Talk:1994 FIFA World Cup

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

Referees uniforms[edit]

The article states that
"The finals were the first time FIFA decided to experiment with the style of jerseys worn by officials, foregoing the traditional black. They could choose between burgundy, yellow or silver shirts depending on what was necessary to avoid a clash of colors with the two competing teams. This custom has since been followed, but with black shirts added as an option later."
Although there are video footage from the 1978 World Cup in which referees could use red shirts to avoid color clashes with dark teams' jersey (e.g. Scotland): see [1]
I think that the entry should be reviewed. It is true indeed that black was not an option for referees' shirts in 1994, but it makes it look like there was no alternative before ("This custom has since been followed, but with black shirts added as an option later") which is clearly false given the video above.
--37.116.67.52 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

East Rutherford[edit]

I changed the knockout bracket to list East Rutherford and not New Jersey, seeing as the town/city location is given for all of the other matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Official Fake Sheep (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations![edit]

This page is impressively put together. I was looking for some details on the final game between Brazil and Italy--and here it was all put together in perfect form. Thank you, and congratulations! ---Rednblu | Talk 03:46, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Move[edit]

These lines were deleted in this edit

This edition was a success by FIFA authorities in a country where the Football is a sport with a little fans, but in inmigrant people who work and live in United States especially Latin the sport has support. For this circunstance and to move to the American white people and for wake interest and passion to soccer ( also know it to football ) the event choose like slogan "Making Football History"

Comment : Badly phrased. Too complex even to rewrite. Tintin

Requested move[edit]

Football World Cup 1994 → 1994 FIFA World Cup – following the consensus of naming the World Cup articles as FIFA World Cup in Wikipedia, and consistency of naming the major international football tournaments.

Discuss here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Competitions#Requested move of Football World Cup articles. --Pkchan 10:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Points per Match - 3 or 2 ??[edit]

Hello,

I couldn't overlook the fact that this article claims that the 1994 world cup was the first world cup to incorporate the 3 point system per win. Actually, the fact is that the 1994 world cup still used the 2 point system per victory, the article still holds this critical mistake and should be changed as soon as possible. In the 1994 World Cup itwas feared that a team with three draws could equal the number of points by a team with one victory and one draw. The three point rule was created in 1994 immediately after the world cup and was therefore not applied at this tournament. This section of the article needs to change. Thanks, Kiske 21:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The calculated points are different on this page to Yahoo's (official?) site:

FIFA 1994 results according to 'official' Yahoo site

Any idea which is right? Artbristol 14:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 1994 World Cup was the first to use 3 points for a win - it was after the overly defensive 1990 World Cup that the 3 points for a win was first introduced. 88.110.46.59 20:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

group E[edit]

i think it is noteworthy to add in trivia section that every team in group E, had identical Pld, W, D L, GF, GA and GD, as far as i know for the first time in history

Recent edits by SndrAndrss[edit]

I really think we should be linking to the match reports at FIFA web sites. I can't see the point in changing the links. Also, I don't think it matters which how the teams are ordered in the footballboxes. I'd support changing it to the ordering used in the match reports (or any consistent ordering) but we should pick a particular order and stop changing it. I've reverted some of SndrAndrss'd edits, which are less than helpful, and I've left comments on their talk page, but I have had no response. Please can we have some sort of consensus before making these sorts of edits? --StuartBrady (Talk) 13:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute agreement here. There's no way you can claim a 3rd party site to be a better source to cite compared to the "official" site, and you should also follow the format of the linked-to site (e.g. for the order the teams are displayed) for the benefit of the reader. -- DeLarge 13:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is completely and utterly irrelevant which order the teams are in, as for all the matches with the exception of those of the United States, neither team can be usefully construed as being at home. WP:LAME for this one. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Foxboro Stadium[edit]

Foxboro Stadium is not in Boston, it is in Foxboro, which is something like 20 miles away from Boston (maybe more). However, SndrAndrss has 'corrected' all of the Foxboro Stadium references in the matches to indicate that it is in Boston. I am now going to change these back.--Robotforaday 13:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same for Rose Bowl (in Pasadena), Stanford Stadium (in Palo Alto), Pontiac Silverdome (in Pontiac), and Giants Stadium (in East Rutherford). The "Venues" section already explains the relation between the cities the stadiums are actually located, and the names used by FIFA, which are the metro areas. So please stop editing them! Chanheigeorge 18:03, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the actual towns where the stadia are located should be mentioned, but the name of the official FIFA venue should be used as default. Ricklongo (talk) 19:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Famous Moments[edit]

I added a famous moments section including Baggio's missed penalty kick and Salenko's five goal performance. I think it can be improved though. MegasAllexandros 21:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Words like "best known for Baggio's penalty miss", "tragic ending" and "hero" lack neutrality. Also, I'm sure there are plenty of people who remember Baggio's great performance rather than his penalty miss. Besides, Baggio still played in 1998. In any case, I think the Baggio part should probably be moved to the Roberto Baggio article. - ChaChaFut 02:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Baggio's great performances are included in the article. Baggio's penalty miss fits a tragic hero ending, but feel free to remove it. Heraklis 07:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey is not a City[edit]

The "Venues" image which lists the location of the stadiums refers to the town of East Rutherford, New Jersey simply as "New Jersey." If each other local is represented by the city it is in, why not East Rutherford? Aufs klo 03:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biggest Memory[edit]

