Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Officiating subsection in Controversies

There appears to be a dispute about whether to include the Officiating subsection in the Controversies section of this article. I think it should be included here since there are a few serious controversies. Also, now that a Russian laser incident subsection has been added, I'm wondering: what information can we document here? I don't want this article to be filled of controversy information since we have a separate article for just that. Heymid (contribs) 08:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

That's why I removed it, it's already on its own relevant article. If we include it, then we should rewrite it to mention the other cases as well. But like you said, this article shouldn't be filled with controversies, there's already another article for it, therefore unnecessary and putting it here too is POV pushing. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

So this is a 2-1 at this point. Would you like to remove the group section because it is covered in 8 subarticles too? Why do you act like you would like to throw under the rug something that can be blamed on FIFA? Nergaal (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, paranoid much. I wouldn't call that an argument.

So trying to talk nicely didn't seem to go anywhere. Could people who care about this issue express and justify their opinions? There has been a notable subsection at in the controversy section on refereeing, which has been trimmed down by various editors to leave behind only the two most contentious issues where enough criticism existed such as FIFA themselves issued statements. Then there is a seemingly inexperienced editor UNILATERALLY removing that section without prior discussion with teh argument that the subarticle discusses those issues. Am I missing anything? Nergaal (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

What? You didn't even try to talk at all, and you are way over 3RR. There's already another article for this, and unless you want to mention the other examples too, you're POV pushing. This article shouldn't be filled with controversies, and I wouldn't say all of them are worth mentioning. And don't call me inexperienced and accusing me of working for FIFA, it makes you look desparate. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 20:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dear uncollaborative fellow editor.

1. You seem to have a hard time reading since I never argued anything about underpants or other such incidents.
2. As you can see to the above statement "I think it [Officiating subsection] should be included here since there are a few serious controversies" you interpreted it as "That's why I removed it, it's already on its own relevant article."
3. After I said that by your rationale we should remove i.e. all mentions of group stage matches and standings because we already have a separate articleS on the group stage, you kept repeating "It's already on its own relevant article along with others similar to it. This should be no exception."
4. You are obviously unable to understand a red card joke on an article with "FIFA" in its title.
5. Calling "non-notable" a subsection referring to events that influenced the final group standings wand FIFA itself had to make multiple statements doesn't make your opinions particularly "reliable".

Nergaal (talk) 21:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Then mention the other cases too. You're hypocritical. You have incomprehensibe writing and you don't understand this shlt at all. Plus, you edit-war without a good reasoning, and you refuse to even talk about it at all. All you said was " this guys probably deserves a read card for this ", whatever that means. You're not comprehending this at all. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources that call the officiating into question then a brief mention of it here is appropriate provided that additional details are added, again sourced reliably, in the controversies article.

Also, I would not count the number of edits or reverts to determine who is and is not in favour of any item. Many people may be in favour or an action but don't act or respond in appropriate ways. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

In any case, as it stands now, this topic is currently missing from the main page. I'm not saying it necessarily needs the entire subsection, but it needs at least a mention.

A compromise could be to write a short introduction for the Controversies section, mentioning officiating incidents (in general), with another explicit link to the separate article. That said, I personally would not be against the subsection as it was, because it's hard to find 'the most important officiating controversies' in the separate article since that one is not listed by category, but by match. In that sense, this subsection contains different information because of how it's structured. But anyway, if not this, let's at least have that introduction. Sygmoral (talk) 02:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, that's why I said to mention the other cases too. The subsection needs to be re-written to mention the officiating incidents (in general). I agree that a general introduction mentioning all the controversies in general would suffice, but not an entire subsection calling out only a select 2 cases. A compromise would be to mention all in general, with a link to to main article. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Let me try to see if I understand you: you agree that the information should be in the article, yet you remove 100% of if from the article. Your way of improvinf the article is to remove all of it instead of spending the same energy to improve the existing information. Nice! Nergaal (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not even necessary, and I said if you want to include it, you should mention all the cases, not only a few for your POV pushing. You're hypocritical and getting this at all. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I am not sure anymore what is your accusation at this point in time. Didn't you say that "The subsection needs to be re-written to mention the officiating incidents"? Doesn't that imply that there needs to be information on refereeing? Previously the article included info on the refereeing but you removed ALL of it instead of fixing it. This is like going to a doctor with a pain in your ankle and the doctor (you) says we should cut off the entire leg. Nergaal (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really, I said it needs to be rewritten to briefly mention all the cases IF you wanted to include it. Using a knife to cut off your leg is a disperate comparion on your part by the way. Maybe you should have chose to discuss this afterall, intead of continuing an edit war without any reasoning. Yes, I support briefly including it IF it breifly includes all the cases in general, and then a link to the main article so that this page isn't unnecessarily filled with controveries. No, this does NOT need to be filled with controversies since there's already an article for it. But briefly including all of it in general is fine. Do I need to break it down some more for your troubled comprehension? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

When you go to a doctor with an ankle pain you don't need to mention the moles. But ignoring your trolling, you can agree that some refereeing mistakes are more blatant than others, and some mistakes greatly influence the final score. Yes, Netherlands scored one goal to Spain from offside, but even if it probably influenced the final score, a 5-1 is still unbalanced; while a 2-1 where FIFA had to take a stance is not the same thing. For the purposes of undue balance, anything that mad FIFA give a public statement (or something similar such as Blatter's statements) is worth including here. Anything else can go in the sub-article. Nergaal (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks like you want to continue this, you're the one trolling here. Not every controversy needs to be included as mentioned aboved. I wouldn't say Croatia would've realistically defeated Brazil, considering the rest of their performance. All the other teams can argue about reasons why they should have won too, this just looks like you're POV pushing. Either include or mention all of it or don't. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Post-tournament team ranking - FIFA recognised or unofficial?

Should there be some sort of comment about what this means and what the status of this table is? Is the Post-tournament team ranking an official FIFA thing? Can Ecuador officially say that they came 17th in the World Cup, or is this just the way that they're being described for the purposes of this table? And what will be the deciding tie-breaker for teams ranked between 9th and 16th if (as seems likely) multiple teams are knocked out with the same scoreline?83.244.128.162 (talk) 10:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

FIFA ranks all teams after the competition ends; there are official pdf documents including these rankings for the past tournaments (though sadly I can't find a link at the very moment). For teams eliminated in the knockout stage, FIFA take into account the team's entire performance during the tournament (so also includes their group stage results), so, for example, if both Greece and Mexico are eliminated in the Round of 16, Mexico would be ranked higher of the two as they advanced with 7 points (and +3 GD) compared to Greece's 4 points (and -2 GD); at best Greece could then only gain one further point from drawing their knockout tie but losing on penalties. Sinfony81 (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

