsearch.php?EventSearchID=856374 http://www.flickr.com/photos/liznn7/4738670871/ http://www.rollypoint.com/games/30617/puzzle-paraguay-japan-eighth-finals-south-africa-2010.html http://www.ticketfuse.com/sports_tickets/fifa_world_cup_soccer:_eighth-final_1f_tickets/ http://worldcuptickets.empiretickets.com/sports/soccer/world_cup_Eighth-Final_tickets.asp

I have reverted you. I have been watching World Cups on tv in the UK since 1966 and have NEVER heard the term "eighth-finals" used in the English language in the UK, it is certainly not common usage in the UK as you claim. The commercial links you have given as examples all appear to be based in the US, so who knows where they got the term from. I don't know where the Flickr user is from, but note they seem to be concentrating on German and Dutch team photos in South Africa, so I suspect they may usually use a language such as German where the usage is "eighth-final". "Round of 16" has only been used in the last 2 or 3 finals competitions, and I think that's a FIFA-ism. And don't go threatening account suspension to someone who disagrees with you - Arwel Parry (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2010 (UTC) (en Wikipedia administrator since 2003).

I think I recall "eighth finals" being used quite a bit in '86, but it never really caught on: most common usage in UK English seems to be Group Stage - Second Round - Quarter finals - semi finals- 3rd place play off - final. I have never heard "second round" used to apply to entire knockout phase (which is, in any case, 16 matches, not 32), and never heard the game between losing semifinalists referred to as a bronze medal match outside wikipedia. Kevin McE (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I've certainly never heard of the term "eighth-finals" being used anywhere. FIFA refers to the round as "Round of 16", so that's what we should call it. Same goes for the "Match for third place", in my opinion. – PeeJay 17:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

You cite my other links but not the Wikipedia version. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-elimination_tournament. In this it clearly shows the Wikipedia direction on this one. Surely you can't mean its okay for someone to take one name from one column and another from a different column. Even if Fifa get it wrong nothing can change the fact. This is similar to how most people incorrectly celebrated the millennium a year early. As a mathematician I know that on this occasion there is only one term that can be used. If we are enough people here we can change FIFAs incorrectness. They will give in to popular opionion. On 3 Iphone Apps they call the final 16 games collectively for "second round". I previously pasted the "Bronze match" section to find out if its only in Sweden that this match is called the Bronze Match. Much was made of the Germans receiving their bronze medals on Swedish TV last night. They were said to have "won" the bronze. The fact they had come third was not mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.217.64.60 (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

That is not a wikipedia policy. It does not mandate any such nomenclature and gives many examples of other nomenclature. noq (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice that the Single-elimination tournament article has been flagged since February 2007 for not having any references. I see that the column you cite also lists "16th-finals", "32nd-finals" and "64th-finals": frankly this is complete nonsense - no native English-speaker would use any of those constructions under any circumstances. Since you're citing Swedish TV, can we assume that you are not ordinarily resident in a native English-speaking country? With all due respect, constructions below "quarter finals" are simply not used in English, regardless of what some iPhone app producers (who may be anywhere) think. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Maps in Article need to be fixed

In both the world maps in the article, for some reason French Guiana is incorrectly shown as a champion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.64.51.145 (talk) 00:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

French Guiana is an overseas department of France and covered the French Football Federation. Technically, French Guiana is a World Cup winner. – PeeJay 10:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I would not so much say that French Guiana is a winner, as that all parts of France share in their win. Alaska is shown as a semifinalist: the situations are essentially the same. Kevin McE (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. – PeeJay 18:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Records

Should we add to the records that the Spain vs. Netherlands game of the 2010 tournament had the most ever recorded yellow-cards? 15 as I recall. That makes history and, I think, should make the page :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.114.154 (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be added, but to the FIFA World Cup records page, not here. – PeeJay 10:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

ELIMINATE WORD "SOCCER"

I think it should be eliminated the mention "SOCCER" because nobody, except americans, use that word. People say Football all over the world, and also FIFA consider "Football". Americans should adapt to the world and not the world to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.8.147.50 (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC) n

• NOTICE: Please don't feed the trolls! – PeeJay 22:10, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Americans and South Africans - only until the 2010 FIFA World Cup - are the only nations I believe that use the word Soccer, which is rather pathetic seeing that the word was originated to distinguish Football from Rugby. Lord Darksycthe (talk) 00:54, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

YYYY FIFA World Cup

Evidently the articles on single tournaments are all titled "YYYY FIFA World Cup". Those links are repetitive to read in this article, which may be improved by piping some of them to "YYYY World Cup" or "YYYY tournament" or something like that. --P64 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

If you done that, then it would be harder to keep track of all the world cups. Consistency is needed! Mr.Kennedy1 ^{talk guestbook} 18:13, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the topic. Most of the world uses the term "Football", so let's use the common terminology. Kisstudent08 (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 84.150.70.3, 17 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} adding this wikipedia link at the "see also" section:

