Jump to content

Talk:FIFA World Cup: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Moulder (talk | contribs)
+spoken
How are team strips selected
Line 237: Line 237:


::::I removed the second mention -- I didn't realize that the same thing was mentioned twice. — [[User:IanManka|Ian Manka]] <small>[[User talk:IanManka|Talk to me!]]</small> 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
::::I removed the second mention -- I didn't realize that the same thing was mentioned twice. — [[User:IanManka|Ian Manka]] <small>[[User talk:IanManka|Talk to me!]]</small> 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

== How are team strips selected ==


I've looked everywhere to find out if 2 teams have the same colour strips how is it decided which team should wear their away strip? It would be good if someone could explain this.

Revision as of 15:34, 5 June 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles.

WikiProject iconSpoken Wikipedia
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.

Template:Mainpage date to come

WikiProject iconSoftware: Computing Unassessed
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
???This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

An event mentioned in this article is a July 30 selected anniversary


Archive
Archives
  1. June 2004 – December 2005
  2. December 2005 – February 2006

???

Well... What's this? Conscious 04:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the question? I believe they're allowed to copy it but they have to license it under GFDL... AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 12:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
They don't even mention GFDL, neither do they credit the authors. Conscious 16:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are no contact details on the site, and a WHOIS gives postal details only, so I've sent a standard letter to the postal address and listed it on Wikipedia:Mirrors and Forks. Oldelpaso 19:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is mentioned on the about page. The site does also appear to have correct attributation on bottom of everypage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.92.181.183 (talkcontribs) .

That's a welcome development. I'll update the status on the mirrors and forks page, Oldelpaso 07:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appearance table removed

I removed the table of the top 10 nations by appearances, as concerns about the number of tables have been voiced in the FAC. I judged the appearance table as the least valuable, particularly as a fuller version is present in National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup. Oldelpaso 21:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Host selection

From the FAC: "*Weak oppose. I'm not sure how much information is available but the "Selection of Hosts" section has only one sentence for every WC between 1930 and 1998, and then almost a paragraph each for 2002, 2006 and 2010-2018. I'd like to see more info on how the host is actually selected (submission process, shortlisting, voting, ???) and then maybe also a subsection on controversies, of which I'm sure there have been more than just the hoax bribe for 2006. I'm willing to help out with this, just didn't think it should be featured until there is a bit more info in this section. Thanks AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

I think the best way to sort that section out is to provide a clear description of the current voting process (Robdurbar has made a good change), and to move material to a new article FIFA World Cup host selection controversies, rather than a subsection. This could encompass other hosting controversies, such as boycotts of 1938 by Uruguay and Argentina due to an anticipation that it would be held in South America, and things like Henry Kissinger considering sueing FIFA after 1986 was given to Mexico instead of the USA. I have a book (Great Balls of Fire by John Sugden and Alan Tomlinson) which has a lot of info about this sort of thing. Oldelpaso 09:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we have enough info then I don't see why not, the internet prove fairly fruitless :).
Perhaps if the page was more simply called FIFA World Cup host countries then it could be a more comprehensive page mentioning the selection of each country and the methods used to chose them; this article would then include a summary of the whole thing Robdurbar 09:49, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's far more logical than my suggestion. Oldelpaso 10:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the page FIFA World Cup hosts, feel free to mercilessly edit it -- it's not perfect by any means... more historical information would be nice. Suggestions, comments, questions? All can be placed at that article's discussion page. Cheers! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 09:02, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured!

This article is featured now. Congratulations to everyone who worked on it! Conscious 06:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to put forth my congratulations also (especially Oldelpaso and Conscious, for tireless copyediting and whatnot). Now, our next step is to take it to Main Page FAs, and reserve our spot for June 9 (opening day of 2006 World Cup! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 15:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add my congrats message about this. It is fitting that this artice should be a featured piece of work as soccer is the most popular sport in the world. The World Cup is also more popular than the Olympic Games. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Siva1979, remember to always cite such broad claims as "The World Cup is also more popular than the Olympic Games." Oh, sorry, that was WP:FA talking. My bad :P — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 19:23, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Citation needed for this claim?! No wonder, you are living in the USA! It is widely accepted worldwide that the World Cup is much more popular than the Olympic Games. This view is held by Singaporean journalists. However, I admit that I can't seem to find official confirmation for this remark. Thus, I need the help of European football (notice I did not use the term 'soccer'!) fans to support my claim. Does anyone have any official reference for this claim? --Siva1979Talk to me 21:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Siva, are you sure you have read this edit summary? Conscious 08:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from a place where losing a game of ball could cost you a limb, I'm going to have to say that at least where I am football is much more popular than anything Olympic. Of course, I'm no official source. Correction officer06 20:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

28 billion people?