I think it should be include the famous moment between Ireland and Mexico when the 4th offical would not let John Aldrige on to the pitch.This was all picked up on camera and so was the strong language that followed from Aldo.-the-muffin-man- 22:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was substituting Tommy Coyne, who had already left the pitch. No wonder they wouldn't let him - according to this report, FIFA think Tommy Coyne was playing for Mexico...and a Dennis "Irvin" seemed to be playing too. No. 7 on this list gives some more info.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  23:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the match results and group standings in this article are wrong[edit]

Someone should correct them —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.36.9.152 (talk) 16:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The official FIFA World Cup site is not present at the moment (because it is being redesigned), but according to this site, http://www.planetworldcup.com/CUPS/1994/wc94index.html (which is unofficial), some of the match results and group standings are wrong. 88.110.46.59 20:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? At a glance they seem to tally.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed when I wrote the above comment that the Group D results and standings were wrong, but I looked again and now they seem to be correct. 88.109.5.230 16:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ticket image copyright[edit]

I've got several tickets from the 1994 World Cup, some of them never used (the bottom part wasn't ripped off). I was wondering if I scanned them and uploaded them, would it be a copyright violation? MicroX 03:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Wc1994.jpg[edit]

Image:Wc1994.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Switzerland v Romania correction[edit]

Please note the fourth Swiss goal was scored by Georges Bregy, not Adrian Knup as is wrongly states in the official match report. Knup didn't touch the ball. Mjefm (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What basis do you have for this assertion? Although FIFA have often gotten things wrong in the past, I've seen no sources that give Bregy as the scorer of the fourth goal, and even then I wouldn't want to second guess FIFA. – PeeJay 09:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification[edit]

It is not true that no British teams competed in that World Cup. Ireland is a British island so Republic of Ireland is a British team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fn1m (talk • contribs) 11:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland is not part of the UK, which is what people refer to when they say "British team". chandler 14:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Ireland may lie on one of the so-called "British Isles", but it is not a part of the United Kingdom. The phrase "British team" refers exclusively to the teams of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. – PeeJay 20:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Britain is an island which consists of three countries Scotland, England and Wales. Ireland is a separate island. Only people from the island of Britain are British. Most Irish people are offended at being considered part of the "British" isles and certainly do not consider themselves to be British. Especially the Republic of Ireland. I suggest you look at the discussion page on the British Isles article for some insight.--Limericksham (talk) 09:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such island as "Britain". The term you are searching for is "Great Britain". And anyway, nobody gives two hoots whether Irish people get offended at being considered part of the British Isles; it's a fact of geography and there's nothing you can do about it. – PeeJay 11:29, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, poor PJ. Did I offend you? Are you sure nobody gives two hoots about it or just you? I think there's plenty of people who give two hoots about what it's called- your own government has discouraged its use. They give a hoot obviously. British media and academics have also discouraged its use. So obviously there are plenty of people, PJ, who give a hoot. Even if nobody gave a hoot, would that be ok, PJ? Is it a fact PJ? There's nothing we can do about it? Who says? You? Come into the 21st century PJ. Peking is Beijing, Bombay is now Mumbai, Madras is Chennai; no amount of keyboard bashing by a little Englander is going to change them back. The days of Empire have long gone PJ, along with your lot telling everyone else what to do.--Limericksham (talk) 11:50, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said "Nobody gives two hoots whether Irish people get offended", not that nobody cares about the situation. The common term for the group of islands upon which the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland lie is "the British Isles", and until a more common term comes into use, I don't see any reason why we should stop using "the British Isles". – PeeJay 18:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

Per long-standing consensus and policy, we don't publish "final standings" as the world cup only has 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. To infer otherwise is not permitted, unless FIFA changes its rules. --John (talk) 03:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Knockout stage questions[edit]

Why was the knockout stage as it was?

In Italia´90 the winners and runner up of a group wouldn´t meet until final where as in USA ´94 Brazil meet sweden (Winners and runner up group B) in semifinal. The same would have been for winners and runner up of Group D (Nigeria and Bulgaria), Group F (Netherlands and Saudi Arabia).

Winners and runner up of Group A (Romania and Switzerland) Group C (Germany and Spain)and E (Mexico and Ireland) where not able to meet again until the final of the world cup if they would have got there.

Italia ´90 The winners and runners up where not able to meet until final. The four best third-placed teams did would not meet any team from thier own group until semifinal - and in three out of four cases the would have meet the winners of thier group. Mexico ´86 was the same, though it was two thirdplaced teams that where able to meet the groups runner-up in semi-final, and two too meet the groupwinner.

In Korea/japan 2002 Brazil again faced a team from thier own group in semifinal - Turkey. As far ar I´ve understood it this was due too keep teams in one Country until final. It was the same in Euro 2008 in Austria-Switerland (Spain face thier runner up Russia in the semifinals) though not for the Euro2000 in Belgien/Niederlande —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.30.75.7 (talk) 21:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pure speculation, but it may have been to minimize travel, as the US is a heck of a lot bigger in area than most of the countries that had previously hosted (even Mexico is only about a third of the US's area.) oknazevad (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I think there is some truth in that but I don´t think that´s all. There is a "west coast knockout" and a "east coast knock out" but as I wrote some groups the winner and runner-up where divided to each side. My memory tells me that winning a groups was equal to travel less - but then the runner-ups could have gone over to the other coast (i.e Argentina as a third placed team). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.234.168.203 (talk) 01:27, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

US English[edit]

