Jump to content

Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification

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

Conference slots

[edit]

How/when is the decision on how many spots each conference is made?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole qualification process will be announced by FIFA on 25 July 2015, as mentioned in the article.--2nyte (talk) 03:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious to how FIFA divides the pie.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Blatter needs Asia and Africa's votes to be reelected so it is likely that he will take two spots away from UEFA and give one extra to AFC and CAF.
Jerome Valcke announced (via Twitter on 16 February - see here) "Next stop on our way to 2018, the ExCo meeting on 19 March when we will discuss & announce the qualifying procedures for all confederations". Sort of doubt the allocations will change, any change will only annoy the losers and the winners will just feel they deserved it, so won't really be grateful. 180.200.149.13 (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conference allocations for 2018 (and 2022) are now known.  Done Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Colouring of "Special Teams" in the Map

[edit]

Map doesn't include any indication for Gibraltar. While Gibraltar is not currently in FIFA, they are in UEFA - surely the map should include them (it includes Monaco), even though they would be greyed out (but maybe 'blued in' after the CAS meeting)180.200.149.13 (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Zimbabwe, who got expelled before playing any matches, should be highlighted with the "did not qualify" colour in the map. I think that a separate colour should be assigned to indicate team expulsion, and should be used for Zimbabwe in this map and for teams that did or will have such a fate in the maps for the past and future campaigns. Also, given that all FIFA members did enter the 2018 qualification and the "did not enter" colour is not used in this map, a legend for that colour is unnecessary. --Theurgist (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At this point Indonesia is only Suspended - not Expelled - based on the press release, ". . . . until the PSSI would be able to comply with its obligations". REF: [1] The map should not list them as Expelled until such time as they are actually expelled. Plenty of time to catch up with missed matches after the point once the suspension is finally lifted. So the map should be changed back for now. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Current allocation of FIFA World Cup™ confederation slots maintained". FIFA.com. 30 May 2015.

Indonesia Suspension May 30 2015

[edit]

At this stage, Indonesia has been Suspended from participating in FIFA tournaments, with the exception of the SEA Games which are currently in progress. It is premature to be speculating on Indonesia being totally Expelled from the competition, or that Matches in Round 2 have already been cancelled. Matilda Maniac (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Undid revision 665536741

[edit]

I'm confused as to what the "speculation" - irrelevant or otherwise - is 134.159.131.34 (talk) 00:37, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by User:180.200.183.106 that Zimbabwe could still appeal and re-enter while Indonesia's expulsion will seem to certainly mean there is no way back in - using the words could,and seem to - are themselves speculation without references, and the order of sentences in a paragraph does not have to bear a relation to the timing of a suspension or expulsion. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Has the Oceania format been changed?

[edit]

(Also posted to OFC section) The FIFA Statistical Kit for the WOrld CUp draw gives a really incomprehensible bit of "information" on the OFC qualifiers. (see http://resources.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/mencompwc/51/97/78/statskit1_fwc2018_preldraw_stats_neutral.pdf Page 11)

  • It says for Round 1 there will be 6 matches (okay, that's what we expected)
  • But Round 2 says "15" matches. There's no way 2 equal groups gives you 15 matches. Maybe there will be 1 group of 6 at a neutral venue instead (that gives 15 matches)
  • But Round 3 says "14" matches. There's nothing that gives you 14 matches in one stage - except for 1 home-and-away group of 4 (12 games) with a home-and-away playoff between 1st and 2nd - but then why wouldn't that play-off be called "Round 4"

A little bit weird. 180.200.147.8 (talk) 09:35, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. It seems a little bit weird, but I cant find any other information than what is present on the article. I guess we have to wait until FIFA announces the draw info for more detail. Qed237 (talk) 11:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned back in April (see http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11431326). Like last time a one-off tournament in a single venue in June 2016. But, you still can't get 14 games from that (2 groups of 4 + SFs and Final would be 15, it would be unlikely to be 2 groups and then 1v1 and 2v2!). Looks like it has been changed.180.200.147.8 (talk) 11:49, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From OFC [1]:
  • Round 1: Same as expected.
  • Round 2 (also 2016 OFC Nations Cup): Format very close to 2012 OFC Nations Cup. Single country, 28 May 2016 to 12 June 2016. Two groups of four, top two teams advance to semi-finals, semi-final winners play in final, final winner play in 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup. So that's 15 matches. The six teams which are top three in the groups advance to World Cup Qualifying Round 3. So different from previously stated (but same as last cycle), possible different teams to play in Confed Cup and World Cup play-offs.
  • Round 3: Two groups of three, home-and-away. Group winners advance to final, also home-and-away. So that's 14 matches. 20 March and 10 October 2017.
This means we will need the following separate pages:

Ciao. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chanheigeorge: Okay great. If no one else does the work I am very happy to do it. Qed237 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: I think I have made most of the necessary edits. You can check if you want. Chanheigeorge (talk) 19:22, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I just saw that now after updating some league tables (to the module). Great work. I will look through it later, but it looks very good. Qed237 (talk) 19:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Chanheigeorge: For your information, I am planning on creating proper tables (templates) ahead of the draw so they can be easily updated during the draw and so they are properly created with documentation like UEFA Euro 2016 qualification. I just thought it is still a little bit too soon. Qed237 (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237: Thanks, go ahead and create those tables when you think appropriate. Chanheigeorge (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Map Colours

[edit]

On the Map currently we have yellow for 'Country failed to qualify with games still to play' and red for 'Country failed to qualify'. Can someone explain why these are separate? If a team cannot qualify then they cannot qualify, games to play are irrelevant. The yellow colour adds no useful info and only serves to complicate the map for the reader. Can we just get rid of it?

