Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Association football piped to football or not?

Yes the term means many things around the world, but FIFA doesn't mean many things. Every other FIFA World Cup article starts this way and there has been no confusion, I'm not sure why it would start to cause confusion this year. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't realize why because you have a bias on the subject. It's not bad to have a bias, but in its current form it's not neutral because it can confuse readers and even other editors. And a link on its own isn't an excuse because many if these articles are transcribed beyond Wikipedia without links. JOJ ^Hutton 01:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

While you're discussing the editor rather than the content, what exactly is my bias? Remember, I'm Canadian and have grown-up calling the sport "soccer". Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to take this and entire subject over to the NPOV notice board. Discussing it here is like a lamb walking into a wolves den and asking " what's for dinner"? The answer will always be predetermined based on the audience. This has been a serious issue for a while now and needs to be addressed by actual unbiased editors. I tried to make it neutral but it's obvious that we won't find neutrality here. JOJ ^Hutton 01:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

You do that. The serious issue is that you made a comment (and an assumption) about an editor rather than discussing the subject. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Serious issue? I do agree if it is an issue it needs to be resolved...but serious? That is just trying to make your case seem bigger than it really is. That being said, what I was going to add is simply that going back to the last four World Cup articles, it is called association football, piped to football, and not even mentioned one year. That was just going to the last four. Chris1834 (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

My single concern is that it needs to disambiguate as to which "football" is being discussed in the article the first time it is mentioned. The "serious" problem here is that some editors feel that since they know, then everyone should know. That's obviously not the case since nearly half of the English readers on these articles consider the sport "football" to be a completely different sport. Writing it as "association football" helps alleviate this confusion. Why this is being challenged just amazes me. JOJ ^Hutton 23:38, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

That IS the simple issue. The word "football" means very different things in different places. It always refers to a popular sport, so is a very common and natural part of the language in each place. The usage in this case WILL differ from the usage that automatically registers in the minds of a heck of a lot of our readers. Like Walter above, I call this sport "soccer". I won't ask for that here. But it's certainly not what I and hundreds of millions of others call just plain "football". "Association football" should be what we see first. HiLo48 (talk) 23:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure but it seems this is a suggestion that the word association football be piped to football. Can someone confirm exactly what is being proposed? Hack (talk) 16:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The request is the exact opposite. JOJ removed the piping and only wanted association football. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

The FA on the end of FIFA stands for Association football (in French). But that won't be obvious to a lot of our readers. We should make the name of the sport 100% clear and call it Association football at its first use. HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is 100% clear to all of our readers except the stupid ones or those attempting to make a point. For instance, is there a world cup for American football? No, because no nations other than the United States play the sport. Is there a world cup for Canadian football? No, because no nations other than Canada play that variation of the sport. Aussie rules football? Don't know how many nations play that sport, but there is no world cup for it. There are world cups for the two versions of Rugby, but they don't call it Rugby Football so that's moot. Since only one form of football has a world cup, it's easy to understand which form of football this world cup (and all of the previous versions of it) are for. If there is any confusion, they simply need to click on football and they arrive at the article describing which form of football, that played by the largest number of players in the world, and we have no confusion at all. This is not the Simple English version of Wikipedia so we don't have dumb our articles down at all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to insult other editors and users. You seem to be making an argument for changing the article title of association football. This is not the correct venue for that. Hack (talk) 00:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Walter, you know that when an American (or Canadian) sees the word "football" they immediately think of their local version, NOT Association football. Sure, many will work it out by reading more, but why make it harder for anybody? HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think Walter Görlitz's main argument is that "FIFA" in FIFA World Cup makes it pretty clear to which code of football is being referred to. It is a reasonable argument with some merit, though the simple fact we have to specify "international men's tournament", rather than expecting readers to know what the World Cup is means that we can't expect readers to piece together FIFA = football = association football.--2nyte (talk) 03:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I do know that when Americans, Canadians, Australians and readers from several countries see football they will think of their local variant. I also suspect that when they see "World Cup" they will recognize that there is no such thing for their local variant. I also suspect that when they see FIFA they'll know that the body has nothing to do with their local variant. I also know that they can click through football and FIFA to confirm their suspicions, and those with a pointing device (as opposed to a touch surface) they will be able to confirm their suspicions. That's why I'm not trying to insult readers (we don't have users) but am being quite pointed toward editors. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

All you say is true, but if we displayed "Association football", no clicking would be needed. Why make it harder for readers? HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

All you say has not caused a problem with any of the previous tournaments. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Got a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Sure. Check the talk pages and archives for every previous tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that if the concern is fixing the text so that readers in locations where "football" commonly suggests something other than the sport discussed in the article, then "association football" does not solve the problem. Take a random reader from the USA: if he does not already know that the FIFA World Cup is for the sport we call "soccer" then he is almost certainly not going to understand the term "association football." I am absolutely NOT suggesting we use "soccer" in the text, just pointing out that adding the word "association" is not going to make understanding any clearer for that group. LarryJeff (talk) 14:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You are taking far too many liberties with your statement and assuming the automatic correlation between the sport and the tournament.JOJ ^Hutton 15:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you misread me. I did not assume an automatic correlation between the sport and the tournament. In fact, I specifically addressed the situation where the reader does not already match up the sport and the tournament, and pointed out that the example reader almost certainly would not know that "association football" is the sport which he commonly refers to as "soccer." LarryJeff (talk) 13:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Why not simply write "football (soccer)"? I suspect all readers would then instantly comprehend. HiLo48 (talk) 20:05, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose there's nothing wrong with that. We can try it and see who reverts. JOJ ^Hutton 21:49, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's completely unacceptable, at least to me. Why are we pandering to ignorant people by creating a term when the sport has an official name that fits the bill perfectly. After all, we moved the sport's own article away from football (soccer) for a reason. If you don't know the sport's official name is "association football", that's your problem; you're reading an encyclopaedia, do some damn research. Note: when I say "you", I'm not referring to any specific people in this discussion but a generic, hypothetical reader. – PeeJay 14:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason for any description other than football. The use of FIFA in the title precludes any realistic notion of confusion from the average reader. Fenix down (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Why do some people want to change things this time? Every Euro, World Cup etc have always been the same. What have changed? Oh, I know, some people find out about football this year and want to leave their mark. What a joke. MarcosPassos (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that (and other aggressive questions above) is that when a large percentage of our readers the word "football" alone, they think of an entirely different game, and when they see "association football", they say "What?" That's NOT their problem. It's Wikipedia's. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

No, it really is their problem. It's not like we're using unnecessarily complex language as a method of obfuscation – this is the official name for the sport, comprising two words that should be readily familiar to the vast majority of readers, with a fuller explanation a single click of the mouse away (plus another click to get back). "Association football" on the first instance and "football" thereafter (or "soccer" if the tournament is held in a country where that is the common name) should be sufficient. – PeeJay 00:06, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agree with PeeJay2K3, I think "football" should be reverted to "association football" and we can put this to rest.--2nyte (talk) 00:47, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

