Talk:1930 FIFA World Cup final

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

question

How many of them were from argentina —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.253.232.122 (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter? Or are you trying to make a point? – PeeJay 21:48, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina colours

the Socks were black. http://fr.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1/photo/526/451/picture.html#526463

The shorts were grey http://fr.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1/photo/526/451/picture.html#526463 or light blue http://fr.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=1/photo/526/451/picture.html#526451 Sportin (talk) 10:30, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead link

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) 03:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 12 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: all moved. The supporters have made a fairly straightforward case that the MOS:CAPS threshold isn't met, while the oppose !votes, rather than rebutting that argument, instead consist largely of personal preferences and misunderstandings of the relevant guidelines. When the strength of arguments is considered, therefore, there is (despite what the raw !vote totals might suggest) a relatively clear consensus to move. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]


– Rather than being bold and getting reverted (particularly with the 2022 article), I felt it would be best to open a discussion on these articles. Per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, final should be lower case as the event is not a proper noun. This would be consistent with the consensus at Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final#Requested move 19 November 2022. I also feel a consensus here would have more weight for future moves given the higher profile of the World Cup to a continental competition. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did not know about that, my apologies. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: I thought you and I were usually on the same wavelength on these questions, so rather surprised to see that you would oppose this proposal. What policy or evidence-based rationale is there not to move? Per MOS:CAPS and ngram evidence below, it seems an open-and-shut case. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Majority of sources (certainly for the 2022 WC) use Final rather than final. So WP:COMMONNAME applies, as Final is part of the event title. Also, it does feel wrong to suggest moving the 2022 article again just a few days after there was a reasonably xlesr consensus not to move it. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COMMONNAME is about using commonly recognizable names. The proposed and current titles are identical outwith the capitalization so neither is more recognisable than the other. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: that doesn't seem correct. Have a look down the results at a simple Google search... does it not look like the majority say "final"? And as I've mentioned many times, the bar is not even a simple majority but a substantial majority... the other RM seems to have overlooked that point altogether. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all. MOS:CAPS is 100% clear on this issue: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. In English, capitalization is primarily needed for proper names, acronyms, and for the first letter of a sentence. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia." Reliable sources emphatically do not consistently capitalize the term in question. Indeed, "World Cup final" enjoys a decent lead over "World Cup Final" in book sources: [1] . And here are some obviously high-quality sources which do not capitalize in relation to the most recent final, that in 2018: BBC Sport, The Guardian, CNN, Sydney Morning Herald, ESPN. I don't doubt that there are some sources which do capitalise "Final" as noted, but that's not enough. The term must be consistently capitalized by a substantital majority of sources, which it very definitely isn't. We just concluded a discussion at Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final which correctly lowercased final, and it's logical that we should now move on to all the myriad other football final articles which also currently have an illogical capital, including play-offs, the Champions League and suchlike. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Per MOS:CAPS, the WP:ONUS is on users to show that this is a proper noun. I'm yet to see a single third party source refer to it in such a way, and sourcing by Amakuru shows that the opposite is the case. I'm amazed we are having any pushback at all on this. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski: You initiated the 2022 RM. Did you not read the comment from S.A. Julio that listed 5 secondary reliable sources in addition to FIFA themselves using "Final"? If FIFA refers to their own product as a proper noun, who are we to say they are wrong? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, but the bar isn't that some sources call it a proper noun, it's that it's almost universal. It simply isn't so. How FIFA treats this isn't anywhere near as important as what third party sources call it. Amakuru has pointed to quite a few references where they don't, and my google search suggests it's actually mostly it not being capitalised. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:17, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, listing 5 secondary sources that capitalize is immaterial if there are a corresponding 5 sources that don't capitalize. And additionally, re "If FIFA refers to their own product as a proper noun, who are we to say they are wrong?" you may find the WP:OFFICIALNAMES essay helpful. Wikipedia titles are governed by usage in independent reliable sources and our guidelines on how to treat those; the style used by the organizers themselves is only one of many data points to consider. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:54, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all per the recent discussion at the 2022 article. Consider my comment there repeated here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your comment at the other RM said "A fair number of reliable sources use the full title as a proper name", which isn't the condition that needs to be fulfilled here. You need to demonstrate that a substantital majority do so consistently. Also, you mentioned consistency, but consistency will be maintained as all articles in the category are up for being moved here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:37, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    And that discussion was closed just a few days ago. I note that the nominator states not to have known about that discussion, and I choose to WP:AGF and believe that statement. That said, discussion of a larger-scale move just days after WP:CONSENSUS was to not move is tiresome, and there are much better ways to expend energy. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jkudlick: the nominator of this RM has already apologized for not spotting the prior RM and opening a new one so soon; it wasn't a deliberate attempt to forum shop, and in retrospect it would have been preferable for those of us who missed the last RM to discuss the previous close with the closer and possibly take it to WP:MRV, given that the close didn't match the evidence presented. But I'd have thought that's water under the bridge now; we're several days into a fresh move request, and all the evidence as to why this page needs to be moved has been presented so we don't need to WP:WIKILAWYER by demanding this be closed down. In fact, I hope you will also now be on board with supporting the move, because I think the evidence has been presented very clearly and is supported by Wikipedia's guidelines. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amakuru: As I said, I am assuming good faith and believing the nominator's statement that they did not see the prior RM. I also point to the fact that FIFA themselves use the proper noun "Final" to describe these matches.

