text:
Monocotyledon

Monocotyledons, commonly referred to as monocots, (Lilianae sensu Chase & Reveal) are grass and grass-like flowering plants (angiosperms), the seeds of which typically contain only one embryonic leaf, or cotyledon. They constitute one of the major groups into which the flowering plants have traditionally been divided; the rest of the flowering plants have two cotyledons and are classified as dicotyledons, or dicots.

Monocotyledons have almost always been recognized as a group, but with various taxonomic ranks and under several different names. The APG III system of 2009 recognises a clade called "monocots" but does not assign it to a taxonomic rank.

The monocotyledons include about 70,000 species, about a quarter of all angiosperms. The largest family in this group (and in the flowering plants as a whole) by number of species are the orchids (family Orchidaceae), with more than 20,000 species. About 12,000 species belong to the true grasses (Poaceae), which are economically the most important family of monocotyledons. Often mistaken for grasses, sedges are also monocots.

In agriculture the majority of the biomass produced comes from monocotyledons. These include not only major grains (rice, wheat, maize, etc.), but also forage grasses, sugar cane, the bamboos, and many other common food and decorative crops.

General
The monocots or monocotyledons have, as the name implies, a single (mono-) cotyledon, or embryonic leaf, in their seeds. Historically, this feature was used to contrast the monocots with the dicotyledons or dicots which typically have two cotyledons; however, modern research has shown that the dicots are not a natural group, and the term can only be used to indicate all angiosperms that are not monocots and is used in that respect here. From a diagnostic point of view the number of cotyledons is neither a particularly useful characteristic (as they are only present for a very short period in a plant's life), nor is it completely reliable. The single cotyledon is only one of a number of modifications of the body plan of the ancestral monocotyledons, whose adaptive advantages are poorly understood, but may have been related to adaption to aquatic habitats, prior to radiation to terrestrial habitats. Nevertheless, monocots are sufficiently distinctive that there has rarely been disagreement as to membership of this group, despite considerable diversity in terms of external morphology. However, morphological features that reliably characterise major clades are rare.

Thus monocots are distinguishable from other angiosperms both in terms of their uniformity and diversity. On the one hand, the organization of the shoots, leaf structure, and floral configuration are more uniform than in the remaining angiosperms, yet within these constraints a wealth of diversity exists, indicating a high degree of evolutionary success. Monocot diversity includes perennial geophytes such as ornamental flowers including orchids (Asparagales); tulips and lilies (Liliales); rosette and succulent epiphytes (Asparagales); mycoheterotrophs (Liliales, Dioscoreales, Pandanales), all in the lilioid monocots; major cereal grains (maize, rice, barley, rye, oats, millet, sorghum and wheat) in the grass family; and forage grasses (Poales) as well as woody tree-like palm trees (Arecales), bamboo, reeds and bromeliads (Poales), bananas and ginger (Zingiberales) in the commelinid monocots, as well as both emergent (Poales, Acorales) and aroids, as well as floating or submerged aquatic plants such as seagrass (Alismatales).

Organisation, growth and life forms
The most important distinction is their growth pattern, lacking a lateral meristem (cambium) that allows for continual growth in diameter with height (secondary growth), and therefore this characteristic is a basic limitation in shoot construction. Although largely herbaceous, some arboraceous monocots reach great height, length and mass. The latter include agaves, palms, pandans, and bamboos. This creates challenges in water transport that monocots deal with in various ways. Some, such as species of Yucca, develop anomalous secondary growth, while palm trees utilise an anomalous primary growth form described as establishment growth (see Vascular system). The axis undergoes primary thickening, that progresses from internode to internode, resulting in a typical inverted conical shape of the basal primary axis (see Tillich, Figure 1). The limited conductivity also contributes to limited branching of the stems. Despite these limitations a wide variety of adaptive growth forms has resulted (Tillich, Figure 2) from epiphytic orchids (Asparagales) and bromeliads (Poales) to submarine Alismatales (including the reduced Lemnoideae) and mycotrophic Burmanniaceae (Dioscreales) and Triuridaceae (Pandanales). Other forms of adaptation include the climbing vines of Araceae (Alismatales) which use negative phototropism (skototropism) to locate host trees (i.e. the darkest area), while some palms such as Calamus manan (Arecales) produce the longest shoots in the plant kingdom, up to 185 m long. Other monocots, particularly Poales, have adopted a therophyte life form.

Leaves
The cotyledon, the primordial Angiosperm leaf consists of a proximal leaf base or hypophyll and a distal hyperphyll. In monocots the hypophyll tends to be the dominant part in contrast to other angiosperms. From these, considerable diversity arises. Mature monocot leaves are generally narrow and linear, forming a sheathing around the stem at its base, although there are many exceptions. Leaf venation is of the striate type, mainly arcuate-striate or longitudinally striate (parallel), less often palmate-striate or pinnate-striate with the leaf veins emerging at the leaf base and then running together at the apices. There is usually only one leaf per node because the leaf base encompasses more than half the circumference. The evolution of this monocot characteristic has been attributed to developmental differences in early zonal differentiation rather than meristem activity (leaf base theory).

Roots and underground organs
The lack of cambium in the primary root limits its ability to grow sufficiently to maintain the plant. This necessitates early development of roots derived from the shoot (adventitious roots). In addition to roots, monocots develop runners and rhizomes, which are creeping shoots. Runners serve vegetative propagation, have elongated internodes, run on or just below the surface of the soil and in most case bear scale leaves. Rhizomes frequently have an additional storage function and rhizome producing plants are considered geophytes (Tillich, Figure 11). Other geophytes develop bulbs, a short axial body bearing leaves whose bases store food. Additional outer non-storage leaves may form a protective function (Tillich, Figure 12). Other storage organs may be tubers or corms, swollen axes. Tubers may form at the end of underground runners and persist. Corms are short lived vertical shoots with terminal inflorescences and shrivel once flowering has occurred. However, intermediate forms may occur such as in Crocosmia (Asparagales). Some monocots may also produce shoots that grow directly down into the soil, these are geophilous shoots (Tillich, Figure 11) that help overcome the limited trunk stability of large woody monocots.

Flowers
In nearly all cases the perigone consists of two alternating trimerous whorls of tepals, being homochlamydeous, without differentiation between calyx and corolla. In zoophilous (pollinated by animals) taxa, both whorls are corolline (petal-like). Anthesis (the period of flower opening) is usually fugacious (short lived). Some of the more persistent perigones demonstrate thermonastic opening and closing (responsive to changes in temperature). About two thirds of monocots are zoophilous, predominantly by insects. These plants need to advertise to pollinators and do so by way of phaneranthous (showy) flowers. Such optical signalling is usually a function of the tepal whorls but may also be provided by semaphylls (other structures such as filaments, staminodes or stylodia which have become modified to attract pollinators). However, some monocot plants may have aphananthous (inconspicuous) flowers and still be pollinated by animals. In these the plants rely either on chemical attraction or other structures such as coloured bracts fulfill the role of optical attraction. In some phaneranthous plants such structures may reinforce floral structures. The production of fragrances for olfactory signalling are common in monocots. The perigone also functions as a landing platform for pollinating insects.

Fruit and seed
The embryo consists of a single cotyledon, usually with two vascular bundles.

Comparison with dicots
The traditionally listed differences between monocots and dicots are as follows. This is a broad sketch only, not invariably applicable, as there are a number of exceptions. The differences indicated are more true for monocots versus eudicots.

A number of these differences are not unique to the monocots, and, while still useful, no one single feature will infallibly identify a plant as a monocot. For example, trimerous flowers and monosulcate pollen are also found in magnoliids, and exclusively adventitious roots are found in some of the Piperaceae. Similarly, at least one of these traits, parallel leaf veins, is far from universal among the monocots. Broad leaves and reticulate leaf veins, features typical of dicots, are found in a wide variety of monocot families: for example, Trillium, Smilax (greenbriar), Pogonia (an orchid), and the Dioscoreales (yams). Potamogeton and Paris quadrifolia (herb-paris) are examples of monocots with tetramerous flowers. Other plants exhibit a mixture of characteristics. Nymphaeaceae (water lilies) have reticulate veins, a single cotyledon, adventitious roots, and a monocot-like vascular bundle. These examples reflect their shared ancestry. Nevertheless, this list of traits is generally valid, especially when contrasting monocots with eudicots, rather than non-monocot flowering plants in general.

Apomorphies
Monocot apomorphies (characteristics derived during radiation rather than inherited from an ancestral form) include herbaceous habit, leaves with parallel venation and sheathed base, an embryo with a single cotyledon, an atactostele, numerous adventitious roots, sympodial growth, and trimerous (3 parts per whorl) flowers that are pentacyclic (5 whorled) with 3 sepals, 3 petals, 2 whorls of 3 stamens each, and 3 carpels. In contrast, monosulcate pollen is considered an ancestral trait, probably plesiomorphic.

