Talk:WAFO World Cup

From OpenGeofiction Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of winners

In the list of the winners - please, are realistic. I have taken the results of Germany for Latina. And I think, 1942 and 1946 must not be a gap --Histor (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (CEST)

I'm not sure if it's a good idea to be filling in a table of this type right now, unless we reserve an appropriate number of spaces for future countries. Half the world is still unknown, and half of the known world is still unclaimed, so perhaps only 25% of the world's countries have been born. Perhaps we should black out 75% of the table, reserved for future countries. So if there are 88 boxes (22 tournaments x 4 teams in the top four), then maybe 66 should be reserved for future countries and only 22 should be available to us. --Isleño (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2014 (CEST)
Yes and no. To claim can only, who is there and it is a first try. Latina must not stay so in this list - but there at first step is a list.
And on the other side = „Трудности подстерегают тех, кто не реагирует на жизнь“ („Those who are late will be punished by life itself“.) as M.G. says. --Histor (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2014 (CEST)
It's not too unrealistic to have several teams who dominate the winners, and are the equivalents of Brazil, Germany, Italy, etc. I think if you've written that football is a particularly popular sport in your country then it is okay for your national team to have won or hosted the world cup several times. If you look at the real world it's mostly the same teams that reach the finals anyway. Also no need to miss out cups which were cancelled due to war in the real world, surely? I've put tried to create a rivalry between Karolia and Latina (Karolia beat Latina twice in the final before Latina finally beat them in 2014. Karolia have won three times (once at home) and hosted the cup twice with a big gap in between, which is also realistic.--Sarepava (talk) 19:49, 2 September 2014 (CEST)
The problem isn't that dominant teams are unrealistic. The problem is that only a handful of teams can really dominate, and if all those dominant positions get claimed now, then future users who create big, football-loving countries won't have space to add an appropriate number of victories for themselves. So far, only four people have contributed to this table, and already half the first place winners are chosen. All it takes is four more people to claim victories at the same rate and there won't be room for any more winners. --Isleño (talk) 20:11, 2 September 2014 (CEST)
Is it not so, that some of us are interesting in this football-event and others not? So this, who are interested, set theyr claim. I think, "realistic" is to take the sucess of one real nation (as Italy, Brazil, Argentinia, England, France - or Netherland or Czech) as the sucess for the own land and set it in the table. So I have choosen Germany. Live is not ever just.
On the other hand = If later came a great football-nation and say "please", it is able to change the winner-list for him. Bu therefore I will see then good footfall-articles for his land  ;-) --Histor (talk) 22:14, 2 September 2014 (CEST)
P.S. - Your list looks very good --Histor (talk) 22:30, 2 September 2014 (CEST)
Thanks, glad you like the list. Again, my concern is not with "realism" (and not with "justice" or "fairness" either) but rather the practical difficulties of handling other football nations that will surely come into existence. If this list would remain only a list, and if it's explicitly labeled as "open to changes," then okay, it's not hard to delete some names and add new ones in. But if anyone moves forward with writing the "football articles" you mention (articles about the tournaments, teams, players, stadiums, histories, etc.) then it will become much more difficult to rewrite everything to accommodate new football powers in the future. --Isleño (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (CEST)

Indeed, this is clear and a certain danger for consistence of articles. So I think, if the list is full (what not is the case now) and a great football-nation comes over the horizont - and get some titles (or places 2 to 4) the other must edit her articles in this manner. So I mean, a "new" football-nation should ask the others for place. I will give some. --Histor (talk) 23:48, 2 September 2014 (CEST)

To me, it would just be easier to simply reserve some spaces for future countries. That way you could write whatever "football articles" you want without needing to rewrite them all, and future users wouldn't be forced to ask to take your victories away from you. --Isleño (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2014 (CEST)
You can make it so or so. If places in the list are free - looks not so good. Later chancings indeed need cooperation. --Histor (talk) 00:05, 3 September 2014 (CEST)
Well, I wouldn't want to make it one way or another without consensus. If no one else shares the same concern then I won't be changing it, haha. --Isleño (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2014 (CEST)

I have the dilemma of being a new nation with every intention of making football the biggest thing in Tamarindian culture, and while I don't want to dominate I would like to see an entry or two for my nation on the list. While I am modelling geographically based on Brazil, culturally I think of my nation as somewhere like Argentina, so it would be good to have historically taken part in World Cups. I hope it is alright to reserve one or two spots now, but take them away if you think it inappropriate. I am looking at Argentina's history in the real World Cup although my nation will not feature as often. Can I suggest a way to fix it may be to create a page for each competition, with the host responsible for setting up and everyone else free to contribute? And once a page and competition is complete, that is fixed, but in the meantime the list can be changed? --Martograph (talk) 10:56, 13 September 2014 (GMT)

I was thinking about this theme. The major sports in all of my countries is the football. But Cariocas is so little if I was wanting to use like Brazil (my real country), speaking about history in World Cups. I was thinking a realistic way to include my countries (Cariocas and Gran Lusland) in the OGFIFA World Cup

So, I would like to use Gran Lusland as Brazil (even if I turn Gran Lusland in three different countries, like I was considering) and Cariocas would be Uruguay - a little country fanatic fir football. (Oh no! I lost for my neighbour country Latina, in my own home, by 7x1 last year!!!! hehehe) Is needed some permission or I can simply include my countries in the list of winners and host countries?? In this case, 1994 was Gran Lusland the winner, not Ataraxia, but I would not want to start a fight about this--BMSOUZA (talk) 9 December 2014

Cariocas as "Uruguay" I think it is not realistic. And then: Ataraxia had set his claim. So to change this in 1994, you must speak with Ataraxia over it. But I think - what is in the list is in the list. So you can not get more all, what Brazil has got. I take only for one land = Latina the winnings of Germany - Zylanda was only # 4 in "1942" and "1946". Here the Cariocas can had his one success as surprise-team. Can you live with this? --Histor (talk) 09:17, 9 December 2014 (CET)

No problem to me. I can live "without" 1994. I will not ask Ataraxia about it, because here is just a hobby, not a real football match, hehehe. The same about 1962 with Karolia. No problem at all!

So, I can include Gran Lusland as Brazil in this table, winning in 1962 and 1970?? About Cariocas, ok, I would be, personally, the bigger winner if I took the winnings of Uruguay too, hehehe. So, what about Croatia? May be? 4th in 1998 would be a good result to Cariocas.

Waiting for a permission by any moderator... --BMSOUZA (talk) 9 December 2014

Hello BMSOUZA - Do,as you had written = all what Brazil has won and what is free, take to Gran Lusland. And 1998 the Cariocas as 3rd. And 2004 Gran Lusland has hosted the plays. - I see, that Tarephia is strong in Football. What about over a continental Championship of Tarephia? --Histor (talk) 23:14, 9 December 2014 (CET)
Hello, Histor! I will do this about Gran Lusland and Cariocas, thank you!

And a about a continental Championship, its a very good idea!! A Championship of nations an another of champion clubs. --BMSOUZA (talk) 9 December 2014

Hello, I am owner of Ataraxia. I think many of us envisioned a strong football culture for our nations, so this may be hard to manage. I would have actually preferred for Ataraxia to host and win the World Cup in 1998 like real-world France (and take 3rd in 1994), but 1st Place in 1998 was already taken by Mazan. So maybe it is easier for us to remain in our current configuration. Plus Ataraxia wins a rematch at home against Sathria, who beat Ataraxia at home in 1938, the last time Ataraxia hosted :) --Dono87 (talk) 9 December 2014
Hello, Dono87! Like I said, no problem about real winnings of Brazil taken by you and Sarepava (Karolia). I (Gran-Lusland) am happy just with two World Cups and two 2nd places. Anyway, I am a strong nation in football too, hehehe. --BMSOUZA (talk) 9 December 2014


Should we have links to articles we can create in the future about each World Cup? They could show what teams participated and the venues used.--Sarepava (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2014 (CEST)

The current consensus seems to be that the teams, results, venues, etc, will be subject to change in the future, so bear in mind that any articles mentioning these things will also need to be rewritten. At this point it might be wise to keep those articles to a minimum, but of course you're free to do as you wish. --Isleño (talk) 01:38, 3 September 2014 (CEST)
I am going to write a article about football in Brasonia and I will mention the Brasonian history in OGFIFA World Cup. But I am OK if I need to change something later, just let me know waht I would need to change. - BMSOUZA 12 February 2015


I'm not sure if this question makes total sense, but Freedemia supposedly has a strong history in soccer Football (Soccer) in Freedemia but to make sure nothing messed up this table or interfered with other past users I made it so that Freedemia has never had a national team until recently and that they have not participated in any events so far. Is it going to end up being that my team/country will be permanently stuck outside of OGFIFA due to lack of spaces or is it that in the future my team maybe could participate as along as they do not win and block out other's spaces? Not winning will not hurt our country, for we also have a strong heritage in baseball and foosball. I was just hoping we could participate. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 00:21, 26 April 2015 (CEST)

