Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup: Difference between revisions

A news item involving 2018 FIFA World Cup was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on the following dates: 14 June 2018 15 July 2018

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2018 FIFA World Cup. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2018 FIFA World Cup at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018 FIFA World Cup article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2018 FIFA World Cup article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Football B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football 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.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Russia: Sports & games B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the sports and games in Russia task force.

2018 FIFA World Cup is currently a Sports and recreation good article nominee. Nominated by Nhatminh01 (talk) at 00:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC) An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Daily page views Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add opening ceremony (level 2) from the 2018 FIFA World Cup opening ceremony

The opening ceremony of the 2018 FIFA World Cup took place on Thursday, 14 June 2018, at the Luzhniki Stadium in Moscow, Russia^[1] at 3:30 (BST), about a half hour before the opening match of the tournament between hosts Russia and Saudi Arabia.^[2][3]

2001:EE0:4141:3C1C:959A:FB64:B272:A5E9 (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold We generally would not copy information from other wikipedia articles in this way (As it's strictly speaking plagerism). I'm not against a section on the opening ceremony, with a {{main article}} tag to this article, but we'd need something new and beneficial to the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In Vietnamese Wikipedia has this.2001:EE0:4141:3C1C:959A:FB64:B272:A5E9 (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the above argument. You can't simply copy information word for word from elsewhere (Even other pages on Wikipedia). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you can if you provide attribution.. S.A. Julio (talk) 10:00, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Robbie Williams performance where he flipped the bird be in the controversies section or the article List of 2018 FIFA World Cup controversies^[1] Mobile mundo (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'd say so. Had no idea this happened! Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unarguable proof of what was in Williams' mind at the time please. HiLo48 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we need proof of what was in his mind? The controversy is that he gave the middle finger on live TV. – PeeJay 21:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Did he? What I saw was him holding his had with the fingers in a particular configuration. Do you believe that configuration meant something? Do you believe it meant what it would mean in your culture? Why would he do it? Reliable source please. HiLo48 (talk) 22:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you for real? Obviously a reliable source will be provided for the incident itself, but he clearly gave the middle finger. Any suggestion to the contrary is just obtuse. – PeeJay 00:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I still have no idea what all the fuss is about here. IF he "flipped the bird", why? Show this reliable source please. The one above is almost incoherent. HiLo48 (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter why he did it? He extended his middle finger on camera, an act that was deemed sufficiently controversial that broadcasters (particularly Fox) chose to apologise for it. It's not a massive controversy, I grant you, but it is a controversy. – PeeJay 09:57, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the USA's conservative broadcaster pandering to its conservative audience. This is a global encyclopaedia. It proves little about the rest of the world. Are you sure he "flipped the bird"? HiLo48 (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's irrelevant whether or not it was intended to be offensive, the act caused controversy. – PeeJay 17:36, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

the BBC reference is about as reliable as you can get for this incident. I'm sure a quick search on Google would find more. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC source says that Fox apologised. It really said nothing about what Williams did. HiLo48 (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Other news services have obviously picked up on Fox News and reported it that way, but the way I see it is, Fox News is being Fox News, an unreliable news service and simply stewing the pot. We should disregard this news from the article. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As someone from the city that gave the world Rupert Murdoch, I completely agree. Pointing at a Fox source was never going to impress me. If other editors don't understand the significance of that comment, they should start researching it now. HiLo48 (talk) 10:53, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone added this nonsense at the bottom to List of 2018 FIFA World Cup controversies, can we remove it? Govvy (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's gone. HiLo48 (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russia was colored as having reached the round of sixteen on the map,

even though, if Saudi Arabia beat Uruguay and Uruguay beat Russia, and then Saudi Arabia beat Egypt, KSA and URU would both have six points, and Russia could slip to third place, thereby getting eliminated. Can someone change Russias color on the map back to "group stage", please Quanstizium (talk) 20:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This has been fixed at commons:File:2018 world cup.png#filehistory. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They still have an (A) after their name in the group standing though. This is likely to be correct in a few hours, but not just yet.124.120.192.166 (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was corrected after 31 minutes.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 09:49, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think an IP got carried away and made the edits. It's been changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Ronaldo is the top scorer now, he has 4 goals . TDLWH (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics should not be updated while matches are in progress per consensus on WP:FOOTY. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Please DO NOT update this until the matches in question are completed. This is not a live statistics repository. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right now we have three teams in Groups A and B already eliminated. For ease of understanding, I would say those teams should be marked with a red background.

I did an edit for the same, but reverted it in case the Green/Red colours are confusing.

How/when do the formatting usually change in such cases?

Soni (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Only status letters are used to denote teams which have secured a spot in the knockout stage. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There is a key after every template denoting what information is needed. Teams that are guarenteed to not progress have an (E). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spain have advanced haven't they? Portugal and Spain can't both advance together right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.255.87 (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. They haven't advanced. A draw in the Portgual/Iran game and a loss for Spain would be enough for Spain to potentially go out. Spain would need to lose 2-0, or Iran would have to draw 4-4 (or higher) Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spain and Portugal are leading 2018 FIFA World Cup#Group B and not meeting eachother in the last round so of course they can advance together. I guess you meant to ask "Portugal and Iran can't both advance together right?" They meet in the last round and if it was the only remaining group match then they couldn't advance together. One of them will get at most 4 points like Spain and a worse goal difference than Spain currently has. But Spain does have one more match and will worsen their goal difference if they lose. Goal difference in all group matches is the first tiebreaker after points obtained in all group matches. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Replace "Countries were not FIFA members" in the world graphic, with (perhaps) "Nations that are not FIFA members". This is simply a grammar change. Clunkerjockey (talk) 03:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[2] @Nergaal:, @AdaCiccone:, @YantarCoast: and other: Also Sochi is in Asia. --Insider (talk) 07:13, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"two continents" is misleading for an event in a single country where a couple of locations in the same land area are near an ill-defined arbitrary land border between Europe and Asia. The whole Russia is in UEFA and so are countries further towards Asia like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:56, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"The whole Russia is in UEFA and so are countries further towards Asia like Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Kazakhstan. What is the relevance of this? Israel is also in UEFA. So if a World Cup were to be held in Israel, would you write that was being held in Europe? YantarCoast (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article for Russia, simply refers to the location as Eurasia. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I wouldn't lie about the location of Israel but "two continents" isn't worth claiming in this context. It's in the same continental confederation by a large margin, and it's a matter of definition whether cities are even across the Europe-Asia border which has varying definitions when people even define a border. Saying "For the first time the tournament takes place on two continents" in the lead gives a false impression that there is something special or important here and not just a minor trivia relying on unclear definitions. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:43, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PH. Intro mentioning this is ridiculous, as even doping issues would be more relevant to feature in the intro, since at least those issues did exist in the news. Nergaal (talk)