FIFA are basically the only ones mentioning it in some PDF. Doubt even they use it ever in text. Other sources don't use it at all. I'd get rid of it here and on all past world cup pages. -Koppapa (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Until FIFA release their post-tournament ranking like they did in 2010 there shouldn't be any table there. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 June 2014

May I be allowed to edit the scores, I will help with doing everything as quickly on time but correctly . Thank You . OliwierEOB (talk) 18:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To reduce vandalism and abuse, the page is currently semi-protected, preventing edits from unregistered users (IP addresses), as well as edits from any account that is not autoconfirmed (is at least four days old and has at least ten edits to Wikipedia). Normal regular editors usually update the page when the matches are over. The general consensus among them is not to update in real time when the matches are in progress. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Uruguay on the best 16 map

Someone forgot to highlight Uruguay as one of the countries that have passed to the Round of 16 -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_FIFA_World_Cup#mediaviewer/File:2014_world_cup.png

--162.206.81.119 (talk) 22:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes it has - http://i59.tinypic.com/dfdq9v.png Ev3commander (talk) 20:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Suarez

Suarez no longer needs the small ^[b] reference next to his name due to being out of the tournament, as his team is out of the tournament anyway. KarstenO (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

RFC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As you can see in the section above, #Officiating_subsection_in_Controversies, there is an editor that continues to remove a section of issues with referees. There seem to be me and two other users who agree that the section should exist in some form. Nergaal (talk) 13:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep If it's referenced and there's a section in the controversies article, a brief explanation is valid in this article. I assume that removal of such is censorship and not cooperative editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep A few lines of each controversy should be included in this article and if someone wants to read more details about any of them, then they can go to the relevant article. TeamGale 16:40, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep if the subsection/or section mentions or includes the rest of the controversies. Delete if it goes back to the way it was. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 17:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
• Keep – I agree with Walter Görlitz. In addition, the officiating incidents mentioned in this article are of a quite serious nature, and removing them from this page would seem like censorship. Heymid (contribs) 17:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Which is why he said a brief explanation is valid if it's in the article, including my reasons above. If someone can rewrite it to mention or include all of it, please do so. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 17:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

• Keep – I also agree with Walter Görlitz. It would seem like censorship to me, too. No real good reason to keep that section out. United States Man (talk) 00:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

You're late. Yes, we already said that. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@Supersaiyen312: Sorry, the RfC bot just got to me (or I just got to it when I logged on). United States Man (talk) 01:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use {{current sport}}

Yesterday, I noticed that this article was using a customized current events template that stated the current round and thedates of the round and the dates the FIFA Wold Cup would take place on. I changed it to {{current sport}} as this is precisely the situation this template was made for and I didn't a current events template (or at least one meant as a disclaimer at the top) needs to display dates or the current stage. I was reverted a few hours later by Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs) who pointed out this discussion that he claimed was a consensus and claims the templates guidelines for current sport doesn't allow use here. I disagree. This, as I said, is the exact type of event this template exists for, not to mention, I don't think four participants in a consensus making discussion can establish a consensus anyway. Also, to create a specialized template for the event 1) gives undue weight to the event, and 2) is a form of POV pushing as it says this event is so special, it gets its own templates made for it. In short, if {{Current sport}} is good enough for the Olympics or any other sports' championship tournament, then its good enough for the FIFA World Cup. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 18:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I do not recall the 2014 Olympics articles having {{current sport}} constantly on for 24/7 for the entire two weeks with no informational consequence, per the Template:Current sport#Guidelines. Just solely using that template constantly on 24/7 for the next two weeks is also my objection here. In addition, there are not long periods of rapid editing here, especially because of WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live scoring, as well as this article being semi-protected -- thus this page is usually updated within a very short period of time after each match ends, while most of the edits occur on 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage and other detailed articles. Unless otherwise, I prefer {{current sport}} removed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what happened with 2014 Winter Olympics but {{current sport}} was in constant use on 2012 Summer Olympics, as seen here. And the template does say that it may change rapidly, not that it will. It's meant as a disclaimer that the event is in progress and things can happen that may call for sudden rapid changes. CRRaysHead90 | ^#RaysUp 19:45, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That was in 2012. This is now 2014, when consensus and enforcement may be different. An event such as a sporting event that lasts several weeks is not really "in progress" when it is an off-day, or the local time is in the wee hours of the morning, when it is highly unlikely that there may be sudden rapid changes during those hours. If we did that, thousands of articles would have current events templates constantly on 24/7 for several weeks without informational consequence. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's a problem with the 'custom' one, but if that's really so undesirable, couldn't a new current tournament template be created which would allow for a better explanation of the ongoing tournament, plus a possible parameter for more customisable text. It would mean that this article wasn't getting special treatment (although it is a large event, which many people will come to Wikipedia for), whilst also allowing the right information to be conveyed. - 97rob (talk) 21:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Currently, I would prefer a less-intrusive hatnote that directs readers to the 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage page (and later on 13 July the 2014 FIFA World Cup Final page), like:

For details on the ongoing knockout stage, see 2014 FIFA World Cup knockout stage

I would also prefer adding a "current" parameter to {{Infobox International Football Competition}}, similar to what is on {{infobox football tournament}} (see the infobox on FIFA World Cup with the current event football icon and the link to 2014 FIFA World Cup), but instead lists the current ongoing stage(s). Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Minutes and Names

Why were the minutes and names of those who scored during the group stage removed? Why just the scores?

Because it's too much info. This article is meant to be a summary of the entire tournament, it shouldn't go into too much detail about the early stages. – PeeJay 11:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

But this is an encyclopedia. Adding a few names and numbers is hardly information overload.

Well, after all of the 64 matches, there'd be a complete overload because there'd probably be more than 200 goals scored.Ev3commander (talk) 14:04, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

• Please see: 2014 FIFA World Cup Group A etc. Soerfm (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. But I still think this information would be easier to find if you could just scroll down the world cup page instead of having to look up each group separately. The article has the names and minutes for the knockout stage. Why not the group stage? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabuking (talk • contribs)

On the recent NED-MEX match

Can we please have a note in Huntelaar's goal explaining that Robben dived thrice? Himself admitted it: http://www.goal.com/en/news/3790/world-cup-2014/2014/06/29/4923943/robben-apologises-for-diving-against-mexico . As fouled as he could have been, he deserved something for that many dirty tricks. These three goals were a statistic, but the non-standard conditions for the last one are not to be overlooked. 189.138.234.238 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

He admitted to one dive but stated that the fall that earned the penalty was not a dive. Sorry, no. It would be like asking Greece to admit to the dive that earned them the penalty in the final group stage match. I'm sure that we could find fault in the way Mexico played as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Controversy section on the "algerian laser"

There really should be a section. Not only was there obvious video evidence of the green laser being shined onto the goal keeper's face, but the algerian football federation itself was fined for it. i could only imagine if England had been sent home after their players had been lasered in the face how this article would read.Whatzinaname (talk) 03:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

If you want to work-up some reliable sources on it, feel free to add it to the controversies article and then summarize it in this one. Without sources, I'm not interested in touching it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not that special or the first time though. Happend ofen in the Champions League and he also appeared in GER vs ALG.- Koppapa (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Who is "he", and what does the champions league have to do with anythingWhatzinaname (talk) 19:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Quite clever, as it blended in so nicely with the Russian keeper's green strip. A few sources: [1], [2], [3]. But it's aleady included under "Russia vs Algeria", fully sourced, at the controversies article. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

In the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Neymar recently scored a goal against Chile in the penalty shootout. Because I'm not autoconfirmed yet, I can't edit it. So can someone edit the statistics and the top scorers section in the table on the right? Thanks!