I think you're welcome to participate, but you'd need to ask users on the table to give up some of their spots for you. --Isleño (talk) 00:36, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
Til 1978 some space is free - there you can take one or two --Histor (talk) 00:39, 26 April 2015 (CEST)
No problem. I am changing the 4th place in 2006 from Brasonia to Freedemia. Now, Freedemia has more recent good results. Rememnbering too, Freedemia could be the host country in 2018! - BMSOUZA 27 Abril 2015

Future participation

Regarding participation of nations in this competition, particularly future nations that do not yet exist or who have not yet explored their culture, I am worried that the way this competition is currently set out prevents users from participating. As OGF is not like the real world in the number of nations that exist, and especially because there is likely to be a larger proportion of the OGF world participating in football than in the rw (since for example OGF currently has no real China or India equivalent) it is not sensible or fair that only a few early developing countries take all the winners places. It will lead for example to some countries having much more developed facilities in football than others but having participated in only a few world cups - not very believable. And with the restrictions on numbers of winners goes the possibility of splintering to different competitions - alternative world cups. Less than half the world has been mapped, and much less than half the countries in the world are currently 'owned'. Basically, the way the OGFIFA world cup is currently set up will restrict other countries, in developing football culture and in general. Wouldn't it be better to reserve some free space in the current tables? I don't think it should be a question of those who get there first get all the prizes. I say this not as the owner of a country that wants to take over the tables but in an effort to allow more users to have countries that can develop a sense of identity and culture in the way they want to. Трудности подстерегают тех, кто не реагирует на жизнь = Difficulties lie in wait for those who do not react to life? Sort this out sooner rather than later and we may avoid much future discussion and possible conflict. But I'll say no more. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 00:38, 3 February 2016 (CET)

I understand what Udi means but I dont see it as a problem. Looking to real world, we see few World Cup winners, and few host countries too - we can see Brasil and Germany was host countries twice. There is not so much "justice" in real world. Take a look: In South America, there are ten countries playing the WC Qualifyings, and usually, five countries goes to World Cup. Now we see Africa, with sooooo much countries and only three or four teams in WC usually. Yes, we can mention the level is higher in South America than Africa (the love I agree could be the same), but, worried about number of participants, Africa and Asia dont have so much chances facing South America and Europa in World Cups history. (I think only Venezuela never played a World Cup yet, in South America). We also can look to USA and Japan examples. There is a good development to the sport in these countries, but, in fact, they are "only more two teams" in WC history. We can not deny there is a "elite group" of few countries, rarely there is a new one in the heads. But, it is only my opinion... Best regards! -- BMSOUZA (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2016 (CET)
This discussion is not new (see above). If you have 50 or 500 nations - there is always only one winner. And as in reality (5 * Brazil, 4* Italy, 4 * Germany, 2* Uruguay, 2 * Argentinia and 1 * England, France and Spain) there is no average, but some nations get more and some get less and the most of all nothing. Intention was, that only this nations are in the OGFIFA-table with intensive football-infrastructure in map or wiki. If you see on the portal "Sport", there are only few nations, who had remarcable content.
And as ever in live: Who comes first, get first. And there is til now a lot of free space for new enthusiasts nations in the list.
If a nation can not be the OGFIFA-woldcip-winner, this nation can win a continental cup. Here can be done a lot for more details in the continental area. --Histor (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Yes, an old discussion. But I can't see that it was resolved, or I wouldn't have commented. Personally, I really don't mind which countries should have won the world cup. I see your points - there can only be 1 winner per competition - and I agree there could be an 'elite' group. But have the elite footballing countries all already come into existence? If so, that says quite a lot about the OGF world, and it has been decided by only a very few - current - users. That is really what I am trying to point out. It seems that the only real principle behind the table is: 'the early bird catches the worm'. Perhaps that is fair enough for the users who are around now. But is it fair on those who come after? Isleño made the same point at the very start of the discussion. Most of the world does not yet exist. But look at the table: the 1st and 2nd places are filled from 1938 onwards - and not all by countries with mapped football infrastructure or extensive wiki pages. Basically by doing this it has put all future countries in the role of the Africa countries, USA, Japans, Venezuelas etc, whether they want to be them or not. That has narrowed the possibilities of OGF. Ask yourself if doing this is collaboration. In my opinion it isn't, it's monopolization, or marginalization. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 03:17, 3 February 2016 (CET)
I say my own example. The 4th place in 2006 was my Brasonia, but I agree about Brasonia retirement of this place because Freedemia, because Ernestpcosby and his "new" country would be a football enthusiast country. When Tamarindia decided about retirement of OGF, I talk to Ef0 to include Escadia in this place, because he created some good football articles to his country. About the rest of the OGF World is not build yet, another time I see it as real world: Is hard to see some asian or african country (a half of real world??) in the four best ones in World Cups, despite asians and africans loves football so much as south americans or europeans. And I say it, not as a marginalization of new countries. Mexico never was champion or runner-up in World Cups, but we know they have a very good team through the history. Belgium is another force, also with a good development to the sport, but never champion or runner-up. As Histor said, could be "continental or regional" forces. To this, is necessary some users creating articles about continental cups. Or even best players articles. In real world, Liberia was never a football force, but there was George Weah. Currently, "your" Wales is not one of the best national teams of the Europe, but there is Bale. So, I imagine some of the best players of the OGF world could be from Suvuma, Meridonia, Ingerland or from some country in the new continents, and this would be a way to include more countries in OGF football history. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 03:46, 3 February 2016 (CET)

Only 27 countries have a national-tricot in the OGF-World. Only some users had written about football in the wiki and only some users had an football-infrastructure at the map. This countries can get the place in the list of winners, if place is there or if one of the old winners will give free some place. This list can not be "fair". We have no real football-teams in the fictional OGF-world.

You can discuss, if countries should be set out of the list with no tricot, no wiki-articles and no football-places in the land. So you can go through the list and proof. Good luck. --Histor (talk) 08:40, 3 February 2016 (CET)

So I agree with Bruno that there should be some countries that have won the cup more times than others, and of course good players come from countries that don't play in the competition finals. But what I don't agree is that there should be no spaces in the table, now, for other countries to win the world cup. So yes, histor, I think the countries that have filled in the table without doing what you have done and developing a believable 'footballing culture' should take out some of their entries (or develop their cuture!) - but they should do this themselves. It is just my opinion - but having no space in the table will probably stop future countries developing a football culture in the first place. What about the half of the world that hasn't even been built yet? Maybe the real Brazil is located there, not in this hemisphere?(!).
But is this really the world cup anyway? If articles about different world cup competitions have been written and all the places filled while only half, or less than half, the world has been mapped, then this is only half world cup - the 'hemisphere cup' (and as there are 8 continents, in OGF not 5, even if Asia and Africa haven't yet been mapped there are still 3 other continents we don't know anything about). Perhaps the other hemisphere countries don't play football to a good enough level to even reach the final rounds of the tournament, or perhaps they don't have football federations - but that looks like a very big restriction to me. Assuming that this half isn't populated by mermaids, elves and spacemen who have no interest in football ;) what the other half of the world could do is exactly the same thing as here: have their own 'hemisphere cup' divided between countries on those 4 continents. Then the 8 continents can play each other in the real 'world cup', in a fairer way, with discussion and debate, and maybe still leaving some space for the ones not yet imagined. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2016 (CET)
It is clear, what you mean. But how can be discussed, who is the champion? Who shall do it? So at last somebody must set the winner and places 2 to 4. O.k. - we can make the rules more restrictive and so delete some positions from the list. But I think, the OGFIFA-cup is only one for the whole OGF-world. I do not hope, that somebody will self cancel some positions in the list. So in some time the list must be proofed. --Histor (talk) 13:29, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Personally, I'd suggest that either (a) other leagues be allowed to form, separate from OGFIFA (figuring out the world champion can be discussed later), or (b) if OGFIFA's cup is really the only one for the whole world, then I'd suggest resetting the whole table with Unknown Flag.png Undecided and starting over by having countries earn their spots, for example:
To claim... there must be...
any spot on the table (1) a complete wiki article about the country, and
(2) a complete wiki article about its national football league.
a #4 spot 2 completed cities (100,000+) for each spot claimed
a #3 spot 4 completed cities (100,000+) for each spot claimed
a #2 spot 8 completed cities (100,000+) for each spot claimed
a #1 spot 16 completed cities (100,000+) for each spot claimed
a cup host (1) a complete wiki article about the cup, and
(2) all host cities and their stadiums must be completely mapped.
These standards may seem quite high, but that's the point. It would surely keep many spots on the table open for many years to come. --Isleño (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2016 (CET)
I dont understand exactly what the OGF users want. Sometimes, we look for a "realistic" world with wars and conflicts, but sometimes we want a "perfect" world where every countries can be the best of the world in some sports, hehehe. I would like to mention two things I have in mind:
  • Countries like Mexico and Belgium, that I remember, never was in top four in World Cups, but no one would say they are not in the first tier of the world. So, any country in current OGF or in the new continents can be in the first tier even never been in top four in World Cups, I think.
  • Only in recent times the real FIFA decided about World Cup in all the continents. In old times, remember, World Cup was only Europe/America. I see no problem in OGF World Cups in "old OGF world" till present days.
Anyway, I have some sympathy to Isleño ideas... -- BMSOUZA (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2016 (CET)
Thanks, and I actually agree that there's nothing inherently unrealistic about the current countries dominating the table. For me, the problem is not about realism, or even really fairness. It's about being accommodating and welcoming to future users who want to participate in something that might be very important to them. Shouldn't they be able to earn their football glory on a level playing field alongside all other nations? I don't think that would lead to every country winning the world cup. Some people would care a lot, and build a lot, and earn their wins, while others would have no interest. So you'd still have a table where some countries are dominant; the only difference would be that those positions are earned by contributing to the community, not simply claimed by those who arrived early. --Isleño (talk) 21:03, 4 February 2016 (CET)
I have mostly avoided getting involved in this discussion, because in fact football isn't that important to me. I enjoy mapping the facilities and have done quite a large number in Ardisphere, and I have enjoyed thinking about things like team names and the impact of fan culture on Ardispherian culture. Sarepava has done some collaboration with me on that, too. I also have an idea to take "sportfiction" in a different direction, which is to invent imaginary sports, complete with teams, leagues, etc. - I have taken first steps with this with Ardisphere's "aldepeloti" (a bit like Lacrosse, played on a cricket pitch). Having said all that, I like Isleño's suggestion - I was trying for a similar result with the whole geolympiad "bid" process, which I think has evolved in a way that leaves lots of room for future users because it sets a high standard.--Happy mapping - Luciano (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2016 (CET)

