Talk:FIFA World Cup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Hungarian Flags

I have noticed that the flags with Hungary's two second place finishes in both 1938 and 1954 are incorrect. The flag for 1938 should have the old coat of arms, and the flag for 1954 should have a red star. Please see Flag of Hungary to see what I mean. I am new at discussions and editing wiki in detail, so if someone else could handle it I would appreciate it. This is also the first time I am discussing something so I hope I did everything right. Cheers!

world cup awards

Under the awards section, no mention is made of the main award of the world cup trophy. Could have a seperate section on the various different trophies, with pictures etc? Should the article Football world cup trophy be combined with this one, or at least a more prominent mention/link to that article.

Please leave this page at Football World Cup

We have -

• Cricket World Cup
• Rugby League World Cup
• Rugby Union World Cup
• Alpine Skiing World Cup
• Volleyball World Cup
• American Football World Cup
• Cross-country skiing World Cup
• Golf World Cup
• World Cup of Hockey

(posted by User:Mintguy, 12 Jun 2004)

I disagree - those titles (some of which could possibly do with changing) should have no impact on what we call this page. It's not as if they're a series of World Cups, they're all completely separate things. FIFA World Cup is its official name, it's perfectly descriptive enough, and it saves confusion over what form of football we are talking about. I'd like to move it back, but since the title of 2004 European Football Championship is also being debated, I'll wait for that to be decided first. sjorford 13:48, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup is not as well known as Football World Cup (though in most parts of the world it's just known as 'The World Cup' - no qualification being necessary). DJ Clayworth 13:51, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"FIFA World Cup" is better. There are far more hits for "FIFA World Cup" than "football World Cup" - 700, 000 vs 50, 000, so it's not true it's not better known. Mandel 18:02, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

I get slightly different stats. But it's not a fair analysis anyway. As stated above, "World Cup" unqualified means the Football World Cup 99 times out of 100. Putting "world cup" +football -fifa in to Google gives me 1,460,000 hits. But I don't claim that searches on Google prove anything. Google searches are naturally biased towards US usage simply because there are more US web pages than there are for the rest of the world. Mintguy (T) 20:47, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Your stats are erroneous. You should put them in inverted commas: "Football world cup" and "FIFA World Cup". Putting "world cup" +football -fifa simply means "world cup" is mentioned with football, not as a generic term. Neither is it true that "FIFA World Cup" is a US usage. I follow the European leagues but I have never heard people used the term "football world cup". Mandel 10:30, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that FIFA World Cup was US usage. I was merely pointing out that in the general case Google stats are not a good indicator. The point that you have singularly failed to grasp is that "World Cup" (unqualified) means the 'world cup of football' 99 times out of 100. Therefore specifically saying "football world cup" doesn't appear as often as you might expect. The fact that a search for the words "world cup" without any mention of FIFA but specifically linked to the word "football" gives such a huge hit rate is an indicator that the "World Cup" of football is mentioned much more often than any specific mention of the "FIFA World Cup". In fact just to ram home the point a search for "world cup" +fifa gives less hits than "world cup" +football -fifa. Mintguy (T) 10:47, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstand you. It's true "World Cup" almost always mean "World Cup of football" 99 times out of 100, but what I mean is the entire term "football World Cup", which is very seldom used.

As you said, "World Cup" almost always means the footballing World Cup, but it's very seldom the generic term "football World Cup" is used.

To check "world cup" +fifa gives less hits than "world cup" +football -fifa is not accurate. It simply states people mentioned "world cup" with "football" often, which is natural enough, but not that people used the generic term "football World Cup" often. Most are simply "World Cup" and "football" used separately in one article. Mandel 10:54, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Which precisely prooves the point. The words "World Cup" and "football" are associatied much more often than "FIFA" and "World Cup". But they arn't neccesarily used in a single phrase because no qualification is usually neccesary. But in Wikipedia we need to have qualification. What is best to use for qualification isn't whatever phrase happens to turn up more often in google, but whatever is going to give a clearer understanding of what the article is actually about. The fact that "FIFA World Cup" turns up more often than "football World Cup" doesn't mean anything, for one thing the results are skewed because the XBox and Playstation game is called "FIFA World Cup". "FIFA World Cup" doesn't tell us anthing about what the sport is unless you know what FIFA means, and as the search for "world cup" +football -fifa shows any specific mention of FIFA is less common than a specific mention of football, therefore using the word "football" is better than using the word "FIFA". Now we could call the article "World Cup (football)" or "World Cup of Football", but "Football World Cup" fits in with the previously established naming of articles. Mintguy (T) 12:45, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it's far better to call it by its official name. Most people who knows football instantly knows what is the "FIFA World Cup", we don't need coined-up terms like "Motor-racing Formula 1". "Football World Cup" is a portmaneau term simply invented to fit in the scheme. I prefer "World Cup (football)", but I simply don't understand why, if a term is used more often and generally accepted around the world, it should be taken against it? Even ' "FIFA World Cup" -XBox -PlayStation ' turns up more results than 'football World Cup'.

Most people who knows football instantly knows what is the "FIFA World Cup" - This article isn't aimed at people who instantly know what FIFA means. Mintguy (T)

You seriously haven't given a good enough reason why if a name is used more often, it shouldn't be used. It's a self-contradiction. If "FIFA World Cup" has more hits, obviously people use it more, hence it is more likely to be better known than "football World Cup". As it is, "football World Cup" is just a coined-up term, and it really jars on the ear, like "tennis Davis Cup" or "golf Ryder's Cup". As you know, football means different things in different countries.

Are we going to end up with "football (soccer) World Cup" simply because it is more descriptive? According to this logic certainly this would make a better choice than simply "football World Cup"!

If a person seriously is so ignorant as to not know what is the "World Cup" is, then it is also likely that he or she may mistake football for some other sport. A simple way out: at the disambigation page simple state that FIFA World Cup is the World Cup for the sport of football or soccer. A person checking for World Cup will then know what it is. No one seriously will type "football World Cup" first time round because it is not often used. Mandel 10:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

The World Cup used to be called the "Jules Rimet Cup". So is it going to be that it will be called "football Cup" just because no one knows who Jules Rimet is? It sounds very strange! Mandel 10:42, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

No. The competition has always been called the "World Cup", or rather "La Coupe du Monde". The original trophy was renamed the Jules Rimet Trophy in 1946 and we have an article on it. The current trophy is the "FIFA World Cup ^TM". By coincidence, last night on Mastermind (http://www.bbc.co.uk/entertainment/mastermind/) one of the contestant's specialist subject was The history of the Football World Cup 1930-2002 [1] Mintguy (T) 12:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Like I say, football means different things in different countries. You assume that a reader of the article knows nothing about football; so fair enough, you can't assume that he knows what's "football World Cup" either? There are many kinds of football too. Mandel 10:33, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

There is obviously not going to be an agreement on this, so I see no further point in continuing this discussion and re-stating the same facts over and over again. But I will make one final point. Before the new trophy was created in 1971, the competuition was known as the "World Cup" without any qualification it is only since the new trophy was made in 1971 that the competiton has been known as the "FIFA World Cup", so to refer to the 1930 FIFA World Cup etc.. through to 1970 is just plain wrong. Only from 1974 onwards should you refer to the FIFA World Cup. Mintguy (T) 11:22, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please leave this page at Football World Cup (more)

Allow me to interject in this lively discussion ;o)

"FIFA World Cup is not as well known as Football World Cup."

That is patently false. The term "Football World Cup" is not popular at all, and is nowhere near as ubiquitous and well known as the more popular title "FIFA World Cup," in America (including Latin America), Europe, and elsewhere.

"(though in most parts of the world it's just known as 'The World Cup' - no qualification being necessary)."

Correct, but if any adjective is ever used in the title it is "FIFA," not "Football."

'Which precisely prooves the point. The words "World Cup" and "football" are associatied much more often than "FIFA" and "World Cup"'.

Which precisely proves that you have totally missed the point.

FIRST:

The fact that the word "football" is associated with "World Cup" in a generic sense has absolutely nothing to do with whether these words are associated in a TITLE, a proper name. Using your logic, I could very easily argue that terms/names such as "Pele," "Maradona," "Goal," "Red Card," "Yellow Card," and any other number of terms are likewise closely associated with "World Cup," and therefore, one could argue that the title of the article should just as well be the "Maradona World Cup," or the "Goal World Cup."

But of course, that would be nonsensical, as these associated names/terms are most definitely not associated in the literal sense of forming an intergral part of the name/title of the tournament; they are merely associated conceptually, and as a result, they are also associated in the frequency with which they are mentioned in the same breath, as part of a phrase, but not as one single term.

People simply do not say "Football World Cup" as a proper name, in most parts of the World. Many people do say "The World Cup of Football," which is not a proper name by itself, but a name "World Cup," followed by an adjectival phrase "of football."

SECOND:

If you have in fact actually heard the term "Football World Cup" more often than not, then you must live in an area where that usage predominates, but you would be incorrect to assume that most people speak of it in that fashion. And, if you live in Europe, I can definitely assure you that most people in your continent do not say "Football World Cup" either.