Unfortunately, recent unconstructive edits have sought to restore UK English. This article "has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation"; therefore, it "uses the English of that nation." See WP:ENGVAR. - PhilipR (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The dates/times given are all in Brit-english and need to be changed. ~DC Let's Vent 19:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a neutral observer, the application of WP:ENGVAR becomes less obvious in dealing with international sporting tournaments like this one. In such international sporting competitions whose host countries vary from year-to-year (or in this case, every four years), there tends to be no consensus on each article having "strong ties" to that particular host nation. The example I always like give is the featured article 2005 United States Grand Prix. Although that event took place in the United States, is not written in American English; instead the national variety was chosen per WP:RETAIN. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting point about international tournaments, and I'd like to follow that discussion as it develops. But it may well be irrelevant for this article.
  • This is the very first revision of the article, but it appears to mix variants liberally. ("Bulgaria has not won...", but, "defence")
  • The next substantive edit uses US spellings center and defense. The only hint of ambiguity I see is in the term Football World Cup, which was apparently the canonical name of the World Cup main article at that time. Clearly the effect of this edit was to render the article in US English.
  • It probably doesn't matter, but this is the first edit with substantial date formatting. It also uses US style.
Per WP:ENGVAR, when there is no strong connection with the subject matter, "the variety chosen by the first major contributor should be adopted." However, "where an article that is not a stub shows no signs of which variety it is written in, the first person to make an edit that disambiguates the variety is equivalent to the first major contributor." It seems to indicate that the style for this article should be US English if we deem it to be strongly connected to the United States and US English if we don't so deem it.
My opinion is that there is a strong connection to the subject matter (just as there was in 1966 and 2010), but for this article it apparently shouldn't matter. - Regards, PhilipR (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, 2005 United States Grand Prix isn't the clearest precedent. Comments justifying the UK spelling point to the paucity of North American entrants in the competition. - PhilipR (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm way late, but this topic is relevant to me. Should the 1934 and 1990 WC articles replace "football" with calcio just because Italy hosted both editions? CharlieBroadway (talk) 17:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not on English-language Wikipedia, no. But yes for Italian Wikipedia. And for whatever it's worth, "soccer" was a commonly used term in England when they hosted in 1966, and was so until the 1980s. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 02:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Netherlands v Brazil.[edit]

Times of goalscorers are wrong. I'm not sure of the correct times myself, but I know that Brazil went 2-0 up, not The Netherlands.

Also Aron Winter scored the equaliser against Brazil, not Marco Van Basten, who I'm not sure was even in the Dutch squad for the tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.201.163 (talk) 13:08, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page doesn't say anything about Marco van Basten. It says Romario and Bebeto scored first for Brazil, Bergkamp and Winter brought the Netherlands level and Branco scored the winner nine minutes from the end. – PeeJay 13:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Well it did when I wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.201.163 (talk) 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 5 August 2012[edit]

It should be added in introduction of article, that this edition of World Cup is first to use three points for win 82.139.5.13 (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Mdann52 (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there's mentioned in article that is the first edition of WC to use 3 points for win. BTW You must see at group stage section for example a team having 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss had 4 points (3 points for win + 1 point for draw) for example all teams in Group E. Even if i have no sources to show it, what i've said is true. --82.139.5.13 (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: I don't find this info important enough to add to the introduction. Yes it is mentioned in the body of the article (without a source), and I think that's enough. Please also remember that Wikipedia is about Verifiability, not truth. Mentoz86 (talk) 19:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Truth is also important thing --82.139.5.13 (talk) 21:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 28 May 2013[edit]

In the article 1994_FIFA_World_Cup on the section of the Group E. Italy vs Ireland is twice once at the begining and once right before the end. the game that ended 1-1 is actually italy vs mexico 148.237.67.15 (talk) 23:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thank you for pointing that out. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Date format[edit]

I think you're wrong on the date format issue. I can't think of stronger national ties to the topic of that article than those to the arranging country. In my view, your position is unsustainable. Conversely, one could argue that since the sports of basketball and baseball were more or less invented in the US, all articles on competitions in these sports – such as for instance the European basketball championships – should have MDY dates, regardless of where they are held or in what context. To my knowledge, it isn't so.

The issue has been raised in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#WP:STRONGNAT and international events hosted by the United States. Please participate in the discussion.

