Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)

Seeding info is not official

UEFA/FIFA have not announced how the teams will be seeded.Edgar (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are completely right. Seedings should not be added until it has been announced. Qed237 (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The FIFA ranking will indeed be used for seeding (it's in the regulations). However, the exact edition that will be used is unknown yet. So this "The seeding will be based on the FIFA World Rankings of July 2015" is not official.Edgar (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Year in Second Round prose

@GAV80, PeeJay2K3, and Qed237: Let's come to an agreement here as to the placement of the second "2017" in the Second Round prose before anyone is accused of WP:EW. I have to agree that precedent, such as 2015–16 UEFA Champions League#Qualifying Rounds, places the year after the dates for the second legs. The only exception I could see would be if the dates crossed two years, e.g. the first legs were played on 27 and 28 December 2015, and the second legs were played on 5 and 6 January 2016. I have pinged all three of you because you are all involved in the recent squabble, but I invite all other editors to participate. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something is done in a particular way in other places doesn't mean it's being done correctly. Grammatically, it makes more sense to place the date after the first instance, because then it can be intuited that the same year applies to the second instance. – Pee Jay 12:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I note that since this particular point is not covered in the MOS or by any policy or guideline, that we then rely on precedent and consensus to ensure consistency. I've made my point, and you've made yours; now we will wait for others. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:31, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an MOS issue, nor is it anything to do with Wikipedia policy. This is about good English. – Pee Jay 12:50, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that should be standard in Wikipedia, because it is an encyclopedia. Same phrase in other pages: "The first legs were played on ..., and the second legs were played on ... 20..". GAV80 (talk) 12:52, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you're willing to stick with something that's wrong just because it appears that way in other places? – Pee Jay 12:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I don't think it's wrong. GAV80 (talk) 13:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe my English is bad but what is the difference between this and "20, 21 and 22 March"? We dont write "20 March, 21 and 22" because it can be intuited that the same month applies to the second instance. On many places I see "matches will be played on 20 March and 10 April 2016" and that seems perfectly fine to me. I see no problem with year for second leg. Qed237 (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that they're part of different clauses. In spoken English, you might say "The first legs are being played on the 20th of March, and the second legs on the 27th". This is the exact same principle. – Pee Jay 16:55, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formats