Synapomorphies
The distinctive features of the monocots have contributed to the relative taxonomic stability of the group. Douglas E. Soltis and others identify thirteen synapomorphies (shared characteristics that unite monophyletic groups of taxa);
 * 1) Calcium oxalate raphides
 * 2) Absence of vessels in leaves
 * 3) Monocotyledonous anther wall formation*
 * 4) Successive microsporogenesis
 * 5) Syncarpous gynoecium
 * 6) Parietal placentation
 * 7) Monocotyledonous seedling
 * 8) Persistent radicle
 * Haustorial cotyledon tip
 * 1) Open cotyledon sheath
 * 2) Steroidal saponins*
 * 3) Fly pollination*
 * 4) Diffuse vascular bundles and absence of secondary growth

Vascular system

Monocots have a distinctive arrangement of vascular tissue known as an atactostele in which the vascular tissue is scattered rather than arranged in concentric rings. Collenchyma is absent in monocot stems, roots and leaves. Many monocots are herbaceous and do not have the ability to increase the width of a stem (secondary growth) via the same kind of vascular cambium found in non-monocot woody plants. However, some monocots do have secondary growth; because this does not arise from a single vascular cambium producing xylem inwards and phloem outwards, it is termed "anomalous secondary growth". Examples of large monocots which either exhibit secondary growth, or can reach large sizes without it, are palms (Arecaceae), screwpines (Pandanaceae), bananas (Musaceae), Yucca, Aloe, Dracaena, and Cordyline.

Taxonomy
The monocots form one of five major lineages of mesangiosperms (core angiosperms), which in themselves form 99.95% of all angiosperms. The monocots and the eudicots, are the largest and most diversified angiosperm radiations accounting for 22.8% and 74.2% of all angiosperm species respectively.

Of these, the grass family (Poaceae) is the most economically important, which together with the orchids Orchidaceae account for half of the species diversity, accounting for 34% and 17% of all monocots respectively and are among the largest families of angiosperms. They are also among the dominant members of many plant communities.

Pre-Linnean
The monocots are one of the major divisions of the flowering plants or angiosperms. They have been recognized as a natural group since the sixteenth century when Lobelius (1571), searching for a characteristic to group plants by, decided on leaf form and their venation. He observed that the majority had broad leaves with net-like venation, but a smaller group were grass-like plants with long straight parallel veins. In doing so he distinguished between the dicotyledons, and the latter (grass-like) monocotyledon group, although he had no formal names for the two groups.

Formal description dates from John Ray's studies of seed structure in the 17th century. Ray, who is often considered the first botanical systematist, observed the dichotomy of cotyledon structure in his examination of seeds. He reported his findings in a paper read to the Royal Society on 17 December 1674, entitled "A Discourse on the Seeds of Plants". Since this paper appeared a year before the publication of Malpighi's Anatome Plantarum (1675–1679), Ray has the priority. At the time, Ray did not fully realise the importance of his discovery but progressively developed this over successive publications. And since these were in Latin, "seed leaves" became folia seminalia and then cotyledon, following Malpighi. Malpighi and Ray were familiar with each other's work, and Malpighi in describing the same structures had introduced the term cotyledon, which Ray adopted in his subsequent writing. In this experiment, Malpighi also showed that the cotyledons were critical to the development of the plant, proof that Ray required for his theory. In his Methodus plantarum nova Ray also developed and justified the "natural" or pre-evolutionary approach to classification, based on characteristics selected a posteriori in order to group together taxa that have the greatest number of shared characteristics. This approach, also referred to as polythetic would last till evolutionary theory enabled Eichler to develop the phyletic system that superseded it in the late nineteenth century, based on an understanding of the acquisition of characteristics. He also made the crucial observation ''Ex hac seminum divisione sumum potest generalis plantarum distinctio, eaque meo judicio omnium prima et longe optima, in eas sci. quae plantula seminali sunt bifolia aut διλόβω, et quae plantula sem. adulta analoga.'' (From this division of the seeds derives a general distinction amongst plants, that in my judgement is first and by far the best, into those seed plants which are bifoliate, or bilobed, and those that are analogous to the adult), that is between monocots and dicots. He illustrated this by quoting from Malpighi and including reproductions of Malpighi's drawings of cotyledons (see figure). Initially Ray did not develop a classification of flowering plants (florifera) based on a division by the number of cotyledons, but developed his ideas over successive publications, coining the terms Monocotyledones and Dicotyledones in 1703, in the revised version of his Methodus (Methodus plantarum emendata), as a primary method for dividing them, Herbae floriferae, dividi possunt, ut diximus, in Monocotyledones & Dicotyledones (Flowering plants, can be divided, as we have said, into Monocotyledons & Dicotyledons).

Post Linnean
Although Linnaeus (1707–1778) did not utilise Ray's discovery, basing his own classification solely on floral reproductive morphology, the term was used shortly after his classification appeared (1753) by Scopoli and who is credited for its introduction. Every taxonomist since then, starting with De Jussieu and De Candolle, has used Ray's distinction as a major classification characteristic. In De Jussieu's system (1789), he followed Ray, arranging his Monocotyledones into three classes based on stamen position and placing them between Acotyledones and Dicotyledones. De Candolle's system (1813) which was to predominate thinking through much of the 19th century used a similar general arrangement, with two subgroups of his Monocotylédonés (Monocotyledoneae). Lindley (1830) followed De Candolle in using the terms Monocotyledon and Endogenae interchangeably. They considered the monocotyledons to be a group of vascular plants (Vasculares) whose vascular bundles were thought to arise from within (Endogènes or endogenous).

Monocotyledons remained in a similar position as a major division of the flowering plants throughout the nineteenth century, with minor variations. George Bentham and Hooker (1862–1883) used Monocotyledones, as would Wettstein, while August Eichler used Mononocotyleae and Engler, following de Candolle, Monocotyledoneae. In the twentieth century, some authors used alternative names such as Bessey's (1915) Alternifoliae and Cronquist's (1966) Liliatae. Later (1981) Cronquist changed Liliatae to Liliopsida, usages also adopted by Takhtajan simultaneously. Thorne (1992) and Dahlgren (1985) also used Liliidae as a synonym.

Taxonomists had considerable latitude in naming this group, as the Monocotyledons were a group above the rank of family. Article 16 of the ICBN allows either a descriptive botanical name or a name formed from the name of an included family.

In summary they have been variously named, as follows:
 * class Monocotyledoneae in the de Candolle system and the Engler system
 * class Monocotyledones in the Bentham & Hooker system and the Wettstein system
 * class Monocotyleae in the Eichler system
 * class Liliatae then Liliopsida in the Takhtajan system and the Cronquist system
 * subclass Liliidae in the Dahlgren system and the Thorne system

Modern era
Over the 1980s, a more general review of the classification of angiosperms was undertaken. The 1990s saw considerable progress in plant phylogenetics and cladistic theory, initially based on rbcL gene sequencing and cladistic analysis, enabling a phylogenetic tree to be constructed for the flowering plants. The establishment of major new clades necessitated a departure from the older but widely used classifications such as Cronquist and Thorne, based largely on morphology rather than genetic data. These developments complicated discussions on plant evolution and necessitated a major taxonomic restructuring.

This DNA based molecular phylogenetic research confirmed on the one hand that the monocots remained as a well defined monophyletic group or clade, in contrast to the other historical divisions of the flowering plants, which had to be substantially reorganized. No longer could the angiosperms be simply divided into monocotyledons and dicotyledons; it was apparent that the monocotyledons were but one of a relatively large number of defined groups within the angiosperms. Correlation with morphological criteria showed that the defining feature was not cotyledon number but the separation of angiosperms into two major pollen types, uniaperturate (monosulcate and monosulcate-derived) and triaperturate (tricolpate and tricolpate-derived), with the monocots situated within the uniaperturate groups. The formal taxonomic ranking of Monoctyledons thus became replaced with monocots as an informal clade. This is the name that has been most commonly used since the publication of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group (APG) system in 1998 and regularly updated since.

Within the angiosperms, there are two major grades, a small early branching basal grade, the basal angiosperms (ANA grade) with three lineages and a larger late branching grade, the core angiosperms (mesangiosperms) with five lineages, as shown in the cladogram.

Subdivision
While the monocotyledons have remained extremely stable in their outer borders as a well-defined and coherent monophylectic group, the deeper internal relationships have undergone considerable flux, with many competing classification systems over time.