There is no need for the sentence. Russia is just about the only country that anyone actually recognizes as being in two continents - so basically, you are saying "first world cup in Russia". Plus the recognition of 'two continents' also depends on what continents you define - as pointed out, many people just use 'eurasia'. It is no worth pointing this 'fact' out. 2A02:C7D:159:6A00:D1CB:4F93:8779:ECBC (talk) 09:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey is also on two continents but I agree it's not important to point out that that it's the first world cup on two continents. Omikroergosum (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the rules, in theory Belgium and Mexico are not advanced:
If Panama win their matches and England beat Belgium (and the goal difference in these matches are high enough) Belgium can be eliminated
If Germany win their matches and Sweden beat Mexico (and the goal difference in these matches are high enough) Mexico can be eliminated
And South Korea are not eliminated yet:
If Germany win over Sweden and South Korea win over Germany and Mexico win over Sweden (and the goal difference in these matches are high enough) South Korea can advance. --Simy (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Simy: Yes, you are correct. Unfortunately a few anonymous editors have been continually vandalising the standings, hopefully the templates should be protected soon. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mexico would always be eliminated if Sweden an Germany win, irrespective of goal difference.Tvx1 21:05, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. Suppose for example Sweden wins 2–1 and Germany wins 1–0. Then Mexico and Sweden have goal score 4–3 while Germany has 3–2 and is eliminated on fewer goals scored. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But that’s not the same criterium as goal difference. Mexico cannot go though on goal difference if Sweden and Germany both win.Tvx1 15:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Saudi Arabian channel has been illegally showing World Cup matches. I am not sure if it would be better to put it in the Broadcasting rights section or controversy section. It is briefly mentioned here.^[1] If someone could find a more detailed reference that would be great.

PS Autosport has a certain amount of free views per month unless you are a subscriber. (Mobile mundo (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Mobile mundo (talk) 17:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give me the name of the channel? Jake The Great 908 (talk) 06:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

beoutQ is the name of the channel. (Mobile mundo (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The introduction's last paragraph said, "The winners of the World Cup will qualify for the 2021 FIFA Confederations Cup.[B]"

This kind of information would make sense within the introduction of the English League Cup, whose main purpose is to provide a fast path for the Europa League qualifiers.

But did a team ever played the FIFA World Cup Final in the hope of playing the FIFA Confederations Cup three years later? Given the uncertainty about the very existence of the invitational tournament, I removed the line and added a link to the 2021 tournament in the "See also" section. The information can still be found in the introduction of the 2018 FIFA World Cup Final article.

Kahlores (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As someone of the fringe of soccer enthusiasm, that line has been puzzling me since I first read it. Seemed quite enigmatic. HiLo48 (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In group F, if Sweden beats Mexico 1-0 and Germany beats South Korea 1-0, Germany, Sweden, and Mexico all have 6 points and 3-3 goals. So only the games against each other count, where each team won and lost one against the others. Mexico is then out because they scored two of their three goals against South Korea, which do not count for the comparison between the three teams that are equal. Is Germany then first because they won the match versus Sweden or is the direct comparison already done after number of points and goals of all that have the same points and goals have been compared and the next rules applies, which is the fair play points, which would probably be won by Sweden? Analogously if Sweden and Germany both lose 1-0, which would mean they and South Korea all would have 3 points and 2-3 goals. South Korea out because 1 goal scored against Mexico, which would not count. Then Sweden or Germany would be second? Omikroergosum (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The head-to-head criteria cannot be reapplied, therefore fair play points would be the next tiebreaker for both examples. S.A. Julio (talk) 06:18, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. How do you know? Omikroergosum (talk) 06:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably by reading the rules. 2018 FIFA World Cup#Tiebreakers gives them accurately from the official FIFA regulations. After goals scored in all group matches they say: "If two or more teams are equal on the basis of the above three criteria, their rankings shall be determined as follows". There are no more statements of that type so "the teams concerned" in the following can only apply to the teams which are equal after the first three criteria. Compare to 2017–18 UEFA Champions League#Group stage which has a rule saying: "If more than two teams are tied, and after applying all head-to-head criteria above, a subset of teams are still tied, all head-to-head criteria above are reapplied exclusively to this subset of teams". FIFA has nothing like that. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of the tiebreakers rule is that if 2 or more teams are tied on pts, GD and Goals scored than the criteria is used again but only for the teams that are tied. That would leave Mexico in 3rd with 1 goal scored compared with German & Sweden with 2 goals scored. My guess is that once Mexico is eliminated from the calculation they would use the Germany vs Sweden result head to head to decide top spot although I could be wrong.(Mobile mundo (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC))[reply]

We just have to wait and see. If that scenario unfolds the FIA will break the tie for us and we report how it was done. We don’t break ties ourselves.Tvx1 09:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, we follow Reliable Sources on Wikipedia. However, it's exactly how it sounds.

1. Points 2. GD 3. Goals Scored 4. Points in Head-to-Head 5. GD in Head-to-Head 6. Goals Scored in Head-to-Head 7. Fair Play 8. Lottery.