    "I have played in World Cups in countries which are very big and having to take long journeys is difficult and complicated for the team," said Di Maria, who was part of the Argentina squad which made it all the way to the 2014 FIFA World Cup Final.

    Who are we to say that FIFA are wrong for using the proper noun "Final" to describe their own competition? I certainly will not. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:CAPS. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per MOS:CAPS, the capital F is completely unnecessary Coldbolt (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Final isn't a proper name. --Tanonero (msg) 15:32, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    But "FIFA World Cup Final" is... See here. – PeeJay 16:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @PeeJay Is "Group Stage Goals" a proper name too? Piotr Bart (talk) 10:52, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all The RM at Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup Final closed just days ago, not sure why we must go through another discussion. While "final" alone is not capitalized, "FIFA World Cup Final" can be considered a proper name, and many sources use this capitalization: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I opened this in good faith unaware of the previous discussion and have apologised above. It was not an attempt to subvert anything. I will take this as a learning opportunity for anything similar I take forward in future. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no requirement for the "vast majority" of sources. Per WP:MOSCAP Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources. "Usually" is interpreted to mean "more often than not" and in the absence of a long list of sources that explicitly do not capitalize "Final," the "usually" criteria of MOSCAP is met, and the capitalization of this title should stand. (striking comment, this list is included above. However I maintain opposed to this move based on the recent consensus not to move on the 2022 WC Final RM). Frank Anchor 19:56, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I requested move title at Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final#Requested move 19 November 2022. All titles of UEFA Women's Euro article had FINAL like FIFA World Cup final articles, But Only UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final article had final. So I wanted to move UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final => UEFA Women's Euro 1995 Final due to consistency with other article title. But UEFA Women's Euro 1995 final article title was not moved. I don't think that consensus reached and we have to all sports final article have to use final in title. As far as I know, "FIFA World Cup Final" is a proper name.Footwiks (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The consensus from that discussion has led to all the other UEFA Women's Euro "Final" articles being moved to "final" without any opposition so they are now all consistent. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How ridiculous that the one outlier should serve as the model for the rest. If the 1995 final was the only one not to have a capital letter, why did every other page move to create consistency when it would have been far simpler (and, in my opinion, more correct) to move the one article? – PeeJay 19:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand this because a discussion was started which led to a consensus which has since been implemented to no complaint. It might have been easier to move one article but just because something is easy, doesn't mean it is right. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all: Article titles should be in sentence case, not title case. In running text one would not capitalise the word "final", in the same way one would not capitalise "semi-finals" (ex. [8]), and most sources in fact do not capitalise it even when referring to this particular game (it's never "the Final", unlike what appeared in the article previously [9]), even when prefaced with "World Cup" (ex. all of these have sentence case titles as well, so: Grauniad Beebs CBC Al Jazeera CNN ESPN Eurosport; and, yes, even FIFA - FIFA 1 FIFA 2)...
    There is some confusion maybe stemming from the capitalised use of "Finals" (important difference: the plural) to refer to the whole tournament (ex. [10]), but even that is not consistent in all sources (ex. [11])... 173.179.105.16 (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe you wouldn't capitalise the word "final" when talking about the FIFA World Cup Final, but I certainly would, and there are sources that do. The reason why most of these article titles capitalise the word "final" is because that's how it was done for the FA Cup Final, which is definitely a proper noun, and other competitions followed suit. The final of any competition is the showpiece, hence when referring to the FA Cup Final, the UEFA Champions League Final or the FIFA World Cup Final, the word "final" is capitalised. – PeeJay 19:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What you, or I, or any of the half-dozen people above who would write it with capitals, would do, seems to be irrelevant. Similarly, the (subjective) opinion one has on the status of the game or the similarly inconsistent capitalisation of other similar events (FWIW, the Grauniad capitalises neither FA Cup final nor the Champions League final; same for the Beebs (Champions League FA Cup)) is also irrelevant.