Regards

HandsomeFella (talk) 12:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent points. See above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand, Walter. Have you changed your mind? HandsomeFella (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No change is required in my mind, particularly since STRONGNAT does not state that international events hosted by the United States should use the US's date format. It has strong national ties to 32 nations in all.
The discussion above was related to US English and no decision to change was made. No change should be made until consensus is reached and the international nature of this event and its strong ties to non-US nations seems to imply that both international spelling and date formats should be maintained.
Ultimately, its editors decided on international date format and spelling when creating: such were the strong ties to the US when the article was created. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:35, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're not easy to communicate with, Walter. If you don't agree with my points, why do you think they are "excellent"? It's a little bit confusing. If it was irony, it went over my head.
With "the discussion above", are you referring to the section I linked to? The only discussion there is about the date format.
Sure, the article has strong national ties to all countries participating, but you must admit that it has an even stronger tie to the arranging country. The 1996 Olympics in Atlanta has MDY dates, despite its strong ties to no less than 197 participating countries. There's the strength of your argument.
Ok, there was a discussion then, but it's kind of hard to take the outcome of that discussion as proof of (the presence or absence of) strong national ties then. Nothing stops us from reaching another conclusion now, and similarly, that would be no proof of anything whatsoever.
HandsomeFella (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#WP:STRONGNAT and international events hosted by the United States. for some time now. No strong arguments for dmy dates have been heard, and additionally, it has turned out that the date format introduced by the first major contributor was indeed mdy dates, so per both WP:STRONGNAT and WP:DATERET, the date format should be mdy. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No for all the reasons stated and American nationalism has no place here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion linked to above. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
HandsomeFella, I don't think the discussion you linked to really comes to any specific conclusion. Either date format works fine, but for consistency's sake throughout the series of articles on FIFA World Cups, I would say let's stick to DMY. Why waste your time changing a date format that literally anyone can understand? I very much doubt that anyone used to the MDY format would struggle to read DMY just because the month and day switched places. – PeeJay 16:47, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We're all wasting time here, aren't we? And we all choose what to waste it on. Sure, everyone understands both formats, but what do we have guidelines for? And this is an individual tournament. HandsomeFella (talk) 16:52, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We also have WP:CONSENSUS and MoS Date guidelines defer to it.

  • "unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on article talk".

That's what we have here. We had a decision to change to the current ate format. The article evolved in the new date format and there was no edit warring over the format. Consensus and the history of editing is clear that we have the correct format.

There were no strong national ties to football when the tournament was being run. Viewership numbers clearly show that. It's like hosting the world cup of cricket in the United States to attempt to increase its fanbase there. USSF wanted to host the tournament in the US to increase the fanbase. It worked. If a future world cup were to be hosted in the US, I would suggest that it might have stronger national ties at that point, but not in 1994. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the discussion, Walter. You mean we had consensus – then, back in 1994? Or when the article was created? Or when? (I'd like to see some evidence for that, by the way.) Regardless, consensus can change over time, see WP:BRD process. A consensus once achieved, possibly on weak grounds, does not preclude future consensuses. It does not stand forever. So any reference to a previous consensus is hereby invalidated. What's relevant is any current consensus that can be achieved.
A tournament obviously has strong national ties to the country arranging it, it would be absurd otherwise. There might not have been very strong national ties to football in the US, which btw is not what we're discussing here, but arranging the tournament definitely created ties to it.
HandsomeFella (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have consensus. There is a difference between consensus and unanimity. Just because you disagree doesn't mean consensus has changed. I linked to the guideline. Read it. Understand it. And don't be patronizing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know what consensus is. I have read it. I have understood it. I know that consensus does not require unanimity. I know that consensus is not the same thing as majority. I know that consensus is based on strength of argument, and a will to compromise. I also know that claiming that there is consensus does not necessarily mean that there is consensus.
Speaking of strength of argument, don't you think it's time you come forward with something other than claiming that there is consensus? Based on your comments here, I suspect that you initially misinterpreted this as a discussion on whether football has (or had) strong national ties to the US, while the discussion in reality is on whether this particular tournament has strong national ties to the US. I'm saying that it has, based on the fact that it was arranged there.
I was not patronizing. (I assume that you're referring to the "welcome" remark.) I was mildly ironic. I'm surprised to hear that complaint from someone who has accused me and Jojhutton for American nationalism, which is a personal attack – and by definition missing the target in my case, since I'm European – while hardly participating in the discussion himself, other than with snappy comments. Based on those comments – "Excellent point" for instance (later comments apparently indicate you mean the opposite) – I think most people would say that you are the one who is patronizing.
But never mind that, let's cut to the chase, and see where the consensus is documented. I assume you can link to it, or provide a diff.
HandsomeFella (talk) 19:37, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you think you know what consensus is, but you are the only one arguing against something that has been established and you have two editors here and others at the guideline page arguing against your opinion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:53, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So arguing is disallowed, unless you agree with previous consensus. That's a novel take on it. HandsomeFella (talk) 17:11, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing, even arguing, is allowed, but consensus has not changed. I doubt that it will. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

O. J. Simpson[edit]

I recently say a ESPN Documentary called "June 17, 1994" which was about many notable sporting events that happened that day which were overshadowed by O. J. Simpson's run from the police, including the opening day of the 1994 World Cup. Should it be mentioned in this article, especially since the Spain-South Korea game was going on during the chase. GoPurple'nGold24 02:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other trivia[edit]

Apparently, the guy who subsequently fixed a great deal of European soccer, Dan Tan, lost $1.5 million on this WC when he was starting out and fled Singapore. If we're adding trivia… — LlywelynII 08:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Italy scored 8 goals in the tournament (averaging 1.143 goals a game) - if I am counting correctly - a record low for a finalist? Tsinfandel (talk) 07:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina 1990's 5 goals is the record low. Roposs (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The heat at the Pontiac games[edit]

I remember that when they played in the Pontiac Silverdome the temperature was unusually hot (in the high 90s). I never found out why, whether it was FIFA regulations or if it was equipment failure. Did FIFA forbid the use of air conditioning, and if so, why? I would think this point should be included in the article, since it would affect game play.209.179.57.76 (talk) 01:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 1994 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Host city name vs stadium location[edit]

I made this edit reformatting the table (and reverted by SounderBruce for a couple of reasons:

  • For the top, we should be using the venue title used by FIFA and in official documents. These aren't meant to be venue locations - they're host city names. You can see how official FIFA match reports use "Boston", not "Foxborough, Massachusetts", "Detroit", not "Pontiac, Michigan", and "San Francisco", not "Stanford, California". Additionally, Pasadena is used as the location of the Rose Bowl (and no mention of "Los Angeles area" is made, and it's "New York/New Jersey", not "New York City area". In fact, there's no mention of "XYZ area" in press documents.
  • It makes sense to pair the location with the stadium name, because that's where the games were actually played, not the more international recognizable host city used by the press and in promotional documents.
  • Pairing the location cities with the stadiums looks cleaner: see 2026 FIFA World Cup#Candidate cities and venues - the top row will just show the host city name, and the site cities can be in a lower row where you can stand a little more clutter.
  • I think the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME applies here. Reliable sources use Detroit, Boston and San Francisco, etc.
  • Even if we don't flip the order, I'd avoid the parenthetical "xxx area" notation which amounts to original research.

P.S. @SounderBruce: I'm not interested in having redundant discussion, so I think whatever we settle on here applies to 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup#Venues as well? Ytoyoda (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The venue names and locations should reflect reality as described in the official bid book, not in the often-wrong archived match summaries. It makes more sense to have locations kept together and a clean cell just for the venue name. For 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup, this work had already been done and had been vetted in the FA review, so changing it up now seems pointless. SounderBruce 05:02, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we're reflecting the "reality as described in the official bid book", then I'm not sure why we're using phrasing that's inconsistent with the bid book. Also, the reality is that Detroit, Boston and San Francisco were the host cities, even if the actual venues were located outside of the city limits. There's nothing incorrect about labeling the host cities as Detroit, Boston and San Francisco, and then clarifying that the stadiums were in Pontiac, Foxborough and Stanford. Ytoyoda (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We go with what the sources called them at the time. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: That's why I think it makes sense to use the host city name first (so lead with Detroit, New York/New Jersey, San Francisco and Boston), then put the locations in parentheses, either directly below or with the venue names (use (Pontiac, Michigan), (East Rutherford, New Jersey) etc).
I think it's important to note that FIFA and the local organizing committee used the host city names the way some professional sports teams are known by the cities they're close to, not where they actually play (like the New York Jets or the San Francisco 49ers).
As far as sources go, you can look at:
And to give you a sense of how the organizing committee and FIFA were communicating things, you can look:
There's obviously some room for argument, that it's clear that organizations weren't "wrong" for using these host city names, as SounderBruce suggests. Governing bodies, organizers and news outlets were very intentional about referring to Boston and Detroit as venues instead of Foxborough and Pontiac.
If we want to keep the host city names and locations together, I think this edit makes the most sense? Ytoyoda (talk) 17:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall, for other tournaments, it's usually : City on one row, stadium on another. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which I think is fine. But the issue with World Cups held in the U.S. is that many of the venues are located in municipalities outside of the host cities' borders. My position is that the host city name (i.e. Boston, San Francisco) should be displayed more prominently than the stadium locations, since that's what official documents and news outlets do. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like I've gotten too wordy in explaining my edits, so here's a summary:

  1. Host city names (Boston, San Francisco, etc) should be more prominent than the stadium locations (Foxborough, Stanfod, etc) per WP:RS.
  2. I think the stadium locations should be displayed in small type with the stadium names (see 2026 FIFA World Cup#United States), but I think it's fine if they appear under the host city name instead.
  3. We shouldn't be using terminology not used in official documents (i.e. "Los Angeles area")
  4. The host city name for the NYC region is "New York/New Jersey". That's what we should be using too.
  5. Official documents don't add state names to host city names (i.e. just "Dallas", not "Dallas, Texas"). That's what we should do as well.