Looking closer I notice someone has added Gibraltar to the map, can someone remove them? The line agreed for Microstates/overseas territories etc to be included on the map is FIFA member or UN recognised independence. Gibraltar has neither so should not be shown. Zirath (talk) 14:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see this until now. Come to think of it, the distinction is pretty unnecessary, but it has been here the whole time and was used for the qualifying competition in 2014 with no issues. But you should wait for some kind of consensus before removing it. On the other hand, I'll make sure to actually check talk pages now.
I have removed Gibraltar from the map. GarethTJennings (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matches played and goals scored

[edit]

Shouldn't it be 95 matches played and 309 goals scored instead of 97/311? Two games - Barbados-Aruba 1-0 and Yemen-Korea DPR 0-1 were declared void after teams fielding ineligble player and were awarded with 3-0 victories to Aruba and Korea DPR. That makes 95 games played (97-2=95) and 309 goals scored (311-1-1=309). DinamoZagreb (talk)

@DinamoZagreb: FIFA count this two games. See Qualifiers. 76+6(OFC)+15(AFC)=97 games. 218+17(OFC)+76(AFC)=311 goals. GAV80 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do the goals of these two games count for the ranking of the top goalscorers ? Schnapper (talk) 10:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Schnapper: Yes.GAV80 (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@GAV80: Thanks for clarification.DinamoZagreb (talk)

It appears that the goals scored during the abandoned match between Malaysia and Saudi Arabia are being counted on some articles and not on others. Specifically, Mohammad Al-Sahlawi is credited with 6 goals on this article while only being credited with 5 goals on the AFC qualification article. Since the match was abandoned at 87' (and is thus not an official final scoreline), would it be proper not to include the match statistics on Wikipedia until FIFA and AFC determine the final outcome and any sanctions? — Jkudlick tcs 14:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dates in tables

[edit]

Hi, I just wanted to see what other editors think about the dates in the standings tables. Currently we have '16 and '17 when matches are played over several years, but usually when it is played over a single year only date and month are displayed. This reduces width of table which is good for those with smaller screens. For AFC second round there are only matches in 2016 left so I was thinking we could remove '16, or should we wait until after new years day and remove when we are in 2016? If we dont think it is neccessary I can remove it after all todays matches as no more matches will be played in 2015.

User:Gav80 and User:Zirath, you update these tables so what do you think? Qed237 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Qed237:. I think we need to wait until the start of 2016. GAV80 (talk) 04:59, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that for UEFA Euro 2016 qualification, we updated the tables and removed '16 on 5 January, so lets wait. Qed237 (talk) 11:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Matches played: 282 or 283?

[edit]

@Qed237:, @Chanheigeorge:, @AKeZZZ:, @JackHoang:, @GarethTJennings:, @Boyconga278:, @Opdire657:, @Jkudlick: and other users.

Hello to all.

Now on this page "Matches played" is 282. But on FIFA's page Qualifiers "Matches played" is 283.

27 February 2016 I wrote letter to FIFA with this text: "Hello. I want ask about quantity of "MATCHES PLAYED" in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification. Do you count match Myanmar - Kuwait (which did not play) in overall statistics? In December 2015 it was 282 matches on your site. But now it is 283 matches. Please, answer why."

And today I received answer from their: "Dear Sir. Thank you for your enquiry. The match Myanmar vs. Kuwait was given forfeit and included in the statistics. We hope that helps. Kind regards, FIFA Communications & PA".

Will we change the number of matches from 282 to 283?

GAV80 (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting, since the other matches which were forfeited had actually been played and were later awarded. I will think about this a bit, but it could be a while since I'm at work and have a fairly full schedule today. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment I think it should not be included, because then the "goals per game" statistic would be incorrect. Would it be a good idea to put a footnote in the infobox to clarify this to the readers? GarethTJennings (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The footnote can't be added to the |matches= or |goals= parameters because the additional non-numeric characters cause errors in the calculations. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:44, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about that, thank you for the reminder. In that case it might be simpler to include the match in order to not confuse any readers who see this page and the FIFA WCQ site. GarethTJennings (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done – I made the change. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 19:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkudlick: and @GarethTJennings:. Thank you. Then I will change AFC qualification too. GAV80 (talk) 19:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFC colors

[edit]