It is easy for one to confuse a local usage with greater popular usage. For example, in the ceremony announcing the selection of South Africa as the hoast for 2010, I noticed a very high incidence of South African delegates using the term "Soccer World Cup." I cannot speak from presonal experience, but, hypothetically, if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the most commonly known name for the tournament in the Republic of South Africa is "Soccer World Cup," then it is easy to imagine how a South African football fan might come to believe that everyone else in the world thinks of it that way as well, much as an American might not be aware that the name "Soccer" is far less popular name than "football" for describing that sport.

I believe that your conception of the supposed popularity of "Football World Cup" vs. "FIFA World Cup" falls under a similar misconception.

"No one seriously will type "football World Cup" first time round because it is not often used"

Exactly.

"There is obviously not going to be an agreement on this"

No, but I believe that our friend here is in a very small minority, and we can safely say (particularly given the varied responses to this discussion) that people find his interpretation to be rather peculiar, and inconsistence with common usage.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 20:25, 29.03.2005

Although I agree that "FIFA World Cup" might make more sense, you cannot move this on a whim. As you say, "Major Edits, such as article title, especially if they are being debated in the discussion page, should NOT be made without announcement or a detailed explanation". Well, that is the case. The title of this page has been discussed ad nauseum. It was agreed that "Football World Cup" was the better title. Agree or not, that's what the conscensus is (and not a "very small minority" like you think). Just because you dissagree, doesn't give you the right to wipe out the history and move the page. If you want to re-open the discussion, fine. But yours is NOT the final decision. A lot of work has been put in by many people to create the "Football World Cup" structure on many pages of this site. Moving the page is easy, but its effects are a bit larger than you think. Perhaps a little higher understanding of Wikipedia is needed before you go on this crusade. --Dryazan 03:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dear Dryazan, thank you for your reponse. Allow me to address your observations:

Although I agree that "FIFA World Cup" might make more sense, you cannot move this on a whim. As you say, "Major Edits, such as article title, especially if they are being debated in the discussion page, should NOT be made without announcement or a detailed explanation".

And as this discussion proves, I did not move the article on a whim and without a detailed explanation, so, with all due respect, your comment makes absolutely no sense.

Well, that is the case. The title of this page has been discussed ad nauseum.

True, but irrelevant.

Neither A. the length of two verbose members' posts in this discussion (I being the third verbose debator :oP), nor B. the inability of certain persons to engage in polite discussion without resorting to name-calling, nor C. the stubborn refusal of certain persons to seriously consider opposing viewpoints with an open mind, and either concede these or otherwise retort said viepoints with sensible counter-argument as opposed to simple negation, nor D. the inability to convince one particularly vocal opponent to the majority (Btw, in none of these statements am I refering to you ;oP), outweighs the opinion of other members.

In this case, more than a few others have weighed in with small, one-line or one-paragraph posts, and they have indicated their agreement that "Football World Cup" is an unorthodox title for this article, and that "FIFA World Cup" is much better.

It was agreed that "Football World Cup" was the better title.

Agree or not, that's what the conscensus is (and not a "very small minority" like you think).

False, unless you happen refer to some indicator other than this discussion, in which case I apologize for my erroneous assumption.

It was asserted by exactly one member that "Football World Cup" was the better title, whilst the exact opposite has been argued by every other member in this talk page.

Just because you dissagree, doesn't give you the right to wipe out the history and move the page.

I did no such thing; I move the page whilst conserving the discussion history, by checking the appropriate box during the moving process.

If you want to re-open the discussion, fine. But yours is NOT the final decision.

I never assumed it was my final decision, as I am nowhere near that arrogant. I assumed, by the evidence in this talk page, that the final decision had been taken, and only one person was arguing to keep the "Football "" "" title (in a rather closed-minded and condescending fashion, by the way). I perceived that I was taking the appropriate measure, given the fact that, as you state, the title has been argued ad nauseum. Once again, if you speak of some other indicator apart from this discussion page, I apologize for my inaccurate assupmtion.

A lot of work has been put in by many people to create the "Football World Cup" structure on many pages of this site.

Yes, and I respect that.

Moving the page is easy, but its effects are a bit larger than you think.

Perhaps. ;O)

Perhaps a little higher understanding of Wikipedia is needed before you go on this crusade.

"Crusade?" LOL!

--Supersexyspacemonkey 10:14PM, 31 Mar 2005 (USCT)

Well, it was not a decision to change the page name. The discussion last took place in August, and no change has been made since then. No consensus was reached, no matter what this talk page might say. Since August, further changes have been made to make this move more complex than it seems. Again, I also think "FIFA World Cup" might make more sense (but then, look at pages in other languages, most of them include "football" or its variety). It just doesn't make sense with the way other World Cup pages, categories, squad lists, etc are set up. This one change will cascade down a lot. But I do appretiate your earnestness and hope that you can contribute to the football (soccer) pages on Wikipedia. --Dryazan 04:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for any grief I have unwittingly caused. This has been a learning experience. I did a little reading just now, and I see that there is a procedure in place for requesting and receiving community approval to move an article. Thank you for your patience, and I promise that I will continue to contribute to the football pages, albeit causing far less damage. ;OP

--Supersexyspacemonkey 10:14PM, 31 Mar 2005 (USCT)

---

New Table (this was before the New New Table)

The old table was much better. We also appear to have lost the footnotes. Mintguy (T) 02:10, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

New New Table

I very much appreciate work put in on the "new new" table. The "old new" one that replaced the "old old" one was was all cocked up and I had it on my TODO list to fix it. So I like the "new new" table but... I think it should be ordered the other way up, having 3 blank rows at the top looks odd. Mintguy (T) 23:24, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nazi flag

For Germany in 1934 we display the Nazi Swastika.

According to http://www.nationalflaggen.de/flags-of-the-world/flags/de1933.html the Nazis re-instated the Red White and Black (the old Imperial flag) when they came to power in 1933. This flag flew jointly along with the Swastika (representing the ruling party) until 1935 when the Swastika became the flag of the German state. For accuracy sake should we be showing the Red Whit and Black flag? See also Flag_of_Germany. Jooler 09:18, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure, that makes sense... Although the swastika is as accurate. I will fix the WC 1934 page as well, but NOT WC 1938... --Dryazan 13:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Disambig message

Do we really need a disambig message for the Women's WC? If this page was at "World Cup", sure, but this way I don't think it's really needed, as I don't see many people coming here looking for the Women's tournament, and if they are, there are links at the bottom. But I am not sold either way. --Dryazan 12:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Since no one cares, I'm removing the disambig. --Dryazan 20:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Miracle of Bern

Hello, would some kind football person take a look at my translation from German of The Miracle of Bern (on the 1954 World Cup game) and check that the football terms are correct? I'm a native speaker of English but not a football fan! Thanks... Saintswithin 19:39, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please Leave USA and Yugoslavia Flags Alone

1. Regarding flags:

The fact there was no 3rd place match in 1930 is a poor argument to exclude the two losing semifinalists from the table, considering that for 1950 Brazil, Sweden, and Spain are traditionally respected and recognized for their 2nd, 3rd, and 4th place general standings, despite the fact that NEITHER a Final NOR a 3rd Place match was played.

Even though some people might not appreciate seeing the USA flag sitting at the top of the table, for reasons not related to sporting statistics, it must be respected like any other nation, as should Yugoslavia.

2. Regarding the existance or absence of a "3rd" place in 1930:

A 3rd and 4th place in terms of final overall standing exists regardless of a specific match held between the losers to determine a position, and regardless of whether or not a trophy exists to reward the winner of such a contest.

There is no 5th or 6th place match, nor a 7th and 8th, nor a 30th and 32nd, and yet all of these standings exist. The absence of a specific 3rd place match is completely irrelevant. The objective and indesputable fact is that every single one of the 32 national teams is officially ranked from 1 to 32 in their overall World Cup performace.

As such, the USA and Yugoslavia, having tied in points, and having arrived at the furthest possible stage of the game other than the two Finalist positions, BOTH occupy the 3rd place in the final overall standings, after the 1st place Winner and the 2nd place Runner-up.

Please supply references for official rankings Bornintheguz 10:30, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

There was no official status as 3rd, and 4th place. Additionally the results after the groups games were as follows

Team      Pts Pld  W  D  L  GF GA 
USA         4  2   2  0  0   6  0 
Yugoslavia  4  2   2  0  0   6  1 

Some may argue that with the better goal difference/goal average the USA took the 3rd spot. But There is NO OFFICIAL status for 3rd and 4th place and so no claim about winning or sharing the 3rd place can be made. Jooler 10:54, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

1. False. Officially, ALL teams in the final, be they 32 or 28 or 16 or however many, have a ranking in final standings. You confuse a 3rd place Match with a de facto 3rd Place, which are both equally official, with a Match being the determiner only where it exists.

For example, in the 1998 Cup, the Official standing of team USA is 32nd place.

2. That is a superfluous double-standard. There is no "officlal" status for 1950 second, third, or fourth place either, going by your erroneous definition of "official," only a DE FACTO status accorded by the mathematical fact of their final standing in points and stage advancement.