Historically, Bentham (1877), considered the monocots to consist of four alliances, Epigynae, Coronariae, Nudiflorae and Glumales, based on floral characteristics. He describes the attempts to subdivide the group since the days of Lindley as largely unsuccessful. Like most subsequent classification systems it failed to distinguish between two major orders, Liliales and Asparagales, now recognised as quite separate. A major advance in this respect was the work of Rolf Dahlgren (1980), which would form the basis of the Angiosperm Phylogeny Group's (APG) subsequent modern classification of monocot families. Dahlgren who used the alternate name Lilliidae considered the monocots as a subclass of angiosperms characterised by a single cotyledon and the presence of triangular protein bodies in the sieve tube plastids. He divided the monocots into seven superorders, Alismatiflorae, Ariflorae, Triuridiflorae, Liliiflorae, Zingiberiflorae, Commeliniflorae and Areciflorae. With respect to the specific issue regarding Liliales and Asparagales, Dahlgren followed Huber (1969) in adopting a splitter approach, in contrast to the longstanding tendency to view Liliaceae as a very broad sensu lato family. Following Dahlgren's untimely death in 1987, his work was continued by his widow, Gertrud Dahlgren, who published a revised version of the classification in 1989. In this scheme the suffix -florae was replaced with -anae (e.g. Alismatanae) and the number of superorders expanded to ten with the addition of Bromelianae, Cyclanthanae and Pandananae.

Molecular studies have both confirmed the monophyly of the monocots and helped elucidate relationships within this group. The APG system does not assign the monocots to a taxonomic rank, instead recognizing a monocots clade. However, there has remained some uncertainty regarding the exact relationships between the major lineages, with a number of competing models (including APG).

The APG system establishes eleven orders of monocots. These form three grades, the alismatid monocots, lilioid monocots and the commelinid monocots by order of branching, from early to late. In the following cladogram numbers indicate crown group (most recent common ancestor of the sampled species of the clade of interest) divergence times in mya (million years ago).

Of some 70,000 species, by far the largest number (65%) are found in two families, the orchids and grasses. The orchids (Orchidaceae, Asparagales) contain about 25,000 species and the grasses (Poaceae, Poales) about 11,000. Other well known groups within the Poales order include the Cyperaceae (sedges) and Juncaceae (rushes), and the monocots also include familiar families such as the palms (Arecaceae, Arecales) and lilies (Liliaceae, Liliales).

Evolution
In prephyletic classification systems monocots were generally positioned between plants other than angiosperms and dicots, implying that monocots were more primitive. With the introduction of phyletic thinking in taxonomy (from the system of Eichler 1875–1878 onwards) the predominant theory of monocot origins was the ranalean (ranalian) theory, particularly in the work of Bessey (1915), which traced the origin of all flowering plants to a Ranalean type, and reversed the sequence making dicots the more primitive group.

The monocots form a monophyletic group arising early in the history of the flowering plants, but the fossil record is meagre. The earliest fossils presumed to be monocot remains date from the early Cretaceous period. For a very long time, fossils of palm trees were believed to be the oldest monocots, first appearing 90 million years ago (mya), but this estimate may not be entirely true. At least some putative monocot fossils have been found in strata as old as the eudicots. The oldest fossils that are unequivocally monocots are pollen from the Late Barremian–Aptian – Early Cretaceous period, about 120-110 million years ago, and are assignable to clade-Pothoideae-Monstereae Araceae; being Araceae, sister to other Alismatales. They have also found flower fossils of Triuridaceae (Pandanales) in Upper Cretaceous rocks in New Jersey, becoming the oldest known sighting of saprophytic/mycotrophic habits in angiosperm plants and among the oldest known fossils of monocotyledons.

Topology of the angiosperm phylogenetic tree could imply that the monocots are among the oldest lineages of angiosperms, which would support the theory that they are just as old as the eudicots. The pollen of the eudicots dates back 125 million years, so the lineage of monocots should be that old too.

Molecular clock estimates
Kåre Bremer, using rbcL sequences and the mean path length method for estimating divergence times, estimated the age of the monocot crown group (i.e. the time at which the ancestor of today's Acorus diverged from the rest of the group) as 134 million years. Similarly, Wikström et al., using Sanderson's non-parametric rate smoothing approach, obtained ages of 127–141 million years for the crown group of monocots. All these estimates have large error ranges (usually 15-20%), and Wikström et al. used only a single calibration point, namely the split between Fagales and Cucurbitales, which was set to 84 Ma, in the late Santonian period. Early molecular clock studies using strict clock models had estimated the monocot crown age to 200 ± 20 million years ago or 160 ± 16 million years, while studies using relaxed clocks have obtained 135-131 million years or 133.8 to 124 million years. Bremer's estimate of 134 million years has been used as a secondary calibration point in other analyses. Some estimates place the emergence of the monocots as far back as 150 mya in the Jurassic period.

Core group
The age of the core group of so-called 'nuclear monocots' or 'core monocots', which correspond to all orders except Acorales and Alismatales, is about 131 million years to present, and crown group age is about 126 million years to the present. The subsequent branching in this part of the tree (i.e. Petrosaviaceae, Dioscoreales + Pandanales and Liliales clades appeared), including the crown Petrosaviaceae group may be in the period around 125–120 million years BC (about 111 million years so far), and stem groups of all other orders, including Commelinidae would have diverged about or shortly after 115 million years. These and many clades within these orders may have originated in southern Gondwana, i.e. Antarctica, Australasia, and southern South America.

Aquatic monocots
The aquatic monocots of Alismatales have commonly been regarded as "primitive". They have also been considered to have the most primitive foliage, which were cross-linked as Dioscoreales and Melanthiales. Keep in mind that the "most primitive" monocot is not necessarily "the sister of everyone else". This is because the ancestral or primitive characters are inferred by means of the reconstruction of character states, with the help of the phylogenetic tree. So primitive characters of monocots may be present in some derived groups. On the other hand, the basal taxa may exhibit many morphological autapomorphies. So although Acoraceae is the sister group to the remaining monocotyledons, the result does not imply that Acoraceae is "the most primitive monocot" in terms of its character states. In fact, Acoraceae is highly derived in many morphological characters, and that is precisely why Acoraceae and Alismatales occupied relatively derived positions in the trees produced by Chase et al. and others.

Some authors support the idea of an aquatic phase as the origin of monocots. The phylogenetic position of Alismatales (many water), which occupy a relationship with the rest except the Acoraceae, do not rule out the idea, because it could be 'the most primitive monocots' but not 'the most basal'. The Atactostele stem, the long and linear leaves, the absence of secondary growth (see the biomechanics of living in the water), roots in groups instead of a single root branching (related to the nature of the substrate), including sympodial use, are consistent with a water source. However, while monocots were sisters of the aquatic Ceratophyllales, or their origin is related to the adoption of some form of aquatic habit, it would not help much to the understanding of how it evolved to develop their distinctive anatomical features: the monocots seem so different from the rest of angiosperms and it's difficult to relate their morphology, anatomy and development and those of broad-leaved angiosperms.

Other taxa
In the past, taxa which had petiolate leaves with reticulate venation were considered "primitive" within the monocots, because of the superficial resemblance to the leaves of dicotyledons. Recent work suggests that while these taxa are sparse in the phylogenetic tree of monocots, such as fleshy fruited taxa (excluding taxa with aril seeds dispersed by ants), the two features would be adapted to conditions that evolved together regardless. Among the taxa involved were Smilax, Trillium (Liliales), Dioscorea (Dioscoreales), etc. A number of these plants are vines that tend to live in shaded habitats for at least part of their lives, and this fact may also relate to their shapeless stomata. Reticulate venation seems to have appeared at least 26 times in monocots, and fleshy fruits have appeared 21 times (sometimes lost later); the two characteristics, though different, showed strong signs of a tendency to be good or bad in tandem, a phenomenon described as "concerted convergence" ("coordinated convergence").

Etymology
The name monocotyledons is derived from the traditional botanical name "Monocotyledones" or Monocotyledoneae in Latin, which refers to the fact that most members of this group have one cotyledon, or embryonic leaf, in their seeds.

Emergence
Some monocots, such as grasses, have hypogeal emergence, where the mesocotyl elongates and pushes the coleoptile (which encloses and protects the shoot tip) toward the soil surface. Since elongation occurs above the cotyledon, it is left in place in the soil where it was planted. Many dicots have epigeal emergence, in which the hypocotyl elongates and becomes arched in the soil. As the hypocotyl continues to elongate, it pulls the cotyledons upward, above the soil surface.

Conservation
The IUCN Red List describes four species as extinct, four as extinct in the wild, 626 as possibly extinct, 423 as critically endangered, 632 endangered, 621 vulnerable, and 269 near threatened of 4,492 whose status is known.

Uses
Monocots are among the most important plants economically and culturally, and account for most of the staple foods of the world, such as cereal grains and starchy root crops, and palms, orchids and lilies, building materials, and many medicines. Of the monocots, the grasses are of enormous economic importance as a source of animal and human food, and form the largest component of agricultural species in terms of biomass produced.