In the above, Mexico would be third placed following sorting criteria 6; as they will only have 2 goals scored in the head-to0head, whereas the other two (Germany/Sweden) would have 3 goals scored. There are obviously otherways how this could be complicated, with say Mexico losing 2-1 to Sweden, and Germany winning 2-1. Which, would potentially come down to Fair-play or lots. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if the tables showed the number of Fair Play Points for each team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.155.73.34 (talk) 22:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen a football standings table that included the teams’ fair play points totals. That tie-breaker is used so infrequently that it wouldn’t be worth including for all teams just to satisfy the needs of a single group. – PeeJay 23:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the tiebreakers section appear to be copied and pasted with a few tweaks from the FIFA source. This is not allowed by Wikipedia as the source text is copyrighted. It should be rewritten. I have mentioned this at the copyright problems page as well.Tvx1 17:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue here. To maintain the meaning of the criteria, the original wording should be preserved. If we'd copied actual prose content, I might agree with you, but this is essentially just legalese, for which fidelity with the source material is fairly important. – PeeJay 19:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An user has demonstrated that to be untrue in the mean time. They are now properly paraphrased while maintaing the correct meaning.Tvx1 20:10, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where this was demonstrated?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anaxagoras13: Maybe Tvx1 referred to these changes by Nergaal. Anyway, I think Nergaal (quoted from his/her edit summary: maybe I don't understand copyright rules, but this is not "creative work". These are rules, which I have no idea how could they be copyrighted) and PeeJay2K3 (legalese) have good points too. I would like to use original expressions if possible. Centaur271188 (talk) 03:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Text can be copyrighted.Tvx1 09:40, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Could we not simply credit the rules to the FIFA website? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:03, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But arn't the rule book and FIFA rules classed as public domain documents? Govvy (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also strongly believe this is no copyright issue. It is better to use the original wording of the FIFA-document.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Law/rules can't be copyrighted. Creative content can, but rules is not "creative content". Nergaal (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So why did you change the wording?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:08, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anaxagoras13: I think Nergaal took a 'just in case' measure. Also @Govvy and Lee Vilenski: I see no copyright claims in the regulations PDF file. For comparison, Laws of the Game PDF file has a clear caution: "This booklet may not be reproduced or translated in whole or in part in any manner without the permission of The International Football Association Board" (page 4/212). Am I right to assume that FIFA's document is under free license? Centaur271188 (talk) 15:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That booklet has quite a few illustrations, which I suspect are the main "source of copyright". But since FIFA in that case explicitly states their copyright claim, I suspect where they don't, they know they can't claim it. Nergaal (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All intellectual property can be copyrighted, not only "creative work". You made a good edit. The tiebreakers as we have them now correctly present the facts without any potential for misunderstandings and without too closely resembling the source.Tvx1 20:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are using File:2018 FIFA World Cup.svg, that's copyright protected, but we are wikipedia a non-profit, not a money making corporation, so copyright rules will be different for us. Govvy (talk) 20:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I think that World Cup image would be a more serious copyright violation than this wording case. And more interestingly, we have been using official and copyrighted images in so many World Cup and Euro articles (I have no idea about other tournaments). Centaur271188 (talk) 21:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to Fair Use? For the purposes of this instance, I would say Fair Use certainly applies when it comes to faithfully representing the rules of the competition. – PeeJay 23:54, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we can now change back to the original FIFA-wording.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use only applies images/files, not text. I realy don’t understand the problem. The current wording is utterly non-confusing.Tvx1 14:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help your cause when you make stuff up - Fair Use does not only apply to images/files, it also applies to textual content (see WP:NFCCP). I will concede that that same section stipulates that non-free content shouldn't be used when a free version could be created, but I would argue that to change the wording also changes the meaning. – PeeJay 14:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will contest that. Nergaal has easily proven that you can change wording without changing the meaning. It’s called parahprasing.Tvx1 20:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2018 June 24 for admin review and closure of the listing. I'd really encourage especially those who have weighed in with a potential misunderstanding of the copyright laws regarding the description of rules of games and the Wikipedia project's position as a non-profit entity in fair use allowance to review, as there's a good bit of background there for legal precedence and requirements as well as our own policies and processes. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The way I read that page is that we can use the rules verbatim as long as they're put in a blockquote and it's made obvious we're directly quoting the law book. – PeeJay 20:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If two teams have similar standard equipment, which one gets the host status to get priority for the primary color scheme? Nergaal (talk) 19:08, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the schedule is put together, each position in the group is assigned "home" and "away" slots for each match. These slots are determined before the draw to place teams into groups even takes place. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 19:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It works pretty similar to regular groups. Each group has A, B, C And D, with each match being say 1A vs 1C, with the "home" designation going to the team higher in the group alphabetically. So, for instance, Russia will always play in a home kit, whilst England are always away.

This is also later true for the knockout rounds. On the World Cup brackets, the team who is higher in the list is also designated home. Russia is guaranteed to play in all games they play as the home team, except for the last 16 round (If they finish 2nd). This is true for most football competitions (Such as the FA Cup, where teams are drawn as home or away).

However, teams only play in their away kit if there is a clash of kits, or they decide too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:02, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So for knockout the order for home will be 1A > 1B > .... > 1H > 2A > 2B > ... ? Nergaal (talk) 10:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, actually. See this bracket. It follows this list. The winners of the groups will have home advantage in the round of 16 (Home is the team on top), and follows the bracket. For instance, the winner of Group B could be Iran, who will always be away in their group, but would be always at home, following the bracket. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You mean if Iran was 2B and won against 1A, they would be hosts all the way to the final? Nergaal (talk) 16:18, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For those who insist on the current spelling, why do you want a past tense verb or a noun for when the alternative uses a past tense? Nergaal (talk) 10:20, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow. The article says: "(A) Advance to a further round; (E) Eliminated." Do you mean "Why use past tense in Eliminated when Advance uses future tense"? I think the tense makes sense when group play is still ongoing. It would sound a little odd to say "Advanced to a further round" when the team is still playing this round. It can be changed to "Advanced" when the group has finished. But "Eliminated" only makes sense as past tense. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. You can't really be eliminate from a competition. But you can advance. In future tense, you would say someone "would become eliminated", but not "would advanced." Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:44, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prime, by advance=>advanceD changes for the groups that have been decided have been reverted. Feel free to revert them for where the situation is known. Nergaal (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like your first post, I don't know what you mean. Please try to be clear. I prefer "advance" when the team still has a group match to play. All teams still have a match to play and no groups currently say "advanced" so there is nothing I want to change. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The tense should not be changed, "advance" is also a noun. This is consistent with many other football tables (e.g. 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)). S.A. Julio (talk) 14:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then change it to "Elimination" instead of eliminated. Nergaal (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to the qualification column. Those status letters are predefined at Module:Sports table/WDL. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding of the English language going on here. The reason why "advance" is used is because the knockout phase has not yet started, and therefore use of the past tense "advanced" would not be appropriate at this point; once the group stage is over, then it would be appropriate to use the past tense, but not yet. As for "eliminated", that is a passive verb, as opposed to an active verb as in the case of "advanced"; e.g. "Uruguay advance to the knockout phase" vs "Egypt are eliminated from the competition". It's simple grammar at play here, nothing more complicated than that. – PeeJay 16:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about considering 'advance' a noun in qualification column (like Promotion, Qualification, Relegation... which are used in league tables)? Centaur271188 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the only case where we use "advance", why not replace it with "qualification"? – PeeJay 16:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is because we only use 'qualification' for qualified teams, it seems logical. AFC, CAF, CONCACAF, OFC qualifications usually have many rounds, 'advance' to next round is different from 'qualification'. To be consistent with that principle, using 'advance' in group stages (World Cup, Euro, Champions League...) is more accurate than 'qualification'. Centaur271188 (talk) 16:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would use the term "Qualified". That way there is no confusion that the team could still be playing games in the group stage, yet you will see them play in the playoff stage.AntropovNikki (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