It should be like this: 5 goals: • (Brazilian flag) Neymar (with the link) And Top scorer(s): (Brazilian flag) Neymar (with the link) Ev3commander (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Not done. As stated at the top of that section, "goals scored from penalty shoot-outs are not counted." Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I didn't see that. Ev3commander (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Something about James Rodríguez: The person editing the top scorers forgot to also update the statistics: 5 goals: • (Colombian flag) [James Rodríguez] Ev3commander (talk) 21:51, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Now I noticed someone did it. Thanks! Ev3commander (talk) 22:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The first cooling break listed is wrong. It was during the USA and Portugal game. I don't remember what the temperature or the humidity was, but I've watched pretty much every game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crimexturtle (talk • contribs) 22:48, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2014

Fation.shusha1897 (talk) 00:20, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

No request was stated. -- Alexf^(talk) 00:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Table of teams

Is that table of the teams sorted by group RIGHT before listing the groups really necessary? Seems completely redundant to me.75.130.93.81 (talk) 14:53, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Other World Cup articles don't have this additional table. I don't see it presenting any additional information that isn't already in the subsequent sections. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2014

139.228.237.53 (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi there - you are on the talk page of 2014 FIFA World Cup. If you wish to request an edit to the article, you need to state exactly what you want changed. If you wish to make an edit to All Nippon Airways, you can do so as that article isn't locked - or you may also suggest a change at Talk:All Nippon Airways. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

All group winners progressed next round for the 1st time since 1966

In the Round of 16 section, the statement "For the first time since the 32-team format was introduced, all the group winners qualified through the round of 16" could be replaced by "It is for the first time since 1966 that all the group winners progressed the subsequent stage." This could have been possible in all world cups since then but the 1982 one (which had 6 initial groups and only 4 teams to advance the 2nd group stage).

Here are the stats:

• 1966: England, West Germany, Portugal and Soviet Union all progressed to semi-finals
• 1970: Soviet Union lost to Uruguay (0-1) in quarter-finals
• 1974: East Germany (3rd place semi-final group A) and Yugoslavia (4th place semi-final group B) didn't make it to the final or third place match
• 1978: Austria (4th place semi-final group A), Poland and Peru (3rd and 4th place semi-final group B) didn't make it to the final or third place match
• 1982: N/A. First group stage had 6 groups. Second group stage had 4 groups. Only the winners progressed.
• 1986: Soviet Union (3-4 to Belgium), Denmark (1-5 to Spain), Morrocco (0-1 to West Germany) lost in the round of 16
• 1990: Brazil (0-1 to Argentina) and Spain (1-2 to Yugoslavia) didn't progress
• 1994: Nigeria (1-2 to Italy) and Mexico (1-1 with Bulgaria, lost at penalty shoot-out) were the odd ones out
• 1998: Nigeria (1-4 to Denmark) and Romania (0-1 to Croatia) lost in the round of 16
• 2002: Denmark (0-3 to England), Sweden (1-2 to Senegal), Mexico (0-2 to USA) and Japan (0-1 to Turkey) all lost the next round
• 2006: Spain (1-3 to France) and Switzerland (0-0, lost at penalty shoot-out to Ukraine) didn't progress
• 2010: USA didn't progress (1-2 to Ghana)

Reply

• You could add it as a note if you make it short. Soerfm (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

References

Slightly confusing wording

Hi, the sentence "For the first time since the 32-team format was introduced, all the group winners qualified through the round of 16" is hard to understand. Qualified for what? And what does "through" mean? I think it may be trying to say that all group winners progressed to the quarter-finals? If so, just say that. 86.179.3.254 (talk) 17:50, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Luis Suárez

I think we should mention Luis Suárez here or is it about only the players from teams still 'active' in the World Cup?—Khabboos (talk) 16:05, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it only covers players still active in the tournament, but I still agree there should be a mention of the Suárez suspension. Heymid (contribs) 18:28, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Group stage transclude

The Group stage section, which is using a transclusion has issues:

• It makes it difficult to edit the section
• it upsets the history of the article and
• it copies the content of what is supposed to be a main article

May I suggest we remove the transclusion and use a traditional parent/child article system? Soerfm (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not clear about the implications of this, but I oppose any change that would mean the full results (group and knockout stages) are no longer all shown together on this page. 86.179.3.254 (talk) 01:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• It means that some information goes in the Group Stage section and some more detailed information goes in the child or main article. What goes where is a matter of debate. Soerfm (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

As long as all the results are available together on one page. When perusing the results, either now as the tournament is in progress, or when coming back at a later date, it is a real nuisance to have to keep flicking from one page to another. 86.167.124.250 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Cooling Breaks

The information we have on the page says that the first cooling break was in the Group Stage match USA vs Portugal, however FIFA and other news outlets say that the first cooling break was in the Round of 16 match Netherlands vs Mexico. https://twitter.com/FIFAWorldCup/status/483287726973014017 http://www.cbc.ca/sports/soccer/brazil2014/post-game/fifa-world-cup-netherlands-2-mexico-1-1.2691278 Do we change this? MarkFizz (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

How very odd. These sources seem quite clear that it was USA vs Portugal: [4], [5] [6] except that they look an awful lot like a certain Wikipedia article. (The match is no longer available to watch again on BBC iPlayer). But then we also have Costa Rica vs Greece: [7]. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I watched the match again on CBC. There was no cooling break in the first half as there was only 2 added minutes. In the second half a USA player was injured and their physiotherapist brought on water, which the other USA players used while the injured player was looked after. The referee never called a halt to the match. I think the first cooling break was Mexico vs Netherlands MarkFizz (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The BBC is also quite clear: [8]. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Odd indeed. USA Today agrees that MEX v NED was the first official cooling break, but cites USA v POR as a "water break". The latter sure looked like a cooling break to me, as both sides completely left the pitch - like no other injury break I've seen. The commentators even made the comment that it was a break due to heat as allowed by the new rules. But the (apparent) sub 32° temps could explain why that was not "official". I would still go with the cited reports of MEX v NED. (On a side note, the CBS News article was written before I added it to the article - so I don't think it's a case of the tail wagging the dog) Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I have edited the article to reflect the first cooling break was NED vs MEX and yet someone tries to change it. In the Group G article I left the info about taking a water break as a water break and a cooling break are not the same things. MarkFizz (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Could you please provide sources (FIFA preferred), that there are "cooling breaks" and "water breaks" and they are not the same, so far I see that FIFA doesn't say anything on water breaks here. And even if they would both exist and should not be the same I think in this article at least should be stated that some sources claim the first cooling break occured in USA vs Portugal match, because such sources do exist (CBSNews cited AP as I know). Illustr (talk) 05:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The first cooling break did occur during the Portugal-USA match, at minute 40. Take a look at the screen shot from the ESPN feed. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.141.145.75 (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