• FIFA World Cup bid voting results

84.150.70.3 (talk) 08:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Not done as we already have the link at FIFA World Cup#Hosts so there is no need for the link in the see also section. The see also section is for articles not already used in the article. Regards, Woody (talk) 11:44, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Section 6: Results: 1934 Italy Host flag

In Section 6: Results, in the 1934 row and Host column, the flag for Italy doesn't match up with the Winners column. I would assume that the 1934 Italy soccer team hosted it and not the 1948-2011 Italy soccer team. Please verify. If this is correct, please get a Wikipedia administrator to unlock this article so I could fix this (due to the fact that this article is protected with a semi-lock (black color lock)) or get an administrator to verify and edit it him or herself. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.14.81 06:54, January 2, 2011 (UTC+0)

Done Kevin McE (talk) 10:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Soccer ball

Maybe there should be an image of a soccer ball at the top of the article. The image of the trophy doesn't convey anything about the sport itself. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 08:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A picture of the FIFA World Cup seems suitable to illustrate an article on the FIFA World Cup. Kevin McE (talk) 08:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Template:FIFA World Cup, expansion, others "World Cup" organize by FIFA

Category:FIFA World Cup templates

My proposal new "group6 = "World Cup" organize by FIFA" and his list "list6 = FIFA World Cup · FIFA Women's World Cup · FIFA Confederations Cup · FIFA international tournaments for youth football: FIFA U-20 World Cup · FIFA U-17 World Cup · FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup · FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup. · Club football: FIFA Club World Cup. · Football variants: futsal FIFA Futsal World Cup, beach soccer FIFA Beach Soccer World Cup." Need some fix but is a add of information.--Feroang (talk) 01:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

And add the same Others WC seccion to the others templates involves in: Template:FIFA Women's World Cup, Template:FIFA Confederations Cup,Template:FIFA Club World Cup, Template:FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup, Template:FIFA U-17 World Championship, Template:FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup, Template:FIFA U-20 World Cup/Championship --Feroang (talk) 01:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Not really appropriate, I'm afraid. The subject matter of the template is the 11-a-side adult male quadrennial tournament. Anything in the template should be within that subject area, not parallel to it. If there were one template for all the FIFA global competitions it would have to include equivalent info for every competition: it is not feasible to have one template with the tournament history, finals, squad listings, qualification tournaments etc for each of 11 tournaments. If there were a template on FIFA it would be useful for it to contain such links. Maybe the variants on the game (beach soccer/futsal/women's) should be included in Template:International football Kevin McE (talk) 09:44, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How "Titles by team" is ordered?

Could someone explain how countries having the same number of championships are ordered? I first supposed it's in alphabetical order, but Argentina being placed after Uruguay excludes this order. But then why England is placed before France and Spain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.3.192 (talk) 12:37, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

By number of wins, then by number of 2nds, then 3rds, then 4ths. Where all of these are equally, chronologically by date of first attaining highest acheivement. But if you've got Argentina after Uruguay, or England before France (why would that be contrary to an assumption of alphabetical order?), then you must have been pressing the sorting buttoms at the top of a column. Kevin McE (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks, that's what's I thought as well. Then the list in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup#Titles_by_team is really wrong. You see, Argentina is placed after Uruguay, and France is placed after England. But their results are like this (taken from the table just below that list):
Argentina: 2 x 1st, 2 x 2nd, (0 x 3rd, 0 x 4th)
Uruguay: 2 x 1st, 0 x 2nd, (0 x 3rd, 3 x 4th)
So Argentina should be before Uruguay.

France: 1 x 1st, 1 x 2nd, (2 x 3rd, 1 x 4th)
England: 1 x 1st, 0 x 2nd, (0 x 3rd, 1 x 4th)
So France should be before England.
Could you rectify that list, please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.3.192 (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! Sorry: I was looking at the teams reaching the top four table. The Titles by team section is ordered by number of wins, then by date of first win. Kevin McE (talk) 06:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Could you specify this ordering rule in that section? Especially if such rule is FIFA's standard rule to classify teams. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.41.124.254 (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Where is the rule written? I mean, the rule that "titles by team section is ordered by number of wins, then by date of first win". I searched a bit FIFA website but can't find any hint on this so-called rule. If this rule is made up by someone, it has to be deleted. Let's wait for another two months to see if anyone could give us a good answer before I delete it. 石庭豐 (talk) 11:56, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I think deleting the section would be a little over-the-top! The section had to be ordered in some way, so this is the way we've chosen. Sure, it's a little arbitrary, but does it really matter? – PeeJay 12:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course it DOES matter. Rules are made to avoid dispute. If there's no written rule, better remove this suspicious classification. Let me state it straight out: it seems like the order is made by some national supporters to make sure Uruguay is ordered before Argentina, or that England is ordered before France or Spain. 213.41.124.254 (talk) 17:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Only if you're looking for a conspiracy. Just live with it. – PeeJay 17:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily "conspiracy", but rather "national supremacy". "does it matter" or "live with it" are not convincing arguments. This is an Encyclopaedia, and it's supposed to write well-founded things. If people want to write thing suited to their "heart", they could do it in their own blogs. 石庭豐 (talk) 08:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

What, exactly, is not well-founded about the order in which the teams are written? Does it not make sense to list teams in order of the number of titles won? Does it not make sense to order those teams with the same number of titles by the order in which they won their first title? If you believe that method was chosen to favour one country over another, then more fool you; you could say that about any method of ordering the countries. As far as I can see - and being Welsh I have no allegiances to any party in that list - this method of ordering the teams is fairly neutral. – PeeJay 13:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Let me answer your questions first.