Unless you are prepared to erase Brazil, Sweden, and Spain from the table, don't mess with USA and Yugoslavia.

3. I'm merely trying to be reasonable about it, given how a strictly mathematical computation of the final standings would naturally cause controversy in the absense of a 3rd Place Match (as we can see it has already generated controversy), but if you want to be strict about it, then your earlier observation is the correct one, USA occupies 3rd place, and Yugoslavia occupies 4th, and here is the reference you asked for, it's official, and it's from FIFA.com:

http://www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-201_02E_WC-origin.pdf

Please observe the last table in the document, and see that I am right.

A table without explanation or context is completely meaningless. I fail to see how the ranking of the number of baths taken by each countries players has to do with this. You will have to do better than that. Bornintheguz 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

If you would like to correct the table in the article to show USA as the sole occupant of 3rd place, and Yugoslavia as the sole occupant of 4th, then go right ahead, or leave them tied, but kindly do not erase them from the table.

"A table without explanation or context is completely meaningless. I fail to see how the ranking of the number of baths taken by each countries players has to do with this. You will have to do better than that. Bornintheguz 18:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)"

Nonsense.

You are playing the fool. This data from the FIFA site is Crystal-clear, and is as Official a Finals Ranking as you're gonna get.

My source stands, and you will need to do much better than that to prove your case.

"I guess then that you cannot provide context. A table without context is meaningless. Bornintheguz 00:07, 11 July 2005 (UTC)"

The context is provided in the table, your claim is pedantic and meaningless.

Context 1: the dates for all World Cups to date. These are obviously not the birth dates for the Microsoft board of directors. Context 2: the names of countries participating in said world cups, obviously not the names of countries that landed on the moon. Context 3: the numbering of said countries from 1 to 32 (or other quantity), where 1, 2, 3, and 4 just happend to coincide with the top winners. Context 4: that big bold heading over the table which just so happens to read "RANKINGS." I do not suppose they mean military rankings.

The table only has one single and unambiguous meaning, and it is from an official source.

I'm getting the feeling that it's a no then Bornintheguz 20:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

--Supersexyspacemoney 13:30, 12 July 2005 (USCT)"

The bald fact is that in 1930 there was no decision about 3rd or 4th place. Did the USA and Yugoslavia share 3rd place because they had the same number of points, or did the USA get 3rd because they had the better goal average (goal difference is a more recent statistic AFAIK) or would they have made a decision based on the number of corners or free kicks or penalties or players sent off or what?!? The answer is that the question cannot be answered. Nobody got 3rd place because the competition did not have any rules for deciding how. Basically there was no 3rd place in 1930, it's as simple as that. The rankings you have shown are provided purely as additional statistical information, using criteria that didn't exist as far as the organisers of the 1930 tournament were concerned. Jooler 08:40, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The bald fact is that there WAS a decision about 3rd and 4th place, just no MATCH for 3rd or 4th place, because the bald fact you do not seem to comprehend, though it has already been explained to you once, is that every single nation that participates in a World Cup is ranked, EVERY single one, not just the top 4.

The bald fact is that you do not appear to read very well, and you fail miserably to refute several good arguments, ignoring them at your leisure.

The bald fact that utterly destroys your claim is that there was no final or third place match played in 1950 either, and their ranking is no more "official" (by your peculiar standard), yet you don't seem to mind including Brazil, Spain, and Sweden in the table.

--Supersexyspacemoney 13:45, 12 July 2005 (USCT)"

Ask FIFA, they made the official determination, as you can plainly read, although it was probably goal difference, because that is what follows in the current official heirarchy of determining factors.

Don't be absurd, the criteria that might or might not have been used by the tournament organizers in 1930 is completely and utterly irrelevant, all that matters is that FIFA has obviously made a determination since then.

Of course there was, it's as simple as that. This has been backed-up by an official source, it's as simple as that. You are all wind, and no proof, it's as simple as that. ;o)

They are an offical statistic provided by FIFA using criteria that FIFA has determined, end of argument, live with it.

Don't just rant, back up your claims, simple as that.

--Supersexyspacemoney 13:50, 12 July 2005 (UTC)"

I say again, in 1930 there was no provision for determining who got 3rd place. Retrospective anaylsis using criteria that were not present in 1930 cannot be applied rationally. In 1950 the situration was different. The four team that won their groups played in a final grouping of four and finished the competition as follows:

Team     Pts Pld W  D  L  GF GA 
Uruguay  5   3   2  1  0   7  5 
Brazil   4   3   2  0  1  14  4 
Sweden   2   3   1  0  2   6 11 
Spain    1   3   0  1  2   4 11 

This was the final standings with Sweden finishing 3rd with 2 points and Spain finishing 4th with 1 point. Of this there is no argument. Jooler 09:49, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you have to do much better than that.

1. You fail to cite any official sources or provide any proof to back up your claim regarding what criteria did or did not exist in 1930.

2. Your personal philosophical interpretation of whether a "retrospective analisis" can or cannot be "applied rationally" is moot. Don't take your gripe here, take it up with FIFA, they have the final word on it, not you. If you like, you can add a section on disputes/controversies surrounding records, instead of misrepresenting an official record just because you don't argee with it based on principle.

3. You contradict yourself. In terms of points, USA and Yugoslavia are tied, of this there is no argument, even if one hypothetically excludes goal difference as a legitimate criterium, that still does not demote either team from 3rd place. If we use your above argument to recognize a points-based 3rd and 4th place ranking for 1950, then one is forced to also recognize 3rd and 4th place ranking for 1930, where the points dictate USA and Yugoslavia are tied at 3rd place.

4. You confuse points with standings/rankings. You're quite right, there is no dispute as to the allocation of points in 1950. But using your own criteria, there also was never any specific determination of 3rd place in 1950 based on said points, only the determination of overall winner. Based on your own logic (or lack thereof), points are irrelevent for determining 3rd Place in 1950 because 3rd Place "simply did not exist," as you put it. You can rank points, but using your own arguments, that is just an arbitrary statistic, like ranking the height of players. Therefore, any declaration of overall placements beyond first place winner, based on points earned in final group play, is just as much a "Retrospective anaylsis using criteria that were not present in 1930."

But, on the other hand, if one accepts the current official FIFA position that ranking is not an arbitrary statistic, but that ALL participants must be ranked in final game standing, from 1st to last place, then BOTH 1950 AND 1930 had a mathematical 3rd place, even if it was not specifically awarded. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Either way, this is all hypothetical. FIFA has made its own determination, using its own criteria, and it stands:

http://www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-201_02E_WC-origin.pdf

4. Your are ignoring official sources, failing to back yourself up, and imposing your own subjective opinions and theories as if they were "facts."

--201.135.7.127 02:29, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please do not use the word moot in discussions. It's has a different meaning in British English to American English. Put simply again - Criteria for determining 3rd and 4th did not exist in 1930, retrospective analysis is irrelevant. The burden of proof is for you to find "official sources or provide any proof to back up your claim regarding what criteria did" exist in 1930. Jooler 06:32, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense, you pedantically circumvent the arguments and the evidence. You fail to make a case.

Put simply, your point is irrelevant: FIFA's official position stands; your philosophical argument fails. The burden of proof lies with you to substantiate your claim by supplying official sources in the face of the documentation I have already provided.

Put simply, even if said criteria did not exist in 1930, hypothetically speaking, then USA and Yugoslavia shared 3rd place on tied points.

Put simply, it now appears to me that said criteria did exist in 1930. Here is further evidence adding to the mountain of proof that obliterates your "argument": the USA was actually awarded the 3rd place medal in 1930 on the basis of goal differential over Yugoslavia, according to the U.S. National Soccer Hall of Fame. Please read caption within second picture (small but legible).

http://www.soccerhall.org/VirtualTour/WorldCup_1930.htm

Please learn to speak proper English before you clumsily attempt to level a criticism. The standard British English definition of "moot" is exactly the same as the American English definition, according to the Oxford and American Herritage dictionaries[2][3]. Dictionaries aside, I also know from my B.A in English Literature that the overwhelming literary precedent in both Britain and America demonstrates said fact.

That is, of course, unless you know of a rude regional/slang/street definition of "moot." At any rate, I will continue to employ this word according to its proper, academic usage.

--201.135.7.127 04:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Please see List of words having different meanings in British and American English re moot. - Presumably you meant irrelevant, the common US meaning, to which I would disagree - rather than debatable, the common British meaning, to which I would agree. Jooler 06:41, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Goal difference is quite a modern invention. It used to be goal average. Goal average was not applied in the World Cup until 1962 (in both the preliminaries and the final tournament). http://www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-201_14A_PrelHistory.pdf The link you provide is clearly in error. Jooler 07:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

A moot point is simultaneously debatable and irrelevant; it is open to debate, yet has no bearing on the discussion at hand; synonym of "academic" when used in that sense, as in the sentence "Until humans colonize Mars, questions of Earth-Martian politics are purely academic."

Likewise, your pedantic obsession with the date of establishment of goal difference/average as a standard is open to debate, yet has no bearing in this case, because FIFA ranks USA in 3rd place, and also because you nonchalantly ignore other rational arguments and their contexts, which happen to defeat that particular point before it is even made.