The colors of the AFC tables need to be changed. The yellows are all but indistinguishable, which is in defiance of WP:ACCESS. Tvx1 23:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, but the discussion seems to have produced the result that only one shade of the same color should be used in any case. WP:ACCESS was also raised back then. The AFC colors don't stick to the default colors, they follow some personal preference and it's problematic. I don't see how anything needs changing at module level. In fact the colors aren't generated by the module, but by specific coding in each of the templates for those tables. The project's manual of style doesn't mention anything of using shades of colors either. Tvx1 23:31, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Tvx1 23:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
New colors were decided in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 92#Colouring system for tables and national end-of-season playoff positions (towards the end). Qed237 (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237: I had forgotten about that discussion. Thanks. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:44, 21 March 2016 (UTC) Re-pinging @Qed237: because I had messed up the other one. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:47, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: The yellow colors are per the latest consensus and not personal preference. If you dont like them, I suggest you try and find a new consensus. The colors are normally together with text in "qualification column", so that not only colors are used to explain qualification. In this article however with small tables that column is not used, and I get the opinion that the yellow shades are similar (and I might even agree). But they are default module values according to consensus. Qed237 (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well no, not quite. The module has much more default colors provided in it per the consensus. That shades of one color are used instead of the different colors that are provided in the module is just a personal choice of those who created the tables and we have the good right to actually change them to different colors in line with the consensus and the module's provisions, especially considering the current situation creates visibility issues. Tvx1 01:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1 and Qed237: I've played with colors at User:Jkudlick/sandbox#Testing colors for AFC table using green1, blue1, blue3, yellow1, and yellow3. Is this agreeable? Keep in mind that the colors will change in a week when the last matches have been played to green1 for the top 12 teams, blue1 for the next 16 teams, and yellow1 for the bottom 11 teams – remember that IND were disqualified, so they will remain at black1. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly better. But the shades of the same color are still difficult to distinguish. I still feel that we should use separate colors in stead of shades of the same color. Bear in mind that some people can only partially see colors or even no colors at all. Moreover, why are we even listing the AFC Cup progress status colors here? They have no bearing on the World Cup. Tvx1 10:09, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jkudlick and Tvx1: How to use the colors has also been discussed before and is very simple. Different tournaments have different colors. And different stages of the tournament have different shades. Just look at all league tables (for example {{2015–16 Premier League table}}), different shades of green for UEFA Champions League, and different shades of blue for UEFA Europa League. Qed237 (talk) 11:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: THe AFC has this as joint qualification for AFC Cup as well and these tables are also used in those articles. Qed237 (talk) 11:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some WP:FOOTY cannot simply ignore accessibility guidelines though. Again, remember that different people have different levels of color vision. Regarding the second issue, that one could be resolved if we'd substitute those tables in this articles instead of simply transcluding them. Sure that creates exactly one article that requires independent updating, but if that would be the only argument against I would be most happy to take that updating task on myself. Transclduing info that has no bearing on this article is actually really lazy editing. Tvx1 16:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As sais above, accessibilty was taken into consideration which is why we have the column that explains what happens when showing the normal tableview. Parameters could theoretically be used inside the group template with if-statements what to display depending on article, but as said above it will all be over in one week. Also the yellow shades will still be used on AFC articles. Qed237 (talk) 21:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Don't just say it "will all be over next week". Another qualifying round will follow the current one and obviously there will be another World Cup so these issues will arise again. If the module can be programmed so the displayed information is different depending on what article it is transcluded in, than that definitely should be considered to implement that. Tvx1 12:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The module itself can not be programmed that way, but the templates using the module can contain a lot of if statements (complicating the updating) about what information to send to the module depending on article. Qed237 (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We could also use {{#switch}} statements in the template itself to look at the article title, but as Qed237 stated, that would get very complicated. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:21, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: The easiest way would probably be through a parameter such as |world_cup=yes and then for the parts for AFC qualification have "if not world_cup then show" or otherwise "if world_cup show this, otherwise show that". Qed237 (talk) 01:07, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237: I think that's still too much work for something so specific. After all, the module is design to work across multiple sports, not just football. I think we're fine with what we have. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well not what we have isn't "fine". There are clear readability issues. I think Qed237 (talk)'s proposed change related to the templates, not the entire module. If this can addressed at template level that would a great thing. However, in response to the raised concerns, I still wonder whether it wouldn't be easier just to substitute the templates in the World Cup qualification articles or to simply create a duplicate set of templates to be used only for the two World Cup qualification articles they are needed in? Tvx1 14:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvx1: In order to add the parameter to the template call and have the module parse it, it needs to be added to the module code and tested. The only reason this is an issue right now is because AFC is using this tournament to qualify for both the 2018 FIFA World Cup and the 2019 AFC Asian Cup (thus necessitating the use of yellow), but this is the only article where there is no text to accompany the colors because of |only_pld_pts=yes being set to minimize the length of the article. After this round ends in a few days, the issue will be moot as we will move on to the third round of World Cup qualifying, which is separate from the third round of Asian Cup qualifying. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 23:19, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No it won't be moot because it will simply return for the next world cup. Again, is there any objection to either substitute the templates in the article or create a duplicate set for the world cup only? Moreover, there's also a dedicated article for the second round of qualifying of the AFC where the issue will remain even after next week. Tvx1 00:13, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After being away from the computer today (it is a holiday) I just saw this before going to bed so I want to clear some things out.