Question 1: I'll come back to this at the end.

Question 2: Of course it makes sense.

Question 3: Simple answer is "No, it doesn't make sense". A more sophisticated answer will be "It depends on the viewpoint". My viewpoint is that "this is NOT fair" because not ALL countries participated the FIFA World at the same time at the beginning. A fair order would be "teams with the same number of titles are ordered by the number of 2nds, then 3rds, then 4ths"

Back to your question 1: I didn't ask if the rules "make sense" or not. I asked where they are written. "make sense" and "well-founded" are two different things. 石庭豐 (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

In absence of answer to where the rule is written, the section is deleted. 石庭豐 (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Reverted. There was no support for your proposal to remove the info. There is nothing judgemental, and therefore no bias, in the placement of those with equal ranking. This is not POV: if you want to arrange the list in alphabetical order of the first pet owned by the team's bus driver, that won't be POV either (but I wouldn't recommend it). If data is to be presented in a list, it has to be ordered. If you really feel strongly about it, present it as a sortable table. Then you can adjust it as you wish. Kevin McE (talk) 09:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

ADD FIFA 2014, 2018 & 2022

why dont you add Brazil 2014, Russia 2018 & Qatar 2022 on the big Table with the flags?? It would be a nice touch.124.181.152.57 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Because "the big Table with the flags" is headed "Results", and we don't have a reliable source that gives results of events that have not yet taken place. (but if you do, can you let me know so that I can visit the bookies before it gets posted here) Kevin McE (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

FIFA decided that the World Cup 2014, 2018 & 2022 will be held in Brazil, Russia and Qatar. And that's a reliable source fifa world cup Brazil 2014 (fifa.com), Russia and Qatar to host 2018 and 2022 FIFA World Cups (fifa.com). Greetings. --Faycal.09 (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You obviously didn't read what Kevin McE said carefully enough. Of course we have reliable sources for Brazil, Russia and Qatar hosting the next three World Cups, but we do not have reliable sources that say those events have already happened, which would be required for them to go in the "Results" table. You can't have a result for something that hasn't happened yet! – PeeJay 10:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011

FIFA World Cup Host nations Bmoq (talk) 16:20, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You should be autoconfirmed now and able to make the edit yourself. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bmoq, 1 September 2011

{{FIFA World Cup Host nations}} Bmoq (talk) 16:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

You should be autoconfirmed now and able to make the edit yourself. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Germany versus West Germany

Why is it claimed that "Germany" have won the world cup three times? The name inscribed on the champions trophy was "West Germany". A unified Germany has never won the cup, so why is it claimed that it has? If East Germany had won the cup once as well, would the claim be that "Germany" had won the cup four times? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.21.209.131 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the footnote "^ = includes results representing West Germany between 1954 and 1990": this follows FIFA's practice. What is now known as Germany, and what was previously known as West Germany, are the same country: the Federal Republic of Germany. The borders of that country have expanded, to incorporate what was the Democratic Republic of Germany. That country, and its representative team, no longer exists and has no current successor, so no, its record would not be amalgamated into that of the FDR. Kevin McE (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 123.20.47.192, 20 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Czech Republic is now designated by FIFA as the inheritor of the record of Czechoslovakia, not Slovakia. (Notes and references, 48). See http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=cze/index.html and http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=svk/index.html 123.20.47.192 (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 19:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added the literal text you gave, above, to the footnote.  Chzz  ►  04:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done

Edit request from Pakon111, 26 September 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please edit Notes and references [48]. Czech Republic is now designated by FIFA as the inheritor of the record of Czechoslovakia, not both Czech Republic and Slovakia. (Sourse: http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=cze/index.html and http://www.fifa.com/associations/association=svk/index.html)

Pakon111 (talk) 03:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I think this is covered with the above?  Chzz  ►  04:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Pakon111, 26 September 2011

Please edit flag of Germany at World Cup 1934. Germany played under the Nazi flag at this competition. (Sourse: http://footballfootage.blogspot.com/2011/04/football-legends-1934-fifa-world-cup_01.html

Pakon111 (talk) 03:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

According to Flag of Germany, the Empire flag and Nazi flag were in simultaneous use from 1933 to 1935, with [1] as a reference. This being the case, it appears that there is no anachronism present in the article. However, I see that there is a related debate at Talk:1934 FIFA World Cup. I would advise waiting until the matter is resolved on that page, and then this article can go with the consensus from that one. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Greenland