I think No. 2 is the only part where we could have wiggle room over - everything else aligns with WP:RS and WP:COMMONNAME. Ytoyoda (talk) 13:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, fine- so I've added "Los Angeles" to the venues section because during the broadcasts every time there was a game at the Rose Bowl it would be referred to as being in Los Angeles, Stanford in San Francisco, Giants Stadium in New York/New Jersey, etc. I wasn't able to find a copy of the 1988 bid book. --Hmdwgf (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't able to find the bid book either, but I think there are enough official-adjacent documents that use host city names instead of the actual venue locations. There were some inconsistencies with Pasadena/Los Angeles though. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree with this change in the entirety - for instance, the Pontiac Silverdome is over 20 miles from Detroit "as the crow flies" and most contemporary articles discuss the games being played in Pontiac, not "Detroit." The World Cup final brings up really only classified ads and agate for "World Cup Final" "1994" "Los Angeles." Games were described as being in the place where they were played in 1994, and we should keep it that way. SportingFlyer T·C 18:43, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about the reporting on the Silverdome? Most of the sources I dug up in reference to the USA vs Switzerland refer to "Detroit", and I've already listed the contemporary sources that use "Boston" and "San Francisco". This isn't unusual — most of the reporting during last year's Women's World Cup referred to the final match in Lyon, despite the match being played outside the city borders, 11 km from the Lyon city center. It's the nature of holding a tournament in a country where the large stadiums are often in suburbs in locations that are unrecognizable to foreign visitors. But that (or the physical distance) is beside the point. The host cities were called what they were called. Ytoyoda (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the names of the locations FIFA and the news media used for this tournament, I feel there are 3 problems with referring to a stadium's location by just using the local town's name and not (or no reference to) the metropolitan area the stadium is located in. People in England do that all the time because English people know little old England very well and there isn't much to memorize where different cities, counties and towns are. Unfortunately, the United States (and also Canada, for that matter) doesn't work that way. It is such a big country and there are so many places that specificity in this regard does in fact matter.
1. There are multiple towns with the names of these suburbs. For instance: there are 9 different towns in the United States that are called "Pasadena" or have the name "Pasadena" in them. There are no other places in the United States called Los Angeles, Detroit, New York City, Boston or San Francisco.
2. Places like Pontiac, East Rutherford, Pasadena, Stanford and Foxborough are officially part of the Detroit, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay Area and Boston metropolitan areas, respectively. These are not towns in the middle of nowhere, and if so, this Wikipedia article (as we have all decided here) would not include it as part of any metropolitan area. The Pontiac Silverdome (which for the record doesn't exist anymore) was right on the edge of the Detroit metropolitan area. Any further beyond that, and you're out of the Detroit metro area. Beyond that, it's just farmland.
3. The major cities involved when these games were held in are far better known to a wider range of people than their suburbs are. All 9 of those cities are famous, and if you were flying into the United States, all of those cities- and I mean all of them- you would visibly see on a map, a departures or arrivals screen at a major airport (Miami, Pearson, Heathrow, de Gaulle, Narita, etc.) or be seen on the news at some point- hence why we don't put states' names next to the major cities- only the lesser known small towns or suburbs. On some of the other World Cup articles, some of those places have right below them ("so-and-so" area) because they would not otherwise be visible on a map unless you zoomed in after you know where to look because you have said metropolitan area reference. For instance- people would not have known where Nezahualcoyotl is unless they knew it was a suburb of Mexico City, or that Saint-Denis is a commune/suburb of Paris or that Decines-Chapireu is a suburb of Lyon (that is written right above the venues chart on the 2019 Women's WC article). --Hmdwgf (talk) 20:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, I think it's worth pointing out that we're dealing with two concepts: host city and location/municipality/address. Sometimes, the host city is also the location, but many times, it is not. Detroit was the host city for the United States vs Switzerland match, which was played at a site in Pontiac, Michigan. It's not "wrong" to use either Detroit or Pontiac. But for a list of venues, I think it makes sense to use the host city name, but also give a more specific location for the venue underneath. Ytoyoda (talk) 21:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have the distinction correct but the conclusion is wrong. San Francisco was a host city, but no games were played in San Francisco. The part of the article we are discussing is the "Venues" section, not the "Host Cities" section. Of the other major languages, Spanish, German, Italian, Portuguese, even Vietnamese all use the stadium location in the locations bit. French uses host locations in a map but also in parentheses. Russian and Eastern European languages tend to use a different table with the host name, the stadium name, and the stadium location all in the same table, so it's not as if these are random places nobody has heard of before. I see absolutely no need to move the stadiums from their actual location to the "host city" that they're in, especially when the vast majority of reporting discusses the town the stadium is in and not the host city. SportingFlyer T·C 21:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The venues and host cities sections are the same thing on this article. I agree 100% with Ytoyoda- that is the best compromise. It's not like we are not referencing the town that is officially part of the metro area the stadium is in- that was the logic behind what I did on the 2026 World Cup article. The point I am trying to make here is that the easier reference we provide, the better it will be. San Francisco (as well as the other 8 cities) is the dominant and most famous city in that area. I am willing to bet at the very least a thousand times more people have heard of San Francisco than Palo Alto or Stanford (and Los Angeles than Pasadena, New York City than East Rutherford, etc.) The area San Francisco, Stanford, Palo Alto, San Jose, Oakland and dozens of other towns there is called the San Francisco Bay Area, or as it is known to the locals there- simply the "Bay Area". It's really no different in Paris: what is the better known place- Paris, or Saint-Denis, or what's better known- London, or Bromley? --Hmdwgf (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What was specifically changed was the table of venues. Saint-Denis is listed in the 1998 World Cup article and it's actually well known the stadium is in Saint-Denis. We list the city the stadium is in, NOT the FIFA name of the host city, like Zapopan in 1986, not Guadalajara. For instance, Saitama is closer to Tokyo than Pontiac is to Detroit. The host city is not a "compromise." You are literally taking something factual and dumbing it down. SportingFlyer T·C 00:24, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that well known that the Stade de France is in Saint-Denis- when I was in Paris last year there was no indication from any sign on public transport that pointed towards the Stade de France being in Saint-Denis. Most people either don't know or don't have the patience to find out where that would be, so in a way, we are dumbing it down because I feel we should be thorough. This isn't England, where you could say that a stadium is in Shropshire, or Oxfordshire, or some other county. At least 90 percent of English-speaking people who have never lived in or travel frequently to England don't know where those places are. I just feel we should be thorough, and that's my stance. The only concession I'll make is that if the state's name is next to the town, then I'm OK with it. --Hmdwgf (talk) 00:40, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact the train station was called Stade de France-Saint-Denis didn't tip you off? SportingFlyer T·C 00:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never went to that stadium or the station there. There wasn't anything going on there; and I was on a tight schedule. But I still stick by what I said- the chief reason is because on FIFA's world feed, they would refer to the Silverdome being in Detroit, the Rose Bowl as being in Los Angeles and the Giants Stadium being in New York/New Jersey. I am saying that we need to be thorough, and what you are suggesting we do is, I feel a half-assed job. But one thing we did was is in the matches sections we left the locations of those stadiums as they are- like "Pontiac Silverdome, Pontiac", not "Pontiac Silverdome, Detroit". Pontiac is literally on the very edge of the Detroit metro area. It is 20 miles from Detroit City- but it's still officially part of the outer suburbs that are part of Detroit metro area. Ann Arbor, Flint or Lansing, however, are not part of the Detroit metro area. If the Silverdome had been in any of those three places then, I would not be writing "Detroit area" or something like that- because that just isn't true. Metro areas in the United States are huge- the Los Angeles metro area is 90 miles wide from one end to the other. --Hmdwgf (talk) 00:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reverted the table per WP:BRD (due to the current lack of consensus for the change) and started an RfC on the WikiProject Football talk page. SportingFlyer T·C 22:53, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revisiting this topic — there's obviously no consensus on the proposal and I don't see we'll ever get it, but it does seem non-policy to use verbiage that's neither official or supported by reliable sources, as we do now. Right now, we're using "XYZ area" in parentheses below the location name that are WP:OR. These should be switched to official host city names. So the changes would be as follows:
  • (Los Angeles area) -> (Los Angeles)
  • (San Francisco Bay area) -> (San Francisco)
  • (Detroit area) -> (Detroit)
  • (New York City area) -> (New York/New Jersey)
  • (Boston area) -> (Boston)