Other economically important monocotyledon crops include various palms (Arecaceae), bananas and plantains (Musaceae), gingers and their relatives, turmeric and cardamom (Zingiberaceae), asparagus (Asparagaceae), pineapple (Bromeliaceae), sedges (Cyperaceae) and rushes (Juncaceae), vanilla (Orchidaceae), yam (Dioscoreaceae), taro (Araceae), and leeks, onion and garlic (Amaryllidaceae). Many houseplants are monocotyledon epiphytes. Most of the horticultural bulbs, plants cultivated for their blooms, such as lilies, daffodils, irises, amaryllis, cannas, bluebells and tulips, are monocotyledons.

Historical

 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also
 * , see also

Modern

 * 1st edition ISBN 9780198542193
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * See also ebook 2010
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon
 * (see also: Excerpts at Amazon

Symposia

 * Excerpts
 * Excerpts
 * Excerpts
 * Excerpts

Chapters

 * , in
 * , In.
 * , in
 * , In
 * , in
 * , in
 * , In
 * , in
 * In
 * In
 * , In.
 * , in
 * , in
 * , in
 * in
 * , In
 * In
 * , in
 * , In.

Articles

 * (also at )
 * (also at )

Websites and databases

 * (see also Angiosperm Phylogeny Website)
 * (see also Angiosperm Phylogeny Website)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Monocotyledon


text:
Talk:Security (computers)

The name "security (computers)" somehow seems odd to me. How 'bout security (computing) instead? There is, as yet, no established general disambiguation naming convention, but it might perhaps make more sense to disambiguate based on field of study instead of by association with physical objects. Also "computers" is pluralized, which is generally a no-no. Something to ponder. --maveric149

I've seen (computers) in a few pages. I started writing this page under the name "secure (computers)" then I thought it might apply to other systems like money, et cetera, so I changed it. I also thought people would have to override the name in links anyways (to get rid of the (computers) so it didn't hurt to use security instead of secure. But that was stupid since now I've got computers in the name and not the right usage!

Something I only realized afterwards. What distinguishes this page from computer security isn't security status versus security techniques, but internal versus external attack. This page is all about internal attacks, security semantics within the system, which are a real problem. The other page concerns itself with hypothetical (and irrelevant to most users) external attacks, which probably explains why its approach to internal attacks (proofs) is so completely lame. -- Ark

Here's one proposal for a new name: fine-grained security. There are serious problems with it however. While, in relation to computer security, security internal to the computer is fine-grained indeed, within OS and FS design circles, internal security schemes (eg, Unix) are considered very coarse-grained. In programming circles, fine-grained security usually means the ability to protect any arbitrary data structure within a programming language.

That brings up "internal security" but I consider that artificial.

title: Talk:Security (computers)


text:
Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup

WORST WORLD CUP EVER
WHO AGREES WITH ME? ME --201.138.124.63 00:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too! This World cup was so setted up Fernandopascullo 00:51, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

 * FIFA, ESPN, and CNN disagree with you and people value their judgements better than yours.--Sir Edgar 06:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have my own view on this but Wikipedia is not a message board. MLA 09:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Not me 41.58.58.240 (talk) 07:37, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Sir Edgar thanks for the ESPN page now I have a reference and citations for the low quality football, and the low quality referees. Yes exactly from the ESPN page remember the football standard "was not quite up to scratch" and "the standard of refereeing described with alarming regularity in much less delicate fashion.". If you want to see an amazing World Cup why dont you check out some 1970 videos or just turn your TV on and lets see how Korea plays without the help of the referees. :) --201.138.124.63 00:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Definetely the worst ever. This is the second world cup to have heavy controversy on refs. But at least in 1966 it was only one match. Koreans made this world cup suck. You can't even say that was Italy's fault to not score, because when they did it or they create an ocassion some ref with his pockets full of korean money made the impossible to invalidate it. Man, red car because you receive a kick?... at least he could pretend to make it a little bit cleaner. And for the guy of the first response... no bad attitude to you man, but... you really trust on FIFA as an objective point? they are going to make look wonderful everything they sponsor. And for ESPN and CNN... americans don't know much about soccer when Beckham isn't around. As a matter of fact, the spanish versions of those two networks were clearly critical on the 2002 world cup. Come on, every single NEUTRAL fan of good soccer says the same. Of course in Korea and USA they are going to make a big feast with this World Cup, they were the beneficiaries on the ref controversy. And the last point... obviously personal toughs: korean fans suck, you can't put "they were so great and bla, bla, bla" on the article... there is nothing like a stadium full of good latin barra brava style, some european ultras or those africans dancing even if they are 5-0 down.--Bauta 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do not consider Wikipedia to be a discussion board. This page is not for the discussion of the 2002 FIFA World Cup but for the discussion of the 2002 FIFA World Cup article.  Please find a forum elsewhere to discuss your personal opinions regarding the world cup. MLA 06:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with Bauta on this one (and --201.138.124.63, the topic creator). Now, I see that this is not a forum, but a discussion page for the article, so I will make my oppinion about the article itself. How come there's almost no mention of the controversial (polemic, embarrasing, dirty, awful, etc) refereeing in the matches that made S. Korea a semifinalist? Here, in Latin america, the referees were all over the news, and the most common commentary about the world cup was "(Insert team here, Portugal, Italy, Spain) were cheated out of the world cup!". As I believe, there should at least a section about the controversy within the article, but it seems like whenever someone brings this up, it gets erased pretty soon. If you do some research (Here, in Wikipedia itself), you can easily find out that, for instance, Referee Byron Moreno was a pretty controversial referee, and even got suspended from refereeing professional matches (because of an incident completely unrelated to this cup)... How come there's no mention in this article that this was the kind of man FIFA deemed adequate to referee such an important match? Orurum 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * All these anonymous accounts and unregistered users complaining about how well one of the co-hosts did in the first WC held in Asia smells of racism. Look at how often teams do well when playing at home and as hosts. And yet when an Asian country hosts the WC and does well, everyone cries foul. Grow up, you babies! The 1986 FIFA World Cup article barely mentions Maradona's cheating with his "Hand of God" action (yes, it was blatant and deliberate cheating). And yet, Italian and Spanish fans continue to attack South Korea's performance in the 2002 tournament. There was even a user who claimed in my Talk page that South Korea cannot win without the help of referees. But then when South Korea beat Togo a few days ago, he says the referees helped yet again. Wow! Pathetic...
 * The fact of the matter is Italy would have lost anyhow. Even if Totti (who has a TERRIBLE reputation for spitting, diving, and unfair play, and most likely deserved his second yellow card anyhow) was not thrown out of the game, Ahn would have still scored the golden goal and South Korea would have won. Even if he didn't and the score remained 1-1, Italy has NEVER won a WC game on penalties and South Korea would have won in the shootout, just as it did with Spain. Regardless, Italy played a terrible game trying to win 1-0 and using all its players for defense after scoring the first goal. Most Western sources criticize Italy's play during that match and think the Italians deserved to lose. As for the Spain vs. South Korea match, there are always off-side calls in a game and some are deserved and some are not. Spain doesn't do well in the WC anyhow.
 * Regardless, sources like CNN and the BBC are more important than the opinion of a few Italian and Spanish football fans using anonymous accounts to gripe about having their WC dreams dashed by an Asian team.--Sir Edgar 04:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The 1986 article mentions the Hands of God. It is very different a player cheating from the referees cheating, it has nothing to do.

 * Bad refereeing in 2002 WC against Portugal, Italy and Spain is mentioned in wikipedia articles in other languages and has been accepted by FIFA although they denied that it was intentional to promote football in the Asian market. It is one of the prominent facts of the WC rather than the fact that local fans were supporting their team.

 * Ok, excuse me if I don't want to make a page saying "I like this, I like that, and i think corea is super cool". But you can review some articles i work for and stop crying of anonymous accounts, look this or this one or maybe this, see the history and then maybe you can guess where I from and stop calling me italian or spanish. I'm just a football fan, and like every other football fan aside of Koreans, Brazilians and people from U.S. I think that was the worst world cup because when you want to be the tournament surprise you don't need referees. Senegal, and the turkey were surprises of the world cup, corea was simply ruiner. France and Argentina were disappointments, Spain and Italy were assaulted deliberately.
 * Of course Italy would lost anyhow... when they scored the golden goal the referee denied it. And the problem is not whether Italy played good or bad, the problem is that the match refereing was incredible one sided in korean favor, and that wasn't the first time in that world cup, and wasn't the last time, so obviously everybody thinks that this was a setted up world cup. Adn about 1986, you said it, the article mentions it... the 2002 article don't mention it. And this was one goal made by a player, that the referee didn't see and later he claimed that was his fault to validate the goal. In this case are three matches with a one-sided referee, curiously the same team, and the whole world saying that was all setted-up. Oh... and Korea beat Togo? no way... really? they beat the superpowerful team of Togo? wow... they must be the champions right now.