TBH, I don't think I've ever seen "(A)" in any sports competitions before this single page. Q is universal and if nothing else, gets rid of the rather weird usage of "advance". Nergaal (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because they are not the same thing. The qualification articles for this World Cup demonstrate that clearly. Q denotes teams which qualified for an entirely different event (i.e. the main 2018 World Cup), whereas A denotes teams who advanced from one round to another within one specific event (i.e. from the first round to the last 16 round).Tvx1 20:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

At olympics, EVERYTHING is Q or q, which means advanced to the next round. This is the same thing. Just google "world cup news" and see how many advance/advanced shows up versus qualified. This stupid revisionism is prevalent everywhere on wikipedia. Nergaal (talk) 08:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Using Qualified is a very confusing term.... When there has already been a long qualification process for the tournament. You would qualify for a tournament, and advance (or progress) to a second round. Football is not athletics, and should go by WP:FOOTY's guidelines. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:09, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And you think "advance"/"eliminated" is not more confusing than "qualified to the knockout stage"? Nergaal (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do. We have used this wording on hundreds (If not thousands) of football related articles. I personally can't see a problem at all. If there is an issue, we'd need a consensus that this needs changing (By all means, post up a proposal), but from the above, I feel as though the current wording is sufficient. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to spiegel.de (it's in german, sorry) the dpa (german press agency) kinda asked FIFA about the odds of Germany advancing to the second round. Suppose KOR wins over GER 1:0 AND MEX wins over SWE. Then GER, SWE and KOR will each have 3 Points, 0 GD and KOR will drop out. But instead of applying the tie-breaker rules again on GER and SWE, FIFA is quoted to apply FairPlay next. --Cum Deo (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the article, but I'd assume it was two 1-0 wins for both Mexico and Korea? I think the confusion would be that you are suggesting that once a team is no longer tied, the criteria would be reset (Go from step 1), however, I believe this considers Korea to still be tied in this way, and would therefor mean that it would be fair play for second.

Is this considered a reliable source? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is what the rules say in that scenario as I explained at #How to apply the tiebreaking rules? The linked article is about the case where KOR wins over GER 1:0 AND MEX wins over SWE with 1-0. Then KOR, GER and SWE all have 3 points and goal score 2-3. Per 2018 FIFA World Cup#Tiebreakers, they are equal on the first three criteria, and the following criteria are applied one at a time to all three tied teams (this is more clear in the original FIFA rules [3] than the version we rewrote for copyright concerns). The matches between them give each team 3 points with goal score GER 2-2, SWE 2-2, KOR 1-1. KOR is eliminated on goals scored but GER and SWE are equal when all matches between the three teams are considered. The matches against KOR are not removed and GER and SWE remain equal until fair play points. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:58, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spiegel.de is like the german version of The Mirror. They are referring to the dpa. Yes. Mexico and Korea winning each ONE-NIL in the last game of the group stage. By Head-to-Head comparison Korea will drop out against Germany and Sweden, because of lower Goals, while points and goaldifference is teh same to all three. The question now is: Sweden and Germany would still be head-to-head. Do you reset the Tie-breaker rules and apply them on Germany and sweden, oder do you - as the article is saying to be told by FIFA - apply FairPlay.

"Der Weltverband präzisierte auf Anfrage der Deutschen Presse-Agentur am Sonntagabend sein Regelwerk. Der offizielle Regeltext für die WM hatte zuvor Interpretationsspielraum offen gelassen."

roughly translated:

"FIFA precised their regulations on a question of the Deutsche Presse-Agentur on sunday evening. The official set of Rules for the worldcup seemed to leave space for confusion."

