Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Misleading and deceptive lead re: workers rights

The lead makes it seem as if Qatar has implemented protections for workers rights and that all the controversies on the issue have been resolved. The sources very clearly state that human rights groups say the steps do not go far enough and that it remains to be seen whether it will be fully implemented. Omitting that context, which User:Ytoyoda did in this edit[1], is a clear-cut WP:NPOV violation. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:33, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Not fodder for the lede, which is to act as a summary of its most important contents. If there are missing details, it should be in the body. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

If that is the case, then the text claiming "Qatar has fixed all the problems with labor rights" should be removed from the lead. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

The disputed text in question was added on 14 July 2021.[2] Per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS, this text does not have consensus and should be removed until it has consensus. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:21, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

You disagreeing with it does not mean it does not have consensus though, but if there is no objection, yes, we should probably not include a resolution in the lede. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:41, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans. I have argued against its removal and you're the only one who thinks it violates anything. Take it to an RfC is you want eyes on the topic. Restored your blatant censorship. Walter Görlitz (talk)

You are absolutely right. If you read the source, it is very clear that the quote used is so selective that it misrepresents what Amnesty said. I added a few more words so that it is properly represented. Grapesofraph (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Group stage selection date?

Hi, I normally don't edit or read articles on sport competitions, so I thought I'd share a new reader's point of view of this article. I find in general the competition overview to be quite good, but I couldn't find one particular thing I wanted to know, and that's how the group stage matchups will be determined, and when. I just thought that might be worth adding to the article, maybe in the group stage section (which is currently quite empty anyway). ―Jochem van Hees (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@Jochem van Hees: Hello! The reason we don't include the group stage seeding is because we don't know yet how the seeding will work yet (FIFA hasn't announced it yet). Mwiqdoh (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

French hosting years

In the section regarding qualified nations, France needs its 1938 appearance italicised as it hosted for that year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.197.251.80 (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting us know! Mwiqdoh (talk) 20:28, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Women

How is it possible to have pages on “Controversies” surrounding this event but no mention of Women?

Women do not have rights in Qatar. That includes female visitors hence the 2020 incident where Australian women TRANSITING THROUGH Qatar (not even visiting) were separated from the men on their flight and removed by armed guards. They were then forced to undergo internal vaginal inspections.

Women are under Guardianship law in Qatar. They have no right to come and go whether they are from Qatar or not but no mention of this? No mentions of the ACTUAL human rights violations that happen to female visitors and Qatari women and girls?

They are already disseminating rules for female visitors.

But you centre gay men in your write up when there is no threat to them. No gay man has ever been executed in Qatar. And gay men can choose to follow etiquette while visiting and therefore not be subject to any harassment. Females cannot hide their sex. They can and have been violated by the state on a whim without doing anything wrong.

Who’s the ignorant misogynist who wrote this up? Women visitors and residents are in danger when in Qatar but you do not mention this. Only misogyny can explain excluding as a concern the enslavement of ALL females in Qatar while prioritizing males with privilege. Yes, even gay males are privileged when in Qatar. Nobody asks them who they sleep with. 24.69.240.255 (talk) 23:39, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If you can provide some coverage from reliable sources about the way women are treated in Qatar and how this directly relates to the 2022 World Cup, I’m sure someone would be happy to add a summary of the situation to the “Controversies” section. There’s no need to be quite so belligerent in your message if you want people to give you a hand with something. – PeeJay 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

If they are like other Muslim countries, they do actually have some rights, but they are curtailed in comparison to Western nations.

Agree with PeeJay here; offer some reliable sources that discuss it and editors would be more than happy to add the content. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Qatar's "new labour reforms" in the lead

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

I was brought here from WP:RFCL to bring closure and I will now do so.