There is no such POV statement about any team on this page like that. It just states who won, etc. The details are in the match reports article.--Sir Edgar 00:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, in your terms... why you don't delete the maradona facts on 1986?... So, the article has to say "korean fans are the best, they are super fun and neetos, they really made love so well to me" (aside, every host country does the same, have you seen Germany matches recently? they produce home advantage with the only difference that they don't cry like womans when the ball is in the goal area) but not the fact that the whole world thinks that it was a setted up cup. Whatever man, it looks that you want this article to be your article and throw all the roses to korea... a mess you have to hide the truth to do it. But well, with a good documental every one will see it... FIFA never admited that 1966 was setted up for England, but every ones knows that.--Bauta 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Let's work together to provide an accurate and balanced commentary on this since it seems to be an important to issue to some people.--Sir Edgar 02:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know who made the reference, but it was fine. Not too much of it, but teling it. Congrats to whoever made it, specially if it was you sir edgar. Now, there are some edtis with the Rivaldo event... I want to put it here before it starts another discussion: Maybe we have to enlarge the suspicions of setting-up section a little bit to include the spanish, belgium, and turkish claims. The problem isn't just about the Italy game. Now... into the other point; you can't put all the stuff about the Rivaldo behavior, maybe try to put in the Rivaldo article, but man... nobody specifies about the Totti "dive", the spanish goal invalidated, or the belgium one. The problem isn't this specific play or that specific play, the problem is the feeling that referees were extremely one-sided in favor of specific teams.--Bauta 23:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to see some references for your claim every single unbiased football fan supports your view.
 * Do you? Then go grabbing into the article history: there is plenty of references, like the critical statement by Mr. Blatter pointing out the misjudgements in the Spain vs. Korea game, which has been removed by some zealous hand. The bottom line is that the world is learning a lot about Korea and communication in that country simply by observing how this wikipedia article has been systematically mutilated of important material.
 * Indeed I know of quite a number of unbiased football fans who don't support your view. As others have stated, Toti clearly deserved the second yellow and Italy has shown time and time again they have no understanding of the term 'fair play' and can only win by cheating and simulating, ala the Italy vs Australia match for example... Nil Einne 16:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If you guys know some history about Seoul Olympic, you will totally understand the 2002 world cup. Just typical Korea behavior. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.145.117.219 (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with 68.145.117.219's opinion. Seoul Olympic was great olympic ever, why don't you say that Beijing Olympic was worse than 88 Olympics? you bester.--222.109.31.83 (talk) 13:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC) I agree with 68.145.117.219. 222.109.31.83, you don't agree because you are brainwashed by Korean Fascism. Koreans cheated, and stupidly, even their prime minister praised for their cheated result calling it the greatest achievement in Korea history. LOL. I found it funny. Stupid Koreans really run out of achievements. Hello Koreans, the Brazilians have won the World Cup so many times. Does it mean Koreans' "Greatest achievement in history can't even match routine brazil victory? Stupid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.183 (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi people, it might interest you to look at the my comments  in this new section regarding this issue. Cheerio!Asoccer maniac (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

AET marker
In the detailed match listings (where they list the goal scorers and times, it correctly lists the Korea 2 - 1 Italy match as AET, but it does not list it as AET in the bracket above it. Can someone please fix this? Thank you.

Message to siredgar
It's frustrating that this article don't say what the whole world saw because one of the "red devils" (very original, a mess that Belgium, Man Utd, and Indpte copy that...) want this to be his page... so I put this message on his talk page, and now for every one:

Just seeing the history of the article. Why you delete information that can even be documented?, that every one, except for corean nationalists, agrees? If you are corean, or just think that they finish fourth because they were an incredible awesome super cool team... please, try to move on and accept that the 2002 world cup was full of controversy, specially with the corean matches.--Bauta 03:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The information deleted is not proven. They are merely insinuations and accusations. Anyhow, most Western media have dismissed Italian and Spanish claims against the South Korean team as "sour grapes" and probably racist in nature.--Sir Edgar 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Even the reference to the critical statement by Mr. Blatter after the surrealistic Spain vs. Korea game has been removed. What was not proven in that case, that Mr. Blatter said that, or that Mr. Blatter exists, or that a world cup took place in Korea? Sir Edgar, you are preposterous just like your nickname.

Ok, here it is from the high and mighty ESPN, but the latin ESPN (Not spanish... latin): "Luego que Japón quedara eliminado por una gran actuación turca, Corea quería mantenerse en pie frente a la poderosa Italia. Y lo logró bajo dramáticas y controvertidas circunstancias. ... ... Millones salieron a las cancas a festejar semejante triunfo, pero no sería la última vez que lo harían, en parte, gracias a la ayuda arbitral. ... ...Korea entonces se convirtió en el primer conjunto asiático en llegar a esa instancia y aumentó el festejo de los aficionados así como también las críticas por el método de selección de los árbitros."

Traduced: "After Japan was eliminated by a great turkish performance, Korea wanted to stay on their feets against the powerful Italy. And they did it under dramatic and controversial circumstances. ... ... Millions were into the streets to celebrate the big victory, but this wasn't the last time they would, partly, thanks to the referee's help. ... ... So Korea became the first asian team to reach the semifinals and increased the fans celebration and the critics for the referee selection method."

And from your awesome super cool BBC :

Awful? pre-meditated? outrageous? provocative?... well... maybe they are racists or neo-nazis, how can people say that Korea wasn't the incredible super fine yoopie team that deserved the championship?.

Documentated... and don't throw accuastions of racism so easily, that's a very serious matter.--Bauta 16:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The BBC article seems to point out that there may have been many misjudgements. Did the referees also favor the USA, Croatia, and Senegal for some reason? Why isn't this mentioned in your edits?--Sir Edgar 00:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Unfortunate human error is the same that pre-meditated and provocative for you?

 * Do you have definitive evidence of "pre-meditated and provacative" that it should go into a Wikipedia article? Leave opinions out of references.--Sir Edgar 02:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * The French 2002 WC article has a section about bad refereeing in several matches. Something along these lines needs to be added to this article.

I'm not sure how to go about giving my opinion or editing here, but I find some parts of the article on the 2002 unjustifiable. The descriptions of other world cups sound objective but this sounds like someone grinding an axe. I believe I can offer a balanced report, but I don't know exactly how to edit being new to this site. I was just appauled at the account as a soccer fan for the following reasons:

Italians and Spanish think there were problems with the refereeing, but many people think Korea out-hustled the teams they beat while receiving no more favoritism from the refs than other hosting countries have received over the years. Anyway, it's not our job to decide it, but to represent the controversy. In the middle of the peice, "debateable and controversial" sounds like an argument not a report, and "several erroneous decisions" is a foregone conclusion. The most that can be said object ively is "controversial".

The last two lines are a disgrace to this encyclopedia and need to be fixed.

Firstly, this is far from 'one of the most controversial' world cups. 1966 and 1990 had very controversial calls in the final game and 1934 had Mussolini meeting with referees. "There was controversy surrounding would be more accurate", but I believe nothing at all here would be better. It is by no means "widely regarded". I follow soccer closely and no-one I know regards the controversies in 2002 as that big.

 * Being known by you must be a good reference of objectivity, I see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.65.138.253 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, the "widely rumored" comment is simply libelous. I have never heard of this rumor except as a wild specualtion. It certainly does not belong in what should be an objective account.

Actually, erasing these is the only solution I see as they are both speculative and do not represent the World Cup accurately. I believe we should make mention of the controversy without drawing conclusions.

I think I can write a proposed edit but am not sure how to go about that. Can anyone advise? - ksmyth, July 18, 2006.