The "first, who is there" argument is not wrong in every sense. So this users, who came first, take the land, what they like. No one, who came later, can get this land. No one says, this is not fair. Someone has the first idea with football and it is clear, that this first enthusiasts take the claim.

O.k. - if you think, that an user can participate at the OGF-championship only, if he has worked for "football", you have me at your side - pricipially. My suggestion is

  • a national tricot at the OGFIFA tricot wiki
  • a national league with 16 or more clubs - all clubs with name and tricots written in the wiki
  • stadiums for 20 clubs in the land at the map.

But if we now (or in some weeks) delete some countries without this, it is only for some time. After a while there may be more countries with this conditions as the roundabout 80 places for the first 4 places at the OGF-Cup. And it is not realistic, that every nation then can get only one time a place 1 to 4. At an certain point this list is full - so or so. --Histor (talk) 23:39, 4 February 2016 (CET)

On the real world the continents at place 1 to 4 ?

  • Afrika = nothing
  • Asia = 1 * Südkorea als 4. 1 * Türkei als 3.
  • Ozeania = nothing
  • Northamerika = USA mal 3. (1930er)

is this fair ? --Histor (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2016 (CET)

Please understand that the argument isn't about fairness. It's about enabling new users to participate, as much as reasonably possible — and in terms of land, we've made great efforts to do that. We've built new continents, divided territories, removed inactive users, and tried to make lands of all shapes, sizes and climates available for new users to choose from. Have we done these things for fairness? No, we've done them because we want our world to be welcoming and accommodating for new users.
Imagine if there were only 80 territories in total, and 12 users quickly claimed 70 of them. Maybe that's "fair" or maybe it isn't... I don't care. What I do care about is that it's unnecessarily difficult for newcomers to participate. Will the OGFIFA table be completely full at some point? Yes, of course (hopefully), and so will the territories of the OGF map. But ideally I think we should try to set up a system in which the table fills up gradually, in tandem with the territories of the world, more or less. This doesn't mean that the table should fill up equally or fairly, just slowly, so that users over many years are able to participate.
Luciano's Geolympiad method is one way to do that. Setting a high bar of mapping/wiki-work for each spot claimed, as I've suggested, is another way. Setting a rather low bar, as you propose (drawing 17 uniforms and mapping 20 stadiums) is better than nothing, but I think it will only slightly delay the filling of the table, and in a few months it'll be basically full all over again. That said, I don't care much about football, and so I won't push anything here. But I do care about our future users and their experience. I hope that makes sense.  :-) --Isleño (talk) 02:27, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Regarding the table with requirements to participate Isleño posted, I would offer to change it so it would require not amount of cities, but amount of football clubs with own stadiums in their league, and, if possible, an article about the national championship. And, to make hosts like South Africa, South Korea or Japan possible, to allow not only known football countries to host them, but any with developed infrastructure - airports, hotels, railroad network, necessary amount of stadiums.--Ragekwa (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2016 (CET)
The way I see it, the competition doesn't have to be fair in the distribution of victors - to keep it the same number as in the rw seems entirely reasonable. But the way the competition is organised should allow other users to be involved, at least. Taking all the winner's and runner's up places stops this, as does filling up all the places in a single competition - that is what I mean by it not being fair on future users; it does not welcome anyone and it is not accommodating. We still need many more users to fill in all the space on the map! Like Isleño, the football competition isn't that important to me, but it matters to me that users who want to be involved can participate. With that in mind I would support a high bar, and I think that the bar should extend to more than just football - not just strips, league tables and mapped stadia. So if you want to win the world cup in football, you should at least have a wiki article about your country and a commitment to mapping cities with sports facilities in your country. Yes, it is a long term project. Yes, it will take time. Yes, of course it will put some people off. Re-writing past articles - no, but changing the names of the winning teams, or leaving blank spaces until a 'bar' is reached by a country, why not? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2016 (CET)
I was not talking about blank spaces, I just mentioned that we said multiple times how important is to leave blank spaces for future countries, but how about making requirements for all the countries that want to participate, and limit them to infrastructure? Because worldwide football is always up to infrastructure - stadiums. Once again, I'm not offering to fill whole table right now, I just offer to add global requirements related to infrastracture instead the ones in table.--Ragekwa (talk) 13:51, 8 February 2016 (CET)

If reset the table, please, do not delete 2014 edition

I see, soon, will be decided about reseting the entire World Cup history table. I dont like this idea, but I dont decide about it. So, well, please, I ask: Dont delete about 2014 OGFIFA World Cup. Maybe the new users did not read, but I wrote a so much detailed article to this World Cup. Was a lot of work, choosing the best pictures taken by my brother during the real 2014 World Cup, thinking details about each group, simulating all results (except Final and 3rdPlace match) in my PlayStation 3, hehehe... I know, one of the three host countries is not maped yet (Luslandia), but, please, in respect to all the work I had to this article, dont change or delete it... Regards to all!!! Bruno Moreira -- BMSOUZA (talk) 09:52, 5 February 2016 (CET)

Do not panic. I mean, where an article is, this is graved in stone. --Histor (talk) 12:34, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Its a good article. I enjoy reading the match summaries, the photos are fantastic and I appreciate all the effort that has gone into it. But I think it should not be the absolute final version. This is only my opinion, anyway - but Bruno if there was a way you could leave a few spaces for future countries, to allow other users to collaborate? And surely for example there would be seeds from some of the other continents in the competition? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2016 (CET)

Lets end the small talk. Tell us, what you concrete want. The "other continents" must not be an argument (see the reality on earth). --Histor (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2016 (CET)

My opinion = 2 suggestions, one or the other. 1 - make this competition a '4 continent cup' and leave it as it is. Future users can do a similar for the other 4 continents and finally in future there can be a new 'whole world cup', with bars to enter to be decided. Or 2 - 'other continents/future countries' should be an argument here in this competition. Use Bruno's template, but future users should be able to contribute. Remove countries to leave spaces following Isleño's suggestions above. Leave some names in the match reports blank. Countries that meet the requirements can later fill in the blanks. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 17:20, 5 February 2016 (CET)
I don't think anyone wants to delete quality work like the 2014 article, but some adjustments could easily be made to accommodate future users. Canadeisha and Dagelanden no longer have owners, for example, so they could be switched to Unknown Flag.png Undecided. If no one objects to doing the same for Tara and Mecyna, maybe those could be Unknown Flag.png Undecided also.
As for the big picture, if you don't want to allow a separate cup and you don't want to take away anyone's wins in the table, a very easy solution would be to simply make the cup every 2 years, instead of every 4 years. You could leave the 1st and 2nd place winners where they are and move the 3rd and 4th place winners to the alternate years, for example:
Year Winner Score Runner-Up Third Place Score Fourth Place Notes Host
2004 Latflag.png Latina 3-1 FreedemianFlag1.png Freedemia
2006 FlagSathria.jpg Sathria 2-1 Kalm flag.svg Kalm Latflag.png Latina
2008 Latflag.png Latina 3-2 Flag-Ataraxia-v1.png Ataraxia
2010 VegaFlag.PNG Vega 3-1 Flsg.jpg Pretany VegaFlag.PNG Vega
2012 Lost country.png Chastechek 2-0 VegaFlag.PNG Vega
2014 Latflag.png Latina 1-0 Karolia flag.png Karolia 4band ukl.png Gran-Lusland
The newly open spaces would be open to current users and future users, but they would need some kind of "high bar" rules so that they fill up slowly, over many years. So current users still have an advantage, obviously, but there's also plenty of room for future users to participate. --Isleño (talk) 19:14, 5 February 2016 (CET)
I'm not sure this would be such a realistic plan. It would make continental cups and football being in the Geolympiad almost impossible, because there is little time to play qualification matches as it is. In the FIFA WC qualification, there are six teams in each group who all play home and away = 10 matches per team so at least ten dates. But then these have to fit during breaks in the domestic season, in between Champions League and Europa League matches, the FA Cup, friendlies...there would not be enough time. The players would be exhausted, be taken away from club duties, etc.--Sarepava (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2016 (CET)
In that case, why not just remove football from the Geolympiad and get rid of the continental cups and some of the other stuff? --Isleño (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Another time, I agree to Sarepava. World Cups in 2 years make impossible continetal cups and football in Geolympiads...

