Jump to content

Talk:FIFA World Cup records and statistics/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

East Germany and predecessor/successor teams in Overall team records

Currently East Germany (GDR) is shown as a Predecessor country, but this is incorrect. GDR is/was a separate team from (West) Germany, and is not considered a predecessor of the current GER team. When FIFA compiles a list similar to the "Overall team records" section (e.g. FACT Sheet - FIFA World Cup: All-time ranking 1930-2014), GDR is included with all the extant teams. Following FIFA's lead seems sensible in this case; I don't think the fact that GDR no longer exists is relevant for this list since it is a compilation of results for every team from all World Cups. Per FIFA, 80 teams have participated in the WC Finals, and IMO all 80 should be in the main table here.

Also, I feel that the current presentation of the Predecessor countries doesn't show the data in the most useful way possible. The "Breakdown of successor teams" format from the European nations page provides better context and is more helpful for understanding how these predecessor/successor teams have performed over time.

I propose moving GDR into the main table and copying the Breakdown format to this page. I'm starting the discussion here first since I've seen many back and forth edits about this topic when this section was on the separate National team page that got merged into this one. If possible, I'd like to get a consensus so we can head off any edit wars. Any objections to this proposal or thoughts on how it could be improved? Wburrow (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree otherwide we eould also have to add Slovakia as breakdown of Czechoslovakia or Croatia to Yugoslavia etc. It is bit complicated. Same with adding points (2 for draw in old.era etc.), Is there are dource how FIFA recognise that? Maybe thete could appear any source in 2030 when will be jubille after first FIFA World Cup? Dawid2009 (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2022‎ (UTC)
For your information, East Germany doesn't exist anymore so it obviously shouldn't be in the main table. What Fifa does what their tables is irrelevant for Wikipedia. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@Aquatic Ambiance, I don't understand why East Germany not existing anymore means they shouldn't be in the main table. They did exist and play in the 1974 World Cup. Their records aren't represented in the main table by any successor team. The purpose of the main table to show the records of all teams from all World Cups, and it is incomplete and inaccurate if East Germany is not included.
For the record, I do think what FIFA includes in their tables is relevant. We follow their successor/predecessor policy for other teams. If we didn't, we'd have the line for CZE only showing their results from the 2006 WC, SRB with only their 3 as Serbia, etc.
I'm restoring GDR to the main table. Please stop removing them and accusing others of vandalizing. Our reverts are in good faith. Wburrow (talk) 16:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Obviously they shouldn't be in the table because the table is active. East Germany doesn't exist anymore so should be in a different section. This table was this way for years and worked perfectly fine. Stop being obnoxious and leave the table alone. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
I'd actually keep Dutch East Indies and Zaire instead of Pilippines and Congo until they quailfy under their new name, but ok. In any case it should not be restricted to active teams only. I mean if Manchester City folded their club this season. You wouldn't remove their stats from the Premier League all time table as well. -Koppapa (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Aquatic Ambiance, you don't understand, Former countries is not for countries that don't exist anymore, it is for associations, that were succeeded by another one. The main table combines those, so this section can be used to see their sole record. The GDR records wasn't combined with another team, it just stands allone. The point that is wasn't included for years isn't valid. It was wrong the entire time then. -Koppapa (talk) 10:10, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
The successor teams are all in the main table. And the former countries section is for those that are not active anymore. It's not that difficult. This distinction is needed for a clearer view. East Germany obviously shouldn't be in a table with teams that are still getting points. It just doesn't make sense. Hope this clears things up. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
It's an all time table, it doesn't matter if some teams don't get points anymore. Would you delete Wimbledon F.C. from Premier_League_records_and_statistics#All-time_Premier_League_table or even Klose, Ronaldo and Müller from the all time FIFA World Cup top goalscorers list? -Koppapa (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
First one, yes. Second one, obviously not. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
When I see a table like this one, my expectation is that all teams that have ever participated are included, regardless of whether the teams are still active. I understand your point that inactive teams no longer gain points, and I think that deciding to have a separate table for defunct teams can be a valid choice in some circumstances. The existence of former teams whose records are included in those of active teams and that GDR is a singular example of a defunct team without a successor certainly complicate the situation. However, as far as I can tell from checking other competitions and sports, the standard practice is to include defunct teams in all-time records/standings tables like this one. Certainly that's what FIFA does, as seen in the link I included originally. And it absolutely does matter what FIFA does: Wikipedia is not OR; it is supposed to be supported by sources and reflect those sources. Is there a source showing a table of team records compiled from all WCs without GDR in the main section? I believe (and correct me if I'm wrong, because I really am not sure and can't find verification) that WikiProject Football considers FIFA to be the most authoritative source for matters of international football.