As I stated above that "large percentage of our readers" are really not that stupid. While they may have a different local form of football, they know that the local form doesn't have major international tournaments every four years. They also know that FIFA isn't the body that governs their form of football. If they don't, that's what the links are there for. This isn't supidpedia or simple English Wikipedia, we expect some level of understanding and offer links to those who don't have that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but must we really make a mountain out of such a small molehill? Is it so unreasonable to accede to the request that the sport be referred to by its full name on the first usage? At least we don't have to refer to it as "association football" – or worse, "soccer" – throughout the article! – PeeJay 01:04, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

What's really weird here is the emotion some people are throwing into the discussion. It's OK to display emotion when you're at your game, but it never helps here. I don't understand the intensity of feelings. Using the "official" name, "Association football", doesn't really help. Not many people at all will instantly recognise what that means. And it depresses me to see an Australian, 2nyte, claiming otherwise above. I know for certain that he knows that such a claim is wrong for Australia. And I suspect it's wrong for Americans too. Calling it "football" alone WILL initially confuse a lot of readers. Yes, they may be able to overcome that confusion if they look more deeply, but some won't, and why should they have to anyway? A non-emotional answer please. That means, among other things, avoiding the word "stupid". HiLo48 (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So, are you guys willing to insert the "association football" thing throughout all the World Cup's (dating back to 1930!), Euros', Copa America's, Gold Cup's and Champions League's articles? Or is this thing just a black swan that will only be changed in this article and we will never talk about again? MarcosPassos (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any general support for changing the piped football to association football. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any general support for not using the official name in the first mention of the lead. All the rest would be "footbal", but the first mention should use the name of the article. JOJ ^Hutton 13:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't been reading the discussion. Several editors have voiced opposition. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

And several are in favor. What's your point? Like I said earlier, a lamb doesn't walk into the lions den and ask what's for diner. Just because the opinions are split on this talk page, doesn't mean that the result will be the same when discussed elsewhere. JOJ ^Hutton 14:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Position

• Oppose Explained above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I just can't understand why this World Cup's article must be different from all the previous ones. It's nonsensical. MarcosPassos (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

  Then they all should be changed. Simple to understand.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

• Weak support - I see Walter Görlitz's point that our readers are not morons and they shouldn't need the name of the sport explaining to them. However, being that this is an international article and nations where the sport is not simply referred to as "football" are involved, I can see the benefit of using the sport's full, official name in the first instance. And yes, if this must be changed here, it should be changed in all FIFA World Cup articles. – PeeJay 17:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose If I understand correctly all the technical and political nuances of this debate, since the name "football" does touch some sensitive nerves on English speakers on both sides of the pond for historical reasons, then I believe that the way the article has it now (with the first mention of the work "football" piping to "association football") is more than appropriate. Any reader that is still in doubt which 'species' of the game is being referred to will click on that first link and immediately be made aware that this cup refers to the variety that is indeed played with the feet, not with the hands (and feet)... ;>) warshy ^(¥¥) 17:37, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Utter Ambivalence This might be one of the least important issues that I've ever seen descend to a statement of positions and quasi-vote Wikipedia. It's been fun to watch though. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support for several reasons. One, per WP:EGG we should "keep piped links as intuitive as possible." Also, the reasons for opposing this change generally follow one of two lines of thought. The first is that people will automatically know football means association in this case because of the name FIFA and there aren't major world cups for the American or Australian types of football. While true, we also describe the Super Bowl as an American football game, even though everyone knows what type of football is being played. The second argument cited is that previous world cups say only football. This is invalid because consensus can change. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 21:42, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
• Questions 1. What is this new sub-section for? The name "Position" is as ambiguous as "football". 2. Why not make use of "soccer", the common name for the game where "football" means something else? HiLo48 (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Position here means are you in favour (Canadian spelling, I also say soccer) as we don't vote on Wikipedia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support "Football" means different things in different places. Per WP:COMMONALITY, we should avoid such terms in favour of ones that have an unambiguous meaning everywhere. "Association football" meets this criterion. Neljack (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, "Association football" is certainly unambiguous, but it's also relatively unknown, especially in places where the game is called "soccer". Yes, I know people can click on a link, but why not use the name "soccer" (and "football", of course) at that first point of usage? HiLo48 (talk) 04:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you on that point, but I doubt it will ever happen. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 04:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Why? (Innocent question.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a certain set of people (I'm not one) who believe soccer shouldn't be used to refer to association football because it's an Americanism (despite the fact that "soccer" as a term was invented by the British). Some good examples are in Talk:association football's archives. Calidum ^{Go Bruins!} 04:40, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Then I guess it's an Australianism too, but I'm old enough to remember British immigrants comfortably using the name here. It seems a weird and unhelpful prejudice against a word. One that's only evolved in the latter part of my life. But I guess sports fans are an emotional lot. HiLo48 (talk) 04:58, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

As for COMMONALITY I see that the various Super Bowl articles state "American Football", but that's because that is its proper name. The FIFA article uses the term of "association football", but it also is the body governing futsal and beach soccer. Names for association football gives a good overview of the sport's naming conventions, although it is poorly referenced. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

We should have either [[association football]] or [[association football|football]]; there is more than enough context from the article title for the reader to know what they are reading! "Soccer" is only really used in US/Canada/Australia, where it remains a relatively minority sport. GiantSnowman 09:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Gee, don't tell the Australian and American fans that. I still don't understand what's wrong with using the word "soccer". It would need no context. HiLo48 (talk) 09:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Just because it's a term a minority of readers use/prefer does not mean it should be present in the article. In Germany they call it "fußball", let's have that in brackets as well, yeah, to please the German fans? GiantSnowman 09:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

No, this is English Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, so we use proper English, not regional variances to please a few difficult editors. GiantSnowman 10:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Please stay polite. Comment on the arguments, not the editors. HiLo48 (talk) 10:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

When the matter has gone through numerous RFCs and ANI discussions, as this has, then these editors are being difficult. That goes for both sides btw - those pushing "soccer" where it is not appropriate (including here) and those pushing "football" where it is not appropriate. GiantSnowman 10:31, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a rude response to editors haven't been here before. "Not appropriate" doesn't explain anything. I ask simply, why not use "football (soccer)"? It would be instantly recognisable to all readers. "Association football" isn't. "Football" on its own isn't. Please discuss, rather than dismiss. HiLo48 (talk) 10:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