Your asserion that my source is "clearly in error" is clearly dubious.

Be it standard practice or not, in 1930, that method, or some method, was selected to settle the unforseen outcome.

--201.135.7.127 04:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Going back to the term "moot," since I have an honest academic interest in language issues, suffice it to say that this matter is irrelevant, and "moot," as I would use the term. Supposing you are correct, there is no polite reason to ask one to refrain from using a term properly applied in the dialect being spoken, if and when the listener and speaker of a different dialect is well aware of and understands the alternate meaning. Oxford recognizes non-British standards of usage throughout the Anglophony as being equally legitimate and proper linguistic varieties, since living language is organic and non-static. British English itself has an astounding variety of dialect variance, even within England alone, a level of sub-regional divergence surpassing that of other English-speaking nations. That is not to mention England's incredibly swift and dramatic linguistic evolution over the past two centuries, in some instances the standard so-called "BBC English" and "Received Pronunciation" being farther from polite English speech circa 1700 than that currently spoken in America. But of course, we both know your original observation had far more to do with arrogance, insult, and dialectical games, than it had to do with any honest, intellectual discussion of English diction.

--201.135.7.127 04:15, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Goal difference is a modern invention. Formely a scheme of goal average was used in such matters. For example if two teams have the same points; suppose team A scored a total of 3 goals and conceded 1 goal, whilst team B scored 6 goals and conceded 3 - their positions position under one scheme would be the reverse of the other thus

Goal average scheme
T   F    A   GA
A:  3    1    3
B:  6    3    2

Goal difference scheme
T   F    A    GD
B:  6    3     3
A:  3    1     2

In 1930 nobody used goal difference. Goal average was used. Therefore the link you provided which states "due to their superior goal differental" is in error in this respect. But it is in error in another respect too. For the World Cup, goal average was not introduced into the scheme of calculating the relative positions of teams until 1962. There are numerous references to this. See for example [4] which clearly states "... FIFA decided that goal average would count, a first-ever" in the 1962 competition. For the Nth time - the list of rankings that you have provided is a retrospective ranking using criteria that did not exist in 1930 (or indeed in the later competitions up until 1962). In 1930 the was no decision about 3rd place. They were not interested in 3rd place. If they had been interested then the honours would have been shared because "goal average" had not yet been introduced. But the truth is that the was no decision. Jooler 19:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Your argument is painfully circular: "My fact is correct, ergo your fact must be in error." I'm afraid that is rather pitiful.

For the Nth time:

1. The ranking I supplied is a fact of FIFA determination; your philosphical view on applying reptrospective criteria is irrelevant.

2. Assuming everything you say is correct, then minimally the standings MUST reflect USA and Yuglsoavia tied in third place; there is no rational argument to say 3rd place does "not exist." Whether or not they were "interested" in 3rd place, and whether or not it was awarded, is irrelevant; all standings from 1st place through 13th place are statistical facts, irrespective of any official determination.

3. Your citations merely indicate when goal average and differential were employed as a standard, i.e., as part of the Rule of the Game. The determination of 3rd place in 1930 could easily have been made on the spot to remedy an unanticipated situation, regardless of whether the method was standard at that time. Indeed, some material I have read from non-official sources seem to point to an impromptu arbitration that was held shortly after the Cup, or after the game, for the purpose of determining 3rd place.

I have no official sources to prove that theory, but it seems the most likely scenario to explain why the official documentation shows USA ranked in 3rd place, and why the Hall of Fame claims that 3rd place was awarded.

And furthermore, a factual error in statement is one thing, but we are talking about the physical display of 3rd place medals which you claim were never awarded, and to dismiss this as an "obvious error" is highly suspect reasoning.

--but of course, all of this is beside the point, since the current official determination trumps whatever personal arguments one might have regarding what the statistics should or should not reflect.

And finally, you show frustration/indignation towards me? LOL, ironic ;o). From the very onset of this discussion you have demonstrated nothing but arrogance and a glaring unwillingness to back up your claims until long after you have pontificated with a narrow scope and have repeat narrow, end-all catch-phrases with overt condescension.

Give it up, your are not arguing rationally, but pedantically.

I would invite you to come back when you have dispensed with the intellectual lethargy, but I know that will not happen, so I merely inform you that this debate is pointless. I will continue to provide additional data if and when I find it, to help settle this matter and erase ambiguities. But based on your lack of serious interest in discussing all viewpoints, I am no longer going to bother with this little rhetorical game.

P.S.

The next time you feel obligated to revert the article to reflect your personal beliefs, I would greatly appreciate it if you would have the courtesty to conserve, in some fashion, the numerous links I have supplied. Certainly their legitimacy as research material, to aid people in making up their own minds, cannot be disputed.

--201.135.7.127 12:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

bogus medals

• Why are ther six or seven medals in that cabinet, each with a different design?
• 1. http://www.worldcup.isn.pl/en/cups/1930.htm "There were no medals - participating teams received souvenir plaquettes" Jooler 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• 2. Yes FIFA did not issue any medals. However several commemorative medals were made by various parties, and you can pick some of them up on Ebay -
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5226709485
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5226774925
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5226065108
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5223874067
  • http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=8323423440
  • This one http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5227561210 - is very interesting' - it was presented to a member of the Argentina squad - but if you read the details you will see that the medal were paid for by a certain Dr. Buero (NOT FIFA) and given to the players of the Argentina. Dr. Buera turns out to be Enrique Buera, a Uruguayan diplomat. He was the Uruguayan ambassador to Belgium when he was approached by Jules Rimet with the idea of hosting the torunament in Uruguay. Jooler 23:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• 3. There is nothing to indicate the the medals in the cabinet are anything more than commemorative medals, other than a label that has already been shown to be in error.
• 4. "I have no official sources to prove that theory" of course not - come back if you find one. Jooler 22:24, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Yawn ... this could go on forever.

A simple analogy. In the Wimbledon Championships in each category - we have a winner and a runner-up. We do not have a match to discover who is to be placed third. We do not find that the losing semi-finalists are orderd into 3rd and 4th place. We only have their positions listed as losing semi-finalists. This was the case for the World Cup in 1930. Subsequent ranking schemes based upon criteria that didn't exist in 1930 are irrelevant. I am becoming very bored with continually having to revert the rantings and ravings of an anon user who has not provided us with any firm evidence to support his claim that USA were awarded 3rd place. If such FIRM evidence is provided I will be the first to acknowlede it. Jooler 22:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Bogus Medals, and also Bogus Argument. Lose the Attitude

There was never any argument here, there was never any pretense of superiority; there was merely a presentation of available evidence.

So now, FINALLY, after what feels like centuries of tolerating an exaggerated, utterly groundless hostility and infantilism, I now see before me very reasonable counter-evidence, proving I was wrong, WHICH IS ALL I WANTED TO SEE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Please, get off the pedestal Jooler, the aim of posting here is not to make empty claims, or to exploit the data to insult dissenters or make them feel like idiots; the point is to politely PRESENT the data and make one's case; it is about objective exchange of information.

You have finally realized that you are not above having to back up your claims, and by sharing this data there ceases to be a controversy, because my aim was never to force one desired outcome, just to analyse.

I came here to get to the bottom of things, not to point my finger and make snide, sarcastic remarks to make others out to be fools simply because they disagree, much as you have done and continue to do. It might give you intense pleasure to rub the "truth" in my face, but fortunately for me the truth is all I wanted to see. God knows, it certainly never gave me any pleasure to "prove Jooler wrong with my data," I don't even know you; you are just another screenname on a public internet site, so this massive undercurrent of indignation you have towards me is rather... dumb.

>>gives Jooler authentic replica gold-colored plastic medal in honour and recognition of winning an inconsequential debate in an inconsequential discussion board with a perfect stranger<<

--Supersexyspacemonkey 01:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

flagicon

Excuse me, but I am only a Wiki rookie. I don't know how to make a flag icon of Image:Italy_flag_1861.png, because this is the flag of Italy during the 1930's when it played two World Cup finals (1934 and 1938). I have already updated the 1934 and 1938 world cup files, but I cannot change this file because all flags are represented by flagicons and it has to be consistent of course.

I have a similar request, Bulagria qualified for the first time for the 1962 Wolrd Cup, and it's not added but I don't know how to handle these templates, so I can't add it.

1930 World Cup controversy

Having seen the request for assistance on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football about this dispute, I've found this discussion very hard to read, indeed it's hard to know who's saying what - and that's before the issue gets sidetracked over word meanings etc. So, here's my summary of the facts stated:

• The table of results includes two columns, one for the result of the final, one for the third and fourth place match.
• The controversy is over whether or not to include the USA and Yugoslavia flags in the "third and fourth place playoff" column, even though there was no third-fourth place playoff in that tournament.
• The two teams did not contest a match in the World Cup, nor did they play any matches against common opponents.
• However, the United States' group record was better than Yugoslavia's by +6 goal difference to +5, and on goal average by ∞ to 6.
• Neither goal difference nor goal average were used as a tiebreaker until at least 1962 (the existence of playoff matches to decide group winners, e.g. in 1950, is a firm inidcator).
• FIFA have since retrospectively applied a ranking within the 1930 World Cup which ranked the United States 3rd and Yugoslavia 4th. [5]. These rankings list every team from 1st to Nth (where N = no. of teams competing) based upon their group match records.