As far as the history of the page goes, the claim that it's always been this way (with GDR separate) is simply false. I've been referencing this table since qualifications for the 2014 WC, and GDR was in the main table at that time. In fact, GDR was included in the first version of the table added to National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup on 14 March 2010. The table has undergone a number of revisions since then, and I obviously didn't check every edit, but I'm not able to find an example of someone separating GDR out until your edits in July of 2021.
I'd have no objection to using some indication (beyond the current Germany footnote) in the table like a different background color, italics, or something like that to more strongly indicate that GDR is no longer active if you think that's appropriate.
Perhaps we should start an RfC to get a wider range of views on whether defunct teams should be separate from the main table? I'm willing to let matter rest if the consensus is for separation. I know it's important to get this page unlocked before more WC matches take place, so I'd appreciate hearing ideas on how we can come to a conclusion as quickly as possible.
My preference is to return to the format found in June 2021 with GDR in the main table and a breakdown of successor teams (but including improvements made to the table since then, such as adding a Participations column, etc.). In my opinion that does the best job of being complete, consistent with sources, and showing the contributions of each predecessor/successor team to their active team totals in the main table. I think standardizing the column lengths of the successor team tables to match the main table would be a good idea to give the whole thing a more consistent look, and I'd be open to any other ideas for improvement. Wburrow (talk) 19:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
I made a request at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football for folks to weigh in with their views on the topic. Hopefully that can help us reach a consensus Wburrow (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I have fully protected the page until 14 December to prevent more edit warring, but hopefully this issue can be resolved before then. If you find a definitive consensus sooner, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page and I will remove the protection. Anarchyte (talk) 10:43, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Why not just have all countries in one table but use colour/symbol to indicate which ones are "defunct"......? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:58, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree that having a single table would be ideal. The challenge is how to properly display predecessor and successor teams in a way that is consistent with FIFA, historically accurate, intuitive, and consistent. It probably merits its own discussion. I think having separate lines for YUG, FRY, SCG, and SRB (2010-present) that can collapse into a single line for SRB with the data combined would be great, but I don't know how to do it or if it's even possible. I think the Breakdown format is the best compromise I've seen, but it's far from perfect. Wburrow (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I created a draft of a single table and started a new Talk session to discuss. Please take a look if you're interested. Wburrow (talk) 21:32, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that East Germany should still be displayed in the main table, with an indicator to show that they are now defunct. Felixsv7 (talk) 09:27, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • No, countries that don't exist anymore shouldn't be in the same table with countries that can still get points, it doesn't make sense. The "Former countries" section has been working for years, I don't see a reason to change it. It looks more clean. Obviously this is not about removing medals from countries, we aren't talking about the medal table. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
You seem to be the only person to think this way, and it has been this way for about 17 months, not "years". You split it out from one of the 2 duplicated list articles in July 2021. I checked the last edit in every year of both former lists (National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup and All-time table of the FIFA World Cup from 2006/2010 up to 2020) and all of them have East Germany in the main list. Spike 'em (talk) 10:57, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Just to add my voice to those who think East Germany should be listed in the Overall team records table. This is consistent with eg All-time Olympic Games medal table#List of NOCs with medals (sortable & unranked). The suggestion by Wburrow to return to that format with a 'breakdown of successor teams' section is also a good one, and a removal of the 'Former countries' table as this somewhat double counts performances. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Include. FIFA's table includes former countries and Wiki must obey. Dougal18 (talk) 12:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Include. East Germany was a country, its team played in the World Cup, it has no successor. It belongs in the main list like any other country. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • I support GDR being included. Agree with ChrisTheDude as well. It would be useful and historically accurate to have all countries included and indicate which ones are no longer in existence as well as the countries which are their successors/predecessors. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:19, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Keep East Germany. Also, per Koppapa, keep Dutch East Indies and Zaire instead of Pilippines and Congo until they quailfy under their new name. Nehme1499 21:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment Slovakia at the FIFA World Cup#Top goalscorers - Would you add Czechoslovak goalscorers (at least as diffrent oloc column/row), for example? I do not have idea but ask as thning to we should mind. Dawid2009 (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:28, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to include former countries within the main table has formed. I will unprotect the page now. Please note that further edit warring may result in warnings or blocks. Anarchyte (talk) 11:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I've moved East Germany back into the main list and renamed the subsequent table. Spike 'em (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
Well done Maxaxa (talk) 11:41, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 9 December 2022

Eliminated in the first round the most times (and therefore most appearances without reaching the second round) 8, Scotland (1954...

