Talk:1974 FIFA World Cup

Requested move

Football World Cup 1974 → 1974 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles. --Pkchan 10:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1974 FIFA World Cup emblem.svg

Image:1974 FIFA World Cup emblem.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:1974 Football World Cup pos.jpg

Image:1974 Football World Cup pos.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 09:08, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:WorldCup1974poster.jpg

Image:WorldCup1974poster.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 08:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Stadium pictures not historically accurate

I don't have the time to research this, but some of the pictures for the venues are as of 2006. The pictures for Munich and Gelsenkirchen look OK to me. Hamburg, Berlin, Dortmund and others had significant rennovations since 1974. The stadium shown for Frankfurt was built post 2000. The old Waldstadion looks more like the Gelsenkirchen one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.99.183 (talk) 07:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you like to find some photos from the correct period for us? – PeeJay 07:39, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

West Germany?

The official name of the country is Federal Republic of Germany. The FIFA uses the term "Germany FR" to distinguish it from the "German Democratic Republic". "West Germany" was never an official name, just colloquial and polital tendentious used! Why is it used in an Encyclopedia, which should be correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.17.254 (talk) 10:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter that the name wasn't official. "West Germany" was the common name for the Federal Republic of Germany, and is therefore the name that most people would recognise as referring to that country. Furthermore, to refer to West Germany simply as "Germany" is misleading, as Germany now includes the former East Germany (although I'm sure you'll tell me that East Germany never existed, and that it was the German Democratic Republic). To the majority of the populus, Germany as it is now did not exist before 1990. – PeeJay 11:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Germany didn't exist? These are some news! I'm sorry, but here you are totally misinformed! The Federal Republic was founded in 1949! The "GDR" joined the Federal Republic in 1990. The constitution of 1949 is still valid and wasn't changed! The Federal Republic of Germany is the legal successor of pre-war Germany, just like the German pre-war FA (DFB) was re-established in the Federal Republic, just like every other (sports)organisation continued their existence in post-war Germany within the borders of the Federal Republic. To say that Germany did not exist is whether unbelievable stupid or a malicious anti-German sentiment. The Federal Republic is legally identical with the German Nation State founded in 1871. BTW: The Entity you call "East Germany" never used the term "Germany" always the adjective. I don't really know why I try to help to improve wiki... It seems that you aren't really interested in some advice, cos you are an expert on German politics/historty! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.25.169 (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I did not say Germany did not exist before 1990. I said Germany as it is now did not exist before 1990. As you know, it was in two parts (or three if you include the period when Saar existed independently), and those two parts were commonly known as East Germany and West Germany. The same goes for those two nations' football teams. By the way, football and politics do not mix ;-) – PeeJay 17:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You said:"By the way, football and politics do not mix" Normally, I agree totally (!) BUT in this case it is not correct! Politics influenced the fooball in this case pretty much! Don't you agree? Why, if not for politics, would there be two German teams? You've got to know the political circumstances if you want to talk about this topic! And again I strongly disagree with your argument that there were two NATIONS. There is just one Nation divided by a wall and a communist regime! Of course the Federal Republic of Germany has changed its borders in 1990. But what about the UK? The UK had also changing borders in 1927! Don't you agree? The US changed its borders few times ... 50states, 49states etc..... So you are not right in this point! Germany established a new constitution in 1949 in the tradition of the german nation state. Due to the political circumstances a second state was established on german soil. And the communist entity never used the term "Germany" officially.

If you want to use a colloquial language in an encyclopaedia like wiki, please go ahead an tell me to shut up! It might be common to say east and west ger., but it is not correct! And I always thought that WIKI wants to be CORRECT and ACCURATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.18.27 (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Copied from WP:FOOTY:

We've had big, big arguments about this in the past. West Germany was the commonly used name in English until reunification, so we should use that. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