By comparison...

• The 1950 World Cup did not have a designated playoff, or indeed a final, but we include all four final group contenders in their group order within these columns, with a suitable footnote.
• However, in the final group of the 1950 WC, all teams played each other, so in that case, the 3rd/4th distinction is an official one decided at that time.

My conclusions:

• In the absence of a playoff, it would not be right to declare one team as third over the other outright, as there is no fair method of comparison between the two sides' performances in 1930, whereas there was in 1950.
• FIFA's retrospective ranking to the 1930 tournament is of academic interest only; as the teams at the time were unaware of it, it is unfair to suggest they actively competed for this honour.
• At the same time, it would be wrong to exclude them from table altogether. They came top of their groups and reached the tournament semi-finals, fair and square. By the rules of the tournament at that time, by which they played, they were in the top four teams. It would be unfair to exclude them from the table, when the top four of every other tournament are included.
• Therefore, they should be included in the table, but the honour considered shared. This should be explained in a footnote.
• There is still the matter of the order in which they should be positioned in the table. I don't think this matters too much, as long as the footnote stresses that the honour of 3rd place is shared between the two. But I can see that even this might be disputed. So...
• One option would be to use alphabetical order, but this I feel is too contestable (Should it be Jugoslavia, Yugoslavia or Kingdom of Yugoslavia? United States of America or simply America?)
• My alternative suggestion would be to defer to seniority. The United States played their first FIFA-sanctioned match in 1916, Yugoslavia 1920. Thus the US, as the elder, goes first in the left-hand side, and Yugoslavia on the right.

Of course, as an ordinary WP user I have no power whatsoever, so feel free to totally ignore this and carry on arguing. But I think this is a reasonable way of closing the discussion. Feel free to add your own suggestions; I will probably not contribute any further to this discussion, though. Qwghlm 23:33, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

My reply. - I mostly agree with you. But the title of the 3rd and 4th column is "Third Place Match" - I suggest replacing this with "Losing semi-finalists" and after 1930 make a subheading for these columns labelled "Third Place Match" Jooler - 1950 should also have suitable headings. 23:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I've been messing around the table, and came up with this (warning: it might need some tweaking, I'm no expert when it comes to tables):

Year	Host		Final				Third Place Match
			Winner	Score	Runner-up		3rd Place	Score	4th Place
1930 Details	Uruguay		Uruguay	4 - 2	Argentina		Losing semi-finalists:(1)		USA Yugoslavia

Any comments ?(and before you ask, the US are on top due to alphabetical order) ^wS;✉ 00:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. --DR31 _(talk) 02:45, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Thumbs up from me, if no one is up to it I guess I'll install the table next week if there are no objections, because the table simply remaining blank is a no-no. I personally think they should be on the table because they both deserve recognition and not simply a footnote :) --Hurricane Angel 08:36, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

When I originally brought this topic up for debate, I proposed multiple alternative solutions, several of which are now being echoed in this discussion, including:

• Depict USA and Yuglsoavia sharing 3rd place
• Depict USA and Yugoslavia as not ranked, but display their flags nontheless, since they were semifinalists, and insert an explanatory note (as opposed to the note by itself).

The reason why Jooler took a rather belligerent attitude towards me and condescendingly ignored all of my diverse arguments is something I cannot fathom, though he seems to lack the intellectual acumen to retort my specific points or to provide any evidence to back himself up, and I must confess to experiencing mild amusement at seeing Jooler clumsily "agree" with several of my arguments when they are simply restated by other people. ;o)

I am glad there are now more participants and that the matter is officially under arbitration, so Jooler will no longer thwart my attempts to candidly present and discuss all of the available evidence like civilized persons.

I what strikes me most is the following point in Qwghlm's conclusion:

*At the same time, it would be wrong to exclude them from table altogether. They came top of their groups and reached the tournament semi-finals, fair and square. By the rules of the tournament at that time, by which they played, they were in the top four teams. It would be unfair to exclude them from the table, when the top four of every other tournament are included.

I could not agree more. That has been my central thesis from the very beginning, and I am glad someone else has finally backed me up and vindicated the intellectual worth of this proposition. All of my other previous arguments have been supplementary to that point. That is the core expressed in my title heading "Leave USA and Yugoslavia flags alone," and is clearly expressed in the opening posts.

I also agree with Qwghlm's other conclusion, in principle, that in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, USA and Yugoslavia should share the 3rd place column:

* Therefore, they should be included in the table, but the honour considered shared. This should be explained in a footnote. *There is still the matter of the order in which they should be positioned in the table. I don't think this matters too much, as long as the footnote stresses that the honour of 3rd place is shared between the two. But I can see that even this might be disputed.

As for the order, I think it is a very simple matter, FIFA has determined the order for us, period.

wS;✉, I respect your very reasonable proposal for a temporary fix, and since you have indicated it need not be exactly in the form currently presented, please allow me to make a suggestion: it appears you place USA and Yugoslavia sharing 4th place, which is awkward and makes little sense under the arguments being made here; instead, you should merge the two cells together into a broad one, containing everything, as opposed to putting the explanatory note under "1st" and the two flags under "4th."

I believe that, irrespective of what ultimate consensus is achieved, the first paragraph of my explanatory note "1" should be in the final version, as it is a very balanced assessment taking into account all of the evidence, both official and unofficial, that has been discovered. Jooler, unfortunately, likes to edit it out and describes it as a "rant unsupported by evidence," which could not be a more infantile and vacuous assessment. It is divided into two parts:

Here is part one, as I originally wrote it, which consolidates the data I uncovered, and truthfully represents its varying degrees of officialty and controversiality:

¹ There was no official World Cup Third Place match in 1930; USA and Yugoslavia lost in the semi-finals. FIFA officially awarded 3rd place medals to USA, see [6], [7], [8]. Some reputable historical references indicate this decision was based on goal difference (US National Soccer Hall of Fame), whilst others claim that Yugoslavia also defaulted by refusing to play (see numerous independently translated versions of this article). Regardless of what criteria was actually used, multiple FIFA sources confirm the fact of USA's 3rd placement.

I will concede that the phrase "FIFA officially awarded 3rd place medals to USA" can be modified. What I should have said is merely that FIFA officially recognizes USA's 3rd place, whilst the medals claim is supported only by unofficial evidence (the display at the US National Soccer Hall of Fame); however, the rest of what is stated is factual.

Additionally, here is part two, which is my personal argument:

As a side note, even if 3rd place had never been awarded to any team in a formal ceremony, it would have existed as a fact of tournament standings, the only applicable question being which country(ies) occupied said spot. Hypothetically, if no rule had existed to break the tie in points between USA and Yugoslavia, or if no official determination had ever been made, then these nations would necessarily have shared 3rd place, as it is impossible for the spot to be considered vacant where at least 3 team participated in the tournament (as impossible as it would be for 2nd place to be considered "vacant" or "non-existant," since the losing team is ipso facto and irrefutably the 2nd-place team and the runner-up to the victor --the same principle applies to 4th-13th/15th/16th/24th/32nd place

As one can see, this part of my "rant" defends Qwghlm's position on sharing 3rd place between USA and Yugoslavia; however, one can also plainly see that I disagree with his following two conclusions:

* In the absence of a playoff, it would not be right to declare one team as third over the other outright, as there is no fair method of comparison between the two sides' performances in 1930, whereas there was in 1950. * FIFA's retrospective ranking to the 1930 tournament is of academic interest only; as the teams at the time were unaware of it, it is unfair to suggest they actively competed for this honour.

For the reasons already stated, I do not consider it a valid statement that a match must be contested in order for there to be official recognition of placement.

Furthermore, Qwghlm's statement that criteria was applied "retroactively" and that the players were "not aware" is conjectural, not factual.

The fact is that FIFA ranks them that way, we do not officially know why, and to argue why or why not is speculation, unless additional evidence can be presented, and as of yet, the only evidence provided as to the reason is the link I provided to an unofficial but reputable source, indicating that USA was offocially awarded 3rd place honours, and going as far as to indicate that the actual 3rd place medals goven to USA are currently on display at the US National Soccer Hall of Fame.

Since I have provided this compelling, though unofficial evidence (physical medals on display), the burden of proof rests on those who would argue that FIFA awarded this ranking retrospectively. It has been shown that FIFA did not officially utilize goal differential or goal average until later World Cups: "*Neither goal difference nor goal average were used as a tiebreaker until at least 1962 (the existence of playoff matches to decide group winners, e.g. in 1950, is a firm inidcator)," but this has little bearing on what FIFA officials actually decided to apply on the spot in 1930, if anything.

Additionally, looking to unofficial sources, there is strong indication that an unconventional ruling was made, some claiming that it was based on goal difference, even if it was not a standard practice and was not in the books, and others claiming FIFA actually DID organize a 3rd place match, but Yugoslavia defaulted.