--Cum Deo (talk) 12:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the stated rules are quite clear. There may just be people wondering whether they will really be followed or FIFA forgot to add a criteria when other tournaments like UEFA Champions League have other rules and it's possible to make rules which are less likely to have to resort to fair play points or drawing lots. The German article says FIFA will do as I think the rules already clearly say. Imagine the outcry in Sweden if the rules say they will advance with a 0-1 loss assuming no change in the other match, and they play defensively to avoid 0-2 instead of offensively to get a draw, but FIFA suddenly says "Oops, we forgot something when we wrote the rules so Germany gets your spot". PrimeHunter (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The more likely 3-way-tie this issue is applied is a GER-MEX-SWE-tie rather than a SWE-GER-KOR-tie. Imagine GER-KOR 2-1 and SWE-MEX 1-0, then Ger 4-3 goals, MEX 3-2 and SWE 3-2. Then MEX could have the feelings like SWE in your example.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those scores would only give a tie after criteria 1 and 2. GER wins on criteria 3 goals scored in all group matches (4-3 versus 3-2), and the only tied teams when criteria 4 starts are MEX and SWE. SWE then beats MEX on criteria 4 points in matches between tied teams, and the discussed difference in interpretation of a 3-way tie is irrelevant. It becomes relevant with GER-KOR 1-0 and SWE-MEX 1-0. Then GER, SWE, KOR have 6 points and the same goal score 3-2 in all group matches, so criteria 4 starts with a 3-way tie. The goal score in matches between the three tied tems is GER 2-2, SWE 2-2, MEX 1-1. MEX is eliminated on goals scored. If you reapply criteria 4 without MEX (against the rules) then GER is #1 and SWE #2. Both advance but GER meets a group #2 and SWE a group #1 in the next round. If the rules are followed then GER versus SWE is decided on fair play points and possibly drawing lots. SWE may be upset at getting a harder opponent next but not like being eliminated. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a mistake. 2-1 wins by GER and SWE is the most interesting scenario. 4-3 goals overall for the 3 teams. 3-3 hth-goals for SWE, 2-2 for MEX and GER.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From my read of the rules, if criteria 6 does not break the tie, the next one is 7, not a repeat of 4. If 3 teams are tied after the first 3 rules, the 3-6 apply only once. Nergaal (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exctly that is what the Spiegel article and the rules say.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would have been nice by spiegel to thank me or their readers because their original article was just wrong and I wrote them to point it out. Would not surprise me if dpa also saw this here. Omikroergosum (talk) 15:47, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in the above discussion, wait and see. If these ties occur FIFA will break them for us and we report what happened. It's no up to us to apply tiebreakers. Unfortunately the discussion cannot produce a change to the article, so this is a case of WP:NOTFORUM.Tvx1 20:04, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion started with a reliable source that explains how the tie would be broken, so I don't quite see your point. Omikroergosum (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right! We don't have to wait and see after this article by Spiegel.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no doubt about it, this has been FIFA's standard tiebreaker for quite a while. This question has been asked repeatedly in the past, nothing has changed. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this discussion had no point. Nobody is suggesting a change to the article, which is what this talk page is really for.Tvx1 18:19, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I see. The description of the tiebreaker could be clarified and the source added. Omikroergosum (talk) 22:22, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Compare UEFA Euro 2016#Tiebreakers, where there's a rule 4 that explicitly states that rules 1 to 3 would be reapplied to any teams still tied after their first applying; and if this still doesn't break the tie, rules 5 and so on would apply. Here, no such rule is stated. --Theurgist (talk) 23:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No such rule is stated means that no such rule exists here.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 07:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please if you could remove the advanced and eliminated alphabets in front of the corresponding teams it would be helpful. Wajih16 (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear, what you mean.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 17:53, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A legend should be added to explain what it is actually about. Currently eliminated countries have the same color as those that can still qualify. Omikroergosum (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The map only intends to convey who qualified for the World Cup and who didn’t.Tvx1 01:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This map (also in the article) doesn't, and I'm assuming that's the one they were talking about. Kinetic37 (talk) 07:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure. But that map only shows where countries finished. So, currently ones in red are any team that haven't definitely proceeded further. It does make sense. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:54, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, just making sure everyone was on the same page. Kinetic37 (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write it doesn't make sense, I wrote it was not sufficiently described. Omikroergosum (talk) 16:48, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

South Korea should have an E next to their name. South Korea is in Group F. Carolina account (talk) 22:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because it's not mathematically eliminated. It's possible that South Korea, Germany and Sweden will all finish with 3 points. --Theurgist (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Costa Rica vs Switzerland

Second goal for Costa Rica was an own goal. check the fifa report source. 126.85.185.212 (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC) 126.85.185.212 (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly that is written in the article. So no reason for this request.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason for this section (Especially, as it's unsourced?) Wikipedia isn't a repository for statistics, and it seems a little redundant with the results above it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably fail WP:NOTSTATS. Hhkohh (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the table, it is not useful while the World Cup in progress. It should be added after the conclusion of the tournament with a source. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the point of adding it back? Doesn't really add anything to the article, you can kind of see the same information in the group stages anyway. Govvy (talk) 18:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe FIFA typically publishes a final ranking of all 32 teams after the tournament concludes, which can be useful. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are advancing so why aren't they in the R16 chart? I was surprised to see this still isn't updated even though the Group H table was updated to reflect the first matches on 6/28 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.81.29 (talk) 16:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because their final positions haven't been determined yet. – PeeJay 16:34, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OP here, I am an idiot. Love you world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.216.81.29 (talk • contribs)

Why were they taken down? We had them in previous editions of the World Cup.... –Piranha249 21:45, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for certain, but suspect it has to do with not predicting the WP:FUTURE. It's perfectly reasonable to include a referenced list as was done in 2014 FIFA World Cup#Final standings and other tournament articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a page in work, there is absolutely nothing controversial about the ranking of the bottom half, and is of interest to people wondering how badly did their team did. Nergaal (talk) 23:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These tables also need a source, otherwise it is WP:OR. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't WP:CALC apply? We know the points from the results. The remainder can be determined knowing the rules for the tournament. However, results in the group are not necessarily equal and so might be OR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

R	Team	G	P	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	DP	Pts.
Eliminated in the group stage
17	Senegal	H	3	1	1	1	4	4	0	−6	4
18	Iran	B	3	1	1	1	2	2	0	−7	4
19	South Korea	C	3	1	0	2	3	3	0	−10	3
20	Peru	F	3	1	0	2	2	2	0	−5	3
21	Nigeria	D	3	1	0	2	3	4	−1	−4	3
22	Germany	E	3	1	0	2	2	4	−2	−5	3
23	Serbia	F	3	1	0	2	2	4	−2	−9	3
24	Tunisia	G	3	1	0	2	5	8	−3	−4	3
25	Poland	H	3	1	0	2	2	5	−3	−3	3
26	Saudi Arabia	A	3	1	0	2	2	7	−5	−1	3
27	Morocco	B	3	0	1	2	2	4	−2	−8	1
28	Iceland	D	3	0	1	2	2	5	−3	−3	1
29	Costa Rica	E	3	0	1	2	2	5	−3	−6	1
30	Australia	C	3	0	1	2	2	5	−3	−7	1
31	Egypt	A	3	0	0	3	2	6	−4	−5	0
32	Panama	G	3	0	0	3	2	11	−9	−11	0