@Qed237, GAV80, The Replicator, and SuperJew: Yesterday, SuperJew suddenly applied a new format for 'Matches' sections of all 9 groups. Instead of placing linebreaks to enumerate goalscorers, as we have been doing since the start of qualification, it uses plainlists. To me, these changes were unnecessary and inconsistent, so I tried to keep old format. But he persisted in using the new one, and situation escalated into an edit war. He claimed that there is a consensus about using plainlists instead of linebreaks, but everything I could find is a number of editors think that plainlists are better. Then I have a look at manual:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_styles
OK, I admit that manual encourages us to use plainlists. But it is not mandatory, WP:COMMON and WP:CONSENSUS have to be taken into consideration as well. We have been using linebreaks in these articles for almost a year without any dispute, why do we have to change our way so drastically? If SuperJew wants to use the new format so badly, he (and other editors support plainlists) could do it in other articles, maybe 2017 FIFA Confederations Cup, a tournament is about to start, and plainlists can be applied smoothly. I am not against any particular format, if plainlists have been used in an article from the beginning, I will gladly abide. But if we chose linebreaks in the first place, then we should keep it that way.
Of course, anyone can join this discussion. But Qed237, GAV80 and The Replicator are among the main contributors here, so I will appreciate very much if all of you give some advice. Thanks all :) Centaur271188 (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When introduced, I was against this new listformat and I have not started to use it myself. However I dont think it is anything to argue over and looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 104#New syntax for penalties list I am inclined to say it looks lika a consensus even if the original discussion was about penalties. In my opinion the older version is a little bit better, but it does not matter much as long as we are consistent. Qed237 (talk) 17:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As said in the discussion Qed237 linked, there is an issue of better accessibility too. Also, there is a consensus of users there who support it's use. Furthermore it is much easier to edit and maintain (from experience of filling in scorers of 37-0 matches and the likes). The plainlist is in the documentation of the templates and is preferred by the MoS. I made sure to change all 9 groups exactly because of the consistency. --SuperJew (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @Sygmoral: who rolled out the change, and @Walter Görlitz, Koppapa, Jared Preston, and Macosal: who were in that discussion. --SuperJew (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I would use the same argument I used on that discussion from a year ago: I fully understand the resistance from people that aren't used to the list syntax, but I truly believe it has more benefits than drawbacks (see that discussion). So although linebreaks work fine, I see no reason to actually prefer them over listing. I think it's just about making more editors used to it, precisely by introducing more editors to it by using it on highly visible pages. Then it will gradually become a more de factor accepted syntax (after already being on the template documentations). Sygmoral (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For me: better use . This is standard separate and it work normal. More users prefer . For example, all pages about FIFA-2018 qualification use this linebreak before SuperJew changed part of them. GAV80 (talk) 18:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237 and GAV80: Forgive me if I misunderstand. For me, 'consistency' also means "do not replace current codes", therefore I think these changes are inconsistent. About 2 years ago, when I was a newcomer here, both of you corrected my codes , because we are consistent with , although they seem to be identical, and I have abided by that instruction. Last month, The Replicator and I came across the same situation. I used in 2016–17 UEFA Europa League knockout phase without noticing plainlists were being used there, and he corrected my codes (@The Replicator: thanks again :D). Therefore I suggest the same thing in this case: back to linebreaks, as they have been for a long time, to avoid any further confusion among editors. Centaur271188 (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency for me is to have the same syntax over all related articles, which in this case would be all articles related to 2018 FIFA World Cup. Often that is to stay with the format that someone started ith instead of going back and change everything, but if someone change every article it is fine by me. Qed237 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem helping to roll out the plainlist syntax to all 2018 FIFA WC pages, and as Sygmoral said, the best way to get editors used to it is use it on highly visible pages (the use on Asian youth tournaments and OFC tournaments hasn't made much of an impact obviously). Don't stay stuck in the past because it's a little bit of a hassle to get used to it or change things so ppl will get used to it. Judge it based on the merits which stand the test of time of more than a few weeks. --SuperJew (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be so bold, it does not matter what people are used to. If we only ever did what people were used to, we would be stuck in the dark ages ;) One relevant example here is that there is actually no reason to write anymore: this is XHTML syntax, but Wikipedia now uses an HTML5 doctype, so is perfectly fine. But most articles still use because Wikipedia had a different doctype in the (distant) past. Nobody has bothered to change all of them (a bot could do it), and so people continue thinking they're "supposed" to write it that way. But isn't "better", it's just "historical". In the same way, yes, the linebreaks are much more common as goal separator, but that's only because there was no other way to do it up to a year ago. There's a better way now. So why not join us and use it? :D Sygmoral (talk) 22:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Qed237: I am afraid that your sense of 'consistency' will not help solving this dispute. What will happen if SuperJew apply plainlist format somewhere else, and someone revert it because they think linebreak format is no less 'consistent' than the new one? Another edit war, until one side feel frustrated and give up (like I just did)?
@SuperJew and Sygmoral: Please stop using arguments like 'resist/stuck/...', it sounds like you totally missed my point. I, among many other editors, can adopt either format with little difficulty. You can apply the new format without problem in many other articles, big or small, highly visible or low-profile. Please do not make these changes here, or anywhere else have used linebreaks for a long time, just because you think plainlists are better, or because you want to spread your idea much faster. What about WP:DONTFIXIT and WP:POINT? Centaur271188 (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188: I think you're missing the point mate. That's exactly what we're saying: "the fact that linebreaks have been used for a long time" doesn't make them better or worse.