Anyway, soon I will delete Dagelanden in 2014 World Cup, and think changes about Canadeshia in the same article, because I mentioned this country as a top-four. I faced same problem when Tamarindia was retired...

About removing football form Geolympiads, I disagree. Remember, in Geolympiads, the teams plays with under-21 players, and only 3 are over-21. It is a tournament to young players, so important! -- BMSOUZA (talk) 20:41, 5 February 2016 (CET)

But we can easily make adjustments so that it works. For example, if football is removed from the Geolympiad and world cups are held every two years, the under-21 and over-21 rules can easily be changed to accommodate all players. If there is no football in the Geolympiad, that should make time for a world cup in those years. --Isleño (talk) 20:56, 5 February 2016 (CET)

As Sarapeva wrote - all two years is too much. Between the world cups we have the OGF-continental cups.
Here I am with isleño, that not more existing countries can delete in the list. And I think too this countries with no football-infrastructure and may be no wiki-article about the country can deleted too in this list.
Udilugbuldigu will help the blanc continents - alas, so het us make it as in the real world of FIFA with continental-contingent-
  • 1934 - 1970 are 16 teams, so 3 for the new continents, each 4 Tarephia/Antarephia and Archanta and 5 Uletha
  • 1974 - 1982 are 24 teams, so 4 for the new, 7 TA/AN, 7 AR and 8 UL
  • 1986 - 2014 are 32 teams, so 6 for the new, 8 TA/AN, 8 AR and 10 UL
As I start this article at 03:16, 29 August 2014‎, I do not think, that the OGFIFA-title is the most wished in the OGF-world. --Histor (talk) 21:01, 5 February 2016 (CET)

There's more than one World Cup...

I might perhaps bring to our male-dominated community's attention that it is not only men who participate in football world cups - there is also a competition for women's national teams and in recent years the real-world event has been getting bigger and bigger. Last year the tournament expanded to 24 teams and was watched more than any previous occasion. The quality of play was no less than the men from most of the teams. And my country England, who have been pretty mediocre in the men's world cup, got third place and would probably have got into the final if it were not for an unfortunate own goal in the semi.

So, why can we not consider both in our fictional world and have twice the places for winners? And also some countries can be better at the women's game who are not so dominant in the men's so that they too have a chance to get some wins. I have already written that Karolia have won this twice and added the stars to the national organisation's crest.--Sarepava (talk) 19:42, 5 February 2016 (CET)

This is a good point, Sarepava! But now I have a new dilemma- Freedemia's league has been integrated men and women since the 90's. There are still two leagues, but they became 'upper' and 'lower' when the leagues were integrated (The original men's league became the best male and female players, aka upper, the woman's league became the second level of male and female players, aka lower.) Does thins basically disqualify my country from participating? --Ernestpcosby (talk) 20:26, 5 February 2016 (CET)
I agree with Sarepava. The users are forgeting about Women World Cup, about football in Geolympiad, and about Player of the Year, as I mentioned before.
Take a look: in WorldCups, african teams never was top-four, but in Olympic Games, they was in 1996. Liberia was never a football force, but Goerge Weah was Player of the Year once. Mexico and Belgium never was world champion or runners up, but everybody knows they are stronger teams. So much examples... -- BMSOUZA (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2016 (CET)

If people cared as much about women's football, this would be a great argument. But unfortunately they don't. If women's football is really just as important to you guys, then how about we make the current table into the women's results, and start a new blank table for the men's? But somehow I suspect that this would not be a popular idea. --Isleño (talk) 21:04, 5 February 2016 (CET)

Honestly, I'd support that idea wholeheartedly if we're going with this whole wiki requirement. But once again, I'm still not sure how that would affect Freedemia. We've had men and women on the same national teams since the 90's. So how exactly will my team be affected when there is only a men only World Cup and a women only World Cup? All our teams are integrated. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2016 (CET)
(Sorry if that sounded like I didn't approve. I really do like the idea, Isleno.) --Ernestpcosby (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2016 (CET)

I had exactly the same thought, Isleño. I think it is a great idea. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 21:09, 5 February 2016 (CET)

So, Ernest, there must be 3 world cups? How is the Freedemian 11 split male:female by the way? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2016 (CET)

I think Freedemia would play World Cup with a male team, and Women World Cup with a female team. What Freedemia does in its territory is "against" OGFIFA/WAFO rules. I see it as a "local variation" of the sport. not valid in international grounds. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 21:29, 5 February 2016 (CET)
It's not specifically split down the middle, but what I mean is there is no consideration of gender in the selection of players. It would be however many men and women showed qualifications to make the national team. The idea is that we don't care about gender in the selection, because the point is about the skill of the player. I in no way want three world cups. Two make sense. But would there be an exception in the specifics for a team who selects players off of skill and not off of gender? You can see the information on the Football (Soccer) in Freedemia wiki page. Our two leagues in Freedemia are Upper Level and Lower Level. The best players make it to the Upper Level league (formerly mens) and the second best who were good enough but not good enough for the top league become part of the lower league (formerly womens). The idea is there is no gender discrimination in either league. Most of the time it would either be like slightly more women than men (maybe 6:5?) or the other way around (5:6), but it doesn't have to be. I actually imagine the current upper league team to be about 7 women and 4 men. I understand what you mean, Udi, but I mean, if anything I'd say drop Freedemia then, to be honest the country would likely refuse to participate in protest of gender discrimination in sports if it's that strict on the international level. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Sorry, Ernest, but I dont see a male and a female World Cup as discrimination of genres. Would be discrimination if there are ONLY a male or female tournament. Look: if OGFIFA/WAFO create a exception to Freedemia, so Karolia (another country with strong women players) would like to play this way too, and another country, and another countries... -- BMSOUZA (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Fair enough, but let's just make sure Freedemia gets pulled out of the wiki pages then. I don't think the country would want to participate. It seems like people have been arguing over spots anyway, so it will help if we don't participate. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Well, just those since 1996 I guess. We weren't integrated until then, so they would have participated up until then. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Interesting... does this mean Freedemia may refuse to participate in its own Geolympiad, if men's and women's events are separate? --Isleño (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Perhaps more in specific sports than in the entire competition. There are some sports where it doesn't seem so deliberately separated as much. I'd imagine some would likely be pushing for full non-participation; likely what would happen is that many would be upset about it, but the country would participate in most of the sports despite protests. (Not everything is perfect in Freedemia :P there are disagreements from time to time) --Ernestpcosby (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Probably only not participating in team sports. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (CET)
That would still be debatable in itself. I imagine this particularly would be strongly debated but they'd likely participate ion most sports due to the honor of hosting. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2016 (CET)
Without introducing 'unrealistic elements' surely the male football players would be stronger than the women? Even on a 'level playing field' all of the top 11 men would be better than the top 11 women, faster, stronger, more than making up for differences in skill. It would be the same in almost all sports, because of our physical differences? And if the men and women were so much the same wouldn't OGFWADA be on to you? But I would support a 'mixed team' competition with a fixed 5:6 ratio (the 11th player being male or female). There could be an official OGFIMFA body and competition (M being Mixed) (there could still be the 2 other single-sew team competitions as well, of course, but there would be different countries in those, it seems). --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 22:24, 5 February 2016 (CET)
@Ernestpcosby — I do like the controversy.  :-) --Isleño (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2016 (CET)
I read that men and women are segregated in contact sports (and most non-contact sports) because of the fact that men are on average larger, taller and could injure the female players. It's actually nothing to do with discrimination or preventing both from being equal, it's simply about safety. There have been mixed-gender teams, and the English FA now allows them up to age 16, but there are safety concerns in the adult game.