See discussion above under "Standing". It's irrelevant information and unsourced. Not really sure how you can argue it's useful, as literally above it, the full results are listed. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:27, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully a verifiable source for the tournament rules can be found. In 2014, a sourced overall standing can be found on page 151 in this report so it's likely a final ranking will be listed eventually. Other than that I don't see how a team's final ranking can be somehow less relevant information than its results in the respective games or who their goal scorers were. The main importance of the final ranking (or as fifa calls it, "overall ranking") is thus the ranking itself, not the points or goal difference (though those appear to be used for sorting based on previous overall standings, which makes them indirectly relevant). -- Lejman (talk) 07:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The game between Croatia against Argentina, ended 3x0 for Croatia. The Third goal was scored by Rakitic. 177.97.219.8 (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the article says so. If you see something else somewhere then please say where. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Kpgjhpjm 16:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• FWC 2018 - Group D - NGA v ISL - Photo 03.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

France play the winners of match 50, not match 49, in the quarter final 86.9.47.70 (talk) 16:25, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Already corrected Hhkohh (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

France is the winner of match 50 per [4]. Hhkohh (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014 is not recognized by anyone except Russia itself. As such, the sovereign borders of Ukraine need to be fixed on all the maps in the article. No mixed colors etc. Crimea is Ukraine! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.17.166 (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA, however, does not. See [5] [6]. The article Football in Crimea needs some updates regarding this whole issue, but as far as I can tell, they currently treat it as it's own separate entity. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:41, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Treating it "it's own separate entity", however, would mean the maps still need to be fixed... :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.18.17.166 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:QubecMan is insisting that this item belongs in the article under Controversies. The ONLY "connection" of any form it has with the World Cup is that it was announced on the opening day. That is not a connection. It is internal Russian politics. This item does not belong in the article. HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that this is a political controversy that is not directly linked to the World Cup. We've removed other controversies that were much more applicable for the same reason – no direct link to the tournament. It doesn't belong in this article. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 08:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No politics on this sports article. I agree with HiLo48 and Jkudlick. CryMeAnOcean (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Information regarding this should be elsewhere, and potentially link to the world cup, but it has nothing to do with the world cup article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, this item has heavy political bias and insignificant connection to the event, and should be excluded from the article. Fbergo (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, unnecessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• 2018 FIFA World Cup opening ceremony (2018-06-14) 01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone's been removing the tiebreakers to the group stage because it was "copied without permission or attribution to FIFA rules." How true is that? –Piranha249 19:02, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking the FIFA rule book is classed as a public document, I think a number of editors get confused because the FIFA website holds copyright law. You can't copy the rules for any profitable gain, as Wikipedia is a non-profit organisation this doesn't apply to us when representing the rule book. Govvy (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, see previous talk on the matter: Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup#Copyright violation. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

We need the final rankings in here. 104.38.121.128 (talk) 21:36, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source for the final rankings? Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Match 59 and 60 need to be reversed. England vs. Sweden is NOT Match 60, they play first tomorrow so 59. 80.192.47.215 (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/#knockoutphase indicates that Match 59 is Russia v Croatia at 21:00 local time while Match 60 is Sweden v England at 18:00 local time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The lead says that this is "the first time that neither Argentina, Brazil, Germany nor Italy reached the last four", citing this source. This is technically correct, but problematic. Take a look at FIFA World Cup#Results.

First, it doesn't need Italy. There haven't been any tournaments where the top 4 involved Italy but none of the other three. The sentence would be equally correct if one also brought the Netherlands and even San Marino in it, but that would be equally unnecessary. It's fine to just say "neither Argentina, Brazil nor Germany".

Second, the only tournament with no Brazil or Germany in the last four was 1930, when the top 4 consisted of Uruguay, Argentina, the USA and Yugoslavia. So it would be just as correct to instead say "neither Brazil, Germany nor the USA", or to replace Argentina with either of the remaining two. Argentina might seem the nicest among the 1930 top 4 finishers as the most successful among them historically, but the others aren't any less correct in this case.

I therefore propose this for a wording: "the first time since the inaugural tournament in 1930 that neither Brazil nor Germany reached the last four". Hopefully a source can be found. --Theurgist (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of detail is ridiculous recentist disproportionality. It is what we hear TV presenters and match commentators say when they don't have much else to say: it is the sort of trivia that has a place in pub conversation: it is historically true, but of no historical consequence. The equivalent information that was being discussed after the group round has already fallen out of public awareness. in 10 years time there is no way this will be considered one of the most important elements of this tournament: who won the final against whom is what is relevant long term. Kevin McE (talk) 09:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but then how about: "one of only two tournaments where neither Brazil nor Germany were in the last four, the other being the inaugural tournament in 1930"? If only 2 out of 21 tournaments are distinguished by this, it surely is notable, right? --Theurgist (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really believe that the absence of those teams at this stage will be thought in ten years time to be such an intrinsic element of the 2018 competition that it should be one of the handful of pieces of info in the lede? I certainly don't. Kevin McE (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't tell. My chief aim was to explain why the wording was bad. Summaries and statistics, be they in the lede or elsewhere, should represent reality faithfully. --Theurgist (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Removing that paragraph is stupid. People opening this article for the next week or so would be interested in that stuff. When this goes to FXC sure that stuff can be removed, but it is overzealous to cull it now when the article gets massive viewership. Nergaal (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. We do not publish stuff in the expectation of it being deemed irrelevant in due time. If people want trivia of the moment, there are many far more suitable places for them to visit than an encyclopaedia. Kevin McE (talk) 12:41, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The period of time is irrelevant. I don't think it should be in the lede. Should be elsewhere. It should mention what Reliable sources say, rather than what we have noted. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first World Cup ever that all teams scored at least two goals. I think this should be stated in the first lines of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.119.79.118 (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand your question correctly, are you suggesting that every team scored at least two goals during the group stage? If s, that seems like an arbitrary cut-off point. Why is two goal more significant than at least one goal or why not state that not all teams scored at least three goals? Seems like barroom trivia. I'd be open to hear from other editors what their thoughts are on this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:47, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless reliable sources are consistently discussing this, this seems like arbitrary trivia that's not particularly worth mentioning. Sergecross73 msg me 19:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pure trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Someone else is seeing Ronald Mcdonalds at the start of the article? Like this--189.222.66.134 (talk) 05:41, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An unfortunate bit of vandalism on a template transcluded to the page, now fixed. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

there is an hilarious ronald mcdonald picture at the beginning of the article, i suggest to be removed. FattoriXx (talk) 05:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was on a template transcluded to the page and has now been reverted. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this factoid is really that encyclopedic, just looks like the kind of padding that journalists use to fill space. Grouping teams by their language families is kind of trivial. Harambe Walks (talk) 15:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of? Of course it is! Yet again soccer fans clog an article with garbage. Just remove it! HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