This should read simply: Most appearances without reaching the second round 8, Scotland (1954...

The reason for this edit is that "eliminated...most times" is a slightly different record, mentioned elsewhere on this page. It is also 8 but is shared with South Korea and Mexico. Pete Ridges (talk) 11:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Terasail[✉️] 23:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Excessive records / lack of sources

Is there any inclusion criteria on the records listed, or is it just "something 1 editor finds interesting"? There are far too many records to make this page useful. There is also a woeful lack of sourcing which leads me to think that much of it is WP:OR. I've tagged all the sections that have absolutely no references, but there are currently only 64 refs (reused 23 times more) for the whole article. If my regexp is correct, there are 457 semi-coloned records and 23 tables, so almost 400 (80%) of them are unreferenced. Spike 'em (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

"is it just "something 1 editor finds interesting"?" > Yes. This problem plagues Wikipedia records/statistics list pages to be fair and is not unique to this one. On balance, I think the best approach is to try and cull the worst of it but to save efforts improving other parts of the site rather than trying to explain to people why "Most consecutive 5th–8th-place finishes" is not a particularly useful contribution. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:34, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
ItsKesha removed sections which contained original research. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
They have removed some OR, there is still swathes of it in the article. It should really be the case that every record is sourced, both for verification purposes and to show that the record is actually mentioned in the real world. Spike 'em (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
And has now been reverted. I support removing any unreferenced record. Spike 'em (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree moving anything unsourced, contrary to Mishary94's reversions. Any unsourced content should be removed, and only re-added if soureable and consensus here to re-add it. Because there's a huge amount of fandom junk in this article that doesn't need to be in an encyclopedia- this isn't FIFA World Cup Fandom. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
These stats are important because of the importance of the tournament, they should not be considered "nonsense", I will add more sources. --Mishary94 (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
They are utterly trivial and not discussed in reliable sources. Spike 'em (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
No, not trivial. Are stats like a team that won seven matches in one tournament (a record) trivial? Stop --Mishary94 (talk) 23:15, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Some are not trivial, but most are. There should be fewer than 100 listed, not 500. Spike 'em (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
You keep restoring a record that states Most consecutive fourth-place finishes: No country has finished 4th in two consecutive tournaments How is this in anyway worthy of mention? Spike 'em (talk) 23:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
So you must remove just the trivial stats, don't remove them all. --Mishary94 (talk) 00:04, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
You are now edit warring. What is significant about any of the records you are blindly restoring? Where are any of them mentioned in reliable sources? You said you were going to source them: I suggest you either source them or revert your last edit. Spike 'em (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Who determines the importance of statistics? I think these stats are very important and you think they are trivial, so please don't remove them as long as you think they are not important based on your own opinion. --Mishary94 (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
We have multiple editors saying there are too many and just you saying to keep them. Please explain why just a single one of the records you want to keep is important and why no reliable sources show the same information. They are clearly the work of WP editors and need to be removed as Original Research / unsourced. As mentioned you are on 4 reverts, so I think you should self-revert. Spike 'em (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
And as to your question Who determines the importance of statistics? The records appearing in third party, reliable sources would be a start. As to another guidelines : WP:NOTSTATS Spike 'em (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
When I ask myself who is the team that scored the most goals in one tournament in the strongest and best competition in the world, and I read the statistics page, I do not find them under the pretext that they are ridiculous statistics! There are important information and numbers, and the reader is looking for them, and you remove them without discussion. This is illogical. --08:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
That record has never been removed. You are destroying perfectly good updates with your indiscriminate reverts. Edit warring notice board it is. Spike 'em (talk) 09:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
Just remove unsourced and trivial stats (need to determine what should stay than of course). And that much flags is just terrible looking. Kante4 (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

- I'm starting up an AfD on this. I don't think there is a valid list criteria, most is either unsourced, or the sources don't cover what is being stated. We aren't an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information about a subject, and certainly fails WP:NOTSTATS. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Bold suggestion: remove all not sourced information

Where is source that Messi started play as captain in 2010 and has record for most matches as captain? Dawid2009 (talk) 18:38, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I think this is very wise. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:49, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Which stats and records should be on the page?

