Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Index to the 32 countries in the Group Stage Matches

Do you think it is appropriate to add a country index to the external links? Check out this page:

• Country Index to the Group Stage Matches

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.13.149.17 (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

No, what purpose would this serve? – PeeJay 09:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Adding the "Country Index to Matches" serves many purposes:

It facilitates access to the match schedule tremendously since this Article is very long and complex. For example if you want to find the schedule of the matches of Belgium you have to first locate the section titled the "Group Stage". This section contains eight groups. with every groups containing almost one screenful of information on a desktop computer. After patiently inspecting 8 pages of information looking for the word Belgium, on the 7th page you will find the information that you're looking for.

However, when you use the "Country Index" the word Belgium is one of the 32, alphabetically arranged, links shown on the top of the page; you click on it and you are taken to the section of the page where details about the 3 matches of Belgium can be found.

This Article perfectly serves the purpose of professionals. But the fans who want to swiftly find the dates and results of the matches will find the "Country Index page" more convenient. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyrusep (talk • contribs) 21:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Isn't that what we have the individual group pages for? If you want to see Belgium's games, go to the 2018 FIFA World Cup Group G page. Either that or the Belgium at the FIFA World Cup page. – PeeJay 21:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

How would anyone know to look at the Group G page? If they knew that, they wouldn't be asking for this tool. HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

You would look through the groups to see which group Belgium are in. Ctrl+F is a marvellous key combo that any rookie computer user should add to their arsenal forthwith. – PeeJay 22:25, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

As an occasional relief teacher in the ICT area, it always stuns me how little teenagers actually know about such things. And they are the ones often credited by many (including themselves) with knowing all there is to know about computers. HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

The article includes links to FIFA's website, which includes individual schedules for each team. S.A. Julio (talk) 00:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

See WP:External Links. The main page should be plenty. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

False Country map

Can somebody please explain, why Kosovo is part of Serbia. Or, I do not remember Kosovo qualifying for WC to get on this map.

As long as we try to be polite and stay politically correct, please correct the map. I know, Russia do not recognize Kosovo's independency, but over hundred others do and this is not a Russian cup.

Thank you in advance. |EU| — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.127.40.120 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user. Where exactly is the issue? File:2018 world cup qualification.PNG? This was an uploaded image, so if you see a particular issue, then you can upload a better version. However, from what I can see, Kosovo is displayed in this map as a seperate country... And is even stated in the text that it is a different country to Serbia Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A national team competing separately in the World Cup qualification does not make them an independent state. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all compete separately but are all part of one and the same independent state, the United Kingdom. Kosovo's status as independent is still disputed.Tvx1 19:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

England and the controversy section

I was under the impression that we are not supposed to have a "controversy" or "criticism" section in articles as per the MOS?

We mention in this section that the English FA threw a hissy fit because FIFA didn't want to host the World Cup in their declining country for either this competition or 2022 and their crying about Blatter and Platini is well known. And the orchestrate pantomine that their so-called "royal family" are not going to sully the event with their presence (as if anyone cares)....

However, we do not explicitly mention in the prose that the medias who are making the biggest attempt to demonise Russia over supposed "controversies" laid out here (ie - that they're supposed "racist" and anti-homosexual) are from the British press as well... presently in the article in relation to these specific controversies, we cite only the BBC, The Guardian and Pink News who are all British media and "Advocate" (a minor pro-LGBTUVWXYZ website) which appears to be based in the United States.

Given that these nations are engaged in active conflict with Russia and have a vested interest in attempting to manufacture disrepute for this event, I think we need to use a more international and balanced array of sources for this issue or specifically mention the British media in relation to these claims.

Using the British media as a source on Russia, is like using Der Sturmer as a source on the Soviet Union. Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, considering there is a full article for the List of 2018 FIFA World Cup controversies; a section in the article would be warranted... And there is a controveries section on the 2014 World Cup article too. The section doesn't seem particularly POV, everything is stated with a reliable source, and the section only contains two paragraphs that even mention England. Not sure what you really want changed Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:26, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Referees in Match 1

According with this FIFA page https://www.fifa.com/worldcup/matches/match/300331503/#match-info Assistant Referee 1 in Match 1 will be Emerson de Carvalho, from Brazil — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.231.96.0 (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Time zone on schedules

I'm sure there is a standard practice for this, but I think it would be more helpful to list UTC times rather than offsets. I understand listing local time for encyclopedic purposes, even though it means 99.9% of readers will have to double convert (once to UTC, then to their own). If we're going to bother listing the offset, why not just list the UTC time? 159.53.174.144 (talk) 11:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This article use standard format for such events. Starting hours in local time with the timezone relative to UTC between brackets. Only one conversion is needed. From the present UTC+x to one's own time zone UTC±y.Tvx1 19:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2018

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

Russian soprano Aida Garifullina and pop singer Robbie Williams singing “Angels” at the opening ceremony

Former World Cup winner Ronaldo

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

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

 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)

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

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)

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

Russia not in round of 16

participants' map

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)

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

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)

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

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)

Top Scorer

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

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)

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)

How does the table template formatting usually go

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)

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)

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)

Spain have advanced?

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2018

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)

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

Confederations Cup?

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)

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)

Belgium and Mexico are not advanced (yet)

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)

@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)

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

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)

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)

How are "home" shirts decided

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

How to apply the tiebreaking rules?

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)

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)

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

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)

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))

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)

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)

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)

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)

Advance vs EliminateD

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

- 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)

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

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)

illegal TV coverage

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. 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))

References

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

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)

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

 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)

For the first time the tournament takes place on two continents – Europe and Asia

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

"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)

"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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 June 2018

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)

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)

Tie breakers

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

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)

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

why are belgium and england not in the R16 chart?

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)

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

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

Standing

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Final Standings

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

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

Map colours

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2018

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)

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

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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)

Robbie Williams flipped the bird

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 Mobile mundo (talk) 17:42, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

References

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2018

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)

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

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

Need to fix borders of Ukraine on all the maps.

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)

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)

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)

Protest laws and Pension Hike

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

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)

Copyright violations

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)

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2018

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2018

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)

 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)

Teams not reaching the last 4

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Interesting Statistic

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)

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)

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)

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

Big Question

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)

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2018

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)

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)