People will put things together and say that something is important, simply because it's never happened before. It perhaps could be stated during qualifying; or on an article for say Sweden at the FIFA World Cup. But we rely on what Reliable sources are talking about. Not simply that it is mentioned. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists also say that for the first time every group of the group stage contains a Spanish-speaking country, which is pure trivia, indeed. But maybe this one is a bit more mentionable? The Nordic countries and the Arab world are regions distinguished by socio-political and historical traits, not just languages, and the World Cup is a sports event that also has a social and cultural aspect. The 1958 FIFA World Cup article says: "this World Cup was the only one to feature all four of the United Kingdom's Home Nations", and UEFA Euro 2016 says: "Scotland were the only team from the British Isles not to qualify for the finals". Is this unimportant too? --Theurgist (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about the home nations, I believe is a little relevent, as the Home Nations tournament was once a qualification route to the World Cup, and was therefor not possible. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That tournament served as the qualification for just two World Cups (and for one Euro Championship). And then, the wording in the Euro 2016 article also includes the Republic of Ireland, which is within the British Isles but outside the Home Nations. --Theurgist (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply, been away. There is a tangible impact from the Home Nations because they are the only permanent members of International Football Association Board which makes the Laws of the Game (not FIFA), although that is the association rather than their 23 players. For all we can choose to dress it up, Nordic Countries and Arab Countries are grouped by language, and having three Nordic countries - three of the world's most privileged countries and with over a century of football history - is not as groundbreaking as, say, the first African team at the World Cup. Harambe Walks (talk) 10:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The competition for the third rank is between England and Belgium.

I was just wondering, is the opponent of England could be a country, as, according to Niger Farage "Belgium, (...) of course is pretty much a non-country." https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nigel_Farage

On the other side, Guy Verhofstadt tweeted the jibe after MEP and former UKIP leader Nigel Farage said Belgium was "not a nation". Mr Verhofstadt, a former prime minister of Belgium, tweeted: "He'll see how real Belgium is when we play England in the World Cup! But perhaps he's still exploring German citizenship and will be rooting for 'die Mannschaft'."

But Farage also said: "They speak different languages, they dislike each other intensely, there's no national TV station, there's no national newspaper. "Belgium is not a nation and maybe that's why you're happy to sign up to a higher European level.

Is there a need to be a country or a nation to be involved in the fifa wc? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.226 (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be involved in the FIFA World Cup, you need to be a member of FIFA, which Belgium is. --Theurgist (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not a nation, per se. Just a member of FIFA. England itself isn't a sovereign state, so this is mute. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if Belgium is not a nation, this wikipedia article would be wrong (fake?): It states: The 2018 FIFA World Cup is the 21st FIFA World Cup, an international football tournament contested by the men's national teams of the member associations of FIFA once every four years. (...) The final tournament involves 32 national teams, which include 31 teams determined through qualifying competitions and the automatically qualified host team.

Could you keep member of FIFA and remove national? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.31.125.200 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you on about? Belgium is a sovereign nation and Farage is an idiot. Govvy (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium is definitely a nation and the Belgium national football team has existed since 1904 where they were one of the seven founding members of FIFA (England wasn't). Nigel Farage is just a nationalist politician insulting another country. This has nothing to do with playing in the FIFA World Cup. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:28, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, don't feed the trolls! – PeeJay 20:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, pure trolling with qoutes from an idiot. Didn't get the memo that Mr. Farage decides now what's a nation and what isn't. And what a hypocritical idiot he is. So we're not a nation because we speak more than one language? Wonder what the Swiss (who were in the World Cup as well by the way) think about that. And don't the Brits speak English, Scottish, Gaelic, Cymraeg, Manx and Kernowek? And we dislike each other intensely, he claims (pure lies). Well the British like each other so much that they just cannot get to agree to send the British football team to the Olympics once every four years. And I'm not even going into the fact that the Brits have five football teams vying for spots at the World Cups and European Championships and have five national anthems to deal with that and the fact that each of the British regions issues its own banknotes. Farage's comments are utterly ridiculous and have no meaning whatsoever here.Tvx1 12:02, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The World Cup is nearly ended, so I added Final standings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatminh01 (talk • contribs) 01:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Nhatminh01: I assume you've added a reliable source for them because every previous time you've added them without one, you've been reverted. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Was thinking the same thing. Even the first sentence of the section suggests original research. HiLo48 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article is big enough we don't really needed final standings, seems unnecessary statistics to me. Also WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 10:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Been discussed above adnausium. Please do not add this section back without consensus. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per past discussions, an official source from FIFA should be provided, otherwise the table falls under WP:OR. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was just added in by Dieter Mueller (talk · contribs) and I removed (rather than reverting) as it was unsourced. He provides rationale and WP:CALC reasons in the first paragraph of the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table shows that Germany and Serbia have identical records. Iceland, Costa Rica and Australia also have identical records. It appears that disciplinary record was used a tie-break and was not declared in the table. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is just ridiculous. Add them and be done with it. They'll be added eventually any way. F***ing politics and 'correctness' in Wikipedia... Disgusting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.67.13.101 (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies is ridiculous in your mind. What else do we do on Wikipedia that you find ridiculous? You have piqued my curiosity. Since you're editing from my area, perhaps we could meet over a beverage to discuss it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

For the final standings, it states that Switzerland has a record of 1-1-2 with 4 points whilst this is not the case. They actually got a record of 1-2-1 with 5 points. 2A02:A03F:3C5B:6400:D8CA:2B85:F36E:A529 (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. S.A. Julio (talk) 03:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@S.A. Julio: WP:CALC The drew against Brazil, defeated Serbia (in that supposedly controversial match) and drew against Costa Rica. In the round of 16, they were ousted by Sweden. One win, two draws and a loss. That would be five points. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't see is where it's mentioned. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table was removed for original research, we should wait for an official source from FIFA (as discussed in the above section). S.A. Julio (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In this article, every scoreline links to a section providing a summary of the game, such as "2018 FIFA World Cup Group F#Germany vs Mexico".