  1. When the tables were created in November 2014 the 2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification was redirected to 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) and it was believed they would be the same (before AFC changed their mind, which seems to happen sometimes). For that reason, at the time of creation it was very logical to create the templates with information about both qualifications. If I had know today that they would have been split, I would probably have looked for a sloution at the time.
  2. Now this color discussion got my intention about a week before all matches was finished, and on the only article where the table exists without color explanation column they will be very soon removed. For that reason together with the fact that is it holidays (family and friends events) and the fact that I am very busy with other things IRL and on wikipedia has led me to be lazy, but if you insist I will see if I can find some time to look at it tomorrow.
  3. The solution I am talking about will in that case only be in the table templates and not the module. There should be no reason to make new tables just to separate the two qualifications, and it would only need to more work updating two tables.
  4. There is currently not any separate article for round two of the qualification for AFC Asian Cup, so 2019 AFC Asian Cup qualification links to 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round (as main) so for that reason the AFC colors should also be in that article as it serves as a double. That leads to the fact that in the only article where colors are not needed is 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification where the tables soon will be removed.

I might have missed some points, but think I got the most out of my chest. Qed237 (talk) 01:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Tvx1: Your assertion that this particular issue will definitely happen again is pure conjecture – this is the first time that the qualification tournaments for both competitions have been merged, and it is possible that the AFC will decide to separate the two qualification tournaments for the 2022/2023 competitions. I understand your concerns regarding the colors, but as I said, this is the only article which presently does not include text to define the colors due to |only_pld_pts=yes; 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC) and 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC Second Round both display the full tables, including text to define the different colors. Yes, MOS:COLOR and MOS:CONTRAST may be violated on this article due to the method of display used for the templates, but the templates themselves and all other articles onto which they are transcluded do not. After the final matches of this round are completed, the templates will be replaced with descriptive text, and the "Next round" section will be added – therefore the issue is truly rendered moot. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 01:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFC second round

[edit]

Is it a final official decision on the postponed Kuwait matches that we're waiting for before we can stop listing the AFC second round as a "current" stage and remove all the (Q)'s from the tables? --Theurgist (talk) 01:01, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I believe so. While the matches will not be played before the draw for the third round next week, any supposition that they will be awarded 3–0 is WP:OR until announced as such. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 15:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my mind yes. Currently they are only postponed, meaning that they may actually be played (in theory) even if that is highly unlikely. Qed237 (talk) 15:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Top goalscorers

[edit]

Where is Carlos Ruiz (guatemalian forward) in the top goalscorers? He has 9 goals now in all rounds of CONCACAF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ramirez2387 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Group I standings

[edit]

Hi! Intuitively, after three 1-1 draws, it is right to place the three visiting teams on the top three places, and the three hosts on the bottom three places. However, the regulations say that the away goal rule only applies if two teams are equal on points, not six. Should they then all considered equal in the current standings? Иван Володин (talk) 15:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreaker is head to head for all teams, not just two teams. Qed237 (talk) 15:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Here it says "Away goals scored in matches between tied teams (if the tie is only between two teams)". Иван Володин (talk) 15:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FIFA shows all three visiting teams ahead of all three home teams, albeit with Kosovo ahead of Iceland. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 16:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC) UPDATE: I have updated the group template to reflect the order of teams presented by FIFA. 16:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:02, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kosovo vandalism

[edit]

The template for Europe Group I is giving Kosovo credit for winning their final 7 games by a combined score of 39-0, and my attempts to edit it back seem not to be going through. Heads up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.152.115 (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Your edit was effective. Sometimes a browser will continue to display a cached version of a template, so you might need to perform a null edit to see the actual result. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil's qualification

[edit]

Hasn't Brazil qualified just yet? As I see, no team has ever been left out of the top four in CONMEBOL after accumulating 30 points. Still, I see no news sites commenting on their qualification to the World Cup.

Do they still need to wait until Tuesday to confirm their qualification?