If there aren't objections, I'll go ahead and make the changes. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources support "metopolitain area", then that is how we should present it. If it is simply city, then that is how we should as well. In the end, FIFA does a good job controlling the media so the message should be fairly uniform. If in doubt, fall-back to what FIFA called them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikihounding and heavy defeats[edit]

Is score alone thee determining factor in stating a defeat was or was not "heavy"? British 86.112.160.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed "heavy" on 2020-06-21 from the lead when referencing the Russian team's losses to Brazil and Sweden. I reverted as the score is not the only way to look at the match and I assume consensus was reached on how the Russian team played. My Ottawa-based Wikihound then decided to start an edit war first as 67.71.49.255 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) then 70.48.252.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Clearly not following the rules but ignoring BRD, so I'll make the effort. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not score that determines whether a defeat is "heavy," what is it? Onus is on you to provide a source to justify this claim. While we're at it, please take a look at WP:DONTREVERT. You have no business blindly reverting good faith edits by unregistered users. Your revert began the war. 70.48.252.68 (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The play on the field, total possession time, and other things that cannot be seen by blindly looking at the scoreline. There is no onus to supply a source to custify the claim when STATUSQUO was supplied as an edit summary.
While we're at it, WP:AGF is involved. I did not blindly revert you, I explained why the first time and do so every time. Your mischaracterization of my actions is problematic.
As for your wikihounding, I've asked you to stop and yet you elect not to. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you can't insist that a defeat was "heavy" without providing a source. Do you have a source that talks about "play on the field, total possession time, and other things"? Or is that just original research? The person wishing to include the material has to justify it. The person challenging it does not have to provide a source disproving it. And you did blindly revert the first time, complaining about the edit summary without actually considering the substance of the edit. 70.48.252.68 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can as it is the silent consensus. An anon can't just drive-by and remove it, without explanation and expect that no one will notice. That's what happened, and if anyone else had reverted that anon, you would not have noticed, but since you're wikihounding me, you decided to turn this into an opportunity to embarrass me or to get me blocked. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. There was nothing to support the idea of a "heavy" defeat. There was no source, and the text of the article suggested that the defeat was not heavy at all. You're now claiming support of a "silent consensus." The rules don't say that you can blindly revert so long as you believe you are supported by a "silent consensus." If you had taken a second to look up the score, you would have seen that it was not a heavy defeat. If you want to prove otherwise, based on possession time, play on the field, etc., go ahead. But other than throwing these terms out, you haven't actually provided anything to back them up. And if I wanted to get you blocked, I would have reported you for violating 3RR. I don't want you to get blocked. I want you to stop blindly reverting. 70.48.252.68 (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. There was nothing prior to have questioned the addition of the term and so a drive-by and your predatory behaviour are the only reason we're here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You called it a good faith edit. Now you're saying it was a "drive-by"? The only drive-by was your blind revert, which is the only reason we're here. If you thought before reverting, none of this would have happened. 70.48.252.68 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just a misreading of my writing. My edits were good faith. The English anon's edits were drive-by: no edit summary and no rationale for the change.
The wording was added by Hmu05150 in the editor's only contribution to the project on 2008-07-03T18:28:06 (UTC). That has stood unaltered for nearly twelve years until an anon decided to change that one word. And while I agree that WP:PEACOCK terms should not be used, this is the first time since it was added that the term was questions, so I'll open it to regular FOOTY members who have edited here if they see any reason to keep "heavily" when refering to Russia's two-goal defeats at the hands of Brazil and Sweden. @Dale Arnett:, @Oknazevad:, @PeeJay2K3:, @Rich Farmbrough:, @S.A. Julio:, @Sir Sputnik:, @SounderBruce:, @SportingFlyer:, @Vaselineeeeeeee:, as they have edited this article at least once since that "contentious" word was added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, not a misreading of your writing: [[4]]. I really wish you'd read your own edit summaries, including the policies you cite. 70.48.252.68 (talk) 00:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see. An automated button. Now any chance you could admit to wikihounding me and stop? Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that both your edits were made in good faith, but if we haven't got a source to substantiate it as a "heavy" defeat, it's perfectly fine to remove that adjective. – PeeJay 21:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The phrase was added in this 2008 edit, the only edit of the account that made it. The edit is well written (apart from a few typos), but violates strict neutrality "Neither of these facts were surprising...", "Yet ironically, it was...", "The result, as impressive as it was...", "The Swedes to their credit...".
  • Policy provides that text in the lead does not need to have citations, provided it is a summary of the content. The section on Group B does not describe them as anything other than losses, the subsidiary article 1994 FIFA World Cup Group B has no significant narrative.
  • In this group, and in the third place selections, there was no application of goal difference, so there is no obvious reason that we need to qualify types of defeat, and the defeats do not seem to be "heavy" compared to Russia's win. It is perhaps relevant in that it calls into question the strength of the Russian team that might be suggested by the Cameroon match.
  • I can see no reason that we should say "heavy" in the lead. We should not say it in the body unless it is both significant and sourced, and must even then be careful.
  • I would however counsel both editors against making a stand on a relatively unimportant word in a football article. While we want NPOV everywhere, it is a comparatively harmless piece of POV, compared with many other examples.
All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • I agree with Rich's assessment in general. It's a slightly POV adjective, and removing it doesn't harm the article. It's also a very unusual word choice; "heavy defeat" is not a phrase commonly used. I would even say it's unidiomatic and should be removed for that reason alone. oknazevad (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not terrible, but the slight POV issue remains and removing it is an improvement. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to PeeJay2K3, Rich Farmbroug, Oknazevad, and SportingFlyer for your common sense! 70.48.252.68 (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated addition of images under copyright[edit]