But the scoreline at "2018 FIFA World Cup#Final" doesn't. Instead, above the footballbox, the much longer and more detailed dedicated article "2018 FIFA World Cup Final" is linked to as a {{main}} article.

I think the scoreline should link to "2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Final", for the convenience of those seeking just a brief summary and info such as the lineups. Both sections should still link to the {{main}} article, as they do currently.

At present, it seems that the section "2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Final" is not linked from anywhere. So, while one can easily access both the footballbox at "2018 FIFA World Cup#Final" and the detailed article "2018 FIFA World Cup Final", that particular section, which is essentially a compromise between the two, is much harder for one to come upon while browsing casually.

As that particular footballbox seems to have been transcluded into multiple pages, just linking the scoreline would cause "2018 FIFA World Cup Final#Details" to point to "2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Final", which would be a pretty senseless thing for it to do. How could we deal with that? And what do you think of the idea as a whole? --Theurgist (talk) 03:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Frietjes: Could {{Score link}} be adjusted to allow linking for finals, so that {{score link|2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage#Final|4–2}} could be added on 2018 FIFA World Cup Final, but only display the link on this article (and not on the final article or 2018 FIFA World Cup knockout stage)? S.A. Julio (talk) 03:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The below in {{Score link}} would allow up to five extra unnamed parameters giving page names where the score link should be omitted. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

{{#if:{{both|{{{1|}}}|{{{2|}}}}}
  | {{#switch:{{PAGENAME}}
      |{{{3|}}} |{{{4|}}} |{{{5|}}} |{{{6|}}} |{{{7|}}}
      |{{PAGENAME:{{{1}}}}} = {{{2}}}
      |#default = [[{{{1}}}|{{{2}}}]]
    }}
}}

S.A. Julio, Theurgist: I have updated {{score link}} with PrimeHunter's suggested changes. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented it. Thanks everybody. --Theurgist (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fifa world cup winner mention it.. France Vaku chetry (talk) 07:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's mentioned in the lead. have a good look. HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Zut alors! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:56, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me or is it rather convenient that all of the matches played at Luzhniki Stadium were sell-outs? I very much doubt that there were zero empty seats at any of the seven games played there. Even Krestovsky Stadium, which is listed as having hosted sold-out games three times, had a few that weren't sell-outs. Perhaps we should look for a more reliable source than FIFA when it comes to match attendances? – PeeJay 21:02, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A match would be listed as a sell-out if all the available tickets were sold, even if not all the tickets were used. I don't know the laws in Russia, but in the United States it is not uncommon for people or companies to buy huge batches of tickets to sporting and concert events then legally resell them for massive profit. Even if all those tickets are not redeemed at the gate, the tickets were still sold and count toward the attendance figures. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 22:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Laws in Russia. That's a funny one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if this article could be pushed through to GA, it feels pretty much complete and up to date to me. Govvy (talk) 11:37, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the Controversies section. It's a disaster area in any article. HiLo48 (talk) 11:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't simply remove information to get it to pass a GA. It'll immediately fail for not being broad in it's coverage. I'd do a thorough copy-edit (Or speak to WP:GOCE), and put it up for nomination. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:51, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies seems like a fairly legitimate part of the topic, I don't see a problem with it, I was simply asking here if other editors feel if the article is good enough to go to GA. Govvy (talk) 13:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies does not cover doping issues, and the subarticle completely misses it. Also, there is basically no text on the ACTUAL world cup, and how the matches and teams did. Nergaal (talk) 13:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any current GA World Cup articles? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it has 1930 - a featured one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhatminh01 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the only thing the 1930 article has over this one, is the prose describing the event in prose (We have seperate articles for the group stage and knockout rounds, however, a brief overview in prose of the competition should be included as well as the tables. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:03, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Could we put in the final rankings of teams? Example:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup#Final_standings Jasonandrewpiechowicz (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see several talk threads about this above. This is considered Original research until it's published by FIFA. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It gets worse. For several past World Cups, FIFA has published different standings at different times. The only partial rules I have seen from FIFA were for 2006 but were immediately contradicted by the stated standings in the same FIFA article. If FIFA publishes 2018 standings then I guess we can use them but if they follow their normal pattern and publish different standings later then I don't know what we should do. However, people may have lost interest at the time. PrimeHunter (talk) 03:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't really see how it adds anything to the articles. With the official list, that is something, otherwise it's simply conjecture. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:51, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Can always run an consensus weather to include it or not! Govvy (talk) 08:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

When will there be a 'Final standings' chart for this tournament? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:F16:3B00:1018:4DB1:533D:19BB (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why over and over again? Read the already existing sections. When FIFA releases official standings.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, please add the missing red card into the table (Lang of Switzerland). 93.140.105.194 (talk) 20:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The table is introduced with "the following suspensions were served during the tournament". As Switzerland were eliminated from the tournament with their loss, the suspension will be served later. S.A. Julio (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should mention it as an aside then. The tournament only had two red cards, so not mentioning one of them in the tournament's main article seems a little weird to me. – PeeJay 09:27, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps change the wording to: "Suspensions incurred in the tournament", as that's what's important. Keep the final tab for "Next competitive match". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:35, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Lang with a short explanation about the suspension not being served during the tournament. S.A. Julio (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about "Russia v Croatia" one in the Knock out stage section, feels a bit small and it doesn't suit the section, I thought it be best without a photo in this section. The other photo is of Luzhniki Stadium in Critical reception, this again also feels too small to help out here, feels like you need a magnifying glass to see it. What do other people think? Govvy (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If fixed the former, but the other looks fine to me. If someone else feels it is small, we can change it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]