There's no reason why women's football couldn't be as popular in the OGF planet as men's. In athletics and tennis they are as widely known, and actually at an amateur level in the US there are more female soccer players and teams. --Sarepava (talk) 22:47, 5 February 2016 (CET)

Ah sorry, I'm not talking about popularity on the OGF planet, I'm talking about popularity among OGF users. --Isleño (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2016 (CET)
I do see your point. I would be in favour of a 'mixed team' world cup of some kind though.--Sarepava (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2016 (CET)
A funny evolution of the discussion. Indeed as children boys and girls in Germany play football together in the clubs and from the club here in the village (at ages of 10) a girl is the top-scorer. But always as adults the men-teams are better. The women-national-team of Germany always lost games against men-teams in the 3rd class. So it may be, that some few women may be good enought for a men-national-team - but worldwide not more as fingers at one hand. Therefore with good reason we have sport for men and for woman. That is biology. So may play a woman in a man team, if she is absolutly very good - but I think, we shall have only two OGFIFA-cups - for men and for woman.
If you make mixed teams, they all will lose in the qualification --Histor (talk) 02:47, 6 February 2016 (CET)
You do make some valid points, everyone. I suppose perhaps it wouldn't be too much of an issue. I may keep some opposition to it active just for the controversy, but it seems like maybe they would have protested one year (in 1996) and every other year participated despite opposition. Would you suggest ending the policy in the country as well? Or just for the international teams? --Ernestpcosby (talk) 05:59, 6 February 2016 (CET)
I think is valid your "revolutionary" idea about both genres in the same team, Ernest, I only think it is not a "good" idea to the rest of the world in present days. It is a very interesting point in freedemian sport, dont need to end! But I think, in international matches, freedemian teams still needs follow the "genres rules". Maybe it will be a problem to the international carreer of freedemian teams (you can not join the best players in a national team of the other genre), but is still a interesting point. Once I read about a woman who try to play in NFL, but was not approved in a test. Anyway, "this football (NFL)" is a "sport to only one country", because there are not professional or important leagues in other countries over USA. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 08:41, 6 February 2016 (CET)

Another way to split the table, to make room for future users:

Cup Winner Score Runner-Up Third Place Score Fourth Place Notes Host
2002 Women's Karolia flag.png Karolia 1-0 Latflag.png Latina GobrassanyaFlag01.png Gobrassanya
2002 Men's Lost country.png Ismikk 4-1 FLAGMECY.png Mecyna
2006 Women's Latflag.png Latina 3-1 FreedemianFlag1.png Freedemia
2006 Men's FlagSathria.jpg Sathria 2-1 Kalm flag.svg Kalm Latflag.png Latina
2010 Women's VegaFlag.PNG Vega 3-1 Flsg.jpg Pretany VegaFlag.PNG Vega
2010 Men's Latflag.png Latina 3-2 Flag-Ataraxia-v1.png Ataraxia
2014 Women's Lost country.png Chastechek 2-0 VegaFlag.PNG Vega
2014 Men's Latflag.png Latina 1-0 Karolia flag.png Karolia 4band ukl.png Gran-Lusland

So current countries still have an advantage, in that they have claimed half the spots on the table. All open spots would be available to current and future users, but would be subject to a "high bar" requirement so that they fill up slowly. --Isleño (talk) 23:40, 7 February 2016 (CET)

I do not think, that this is a good idea. The table so is very crowded and not clear. Indeed we need a special table for the womens-champions (and as it is started for the "mixed" clubs). --Histor (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2016 (CET)
You can just as easily do it as two tables. Men's:
Cup Winner Score Runner-Up Third Place Score Fourth Place Notes Host
2002 Men's Lost country.png Ismikk 4-1 FLAGMECY.png Mecyna
2006 Men's FlagSathria.jpg Sathria 2-1 Kalm flag.svg Kalm Latflag.png Latina
2010 Men's Latflag.png Latina 3-2 Flag-Ataraxia-v1.png Ataraxia
2014 Men's Latflag.png Latina 1-0 Karolia flag.png Karolia 4band ukl.png Gran-Lusland
And women's:
Cup Winner Score Runner-Up Third Place Score Fourth Place Notes Host
2002 Women's Karolia flag.png Karolia 1-0 Latflag.png Latina GobrassanyaFlag01.png Gobrassanya
2006 Women's Latflag.png Latina 3-1 FreedemianFlag1.png Freedemia
2010 Women's VegaFlag.PNG Vega 3-1 Flsg.jpg Pretany VegaFlag.PNG Vega
2014 Women's Lost country.png Chastechek 2-0 VegaFlag.PNG Vega
--Isleño (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2016 (CET)

Thanks. Yes - this looks better. But too we have the "mixed"-Championship of Udi. Do you think, all three list in this article or - so I think - better three articles for men, women and mixies? --Histor (talk) 00:33, 8 February 2016 (CET)

Thanks, I think maybe Udi can decide whether the Intercup is affiliated with OGFIFA or not. If it's part of OGFIFA then it should probably be listed here, but if it's separate from OGFIFA (maybe formed in protest) then it can be on a different page. I'm going to split the full table and see how it looks on one page. We can always undo it, or split it into different pages if necessary. --Isleño (talk) 00:37, 8 February 2016 (CET)
OK everyone, feel free to share opinions. If we do decide to keep this split, I think it would probably be good to keep the women's on the same page as the men's, so that it is equally visible. We may want to move it to a separate page later though, if the article gets longer. --Isleño (talk) 00:49, 8 February 2016 (CET)
The split is fine to me. The only thing is, it reflects a very different world than the one we know if the women's world cup started in 1930 rather than in 1991. I would propose a similar date for its start as in the real world, ie 1990, possibly 86 or 94. If users like Ernestpcosby - whose idea it was - are happy for the mixed to be an OGFIFA championship, so am I. But perhaps to preserve the controversy, the first few years of that tournament weren't and it has recently been affiliated. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 00:55, 8 February 2016 (CET)
But regarding start date of the women's cup - I am happy with that, I certainly can't argue it should be just like the real world! I am just pointing out that it may raise issues for some users. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2016 (CET)
I dont want lokks like the bad guy in this discussion, and really I like this idea of Isleño to open free-spaces in the Champions Table (despite all my titles are not in the male version now, hehe), but... seting Chastechek2x0Vega to the female edition affects my 2014 wiki article... Would be any "exception" to this case?? I created a so-much-as-possible detailed wiki, I simulated the previous results, and decided the groups formation, based in that top four. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2016 (CET)
@BMSOUZA, hm... would it be possible for you to replace Chastechek and Vega with Unknown Flag.png Undecided? I imagine it would be good for some future teams from the new continents to do well in the 2014 cup? @Udi — Well, if we keep this split, we'd definitely have a lot more space to work with. We could move the 1934 and 1942 women's 3rd/4th place finishers to men's 1938 and 1954, move the 1938 women's 1st/2nd finishers and host to a men's 1926, and have Sathria host the men's 1942 cup instead of the women's 1946, and give Kalm men's 2nd place in 1934 in exchange for women's 1st place in 1946. That would allow the women's cup to start in 1954. --Isleño (talk) 01:23, 8 February 2016 (CET)
BMSOUZA made an awesome, long article about the WC hosted in his country and you want to change our world's history (excluding my country for example) because it doesn't fit some of your ideas? That's kinda ridiculous. I think that users who see a problem here should make place for other, new countries if some user will ask them. I can also remove some of my entries there if new user will ask me :) But if it was once set, it shouldn't be changed in my opinion. That way you can change many other things in this wiki. Also, I know that some users have experience and can create their country map very fast but I'm doing it very, very slowly because I don't want to make it bad and then change everything. Sometimes I just don't have time for it, but if you make a requirement to complete big cities to take part in creating wiki, then many users will edit fast, making map less beautiful and so on, just to take places in the table because if they'll be late, all spots will be taken by users that did a lot of work on the map earlier and new users won't join anyway so it's pointless ;) I don't have big business here but I just don't see this changes helpful at all for new users. --Zniwek (talk) 02:18, 8 February 2016 (CET)
@Zniwek That is good feedback. The main problem is that very few users have offered voluntarily to make space in the tables. At the moment it is full up, preventing future users being involved, especially ones who work slowly. In my personal opinion, the current table shouldn't be set in stone. World history hasn't yet been determined, more than half the world doesn't yet exist. We need to leave space for it to happen. A separate point is the bars for eligibility in the competitions. For the Intercup, whatever you think of it, I have already revised the eligibility, as Luciano suggested - exactly to try and allow users to map more slowly and precisely, by doing detailed work rather than making big cities out of motorways. I don't think it is pointless to try and reach this level of detail, but I can understand why users who already have places in the table don't want to give them up. Perhaps some of the rules about wiki and team kit are too much. In some ways I think a bidding process for winners and runners up would be a better way to go and I actually see this as a compromise between re-setting the table completely and making every entrant 'earn its place' and allowing the continuation of countries that previously took spots in the tables to keep them. So yes of course all this is ridiculous, but isn't it better for more people to be able to be ridiculous rather than just people who got in at the start? --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Zniwek. The way I see it is, one great thing about a wiki is the ability to improve articles. I think everyone agrees that BMSOUZA's article is superb, but it also clearly excludes half the world from any participation at all in 2014, which would be very strange for a modern world cup. A few small adjustments (like replacing "Chastechek" with "Undecided") can be an easy fix for this problem. So if this solution was implemented, the third place finish would go to Chastechek's women, instead of the men... and not only that, but if the third place men's finish is really important to you, this solution would also give you the opportunity to earn it through mapping. (I think if the community were to discover users mapping low-effort "dummy" cities just to get spots on the table, it wouldn't be be tolerated. It's hard to imagine everyone just sitting back and letting that happen.) Would a system of earning spots through mapping put slow mappers at a disadvantage? Yes, in a way. It's not 100% fair. But at least everyone would be earning spots in proportion to their contributions to the OGF map, which seems like a better solution than what we have now. --Isleño (talk) 03:09, 8 February 2016 (CET)
@Isleño - it took me a while to visualise the tables, but I see what you're suggesting now. It is - well something like 70 blank spaces to be filled in in the future. That would be great. Perhaps, the one thing to retain would be Brunos' 2014 world cup article. Some countires would have to be removed but the top men's competition positions and results/reports could be kept (save Chastechek)? The removed countries (hopefully volunteers) would be replaced by undecided and a high bar set - to be kept for 2 or 3 big footballing countries that may come along in future to participate. The only other sugestion I have is to have no competition in 1950 to allow space to develop a world conflict of some sort or another (this was also Bruno's cup- but there would be space for it elsewhere in the table)--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 03:27, 8 February 2016 (CET)
@Isleño. It is only about one or two countries. The problem is I wrote a so-detailed article. I mentioned about Gobrassanya was top-four once, to say its country got some history. Same about Canadeshia, that anyway needs to be retired. I also mentioned Escadia (ex-Tamarindia) as World Champion once. There was also a picture mentioning Cariocas vs. Ataraxia in 1998 3rd place match. As I said before, I simulated a entire World Cup in Playstation 3 to be "more neutral" about scores, based in that old top-four, and wrote the details about each group and stage based in the "current" top-four`s table. Is not about only replacing Chastechek/ Vega/ Canadeshia/ Dagelanden/ etc by Unknown Flag.png Undecided. So much things I wrote dont make sense in article now. I am not angry against anyone, but the only way is deleting my article. Some day I think about writing a new one, with few (or without) details, may be only score tables. No problem! Regards to all!! -- BMSOUZA (talk) 03:32, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Continuing: I agree with the idea of this new top-four table, with blanks to new mappers, its the better idea. Much of the discussion is solved simply deleting my article (till I think a better one), and I do it with no hard feelings. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Yikes, I've restored it and set this page back to the way it was. If the 2014 article can't be modified (?) then maybe we need to find a better solution? --Isleño (talk) 06:09, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Isleño, you dont trust me, hehehe. I have no bad feelings about it. Is more easy deleting ONE edition article, than deleting ALL women World Cup top-fours. I am not a king in OGF ;-) -- BMSOUZA (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2016 (CET)
I do trust you, I know you're fine.  :-) I restored it because you made a great wiki article and I wouldn't want to see it deleted. Would it help if someone went through the article to make the changes, like this: User:Isleño/Sandbox/2014_OGFIFA_World_Cup_editing? --Isleño (talk) 07:32, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Hehe, Isleño... I read some of the modifications you did, excluding some mentions to old top-fours, and its going to be good... Anyway, I see this article will not be completed soon, hehe. To me, there is no problem about using your text over my original article. Best regards! -- BMSOUZA (talk) 08:26, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Ah, that is a relief it can be restored. Glad there can be a high bar for those 'undecideds' getting to the semi-finals too, since all the work on the competition has already been done by BMSOUZA - and they look very tempting spots to take. Almost wish I had a big footballing country too! But now, I will focus on smaller things.--Udilugbuldigu (talk) 12:52, 8 February 2016 (CET)
OK, thanks BMSOUZA. I've moved the table back to men's and women's, and posted the edits to the 2014 cup article. I also moved the oldest women's cups over to the men's side, so that the men's cup starts slightly earlier and the women's cup starts later (more realistic?). Also, if there's any way to help arrange some sort of compromise for Zniwek (or anyone else who has objections to moving in this direction, especially if there's anyone who may be disappointed to find themselves mostly on the women's side) I'd be happy to help find a solution that works for all concerned. I'm sure some people would be willing to give up some spots on the men's side if necessary. I don't think anyone wants anyone else to have hurt feelings. So... let us know. --Isleño (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2016 (CET)