As per the above discussion and the issues surrounding this page, it needs to be discussed which stats and records should be included. I'll start with the below suggestions, best to limit to top 10s where applicable:

Tournament summary is fine but could include runners-up. Overall team summary is fine but could include best finish.
Player - most goals, appearances, clean-sheets, squads. (Maybes - assists, man-of-the-match awards, oldest and youngest by goal and appearance, fastest goals, worst discipline)
Hosts - how they have fared
Champions - champions record per tournament, maybe how they then fared as champions?
Managers - most games, tournaments, (maybe - different teams)
Confederation - general records like tournament wins/finalist and overall number of qualified teams.
Matches - biggest wins, most goals, attendance records (maybe - most cards)

All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd only really want well sourced information. We do seem to want to include info that isn't sourced on this page. Most of the player "statistics" are just trivial information that is unsourced. Like "most appearances as substitute" or "Scoring in every match of a team in a World Cup". I'd really want only things that sources actually talk about - and actually make the claim that is being made.
On that is "worldfootball.net" a reliable source? I couldn't find any details on who writes the site. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:00, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
There is also a problem with using 'sourced' as the only form of verification that even quite reliable/high quality journalism is liable to peppering sports reporting with slightly contrived statistics. Indeed there is a whole genre of football reporting which goes out of its way to find such statistics - the reporter Richard Jolly is a specialist at this, but many others do it too. Good examples would be consecutive placements or most eliminations at a certain stage. Mexico's record of most second round eliminations is an interesting statistic in the context of a discussion of Mexican football on the world stage, and is widely reported and so would be easily sourced; but it is probably not a worthy stand alone record to note in and of itself. To get the page meaningfully sorted I think it would require both a stipulation that the statistic is sourced and some agreed judgement as to what counts as a viable stat.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
To that end by the way I think that ItsKesha's list is a very good starting point for what should be on here.Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:44, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I totally agree. I'm saying the list above is grand, but only if well sourced.Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
Since we're on the subject, it might be a good idea to set up guidelines and standards for these kind of pages in general so we don't have to go through this every time. There's many more pages like this. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any need to reinvent the wheel here. Policy is already clear on this: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. (WP:PROPORTION). What is needed is enforcement. TompaDompa (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

I'd expect any record / statistic on this page to be covered in detail in an article in a reliable source (i.e. more than just a passing mention in a match preview / report). Spike 'em (talk) 13:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:FIFA World Cup Comprehensive team results by tournament

Template:FIFA World Cup Comprehensive team results by tournament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Italy Quarterfinals

Italy lost a quarterfinal in 2002.

It should be changed that they are a team that never lost in quarterfinals. Croatia is a team with most appearances in quarterfinal with no losses - 3 (1998, 2018, 2022) Dagada11 (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Most players scoring at least seven goals in a tournament

To update. Andreas Ederus Thorunensis (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Deleted it instead. Spike 'em (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Debut of National Teams

Can this section be retained? doktorb wordsdeeds 14:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Why the deletion?

There is no need to delete this page. We all just need to make an effort to add sources and remove unnecessary content. Nintentoad125 (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nintentoad125: respectfully, this is not the right page to place this message. As the notification messages explain, you are invited to express your opinion at the dedicated discussion as well the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 16:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Bad edit

removing the comprehensive team result part was a bad decision 37.111.211.30 (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I fear that certain editors are putting "purity of Wikipedia rules" over "purpose of collected information". doktorb wordsdeeds 10:20, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I feel like some are putting over WP:ILIKEIT it over integrity of the encyclopedia. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:25, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I feel that we could be stuck in an English politeness loop if we carry on typing like this. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding ARG to "most consecutive successful qualification attempts"

Last World Cup Argentina didn't qualify for was Mexico '70. Since then:

  • Qualified for 1974 (1)
  • Hosts in 1978
  • Qualified as champions for 1982
  • Qualified for 1986 (2)
  • Qualified as champions for 1990
  • Qualified for 1994 (3)
  • Qualified for 1998 (4)
  • Qualified for 2002 (5)
  • Qualified for 2006 (6)
  • Qualified for 2010 (7)
  • Qualified for 2014 (8)
  • Qualified for 2018 (9)
  • Qualified for 2022 (10)

However, if West Germany and Germany are considered the same team (as FIFA does) the record is held by that country that qualified without sport-related interruption since 1934, was banned in 1950, was the host in 1974 and 2006, and qualified as champions for 1958, 1978 and 1990. Therefore, 21-(1+2+3)=15 consecutive qualifications. Brazil also played the 22 World Cups; was invited in 1930, qualified as champions for 1962, 1966, 1974, 1998 and 2006 and as hosts for 1950 and 2014, then 22-(1+5+2)=14. 190.188.100.75 (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

But these records are different. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 07:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FIFA_World_Cup_records_and_statistics/Archive_2&oldid=1219743107"