• Retain as football I think that the average reader is intelligent enough to know that if they are on a FIFA World Cup article, then they know what sport is being talked about. Even the American media occasionally refer to this as the "football world cup".[1][2] Number 57 10:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Politicians often say things like "the average voter is smart enough" when in fact they hope the opposite. What you "think" counts for little. Logic should apply here. If the American media occasionally refer to this as the "football world cup", it means they often don't. Why disadvantage such readers? HiLo48 (talk) 11:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I have applied logic – it's just that you happen to disagree with me – not everyone's logic is the same, and it's rather disappointing to see you make pseudo personal attacks above focussing on the discussion. My own logic is that if something is linked to, then that is sufficient explanation for someone who has no idea what they are reading about. And to be honest, I suspect that if someone on this article is not clear about what variety of football is being referred to, "association football" will not help many of them. It's hardly a common term. Number 57 19:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, we do no need to, or have to, pander to every individual's personal preferences. GiantSnowman 11:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

True, but when it's easy to do so, it's the only sensible thing to do. HiLo48 (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Warped logic. Something being 'easy' to do does not mean it is 'right' to do so. GiantSnowman 11:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

@ HiLo48. If the North American and Australian readers are actually fans, they already know. It's the people who know nothing about the sport and have seen the ad with players ... oh, then they'd know which sport is being referenced because of the ball displayed. Let's try again. It's the people who know nothing about the sport and stumble across the article who we want to cater to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

A reader does not need to be a fan to read the article. Thats the worst argument you could have given. As if only soccer fans would read this article. --JOJ ^Hutton 15:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

An editor here should read the whole discussion. HiLo48 wrote "Gee, don't tell the Australian and American fans that" (emphasis mine) but I was asleep and couldn't respond immediately. When I read the discussion, I responded. That's why there's the "@" at the start of my comment. I do not assume that fans are the only ones who will read the article. It's precisely the idea that fans are not the only ones who will read the article that I was arguing against. Thanks for making my point more clearly. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

We have just concluded a very intense discussion around what the game should be called in Australian articles. It became quite obvious during that debate that most Australians, fans or not, have no idea what "association football" is. Many fans admitted as much. (I have no idea what the situation is in the US.) So "association football" does not really work for most Australians. "Football" works for fans (even though many call the game "soccer"), but not for non-fans, and in a sports mad country like Australia, an awful lot of (usually) non-fans will be watching this event over the next couple of months. Adding the single word "soccer" would remove all confusion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Would like to point out that not only native English speakers read en.wiki, a large amount of second language English speakers also use en.wiki. Outside of US, Canada, UK, Aus, NZ, in every other corner on the earth, the word "football" virtually has only one meaning, which is association football. It is the American football, Canadian football, or Ausie football that require an adjective. (Visit association football and American football, and see how other languages call them.) And outside of Canada, many people wouldn't even know there is a Canadian football. To those people, association football would be a quite strange word. A native Chinese speaker, I learned English from Grade 7, and four year ago came to Canada and lived here ever since. For more than 12 years, I only know football and soccer, it was only two years ago that I came to know the official name of the game is association football, through wiki. I can safely say that most Chinese people who speak English, they would be confused to see "association football" (as was I years before), as they do not know any non-association football. (American football is more commonly known as 橄榄球, lit. olive-ball.) Seriously, how many readers of this page would be confused of which sport it refers to? Or is it just in the heads of illusions that the word football cause confusion, especially on this page?128.189.191.222 (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit request - Panini sticker album fever

Can someone insert something about the worldwide WC sticker album fever? I think it should be mentioned. MarcosPassos (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The what? Maybe you could point us at a reliable source that tells us about this fever. HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. Thought you guys had heard about it. Link1, LINK2, LINK3. If you want more sources, just ask. BTW, the album is available in 120 countries. MarcosPassos (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Facts and perspectives on the 2014 FIFA World Cup

Brazil decided to host the 2014 FIFA World Cup primarily to attract foreign tourists and improve the infrastructure. The country is investing in social mobility, airports, stadiums, security, telecommunications, tourism, public transportation, roads, hotels, etc.

The 12 cities chosen to hold the sporting event best demonstrate the cultural and natural wealth of the country and will most benefit from the gains in infrastructure and economic investment. The new arenas will enable spectators to enjoy the game with more comfort, security and quality, which in turn, encourages stronger public presence.

The investment plan for the World Cup host cities totaled R$ 25,6 billion. The stadiums were paid by federal funding from the National Development Bank, and local and private resources, totaling R$ 8 billion. Contrary to popular belief and according to the Secretaria-Geral da Presidência da República, the funds for World Cup aren’t being withdrawn from the areas of education, transportation, or public safety budget.

Despite government promises and allegations, many people remain skeptic as to where the money is being spent. Furthermore, people are indignant over the amount of money being invested in the World Cup instead of the sectors of education, public transportation, security, etc. The 2013 street manifestations and demonstrations are a testament of the dissatisfaction of the public with government overspending with the event.

The arguments in favor of public spending for the World Cup in Brazil contend that the event will bring jobs, increase the touristic flow, promote the revitalization of urban areas, and ensure substantial investments in the country. There are many benefits for Brazil to host the 2014 FIFA World Cup. In terms of social mobility, there are currently 45 construction works that prioritize public transport, including corridors, routes for buses, stations, terminals, and Central Traffic Control. The improvement in airport infrastructure, passenger lanes, courtyard terminals, and operational adjustments will increase the capacity to receive passengers at airports by 81%. The Brazilian government invested in the control of entry points in the country, the integration of institutions and systems, and contingency actions and advocacy for the World Cup and nationwide. The Ministry of Culture has announced the investment of over R$50 million allocated to museums and the revitalization of equipment chosen by the host cities.

http://www.secretariageral.gov.br/noticias/ultimas_noticias/2014/04/15-04-2014-serie-de-perguntas-e-respostas-esclarece-de-que-forma-o-pais-se-preparou-para-receber-o-mundial-de-2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilaspvelloso (talk • contribs) 23:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Brazilian Football Players React to Controversy

In regards to the recent demonstrations that have occurred over the World Cup being hosted in Brazil, legendary Brazilian football player, Pele, has commented on the subject. He says: “Brazil to put “problems” behind them and stage “fantastic” World Cup.” His critical comments have sparked even more controversy, as the majority of the population stands against the hosting and demands for social, political, and economic improvements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zelkarim (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to Wikipedia

I'd like to congratulate Wikipedia and it's editors for putting together this article. The World Cup watched or followed by almost half the world and yet, when I search for articles about it, this one comes up right at the top of the search results just below the Official FIFA page. So to those folk who have worked on this, well done! You know who you are and you deserve some respect! (Oh, and to those who want to mess it up - or any other Wiki articles - from the rest of us who read Wikipedia, I have a piece of sound advice, Go and get yourselves a life!) 83.200.199.100 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Repeated mention of video game

The video game associated with the event is mentioned numerous times. It looks a lot like a product placement or advertisement in a popular wiki article.