For the POR v USA game it seemed to me that it took the commentators by surprise and they weren't really sure what it was. They stated it only took 30 seconds - in actuality it was a little over a minute - but they never broke for commercial. In the MEX v NED game it seemed pre-planned. A "cooling break" graphic appeared in the lower left of the screen and it lasted more than 3 minutes - coverage actually went to commercial. I added the information about the "first cooling break" because I thought it was a nice anecdote to close that paragraph of the article. But given the "controversy" as to who was first, would it be better to remove this information altogether? Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:06, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

The first cooling break did not occur in the USA Portugal match. FIFA lists a cooling break as lasting for 3 minutes at the referees discretion after the 30' of each half, where 3 minutes of added time will be added at the end. There were only 2 minutes of added time at the end of the first half of the game, therefore a cooling break did not take place. We shouldn't remove the info as it is good to have, however we need to agree on what happened. MarkFizz (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Mark. I guess that's the problem - agreeing what happened. Clearly the AP says it was at the USA game. As crazy as it sounds, Wikipedia requires verifiability, not truth. I think it would be best if we state the MEX game as the first use, but acknowledge that other sources list USA as first. Regardless, cooling breaks were first introduced during the 2014 World Cup - and perhaps that's the most important point. Hoof Hearted (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather support this your point of view than the use of "water break" term, because it seems mysterious to me so far.Illustr (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we should add a small section saying that the first water break was USA, but first cooling break was MEX. MarkFizz (talk) 21:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

"Water break" is quite a mysterious term for me now, it should be clarified, where and when are they used. Illustr (talk) 06:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at this and this. It seems that the referee allowed water to be given to players during a time while another player was injured. According to the article FIFA put out on Twitter that USA-Portugal was the first water break, and NED-MEX was the first cooling break. MarkFizz (talk) 06:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

add

the following sentence to the controversy section "The month of Ramadan partially coincided with the world cup and there has been speculation on how this would affect players; http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ramadan-fasting-affect-world-cup-players/story?id=24380986.80.43.226.127 (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this was actually an important issue, although certain media outlets who lick their lips at any mention of Islam being "different" made it that way. It was hardly controversial that a non-religious event which always takes place in Summer didn't move its schedule for the benefit of a few players - none of whom I heard make a fuss over the scheduling. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

More subjects

Since many media outlets, sports comentators and other specialists are already calling this World cup as a success even before it has ended, and the "best world cup ever" due to many factors, we need to add a few other headers to this article. Here a a few examples:

Reception (Critical response, etc) Analysis (Critical re-evaluation) Legacy (In popular culture; Recognition ... etc)

We also need to elaborate a little further on how much money this event is directly or indirectly generating ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.66.10 (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's wait. Surely by the time the tournament is over, we will have a plethora of statements from FIFA and media articles to include. I'm sure that financial statements will only come out at the end as well, naturally. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Quarter Finals

Why are the quarterfinals that start earlier on the day given a higher match number? Why does Match 58 start before Match 57 and Match 60 start before 59? Sivakosaran (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

That's not really a question about the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just the way FIFA numbered them. I would guess that they were intended to go in numerical order, but there was an unexpected scheduling conflict (perhaps even unrelated to the tournament) and they had to be rearranged. Regardless, the information in the article agrees with that at FIFA. Hoof Hearted (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Hoof Hearted. That makes sense :) Sivakosaran (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Part of this is most likely because Brazil is playing. Since Brazil gets a preferred match time so the fans can watch, their match got switched.Correctron (talk) 00:25, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it has to do only with Brazil playing. I guess the time of each match changed depending on what teams ended up in every numbered match. If both teams were from Europe (for example France-Germany), it's more preferable the match to be earlier on the day so Europeans can watch it at a more decent hour and don't have to stay up till after midnight. TeamGale 16:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And I said "Part of." Brazil got switched so their fans good watch. Likewise with the following day. Games are changed to appease fans but the home crowd always gets priority.Correctron (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Uruguay sponsored by Colgate?

How long do we wait, as there was no official caution or dismissal?: [10], [11], [12] Martinevans123 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Must get a mention. Suarez cheating (I know that is not ‘encyclopaedic’) will be, shamefully, one of the talking points of the whole games. 194.66.253.12 (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

One might expect to see at least a sentence in "Discipline"? But the referee seems to have turned a blind eye, if he actually saw anything. Poor Luis - seems to have jarred his teeth quite badly. Perhaps a replacement is in order, or even a transfer. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems it's now official: [13] But I guess, if anywhere, it should appear here. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Lukejordan02 has added a new section for Suarez at "Controversies". Perhaps it should be copied or even expanded at List of 2014 FIFA World Cup controversies? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If Suarez merits a picture next to the biting incident, it should be of the incident to show how despicable it was. He doesn't deserve to be showcased smiling and happy. Jeff kuta (talk) 22:52, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be a collection of facts. It should not provide an opinion on a particular subject. I understand what you mean, but at least the present image is from the relevant game. But if you manage to find a free image or one that would qualify as fair use, then go for it. Heymid (contribs) 09:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

All World Championship teams qualified

Sentence reads "All world champion teams since the first World Cup in 1930 – Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Uruguay – qualified for this competition." With the exception of Spain, who won it in 2010, and so therefore cannot be counted, all World champion teams, which are Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy & Uruguay, all qualified for the competition in 2010. So why is Brazil 2014 the first time this has happened since 1930, when the same happened in 2010? 198.91.189.23 (talk) 17:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Because it's a fact. It doesn't say it 's the first time...Correctron (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Facts are stupid things. Especially when they are boring like this one. What is the interest here?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly in the illustration that a trend has emerged? Surely facts are only boring if they are seen in isolation. Fictions may be far more interesting than facts, but I think I'd rather have a interesting encyclopedia built on boring facts. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Trends reported in articles and not listed as such in the sources is original research.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2014

Miolasa (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC) I want to get live updates of footbll in wikipedia

FIFA.com gives live updates. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a "live update" site.Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Per Two kinds of pork. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Bold Brazil players in goalscorers list