the new rules

Thanks to you all for the long and interesting discussion. I think now it is time, to draw a deadline and make concrete rules.

As I start this my baby month ago, there are only few football-enthusiasts. Now it seems, that this list is the most important place to participate at the OGF-world. Was a little bit strange to me, but o.k. Many other lists in the OGF-world have a lot of free space.

That shows - football is here # 1 in sport. That has plus and minus aspects. "Plus" is, that the list will not be empty over short or middle time and "minus" is, that some people think, the ranking is not fair for this users, who join later to the OGF-project. Other list will be filled after "first come, first set" - but here this shall not be so. O.k. then, let us make some space for future users.

This list from me was thought for the OGFIFA-men-cup. So I mean, that for the womens-cup shall be a second list and may be a third for the "mixed"-nations (the activity of Uli....). I do not like too long list and list, who merge different items.

From the beginning I had written, that in this list belongs only nations with a remarcable football infrastructure. What can be "remarcable"? So here is the lowest standard

  • a national tricot
  • a wiki-article about the land (more as a stub)
  • a wiki-article about the national football infrastructure
  • a first league with 16 or more clubs with club-name and club-tricots
  • mapping af all the stadiums of this 16 or more clubs.

Then I think it is helpful to set continental quotes. As in reality Europe or Southern America is more sucessfull as other continents, this quote will give more places for the old continents. For 1930 (8 teams) shall be no qoute (seen as a test-cup).

  • 1934 to 1970 are 16 teams; 4 TA/AN, 4 AR, 5 UL, 3 new continents
  • 1974 to 1982 are 24 teams; 6 TA/AN, 6 AR, 7 UL, 5 new continents
  • 1986 til now are 32 teams; 8 TA/AN, 8 AR, 10 UL, 6 new continents

So this quotes are the basic for articles about tournaments. With BMSOUZA the we shall discuss, in wich manner in his article about 2014 can be placeholders.

First Zylanda will give up one of his fourth place. I think Latina will be as it is, because this is the mirror of Germany. Other places I will go through in the next time for the "lowest standard". May be meanwhile some user delete self some of the places in the list.

And then - who has the host-country shall write the article about this tournament.

And at last = If your nation is not in the list of the first four of the OGFIFA-men-club, your nation can be in the list of

  • the OGFIFA-womans-cup
  • the continental-cups of men or women
  • the cup for mixed teams
--Histor (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2016 (CET)
As Bill Shankly said, football isn't a matter of life and death ... it's more important than that. So that is one reason why there needs to be space for future users. I agree with all these points and there are at least 80 free spots now, that is great. The quota system is perhaps too biased towards the 'old continents', in my opinion, but on the other hand that could add realism, so no problem. The only thing I would add is what Luciano said about mapping requirements in the mixed competition discussion: at least 16 different stadia with realistically filled-in surrounding mapped objects out to zoom 15 and including infrastructure, names, land-use and natural features. Perhaps also there could be a link through to the InterCup from this page. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 12:36, 8 February 2016 (CET)
And finally, 1950 edition - not held - kept open until we can decide something, or not, about a world war. And if competition split between 2 pages these be re-named OGFIFA world Cup (men) and OGFIFA world Cup (women) and the main page directs to both. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 12:42, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Maybe we should remove tricots from the rules? I have a doubt there are many users who will be able to find or draw free images of football team tricots, me in particular. Or suggest any generator of those images for wiki, if there are any - I could not google them yet.--Ragekwa (talk) 13:56, 8 February 2016 (CET)
I do like the rules, but it makes me wonder about the whole minimum of teams being as high as 16. Even with Freedemia's high population, I've only been able to figure out about 12 or 13 teams. I fear countries with small populations or smaller territories without a lot of cities to have teams are going to be at a disadvantage, especially with the whole having to have a certain number of teams/stadiums. And I guess my other question would be how specific the wiki requirement is. I have a wiki about football as a whole in Freedemia, but more about leagues than so much about the infrastructure. I don't mind it knocking out Freedemia itself too much; if I have to I can make baseball and foosball our top sports instead of soccer, I have no problem with that (I had already considered that :P), but it does seem this will put some mappers at a severe disadvantage. I know as someone only with access to iD and Polatch that large edits like landscapes are very hard to do without JOSM, and I guess I just fear a little that some mappers are pretty much out permanently from participating because of the time it will take them to reach this level when several mappers already have reached that level and will likely end up taking all the spots. Just thoughts. Please understand I do not want this to sound like an argument. :P These are just the concerns I have of these rules, for OGFIFA and for the InterCup, honestly. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Ragekwa, there actually is a template already for the tricot on one of the wiki pages :P I think on the talk page for the tricots, actually. I just edited mine in Microsoft Paint. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2016 (CET)
Thanks for starting this conversation. My suggestions would be: (1) No continental quotas, I think they limit the new continents too severely. Let people freely earn their spots through mapping. (2) Require a thorough wiki article about the country, not just a stub. (3) Add a mapping requirement similar to what Udi suggested, so that each spot must be earned separately. Some mappers will be at a disadvantage, but most small countries won't be hugely powerful in football anyway, and I feel like those who are able to contribute more to the OGF map (whether they have more time, or use better mapping tools, or for whatever reason) should be able to translate that greater contribution into greater football glory. (4) For now, I would keep the men's and women's on the same page, so that the women's side doesn't get ignored. (5) I'd suggest talking with those who took spots in the 1950 cup before deleting it. --Isleño (talk) 08:40, 10 February 2016 (CET)