Why is Greenland marked as quarter-finalists on the map when they're not recognised by FIFA and have never competed? Bwilderbeast (talk) 09:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Because, although it enjoys a large degree of autonomy, it is part of Denmark. The Faroe Islands, although also part of Denmark, is a member of FIFA in its own right, but Greenland is not, thus it is considered part of Denmark for FIFA's purposes. Kevin McE (talk) 09:42, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence that FIFA regards Greenland as part of Norway and merely being part of a political commonwealth surely doesn't mean that it should share Norway's football achievements, if so the map would dotted with countries sharing England's win. Also the map contradicts Wikipedia's own pages here and here, on Greenland football which tell of it's struggle for FIFA recognition and make no mention of any amalgamation with Denmark.

I'll assume you mean Denmark, not Norway: England has no overseas territories, so I do not understand that comment. You won't find any evidence that FIFA considers Alaska to be part of the USA, French Guyana part of France, or the Isle of Wight part of England. Although some countries that are not sovereign states have been granted FIFA membership, the default position is that the entire territory of the sovereign state is considered integral under the jurisdiction of the national football association, in this case the DBU. Note that Greenlander Jesper Grønkjær represented Denmark, and that Greenlanders have Danish passports, and therefore are eligible to represent Denmark. The DBU, I read (via google translate, so open to misinterpretation), would be happy to see Greenland be treated separately by FIFA, and so treat the GBU as a separate body, but Greenland's FIFA status is not their decision. Note that when Blatter visited Greenland in September 2010, it was the DBU head who was at his side.[2] Kevin McE (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a little shaky. The United Kingdom still has overseas territories, and had more when England won the World Cup in 1966. Rhodesia, for example, was still a colony at that time, so should this also be regarded as a previous winner? Tffff (talk) 08:06, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Read it again: England has no overseas territories. Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, since you raised the subject, was founded and registered with FIFA in 1965. Birth or ancestry in overseas territories does not amount to UK citizenship. However, that is not really the issue here: the question is whether Greenland is considered by FIFA to be part of Denmark. Kevin McE (talk) 11:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the point about Rhodesia just to highlight that there are inconsistencies in the map, which is relevant in deciding whether Greenland should be shaded. For another example, why is the logic behind the shading of Germany/West Germany/East Germany different from that for Russia/USSR? I believe that shading Greenland, and not shading the Isle of Wight, is more likely to confuse the reader than otherwise. Tffff (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

But why would we shade part of Denmark, but not the rest? That would be the effect of not colouring Greenland (and the reason behind my comment that de-shading Alaska/IoW wiould be analogical). I hold no brief to defend the map: I don't actually like it much and would not bat an eyelid if it were deleted. I'm just answering the question raised by the OP, which showed a gap in his/her understanding. Kevin McE (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair point about England/UK and overseas territories but not the comparison with the Isle of Wight and Alaska. Greenland is autonomous country which they aren't. It is "within the Kingdom of Denmark" but again there are territories around the world attached to others who aren't coloured in the same way Greenland is, France for instance has several. Eligibility of players is a separate matter, they may have the same kind of rights that British Commonwealth passports holders used to have or they might qualify under the grandparent rule. So without evidence that it's part of Denmark as far as FIFA is concerned, it doesn't deserve to be coloured as if it was. IMO. Bwilderbeast (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Before you demand a source, that FIFA does consider Greenland part of Denmark, maybe you want to deliver a source that FIFA recognizes Greenland as not part of Denmark? Otherwise I don't see how you have a case to change the map, although I have to agree I don't care for the map to much too. Greetings, Jon. Jonathan0007 (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

Notes and references[44],[45],[46],[47]: error. (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup#cite_ref-43)

123.20.171.64 (talk) 00:42, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

That is a big that is currently being worked on when there is a reference inside of a footnote. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 01:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Bug appears to be fixed, I purged the page and should be displaying correctly now. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:04, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 November 2011

i am translating this article into Sinhala language and i just want to put my link into this page. thank you! 2009ict043 (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the link? If you post it here someone can add it for you. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 December 2011

I have translated this page into sinhala and now I want to link it to this page. I cannot do it as this is a semi-protected one. this is the link of the page which i created. http://si.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%9D%E0%B6%9A_%E0%B6%9A%E0%B7%94%E0%B7%83%E0%B6%BD%E0%B7%8F%E0%B6%B1%E0%B6%BA please help me to link this. thank you! 61.245.165.62 (talk) 13:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kevin McE (talk) 16:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Can someone add that ALL of the World cup winners hosted the World Cup at least once but only Brazil and Spain won the cup outside homesoil? W.Germany, France, Italy, Uruguay, Argentina and England all won their first or second cup as hosts.66.108.210.86 (talk) 02:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

if you've got a reliable source that can be checked. Nasnema  Chat  07:57, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny, this site already states the obviousness.