--AndSalx95 (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They are qualified when they mathematically can not be worse than 4th. Can you prove that is the case? Qed237 (talk) 11:10, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have now done some calculations and found results that gets Brazil 6th if they stay on 30points, so no they have not qualified yet. If you want I can write the results that gives this table, but it is a lot so I rather dont unless you want them. Qed237 (talk) 12:31, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using the website UltraZone to figure these things out. It's very quick and easy but you must be extra-careful to submit the correct results in order to prove whether a team has qualified or been eliminated. For example I thought Venezuela was assured of a 6th-place finish at best and edited the map accordingly but it turns out I was wrong when I tweaked the results again. GazThomas402 (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I use a computer program (and my own head) as it is often even easier. Those pages are good to find and shown cases when it is not true (for example Brazil not qualified), but you can not use it to prove things for example Venezuela as all possibilites needs to be considered. Qed237 (talk) 13:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very good point. I'll leave it to you in future. GazThomas402 (talk) 13:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Problem is that I am asleep when CONMEBOL is playing. Last night they played at 4am local time (for me), so I am more than happy if someone else also looks at it. When it is easier I keep scenarios at my sandbox, User:Qed237/sandbox. Qed237 (talk) 13:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, now I see. I did some calculations in that page and actually Brazil can end up as low as seventh place. In fact, it's even possible to make all top six teams to get more points than the Brazilians, thus avoiding the goal difference tiebreaker, considering that Brazil already has an enormous +22 difference. Empirically, we can all agree that Brazil will qualify to the World Cup save for a colossal blunder (bigger than the Mineirazo, in my opinion) that would result in them failing to qualify. That scenario, though unlikely, would be certainly historic, as my calculations leave a three point margin between the first place (which turned out to be Uruguay) and the seventh place. --AndSalx95 (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Definitely qualified now ! Matilda Maniac (talk) 10:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil HAS NOT qualified. They can still be passed and are only assured of the Confederation Playoff spot. Brazil needs one more point or a draw or loss by Argentina to qualify for the 2018 World Cup.Dsides12 (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil has qualified. Further discussion below. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GAV80

[edit]

@GAV80: Why are you edit warring with me? I did not write the wrong sentence.--Opdire657 (talk) 12:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Opdire657:. Your edit about sentence. And you edit only AFC, without Total. GAV80 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean with total? Today there have only been played 2 matches in AFC region.--Opdire657 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Opdire657: Total is bottom line of the table. and also played 1 OFC match that you deleted. GAV80 (talk) 12:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1

[edit]

What on earth does +1 mean in relation to UEFA places? Please whoever added that add an explaination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.8.180.207 (talk) 09:04, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

+1 is our way of showing the team that is automatically qualified, in this case Russia. Perhaps it needs better explanation. Qed237 (talk) 09:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil hasn't qualified

[edit]

Folks stop editing in Brazil as qualified for the 2018 World Cup, as they HAVE NOT done so. Brazil is only assured of a spot in the Confederation Playoffs. Brazil still needs one more point or a draw or loss by Argentina to qualify for Russia 2018.Dsides12 (talk) 03:59, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil have qualified because Argentina would have to win all four of their games to finish above them. In order to do that they have to beat Uruguay which means Uruguay could only pick up nine more points and would definitely finish behind Brazil regardless.Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may all be true, but it still doesn't change the fact that Brazil hasn't officially qualified. The fact remains, Brazil can still be passed, no matter how unlikely it seems, it's still a mathematical possibility, so they have not, in fact, qualified yet.Dsides12 (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The key game is Uruguay vs Argentina:
  • If Uruguay wins the most Argentina can have in terms of points is 31 pts.
  • If Argentina wins the most Uruguay can have in terms of points is 32 pts.
  • If its a draw the most Argentina can have in terms of points is 32, while Uruguay 33 pts.
  • Colombia and Chile can both jump over Brazil with the remaining set of games no questions asked;
  • so it is a mathematical possibility that Brazil can be passed and come 4th, but not 5th. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Brazil has qualified as it is mathematically impossible for them to become 5th. Could you give us any scenario Dsides12 that results in Brazil being 5th? No, because there isnt any. Also officiall sources like FIFA themselves say Brazil qualify as race for places tightens. Qed237 (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for Brazil to fall to 5th---if Brazil loses it's last 4 and Argentina wins it's last 4, then Brazil is 5th and had to play in the Confederation Playoffs to qualify for the 2018 World Cup. Brazil needs either a draw or a win in its final 4 matches, or have Argentina draw or lose any of it's final four.Dsides12 (talk) 18:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dsides12: How can 4 teams pass Brazil? You have to remeber that Argentina and Urugauay will meet eachother. If Argentina wins all of therir matches, Uruguay can get max 32 points. Both Argentina and Uruguay can not pass Brazil. Qed237 (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia

[edit]

it says that they were disqualified before qualification began but they were disqualified when qualification already started LICA98 (talk) 05:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the language in the lead to show they were disqualified before playing their first match. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 10:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

world cup qualified 2018 attendance

[edit]

We need world cup qualified 2018 attendance ? 

Zedan007 (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:12, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Costa Rica have qualified.