The Brazil players in the goalscorers list should still be shown in bold font. They are "still in active competition": they can't win the Cup but they still have one more match to play, which is an opportunity to add to their goal tally.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

 Done That's true. I corrected it. TeamGale 03:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Tournament team rankings

I think we should be using {{Fb cl3 team}} template with |no-extras=yes instead of normal tables for these, like is used in articles like 2013 Africa Cup of Nations. Seems to me like a much less tedious method than doesn't allow any room for statistical errors, although the Group column will have been removed in the process. Davykamanzi → talk • contribs • alter ego 17:14, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Active 2014 World Cup goalscorers

In the goalscorers edition, it says that players rendered in bold are still active in the competition. How do we determine that? Do we take into account suspensions and injuries (like the one Neymar suffered) as well? AhBengI (talk) 10:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion they are active even if they have injuries. I doubt the FIFA notes them and he will probably still be in the dug-out during the games they will play. They are still part of the team, same as with Nigel de Jong for the Netherlands. If you ask me, leave Neymar bold. KarstenO (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Karsten. My understanding is that bold names are members of teams who are still in the tournament (i.e. they have not been knocked out yet) and it doesn't have anything to do with injuries or suspensions. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In that case, we should clarify that players rendered in bold belong to teams still active in the competition, and are not necessarily active themselves. Because I was referring only to those who have been confirmed to be ruled out for the rest of the tournament. AhBengI (talk) 22:27, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

It's only the players and not the national teams. That is what the heading says. If they can no longer play, they should no longer be bold. If a player was suspended but his team was still playing and the player had a chance to play again, then he remains bold. If the player was suspended for the rest of the tournament (Suarez for instance), or injured and no longer able to play (Neymar) he would no longer be bold. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:26, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

This is all procedural nonsense, but injured players, short of death should be bold. If they are on the squad, they are on the squad.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not procedural, but linguistic: "players rendered in bold are still active in the competition". It does not say, "teams of players rendered in bold are still active in the competition". Sorry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - I need to amend my earlier comment, and hopefully it will clear up the confusion. Bold names would take suspensions and injuries into account provided they would last for the rest of the tournament. The main idea of bolding names is to indicate players whose goal count can continue to grow. For example, James Rodríguez currently leads the tournament with 6 goals and Neymar has scored 4 goals. Neither of those stats will change for the remainder of the tournament because Columbia has been knocked out and Neymar won't be able to recover from his injury for Brazil's final game. However, Thomas Müller is still active and his bold name indicates he may end up with more than 5 goals by the final game. I still think the heading is accurately describing the use of bold text - and don't forget, none of the names will be bolded by the end of the tournament (and the heading will be taken down). Hoof Hearted (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

Netherlands vs. Argentina score 0-0 108.20.74.207 (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)ESPN.com

Already done Chris1834 (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

remove Match 62 on and replace with 0-0 on Argentina vs. Netherlands 108.20.74.207 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)ESPN.com

Repeated request Chris1834 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 July 2014

remove Match 62 on and replace with 0-0 on Argentina vs. Netherlands 108.20.74.207 (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)ESPN.com

Repeated yet again Chris1834 (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Brazil defeat

Please add in the opening, after "The title holders, Spain, were eliminated at the group stage after losses in the first two matches. ", the line "The hosts were eliminated in the semi-finals, after a shock 7-1 defeat to Germany." MarkBM (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Modified but added. Chris1834 (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, the point was to link to the match article...but on second thoughts, don't bother, there's so much resistance there to giving it an engaging but summarizing opening explaining why it has its own article, people are probably better off not seeing it anyway. The only use the opening has now is to tell people who the referee was and the half-time score. Which is nice. MarkBM (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Format be damned. This should be mentioned in this article, the event was monumental.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Stadium names

Now that the Estádio do Maracanã article has been renamed Maracanã Stadium, should we change all instances of this stadium to "Maracanã Stadium" in all 2014 World Cup articles? Also, should we change "Estádio Castelão" to just "Castelão"? There might be other stadiums too, but I'm wondering whether we should use the stadiums' article names or their official names. Heymid (contribs) 14:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Articles that refer to events that happened under the old name, should use that old name. No need to rewrite history.Two kinds of pork (talk) 19:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't think @Heymid: is talking about rewriting history, simply noting that the Wikipedia articles for the stadiums have been renamed to use the English name rather than the Portuguese (in accordance with WP:ENG). In my opinion, it would be proper to update the links in this article as well. Hoof Hearted (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Costa Rica has 0 losses under "Tournament team rankings"

Under Section 8 "Statistics" subcategory 8.4 Tournament team rankings, Costa Rica is listed in the 8th position of the Final Rankings below the subtitle "Eliminated in the quarter-finals" with 5 games played: 2 wins, 3 draws, 0 losses. These statistics are incorrect as Costa Rica truly has 3 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss.

My suspicion is that there is a problem with the algorithm that automatically calculates the wins, losses and draws in the "Tournament team ranking" table. Namely, a knockout stage game that results in a penalty shoot-out (PSO or pen.) is tallied as a draw because the algorithm is using the tied final score after extra time (aet) rather than determining a win based on the larger number of successful penalty kicks by a given team.

Furthermore, Chile -- with a final ranking of 9 -- is listed at 2 wins, 1 draw, and 1 loss when, in fact, they never drew and lost twice this tournament to both the Netherlands in Group Stage and Brazil in the Round of 16.

Given these similar errors, I believe my suspicion of the bug in the algorithm is responsible for the error, specifically PSO games being counted as draws.

Upon further review of the 2010 FIFA World Cup page -- a different Wikipedia article altogether -- below section 11.5 Post-tournament team ranking, Japan is also listed in the 9th position with 1 draw when they never drew; rather, they lost for the second time against Paraguay in the Round of 16. It appears the same is true of the statistical errors for Paraguay, Uruguay, and Ghana; along with Japan, the four teams who participated in PSOs throughout the the Knoukout Stage of the 2010 World Cup.

Moreover, in the 2006 FIFA World Cup page, -- perhaps the most egregious statistical error so far -- France is listed as attaining 0 losses when, in fact, they lost to Italy in the final.

After inspecting other FIFA World Cup articles, the same or similar errors can be found in "Final Standings" tables of most all World Cups dating back to 1934 when Italy and Spain played a rematch after drawing 1-1 in the Quarter-finals; in this case, the games played (P) column is also incorrect. Interestingly, the inaugural 1930 World Cup contained not a single draw, match with extra time, nor penalty shoot-out.

Ok, so this rabbit hole goes even deeper! After checking the 2013 FIFA Confederations Cup statistics page, the same error appears for Spain in the Overall Statistics Table; Spain is listed as having drawn once in five games played, when, in fact, they won 4 times and lost to Brazil in the final -- the error derived from the PSO against Italy in the semi-final match after ending 0-0 after extra time.