Looking at the survey results, there's a lot of both noes and yeses. Specifically, 13 noes and 7 yeses. So I'll try to dig into the actual !votes themselves to divine consensus.
The main argument on the "No" side is that the paragraph itself gives WP:UNDUE weight to some sources to paint an inaccurate view on the state of labour relations in Qatar. Specifically, "No" proponents generally believe that the paragraph as such currently implies that the labour issues are resolved to a greater extent that they actually are. Snooganssnoogans summarizes this point as: "The content in question cherry-picks snippets from different sources to mislead readers into thinking that Qatar has solved the abysmal situation for foreigner labourers in Qatar". Most "No" !voters seem to reiterate this point made by Snooganssnoogans, although The Gnome may be in favour of removing all content relating to labour relations from the lede. That being said, most "No" !voters (Snooganssnoogans is the main exception) are not in favour of excluding all information about the Qatari government's response to this issue. They seem to have an issue with this particular wording, with many people emphasing that they oppose "this text" or "this wording" or even a boldvote "Not in the current form".
The main argument on the "Yes" side, on the other hand, is that the Qatari government's response should be includded in the lede in some way and that it's unfair not to do so. However, almost all "Yes" !voters believe that the current wording is flawed and requires a rewrite, with "Yes, with a rewrite" being a very popular !vote. Ytoyoda summarizes Yes !voters rough consensus on this by saying that "I think it's worth mentioning the reforms and Amnesty's response. However, I'd pare down the first sentence to make it more neutral and mention that Amnesty International's praise is not unconditional."
There are also some arguments on both sides that have an issue with the length of the lede. This is an tangential point to the topic of this RfC and I will therefore not be addressing it in this close.
In the end, it seems that there is a wide consensus that the paragraph at issue here is deeply flawed in its current state and should not be in the article. However, there may also be a rough consensus that the Qatari government's side should be fairly represented in the lede in some way as per WP:NPOV. While Goldsztajn & Ytoyoda proposed alternative wordings for the lede, these alternate wordings failed to attract consensus during the RfC.

I will therefore close with No, with a rewrite. Text that everyone agrees should not be in the lede should not be in the lede and should be removed. But this does not mean that there should be no coverage of Qatar's response to the labour issues, and I would recommend that Goldsztajn, Ytoyoda, and Esicum (who have all written possible wordings of the lede at this RfC) workshop a wording that neutrally describes the Qatari response in collaboration with "No" voters who may be open to including information on the Qatari government in the lede. This wording can be the subject of a future RfC. But this particular RfC that keeps being reopened is not going anywhere and does not need to continue any further. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

---

Should the lead include the following paragraph?:

• "Between 2015 and 2021, the Qatari government adopted new labour reforms to improve working conditions, including a minimum wage for all workers and the removal of the kafala system. Amnesty International referred to these measures as "a significant step towards protecting migrant workers"

RfC was restarted because it ended without a close. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:54, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Survey

• No. This is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. The content in question cherry-picks snippets from different sources to mislead readers into thinking that Qatar has solved the abysmal situation for foreigner labourers in Qatar (including a suggestion that that Amnesty has no objection). If you check the sources that were cobbled together, the article text intentionally omits content from the sources that clearly states hat human rights groups say the steps do not go far enough[3] and that it remains to be seen whether it will be fully implemented.[4] The Amnesty International part is particularly egregious because it twists what Amnesty actually said: "The Qatari authorities have taken a significant step towards protecting migrant workers... but full implementation remains key if the country aims to truly end labour exploitation."[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Per recent reporting, the Qatari government is now arresting foreign journalists who report on working conditions in Qatar,[6] as well as detaining labor rights activists in Qatar.[7] It is indefensible to shoehorn content into the lead that misleadingly suggests that Qatar has resolved all issues regarding labor rights in the country. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

• No per Snooganssnoogans. NW1223_{(Howl at me|My hunts)} 02:57, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• No As per OP, much context is missing here. But to properly expand on it is beyond the scope of the WP:LEAD paragraph. This wording, with MANY clarifications such as those offered (including and especially AI's full quote), would be more appropriate for later in the article. I have no opinion at this time on whether any of Qatar's efforts in this area should be acknowledged in the lead paragraph, only that this particular way is a bad way to go. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• No certainly not this text; the fact that protests have continued after the "reforms" indicates this issue is far from solved. The BWI report could be referenced indicating the need for further changes.