[edit]

Costa Rica have qualified. They cannot be caught by both Panama and United States (as they play each other) and should be added to the list of qualified teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.193.165.50 (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically, no they haven't. If they lose out, USA do not tie with Panama on Matchday 9, and Honduras win over Mexico on Matchday 10, it's possible that Costa Rica will have to enter the inter-continental play-offs against either Australia or Syria. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; we do not change status of teams based on predictability. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or another way of looking at it, they can be be caught by both Honduras and United States, or they can be be caught by both Honduras and Panama. Will take a few fortuitous 4-0 scorelines, but hey! Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Goals scored in nullified/forfeited/... matches

[edit]

@GAV80, Jd22292, Jkudlick, Kante4, Qed237, and S.A. Julio: Hi everyone, some matches in 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification were forfeited, specifically AFC 2nd Round, CAF 2nd Round, CONCACAF 2nd Round, CONMEBOL and OFC 3rd Round. Goals scored in those matches (if there were any) were not counted, but we still recognized goalscorers. I do not know whether it is proper to do that, but I have not questioned because we seem to have a consensus about this issue. Recently in CAF 3rd Round, FIFA nullified original result of South Africa vs. Senegal match and ordered a replay. Should we recognize that match's goalscorers or not? Centaur271188 (talk) 12:08, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the match is to be replayed, then all statistics from that match are nullified. It is as if the match never took place. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 15:28, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But FIFA did not eject this match from statistics. 2177 goals in 767 matches. GAV80 (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After looking up in FIFA statistics, I understand that it also recognizes goalscorers of forfeited matches. About the nullified match, if FIFA still retains its statistics, we should do the same thing too. Centaur271188 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I will agree with FIFA not nullifying the goals of the match, this still does not address the forfeited matches so far (BRB-ARU, YEM-DPK, IND-IRN, MAS-KSA, COD-BDI, BOL-PER, CHI-BOL, and TAH-SOL). What happens to these matches? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jd22292: I think FIFA will update them later. When reviewing 2014 campaign, specifically 2nd round of AFC, CAF and CONCACAF, I saw all forfeited matches had been duly addressed by FIFA. The real problem to me is whether it retained their statistics. Generally it did, but sometimes it did not, and I do not know what criteria it used to make such decisions. Centaur271188 (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

England qualification

[edit]

Russia 2018 will be England's 15th World Cup appearance, not their 14th. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.69.25 (talk) 21:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a source that says this. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind sources, I'm telling you it's their fifteenth World Cup - 1950, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1966, 1970, 1982, 1986, 1990, 1998, 2002, 2006, 2010, 2014 and 2018. Fifteen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.69.25 (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map

[edit]

Please change the map with the colors and everything because England and Germany have now qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.103.177.169 (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the image is managed at Wikimedia Commons, not here. And Wikimedia Commons sometimes does not work properly :) Centaur271188 (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden attendance figures

[edit]

Were the attendance figures meant to be hidden on this page specifically until qualification was over? Just asking before I blindly remove the Void template. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 14:17, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jd22292: Sorry, I do not understand clearly what you mean. Are you talking about hidden notes in the infobox? Centaur271188 (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the {{^}} template that's preventing attendance figures from showing on this page. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I understand after seeing your last change. Yes, we have been hiding that figure in this page. I do not know why, but GAV80 often takes care of the infobox, perhaps he will explain. While waiting for him, I think we should keep it hidden. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also been edited heavily by JackHoang, so we could also get input there? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Centaur271188 and Jd22292:. Need hidden attendance. Sorry, I forgot about {{^}}. GAV80 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JackHoang mainly takes care of attendance figures, and yes, we do it after having matches' attendance information. Centaur271188 (talk) 18:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Related to this subject, how would we handle attendance figures for inter-confederation playoffs? Separately, or add each match to the confederation of the home team? I wasn't here for the 2014 calculations so I wouldn't know. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@GAV80 and Jd22292: Ah, thanks for asking. I think those play-offs will be counted separately. We have hidden notes (PLAY-OFF) and addends (currently 0, obviously) for them in matches and goals summations, but not attendance calculation (yet). I will add them now. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 02:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error with Bos&Herz status

[edit]

Table for group H shows Bos&Herz as (E), whereas the wikipedia page for this group correctly shows them as (Z).Nick Barnett (talk) 18:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Nick Barnett:. No error. BIH will be worst runners-up with only 11 points. GAV80 (talk) 18:45, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, "incorrectly", then, rather than "correctly" . . . they can't both be right, can they? Nick Barnett (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what happens tomorrow, Greece remains at 13 points excluding Gibraltar. If Bosnia wins and finishes the group in second-place, they will have 11 points excluding Gibraltar, which is not enough to overcome Slovakia's 12 points either way. Greece, however, has already gone ahead of Slovakia, so unless the rare comeback happens, Greece can eliminate Slovakia. Also, I feel this is turning into a WP:NOTAFORUM topic. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add current FIFA ranking

[edit]

I think it would be nice to add a column showing the current FIFA ranking to the qualified teams table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chelco77 (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until the October rankings are released instead. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Intercontinental playoffs

[edit]

I was recently made aware that the NZFF "confirmed" matchdays for their playoff against Peru. Yet I do not see FIFA adding this information. Nor the individual confederations (OFC and CONMEBOL). I have reverted these edits because New Zealand has no control over when their away match happens; this has to be decided by the Peru Football Federation, not New Zealand. Please do not make any changes until some sort of confirmation by FIFA arises. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update the map

[edit]

Could you please put Burkina Faso, South Africa and Cape Verde in yellow and Senegal in dark blue because Senegal just qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.149.129.27 (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Describing previous best performance of Egypt and Peru in table of qualified teams - First round, Second round, Quarter-finals, Round of 8, Last 8...