• 5 time champion Brazil hosted 1950 and will host 2014
• 4 time champion Italy hosted 1934 and 1990
• 3 time champion Germany hosted 1974 (West Germany) and 2006 (After reunification)
• 2 time champion Uruguay hosted the inaugural 1930
• 2 time champion Argentina hosted 1978 and is planned to cohost with Uruguay the Centennial 2030
• 1 time champion France hosted 1938 and 1998
• 1 time champion England hosted 1966
• 1 time champion Spain hosted 1982

• Brazil is the only multiple time winner not to win a World Cup in home soil.
• Both Brazil and Spain are the only nations not to win in home soil.
• Brazil is also the only non-European nation not to win in home soil.
• Brazil, alongside Sweden, are the only hosts to become runnerups in the World Cups that they hosted (1950 and 1958 respectively).66.108.210.86 (talk) 08:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 August 2012

109.152.192.191 (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC) Follow the instructions below to submit an edit request - a request to have someone edit the article for you. Please be clear and precise in explaining and justifying the change. An established user may then make the change on your behalf.

   Please leave the existing codes intact. Write your request below the  line and above the  line.
   Please provide a specific description of the edit request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not helpful and

Not done: Request is default text. If you want to edit the page, you can't; you must have an account and it must be at least 4 days old and have at least 10 edits. In the meantime you can state your changes in an "X to Y" format. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 14:15, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Interactive timeline link?

Hi, my name is Navino Evans.I am the co-founder of a new UK based website called Histropedia which allows timelines to be created from Wikipedia articles. I recently showed the site at a local Wikipedia meetup, and after receiving a very positive response I've have decided to start showing some example timelines to gain further feedback.

So here is a timeline for this article, which took me about 10 minutes to create with the current prototype. Fifa World Cups

It’s very early days yet, so please forgive the look and feel of the current version (as well as the obvious bugs) but I would be very grateful for any comments about the concept itself. My thought is that an external link to an interactive timeline could be included in the history section of the article (obviously once the site is finished).

In short, Histropedia is an interactive graphical timeline which stays synchronised with new additions and changes in Wikipedia automatically and is completely free to use. Editors will be able create timelines extremely quickly and easily by simply searching for each event and clicking on the result.

The controls are basically like Google Maps - click and drag to scroll time, zoom with the mouse wheel. You can 'open' an event by double clicking on it. More instructions are available here if needed. You can search for people or events to add to the timeline, but please note that there are currently many events which are not available yet and some incorrect dates. Many of these will appear automatically as we update our algorithm, but full wiki style adding and editing will be available soon.

Any thoughts on this would be much appreciated!

please feel free to leave messages on my talk page if you have any queries/feedback that is not related to this article. Regards, NavinoEvans (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Map: World Cups after World War II

Germany in its current form won the World Cup 3 times after WW II (1954, 1974 and 1990) as officially acknowledged by the FIFA. However, its highest achievement is incorrectly displayed as "Finalist" on the map. West Germany never ceased to exist - East Germany was simply joining the west and hence "extending" it. This has to be changed on the map as the current info on it is false. The reunified Germany please has to be painted in dark blue as world champion. --91.7.212.68 (talk) 17:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Anyone know how to do this? – PeeJay 20:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 October 2013

The National flag for the 3rd place finish of the 1934 World Cup is not a German Flag but seems to be a upside down flag of Egypt. 184.41.14.126 (talk) 00:21, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Not done: It's actually the flag of the Third Reich. See List of German flags#Third Reich (1933–1945). Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 10:54, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is not true that more people watch World Cup soccer or football than Olympics. Footfall has mad crowds only in SA and Europe and Africa. Almost 60% of world population are Indian, Chinese and East Asian origin. It has same repetitive crowd as it is a single event while most events in Olympics have unique spectators. So remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sunilipe (talk • contribs) 19:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The facts say otherwise. – PeeJay 20:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Map: World Cup Final Hosts

In the History section the map about the final hosts shows Italy in light green. It should be corrected to dark green, as the country hosted both the 1934 and 1990 editions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.33.80.132 (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2014

Please remove the spam at the top of the article. 72.200.211.78 (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Already done: see [3] NiciVampireHeart 21:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Article's Flow Comprehension

In reading the article without knowing anything about FIFA, it is a bit confusing. The history section of the article precedes the format section. Because I wasn't familiar with many of the terms and people mentioned, it became slightly difficult to read. I might suggest re-ordering the article so that more explicative sections come before the historical paragraphs.