These are, of course, unverified claims, and not evidence, but they do go to show that there exist multiple scenarios in which the USA could have been awarded 3rd place honors in 1930 without it necessarily being a retroactive ruling. And, because we cannot, as of this point, determine the factual resons or timeframe for FIFA's determination of the current rankings, the only thing which can be asserted as "fact" is that the FIFA rankings actually depict USA 3rd and Yugoslavia 4th, anything else is conjecture, including the idea that USA players "didn't know" they achieved 3rd place in 1930.

Therefore, I highly dispute the notion that said rankings are "academic" and not worthy of inclusion for that reason. They are what they are, and they are official, and they therefore stand. Theories and conjectures as to why FIFA awards this ranking, and when it first awarded it, shoud be voiced in an independent article section dealing with controversies, or, they can be included in the footnbote, but they should not interfere with the table depicting the official facts and figures, even if we do not know why said figures are that way.

Also, I disagree with Qwghlm's opinion that it is "unfair to suggest they actively competed for this honour." The only thing insinuated is that the honour was awarded, for whatever reason, not that a match was played, and indeed, until any reason can be proven or disproven, it is ultimately irrelevant, since the fact remains that FIFA ranks the teams thus, and that there is at least some reasonable evidence indicating this was determined in 1930, and not retrospectively.

But despite these disagreements, even Qwghlm admits that USA and Yugoslavia deserve recognition, on general principle, and I agree 100%.

My summary of the facts I have presented:

• FIFA ranks USA and Yugoslavia as 3rd and 4th placed teams respectively in the 1930 world Cup.
• There is no positively conclusive evidence to indicate whether any criteria was applied in 1930, what that criteria must have been or could not have been, or to indicate that no criteria was applied, or that it was applied retroactively.
• There is positively conclusive proof indicating the ranking system currently accepted by FIFA.
• There is already an international consensus in the foreign language versions of this article, of the opinion that the USA should be ranked in 3rd place. The following show USA sharing 3rd place with Yugoslavia: German, Italian, Swedish, Polish. The following show USA in 3rd place and Yugoslavia in 4th: Spanish, Hebrew.

My conclusions:

• Given the FIFA rankings, other considerations are secondary, theoretical, even irrelevant. FIFA's rankings should stand as the principal determiner of the table data.
• In the event the majority of people do not agree with the above statement, I stick to my original thesis, and agree, barring all other considerations, that the two flags should remain in the table, with an appropriate explanatory note, because they were the legitimate top 4 finishers along with Uruguay and Argentina, and it is fair to recognize them as such and accord them that level of honor and respect.

It is not enough to leave the row blank and with footnote, we must also show the flags.

• Any opposing arguments, theories, speculations, and any objections based on principle, should be included in a new article section, or in the footnote, describing the controversies and dissenting opinions that challenge FIFA's rankings.
• In the event that most people here should disagree with the view that FIFA's ranking must determine the table's values, then I believe we should adopt the alternative proposal by Qwghlm and myself, and already agreed to by the international Wiki community, to depict USA and Yugoslavia as sharing 3rd place:

Year	Host		Final				Third Place Match
			Winner	Score	Runner-up		3rd Place	Score	4th Place
1930 Details	Uruguay		Uruguay	4 - 2	Argentina		USA Yugoslavia	n/a(1)

• In the event that most people here should disagree with the view that USA and Yugoslavia share 3rd place, then I believe it would be appropriate to adopt the alternative proposal by wS;✉ to depict USA and Yugoslavia flags as unranked semifinalists, at the top of the table and in the same row as the data for the 1930 World Cup, as a measure of respect and recognition for being in the top 4 finishers, as all other top 4 finishers are displayed.

• Clearly, there are certain issues here and theories surrounding what are "facts," which deserve further investigation, and which cannot be resolved with discussion. Namely, it remains to be resolved 1. why there is an exhibit claiming to display 3rd place medals won by the USA in 1930, 2. why FIFA has decided that USA is ranked 3rd place, 3. whether or not a 3rd place match was actually organized and defaulted by Yugoslavia. I am currently writing to FIFA, and to the US National Soccer Hall of Fame, to see if I can obtain a more informed opinion on this matter. Their response can have a considerable impact on this article, but until an official word is obtained, I believe the above suggestions are the most reasonable.

• Finally, while this matter is being settled, the page should reflect the facts and figures found in numerous official and unofficial sources I linked, as they are currently the best data that have been offered so far, and until better info or an opposing consensus is reached, I am restoring the page to reflect those facts and figures.

I have made modifications to the version I had before this new discussion initiated. In case this is reverted, please take a moment to look in the history and see my last version. Thank you.

--201.135.7.127 05:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

re-iteration of facts

While this matter is under review I would suggest that the anon user aka supersexymonkey, desist in changing the article to reflect his own interpretation of other peoples' arguments. I would also appreciate it if that user would desist in personal attacks. Jooler 12:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• To re-iterate my view, which is very simple and needs no long rambling explanation.
  • In 1930 there was no mechanism to determine 3rd place, goal difference/goal average was not in use at the time, and nor was any other system such as counting corners, free-kicks or sendings-off - FACT.
  • In 1930 there was no official recognition (no bronze medals issue by FIFA) for 3rd place - FACT
  • The so-called "compelling evidence" of the US Soccer Hall of Fame is entirely bogus - see Talk:Football_World_Cup#bogus_medals above and note that these are mere commemorative medals and can be picked up on Ebay, also note that the site refers to goal differential although goal difference was not use in 1930.
  • Just like the Wimbledon tennis tournament - there was no official 3rd and 4th place - only two losing semi-finalists. - FACT
  • Using modern criteria (i.e. goal difference) Yugoslavia's performance may be ranked 4th best. But this is like saying Gore won the 2000 election because he had more of the popular vote. The statistic is irrelevant. Yugoslavia did not finish 4th in the tournament; they finished, along with the USA, as a losing semi-finalist.
  • The table in the article article should reflect the official facts at the time of the tournament, and not deal in unofficial and retrospective analysis of the relative merits of each team's performance using criteria that did not exist at the time.

Jooler 12:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I love how your emphatic "re-iteration of facts" conveniently and selectively ignores those "facts" you wish to ignore, like the fact that an official FIFA source states a 3rd place ranking, in direct contradiction to your claim that no criteria existed in 1930. Of course, I do accept, given certain links you have provided, that the official sources offer contradictory information, and being a reasonable person, I am willing to accept compromise rather than impose the solution I had originally preferred, but I certainly do not resort to evading those facts I do not like, and then passing off an incomplete list as if it were a final, comprehensive, and intellectually honest analysis, when it is not.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 03:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Note that many complained of the players on the USA team as not actually being American but of British descent, which were called "ringers". While that doesn't change what happened 70 years ago it does counterbalance the solidity of the Americans' 3rd place rank.--Hurricane Angel 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I heartily, but respectfully, disagree Hurricane Angel, the old "ringers" accusation is largely a fantasy, and the descent of some of the players does absolutely nothing to "counterbalance" the solidity of anything. The fact is they did not learn to play football in Britain; they were merely born in Britain, came to America at very young ages, and learned to play in the States. Some of them later went on to play in European leagues, but only after the World Cup. There were all perfetly legitimate American nationals who played for their home country, and used their country's footballing skills to achieve the final result. The United States was not a week footballing nation at that time, and the persistent idea born by some that these players necessarily had to have been "imports" in order for the States to secure such a final standing is a product of mostly modern bias/confusion regarding the history of Associaton Football in the USA.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 03:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

• • • As an aside I wonder whether there would be any difference between the relative rankings of teams for the World Cup up to 1962 using the two different schemes of goal difference and goal goal average. Jooler 18:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Conclusion

Theres alot of talk and no progression. Instead of simply drawing out facts, and figures (the same ones, over and over), how about a vote? Three options: To set them both in the same place (3rd or 4th), USA 3rd - Yugoslavia 4th, OR keep them both completely off just like it is currently. Good idea or nay? (originally posted without a sig) - --Hurricane Angel

While this matter is under review I would suggest that the anon user aka supersexymonkey, desist in changing the article to reflect his own interpretation of other peoples' arguments. I would also appreciate it if that user would desist in personal attacks. Jooler 12:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC) - this comment duplicated and moved here by supersexymonkey and appears here out of context - it appears in context further up the page Jooler 07:01, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Why put them in the 3rd/4th place if there isn't a way to determine? Shouldn't it say that there wasn't a 3rd place game where the teams in questioned are?

---

Issue Appears Resolved

It seems that everyone is happy and satisfied with the current compromise version (I didn't put it up, someone else apparently did), as it has been in place for over a month and received no objection. This is also the proposal that received the most member approval during the course of this discussion

Theres alot of talk and no progression. Instead of simply drawing out facts, and figures (the same ones, over and over), how about a vote? Three options: To set them both in the same place (3rd or 4th), USA 3rd - Yugoslavia 4th, OR keep them both completely off just like it is currently. Good idea or nay?

A very ironic statement, considering you have merely repeated exactly what I suggested immediately before you.