Knockout stages
Since the talk on the 2006 is way too long, and the issue not quite the same, I'm responding here. I fail to see the need for a listing of the group stage teams in the Knockout stages section. If a reader wants to know who came out of what group there's an entire section on the group stages. - Pal 04:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Other than giving the reader some finger excercise by making him scroll up the page, what useful purpose does leaving this information out provide? Jooler 04:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * It's actually more relavant on the 2006 page, because we are hoping that this would be a solution to the edit war that has been taking place. We're considering changing the Knockout stage to a tournament-inclusive bracket for all of the World Cups. Please read the issue to familiarize yourself with the issue we're having and make a case on the 2006 page. Thanks, --Palffy 04:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read what's over there, and it still doesn't make sense to refer to group play in the knockout round. I wouldn't have a problem if you used the bracket that includes group play in a separate section somewhere else in the article (after the final or before group play?) and removed the one from the knockout stage. - Pal 13:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It makes perfect sense to show which groups the last 16 came from and whether they finished first or second. It gives context to the knockout stages. It shows that they weren't put in those boxes in random order and shows how teams would have faired if they had finished in the other slot. Jooler 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Check out the change I just made. This gives group context without suggesting that the group play round is part of the knockout stage. I feel this is a good compromise, but if you disagree you can revert it and we'll continue discussing it. - Pal 15:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Of the two, the more graphical Jooler's edit is a better representation...::shrug:: --Palffy 18:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

 * What the heck happend to this section? Can anyone make sense out of it? I've no idea how to read this table.sikander 21:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we simply use this format ? Its easy to read for everyone. sikander 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But what do you think of this format? Jooler 09:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Perfect; simple and easy to understand. sikander 00:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism Alert
the bracket diagram is messed up (Turkey and Brazil seemed to be switched).

This guy is vandalizing the page: 81.155.3.180

--Peripatetic 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I think I got most of it; everyone check to make sure I didn't miss any. - Pal 20:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been done again 22:56 22 June 2006 (GMT)

More vandalism in Group C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.5.103 (talk) 06:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Match reports
I was wondering if the article should have links to the match reports, as per the 2006 FIFA World Cup article. Is there any reason not to? The reports seem to be available from two locations:

 * The 2006 FIFA World Cup site
 * The 2002 FIFA World Cup site

I can't find the 1998 world cup site... so on the assumption that FIFA are going to move the reports around every few years, would linking to the 2006 site be better? --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I've opted for using the reports from the 2002 site for the time being, as they're more complete. --StuartBrady (Talk) 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Awards
I added an awards section for every world cup. I don't know if you like the format I have it in, but I do think it is important that we have these awards for each tournaments article. Let me know what you guys think.Squadoosh 07:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Looks great! However, should it also include the silver ball and bronze ball awards? Or maybe not? (Just an idea.) --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I think maybe not because in the link to the "Golden Shoe" and also the Awards link on the bottom the page provides who won the Silver and Bronze balls...lol. Thanks. Squadoosh 19:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Full Ranking
I really like the idea of having a full team ranking for each World Cup. Someone else do not and keeps deleting it. In past World Cups FIFA has adopted it to decide which teams could go through the knockout stages, and they are still using in World Cup Qual stages. And It is very good to give an idea of a team's overall performance in the cup. I would like to know why you keep deleting it (and please do not reply that it compares apples with oranges, because it does not).--130.251.4.11 13:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * If FIFA use it, I'd like to see some justification for its removal. I personally think that the third place play-off is nonsense, but you don't see me removing that from any articles. --StuartBrady (Talk) 13:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * FIFA don't use it as it was presented here. It is a piece of OR and has no place here. Sorry. --Guinnog 13:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Okay — that's a better reason. Thanks. --StuartBrady (Talk) 14:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * FIFA uses it. If you have a look at the article 2006 FIFA World Cup seeding you will see that there is an official ranking in each World Cup, which ranks the teams from the first to the 32nd. UEFA uses a similar criterion to determine the best runner-ups in qualifying stages. --130.251.4.11 15:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * Well, yes and no. As you can see on the page you refer to, FIFA's rankings are based on such calculations, but not completely so. Also from that page, FIFA have expressed dissatisfaction with the seeding system and plan to change it. But the main argument against including the table is that it may confuse people into thinking this has some significance beyond (possibly) deciding future seedings. The World cup is won by the winners of the final; it is not essentially a league competition, and including this table may be seen as implying that it is. Hope this clarifies why I am so strongly against its inclusion. --Guinnog 15:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I understand your point, and I will try to explain mine: FIFA seeds the teams on two different rankings: The "CocaCola" one and the final ranking of the last World Cups, with different weights. The fact here is that the final ranking do exist, and it is official. What they are planning to change is the CocaCola ranking and the weights assigned to the two ranking systems. And please note that the final world cup ranking is used to rank the teams from 5th place to last, since the first four places are assigned by the finals. My proposal is to include it anyways, maybe in a different page. We could add an entry in the "2006 FIFA World Cup general information" box. --130.251.4.11 15:28, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

 * I would have no objection to that. I just don't really think it belongs on the main WC entries. --Guinnog 16:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Goals total
The infobox says 161, someone just typed 158 above the list of scorers, I count 157 from the scorers section (thanks to Excel). Is there an official figure?  SLUMGUM   yap    stalk    22:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia
Why is Saudi Arabia classified as an AFC participant? Isn't it middleeastern? Oyo321 05:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the middle east is part of the asian continent

A youtube video as a source?
How is a youtube video a reasonable source to state that Totti was wrongfully sent off in that game. I removed the source and tried to keep NPOV.

--207.35.14.235 02:12, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 * Thank you. You are, of course, correct that that is not a reliable source. -- Visviva 07:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The youtube video showed from different angles the controversial playing action. If you were honest, you would at least have left the reference there so that everybody could make his own mind. By acting as you did you committed censorship, wich is a well-known practice in Asian countries.

This is just sad and let everybody understand the level of censorship some Asian countries experience on a daily basis

redemption
What is surprising is that france did something smart. See had Uraguay defeated france they would have qualified for the round of 16 over senagal. Because of uraguay's goal differeance.

how is that smart?--Numberwang 15:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

and that doesnt even make sense.Numberwang 15:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Bias in summary
The summary should mention the major controversial calls, but the previous version seemed especially targeted to imply something sinister about just one country. Many sentences had links to articles that had nothing like that sentence. There were many bad calls, and you can Google an article about your favorite bad call; don't hand-pick only commentaries on the Korea games. News articles that overview the whole 2002 World Cup mention various bad calls, don't just quote the sentence about Korea. That's all I'm saying. CBJourney 00:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. South Korea was one of two host nations and was certainly not the only country that made headlines. The fact that this bias in summary exists possibly highlights an underlying tone of nationalistic resentment between various participating nations of which Korea is involved in. There seems to be a few low-key articles related to Korea that have deliberate spelling and grammar errors as well as questionable content which are not based on proven facts. The regular occurence of this and the deliberate nature of these errors (digits to 'dights' for example on Repulic of Korea Passports page or the deliberate dropping of required articles of the English language such as 'the' and 'a') in these articles suggests there may be a collective faction of sorts, promoting some type of nationalistic/political cause. JohnR 02:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.170.216 (talk)

Meet again before the final
Is it me, fifa or wikipedia who has it wrong? I thought that teams that meet in the group stage can only meet again if they are in the final together. Spain and Paraguay were in the same group and advanced to the knock-out stages, but it would be possible fot them to have met in the semi finals, the same thing with Denmark and Senegal, England and Sweden and Japan and Belgum, all of the teams to be precise. Was this a unique format? Because I know that in the 2006 World cup, group winners and runners up could only meet again if they were in the final. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Special:Contributions/ (talk)

 * Brazil and Turkey (Group C) met in the semifinals. It was a special format to make sure the hosts will play on their home soil no matter where they finish in their group (1st or 2nd). Follow South Korea's and USA's path to the final. Edgar (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary of final
"The first goal should really be marked down as an error by Germany goalkeeper, Oliver Kahn, who failed to deal with a long-range shot from Rivaldo, spilling the ball directly into Ronaldo's path. The second goal was much better taken" sounds very POV. Does anyone else think this should be changed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.238.126.9 (talk) 17:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The second part, about the second goal being better taken, perhaps. But not the first part. The first part seems bang on to me. – PeeJay 20:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

OMG
Who on the Earth said Argentina as the "second most favorite team"? As far as I know, France and Brazil were the favorite teams to take the trophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.171.248 (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

refereeing
Can someone give third party input on the inclusion of the dodgy refereeing calls that I have highlighted on this article. My correctly cited facts are being removed with bullshit reasons and I don't want to argue about it anymore. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:30, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * There seems to be a section about this very subject three topics above yours. Akkies (talk) 02:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * then contribute to it, rather than reverting me. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * I don't know what to say. I pretty much agree with them. Akkies (talk) 02:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Good, they don't like one nation being highlighted - I will add the facts about the korea matches that were controversial and if there are other nations who had game influenced by controversial refereeing, then you can add them. Problem solved. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 02:53, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Hey I'm glad we can resolve this one. Akkies (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Sennen goroshi, entire FIFA is corrupted even Japan is part of this larger corrupted organization, this claim of yours is stupid--Korsentry 02:25, 3 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)

 * Well, apart from some wonderful statement with uncited claims, that everyone is corrupt - are there any reasons as to why the refereeing controversy in 2002 should not be included? With of course the stipulation that editors are free to add controversy that involved ANY team, and not only the games that occurred in south korea, but also those in Japan. カンチョーSennen Goroshi ! (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

 * Hi, might it interest you to look at the my comments in  this new section regarding this issue? Cheers!  Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:39, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

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!