[edit]

@Hyperion82, J man708, and Jd22292: I hope we can solve this dispute here, instead of involving some kind of edit war out there. At the beginning, I supported Hyperion82's way, but after more thorough considerations, I think I have to agree with J man708 (it also was jd22292's original idea). 'Last 8' or 'Round of 8' may be good improvisations, but they are not official. We should use official names for those rounds. Egypt would be First round (1934), Group stage (1990). Peru would be Quarter-finals (1970), Second round (1978). Everyone else, please leave some words here if you have any suggestions. Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The method I originally proposed with Egypt seems appropriate. It describes two different-named rounds that both represent a similar phase of the World Cup. True the Quarterfinals in 1978 was actually named "Second Round," but it still works in the case for Peru. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 20:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@jd22292: Last 8 teams in 1978 were divided into 2 groups of 4 to play round-robin, so technically we cannot call it Quarter-finals. But I get your point :) Centaur271188 (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we say "Last 8", then we should show Australia's 1974 entry in aswell as 2006, as they made the "Last 16" both times. I'm a fan of using Quarter Finals for explaining Peru's best result, as that matches their "Last 8" position in 1970 and subsequently was a round involving 8 teams. It's pretty akin to calling the 1950 deciding match the World Cup final, really. If the argument is to keep each round as its correct name, then creating the "Last 8" to describe Peru is incorrect as that has never been the name of a World Cup round. - J man708 (talk) 23:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's strange position - you don't like the "Top 8" because this is unofficial name of second round, but your prefer term "Quarter-final" although it was also unofficial name of second round. No, it weren't quarter-finals by any way because the teams were not eliminated after losing first matches of the second round. With same success, you can name it "Semi-final round" as only two teams qualified into final after this stadia. I think we can write "Second Round (1978)" but we should to made special note that this round included 8 teams in this edition. Speaking about Egypt - well, I agree with proposal to write "First round (1934), Group stage (1990)", although I don't see any contradiction between "First round" and "Group round" in the case of 1990 edition. Why we need in this formalism when we can write it shorter?
The only reason I'd prefer Quarter-final to the Round of 8 is that in later tournaments the round containing 8 teams has been called the Quarter-finals. It just seems to me the lesser of two evils. - J man708 (talk) 15:22, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hyperion82: First round for 1990 would be another improvisation. 'First round' and 'Second round' are the vaguest terms here, I think we should not use them unless they are official names. And the note for Peru is a good idea, I thought about it but forgot mentioning. Thanks for making it :) Centaur271188 (talk) 15:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure of the official names? The tickets for the 1966 group matches call them "eighth finals". If being "official" is important one could use the absolute FIFA placings as at National team appearances in the FIFA World Cup#Comprehensive team results by tournament, wherein Australia finished 14th in 1974 and 16th in 2006, making 1974 their best result. jnestorius(talk) 09:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

games played in qualifying

[edit]

NauruDude thinks that listing the number of games played by teams in qualifying is "completely useless". I think it is at least as useful as "consecutive finals appearance" or "date of qualification". Does anyone else have an opinion? jnestorius(talk) 15:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a little bit too harsh to consider your change 'completely useless', but I support NauruDude's way. Showing teams' numbers of games played as a sorting criterion in that table is not really needed. Those numbers depend mainly on confederal qualification methods, they are not meaningful very much. The fact that a team qualified after fewer/more games played does not really mean they had a better/worse performance or a less/more notable campaign, even in comparison with others from the same confederation. Centaur271188 (talk) 20:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that playing more or fewer games does not correlate much with playing better or worse; the same is true of most of the other columns. It does at a minimum convey the information that some confederations play more games than others. It is also useful in the context of multiple World Cups: a similar table for the 1934 or 1970 tournament would show much fewer matches. Readers may click form one article to another rather than reading a single article from start to finish. Bear in mind that this table is in the article about qualification, not the finals tournament; columns "Last appearance", "Consecutive finals appearances", and "Previous best performance" have nothing whatever to do with the 2018 qualification campaign. If a similar table were inserted at 2018 FIFA World Cup#Qualified teams then those columns would be pertinent. In this qualification article, I think more useful information would be FIFA ranking at the time the qualifying draw was made and at the time the finals draw was made. jnestorius(talk) 09:43, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius: Sorry if my expression confused you; anyway, I was trying to emphasize notability, not performance comparison. To me, "Games played in qualifying" is not notable enough to be included here - the fact that some confederal qualifications have more matches than others seems quite trivial. Your argument about "Last appearance", "Consecutive finals appearances" and "Previous best performance" seems good; so does your suggestion (include rankings). The matter here is: in November, PhilipTerryGraham decided to remove the table at 2018 FIFA World Cup ('Qualification' subsection) because he thought our table here would be enough, even though it has to carry some information which is not really relevant. Maybe each article should have its own table, which includes different information. @GAV80, Jd22292, Jkudlick, and S.A. Julio: (and others) Please join us if you can, because I think this proposal is worth discussing. Thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 10:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that this was my intent when removing the table from there. I felt that since the qualification process was over, the need to have an expansive, complicated wikitable full of way too much information on a general-topic article like 2018 FIFA World Cup was no longer relevant. The 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification article existed, and it's much more user-friendly when the "Qualification" section in 2018 FIFA World Cup can be a satisfatory summary of all the important content from 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification, with a list of qualified teams being presented as a simple columned list divided by confederations. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 10:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, two important things need to be established and understood: 1) people who come to the 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification article are evidently in search of more information on the qualification process, and 2) the lead of the article, no matter what the topic, should always be a cohesive summary of the content in the article body. Because of the nature of this article, it should be safe to assume that the wikitable counts as a lead, since it without a doubt hosts the most important information in the entire article, and is a summary of the content below. From here we should determine two more things to be enshrined as consensus: 1) what is important enough for the average football-minded person that would want to come to an article such as 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification, but doesn't have the time to skim through the article body, and 2) what is relevant exclusively to the qualification process the article is about?