The format should be judged by other parameters, such as accessibility, readability and ease of use by editors - all which IMO (and I'd dare say Sygmoral's and the editors supporting plainlist in the discussion linked) plainlist is much better for. --SuperJew (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DONTFIXIT says "On the other hand, if something is slightly broken in a way that you care about, and fixing it improves the encyclopedia a little, then feel free to fix it." plainlist improves the encyclopedia a little, so here we are :) --SuperJew (talk) 16:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: I, among other editors, do not consider linebreak format 'broken', some of them even think linebreaks are better. They have been used for a long time in many articles, so we do not really need to replace them if they do not cause any real trouble. I feel quite comfortable to watch and check 3-4 items in a single line of edit box with linebreaks; if I have a higher-resoluted monitor instead of this miserable 1360x768, there will be even more. Newer articles are still out there for you to apply plainlists, and I will support you in those cases. Why do you bother so much to make some inconsistencies by using them here? Centaur271188 (talk) 17:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand where there are inconsistencies. Please let me know and I will fix them. --SuperJew (talk) 17:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In my sense of consistency, the only proper way to fix this is back to linebreaks. But you are not willing to do it, are you? You told me to bring it up, I did. And while we are having a discussion and trying to settle this dispute, you already make other moves:
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – OFC Third Round
So what is the point of telling me to bring it up? Whether this discussion exists or not, you will do whatever you want. And talk about consistency, why do you care about goalscorers only? We are still using linebreaks for match reports, technically, they are also items of a list and can be separated by plainlists.
I have made my point clear enough, and since you do not seem to care about this discussion whatsoever, I think I do not need to say anything anymore. Centaur271188 (talk) 04:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the changes to make it consistent. Sorry I can't do it in one go, I have other things to do with life too. You're welcome to help if you wish, or just be patient to get your precious consistency.

Regarding match reports, as far as I know it is not supported for the templates yet to do in the same format as the goalscorers. Sygmoral, any thoughts about implementing same format for match reports? --SuperJew (talk) 18:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I did make an edit to the template long ago for the "report" parameter, but for another reason. I only made it easier to use that parameter: you can just write report=url instead of report=[url Report]. I did that because I thought it was silly everyone was always writing [url Report] everywhere; that had to be automated. But everyone always copies previous usages instead of checking the doc, so this simpler way is not actually used in many places. Anyhow, the 'old way' is of course still supported, which is important such as in this case where two reports are added. We could think of an improved way to format that, but then I think we need to take a step back and think it through. Because to be honest I never liked the current format. In my opinion those reports are just sources, and so they should just be mentioned as sources (e.g. in superscript ^[1] etc). But that's another discussion. Sygmoral (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew:. I reverted all pages FIFA-2018 to format. Please, don't revert to YOUR new format. Please, let other users decide if they need your new format or not. Let some other users (not in this discussion) will return the new format.

Already 3 different users undid your new format. You are decide that you are right and all other wrong. Maybe, you are wrong??? GAV80 (talk) 13:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First of all it's not my format. It's the new format that Sygmoral implemented after discussion about it. Secondly, it is a better format for all the reasons we mentioned above, and appears in the template documentation. I am still waiting to hear an argument other than "I don't like it" or "we need consistency" (I agree with that one, and am working to change all the pages to the new format, but it's not being helped by constant reverts). So if you have a real argument, I'm all ears. The question is not amount, discussions are not votes. The question is arguments and I still haven't heard a real one against the new format. --SuperJew (talk) 13:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew:. My argument against new format: if 2 or more goalscorer then use *, if only one goalscorer then no use *. And all parameters in footballbox have one line, but in new format parameter goals has many lines. No standard. GAV80 (talk) 14:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so first of all also with one goalscorer you can write it with a *, like so:

|goals1=

* [[Tim Cahill|Cahill]] {{goal|90+3}}

However, I personally don't do it, as it seems to me redundant, but IMO it's an issue of each editor does what they prefer on that one, as there isn't a real difference between them. --SuperJew (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little late to this party, but I have to agree that we need consistency. I do find the "new" method of listing goalscorers easier to read when viewing the code, and there is no apparent change to the final rendered product. I do not have the time right now to assist with altering the current tournament, but I do not see why the quasi-bulleted list can't be used in the future. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is no reason to resist the plainlist style, it makes the wikitext a bit cleaner and follows accessibility guidelines for being WCAG/ISO-standards-compliant, per WP:UBLIST and WP:PLIST. The only comment is that the plainlist does not need to be used when only one person scores the goal(s). S.A. Julio (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick and S.A. Julio: Please consider that linebreaks allow us to watch and check more than 1 item (maybe 3 to 6, depending on your monitor's resolution) in each line of edit box, so a goalscorers list is usually displayed in 1 to 3 lines. I feel it easier to manage, especially when we have many matches. A 'Matches' section in a UEFA qualification article consists of 30 matches, in CAF First Round it is 26, in CAF Second Round: 40. In my opinion, with plainlists, we have a little bit better readability of goalscorers lists; with linebreaks, we have a little bit better accessibility of the same thing (I must disagree with guidelines here). Again, I would like to talk about WP:DONTFIXIT. Linebreaks may not be standard now, but to me and many other editors, they are not 'broken' by any means. We do not really need to replace them. Centaur271188 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't completely understand what you wrote Centaur271188, but if I understand correctly you're saying that with linebreaks you can see in the same window more than one match at the same time. First of all, you must have a huge monitor or really good eyes if you can see 3 matches in the same window. Secondly, I don't understand the usefulness of it. Matches aren't meant to be monitored or updated live, so what does it matter if you have to scroll a little to update the next match? Also, if you want to see more in the same window why don't you use the " " format (2 characters less)?