Fma12 (talk · contribs) added images of the Argentina men's national team at this tournament on 2020-09-16T00:40:51. I viewed those images on commons and when I recognized that they were marked as still being under copyright, I reverted on 2020-09-22T04:30:24. Claiming the removal was vandalism, Fma12 restored them 2020-10-10T17:33:05. I warned the editor and have tried to explain WP:COPVIO policy, but have yet to receive acknowledgement that the editor understand 1) that the images are still under copyright in the US and 2) the significance of repeatedly adding copyrighted images to the project can have. Instead, I have been told that they are not under copyright in Argentina and that, because I have been blocked so many times, that I am in no position to explain anything to this particular editor. I felt it was necessary to explain it clearly and to be certain that the editor understands copyright policy on the English project does apply. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a long time contributor of this project, I understand perfectly the point of copyright. Nevertheless, Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs) has been repeteadlty discussing on my talk page without understanding the point: I noted him that there are another World Cup articles plenty of PD-Argentina/Not-URAA images (such as 1986 Argentina v England, with 7 of those images) but he didn't take any action to remove those photographs as he usually does on 1994 FIFA World Cup. And he hasn't explained me why.
As we were having largely discussed the topic on my talk page, I don't have any further to discuss with this user. Copyright rules are not the subject of discussion. The only thing I'm interesed to discuss is the criteria used to determine why PD-Argentina images remain on some articles. And why not on another ones. I wish W.G. understood this point once and for all. If other editors and/or admin could explain me this, I'd highly appreciate it. Fma12 (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Copyright rules are the subject of this discussion. If there are other copyright problems, you, other editors or I can address them. Thank you for pointing them out. You cannot point to other problems to claim innocence however. Do you recognize the problem or not? Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:59, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're committing two mistakes: 1) Thinking that I do not know what copyright is; 2) Taking it as a personal crusade towards me. You're hilarious when talking of "claiming innocence", as if this was a trial. And yes, the 'only' thing that matters is (sorry for being repetitive about that but you haven't replied yet): "are PD-Argentina-only images allowed to be used on any en.wiki article or not?" I'm asking this because after reading your such emphatic statements about "copyright" and "users that can be blocked", you haven't done anything after I mentioned you some World Cup articles where US-copyrighted images are used. Seriously, are they allowed on those articles or nobody realised they are US-copyrighted? I wonder why you (or other editor/admin) haven't removed those images yet. I should guess there is an exceptional criteria for that... That's why I'm expecting other editor can clear me that point. Because you are obsessively involved into a personal discussion with me, and can't see beyond that. What a pity - Fma12 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I do not think that you do not know what copyright is and I have never even come close to stating that. What I have said is that the images you have twice added to this article are still under copyright. WP:AGF, I assume you that you did not know that (even though it was stated in the first revert). I therefore told you in no uncertain terms that the images were still under copyright and should not be used on the English project. I asked you if you understood and if you understood what the potential penalties for repeatedly violating copyright were. If you equate that to to me suggesting that you do not know copyright, you are mistaken.
I am not making this a personal crusade against you, I am making certain copyright law is observed on Wikipedia. After you pointed out here that there were images in use on the English project that were under copyright, I investigated. I did not have the time yesterday (and this will likely be my last edit today) to investigate your other claims. However, since you know what copyright is, if you know that there are images that are under copyright, I suggest you could remove them and not game the system. If I am reading your response correctly, you feel justified in adding images that are under copyright to this article because you know of others that exist. However, if you think it is a widespread problem I could raise this at an appropriate forum and commission a bot to review all images on commons and report back so we can address it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Round of 16/Quarterfinal/Semi-final appearance issues[edit]

Those rounds haven't been appearing on this page?--Hmdwgf (talk) 23:08, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Host Voting Map[edit]

Can we have a map that features what country voted for what in the hosting selection? 2604:2D80:A610:9300:90D6:BA85:6705:1546 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? – PeeJay 13:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1994_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=1196283676"