First, it is identified in the disambiguation header individually (and I would suggest unnecessarily). The disambiguation page itself is a more appropriate location for it to be identified, assisting users looking specifically for that article (which it currently does anyway). I'm sure that gratuitous link in the top line of this article has generated a lot more click-throughs for the game's maker than the inclusion on the disambiguation page has.

Second, an identical passage of text is included under both merchandise (which I would consider the correct spot), and later under broadcasting. The latter should surely be removed.

This is, and will remain, a popular wiki article, and close scrutiny must be applied to the article's content. I do, though, add to the above congratulations to the page's editors.129.94.8.238 (talk) 06:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I've cleaned up. HiLo48 (talk) 06:29, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I just removed the Video game section. I didn't realize I duplicated it. Thanks for the heads up.--2nyte (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

We can't completely remove it. A brief mention, as it currently stands in t he hatnote, is appropriate. Also the short section in the body is sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Template for matches

I have created templates for all the tables/matches which are needed for the competition. This is because it seems to me that the same information is repeated in the same way on this page and on pages such as 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A. It therefore seems easier that only one change has to be made. (I'd also like to add that my edit for the knockout stage was made before I'd seen the first had been reverted!). To me, there doesn't seem to be any problem with it, but as MarcosPassos pointed out, it should have come to here first. - 97rob (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I oppose your edit because you are removing a lot of very relevant information such as the time and venues of the matches. Besides, I myself and certainly thousands of people around the world will use this page to follow up what's going on during the World Cup from work or home, and I think it will be very tiring for us to open different tabs in the browser for each Group. Furthermore, the template currently being used in this article is similar to the ones used in previous World Cup articles. And they worked just fine. I don't see any reason to change it. MarcosPassos (talk) 18:03, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The edit doesn't actually remove the information from the page, it just stores it in a different location. If you look back through the history to view a version of the page before it was reverted, you can see what I mean by this. From an editors perspective, it changes the location the information is saved, and reduces the workload. From a readers perspective, nothing changes. (I do understand that it looks as if lots of information has been removed though) 97rob (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Like I said before, from a readers perspective, we will have to open 8 new tabs (1 for each group) to know where and when the matches will be played. It's wrong to say that "nothing will change". It will get a lot moretiring, and probably make a lot of readers use other means to follow up the World Cup. But I will refrain from commenting for now, let's wait more opinions. MarcosPassos (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If you click the following link, you can see that the template I used means that the information actually is still shown to readers, although it might not seem that way to editors, as I have used a template which includes all the information which was removed from the page. 97rob (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Using a template for standings is preferred since it can be used in the main article and the group article. It can also be included if an editor wanted to create an article for a specific national team team's progress through the tournament. The presentation of the article allows an editor to click on the underlined "e" to edit the template.

I don't see 97rob's edit removing the match times. I'm not sure why MarcosPassos would want to update the same information in multiple locations, which is what MarcosPassos' preferred formatting would require. It's also possible to move all of the results to wikidata and completely abstract the information locally. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the edit summary has been looked at, which appears to show a large removal of information (about 16,000 bytes over the two edits). 97rob (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

@97rob: I belive you might not know how templates work? The information is not removed it is stored in the templates. You can not only look at the bytes when someone is inserting templates, it can be the exact same info only in templates instead. Just becuase it is less bytes does not mean it isless info. QED237 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

That was the point I was trying to make, that the information is still there, regardless of what the bytes on this page might show. Sorry if that wasn't clear. 97rob (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, I may be to tired. Did not read enough so thought the guy reverting complained that 16k of info was removed. My mistake. QED237 (talk) 23:15, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

There is very little wrong with the article as it is. The info could be reduced to a format more closely resembling the 2010 World Cup article, but it definitely doesn't need to be deleted. The specific articles for each group will go into far more detail anyway, with team line-ups, bookings and match officials, so IMO this article is perfectly within the limits of WP:SUMMARY (or it will be when the tournament is finished). – PeeJay 19:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The group articles from previous World Cups show the basic match information, followed by kit colours, team line ups, etc. The basic information is also shown here, so my edit was intended to simplify the process to one edit required per match. 97rob (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The table/standings in a template is a really good idea. The matches I dont think is necessary. QED237 (talk) 22:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

If there's no more opposition by tomorrow, I'll change the tables to templates then (they're created, they just need readding to the page). Matches still need consensus, so I'll leave that for a bit longer. (Or someone else can make the edits, the templates are {{2014 FIFA World Cup Group A table}}, etc.) 97rob (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Instead of that, why not just use "includeonly" tags on the tables on the individual group articles and transclude from those instead of creating brand new templates? Either way works fine, but this is one that's always worked in the past without needing to create new pages. – PeeJay 23:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

With a lack of any comments for 8 hours, I'm going to change the tables to use templates. 97rob (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've put an example of the usage of matches at User:97rob/2014 FIFA World Cup. 97rob (talk) 09:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As this discussion seems to have lost momentum, I'm going to change the matches to the templates. This will hopefully bring more editors to the discussion, as well as properly demonstrating what the page would look like with them. Note that this does not remove the information, and exactly the same amount of information for the group matches and knockout stages are shown as for the 2010 FIFA World Cup. 97rob (talk) 17:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Bringing back attention to @PeeJay2K3:, @Walter Görlitz: and @MarcosPassos: who have woiced opinion above and might be interested to "vote" below. QED237 (talk) 00:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

With a clear opposition to the templates for matches at the moment, do we want to incorporate the scores for this page into the tables template, which has been done in the past? - 97rob (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No. The group articles have further details on the matches and that would not be workable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I only said this from memory of looking at some of the past templates which seemed to do this in one of the years. Having looked at last years, they didn't use this, and it seems that it would be a pointless addition to the template pages, so I agree with Walter Görlitz. - 97rob (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Position

Use of template for group tables

• Support - As above, templates have been used for previous World Cup group tables, and reduces the editing required for editors, with the same information still shown for readers. 97rob (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Group tables will be seen on multiple articles, makes sense to make templates.--2nyte (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - As per 2nyte and my reasoning above. May be used on multiple places. QED237 (talk) 00:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Obvious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Use of template for matches

• Support - As above, a template would mean the editing required for editors is reduced, while the same information is still shown to readers. 97rob (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't know of any football match that uses this format and 64 individual templates is a bit excessive seeing that the they probably won't be used outside this article. I'm all for reducing the page size of this article (especially considering that it will increase dramatically post WC) but I think this is unnecessary. I would rather move the Infrastructure projects section to its own article.--2nyte (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The template would also be used on the group pages, as they also cover the match, beginning with the same information as on this page. It would also be used for the knockout stage page, and the page for the final. 97rob (talk) 09:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Thought I made myself clear above. We are not to list same info on all pages, on this page we only list score, on the others jersey, starting XI and so on as per previous seasons. There is no need for this template and jsut makes a whole lot more to watch. QED237 (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - The other page still uses the same football box template at the top, which is then followed by the other information you mentioned. The template currently set up is also able to show only the basic information on this page. - 97rob (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