Err that was added by someone else not me. Jooler 06:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

And made for no apparent reason other than to perpetuate this self-delusional little hoax that you are the only person making any valid points, whilst others only "repeat the same things over and over" (which is untrue, and yet another irony considering you hold the clear record for using inane repetition as a retort), and trying to pass mine and other people's already stated arguments as if they were your own, as if you in your wisdom were finally putting the rest of us thick-headed imbeciles in our place, with a great air of indignation, and attempting to make some sort of heated argument out of thin air, much as you do with everything.

Again that wasn't me. Jooler 06:54, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

While this matter is under review I would suggest that the anon user aka supersexymonkey, desist in changing the article to reflect his own interpretation of other peoples' arguments.

Please Jooler, Grow up, and stop making everthing into a personal grudge match. Also please note that I have not edited the article in over a month, possibly two (I have not checked the exact date), and I did not post the current version of the table, which has been up for a similar time without any objection.

I would also appreciate it if that user would desist in personal attacks. Jooler 12:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

A laughable and very hypocritical statement. The personal attacks have emanated from you, consistently, from the very beginning. I have tried to deal with your barrage of hostility as politely as humanly possible, and have only called you out to observe whenever you fabricated a controversy where there realy was none.

Once again, I don't care who "wins," I don't know you, this is merely a public discussion forum where perfect strangers have come in to debate a sporting statistic.

Personally, I find such an activity far too mundane to warrant engaging in some sort of silly ego contest with someone whom I only know as a little black SN on my computer screen; I'm only interested in the topic, and in finding out the truth, through examination of my own sources of evidence, and through examination of evidence provided to me by others here, including yourself, and including any evidence which happens to prove me wrong (as you have already provided in some cases), which I welcome with open arms.

There is absolutely no point in trying to demonstrate oneself to be the most "smart" or the most cynical person here, or any point in flaunting one's "damning evidence" when it can be stated simply and maturely for the benefit of those who do not yet possess the data in question, using little argumentative pedantries. I only desire the article be a fair reflection of the truth, whatever that truth might be, even if that truth is not what I had perceived it to be, and for people to back up their claims with links instead of merely belittling arguments and being offensive in tone.

As it stands, it seems we finally arrived at a nice, reasonable compromise, so I hope you and everyone else has a very pleasant evening.

--Supersexyspacemonkey 02:35, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

"Also please note that I have not edited the article in over a month, possibly two (I have not checked the exact date)" - look at the date of my post (that was also nearly over a month ago immediately after your last post)

"The personal attacks have emanated from you" - where's the beef? - I see no evidence for such a claim. Show me.Jooler 06:48, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

2030 World Cup Hosts ?

Looking through the article I see that Uruguay has been listed as hosts for the 2030 World Cup, I find this hard to believe myself, I am an avid football fan and yet have never heard any word or evidence about this at all, and it would be incredibly strange for FIFA to award a World Cup 25 years in advance, historical importance (due to the 1930 edition) or not. Especially considering that Uruguay could never host a tournament that has ballooned into the massive worldwide competition that the World Cup is now, and wasn't in '30. Can anyone actually prove this is indeed true, or that this listing, as I believe merely someone hoping against logical thought FIFA will award it to Uruguay. Ajp100688 15:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Upon doing some searching I have found this website: http://uruguay2030.tripod.com/ Unfortunatly I do not speak Spanish so I cannot verify this site but the jist of it is pretty obvious. If someone who speaks Spanish could check it out and get confirmation though, that would be helpful. I see the logic in awarding it 25 in advance becuase as you pointed out Uruguay doesn't have the facilities at the moment to host the event but given 25 years they can create them with that amount of time they probably could. Although until someone can verify the site and the bid it's best to take it with a pinch of salt. JW

• No, this site is a call to all Uruguayans to support and pressure the governing bodies for a bid, but if the conditions are met, I can see FIFA awarding them the compo. However, I don't think the decision will be made before, say, 2020, and even taking into account the rotation between hosting confederations, Argentina (if the financial condition of the country allows so) might be another contender for the finals. ^wS;✉ 14:00, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. JW

Serbia & Montenegro

I maintain that SCG are making their debut in the 2006 World Cup. The Yugoslavia of 1930, indeed the Yugoslavia of 1992, is not the Serbia and Montenegro of 2005. The nation is new, technically and literally, and has never qualified in its current state before. It is making its first appearance in its current form, and that is why I have added it to this debut list. doktorb 07:07, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%, we did mark Croatia and Russia as first timers, we should do the same with SCG. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 15:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I disagree and agree! The name Serbia and Montenegro is making its debut, but it is the same territory as Yugoslavia was in 1998. I agree though it is different to the Yugoslavia team that play in finals between 1930 and 1990. I have amended the article explaining this. Phildav76 15:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The Federal Republic of Yugoslavia had already debuted in 1998, and that nation was politically Serbia and Montenegro under a different name. Croatia was named as a debutant because of their preference to independence while Serbia/Montenegro hailed itself as the direct successor of Yugoslavia. Even so, you mean to tell me that we're not actually listing the debut of countries but just their names? FR Yugoslavia is enough and it reveals the true debut of the nation, they don't need a third first-time entry into the world cup. --Hurricane Angel 17:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, I wrote that statement thinking about the 1990 Yugoslavia, not the 1998. --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:49, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I think the edit is more than enough to explain the situation, so I will gladly concede that all that could be done has been. A rare occurance of disputes not taking that long to sort!=) doktorb 05:30, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup

I am aware that it's been discussed before, but I'm not sure if there was a formal WP:RM process last time, so I'm going to stick my head above the parapet and ask the question again:

Should this page be moved from Football World Cup to FIFA World Cup on the grounds that that's the official name? My own opinion is that I see no reason why this page shouldn't be at the official title, when that's the standard for so many other articles on Wikipedia. It's not confusing, and there's nothing special about the phrase "Football World Cup" that means the article has to be there. On the contrary, I find the current title extremely irritating (mind you, I find the title of The Football Association irritating, but I seem to be in a minority there).

And at the risk of soundy like an arrogant bastard - I don't want to hear anybody say "we've discussed this before, the decision's been made", or even worse "it's too much effort to change it now". I'm interested in where the page should be, not where it happens to be now. (Anyway, if the title of WP:VFD can change, anything can ;)

You most obedient servant, sjorford #£@%&$?! 19:14, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

What's irritating about it? It's descriptive and more informative about the nature of the competition than 'FIFA World Cup'. Before 1972 1974 it was just "World Cup" (or rather 'Coupe du Monde') Not FIFA World Cup. Note that the French Wikipedia has the article at fr:Coupe du monde de football. That only came about with the New Trophy. 1930 FIFA World Cup etc is just wrong. Current usage is consistent with other sports we do not for instance talk about the ""IRB World Cup" for rugby.Jooler 23:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we put this particular canard to bed? There's a difference between the competition itself and the actual trophy you get for winning it. The new trophy, which debuted in 1974, is indeed called the FIFA World Cup, while the previous trophy was simply called the World Cup, though it had been renamed the Jules Rimet Cup by the time Brazil won it in 1970. (Note that at no point in history has the trophy ever been called the "Football World Cup"). The *competition*, though, has *always* been organised by FIFA, and *always* officially been called the "FIFA World Cup", even if the local organisers sometimes used other phrases like "World Championship of Football" or what have you in their promotional material. See the poster for France '38, which quite clearly has "FIFA" and "Coupe du Monde 1938" printed on it in big letters. 81.110.86.44 15:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Ermm... no. "FIFA" appears prominently on the 1938 poster as you say, but not as the single phrase "FIFA World Cup". FIFA is used rarely on any of the later posters barring the 2002 tournament. Yes the competition has always been organised by FIFA, but the World Cup of Rugby is organized by the IRB, that does not make the official title of that competition the "IRB World Cup".

As recently as 1982<edit 1986> 'FIFA' didn't even appear on the official ball! - see [9]<edit [10]>. This is because the competition was not offically the 'FIFA World Cup' until very recently. The name 'FIFA World Cup' began as the "official" name of the new trophy when it was commisioned in 1971, and as such, it was used in various promotional material; only later was it used as the name of the tournamant. Look at the1962 World Cup poster. As you point out there are various terms used for the name of the competition in different languages, and yet FIFA is not mentioned at all. Please be aware that the title has always been "Coupe Du Monde" and 'World Cup' is the most usual and natural English translation of this. As recently as 1998 only "Coupe Du Monde" appears on the official logo for the 1998 World Cup with no mention of FIFA at all, see Football_World_Cup_1998. It was only following this competition that 'FIFA' became firmly prefixed to name of the tournament itself. This is because after the '98 tournament, FIFA began an aggressive worldwide campaign of trademarking all possible variations of "FIFA World Cup"; including the retrospective use of "19XX FIFA World Cup" for previous competitions. Only from roughly 1999/2000 do you start to see "FIFA World Cup" all over the place. Regarding this page - if no disambiguation was needed this page would be at "World Cup", but we need to disambiguate the sport, so it is at Football World Cup, just like on French Wikipedia where it is at "Coupe du monde de football" and not "Coupe du monde de football de la FIFA" - Jooler 07:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes it has always been organised by FIFA, but the World Cup or Rugby is organized by the IRB that does not make the official title the "IRB World Cup". (Actually I think it is called the "IRB Rugby World Cup", but that's by the by. This tournament's official title, on the other hand, IS "FIFA World Cup".) It was not offically 'FIFA World Cup' until very recently. Not so, but whatever the case was before it certainly IS called that now, beyond a shadow of a doubt. I don't actually care where this page is located, but to state that it was only named "FIFA World Cup" in 1974 (or 1998, 1972, or whatever else it was you made your mind up for it to be) is just plain wrong. Show me a source, any source, that says otherwise. FIFA themselves refer to the tournament as though it's always been called the FIFA World Cup, FIFA's website about the history of the tournament calls it the FIFA World Cup, Cris Freddi's Complete Book of the World Cup talks throughout about the FIFA World Cup... Also, while we're at it, this stuff about the tournament's "real" name being in French "Coupe du Monde" is wrong, too; there's no justification for saying any one language takes precedence over any other. Despite the acronym, French is not FIFA's primary or working language, and "Coupe du Monde" is not any more the official name than "World Cup", "Mundial", "Weltmeisterschaft" or whatever else.81.110.86.44 22:20, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Point 1 - this page is about the competition and its history. Not about what the last few tournaments have been called.