My guess is that this algorithm is ubiquitous and rampant for most all statistical tables of football/soccer tournaments in the Wikipedia archives. It will have to be corrected for all articles beyond FIFA World Cup and Confederations Cup pages.

So noticing one small statistical error turned out to be just the tip of the iceberg. Hopefully, this won't be too painstaking to fix :)

Best,
Jholter (talk) 05:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I won't be mean but did it ever occur to you that losing in penalty kicks is counted as a draw?Correctron (talk) 06:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

It's not an error. A penalty shoot out is used to decide which team progresses to the next round. It doesn't alter the fact that the game before it ended in a draw. Valenciano (talk) 08:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, I find that surprising. So in 2006, Italy beat France on a penalty shootout to win the World Cup Final, but it's incorrect to say that Italy won the match? I always considered the PSO to be wholly tied to the match, not a separate entity.

Are there any other examples in other sports where the tie-breaking mechanism determines a winner, but the match is still considered a draw? Jholter (talk) 18:01, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be correct to say that Italy won the match vs. France in the 2006 final (just as the winner of a PSO advances to the next game). But they received points only for the draw, and that is what counts toward the ranking. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Jholter, Penalty_shoot-out_(association_football)#Win_or_draw.3F is worth a read. It seems to depend on the competition, but certainly in most of those organised by UEFA and FIFA, the penalty shoot out doesn't count. Valenciano (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Valenciano, thank you for the forwarded info -- very interesting indeed. Among all the confusion, the one thing that seems certain is that the PSO remains a contentious issue in the world of football (since it's adoption by FIFA in 1970s and first use in a World Cup Finals Tournament in 1982), and that the consequences of its implementation are no simple matter. This doesn't seem likely to change any time soon. Determining a winner and loser, and/or counting the result as a draw has historically not been treated consistently with a range of opinions and the institutionalization of various systems over time -- even dating back as recently as 2006, when a win in penalty shootouts was awarded 3 points by FIFA on the world stage. Given this insight, I would like to point out to @Hoof Hearted that your previous statement, therefore, needs revision since, in 2006, FIFA would have awarded Italy 3 "points" for their win over France in the final counting towards their ranking. Since 2007, however, FIFA now awards 2 points for a win on penalties and 1 point for a loss on penalties. Jholter (talk) 11:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Costa Rica not up to date!

Costa Rica has a different rank now, loses a game and shot 12 goals. Wikuniade (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Section 8.2 Assists

I noted the list of assist leaders is not complete. The source referenced only provides the ranking of number of assists for only those who have scored at least once. Philipp lahm has 2 assists. Cobx9 (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC) — 

Fourth place background color in Tournament team rankings

I think we should remove the beige color from the background of the fourth ranked team in the 'Tournament team rankings' table .. after all the fourth placed team won't receive a medal to get a background color like the other three awarded teams.--AhMeD BoSS (talk) 11:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Well then we should add it to the 2002 page seeing that South Korea got fourth place medals back then. AhBengI (talk) 10:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

overtime / extra time

in the graphic / table some games are annotated with "aet" the abbreviation is explained as "overtime" a phrase related to the workplace it should correctly be called "extra-time" or "added extra-time" "aet" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.194.140 (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

If you click on the link it leads to the article: overtime (sports) which can also be called extra time as stated in the first line of the article. There is no article entitled extra time (related to sports) as that redirects to the overtime article Chris1834 (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Minor nitpicking here, but doesn't the "a" in "aet" stand for "after" and not "added"? "Added extra-time" sounds rather redundant. AhBengI (talk) 10:44, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Participating teams

"Only three top-25 ranked teams did not qualify for the tournament: Ukraine (16), Denmark (23) and Slovenia (25)." Why list only from the top 25? Why not the top 32 as there are 32 teams in the tournament? Sophie means wisdom (talk) 10:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree, the number 25 seems to have been picked at random. Perhaps: best ranking team not to qualify was Ukraine...or: among the 13 best UEFA teams only Ukraine did not qualify (because UEFA has 13 places...but that's more complicated). Soerfm (talk) 15:14, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

I think mentioning UEFA would confuse matters. Perhaps we could just narrow it down to "Ukraine (16) were the highest ranking country not to qualify." Then we avoid a slightly irrelevant list of countries that didn't make it. Sophie means wisdom (talk) 19:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Biased article

This article is biased. It is concentrating only on negative stuff, despite worldwide recognition of this world cup as a stupendous success in every way, and mostly due to the hosts Brazil. So tone down the negative stuff and include all the positive stuff as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.64.120 (talk) 23:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to come up with what you feel should be added to the article to make it less "biased" with proper sources and post it here so someone can add it or better yet register and add it yourself. I have not seen any articles personally that have said it was a "stupendous success in every way" and it seems unlikely just thinking about the construction of the stadiums but if you can support it... Chris1834 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it discusses the "negative stuff", but that's part of what makes any article interesting. Please do as Chris1834 suggested and make suggestions for concrete and specific changes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm already making a contribution by highlighting this issue. There's no shortage of praise for this tournament out there, so if some people here continue to post only negative stuff, there's a case to call their bias out as nothing short of an intention to denigrate the event. This is not what Wikipedia is for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.78.101 (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Next day scenarios

The "next day scenarios" are not to be inluded after consensus at WP:FOOTY. The consensus can be read at WT:FOOTY Archieve 82 (link to section) and the consensus was confirmed afterwards at WP:ANI after a editor still continued with the edit, which can bee seen at WP:ANI archieve 821 (link to section). The insertion of these scenarios has also been at Dispute resolution noticeboard where it was decided "Resolved against inclusion of the material" which you can read at DRN archieve 54 (link to section). So as I said no "next day scenarios" unless new consensus at WT:FOOTY. Older discussions like this discussion follow the same line. QED237 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw no consensus. I just read about you bullying everybody. Correctron (talk) 03:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I saw consensus. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Statistics

Could we agree on reducing the Statistics-section, maybe just:...

Main article: 2014 FIFA World Cup statistics

See also: FIFA World Cup records

Goals and assists

Most goals : 6 by James Rodríguez (Goals scored from penalty shoot-outs are not counted.)

Most assists: 4 by Juan Guillermo Cuadrado and Toni Kroos

Discipline

Main article: 2014 FIFA World Cup disciplinary record

The most notable disciplinary case was that of Uruguayan striker Luis Suárez, who was suspended for nine international matches and banned from taking part in any football-related activity (including entering any stadium) for four months, following a biting incident on Italian defender Giorgio Chiellini. He was also fined CHF100,000.