Jocmckin (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Title of article

May I suggest that the article should be called "World Cup" or "football World Cup", as that's its common name? I know FIFA wants its trade mark all over it, but it's not commonly included when people talk about it. And it's fairly recent; in the 1960s and 70s, no one at all talked about "the FIFA World Cup". What do you think?Manormadman (talk) 14:35, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Regardless of the vernacular used in the 1960s/70s, this competition is and has always been the FIFA World Cup. It has been organised by FIFA since the first matches in 1930. Furthermore, "World Cup" is too ambiguous as pretty much every sport has a World Cup (even Quidditch), and why would we bother using "Football" to disambiguate when we can use "FIFA"? Your suggestion will not be implemented. – PeeJay 19:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Format: Geographical separation

Under "Format. Final tournament" the following is stated:
Since 1998, constraints have been applied to the draw to ensure that no group contains more than two European teams or more than one team from any other confederation.
It is correct that from 1998 onwards there have never been more than two European teams in the same group, but the source says nothing of this until 2006. In fact 1986 was the last time (correct me if I have missed something) when maximum geographical separation was not used, as there were then three groups with three UEFA teams and one group with only one. In 1990 and 1994 there were group/s with three UEFA teams but that was unavoidable as UEFA had more than half of the places. So, from the source and from the facts as I know them, I can see no reason to state that "constraints have been applied" since 1998. If such constraints were not applied until 1998, there was only pure chance that separated the teams/groups in 1990 and 1994. That is possible but neither the source nor the facts on how groups looked indicate that. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Table: Edit request

Not sure how to edit this page, or request an edit of the article. But please could you insert host country names along with flags in the Attendance table? It's a bit much to expect everybody to know the flags of every country in the world, and trying to cross-read with the Results table is inconvenient. Or at least move the Results Table above the Attendance Table. 50.53.57.16 (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

50.53.57.16 (talk) 17:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

link to this year's

It could do with a link to this year's competition in the bit in italics at the very top for the remaining duration of the competition. Yes I know it's in the box on the right and in the text near the end of the intro, but it will be what a lot of people are looking for, so it could do with a more prominent link, just for this short period of time.--Money money tickle parsnip (talk) 12:32, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Peru's last appearance was 1982

Peru's last appearance in a FIFA World Cup was 1982, not 1978.

Bveratudela (talk) 09:19, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done:. That column in the table refers to the last time the team reached the final eight, not the last time the team participated in the World Cup. Deor (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014

Under "Ranking of teams by number of reaching the top eight" please change Serbia to Yugoslavia. Serbia did not compete in the World Cup Finals until 1998. It is insulting to other nations formed from Yugoslavia to list the country that caused the breakup of Yugoslavia as its successor. 172.5.248.34 (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Teams reaching the top four

Why in tie situations recent wins are given priority? Shouldn't they be alphabetical? --Mika1h (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Time to add bring Germany's # for top 4 finishes to 13. Position isn't known but they are guaranteed to be in the top 4. 24.141.168.108 (talk) 18:00, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request: July 2014

Please change the last parameter of the {{about}} template from "World Cup (disambiguation){{!}}World Cup" to just "World Cup", because it itself a disambiguation page. 175.156.242.240 (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done - Arjayay (talk) 17:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit Request 7/5/14

The article referenced at [8] has been moved here: http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/history/fifa/fifa-takes-shape.html Please update the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.197.64.128 (talk) 20:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

the template FIFA World Cup winners is confusion

if the vertical alignment does not work, you must make a simple horizontal list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.124.186.201 (talk) 13:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit request (1974 Cup Final)

The location of the final in 1974 was the Olympic Stadium in Munich, not Berlin

174.102.236.145 (talk) 22:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)Michael Orth

If you're referring to the table of attendances, the last two columns refer to the best-attended game, which was the final in only about half of the twenty World Cups.

For example, I just learned by composing those columns that I'd been part of the largest single-game crowd for the 1966 FIFA World Cup in England, a first-round, group-play match between England and France (2-0) that had slightly more spectators at Wembley than the celebrated final between England and Germany (4-2 after extra time). When you consider that a cup final may need a little more space for ceremonial structures, officials, dignitaries, security, support staff, cameras and the press, this doesn't seem quite so odd.

Similarly in 1974, 81,100 attended the June 14th opening-day match between West Germany and Chile (1-0) in West Berlin's Olympic Stadium (1974 capacity 86,000), which was more than the 80,000 capacity of Munich's, where the final was played before a near-capacity 78,200 on July 7th (West Germany 2 : Netherlands 1). [Perhaps the fact that Berlin, and not (as Hitler would no doubt have preferred) Munich, had been chosen in 1931 for the 1936 Summer Olympics accounts for some of the difference in stadium capacities.]

I composed those columns by visual comparison (eyeballing) of the numbers given in Wikipedia. I'd dearly love to have a more WP:Reliable Source and not rely on something that approaches WP:Original Research. Certainly, attendance figures would be a much-discussed topic at the time of a cup series, and see their way into contemporary print, although hard, final returns sometimes don't appear until a little later.

I hesitated too long, both because of the work and because of the space it would take here, to give the non-final matches that, according to my reading of Wikipedia articles, had the highest attendance in their World Cups without being finals, but here they are. Comments, corrections and references are very welcome.