Evidently, the teams, method of qualification, and date of qualification are no doubt integral information for readers looking for information on who qualified and how. However, the rest of the wikitable doesn't seem as relevant exclusively to the qualification process, rather than just trivia facts. The ironic thing, in my personal opinion, is that the number of games a team had to play during their qualification process is objectively more relevant to the understanding of the qualification process that these columns that currently exist in the wikitable. The "Finals appearance" column seems somewhat relevant to the qualification process, as it tells readers 'this qualification process is the [number] time this team was successful in'. "Last appearance", "Consecutive finals appearances", and "Previous best performance", however, are objectively more relevant to articles about team performances in previous World Cups than they are to this particular qualification process for the 2018 edition. Those are my two cents. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · count) 10:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Philip: What do you think about another table in the Finals article? I think it would be a more suitable place for "Finals appearances", "Last appearance", "Consecutive finals appearances", "Previous best performance" and rankings at the start of the Finals. Our table here should include "Method of qualification", "Date of qualification", maybe a few more columns for matches played (I still doubt its importance, but it is totally relevant here anyway) and rankings before qualifying. Centaur271188 (talk) 14:07, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I find it difficult to justify a "Number of matches played" column in the qualified teams table, since the number of matches played is indicative of neither the strength of a team nor the difficulty in qualifying. For example, none of the CAF teams played more than eight official matches (RSA-SEN was replayed, so one could say that both teams played nine matches to obtain eight results), each of the UEFA representatives played no fewer than ten matches, and each CONMEBOL representative played at least 18 matches. This seems like a purely trivial matter, especially considering the number of nations which receive byes into later stages of their confederation qualifying tournaments; six nations received a bye into the fourth round of the CONCACAF tournament, and each of those six nations advanced to the fifth round, so each CONCACAF representative played the minimum 16 matches in that tournament, though a CONCACAF representative could have played as many as 24 by advancing from the first round to the interconfederation playoff. I'm opposed to adding a "Number of matches played" column, but mine isn't the only vote. If consensus is to add one, then so be it. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 01:11, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One might argue that all the information is "trivial" except for the fact that a team has qualified. Looking at 1978 FIFA World Cup qualification, nobody has yet bothered to work out "date of qualification" etc for any of the 16 teams, because that information is only of (marginal) interest in the runup to the tournament; afterwards nobody cares. I would vote for Team—rank at Q draw—Method of qualification—P-W-D-L-F-A—Rank at F draw as the most useful information for this table. jnestorius(talk) 13:17, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think nobody has bothered to include that information just because 1978 qualification was too long ago. It is easier to add more information in more recent events. And please do not say "Date of qualification" is trivial. Many of us (including me) think otherwise. It is well covered by the media, 100% relevant and worth mentioning. Anyway I would still support your other ideas here, if you still wanted to push them forward :) Centaur271188 (talk) 10:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that I think qualification date is trivial does not mean I think all those who think otherwise are stupid. I am sure we are all expressing sincere opinions and can disagree respectfully. I don't think anyone, myself included, has done a good job explaining why some statistic is or is not noteworthy. I would point out WP:NOTNEWS; the kind of information that is important in newspaper articles published while an event is in progress may not be mentioned in retrospective accounts. The latter perspective is the one Wikipedia should aim for. jnestorius(talk) 13:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Addionally, if date of qualification is important, as per WP:SUMMARY it could be added to the child articles rather than merely the summary. Thus for example 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)#Matchday 14 would note that Brazil qualified, and later ones would note that other teams qualified/were eliminated. jnestorius(talk) 18:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified Teams

[edit]

Someone's been tweaking with the "Qualified Teams". It says Italy is in.. also Denmark is on the side weirdly.John Acey (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John Acey a user accepted IP changes without confirming if they were legitimate changes. I have reverted back to the correct version before the IPs edits. NZFC(talk) 21:08, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Play Points System

[edit]

This seems to be new for the 2018 world cup. It wasn't there for the 2014. Is there any information on who was the originator of this rule and when it first came into being? Lehasa (talk) 00:47, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification&oldid=1243247393"