No other information then score needed on this article just as per previous seasons. I dont think anyone agrees with you, at least not in discussion above. QED237 (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Only scores while leaving details to the group articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:05, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Match information

I just wanted to get an idea of what information we should be including in this article for both Group stage and Knockout stage matches. In the 2010 FIFA World Cup article information for Group stage matches included only match dates/venues/score. That of the Knockout stage included goalscorers/kick off time/attendance/referee and a sentence to paragraph description of events. So what should we do with this article? I would suggest keeping it brief for both Group/Knockout stage and only match dates/venues/score. Maybe include a brief collective summary of qualification in the Knockout stage, above the bracket. Thoughts, opinions?--2nyte (talk) 15:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why this needs discussing, when - as you've pointed out - the 2010 FIFA World Cup article can serve as a perfectly viable template. Minimal detail for the group matches, extra for the entire knockout stage. – PeeJay 15:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I dislike about the WC2010 template is that it doesn't have the match attendances. Someone curious about that has to open all the sub articles in order to find the attendances. What is extremely boring. MarcosPassos (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think the match attendances are important enough to warrant inclusion on this page. The goalscorer information would be more likely to be wanted by a reader. It doesn't take too much work to find out more, as the score should be linked to the correct match on the group page anyway. - 97rob (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@MarcosPassos: You wouldn't need to open all the articles, just the one with the attendance you were looking for. And it's the same with goalscorers and goal times anyway, and that is far more important information than the number of people who went to the game. – PeeJay 19:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@2nyte: @MarcosPassos: I don't think the times of matches is necessary if we're following the style of previous years, so I would agree with 2nyte's version of the page, before it was reverted. The user can click on the score (currently 'Match 1' etc) to find out more information about the match if they wish. - 97rob (talk) 18:31, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, after following all the preparations here I was ready to say this would be the first WC I will follow on Wikipedia (with my laptop at the side of my HD TV), and not on the media or on the FIFA website. But for that I definitely do need the game times prior to the game... Unless you guys really prefer I follow it through the FIFA website directly, instead... warshy ^(¥¥) 19:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The match times will still be here on Wikipedia, just not on this page; they should be on the group and knockout stage articles, where each match goes into greater detail. – PeeJay 19:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@97rob The time of the matches were available during the 2010 WC too, they were only deleted after the event was over. We can also delete the matches' time when this World Cup ends. If we keep on this pace of wanting to delete everything, soon we will delete even the Venues were the games will be played. lLet's try to not worsen the article. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk) 20:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Could this information instead be placed where it currently reads 'Match 1' etc, instead of requiring an extra line? - 97rob (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should delete the number of the matches, because they are relevant. See:

http://static.rappler.com/images/fifa-2014wc-ticket-screenshot-small.jpg MarcosPassos (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking about the group stage when I posted that, thinking it wasn't really necessary, so I completely agree that the information is useful in the knockout stage. - 97rob (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say that the match details such as the times, goalscorers, attendence and referees for both the Group stage and Knockout stage are what most readers will be coming to this article for. Maybe we should include that information in this article and the main point of difference for the individual Group stage/Knockout stage articles will be the squad line-ups, yellow cards and substitutions. Also I would prefer to remove the gray background colour.--2nyte (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2014

Controversy in the World Cup

The World Cup in Brazil has been quite polemic. Having the world's largest soccer tournament in a country so closely related to soccer and known for its culture, beauty and friendly people brought a lot of excitement to this event, but there has also been some controversy around it. In Brazil, a part of the population has been against the World Cup because of the bad governmental moves made such as the over price and delays in the stadiums, airports, VATs and infra structure reforms. The Brazilians have also started a wave of protests for many different reasons, but the World Cup was the propelling factor for the manifestations because people started to question why was the stadiums' cost so high, and why was the government investing so much in one event when clearly they should have been investing in other sectors. These protests are for various reasons, ranging from the improvement of education, health and transport systems to the end of corruption and a criticism to the absurd money spent in the reforms. Many of the stadiums aren't ready yet, 50 percent of them were already delayed on the 2013 deadline. The postponements of reforms, lack of infra structure, disorganization, violence, protests and overpriced works are alarming the Organizers. The stadiums costed about 8 billion reais, 111% more than expected. It is estimated that the World Cup in Brazil has already costed 40 billion reais, which is more than half of the money spent in all of the previous World Cups together. This mega event in Brazil has risen lots of questions, and started what is said to be the beginning of Brazilian citizenship.

I don't see an actual request here. Please make all edit requests in the form "Please change X to Y". – PeeJay 22:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, we can't forget that this article is about a sport (soccer) event, so let's try to not over-politicize the page. I believe that most people come here to read about, well, soccer? I'm all for people expressing political points of views, but why not express them on the right place? I believe that there is already a wiki page about these anti government protests happening in Brazil, so why not go there to talk about politics? I also think that we should trim a little bit the protests section in this article because it is just too big. MarcosPassos (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the protests is not right. While there may be a page that goes into detail, we must include an overview here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that we should mention them, even if briefly, on this page, with a link to the more detailed page. The protests are directly linked to the World Cup, so should be mentioned. - 97rob (talk) 14:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, while they should be briefly mentioned, I don't think we should insert a complex anthropological/sociological study of Brazilian society and its social problems as the author of this section is proposing. Simply because it's out of the scope of the article. MarcosPassos (talk) 17:59, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the protests are directly linked to the World Cup. Whenever I've watched preparations for any large scale international event, anywhere, there have been protests about the government(s)' and organising bodies' priorities in spending money on bread and circuses when the country has so many social and other issues to be solved. The protests are not really about the World Cup at all. Those who want them included tend to be those with an axe to grind in another area. While that axe grinding may be perfectly justified, it's simply using Wikipedia as a platform to extend the protests. HiLo48 (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Many news reports are referring to them as being linked with the World Cup, for example: [3]. As someone with no connections to the protests/Brazil, I am definitely not just using Wikipedia to extend the protests, as I feel that they are linked. - 97rob (talk) 22:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you have innocently become part of the platform for protest too. The Olympics will be there in two years time. Do you really expect the protests to stop the moment the World Cup final finishes, or do you think it's just possible they will just transfer across to the next big world stage? HiLo48 (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories aside, there are lots of political problems in Brazil but we're talking about protests directly related to the staging of the tournament, with references that link those protests to the tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not a conspiracy theory. It's reality. Can you list which protests are explicitly and exclusively linked to the World Cup, and will stop when the World Cup is over? I just had a look at the BBC article used as a reference above. It says about the protests "No-one saw it coming". Now, that IS absurd! HiLo48 (talk) 02:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I also can't reference that the protests won't continue until the end of WW III or that the protests will start it. I also can't reference that the protests won't continue until a Brazilian Pope is elected. I also can't reference that the protests won't continue until the heat exhaustion of the sun. In short, what a stupid request you've made. All we can do is add references that link them to the tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