References

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 04:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section is our guide, and it states that the section "serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents". The labour issues are one of its most important elements—the event would not have occurred save for the Qatari governments labour situation—and so it should be addressed. If the current wording is problematic, then a rewrite should be done, but it should not be swept under the carpet. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Labour issues are already discussed in the second paragraph of the lede; the addition of this specific text as a third paragraph implies that the issues are resolved and have been endorsed by Amnesty International, which is simply untrue. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The second paragraph unfortunately does not talk about Qatar's viewpoint or response to the labour issues. I think a rewrite is warranted here more than removing a viewpoint. I agree with you on the amnesty part though. Gorebath (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, with a rewrite There is nothing wrong with the first sentence, however the second sentence may imply that the labour issues are resolved. I suggest the second sentence be removed. The lede shouldn't just focus on the controversial and criticism against the labour problems without adding the Qatari government response to it, such as removing the kafala system. This information should be in the lede to include all viewpoints on the subject per WP:NPOV, with human rights organizations saying its not enough. I don't see why Qatar's response to the controversy should be removed, regardless if adequate or not. Gorebath (talk) 14:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes with a rewrite I think it's worth mentioning the reforms and Amnesty's response. However, I'd pare down the first sentence to make it more neutral and mention that Amnesty International's praise is not unconditional. Something like:

Between 2015 and 2021, the Qatari government adopted reforms aimed at improving working conditions, including a minimum wage and the removal of the kafala system. Although Amnesty International referred to these measures as "a significant step towards protecting migrant workers," it criticised the slow progress on the reforms and the continued exploitation of workers, pointing out the "weak implementation and enforcement" of the measures. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• If the "reforms" are tentative, incomplete and yet-to-be-implemented, then they should be covered in the body (along with all the context about their incompleteness), not the lead. It's a violation of neutrality to plaster it all across the lead, as if the labor situation in Qatar has been resolved. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes, let's also update the article body as well. Would it help if we replaced "adopted" with "announced"? It's inarguably true that the Qatari government announced reforms, which were welcomed by human rights groups, but then the actual execution drew yet more criticism. Ytoyoda (talk) 18:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• No, I think it violates WP:UNDUE to highlight these reforms in the lead. Authoritarian regimes (and even some democratic governments) frequently announce policies that sound good on paper but never get genuinely implemented. For example, many authoritarian regimes have "elections" or announce "elections" but free and fair elections never actually take place. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• Not if we have sources that support the claim. Currently, this is one of the two main news stories about the games (the other being the extreme temperatures and requiring a later staging of thr tournament). Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:26, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

• No. Cherry-picks from the source; even if it didn't, this would be way undue weight for the lead section. Neutrality^talk 00:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Multiple sources talk about Qatar's changes on labour laws.. This is not undue at all. Per WP:NPOV all viewpoints should be addressed rather than just controversy in the lead as it currently is in the second paragraph. Gorebath (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• Yes, with a rewrite - mentioning the start of controversy but failing to mention later response seems dishonest in portrayal and like a failure at WP:NPOV to convey all parts in due proportion to coverage. The removal of the kafala system and wage reforms is hardly a nothing and is a decent amount in the body section, so should be in any summary of the section. That said, I think the amount on controversies in Lead at over half already is WP:UNDUE, and the presentation of not-notable quotes in particular is both UNDUE and contrary to guidance of WP:LEAD for the lead to be a summary. The controversies are UNDUE here as they are only a small side part of the coverage and article, just a bit WP:OFFTOPIC of the article focus. So yes mention the final (to date) responses not just the first half of the controversy, but make all that section of LEAD shorter. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Not in the current form, per Snooganssnoogans. The concerns re the implementation must be added. Alaexis_¿question? 07:23, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, I concure with Alexix. Ip says(talk) 13:47, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• Comment Consensus seems to be emerging that the present text is not acceptable, however, most editors believe updating is required. On the basis of independent, secondary sources (material from the Qatar government should be treated as PRIMARY), I would suggest the paragraph reads:

Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

• @Goldsztajn: Well I don't think it was done in response to pressure, but rather, due to criticism. I've wrapped it up your proposal into a {{divbox}} template, if you don't mind. --AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 11:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Alexander Davronov: Pressure implies longstanding attempts to bring about change which includes representations, speeches, protest actions, among other things; criticism implies actions of a more limited nature and would not include on-going protests, representations etc, more like press releases or reports. No concerns for that wrapping. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• No, per WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE Idealigic (talk) 19:05, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, reforms need to be mentioned per WP:WEIGHT and MOS:LEAD.--Match2015 (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
• No because it violates WP:UNDUE and WP:NPOV. Thepharoah17 (talk) 22:33, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• I wrote the text in question here and have been accused of cherry-picking, misleading readers, cobbling together sources, intentionally omitting content, writing egregious text and twisting statements. My text provided basic information on labor law reforms in Qatar since 2015, two important reforms of minimum wage and removal of kafala system, and the AI statement. I choose the AI statement as AI was cited before. They referred to the reforms as a "significant step" (not overall solution as stated above). My text was in line with the statements of other international organizations like the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Human Rights Watch UNI Global Union, Building and Wood Workers' International, or the European Union. The International Trade Union Confederation called the reforms "a new dawn for migrant workers in Qatar" and the International Labour Organization referred to them as "historic". The accusations are baseless.

My answer to this RfC: Qatar's "new labour reforms" in the lead is

Yes with an update on implementation.--Esicum (talk) 14:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

References

• No as it appears UNDE and cherrypicks a recent report. --Kathy262 (talk) 20:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

As mentioned in the answers above, there have been similar reports from several international organizations on the reforms.--Esicum (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

• Yes. We have to be fair and mention the problems and improvements. I very like the text from Ytoyoda above.--Lee got bit (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Fairness" depends on what sources are stating. We are not here to act "fairly", in accordance to some non-wikipedian rules about "fairness". And we have no "obligation" to anyone, at least as long as we're not paid editors serving an employer through our work here. As to the proposed text by Ytoyoda, only the second half of it, the part about the Amnesty statement, is supported by sources. The other part, about what the Qatari gov't designates as "reforms," is not. -The Gnome (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

• No since this would constitute a clear violation of the guideline about lead sections, especially the admonition to have a lead that should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. Leading with a procrustean summary of a complex and unresolved issue would constitute perforce misinformation, one way or the other. In the main text we can present this aspect of the 2022 World Cup with the detail it deserves, and the neutrality to which we abide. -The Gnome (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. This is not lead-worthy material for an article about the FIFA World Cup. Cf. WP:COATRACK and WP:DUE. As others have noted, the proposed wording seems to strongly imply various issues are resolved, and it's not WP's place to make such an implication.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
• No. Agree with SMcCandlish & Snooganssnoogans. John, AF4JM (talk) 02:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment As always many have failed to actually understand what the RfC is about here. Being superficial doesn't help anyone so I suggest to strike down some weight-less opinions. I also suggest to reopen this RfC with a new and more clear proposal and propose to specify that actions in question were done in response to criticism of the country's human rights record, and no more than that (see Wikipedia:Relevance). E.g.

  .. Qatari government has adopted a new labour reform in response to such criticism [mentioned above in the article].

  ; templates such as {{divbox}} would be useful in the next RfC and WP:RSs have to be provided as well. AXONOV (talk) ⚑ 13:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• Comment I agree with AXONOV above and I am filing this for an admin closure at WP:CR. LondonIP (talk) 20:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2021 and 7 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SF1818, ZbarConsumer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2022

For updating the time and stadum of matches. Anasrabnaz (talk) 11:17, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Match Schedule Released

Hello everyone, As the applications for tickets go on sale today, the match calendar has been published. This might be helpful to check if we can add more details on individual match venues, etc. I hope this is helpful! See here: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/4ea1fe3ad03ad690/original/2022fwc_qatar_match_schedule_v29C_12012022_EN_for-international-use.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qetuadgjzcbm (talk • contribs) 10:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The opening match and those from the round of 16 on are listed, but there's not much we can actually state about the group matches other than their location. We do not even know where match 2 will be played, although we have higher probability of guess that than other group stage matches. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 February 2022

Please change:

"The final draw is scheduled to take place in Doha, Qatar,[60] on 3 April 2022" to:

"The final draw is scheduled to take place in Doha, Qatar on 1 April 2022."