    The actual requirement seems to be that the words be "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources", not merely that "there are [some] sources that do". As I've shown above, many sources, maybe even a "substantial majority", including FIFA itself, actually don't capitalise consistently or even at all. In fact, if I may add more to stick the point home: NYT (outside of the title case title, the sentence case examples are very clearly "World Cup final"); Telegraph; France24; NPR; Reuters. None of these are some random Littletown gazette, these are all major, well respected independent news outlets which along with the others I present above are generally considered authoritative. So this is about as clear-cut as it can be. 173.179.105.16 (talk) 21:01, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The above arguments based on WP:MOSCAP are convincing to me. This is the clearly most relevant guideline.
Whatever possible contrary arguments might be made based on WP:COMMONNAME, it seems to me that that policy is essentially silent on the issue of capitalisation, and that this is made obvious by the long list of examples which it quotes, all of which consist of substantive differences between the two possible names, not minutiae of spelling such as capitalisation. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 22:45, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I could honestly see both sides in this, but imo it just looks kind of strange to me without the capital F. Also, I do see consensus that the title should be what it's most commonly referred to, but it appears to be split depending on which source you go to (which would make the argument go on forever). So I think it should just stay as it is, just because I don't think there is consensus for either side. Phrogge (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The criteria is not whether "it looks kind of strange to me" or not: to me it looks strange with a capital F. And COMMONNAME is not about the minutiae of capitalisation as pointed out above. MOS:CAPS is the relevant bit, and that is as clear as daylight that "only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized" should be capitalised here. The abundance of sources, including even FIFA, which in fact consistently don't capitalise is the nail on the coffin. 173.179.105.16 (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    this should be top level instead of under someone else's !vote Aaron Liu (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest not. The discussion for both is really around whether or not the two individual events are proper nouns. It is entirely possible for consensus to be that one is a proper noun and the other isn't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above arguments and MOS:CAPS. Dotoilage (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Unlike other major sports tournaments, the World Cup Final, aside from the rest of the tournament was individually identified as an major notable event for more than half a century. People were watching the World Cup Final long before the entire tournament was a month-long global event. More than being just the final game in a tournament, the World Cup Final was a unique event onto itself with a proper noun in common parlance. I remember the 1998 FIFA World Cup Final vividly, as an entity onto itself. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Being a major event doesn't make it a proper noun. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:37, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Never said it did. Only that people saw it individually identified the event and referred to it as the World Cup Final. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
only less than half. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Without evidence, this is nothing more than an expression of personal opinion: the (perceived) significance of the event is a complete red herring. With evidence, as shown above, 'common parlance' amongst reliable sources - which is what actually matters, MOS:CAPS is rather clear enough - such as the BBC, the NYT, ... is actually to not capitalise. 173.179.105.16 (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I went looking for evidence and only found overwhelming evidence against my argument (with 1 exception). So I am changing my vote to Support. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly reminder that it’s a !vote Aaron Liu (talk) 13:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support all in line with Amakuru's points about MOS:CAPS. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 18:32, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:1930_FIFA_World_Cup_final"