All that is required is a brief sentence/small paragraph explaining what's happening with a link to the main article. Okay, maybe they will restart for the olympics in two years time, but I'm sure the relevant olympic article will also mention them if that does happen. The key point is that wikipedia has to go with what the majority of sources say, we can't just decide to have a different viewpoint. Also, protesters have been seen to burn the official sticker album - doesn't that clearly link the two events? - 97rob (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

The controversy/protests are specifically associated with the World Cup. Locals arguing government money spent for staging the tournament should be better utilised. This is well references in the Protests section of the article, which also links to 2013 protests in Brazil. If protests do continue and are publicised the relevant info should be summaries in the appropriate section of the article.--2nyte (talk) 13:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

All that is required is a sufficient summary to encapsulate the protests. A brief sentence or small paragraph will likely not be sufficient. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I think from my last point that I meant more along the lines of 'at least a brief sentence/small paragraph'. But it should be included, definitely. - 97rob (talk) 18:27, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

References

The Knockout Bracket

In the knock-out section bracket from the quarter-final stage and onward of this bracket it states 'Winner of Game 49' etc.., but if you don't know which game is Game 49 then you don't know who qualifies. I know it sounds demeaning but some people might actually get confused, it should be easier to know which game is which. Discuss. Jas39 (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to use the lines that connect the ladder. I suppose that would be a problem for screen readers that don't speak the lines. Let's just remove 'Winner Match 49" and replace it with "Winner of Previous Match in Ladder". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I posted on Template talk:2014 FIFA World Cup knockout bracket, we should just leave it as it currently is, as when used on this article, match 49 is actually labelled, so shouldn't cause too much confusion, and in a month's time it'll be replaced by the team names anyway. - 97rob (talk) 15:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Number of games in group play is incorrect. Should be 3, not 6.

Under section 8 titles group:

The first round, or group stage, will see the thirty-two teams divided into eight groups of four teams. Each group will compete in a round-robin of six games, where each team will play one match against each of the other teams in the same group. Teams will be awarded three points for a win, one point for a draw and none for a defeat. The teams finishing first and second in each group will progress to the Round of 16.[54]

Should be:

The first round, or group stage, will see the thirty-two teams divided into eight groups of four teams. Each group will compete in a round-robin of THREE games, where each team will play one match against each of the other teams in the same group. Teams will be awarded three points for a win, one point for a draw and none for a defeat. The teams finishing first and second in each group will progress to the Round of 16.[54] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sestinatta (talk • contribs) 21:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Sestinatta: Done. I've not changed it to exactly as suggested, as there could be confusion between the number of matches played per team, and the number played in total in each group, which IS six. I've clarified this in the article, to make the distinction between the two. - 97rob (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Daily News

Should we really insert daily news from each host city in the Venues section as WalterGorlitz has been doing recently? I think this article is not a newspaper. If there were a murder of a baby in Sao Paulo today or a subway strike in Rio yesterday, it's really just local news and not relevant at all in the big scheme of things or for the World Cup. Besides, if we are really going to transform the Venues section into a dailynewspaper, we should be aware that the section will be extremely big by the end of the 2014 World Cup. Why can't we repeat what had been done during the 2010 WC and the World Cups before it: here.? :MarcosPassos (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Where is the daily news in that section? From what I can see, the venues section is just a brief description of the problems that have faced Brazil when building/renovating the stadiums. Jas39 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, World Cup related stuff should obviousy be included. MarcosPassos (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a state of emergency. That's not local news! The fact that an international agency, Associated Press, has picked-up the story makes it clear that it's not local. The fact that a British newspaper has published the story in the sports section means it's not a local story but they feel it may somehow affect the sport or the tournament. I am tired of the way that some editors censor any negative material from the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Group of Death

Is it important to note that the Group D is the Group of Death? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.145.11 (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source for that? – PeeJay 17:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Can't put it in the article w/o a source, but consider this: England is (by FIFA ranking) the 3rd-best team in Group D at #10 in the world. We are guaranteed to have at least 7 teams ranked below them advance out of the group stage. LarryJeff (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

And they will play in Amazonia, as Roy Hodgson feared, the worst climate of the competition even for Uruguay. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.68.70 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it can/should be mentioned (only) in the subarticles and not in the main article. Kante4 (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so, I think it's important to let the readers know which are strongest groups right away, since many readers are not football/soccer experts. Let's wait for more opinions from other editors in order to reach a consensus. Thanks. MarcosPassos (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The way it was added was horrible. In the aubarticles there is a lead text, where it can be mentioned pretty easily. Kante4 (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Please don't hesitate to insert the information regarding which are the groups of death in the subarticles as well, but that should't exempt the main article of mentioning such important information too. Notice that not all readers will click on the subarticles. MarcosPassos (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Why mention group of death at all? It is highly subjective what people think and one can most likely find sources for all groups to be "group of death". Wikipedia should be based on facts and not opinions (even opinions from newspapers). QED237 (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

For once i agree with QED. That's why i said it CAN be mentioned, in the cubarticles. Everyone can say that this or that group is the group of death. Kante4 (talk) 15:14, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Not everyone! According to the press, there are 3 groups of death. Not more, not less. I know that there are a lot of football experts editing the page who already know by heart which are the strongest groups, but that will not always be the case for the average reader of this article. The average reader should be alerted of which are the strongest groups. There are tons of news articles mentioning these 3 groups of death right now! Why hide this? Only because we dislike team A or B and think that they "can't be that relevant to be in a group of death" or because "everyone knows which are the groups of death"? MarcosPassos (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Whether a group can be considered a group of death or not, this should probably not be included in the main page, since it is already long enough and should include more important matters. I have created the group subpages: A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and information about each group should go to those subpages. Ciao. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The only way to mention is is whith sources, not editorial calculation from WP's own to suggest what they deem the group of death. Group C can be group of death as theyre all equally likely to progress of releatively similay strength.Lihaas (talk) 13:33, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