 * http://www.usatoday.com/sports/soccer/cup2002/4
 * In 2002 FIFA World Cup on 2011-05-25 07:20:05, 404 Not Found
 * In 2002 FIFA World Cup on 2011-06-10 09:18:58, 404 Not Found

--JeffGBot (talk) 09:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversial issue of South Korean's controversial wins
Almost all won of South korean was won by refree. This issue should me mentioned here. Wikipedia is a history. all truth should be writtten, thats the NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parvez gsm (talk • contribs) 09:44, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a controversy, but if you have a reliable source that supports your claim it could be added to the article. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:26, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster - the refereeing controversies (concerning Korea) were quite widespread at this tournament and widely discussed in media. See for example:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/3029872/Korean-miracle-spoilt-by-refereeing-farce.html

or

http://soccernet.espn.go.com/world-cup/story/_/page/worldcup101-03242010/ce/us/ten-most-controversial-moments&cc=5901?ver=us — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.18.26.14 (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

 * Hi, might it interest you to look at the my comments  in this new section regarding this issue? Cheerio! Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:30, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Image
Hi there, Noticed that Walter Görlitz liked the image of the flag displayed at the 2002 FIFA World Cup, but deleted it because it didn't seem to relate to the adjacent paragraph. The section above it contains an image of the World Cup mascot, embedded in a paragraph describing the previous match. I added the flag image to the next section, simply to continue the spirit of World Cup imagery already established on the page. Please accept my apologies if I disturbed your hard work. My intention was to add visual interest to the article by adding material related to the event as a whole. Thanks for your time.Global Microscope (talk) 18:55, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No apologies necessary. The issue with the placing of the image is not so much its relationship with the content to which it was adjacent, but rather its relationship with the entire tournament. Was this a FIFA sanctioned art exhibit or an exhibit created to run concurrently with the tournament but unaffiliated with it in any way. I only have first-hand experience with the 2010 Winter Olympics and there were several cultural events that were officially planned and many more that were simply presented to correspond with the events of the games. Knowing the relationship would help in clarifying whether the image and a discussion of the exhibit belongs in this article or elsewhere. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:06, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Good question. I found an independent reference that mentions the flag, the artist, and the location as the 2002 World Cup. The rest was frustratingly vague. There was a live link to it on the Wiki page, Ray Burggraf. I'll check and see if it's still there. It would be interesting to find out more....Global Microscope (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, here's what I found about the image of the flag by Ray Burggraf: In 2002, the Department of Cultural Affairs published a 295 page book entitled, "2002 Flag Art Festival, Poetry of the Winds, FIFA World Cup, Korea/Japan". Here's the link: http://books.google.com/books/about/2002_Flag_Art_Festival.html?id=SnxNHQAACAAJ. The title of the book suggests (to me, at least) a solid link between the festival and FIFA. The same year, SVAD News published a mention of the artist, saying on page 3, that "Ray Burggraf was invited to enter a hand-painted banner into the exhibition, 'Poetry of the Winds', 2002 Flag Festival, 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/Japan, Nanjicheon Park, Seoul." Here's the link: http://www.fsu.edu/~svad/SVADNews1.pdf. The second reference places the flag specifically at Nanjicheon Park, Seoul...which, according to http://www.exploringkorea.com/world-cup-park-seoul/, is a subsection of "World Cup Park", meaning it's one of the five parks surrounding the World Cup stadium. Given these reference, it seems a shame not to use the image...but I'm struggling to find more. Suggestions?Global Microscope (talk) 03:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Eureka!! Walter, I just found the best (verifiable) reference possible--confirming that the Flag Art Festival was the official cultural event of the 2002 World Cup, and officially approved by FIFA. No inference needed. (Regarding the proposed image for this article: File:"In_Search_of_Fresh_Air",_by_Ray_L._Burggraf.jpg)   Here's a press release by the 2002 Flag Art Festival Executive Committee:  http://www.le-musee-divisioniste.org/service/pages/2002/flagart2.htm. Quote: ''Flag Art Festival, Seoul (Korea) / The official cultural event of 2002 FIFA World Cup Korea/JapanTM...Press Release...2002 Flag Art Festival is to be held at World Cup Park from May 29 to June 25 this year, and this is to wish the successful World Cup and create the festivity atmosphere. This festival, as the official cultural event of 2002 FIFA Word Cup Korea/JapanTM, greets the World Cup, the place of harmony and festival of the whole world, representing the cultural World Cup through the unique form of flags...'' So yes...to answer your excellent question, the image is rather convincingly an artifact of the official cultural event of the 2002 World Cup, approved by FIFA. Does this help?Global Microscope (talk) 18:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm getting the impression that there are no further objections to my replacing the image within the article. Looks like I should have included better referencing last time, and next time I can include all citations linking the image directly to FIFA. All good?Global Microscope (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

 * A new section should should be added related to the cultural event and the image could be placed in that section. Mirroring the 2010 article, it should be placed below Awards. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

In the 2010 article, a new section for the FIFA cultural event, and the flag image, would fit very well near the Awards section. The 2010 article has a "Symbols" section adjacent to "Awards", and offers close visual proximity to other artwork, such as the image of the mascot. The 2002 article is organized quite differently, though. No Symbols section exists and the image of the mascot (artwork related to the event) is placed in the First Round section of the Summary. Our priority is to keep the images inline with related content, right? I'd be happy to create a new section describing FIFA's designated cultural event per your suggestion. I would, however, prefer to place it in a section related to either, (1) the artwork's role as an official welcome of the festivities ( as mentioned in the Press Release) or (2) it's intended symbolism of global unification. In case #1, the section should be placed directly after the Summary, just before Ticket Problems. Chronologically, the flags were intended as a greeting, and that should be reflected by the structure of the article. In the second case, it would fit after Host Selection. This would be my personal preference... two countries serving as host is a rare event, and the theme of global unification...represented by 500 flags from all over the world...would tie in nicely with the existing paragraph about the two hosts..Global Microscope (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It might also be said that I can get--ahem--overly philosophical. :) Walter, why don't you go ahead and create the section exactly as you see fit?  The file name and citations are all available, above.  I'd love to see your version in situ.Global Microscope (talk) 22:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

South Korea Match Fixing
Why are there no mentions of the match fixing that happened in the 2002 world cup, where South Korea won against Italy and Spain by blatant cheating. This is no football rivalry, it is this. 2.103.198.253 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Care to back that accusation up with some hard evidence? – PeeJay 19:07, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * there is evidence all around the internet 89.13.133.77 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * No, there are accusations but no hard evidence that the matches were actually fixed. – PeeJay 15:09, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Mexico wasn't qualified after two wins.
Group G says that Mexico qualified after two wins in its group... But this isn't true. Mexico would had been out of the next stage IF both Italy and Croatia would had won their respective games by a big enough margin to kick Mexico out. My English is bad, I know. But I just wanted to point that out. Have a nice day.

Capacity of stadiums
Apparent, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2002_FIFA_World_Cup&oldid=617594892&diff=prev old versions of Yahoo, an official FIFA sponsor at the time, are more accurate than the numbers in FIFA's official Report and Statistics on the tournament. Care to explain that thought? The official report was made after the tournament and is supported by FIFA. The individual pages are not longer supported and they may have been listed long before final capacity were agreed upon. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

 * How would you possibly know that the individual pages are not reliable? I'm quite sure the old Yahoo! website can be considered reliable, since plenty of information is available. Now I'm not saying that the FIFA rapports are unreliable, but perhaps FIFA may have tinkered with the capacity numbers? Also, for this year's tournament, we used the official capacities from the current website. This means we should be using those old websites for the previous tournaments, as long as they are all available via the Internet Archive. If some are not, then use the FIFA rapports. Arbero (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but they vary from the official report. What's your proof that FIFA may have tinkered with the capacity numbers and not Yahoo!? And so you're saying that for 2014 we used FIFA's numbers and so why are insisting that we use Yahoo!'s numbers for 2002? So why are you insisting that the archived website is more reliable than the official report? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, I may have sounded a bit biased there; if so, I apologise. I searched through the archived website and found everything there (news, teams, matches) to be accurate, so I assumed they would get the capacities correctly as well (No, I don't have any evidence, it was just speculation from my side). Anyway, if you insist on using the official FIFA PDF file, then I will roll back my edit. Let me know. Arbero (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One thing I would like to add though, is that the archived website can be used for other matters, and could improve this article. Arbero (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I trust your research. Having two refs seems OK as well. I just don't want someone to question the discrepancies at some point in the future and have it come back to bite us. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