• 1938 July 30 (France) Quarter-Final between Italy & France (3-1)
• 1954 July 20 (Switzerland) Group 2 match between Hungary & West Germany (8-3)
• 1966 July 20 (England) Group 1 match between England & France (2-0)
• 1970 June 11 (Mexico) Group 1 match between Mexico & Belgium (1-0)
• 1974 June 14 (West Germany) Group 1 match between West Germany & Chile (1-0)
• 1978 June 10 (Argentina) Group 1 match between Argentina & Italy (0-1)
• 1982 June 13 (Spain) opening-day Group 3 match between Belgium & Argentina (1-0)
• 1990 June 10 (Italy) Group D match between West Germany & Yugoslavia (4-1)
• 2006 June 30 (Germany) Quarter-Final between Germany & Argentina (1-1; pen k 4-2) + four earlier group matches at the Berlin Olympiastadion (all 72,000); the final (and deplorable) July 6 final between Italy & France (1-1; pen k 5-3) only accommodated 69,000

—— Shakescene (talk) 10:27, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

French Guiana

I posted the same thing on the image site. I know it has been talked about before but this particular thing was not mentioned: while French Guiana is an integral part of France just like Alaska is of the US, it has - unlike Alaska or Greenland - an own team within FIFA, which competes in the CONCACAF (North American) section. While this is a different and more difficult case than with shading colonies (since, as said, FG is not a dependency/colony/overseas territory of any kind, but part of France proper), I think it would be prudent not to color it. Especially if FG were to reach a final, this would lead to major confusion. --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Found my mistake (i. e. FG is part of CONCACAF but not of FIFA). But there is an inconsistency with the "hosts" table (especially when looking at Alaska) --Ulkomaalainen (talk) 13:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Bribery & Corruption Investigations

On 4th June 2015 Chuck Blazer while co-operating with the FBI and the Swiss authorities admitted that he and the other members of FIFA's executive committee were bribed in order to promote the South African, 1998 and 2010 World Cups. I'll start work on the bribery and corruption section once we know more about this breaking story. Twobells^t@lk 12:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FIFA Womens Soccer 2015

I'm not a big sports fan, but with major world competition events, like the current FIFA womens soccer playoff competition, it becomes very, very interesting, with a lot of nationalism. Like for example the team from Columbia saying they were not as big and strong as the American team, but "We play with heart". They lost 2-0 to the more experienced team. Now, USA plays China. Brazil was favored to win it all but lost. England is still in and Canada may play USA in the final-final. My point? I search the article here for [ '2015' ] and all I see is the 2015 corruption scandal. Can more be added for this year, 2015? And do I need to do a Google-search to find the WP page on the exciting FIFA competition going on as we talk? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

See FIFA Women's World Cup -- AstroU (talk) 04:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Why does the FIFA World Cup refer to the mens event and not the womens. The mens event should be called the FIFA Mens World Cup like the womens event is called the FIFA Womens world cup. If you don't like that then as an alternative the womens event could become called the FIFA World Cup and the mens event could be called the FIFA Mens World Cup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.68.73.245 (talk) 01:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Three reasons: 1) the men's event has been going on for longer; 2) the men's event is more popular; 3) there's nothing in the rules that says women can't be picked for the 'men's' World Cup, which technically makes it a unisex event. – PeeJay 09:40, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2015

Under 'Format'>'Final Tournament' this page claims that there are 729 possible outcomes for each group (which is correct) and then goes on to state, "However, a certain number (115) of these combinations lead to more than one team occupying the second place in the group." The number 115 is incorrect. I would recommend replacing this sentence with, "However a certain number (207) of these combinations lead to ties between the second and third places." If you would prefer to simply change the number 115 to the number 333 that would be the correct number of 'combinations in which more than one team occupies the second place in the group', but the flow of the article seems to suggest that it is ties between the second and third places (which must be broken to determine who advances) that are of primary concern. Using the 333 combinations would include ties between the first and second places. While these ties are broken for seeding purposes using FIFA's tie-breaking criteria they are not nearly as critical as ties between the second and third places which result in a team being eliminated. Again, either edit would be mathematically correct.

As a reference I would site page 10 of the following article. While this article is not from a professional publication I would note that (1) it contains a proof, not merely a claim, which can be and has been substantiated by other mathematicians, and (2) the current number being used contains no reference and is incorrect.

Thank you for considering this edit. If you have any questions please contact me at email redacted

Peter Lowe Peterlloydlowe (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

• Done I made the change. We cannot use that reference as it constitutes original research but the original number was not part of the reference for that sentence anyways and I followed your math to the same number. Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 06:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2016

Can somebody change the foundation date from the current [1930 FIFA World Cup|1930] to {start date and age|1930|7|13} to correspond to the FIFA World Cup's official founding date?

Well, if you were to take a look at the 1930 FIFA World Cup article, it says it was first held July 13, 1930 and here's a source that you asked me for. 173.73.242.76 (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  06:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Except that wasn't the date the tournament was founded, it's the date the first tournament started. Teams were invited to participate all the way back in February 1930, a full five months before the first match was played, so the tournament itself must have been founded in February 1930 or earlier. – PeeJay 21:09, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2016

Professor Troll (talk) 04:00, 2 November 2016 (UTC) Actually the first world cup was played in Micronesia after a sudden change in Artic temperatures. The town of Alahapakinetus was originally hosting but was shortly bombed by South Africa since their bribery did not work as in 2010. The world cup is made out of whale blubber and pig utters but covered by sheepskin dipped in solid iron.