Countries needed for 1942 edition

I need some countries for the 1942 OGFIFA World Cup where I'm working on now. There is a host country needed and 9 extra countries who can participate. 3 of these countries will also be in the quarter-finals, but this has to be countries with (at least a page about) football history. I hope some of your countries would like to participate :) Niels20020 (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2016 (CET)

FLAGZYL.png Zylanda is # 4 - Latflag.png Latina lost the quarter-final. If you write it, Mariana can be the host-country. --Histor (talk) 21:49, 2 February 2016 (CET)
I agree with Histor. If you write the 1942 World Cup article, you can use your country as the host. And, please, I would like to include 2band slovech.png Belgravia in this World Cup edition too. Belgravia staying only in first Round. (Thank you about including 2band brasonia.jpg Brasonia!!!) -- BMSOUZA (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2016 (CET)
Well, I don't think it's realistic to add Mariana as host country, because it's their first participation and the country is not that good in football Niels20020 (talk) 09:04, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Well, Niels... I see not so much users interested about creating World Cup articles. But you start one. Another thing: in real history, Japan, South Korea, South Africa and even USA and Russia was never in the "top teams", but all of these countries was (will be, Russia) host-countries once. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2016 (CET)
I think that Mariana would be a good host for a later edition, but not for this edition. I think that the country was not able to mange so many people in that time. (The countries you mentioned where very big and developed countries at the time that they organised the tournament) Niels20020 (talk) 10:31, 3 February 2016 (CET)
I dont understand. If Mariana would not like to be the host country, why was created the wiki article about the 1942 edition? Another thing: still today, South Africa does not have a big development to football. You can consider the real World Cup in 1930. All the matches was in Estádio Centenário, in Montevideo. It is a "realistic" example about Mariana as host-country. If Mariana still refuses, the host country needs to be one of these participants. If there was not a 1950 edition, as Udi suggestion, I would be happy if Brasonia could be the host cvountry in 1942, but I still think Mariana would be the best choose. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 21:57, 3 February 2016 (CET)
I created the article because it was the first participation of Mariana and I liked to make a page about a edition of the OGFIFA World Cup (I'm maybe going to do this also with other World Cup editions). I'm sorry, but I still think Mariana isn't a good host. Niels20020 (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2016 (CET)
Can you include Reeland flag.svg Reeland too? --tule00 22:40, 2 February 2016 (CET)
Karolia flag.png Karolia in all probability would have participated, although if they didn't qualify it would have been for a pretty dramatic reason.--Sarepava (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2016 (CET)
I added Karolia, but they had the last place in group C, is that okay? Niels20020 (talk) 09:14, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Lost country.png Demacia technically could participate in 1942 - the stadium in capital was built in 1935, and the other town had it for ages before. Also, if you gonna work on modern world cups, please include.--Ragekwa (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2016 (CET)
FreedemianFlag1.png Freedemia would have been participating too. --Ernestpcosby (talk) 00:35, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Mazan Flag.png Mazan was taking part Wal (talk) 02:54, 3 February 2016 (CET)
All the countries you all mentioned will be included! :) Niels20020 (talk) 09:06, 3 February 2016 (CET)
You can include Flag of Castellan.png Castellán too.--Kalh79 (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Are they good enough to play in the quarter final? Niels20020 (talk) 09:15, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Yes, Castellan can play in the quarter final.--Kalh79 (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Okay, I will add that Niels20020 (talk) 09:44, 3 February 2016 (CET)
We need one more country, who would like to participate? Niels20020 (talk) 11:33, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Tircambry-national-flag.png Tircambry could participate. I don't have a football page or history yet, but I can produce one fairly quickly --Pawl (talk) 13:44, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Fantastic! Now the tournament is complete, we only need a host country now Niels20020 (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Btw, Pawl, would your country Tirambry also like to participate in some editions of the Uletha Championship? You can tell me which ones Niels20020 (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2016 (CET)
@Niels20020 — Please remember that over half our world is not yet built. To preserve room for future countries, it would be good to use a placeholder like Unknown Flag.png Undecided instead of trying to recruit countries to fill every spot. Thanks for understanding!  :-) --Isleño (talk) 19:37, 4 February 2016 (CET)
That's a fair point, and I don't mind withdrawing and saving Tircambry (and Wesmandy) for a couple of other competitons in order to free up some space in 1942. Shouldn't some of the competitions be hosted in the "new world", too? --Pawl (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2016 (CET)
That comment wasn't aimed at Tircambry, btw, just generally speaking. But yeah, we should leave room for "new world" hosts also. And it's not just the "new world"... there are still well over 100 unclaimed countries in the "old world" too. In the section above I actually suggested resetting the winners table and replacing it with a system in which countries "earn" their spots by adding to the OGF wiki and map. I imagine it wouldn't be popular idea, but at this point we've filled up virtually the entire winners table, which isn't good (even though I think people have shown quite a bit of restraint in claiming spots). --Isleño (talk) 20:10, 4 February 2016 (CET)

1950 World Cup

I'd like to propose that this event did not happen due to a 'World War' of some type or another - TBD. Or at least, given that this is still under discussion, that no entries to this edition of the competition are made at present. We can discuss what is currently on the wiki in future. I know this may restrict possibilities in some ways, but please bear in mind that this would also reflect the real world situation. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 23:52, 2 February 2016 (CET)

Hehe, it was "my" World Cup, in Brasonia, but no problem to me about it. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 21:43, 3 February 2016 (CET)
Thanks Bruno! --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 11:55, 4 February 2016 (CET)


How do we choose hosts of continental and world cups? Two countries of different owners are eligible to host an event, like Japan and South Korea in 2002?--Ragekwa (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2016 (CET)

Hi, Ragewka! It happened twice in OGFIFA World Cup history. In 2002 the WC was played in Gobrassanya and Khaiwoon, and in 2014, was in Gran-Luslandia, a former country, that is, really, Brasonia, Belgravia and Luslandia. I created a wiki article to this edition, you could visit it, hehehe. And, currently, there is not some kind of votation - the user only includes his country as host or top-four in the table... -- BMSOUZA (talk) 08:07, 4 February 2016 (CET)
Great, we gotta host one of Archanta cups later then. --Ragekwa (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2016 (CET)
Feel free, include it here. -- BMSOUZA (talk) 08:18, 4 February 2016 (CET)

Changing name of OGFIFA

In International Organizations is mentioned World Association Football Organisation (formerly OpenGeofiction Fédération Internationale de Football Association). Well, if the admins and users are changing so much things about OGFIFA organization, it would not be the best time to change also the name of OGFIFA to WAFO?? Considering about a fictional world, I like this name far from the real one... -- BMSOUZA (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2016 (CET)

Seemed to be happen at 2015. I think, meanwhile it is time to protect the OGFIFA wiki-pages agaist "wild" edits. --Histor (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2016 (CET)
@Histor - It was discussed 10 months ago and the consensus was to change the name to WAFO. As for "wild edits" I don't think I've noticed any, but feel free to let me know what the problem is and I'll be happy to help.  :-) --Isleño (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2016 (CET)

Only to change OGFIFA to WAFO is no professional work. If somebody change the name of the organisation, then he/she must change too all the links and 100 articles, where the OGFIFA is named. This work was not done. And why may Zwinek change the name? The "discussion" was not in the wiki, but only at the diary of Zwinek.