It's widely accepted that Group G is the "Group of Death." Every year one group is decided to be the strongest one and given this title, I definitely agree that this should be mentioned. Here are some sources that state this claim! [4] [5] [6] [7]. Adamh4 (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I think you have a point Adam. There being no objections, I will insert the Group of Death tag for Group G. Let's just wait a bit for now. MarcosPassos (talk) 01:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Group of death is subjective and not really encyclopdic. Why should we have that? QED237 (talk) 22:41, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not subjective when there are several sources (links are above) stating that Group G is seen as the group of death by specialized media. I think it would be adequate to put just a small observation, similar to how the US' third place at the 1930 World Cup is explained here. I believe it would improve the article. What do you think? MarcosPassos (talk) 01:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean the three groups of death, each with its own set of refs? If we're talking about a single group of death, it can't be supported. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I meant all groups of death which we have reliable sources to back the claim. It would be just a ref with a small observation like "Seen as Group of Death by specialized media" or something alike. The reference with the observation about the US third place in 1930 which I linked above is a good example of what I'm talking about. MarcosPassos (talk) 04:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay then I go add group of death to all 8 groups, because there are sources to be found everywhere.... Do we need to vote about this? I feel more are in favour of not including them, but perhaps I am a bit biased. QED237 (talk) 09:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow! Do you really have a source claiming that Group C is a Group of Death? Can you share the link here? MarcosPassos (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked and I wont do it either, but I think you get the point. Group of death is a media phenomenon that is highly subjective and should not be included, and it seems like most people agree with me. QED237 (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know if that's true (that most people agree with you). But if it is, then the case is closed. MarcosPassos (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

From a quick look through the posts, I'm not sure that the split is as clear as suggested, so I've added the position section below. - 97rob (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No Group of Death. Please. It's pure tabloid sensationalism. Not worthy of a mention in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 02:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I also oppose any mention of "Group of Death" for any of the eight groups. This is a subjective media qualification and it can be read in the specific/specialized venues the reader seeks for his/hers own information. I does not need to be mentioned on Wikipedia. warshy ^(¥¥) 11:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Position

• Support - the information is of interest to readers, especially those who might not have strong football knowledge but would like to know about a major worldwide event. - 97rob (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I have read reports of two groups of death and from what is written above there may be a reported third and so it's clearly subjective. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is not a FIFA official category, and as far as I know it is not used by FIFA. Also, who determines what constitutes such a thing as "GoD," and what are the criteria used to determine it? No, this is pure media sensationalism, and national media in different regions/countries have interest in determining it also as an a-priori justification for the ultimate failure of the national team to qualify for the more adavanced stages of the competition. warshy ^(¥¥) 16:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support - With 97rob. I think the additional info will improve the article. Of course, only very reliable sources must be used and a consensus must be reached about which group(s) are considered groups of death. MarcosPassos (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The only sources that would have any credibility at all would be those that described a group other than the one their own country is in as a group of death. Even then, the use of the word "death" shows how silly it all is. HiLo48 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48:, spot on. Many countries list their nation in group of death. Can we interpret your response as oppose? Perhaps you could vote to make it clear what you think. QED237 (talk) 21:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand the significance of threads called "Position". Is it to make it easier for simple people to inappropriately just count votes, rather than genuinely consider the quality of arguments presented? I have surely already made my position clear above. But alright then, obviously I....

Sorry. I think I started that somewhere. Consensus is not a vote, and so I didn't want to make it appear as such when I introduced the term. What is a better one? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

For what? Another thread where we all repeat what we've already said? I can think of many names. Not all are nice. HiLo48 (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As Qed237 (talk · contribs) suggested that a majority of editors were opposed, a clear list of people's position makes it much easier to decide which viewpoint an editor is taking. This can be changed if they see a good argument by someone else, of course. - 97rob (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "majority" is the problem there. It says that simple people are simply counting votes. That's not an acceptable approach. Quality of argument matters far more. Where is your simple tool to measure that? HiLo48 (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I accept it isn't the best way for us to be doing it, but from the conversation above it seemed to be the same main voices contributing, whereas we can now see that the people who have also read the discussion mostly side with the arguments from the oppose side, suggesting they are better argument. Anyway, there's definitely no consensus for adding this information, so unless a new editor comes into the discussion with a more persuavive/better argument for them, it seems we're just going to leave the articles without them. (Just to add though, I'm obviously against just 'counting the votes' here because that would stack hugely against my viewpoint!) - 97rob (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose My reasons are above. The sequence of posts got stuffed up in this redundant thread. HiLo48 (talk) 22:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per discussion above and previous votes. Group of Death is a subjective media phenonemon with all local media saying their nation is in group of death. And there should never be more than one group of death and sources suggest otherwise. The articles are better with infomation about the matches, thats enough. QED237 (talk) 21:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• ...Oppose - Group of Death is something from the media and not ovjective. Kante4 (talk) 22:11, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - It's subjective; I'd personally say Group B is the Group of Death.--Bowser2500 (talk) 02:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should the first time that the sport is mentioned in the article be "football" or "association football"?

Which is more neutral? "Football" or "association football"? JOJ ^Hutton 13:05, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Association Football This is an international sporting event. As such, the ambiguous term "football" has different meanings in the different English speaking countries that are participating. Only the first time it's mentioned in the lead need to carry this moniker. All subsequent references can simply say "Football". JOJ ^Hutton 13:12, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I have no problems with the piped presentation as it currently stands. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Match links

Somebody needs to fix all the links when clicking on "Match 1", etc. They are all Brazil v Croatia, using "v". They need to be "vs". 81.156.217.108 (talk) 21:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - well spotted, I've corrected them all. - 97rob (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous Encounters

On all of the individual group pages, '2014 World Cup Group A' etc.., I have removed the 'Previous World cup encounters' section because I thought it was irrelevant on a 2014 World Cup page. This is a wikipedia article about the 2014 World Cup not the history of the World Cup, we should leave all other statistics to other websites. I am posting to this page because more people would see it on here and I didn't want to post on all of the individual pages, just letting you all know. Jas39 (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it was a bad move. You denied readers the chance of reading an interesting/relevant information. MarcosPassos (talk) 14:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

But as I posted here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_FIFA_World_Cup_Group_D and they agreed with me, this was not relevant information, it shouldn't matter if England have played Italy in the 1990 World Cup, this is a 2014 World Cup page. Jas39 (talk) 14:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it never should have been added. It's trivial. What's the encyclopedic value of adding meetings of national teams that do not have any bearing on the current set of players or staff? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I added the "Previous FIFA World Cup meetings" sections after seeing this: Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1#Argentina vs Nigeria, right after the draw. I also see a discussion here. So as far as I can tell, already User:DerBorg and User:MarcosPassos agrees with me. I think they are interesting because many teams have recent meetings. Besides Netherlands v Spain, there are e.g. Argentina v Nigeria and Ghana v United States. Also most match previews in major media will include mentions of previous meetings, no matter how long before it was. I remember before Argentina v England during 2002 World Cup group stage, all the mentions are about previous meetings including 1986 and 1998. What does one have to do with other? It's just human nature to revisit history. I mean, why do people (including Wikipedia) keep mentioning Group D having three previous winners when Uruguay haven't won a title in more than 60 years and England haven't won one in almost 50 years? Chanheigeorge (talk) 12:11, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

But most of the meetings aren't notable. The fact that Nigeria and Argentina have been drawn together four times in the last six tournaments is very interesting, and it's even interesting that none of the teams in Group C have ever met before, but who really cares that Chile and Australia met once in 1974? Notable previous meetings can be mentioned in the prose summaries that I insist we do for each of the 64 matches, but since most of them aren't notable, having a sub-section devoted to them is overkill, IMO. – PeeJay 12:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you assume that nobody cares about the meeting between Chile and Australia? Maybe Chileans and Australians care? Searching for articles right after the draw: an article from Australia [8] and an article from Chile [9]. Both mention the 0-0 draw between them in 1974. Chanheigeorge (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you assume that anyone needs to know this trivia?