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - Mlpearc (open channel) 04:18, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614212717/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mcwc/ip-201_02e_fwc-origin_8816.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mcwc/ip-201_02e_fwc-origin_8816.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100614212731/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/75/fs-201_19a_fwc-prel-history.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/75/fs-201_19a_fwc-prel-history.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160630203029/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mcwc/ip-301_03a_fwc-awards_22643.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mcwc/ip-301_03a_fwc-awards_22643.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100717074354/http://www.fifa.com:80/worldcup/news/newsid=1264299/?intcmp=tweets_voiceofthesite to http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070926230651/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/fifa_wc_south_africa_2010_regulations_en_14123.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/fifa_wc_south_africa_2010_regulations_en_14123.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160112042845/http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/fifa-awards.html to http://www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/fifa-awards.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2017

"With Uruguay now two-time official football world champions and to celebrate their centenary of independence in 1930, FIFA named Uruguay as the host country of the inaugural World Cup tournament." This is wrong, the Independence of Uruguay was in 1925. In 1930 was our centenary of "Jura de la Constitución" (Constitutional Oath). You correct this, please. Ratonadiabático (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — IVORK _Discuss 01:07, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227032239/http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/regulations_olympics_beijing_2008_en_6198.pdf to http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/tournament/competition/regulations_olympics_beijing_2008_en_6198.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216151218/http://soccernet.espn.go.com/print?id=468907&type=story&cc= to http://soccernet.espn.go.com/print?id=468907&type=story&cc=
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216151353/http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=Pele to http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/classic/bio/news/story?page=Pele

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2017

189.75.41.214 (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sakura Cartelet ^Talk 02:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170909005900/http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/2010/06/30/262694/we-are.htm to http://www.chinapost.com.tw/editorial/2010/06/30/262694/we-are.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:22, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit request : Most goals scored

By now Germany have overtaken Brazil for most goals scored (223 vs 221). The last paragraph on the page should be updated accordingly.

Records- appearances

Buffon is listed as tying the record for most appearances with five (1998-2014). However, on his own article, it states that he did not get to play in 1998. This means he played only in four world cups, thus eliminating him from being a record holder.

Russia and Qatar

Surely add a citation or a tag for this statement in the opening paragraph.

Edit request : Statistic that ties Brazil, Italy and Germany together

As an aside, Brazil, Italy and Germany all had a 24-year gap between their 3rd and 4th championships: Brazil 1970 to 1994, Italy 1982 to 2006, and Germany 1990 to 2014.

Edit request : World Cups before World War II

With Uruguay now two-time official football world champions and to celebrate their centenary of independence in 1930, FIFA named Uruguay as the host country of the inaugural World Cup tournament.

This is wrong, in 1930 we celebrated the centenary of our first Constitution (Independence was in 1825). See Constitution of Uruguay of 1830

Medals

Currently, all members (players, coaches, and managers) of the top three teams receive medals with an insignia of the World Cup Trophy; winners' (gold), runners-up' (silver), and third-place (bronze). In the 2002 edition, fourth-place medals were awarded to hosts South Korea.

As I know from russian sports media sources, from 1966 until 1994 4 teams received medals:

• 1 place gold medals
• 2 place small gold medals
• 3 place silver medals
• 4 place bronze medals

Is it true? Do you know some official references? Thx, --Peter Porai-Koshits (talk) 08:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2018

Sporting buddy (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. AntiCedros (talk) 07:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

Change title "FIFA World Cup" to "FIFA Men's World Cup".

This will match the women's world cup page. By calling the men's tournament the world cup and women's tournament the "women's" world cup, we are furthering the assumption that men's sports are the given/expected and women's is the "other". Klena225 (talk) 15:40, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves. That said, I don't know how much traction you'll have for that since the official name of the event (according to the FIFA website) is "FIFA World Cup." The Wikipedia page should probably match the official name of the event - you're going to need to raise your concerns with FIFA before you can raise them with Wikipedia. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 18:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• FIFA World Cup.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 00:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 2018 FIFA World Cup opening ceremony (2018-06-14) 05.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

A suggestion

It might be an idea if this article had heading it "For the current World Cup, see 2018 Fifa World Cup." Vorbee (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2018

The article at the top states France won the World cup once when they have won twice. ZenMage (talk) 12:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done They've only won it once, in 1998. See for yourself at France at the FIFA World Cup. Fish+Karate 12:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Map of Countries' Best Results

Some of the eastern Russian islands have the yellow colour. They should have the same light green colour as the rest of the nation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.157.251.133 (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree they are showing Russia's eastern islands as incorrectly belonging to japan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.96.14.189 (talk) 13:11, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.157.251.246 (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)