Awards

Main article: 2014 FIFA World Cup awards

The following awards were given at the conclusion of the tournament:

Award	Winner
Golden Ball	Lionel Messi Thomas Müller Arjen Robben
Golden Boot	James Rodríguez (6 goals, 2 assists) Thomas Müller (5 goals, 3 assists) Neymar (4 goals, 1 assist)
Golden Glove	Manuel Neuer
Best Young Player	Paul Pogba
FIFA Fair Play Trophy	Colombia

Prize money

The total prize money on offer for the tournament was confirmed by FIFA as US$576 million (including payments of US$70 million to domestic clubs), a 37 percent increase from the amount allocated in the 2010 tournament. Before the tournament, each of the 32 entrants will receive US$1.5 million for preparation costs. Once at the tournament, the prize money will be distributed as follows:

• US$8 million – To each team eliminated at the group stage (16 teams)
• US$9 million – To each team eliminated in the round of 16 (8 teams)
• US$14 million – To each team eliminated in the quarter-finals (4 teams)
• US$20 million – Fourth placed team
• US$22 million – Third placed team
• US$25 million – Runner-up
• US$35 million – Winner

Tournament team rankings

Note: As per statistical convention in football, matches decided in extra time are counted as wins and losses, while matches decided by penalty shoot-outs are counted as draws.

Result of countries participating in the 2014 FIFA World Cup

  Champion

  Runner-up

  Third place

  Fourth place

  Quarter-finals

  Round of 16

  Group stage

Pos.	Team	G	Pld	W	D	L	Pts	GF	GA	GD
1	Germany	G	7	6	1	0	19	18	4	+14
2	Argentina	F	7	5	1	1	16	8	4	+4
3	Netherlands	B	7	5	2	0	17	15	4	+11
4	Brazil	A	7	3	2	2	11	11	14	−3
Eliminated in the quarter-finals
5	Colombia	C	5	4	0	1	12	12	4	+8
6	Belgium	H	5	4	0	1	12	6	3	+3
7	France	E	5	3	1	1	10	10	3	+7
8	Costa Rica	D	5	2	3	0	9	5	2	+3
Eliminated in the round of 16
9	Chile	B	4	2	1	1	7	6	4	+2
10	Mexico	A	4	2	1	1	7	5	3	+2
11	Switzerland	E	4	2	0	2	6	7	7	0
12	Uruguay	D	4	2	0	2	6	4	6	−2
13	Greece	C	4	1	2	1	5	3	5	−2
14	Algeria	H	4	1	1	2	4	7	7	0
15	United States	G	4	1	1	2	4	5	6	−1
16	Nigeria	F	4	1	1	2	4	3	5	−2
Eliminated in the group stage
17	Ecuador	E	3	1	1	1	4	3	3	0
18	Portugal	G	3	1	1	1	4	4	7	−3
19	Croatia	A	3	1	0	2	3	6	6	0
20	Bosnia and Herzegovina	F	3	1	0	2	3	4	4	0
21	Ivory Coast	C	3	1	0	2	3	4	5	−1
22	Italy	D	3	1	0	2	3	2	3	−1
23	Spain	B	3	1	0	2	3	4	7	−3
24	Russia	H	3	0	2	1	2	2	3	−1
25	Ghana	G	3	0	1	2	1	4	6	−2
26	England	D	3	0	1	2	1	2	4	−2
27	South Korea	H	3	0	1	2	1	3	6	−3
28	Iran	F	3	0	1	2	1	1	4	−3
29	Japan	C	3	0	1	2	1	2	6	−4
30	Australia	B	3	0	0	3	0	3	9	−6
31	Honduras	E	3	0	0	3	0	1	8	−7
32	Cameroon	A	3	0	0	3	0	1	9	−8

Soerfm (talk) 11:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Technical Study Group and All Star Team subsection can have it's own section. We can take the Group out of the tournament team rankings table. We can either take the points out the table or replace it place it with winning percentage. Kingjeff (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

(Could you show it here? Soerfm (talk) 10:36, 15 July 2014 (UTC))

Actually, the Netherlands lost the Semi-Final against Argentina--Pattilord247 (talk) 13:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically, it was a draw. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

As stated above the table, As per statistical convention in football, matches decided in extra time are counted as wins and losses, while matches decided by penalty shoot-outs are counted as draws. - 97rob (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Forward Sports

I tend to see the mentioning of Forward Sports as promotion. It would IMO be appropriate to mentioning it in the article about the ball but I fail to see how they contributed to innovation. Soerfm (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Assists? Or "assists made by goalscorers"?

There is an obvious incorrectness in the "Assists" section of the article as it does not display the assists made by all of the players in the tournament, but rather only shows the assists made by players who also happen to be goalscorers. It should either be removed (it being incorrect) or it should be replaced with correct and sadly unofficial statistics, as FIFA's committee of experts did not make (as far as I know) a proper stats for this category. 83.131.255.213 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

What is FIFA's definition of Assist? Jermaine Jones scored a goal, and according to U.S.Soccer he also made one assist. Harvardton (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

There is none, as laws of the game do not prescribe a rule for keeping track of that category, but football game in general has a rule that for a player to make an assist, the goalscorer being assisted can make at most two touches on the ball before scoring (kick included, of course). I raised this question because there are players like Danijel Pranjić who made an obvious assist by any standards, being a corner-kick taker for a third goal for Croatia against Cameroon, scored by Mandžukić. It is dubious therefore to cite a source that clearly states it keeps track of goalscorers and not assists, as assists are only there to serve as tie-breakers. 89.172.11.144 (talk) 12:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It may not be from FIFA, but UEFA have a list of players with an assist. We'd probably have to cut the list to players with two or more assists though, as there seems to be three and a half (out of the four) pages which have players with just one assist. - 97rob (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Actually, we might not need to cut the list. It'd only be about the same length as the list of goalscorers. - 97rob (talk) 12:26, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It conflicts with information provided by FIFA; I immediately spotted Cuadrado's three assists, and there probably are other differences as well. But I am guessing that if you just go for it based on the UEFA's stats and edit the section, your edit will most likely get reverted. 89.172.11.144 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

There are a few differences, yes, but I think a source which covers all assists would be better than what we had before. The same sort of list, but from FIFA would be the best thing here. I've made the edit, so we'll see how long it lasts there. - 97rob (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I've brought this discussion up at Template talk:2014 FIFA World Cup assists. Any further comments should probably be added there, as this is more linked to the template there than just specifically this article. - 97rob (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Livescores and live updates

Consensus is not to update results during matches and not to update final standings before tournament is over even if such information is published by FIFA before that time. Soerfm (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

--Note to whoever edits this- the Netherlands is not champion, Germany is. See the box to the right with the flags. This is why you shouldn't limit editing to people within the corporation, Wikipedia! Sorry, but the corporate articles are often inaccurate.... -thanks for correcting that so quickly! I hope I haven't hurt any feelings in the company.

