Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Copyright violation

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)

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)

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)

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

@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)

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

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

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

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)

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

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

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
  • 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)

England - Belgium

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2018

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)

 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)

@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)

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

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)

Winner?

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

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

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

Linking the scoreline of the final

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)

@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)

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)

{{#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)

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

Attendances

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)

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)

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

GA ranking?

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2018

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

"It is the first time three Nordic countries...and four Arab nations...have qualified for the World Cup."

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

4th dismissal under #Discipline

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

two photo placements

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)

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)

Dream Team

Anyone have any opinions about whether FIFA's "dream team" [1] is notable enough to warrant inclusion? On the one hand, equivalent teams of the tournament have been included in the articles for other world cups, and this one is the closest that there is to an official team of the tournament. On the other hand, it's selected by user vote, and it also doesn't seem to have garnered much in the way of media coverage; in a quick search, I only found one secondary source that referenced it [2] with most media outlets seemingly preferring to give their own take on the concept. I think I probably err slightly towards not including it, but figured it was worth bringing up for discussion. Lowercaserho (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with it's inclusion, with it being fan generated. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

All of the man of the match awards were decided by a fan vote, weren't they? – PeeJay 09:09, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

With the addition of an "awards" section, should prize money and dream team not all be subsections of this? As they are all awards. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed so. – PeeJay 08:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Add sexual harassment of visitors by Russian women section

Should add this section as it happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.94.86.34 (talk) 02:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A source would go a long way to adding the section (and understanding what you're talking about). Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

List of sponsors

Now that the Egyptian sponsor's name is settled, which one do you find compatible to small screens (like smartphones)? I find the current one uncomfortable to navigate on smartphones and, in some cases looks so squeezed.

Current version

FIFA partners	FIFA World Cup sponsors	African supporters	Asian supporters	European supporters
Adidas Coca-Cola Gazprom Hyundai–Kia Qatar Airways Visa Wanda Group	Anheuser-Busch InBev Hisense McDonald's Mengniu Dairy Vivo	Egypt – Experience & Invest	Diking Luci Yadea	Alfa-Bank Alrosa Rostelecom Russian Railways

My idea

FIFA partners

• Adidas
• Coca-Cola
• Gazprom
• Hyundai–Kia
• Qatar Airways
• Visa
• Wanda Group

FIFA World Cup sponsors

• Anheuser-Busch InBev
• Hisense
• McDonald's
• Mengniu Dairy
• Vivo

African supporters

• Egypt – Experience & Invest

Asian supporters

• Diking
• Luci
• Yadea

European supporters

• Rostelecom
• Russian Railways

JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 15:09, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. 🖋Phenolla ^talk 14:27, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Well done box. AWCC also became a sponsor... i checked their website for it (https://afghan-wireless.com/afghan-wireless-named-sponsor-of-2018-fifa-world-cup-russia/), if someone wants to add. I don't see it on their article either. Thanks, 90.207.124.78 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 June 2019

Messi's Argentina team was qualified on the last day of the qualification against Ecuador, thanks to Messi's hatrick Makkhhhi FFC (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Not done. It's unclear what should be edited.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

That level of detail would be better in the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL) article.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

GAN

Hi guys,

I realise this is a bit article, but would anyone have any objections with me making some prose/references changes and taking the article to GAN? It'll take quite a bit of work, but would be a good project. Pinging biggest contributers Centaur271188, S.A. Julio and Walter Görlitz. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:27, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Clean-up and corrections are always welcome. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:59, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Please feel free to improve this article. Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, I think the most important information that is currently missing is a summary of the different groups/rounds. The article 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup is a good example of structuring this. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Good article to link to, thanks. I was going to add something for this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: HawkAussie (talk · contribs) 12:07, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I will be happy to take this review for you.

Just as a note, the reason why I haven't already nominated this for GA was that it doesn't have a tournament summary (I have been putting it off). Nominator has never actually edited the page in question. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

So I have done a quick look through the quick fail criteria and this feels like this is a quick fail as critera 3 isn't current satisfied enough to have a good review of it as it's missing a key component with that being the tournament summary and other sections not having references to back it up with the bottom paragraph missing a reference and also can see some few ciation needed as well. This plus the fact that the nominator hasn't done any edits says to me that they ain't ready to do this massive task of fixing it up. HawkAussie (talk) 10:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Final standings

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)

@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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What's the point of not having the final standings in the 2018 World Cup? The previous editions of World Cup have the final standings. It's definitely a valid statistic to report. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.200.16.193 (talk) 16:00, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for Final standings?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I doubt you'd read it since you didn't read the discussion here explaining why we don't have it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

I do not understand, why the final standings table are not incluyes?? Even the the spanish versión have it. Alfredmaldo (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have a source for it?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 13:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No final standing in the official main page?? Alfredmaldo (talk) 13:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Maybe you can put an extraoficial final standing with comment, Right? Alfredmaldo (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Alfredmaldo: Do you mean a comment like "this is what we think they should be if FIFA ever bothered to come up with their own final standings"? You can't seriously expect us to make things up. Wikipedia already has a bad enough reputation without proof like this. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:49, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Standings found

It seems as though @Subaryan: found the results at "2014 FIFA World Cup Brazil Technical Report and Statistics" (PDF). FIFA.com. p. 151. yet @S.A. Julio: is claiming WP:NOR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Is that not the 2014 results? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Oh it is. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

They seem to have provided a source, but it doesn't contain an overall ranking of all 32 teams so I'm deleting it. – PeeJay 21:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I see that now. Thanks. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Any 32 teams final standings for this cup?, Is the only cup dont have final ranking since 1930? Alfredmaldo (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a source?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

From thesoccerworldcups.com Page. Is an official source. They have all the final standings from 1930 world cup FIFA Tournaments. Alfredmaldo (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no sign that https://www.thesoccerworldcups.com is official. https://www.thesoccerworldcups.com/misc/links.htm says: "This page is full of links to other websites we own or we like a lot." That sounds extremely unofficial. Most of the sites are about other sports or not sports at all. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Anyway the standings show there is correct. Alfredmaldo (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Correct according to which standard? If FIFA does not supply the actual result, why would anyone else presume to come up with their own? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.thesoccerworldcups.com/world_cups/2018_final_standings.php doesn't even say what rules they came up with. What's the tie-breaker between Germany and Serbia, or between Iceland, Costa Rica and Australia? No point in speculating when it isn't official. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Group stage results

There is nothing supposedly bold about this change. All the previous World Cup articles are formatted in this manner. If you want a detailed outline on the group fixtures go to the specific page on the group, which a link is already provided. 2001:8003:3B3A:7E00:D6B:1FD0:D1E3:3582 (talk) 11:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do we have to go backwards? Why don't you change all the previous World Cup articles to match this one? – PeeJay 11:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

The way this article is formatted (with templates that expand to the group standings tables) is better than the older ones, it ensures the tables remain consistent among all articles that use them, and that any correction can be done in a single place (the template, not each individual article). Fbergo (talk) 16:24, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And PeeJay's point is we should apply this to other, similar articles, not the other way around. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Qualification - Issues

I am viewing this page on Nov 12, 2022, 7:01 MST.

I think there are issues with the "Qualification" sub-section in the "Teams" section. The lists of teams from each confederation looks incorrect. The teams listed in each pot looks incorrect in the "draw" sub-section as well.

I am not experienced in fixing this. Have a look. 66.85.17.230 (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Update 7:11 MST... now that I look, it was the most recent change made by someone. I wonder if I should just undo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.85.17.230 (talk) 14:11, 12 November 2022 (UTC)