FIFA acknowledges that German football is represented by the DFB, with continuity from 1900 to the present, no matter what "common name" was contemporarily used by foreign media for the German team or the German political system before, between, or after any of two World wars, and a Cold war. For over 60 million Germans in the Bundesrepublik, hardly anything changed in 1989/90, yet we are told on Wikipedia that "the common name" used by others has changed, and that eg. Munich in 1974 was in a country that does not exist anymore. Gee, does that mean that, according to some Wikipedia editors, my driving licence issued by "ye olde country" is invalid since Oct 1990? -- Matthead  Discuß   18:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No, it means the word that English-speaking people use to describe your country changed in 1990, based on the fact that its territory changed. If you want to fight the use of 'West Germany', you will have to go back a lot further than Wikipedia. I suggest this might be quite difficult. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The German FA and its team remained the same when German territory changed in 1918, 1945, 1990. The Federal Republic of Germany exists since 1949, with its territory getting enlarged in 1957 and 1990, yet the German FA and its team remained the same. The USA grew from 13 to 50 states, and with the same reasoning applied to Germany, the USA before 1958 should be called Continental United States, and many other names, for each change. English-speaking people use(d?) Huns or Krauts to describe Germans, too. West Germans might be more subtle, but it's as accurate as calling inhabitants of Caribbean islands West Indians. While the use of traditional yet dumb or offensive names is usually discontinued, some still promote West Germany with no other reasoning than "common name". -- Matthead  Discuß   22:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article acknowledges that the German FA and team has remained the same: it is the same article. But it remains a fact that in English, this name was used universally to describe Germany during this time (not just English either. many other countries used 'West..' [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], or some other disambiguation [6] [7]). You can't compare this to highly perjorative, xenophobic terms like 'kraut' and 'hun', and to lump the millions of people who use 'West Germany' in with those people is incredibly cheap. There is no pejorative element to the use of 'West Germany', it is simply a representation of the division of Germany at that time. The comparison between a divided country such as Germany and a growing country such as USA does not hold, nor does the comparison between the separation of one state (Saarland) and that of East Germany, which is 1/4 of Germany. A better example is the Republic of Korea, whose official name does not hint at a division, but is named by most people, including your own nation, as South Korea: [8]. Y'know, we've had this argument before. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

So if I get this right you, say: We know that it isn't correct and accurate to say "west" but the people used it commonly and so we will continue it to call it that way. I'm sure you still say Bombay instead of Mumbai, because it is "COMMONLY USED" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.13.227 (talk) 09:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the fact is, 'Bombay' is not commonly or officially used anymore (although it can still apply retrospectively). It has completely different connotations to the use of 'West Germany'. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's just important to remember that both countries declared themselves as the legal inheritors of Germany at the time; obviously what was West Germany ultimately won that discussion, but at the time, they were differentiated outside of Germany (each part of which presumably referred to itself internally as Germany). In the interest of ease of communication, it's far easier to simply differentiate between the two with the widely accepted, completely non-pejorative directional distinctions used in the era. matt91486 (talk) 21:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

You said: "It's just important to remember that both countries declared themselves as the legal inheritors of Germany" This statement is totally wrong and shows a lack of knowledge: Just the Federal Republic did declare themselves as the legal inheritors of Germany. The GDR distanced themselves every day from the tradition-line of the German Nation State from 1871. The GDR didnt even use the name GERMANY, just the adjective, GERMAN..... Icould contnue and tell you about a surpreme court decision of 1973..... But as I see you people aren't even interested in my(our) concerns and that you are without any further knowlegde about this matter.... So stick with your colloquial language in an encyclopedia (!) and ignore the facts! As I could see in WP:FOOTY talk, this wasn't the first discussion about this matter! Do you really think this will be the last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.8.86 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I sincerely hope so. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

So Please Be Honest and say that you are not interested in my concerns and that I should shut up....... Great Image of a wiki-knowledge-oligarch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.12.8.86 (talk) 13:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome to your opinion, but I think you're wrong, and I've explained, at great length, why. If you can come up with a good argument why West Germany shouldn't be used, then I'd accept it, but nobody has yet. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 14:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're worried about being technically correct, I have no problem at all using GDR and FRG as technical names between the two. I'm not interested into getting into a political discussion of German history, it's not really pertinent to this. matt91486 (talk) 21:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

FIFA World Cup venues in 1974 png not accurate

The location for Munich in the WestGermany 74 venues.png is not accurate - it looks too far in the North and more like the location of Nuremberg to me. Compare with the map in the German article on the 1974 World Cup which seems accurate. I would modify the png myself but do not know how. Eisblume (talk) 10:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Scotland, Brazil and Yugoslavia in the group stage

Shouldn't they all have 5 points instead of 4? One win and two draws? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.72.254 (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

In fact, all of the group stage points are messed up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.72.254 (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Teams were not awarded three points for a win until 1994. – PeeJay 17:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Commerzbank-Arena-Luftbild.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Commerzbank-Arena-Luftbild.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Anachronistic staium capacity

The capacities reported appear to be current ones - not 1974. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I changed the stadia capacity to the 1974 capacities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.154.78.133 (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)