Talk:FIFA World Cup

Greenland

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

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

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

I'll assume you mean Denmark, not Norway: England has no overseas territories, so I do not understand that comment. You won't find any evidence that FIFA considers Alaska to be part of the USA, French Guyana part of France, or the Isle of Wight part of England. Although some countries that are not sovereign states have been granted FIFA membership, the default position is that the entire territory of the sovereign state is considered integral under the jurisdiction of the national football association, in this case the DBU. Note that Greenlander Jesper Grønkjær represented Denmark, and that Greenlanders have Danish passports, and therefore are eligible to represent Denmark. The DBU, I read (via google translate, so open to misinterpretation), would be happy to see Greenland be treated separately by FIFA, and so treat the GBU as a separate body, but Greenland's FIFA status is not their decision. Note that when Blatter visited Greenland in September 2010, it was the DBU head who was at his side.[1] Kevin McE (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from , 6 October 2011

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

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

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

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

Edit request on 28 November 2011

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

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

Edit request on 2 December 2011

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

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

Hi

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

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

Funny, this site already states the obviousness.

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

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