South Korea match fixings and corruption
why isn't there anything about this? Wikipedia is part of it or what?, stop being biased and add it! sources: - First of all, obvious is obvious - http://www.goal.com/en/news/1884/north-america/2010/09/21/2130136/infamous-south-korea-italy-world-cup-2002-referee-byron - http://www.mediotiempo.com/futbol/internacional/noticias/2015/05/29/acusan-a-fifa-de-amano-de-partidos-en-2002 - http://www.garrypassarella.co.uk/2010/06/04/the-robbery-in-korea-koreas-controversial-progress-in-the-2002-world-cup-finals/ 89.13.133.77 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
 * None of those sources actually confirm that the matches were fixed, they just accuse Byron Moreno of being incompetent. There is plenty of info in this article about Moreno's incompetence, and there's no need for anything more. – PeeJay 15:19, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi, it might interest you to look at the my comments  in this new section regarding this issue. Cheerio! Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

No Mention of Korean Controversial games??
Wikipedia keeps loosing reliability. (or is watch over by FIFA somehow) how is there not a single mention of the controversial games between Korea - Italy and Korea - Spain. As you can see above me, I am definitely not the only one pointing them out, and when someone cites a good source, he is ignored. Please Wikipedia. you guys are supposed to document Everything relating the title topic. The accusations and controversies are real and should be included. a couple sources: - http://screamer.deadspin.com/italian-paper-alleges-fifa-used-corrupt-refs-to-fix-200-1707704308 - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/international/3029872/Korean-miracle-spoilt-by-refereeing-farce.html - http://www.eurosport.com/football/south-korea-results-from-2002-world-cup-now-under-scrutiny_sto4758133/story.shtml - http://bleacherreport.com/articles/630035-ranking-the-top-10-world-football-scandals-of-all-time

Also this one, regarding the voting: - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3132045/FIFA-hit-fresh-corruption-claims-Japan-accused-paying-South-American-federation-950-000-2002-World-Cup-vote.html

I kindly ask you to please update the article with this information

thank you.2003:75:F6F:F599:DD2A:241E:7B4A:33E7 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

 * Hi,

it might interest you to look at the my comments  in this new section regarding this issue. Cheerio! Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:18, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Controversies
Hi everyone.

I know that this is not the first conversation about this, but I'm trying to resurrect the List of 2002 Fifa World Cup controversies article.

Those of you who followed the process will remember it was the subject of two deletion debtates, and then closed down and SALTed. Since I believe that controversial incidents are a window into the development and evolution of the game. I hope as many of you as possible will join me in this effort. Merry Xmas one and all! Asoccer maniac (talk) 00:08, 25 December 2015 (UTC) PS, the draft for the new article is here. Asoccer maniac (talk) 01:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Clarity of penalty kick sessions
The PK session between Spain and Republic of Ireland could use an indicator of who went first (the Irish). This is not intuitively clear because Spain is on the left while Ireland is on the right. As it is the reader has to work it out based on what happened with the last penalties shot - Mendieta's was successful and Spain won ergo Spain shot second. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.95.207 (talk) 07:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Does it matter who went first? Ideally, what we should do is write a prose account of the match at 2002 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. – PeeJay 09:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think order matters a great deal, in terms of understanding the momentary stakes behind each kick. It's like putting the minute next to the goals - you need that in order to construct the timeline of the game. I like the way they do it here: http://scoreshelf.com/dqcc/en/World_Cup/2002/ESP_v_IRL - just a little indicator next the list of takers "1" or "2"
 * I agree that prose would be useful but maybe that would introduce some highly contentious opinions - e.g. "the referee failed to call a flagrant foul on South Korea... again!!" or "The referee disallowed a Spanish goal for no discernible reason whatsoever". It'd become an edit war between South Korea fans and everybody else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.95.207 (talk) 06:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well obviously we wouldn't allow opinions to be introduced. Just report the facts. – PeeJay 10:54, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2002 FIFA World Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130613061908/http://www.le-musee-divisioniste.org/service/pages/2002/flagart2.htm to http://www.le-musee-divisioniste.org/service/pages/2002/flagart2.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hey Everyone,

I am looking to add some information to this page for a college course I am taking on Japanese/Korean Culture and Relations. Now that it has nearly been 20 years since the World Cup took place, I would like to include some economic implications and effects on the host countries. Below are a few Economic studies that I have found that I will cite in my inclusion.

Thoughts/Feedback?

Thanks

Lee, Choong-Ki, and Tracy Taylor. "Critical reflections on the economic impact assessment of a mega-event: the case of 2002 FIFA World Cup." Tourism management 26.4 (2005): 595-603.

Kim, Hyun Jeong, Dogan Gursoy, and Soo-Bum Lee. "The impact of the 2002 World Cup on South Korea: Comparisons of pre-and post-games." Tourism Management 27.1 (2006): 86-96.

Kim, Samuel Seongseop, and James F. Petrick. "Residents’ perceptions on impacts of the FIFA 2002 World Cup: the case of Seoul as a host city." Tourism Management 26.1 (2005): 25-38.

Horne, John D., and Wolfram Manzenreiter. "Accounting for mega-events: forecast and actual impacts of the 2002 Football World Cup Finals on the host countries Japan/Korea." International review for the sociology of sport 39.2 (2004): 187-203. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwright123 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Be the Reds! into 2002 FIFA World Cup
Poorly sourced standalone article; could easily be summarized at World Cup entry -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 15:58, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * A better target would be Red Devils (supporters club), since the World Cup entry is not meant to dive that deep into each team's supporter culture.  Sounder Bruce  18:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, merge to Red Devils (supporters club). -Koppapa (talk) 14:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. – PeeJay 20:33, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, agreed. 76.103.46.252 (talk) 18:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

 * Merge: Supporting the merge. Fails to establish notability criteria. Indianfootball98 (talk) 03:33, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging unsourced content anywhere. Please source it or WP:PROD. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose linking it here, and agree with Finnusertop that it's unsourced and should just be deleted. It might be a valid search term as there are about 176 page views a month, or 6 a day, but if we're offering a redirect, the target should be the national supporters group page, as SounderBruce suggested. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

 * Given that a new target has arisen following this discussion I've added a merge template to that page (Red Devils (supporters club)); perhaps as a courtesy we could give watches of that page a chance to comment on the revised proposal before proceeding with the merge. Klbrain (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no need for a second discussion. The consensus was to merge it to the supporters group. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Upgrade Fail on 2002 World Cup Groups
I have upgraded everything on the 1994 World Cup and 1998 World Cup. I have upgraded from round of 16 to final which works successfully but tried upgrading groups but nothing showed up, help needed please.GBT00 (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Inline link RfC
Should the name of the host nation include an inline link to the nation's article? For example, should the first instance of the names "South Korea" and "Japan" be bracketed so as to provide links to South Korea and Japan? Rowsdower45 (talk) 06:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose First this is a clear WP:OVERLINK and it is against a WP:FOOTY WP:CONSENSUS, and exactly the same question as you asked at Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup and several others now and you are WP:FORUMSHOPping hoping you'll get your way in one location. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Ironic that Japan is an example at OVERLINK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose per Walter Görlitz. If you're really itching to insert country-related links, please do it at the bottom under a "See also" section, target "Sport in [country]" if there's a stand-alone article, or section link to sport in the country article; and don't pipe to just the country-name, or even fewer readers will take the bait. Tony (talk)  08:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose and close IF this is against a 'footy" concensus, and AS there has been no prior discussion AFAI can see here as to why that norm should be overturned here, this RfC is simply wasting people's time and WP:FORUMSHOPping. Pincrete (talk) 11:01, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Support The intro also contains inline links to articles such as Asia and FIFA World Cup, which have surely been heard of by Wikipedia users accessing this article, but are useful clicks for users seeking more information on these topics. It is not overlinking to provide one more such link. Rowsdower45 (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

GAN
I have made a GAN for this article. Hope it gets accepted. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 02:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Generally, a nomination should come from a major contributor to the article or with their endorsement. There are far too many sections that lack citations and quite a few that are missing prose match summaries, so this will be quick-failed. Please read through comparable GAs and FAs to determine what the standards laid out by the GA criteria look like.  Sounder Bruce  05:44, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Checking how to make it eligible for GA status. SpyridisioAnnis Discussion 08:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounder Bruce provided a few reasons directly above. CMD (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism Warning!
Someone just vandalised the bracket. Somedev123Gtg (talk) 12:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

wrong data
I found that the standings of group C are wrong. I see Turkey in first place, and Brazil with 2 won matches, when in fact they have won all of 3 in group C. I don't know if it's an issue too in different groups. 84.198.165.236 (talk) 09:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:2002 FIFA World Cup


text:
User:Stepnwolf

Recent stuff and possible articles

Hemant Kumar

Solemnity

Pange Lingua

title: User:Stepnwolf