Another point, while editing articles I noticed there is already a lot of non-consistency with linebreaks as it is. They range in the options of " ", " ", and " ", sometimes with different formats on the same page. Personally, I don't think it's an issue, but I do think it undermines your "consistency is important point".

And one more point, I noticed it seems that on average more European competition pages stay in the old format, while the vast majority of new Asian and African competitions are in the new format. Maybe Europeans should get out of the dark ages? ;) --SuperJew (talk) 06:31, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also regarding consistency, there are competitions (last season's UEFA Champions League and UEFA Europa League for example) that have different formats on different pages in the competitions. --SuperJew (talk) 07:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA). 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/20160626094547/http://www.uefa.com/worldcup/news/newsid%3D2257685.html to http://www.uefa.com/worldcup/news/newsid%3D2257685.html

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) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Status X - "Assured of at least play-offs"

I believe that status 'x' should be "Assured of at least second place" - not "Assured of at least play-offs". I changed two tables earlier today, but it was reverted. As I said in my edit summary, there are two reasons why I think this would be better. Firstly, it avoids the need to have a separate letter if someone is secured 2nd place, but not secured a play-off spot; secondly, it avoids using OR in regards to what happens if different teams finish 2nd and/or what 6th places can still change resulting in other record changes. What do other users think? 46.226.49.230 (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The users who reverted you were in their right to do so; a consensus was established that says we use "Z" for "assured of at least second place." I'm not sure where the consensus was reached, but does anyone want to confirm? Particularly GAV80 and Jkudlick as two active users who may know about this? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Jd22292:. In my opinion: "Assured at least play-off" and "Assured at least second place" different. Need 2 different statuses. GAV80 (talk) 22:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, but that's sort of my point. How do you prove (for example) that Northern Ireland are secured second, but not secured a play-off while Portugal are secured play-off. It inevitably involves OR on who can still pass whom and what happens in different 6th place scenarios. So it should be one letter in order to avoid people resorting to OR and arguing over whether someone is x or z. 46.226.49.230 (talk) 07:56, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Despite it might be complicated (one should consider all possible combinations of arrivals in the 2nd and the 6th positions), it is still possible to show that some teams are sure to be qualified for playoffs at least. In fact, if you look at Group H, it may be shown that the runner-up will conclude with at most 14 points plus the one against Gibraltar, that is already sure to get the last place in the group. Thus, all teams that are sure to arrive, in the worst-case scenario, as runner-ups in their group and, in such case, to have at least 15 points against teams not arriving at the last position, are already sure they will either win their group or do the play-offs. --Borisba (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up on this, performing mathematical calculations is not the same as WP:OR. If something can be mathematically proven, such as POR being assured of a play-off berth, then it is not OR to label it as such. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 13:11, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Play-off

I am interested, how will the 8 best teams from the second place be divided into the play-off matches? In the way that the 1st team will play with the 8th, 2nd with 7th etc. or how? I couldn't find this piece of information in the article, sorry if it is there. Thanks. Pedestrem (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAFORUM, but it will be a draw that will be held in October. Teams will be split according to the FIFA World Rankings (presumably the October rankings) and drawn into the play-off matches, similar to 2014 and before. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colors

I must say that I simply cannot distinguish between the second and third rows in the summary table. The colors are as good as identical. Therefore, I suggest we change them. Why don't simply use the same color scheme as we did for the previous world cup's qualification. Also I think this table is at odds with WP:Color as it uses colors as a sole means to convey information.T v x1 21:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the table accordingly. Good catch! jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:45, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

second place teams table

any reason the table of second placed teams isnt getting update along with the rest of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.211.225 (talk) 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh your browser - sometimes edits on temples don't display automatically on the main page. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:8DBD:86E6:BA5F:F465 (talk) 13:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A refresh alone doesn't work. I've done a favor and purged the page. Should display properly now. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 13:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Additional row