The article says that the cup gets 28 billion viewers. That can't possibly be right, seeing as there aren't that many humans alive at any given time. Does anyone know the correct figure? The linked reference says that 37 billion people watched it, so that's even less helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Verbophobe (talkcontribs)

I think it means cumulative, ie the same person is counted twice if they watch 2 matches. It's probably impossible to estimate how many individual viewers watched at least one match. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it explicitly states that the figure is cumulative. Badgerpatrol 14:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial World Champion

I just discovered this Who are the unofficial 1966 World Champions? and Unofficial world champions from 1930. I think it might make an interesting article (needs to be updated). Jooler 09:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Unofficial World Football Championship (p.s. its Romania). Robdurbar 09:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh well there you go. Thanks! Jooler 09:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Most successful World Cup Teams since 1966

Tournament 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
1. Brazil Group WON 4 3 Rnd2 QF Rnd2 WON 2 WON
2. Germany 2 3 WON QF 2 2 WON QF QF 2
3. Argentina Q/F DNQ Group WON Rnd2 WON 2 Rnd2 QF Group
4. Italy Group 2 Group 4 WON Rnd2 3 2 QF Rnd2
5. England WON QF DNQ DNQ Rnd2 QF 4 DNQ Rnd2 QF
6. France Group DNQ DNQ Group 4 3 DNQ DNQ WON Group
7. The Netherlands DNQ DNQ 2 2 DNQ DNQ Rnd2 QF 4 DNQ

The above table was removed from the article. I don't think it really adds anything and repeats info from other tables on Wikipedia (and need to be formatted anyway); its also subjective, and starts arbitrairily in 1966; but I've left it here just in case anyone thinks it could be worked into an article or this article? --Robdurbar 16:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the look of the table - Gives a quick synopsis of each of the top countries performances at a quick glance - I haven't seen this elsewhere on Wikipedia. No reason it seems to start at 1966 I agree and the ordering from 1-7 is subjective but for me the concept is good and it should be tidied up and added to the core page or to a new page.

There is already such table. Conscious 06:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured Article of the Day box

Hey, just wondering what everybody would want the box to look like, if the article were to go as the featured article of the day on June 9... I've drawn up the following as a suggestion. Any thoughts for a better picture (though it doesn't look as bad as I thought it would, we need a better picture for the main page)?

The FIFA World Cup is the most important men's competition in international football. The world's most representative team sport event, the World Cup is contested by the men's national football teams of Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) (the sport's largest governing body) member nations. The championship has been awarded every four years since the first tournament in 1930 (except in 1942 and 1946 due to World War II). However, it is more of an ongoing event as the qualifying rounds of the competition take place over the three years preceding the final rounds. In 1991, FIFA added a separate Women's World Cup.

The men's final tournament phase (often called the "Finals") involves 32 national teams competing over a four-week period in a previously nominated host nation, with these games making it the most widely-viewed sporting event in the world. In the 17 tournaments held, only seven nations have ever won the World Cup Finals. Brazil is the current holder, as well as the most successful World Cup team, having won the tournament five times, while Germany and Italy follow with three titles each. The next World Cup Finals will begin in Germany on June 9, and will continue until July 9, 2006. (More...)

Note that this is only a draft (I just copied the lead section). Any ideas of how to improve it? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 00:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changed last sentence, as when this is planned on being the featured article, the Finals will be going on. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! We finally found a decent picture. I am going to submit this right away. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Posted. See it here! — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 05:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A minor change - the last sentence really ought to 'till July 9th'; 'through' is an Americanism so may not be understood by people speaking other variants of English (or at least sounds a little odd). Is there some template that the change can be made at or should it just be edited on the tomorrow's featured article page? --Robdurbar 12:45, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The change has been made: through => until. I will recopy the box into Tomorrow's featured article page so that we have the same copy here and at that page. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 14:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Posted on my talk page earlier today: "You requested FIFA world cup be the main page FA for June 9, the day it starts. Featured artilce is not supposed to conflict with other sections on the main page (the selected anniversaries or in the news). The FIFA world cup article will definitely be linked from the news section on June 9, so that's out. I am willing, however, to put it up on the 8th. Raul654 05:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)"
So, do we just let FIFA World Cup be Main Page FA on the 8 June? That works for me. In my opinion, just getting it on the Main Page is really cool. Any suggestions for other suitable dates? I'll give everyone a day to respond, then I'm just going to say "yes" to Raul. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 10:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the day of the final? That would mean leaving it till July 9 though. If that's a clash too then yeah, probably the 8th as it will help up the excitement! --Robdurbar 11:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We got selected for June 8. Go us! — Ian Manka Talk to me! 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Sports Event

Should we tag this as a current event? --Robdurbar 20:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naw, wait until June 7 or so. By then, we will most likely be lined up for Main Page FA (keep your fingers crossed), and then we can start making final changes and whatnot. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 01:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The template says "Information may change rapidly as the event progresses", I'm not sure if it's necessary because the information in this article in principal shouldn't change very much at all. But it would be nice to have something at the top to direct people to the 2006 article in order to prevent insignificant detail about 2006 being added to this article. But yeh if it does get put on, wait till june 7 as ian said. AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 04:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{{dab_current}} looks like the tag to use. Oldelpaso 21:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nice find AlbinoMonkey (Talk) 08:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might want to add this information...

Check out Silver medal#World Cup. I think we should: (1) Merge this information into the article (or a similiar one -- I don't which one) and (2) find a source for this information. Any ideas? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 17:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Women World Cup

Since this article is clearly about men WC, and since it i longer that it should, and since we have a "See also" section reference to Women WC, why not removing the part about the Women WC? In particular, why should we be interested in the difference about how ranking is handled?--Panairjdde 21:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ranking stuff can go, I agree. I'll make an edit in a few seconds that should fix your concerns. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:24, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It has been changed. I've taken out the women's rankings portion and have moved the Men's ranking down to the "final tournament" section. What do you think? — Ian Manka Talk to me! 21:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is better, but now the fact that FIFA created a women WC in 1991 is repeated two times. I would remove them both, and put a note.--Panairjdde 22:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the second mention -- I didn't realize that the same thing was mentioned twice. — Ian Manka Talk to me! 22:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How are team strips selected

I've looked everywhere to find out if 2 teams have the same colour strips how is it decided which team should wear their away strip? It would be good if someone could explain this.