Point 2 - French is or at least was the official language of FIFA - see [11] ".. on 21 May 1904, seven European nations, among them Switzerland, signed the foundation act of the Fédération Internationale de Football Association. They appointed as its President a Frenchman, Robert Guérin, and a little later FIFA chose French as its official language, doing so under the Presidency of an Englishman, Daniel Burley Woolfall."

Point 3 - Yes FIFA now aggressivley pursue the retorspective use of ""19XX FIFA World Cup" - because they have trademarked these words. Jooler 22:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

(1) If the page is about the competition, its actual name right now should matter. If it's about its history, its previous names (if any) should matter. Either way, you've still provided zero sources on it not having been called the FIFA World Cup before 1974, nor any actual arguments against this at all. (Oh yes, and before I forget - most local organisers/promoters seem to have billed the tournament as the "World Championship" rather than the "World Cup" prior to 1966, irrespective of FIFA's own nomenclature. Would you argue none of those should be classed as World Cup tournaments?) And I notice you keep editing your earlier submissions to change the facts - not a good sign. Why is the ball thing relevant anyway? (2) I didn't say French had *never* been FIFA's working language, just that it wasn't now. The congress you mention took place in 1913, Woolfall died in 1918; by 1928, Rimet was in charge and the idea of an official language for FIFA had apparently been put aside. Nowadays FIFA uses an English motto ("for the good of the game"), runs its website in four major languages (with English first on the list), is based in a German-speaking part of Switzerland with German-speaking president and support staff, and the official language of the 2006 tournament itself will be German. That doesn't mean that "Coupe du Monde 2006" is somehow unofficial, as that will be its official name in Francophone countries, but to suggest any translation of the name is more or less official than another is both incorrect, and largely irrelevant for the English-language wikipedia. (3) Obviously FIFA promote the retroactive use of "FIFA World Cup" for commercial reasons, but really their motives are irrelevant - we're having a debate over what the tournament's name is, the organisers themselves say it's FIFA World Cup and has always been FIFA World Cup, and you're saying we should ignore this... what you're saying, basically, is that you know better than FIFA.81.110.86.44 14:42, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

You're putting the onus on me to prove a negative. I have provided evidence that the phrase "World Cup" was often used without being prefixed by "FIFA" before 1971, but the onus is on you to prove that the phrase "FIFA World Cup" was ever used before 1971 when the new trophy was commissioned. Yes it is now retorspectively applied by FIFA as I noted earlier, and the book you cite was published very recently. FIFA now regularly pursue through the legal processes anyone using the worlds WORLD CUP for commercial gain without recognizing FIFA's trademark. Regarding my edits, I noticed that the official ball one tournament after I had originally suggested also did NOT have FIFA written on it, so I edited that and marked it as such, other than that I cleaned up my appalling spelling and typos and tightened the wording, that edit (you will note) came 1 minute after your reply to the previous version ogf that para. I hadn't seen your response and I was suprised to find that it hadn't been caught in an edit-conflict. Jooler 18:52, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to sjorford's view, but Jooler has a point. Maybe moving to "FIFA World Cup" just the ones from 1974 onwards and this article? OTOH, I can see people getting confused... Any Ideas? --Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 23:54, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I find it irritating just because it's not the official name. It looks like the article title was decided on purely for disambiguation purposes, because it couldn't be at World Cup, when there's a perfecty good unambiguous and correct title available at FIFA World Cup. Why does the world "football" need to be in the title?

Of course, the articles for each tournament should be titled whatever those tournaments were called at the time - we already deal with Copa América and European Football Championship that way. But trying to be consistent with articles on other sports is absolutely irrelevant: (1) this World Cup and that World Cup are entirely unrelated, so we don't have to treat the various "World Cup" article titles as if they were a series, and (2) nobody says "IRB World Cup" anyway, they always put the word "Rugby" in there. If anything, that article should be moved, to IRB Rugby World Cup, and, for that matter, European Football Championship should be at UEFA European Championship.

Let me put it this way - if this article was being created from scratch now, where would it be placed? sjorford #£@%&$?! 10:50, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Yugoslavia Flag

There seems to be some toing and frowing regardign the Yugoslav flag for 1930. The correct flag for the Kingdom of Yugoslavia for 1930 can be found here. Note that it includes the royal crest. Jooler 12:27, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I've done some research on this issue, but postponed it because there are very few sources on waht the state flag was for the KofY/KofSCS. I assumed that the flag with the crest was a naval/presidential flag, because not too many national flags carry a crest on it. I guess that source is the most accurate I've found eyt and will upload the crested flag once a larger/higher quality image is found. --Hurricane Angel 17:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

HELP: Missing Info

There's no info on the World Cup page to explain how teams qualify for the tournament. What does it mean to "qualify" or how does a country (national team) do so? [Karl] 66.202.69.46 17:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes there is, just click on the "Qualification" link or here Football World Cup 2006 (qualification). Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 19:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Germany/West Germany World Cup Appearances

I think that the number of appearances for Germany and West Germany should be combined since it is really the same national soccer association. kingjeff

And what about the appearance of East Germany in 1974? Jooler 02:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Total appearances for a united German side is neither 4 nor 6, it is 5 isn't it? 1934,1938,1994,1998 and 2002? Jooler 07:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Seems like you're right with Ger. But it can't be considered the same country as WG or we would need to do the same with Russia and Yugoslavia. A different country is a different federation, inherently. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 04:51, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm neither for nor against, but there is a slight difference with Russia and Jugoslavia: Germany united wereas the slavic countries splet. The real problem is that East Germany also participated of 1974 FIFA World Cup (actually beated West Germany in a match); that means we have to count that double to Germany? Or count East Germany as a country, but Germany and West Germany as the same?? Are each of the 3 by itself? I'm for the later. Mariano(t/c) 07:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

My point exactly. Jooler 07:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, they are 3, Germany pre-post division, and 2 Germanies (E and W) divided. It only makes sense. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

The governing association for football/soccer in East Germany isn't the same as the current soccer association. Whereas, the DFB was the same in the German Reich, West Germany and current Germany. And another point is that West Germany and current Germany has the same official name (The Federal Republic of Germany). Kingjeff

Officially, FIFA attributes results of Deutscher Fußball-Bund representing West Germany to Deutscher Fußball-Bund (identical body) representing Germany. See FIFA official statistics -- 80.137.117.115 17:23, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

For this reason, Germany as World Champions of 1990 (then West Germany) did not need to qualify for the 1994 finals in the USA. -- 80.137.117.115 19:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Kingjeff

Note: FIFA has not yet specified which continent will host the World Cup in 2018 and 2022.

• From my understanding, FIFA only intended to do this so Africa could get a World Cup. Therefore, they'll stop after the 2014 World Cup in South America.

Russia/USSR Team Appearances

• Would the same apply to Russia and USSR as it does to Germany and West Germany? kingjeff

New pages split from this article

I recently split National Team Appearances In The Football World Cup and Football World Cup Awards off into their own articles to help reduce the article size. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 19:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The article size implementation is to reduce needlessly large files into more manageable sizes. However, this being the world's largest sporting event it is probably natural to be so large, I've been editing it since last summer and I didn't see any problem with the "this article exceeds xxKb". The only real question is whether or not National Team Appearances deserves to be in the World Cup page, or in an individual page. Personally I'd like to keep it in the world cup. --Hurricane Angel 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I just recently saw the xxKb template, and I saw it was at around 52 Kb. I know it'd be huge, but appearances in the cup took up a large portion of the article, and I thought it was sufficient to split into a new article. It looked to bulky in my opinion. Ian Manka ^{Questions? Talk to me!} 03:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I like the split, the article is cleaner, although maybe the "Top 5" appearances (or some kind of summary) should still stay in the article for information sake. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I've changed the table to a top 10 list. Hopefully it's clearer than before. Chanheigeorge 08:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)