Talk:2014 FIFA World Cup seeding

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I notived that the table has USA as #12 ... I believe this is an error: #10 England (1080), #11 Brazil (1078), #12 Chile (1051), #13 USA (1040), #14 Portugal (1036). All based upon the FIFA.com FIFA World Ranking calculator. Or just wait until the Ranking are released officially on Thursday, Oct 17. 71.195.164.236 (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need the ranks of all the nations that could possibly qualify in the table? Seems a bit excessive to me!Tomberli (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This section is at the moment totally unsourced and speculative. Please add source and discuss here or stop instering it. If insterting it will be removed per

After the draw, this article will have no reason for existing, as it can be included into the main world cup page as just one table with a short summary. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 10:22, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The 2010 and 2006 draws have their own article Jack Bornholm (talk)

Netherlands and Italy both have 1136 points in the October ranking, and both are number 8. What makes Netherlands ranked over Italy here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katokichi (talk • contribs) 13:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has to do with the decimals, where Netherlands (1135.95) is ahead of Italy (1135.61). This can be seen for instance in this article. QED237 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The table on the 2018 page is far better. Does anybody want to change to copy that format? Red Jay (talk) 15:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]