I think we need another row in the summary table now. Currently the second row denotes the teams who can still finish first or second and are guaranteed a play-off spot if second. However, this no longer applies to Italy who are certain to finish second and progress to the play-offs.T v x1 13:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC) The same situation now applies to Northern Ireland and Denmark.T v x1 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greece has advanced, Slovakia eliminated

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Greece has advanced, Slovakia is eliminated as they are guaranteed last spot of 2nd place teams. 12tbuchman (talk) 20:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@12tbuchman: Wrong. You forgot about Bosnia and Herzegovina. GAV80 (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify more, if Greece draw or lose, Bosnia will pass them with a win. Bosnia would only have 11 points in the 2nd place table, and miss out to Slovakia. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:599E:A6D9:D62D:57D0 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More simply, Greece is not certain to finish second in their group.T v x1 21:28, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Summary Table, the text "Will finish in at least second place (may be the ninth-ranked runner-up)" can be changed to "Finished in second place (may be the ninth-ranked runner-up)" - since only Slovakia are in this section, and they have no more games to play. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:599E:A6D9:D62D:57D0 (talk) 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, just thinking here. [and I do realise that this will lass for less than 24 hours] - but do we even need a separate section for this? Can't Slovakia just sit in the "Can only qualify through the second round (play-offs)" section - rather than having two different sections. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:599E:A6D9:D62D:57D0 (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: We created the row to indicate when a team has reached second place but has not qualified for the playoffs. It doesn't matter whether a team has finished their matches or not. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:21, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Greece

In the qualification chart, Greece is in the wrong row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.178.138 (talk) 00:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) No, they are not. Greece have not secured second place and Bosnia & Herzegovina at best can become the ninth-ranked runners-up. This is not an error. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has the "E" next to Bosnia...isn't this wrong? (til tomorrow)Smarkflea (talk) 01:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not wrong. Bosnia & Herzegovina, excluding their wins over Gibraltar, can finish at best with 11 points. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how come Greece is not a lock in the playoffs, and Slovakia is not assured of last place? Slovakia is done, Greece has more points and can't get anymore. How could Greece lose out? Smarkflea (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smarkflea:. All easy. Greece lose to Gibraltar, Bosnia and Herzegovina win Estonia. That's all. Greece 3rd place, eliminated. Slovakia in play-off. GAV80 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By this scenario, Greece would have 16 pts, and Bosnia 17. But d/t the 6th place rule, Greece would have 13 pts, and Bosnia 11. Isn't the 6th place rule taken into account for the main table? Smarkflea (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Smarkflea:. Matches vs 6th place don't count only in second-placed teams table. In group table need count all matches. BIH maybe on 2nd place with 17 points, but only 11 points in second-placed teams table. GAV80 (talk) 17:24, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Smarkflea (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The second-placed teams’ ranking only applies to second-placed teams. If Greece don’t finish second (which could happen by simply drawing their last match) it doesn’t apply to them.T v x1 18:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvx1: Correction: if Greece do not win and Bosnia defeat Estonia, then the second-place ranking would not apply to them. A draw can still get them in the playoffs; it just has to go in their favour. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 19:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If they draw and Bonsnia wins, they’re out. Bosnia has a superior goaldifference.T v x1 19:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So can a loss. If Bosnia doesn’t win either.T v x1 19:33, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Archive additions

Please make sure that my archive additions to the group articles are accurate and revert any "never-dead" references where applicable. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison ranking of qualified teams

This new section was created by PanthWiki. I removed it because it seemed unnecessary, but he undid my change for this reason "it's a legitimate comparison seen in other wiki pages. it will be created during the actual world cup anyway. refer to talk page". It indeed is a legitimate comparison, but I am questioning its importance; moreover, I have not seen anything like this before in qualification articles. His second argument may be about Standings/Rankings sections in World Cup Finals articles, but they apparently have nothing to do with this one. I would still like to remove it, but in order to avoid an edit war, I bring this issue up here beforehand. Please have some words :) Centaur271188 (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188:. I agree with you. This section not needed. No important info in this table. Again need delete Template:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Qualified Teams table. There are mistakes in this template: wrong spaces, Germany named as "DEU". GAV80 (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

TfD initiated. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 23:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]