Read discussion

Hi everyone. As I believe we will have a lot of problems with livescores and live updating I thought I should bring it up here so everyone knows about it. Based on Wikipedia policies and guidlines we should not provide livescores and live updates. This is according to WP:LIVESCORES and WT:FOOTY consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live scoring and it has also been discussed at other time periods. This also applies to live updates to tables and list such as top goalscorers, squad statistics and other match info, which you can also read about at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 81#Live updates (again). Please wait until matches are finished before adding the scores and statistics. Wikipedia is not for livescoring and should wait for update until sources are updated. I intend to fight against livescores/live updating and I am hoping for everyones help (at 2013–14 Champions League it worked fairly well. Thank you. QED237 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Yeah, there's a good chance of lots of it going on, so I'll keep a lookout. It might be worth putting an edit notice up on all the pages in order to at least try and deter people, as well as the high chance of having to put this and the related articles into semi-protected once the livescores start coming in. - 97rob (talk) 22:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC) I'll watch as well and an edit notice might be a good idea. @Qed237: would you like to make an effort to craft a notice? If not, let me know and I'll see what I can come up with. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC) I have started adding hidden comments as some editors (including me) have done to other football articles. I have no idea how one can create an edit notice, but if you want to I can take a look at it later (when I have the time, which might take a while). QED237 (talk) 22:30, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Wikipedia:Editnotice Let me know if you want help requesting one here and on the group articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC) Something along the lines of Template:Editnotices/Page/2011–12 La Liga would be a good starting point, but changing the text to fit this article better. Might also be worth creating a template to be used, as this sort of edit notice can be applied to a lot of football tournament templates. (Or there might already be one). - 97rob (talk) 13:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC) As I wanted to make this page/thread clean from discussion how the edit notice should look like, and focus on the livscoring info/problem I went to User talk:Walter Görlitz (he seemed/semms to know how to do), to discuss my idea and my plan. I am planning to make a template to be used on many pages as none seem to exist. Thanks for the link to that older template notice, it is worth taking a look at. I have looked at other editnotices for inspiration and I will most likely create the template tomorrow (when I have the time) and see what response it gets before putting it up for use. QED237 (talk) 21:33, 5 June 2014 (UTC) It might be a good idea to let folks joining in know why this is a bad idea per the notice recommendation (I just joined in, apparently from my understanding, it's because of edit conflicts and what not creating incorrect scores.) If you just revert without letting folks know why, they might just keep on doing it, alienating those people who might be helpful elsewhere. Busy Moose (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC) @Busy Moose:, that is a good idea to inform why in the edit notice. However I am a bit torn since as soon as the information gets just a few rows to long people stop reading so it has to be really short. The information can always be read at the consensus pages. The are several minor issues with livescores and live updates depending on who you ask. Edit conflicts with many editors updating score is one, secondly one editor can start updating then leave and articles display a score of example 2-1 for several days when match has ended and readers may think that is final score. Thirdly matches could be interupted during the game and current score will be invalid and all goalscorers added are suddenly wrong. There are more minor things all related to livescoring which could lead to problems, livescoring also often attracts vandals trying to edit other things then score hoping other editors will miss their edits, or they just keep edit wrong scores. QED237 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC) If there's anyone here who wants to contribute to the discussion on edit noitices for live scores, there's a discussion ongoing at WT:FOOTY#Live scores, the next step?. - 97rob (talk) 12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC) @Qed237: Is there a way to put a link to something (WP:LIVESCORES or something else) in like a little asterisk next to the score once the game starts? I think it's definitely important to explain why this is the way it is in a logical and friendly way, but you're right, we don't want it to look ugly. Busy Moose (talk) 22:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC) @Busy Moose:. There are hidden comment when editing not to add livescores and to go to this talkpage for info. Other than that and a editnotice, I dont know what we can do. But you are right it is good to explain why. QED237 (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC) @Walter Görlitz:, @97rob:, @Busy Moose: (I ping everyone in this discussion): I have now created {{Livescores editnotice}} and updated {{Livescores editnotice/sandbox}}, with difference to current version is to be seen at {{Livescores editnotice/testcases}}. The changes was made after input from a user at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football‎#Live_scores.2C_the_next_step.3F, please join discussion there and voice your opinions. As I said please comment, I would like to have it finished to the matches on thursday. QED237 (talk) 12:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Just to verify consensus regarding subarticles, what is your say on using this template on all subarticles such as group A-H, squads, statistics, the group templates and so on? I believe it is needed on all since all have great potential of being subject of live updates (they have all scores and statistics, appearances in squad article). @Walter Görlitz:, @97rob:, @Busy Moose:, you have all contributed in this discussion before, what do you say? QED237 (talk) 22:30, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I agree with adding them to all the 2014 FIFA World Cup articles except for the squad article. The squads article, as far as I can tell, doesn't actually include the data for the players during the world cup, but instead has stats up to the start of the competition (I could be wrong). The rest of the articles though, definitely. - 97rob (talk) 22:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC) In fact, not all of them. Just the group table templates, groups A-H, the main article and statistics. - 97rob (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Except not statistics because that page hasn't been created yet. - 97rob (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC) Of course but the statistics when that article has been created. And I did not know squad was until world cup only but is sound reasonable. QED237 (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC) I have not had the opportunity to look at the notice recently, but I think it should be added to those, yes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2014 (UTC) A reguest has been made at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/2014 FIFA World Cup so lets see what happens. QED237 (talk) 12:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC) That seems fine. Adding a "Thanks!" or something in there couldn't hurt. Busy Moose (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

3 WC in a row for a continent

This factoid has been added and removed from the lead. I'm not sure it's relevant in the lead. It is probably relevant (meaning the sources are talking about this) for the body. This hasn't gained a lot of traction from the sources I'm familiar with to be in the lead. To compare , the sources have made a BIG deal about no European team having won in South America. To me, that is lead worthy. Thoughts?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree; I haven't seen the "3 in a row" record noted outside the two given sources yet. And in some sense, this record already follows from the latter, more notable, fact: There's never been three consecutive World Cups all in or all outside of Europe; and Germany is the second consecutive European team to have won the World Cup outside of Europe, which hasn't happened a single time before. Similarly, only one South American team has ever won in Europe (1958; but WC 1954 was in Europe too); so 3 WC in a row could never have happened before given this strong "home continent advantage".

Actually, no European team has won in America before, so we could remove the "South" qualifier, making the record even more notable: only 4 previous WC were in South America, while 3 more were in North America.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:20, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

The Americas. Not "America".Correctron (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

According to America, "America usually refers to: [The U.S. or] The Americas, a landmass comprising North and South America". So "America" is correct, though ambiguous. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It almost exclusively refers to the US. I'm still annoyed at the current compromise. Correctron (talk) 05:36, 16 July 2014 (UTC)