May be the name the one or the other - if anybody will change the name, he has too to change all, what is linking to that article. See the tool "What links here?" And maybe in a second step all this, where the links are linking. No changing in the portal "Sport", nothing. Always OGFIFA, only in the "International Organisations" the WAFO --Histor (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2016 (CET)

And second = WAFO was a "red" link. No rediredt from OGFIFA - nothing. Such sort of name-changing is not helpful.--Histor (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2016 (CET)

The name change is a lot of work, which is why it wasn't implemented immediately. But it can be done, and I'd be happy to do it. The discussion in Zniwek's diary entry was public, not private. As you can see there, Indyroads suggested that there should be a new name, Sarepava recommended WAFO, and BMSOUZA and Zwinek and I endorsed it. No one objected, and so we placed the note in "International Organizations" to let everyone know about the idea. I'm sorry you didn't see the diary entry or the wiki note. If you have objections, feel free to discuss. If you don't object, I can go ahead and do the renaming. --Isleño (talk) 00:57, 11 February 2016 (CET)
eh? Seems to be a lot of hot air... Histor I think "Protected "OGFIFA World Cup": Counter-productive edit warring" wasn't the best decision you could have made. Being a wikipedia admin (however inactive) the constructive discussion and editing here certainly wasn't. There's a difference of option, discuss it here and sort the page out later - it's not like there's a real world out there hanging on it's content. Personally i'd say sports here should be gender equal from the start, but being a country-less vagabond take that as you will (ps - how will Commonia, Gobrassanya, KW, Mecyna etc contribute?). wangi (talk) 02:04, 11 February 2016 (CET)

Namen sind Schall und Rauch (Names are sound and smoke). Someone can name the OGFIFA as he/she want - but if someone will do this, then not only isolated in the list of international organisations. Someone can not have the pleasure to give a new name and the bureaucracy-work may do some other fools.

After renaming it is necessary to rename the OGFIFA-articles, set a redirect from the OGFIFA-articles to the new name, change in portal "Sport" - and so on. And not in some month, but immediatly. Good luck. --Histor (talk) 02:16, 11 February 2016 (CET)

@wangi =I think "Protected "OGFIFA World Cup": Counter-productive edit warring" wasn't the best decision you could have made. I protect this articel to proof the next days, what is with the infrastructure of some countries in the list. And indeed is has a life outside the OGF, so that needs some days. --Histor (talk) 02:25, 11 February 2016 (CET)

Set aside the concerns about semantics and procedure, focus on the issues and somebody (doesn't have to be you) will do the house work later once consensus has been reached. There's really no rush. /wangi (talk) 02:29, 11 February 2016 (CET)
I've been out of time the last few days, so not managed to get online. So, although I see that Histor has now created a page OGF:World Cup Requirements, I'm now a bit confused by what has happened on this discussion page - and slightly concerned. The main page has been protected by Histor (admin) with the message "Protected "OGFIFA World Cup": Counter-productive edit warring". The suggested changes by Isleño (admin) which freed up space in the table by splitting the winners between men and women have been reverted. The start dates for both men's and women's world cups have been significantly altered, making them more dissimilar, somehting that had not been discussed prevoiusly. And I see some pertinent points by BMSOUZA and Isleño about replacing 'OGFIFA' with 'WAFO' as previously agreed have been ignored by Histor and rather tactless and insulting language used. The meaning of the sentence isn't entirely clear to me, but the tone of 'some other fools' used Histor, is pretty clear, and clearly disrespectful. Firstly I agree with wangi - protecting a page on the basis that there might be an edit war (and there is no evidence that there has been anything along those lines) is heavy-handed and diminishes the collaborative aspect of OGF, substantially. Secondly, I don't think users, especially admins, should need to resort to comments like Histor's here. Thirdly, if consensus can't be reached, which may be the case, the debate should be made open to the whole OGF community, probably on the diary page, before action is taken. I can't see any point in pursuing the discussion further on this page, since the collaboration aspect here has been effectively stamped on, but I will pursue collaboration in OGF, through the fictional aspect of the countries I am mapping and by collaborating with other users, individually where it is not possible in general. Hopefully you will understand what I mean. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2016 (CET)
Thanks, Udi & Wangi. I understand what you're saying. As I see it, the problem is mostly language barrier. Sometimes it causes people to use words and phrases we wouldn't use, and it also makes it hard for people to follow the details of what's happening and respond appropriately. So whenever there's an action or a comment that doesn't make sense to me, my first response is to assume good intentions and try to resolve the miscommunication. I'm sure we'll be able to remove the page from "protected" status (I too didn't see any edit warring) and sort out the issues here. And as Wangi points out, there's no rush. Histor sent me a friendly message via inbox which has led to a good conversation. I'm sorry for any bad feelings caused by any interaction here. I know that wasn't anyone's intention. Hope that helps. --Isleño (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2016 (CET)

The changing of the name is a lot of work and will happen next time, but if, then not only in the list of international organisations. Names here in the wiki should be consistent for all articles. And indeed - clear words or not - it is not professional and to accept, to make work only to 5 % and wait, that other fools make the 95 % rest of the work.

The OGFIFA (or WAFO) list now will start 1922 (men) or 1962 (women) and as you want for a terrible war 1950 is deleted. This was to get more place for cup-winners and is a changing of isleño and I agree with him.

I do not think, that every aspect of the OGFIFA-world has to be discuss to an endless end. As I started some month ago this wiki-article about the OGFIFA-cup most users accept the rules. After month you now start a new discussion. The list is changed and will next days occur in the discussed manner. What is the problem?

I like your style in your wiki-articles and your mapping. But for football I see only the stadium in Ek-Balam. And you make a great discussion to change my list. If this is respectful, is the question.

The colloboration aspect - so I am with you - is important between neighbours, for embassies or airway- and shipping-lines and other aspects. This here is only a list, where somebody has to filter, what stands in it. The rule will be, that this person, who writes the article about a tournament, has to do most if the work - so as BMSOUZA did in a excellent manner for the 2014 cup for men. --Histor (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2016 (CET)

next step of discussion, to have more oversight

Thanks Isleño for the comments. I am happy that the protection has been lifted. If you want I will change 'OGFIFA' to 'WAFO' in however many articles is necessary, fool or not - just pm me.

Histor/Isleño - I don't disagree with the decision to change start dates for the competition, I was just surprised those changes appeared in the table without discussion (except the comparison with rw competition start dates). I have no problem with those dates. Of course I know what you mean about 'endless discussion', I would just hope that any discussion would be aimed at a useful outcome, which was my intention here, at least.

Histor, you can't expect every user to see everything on the wiki instantly - it took me a while to get to football in developing my country. I would in some ways have preferred to wait longer. I commented on the page when I commented on the page because that was when it came to my attention. In any case, thank you for clearing 1950. I'll try and contribute to a convincing back story as to why that tournament was not held, as has been discussed elsewhere (and no doubt will be discussed again). Regarding the organisation of the table I'm not entirely sure what changes will be made to this page in the future, but I'm prepared to wait and see what they will be. The 'problem' was your response to what I thought was a constructive discussion whereby you protected the page against wild edits without any apparent cause. Do you see this? Perhaps there were some misinterpretations, by both of us. However I am confused by your comment above. Ek-Balam is by user:Anakes. I have mapped stadia in Kėzėpölān - nowhere else. Kėzėpölān is far from complete - it has only existed for around a month and I expect that its 'style' may not be as much to your taste as Balam. But Kėzėpölān will hopefully not be the only place I map. Regarding your second last comment, I don't think this is any longer 'your list', nor is it mine. It is undeniably a collaborative work (I hope you can see why). I have never made a single edit on this list, I have only explored options to enable other countries to be added to it. Where is the lack of respect in that? Maybe you would respect me more if I had taken the final spaces in the table rather than trying to find more space in the future? But maybe again I am mis-interpreting you, or perhaps you have misinterpreted me. I understand your final point on tournament hosts, it is a good point and I fully support it. I am also happy to see the OGF:World_Cup_Requirements page you have been working on. I will correct its grammar on my sandbox page, since it is a protected page. Use it or ignore it, your choice. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2016 (CET)

It is not only you, who is interested at this table. It is made place in the table and I hope some more place the next time too. After Latina and Zylanda cut back the entries, other (so I hope) will do so in the same way.
Sorry, thought Ek-Balam was yours. Nevertheless - today your contries are not a great football-nation. May be in the future - we will see.
The important question is not, if it is "my" list. I made the list for all, indeed, as a little gimmick. But nevertheless it is my baby and I will have now and in the future a look, that it is in good condition.
OGF:World_Cup_Requirements is a "protected sandbox-beta-version". You can write on her talk-page, if you want. --Histor (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2016 (CET)
Good. I have added corrected text on talk page. --Udilugbuldigu (talk) 19:28, 13 February 2016 (CET)
I wasn't able to participate in the discussion too much because of exams but I'll read new posts later. Histor sent me a message and I replied to him but I'll also write it here
- 1966 can be taken by somebody else who loves football and can write an awesome article and so on
- I'd like to keep 1998 if it's possible and I'll try to make a quality article about it (in the future when we finally decide everything)
- if you want to make place for others, you can tell me what are your ideas about moving/removing Chastechek from the top4
I hope I didn't forget anything. Have a nice day :)
EDIT: Make a good use of my World Cup template which is included in every article as I created one for every year as far as I remember. If that template can be improved, just do it :) --Zniwek (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2016 (CET)

Countries in 1998 edition

I'm slowly creating article about "my" World Cup :) Can everybody take a look here: and decide if he wants his country to participate along with some wishes? There are too many countries from Antarephia/Tarephia and Uletha. You can write here or there. --Zniwek (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2016 (CET)

The 2006 W.C.

Can Ünglend have won the World Cup 2006? --Tito zz (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2018 (CEST)