But more importantly, in BRD, we discuss rather than edit war to get our preferred version. Chanheigeorge, you're pushing your version and talking on the side. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

My points, once and for all: I added the section, after reading this: Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1#Argentina vs Nigeria. I cited the document provided by FIFA: [10]. Many times, the previous meetings are mentioned in media (e.g. media citing the 1950 England v USA match before the 2010 match), so I do not "provide" these pieces of information just because I found them interesting. There was previously no consensus on this topic. Only 6 editors have provided an opinion on this matter so far: 3 support (User:Chanheigeorge, User:DerBorg, User:MarcosPassos), 3 oppose (User:Jas39, User:Walter Görlitz, User:PeeJay2K3), so there is hardly any new consensus. I have edited the articles 2014 UEFA Champions League Final and 2014 UEFA Europa League Final, where I mentioned the meetings between the teams in the 1950s (here and here), and nobody who have read or edited these articles (including some of you here) have any complaints about them. So I do not see any problem with my edits. Finally, I do not even think people actually read WP:Trivia. Please go ahead and read it from beginning to end. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not taking a side on the section for this as it currently is, but I agree with PeeJay's earlier comment that they should be added to prose sections for each match, once these have been written. I'm not sure where I stand on what to do with the information before that, though. - 97rob (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with them being put in prose, as long as all previous meetings are included and there is no "cherry-picking" of which previous meetings are notable or not. Chanheigeorge (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not cherry-picking, it's editorialising. If two teams have met once before in the group stage, you might shrug your shoulders and say "meh, it was bound to happen at some point, since we've had 20 World Cups", but if they've met four times in the last six tournaments (see Nigeria vs Argentina), that might make a reader sit up and take notice. Same goes for the finalists from the last tournament being drawn in the same group for this one. Those are interesting match-ups. I understand your point about the history of Australia v Chile clashes being important to Australians and Chileans, but they won't be of interest to the typical reader. – PeeJay 20:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I think they should all be included, as they will likely be of interest, at a minimum, to the countries involved in the match. Actually, I've decided that I think they should be left on the pages as a list at the top for the time being, but should be moved into prose as soon as possible. There's no reason to take them out just to be inserted later, and as WP:Trivia says, If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all. - 97rob (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

What does this information tell the reader about the upcoming matches that the teams in this group will play? The only interesting thing is that the nations, not the teams, have met before. It would be better to link to the history of matches by the individual national teams, but not matches played decades ago. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

As I am the one who originally deleted the section on 'Previous Encounters' I think I have a big say in what we should be doing with this section. The whole idea of adding a new sub-section just because these particular national teams have met before is complete trivia. The players, coaching staff, whole set up of the national team has absolutely no bearing on the outcome of the match in 2014. This is a 2014 World Cup page not the history of the World Cup and for a user to just go back bullishly and re-add the sections is nonsense. People don't care if the teams have met before, commentators only mention it briefly just so they have something to talk about before the match. The 'Previous Encounters' has no encyclopedic value whatsoever,this is something that other statistical websites should be showing, not us.Jas39 (talk) 10:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Most expensive World Cup claim and dubious cost estimates

(Transferred from child article)

I can't verify in the citations given the claim that the 2014 World Cup is the most expensive one ever. It may be Original Research. Four citations are given . The titles imply that each refers to the cost of one tournament, so the editor may have made an assertion based on a comparison of the costs of tournaments mentioned in these four sources. The first is a dead link, but the closest archive copy mentions only an estimate of the cost of the 2014 World Cup. The second reference is inaccessible. The third mentions the organisation cost of the 1998 World cup in one bullet point. The fourth starts with a note from the author to say that it is draft only and should not be referenced. I'm not convinced of the reliability of any of them. I'm not an expert on this, but I suspect there are numerous estimates for each tournament, depending on exact definitions and what aspects are included. Since each cost estimate comes from a different source, it's not clear that the calculations are comparable. The $30 million estimate for 1994 seemed particularly out of line with the others, so I had a quick search, and found a published article that gives an estimate of the losses as $5·5 to $9·3 billion . Cimbalom (talk) 02:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

• Tank you for the information, I will remove the table from the parent article. Soerfm (talk) 10:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

References

Green Line in Group Tables

What are those for? Busy Moose (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

They are to show that two teams qualify from each group. Once the matches have actually taken place, and teams have qualified, this will probably become more obvious. - 97rob (talk) 21:29, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Is there a way to remove or move the green lines before then to avoid confusion? (After things kick off, here's the tiebreaker formula [11]) Busy Moose (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we should just leave it as it is. The world cup starts in a week anyway, and I don't think it should cause that much confusion before. - 97rob (talk) 12:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Why would you want to remove them anyway? The lines indicate the threshold, not that anyone has actually qualified yet. We signify the qualified teams by shading the background of their rows. – PeeJay 21:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah, okay. So it's just to signify that the top two team move on, not that those specific teams above the line have moved on. Is it okay if we explain this? It was clear initially looking at the article Busy Moose (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Rankings

Does someone want to switch the rankings to their final pre-tournament form?Correctron (talk) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Why? They're listed for the seeding value. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

That's an important reason to keep those rankings, but I like to also compare tournament performance with rankings at the time of the tournament. For my country it be could one of the few aspects of real interest, apart from whether we will even score a goal. We could have both sets of rankings. HiLo48 (talk) 03:20, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Where would you suggest listing the rankings at the start of the tournament? There will also be rankings at the end of the tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

The other World Cup pages all list the final pre-tournament rankings... Just saiyan. Correctron (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

And the only teams where seeding was relevant was the first 8. Pre-tournament rankings tell you how good the teams were during the tournament. Correctron (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

2006 and 2010 read, "The following 32 teams, shown with final pre-tournament rankings, qualified for the final tournament." I suppose that if we change the wording, there's nothing preventing the change. Does anyone know why the seeding ranking is being used? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

It was presumably used because it was the best available ranking at the time and helped indicate the top 8 seeds. Now that the final rankings have been released, they can be updated. I don't do it myself as I don't yet know how to link references and what-not. Correctron (talk) 06:41, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Photos near top of article?

Hi - I think would be useful to have at least one picture of someone playing the sport or at least a photo of an actual ball in the article somewhere near the top. There is a lot of white space beside the table of contents, maybe it could go there. Facts707 (talk) 07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)