Reference link: https://www.fifa.com/about-fifa/organisation/fifa-council/media-releases/fifa-council-endorses-global-summit-to-discuss-the-future-of-football FIFAEditorZurich (talk) 15:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done, but not because of the provided source. The closest it comes is stating "The FIFA Council confirmed that the 72nd FIFA Congress will be held on Thursday, 31 March 2022 in Doha, Qatar, in conjunction with the Final Draw for the FIFA World Cup Qatar 2022™." Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Italy singled out for failing to qualify

While it is noteworthy that Italy has failed to qualify for the second consecutive WC, is the "Qualified teams" section the right place to make such a mention? Feels like they are being singled out and, in a way, ridiculed. Many other countries have also failed to qualify.

Perhaps a new section like "Notable non-qualified teams"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbitWiki (talk • contribs) 20:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like statcruft to me - are they not the first former winners to be eliminated? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

@AbitWiki and Lee Vilenski: World Cup articles have long included information regarding teams which notably did not qualify. As noted in the edit summary, this is just the beginning of writing that prose. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't have any problem with this. There is precedent, and a team like Italy failing to qualify is very noteworthy, especially since it's the first time they've failed to qualify for back-to-back World Cups. – PeeJay 09:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate reference to Draw pots

The last sentence in the 2nd paragraph of the Draw and Schedule section states "The pots for the draw are shown below."

No pots are actually shown at this time.

Can I suggest this reference is either removed until the pots are available (likely to be 30th March at the earliest), or provide an indication of the known pots as they currently stand. For instance, Pot A is known to include Qatar, France, Belgium, Brazil, Argentina, England and Spain. The final spot will go to Portugal if they qualify on 29th March. If not, there is a chance for Netherlands, Germany, USA or Mexico, depending on their results on 29th March. Known teams in Pot B are Switzerland, Croatia, Uruguay and Denmark, with Netherlands and Germany joining them if Portugal qualify. USA and Mexico will also be in this pot if they qualify (along with Portugal) on 29th March. Pot C will definitely contain Japan, South Korea, Iran and Serbia as well as the winners of the Sweden v Poland UEFA Play off on 29th March. Saudi Arabia and the three remaining Play Off winners are all guaranteed to be in Pot D.

Rgds

John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snoopjohnd (talk • contribs) 11:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed I edited the paragraph and the hidden table to hide the statement about the draw pots. After the draw, the comment tags can be removed and the table filled in. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Informations

Hi, i found incorrect informations in this article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_FIFA_World_Cup

It say that Serbia have 12 appereances in WC (1930, 1950, 1954, 1958, 1962, 1974, 1982, 1990, 1998, 2006, 2010, 2018) and 2x fourth place (1930, 1962) and that is not correct. That was Yugoslavia, country made of many country from Balkan (Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Slovenia, Montenegro, Macedonia and Kosovo). Serbia was part of Yugoslavia until 2003, in WC 2006 it was Serbia and Montenegro, the first WC for independent country of Serbia is WC2010. Please edit that or add all this WC appereances and 2x fourth place to other country that was part of Yugoslavia at that time. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeZnam0321 (talk • contribs) 12:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

@NeZnam0321: See #Serbia results further up. -- AxG / ✉  12:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

that's still inaccurate and make no sense NeZnam0321 (talk) 12:06, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

That's not inaccurate. That's what the governing body states. We follow suit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:14, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Serbia results

Under "Best performance" the texts puts "Fourth place (1930, 1962)" for Serbia. This is not true. Yugoslavia was at the fourth place then. Serbia was not participating in World Cups in 1930 and 1962.. Yugoslavia and Serbia are not synonyms, as UK and England are not. So this misinformation should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prianqas (talk • contribs) 01:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Serbia is considered by both FIFA and UEFA to be the successor to Yugoslavia's historical record. Other nations such as Croatia and Montenegro are deemed to have splintered off, while Serbia is a continuation of Yugoslavia. That's why we say Serbia came fourth in 1930 and 1962. – PeeJay 12:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Than do not write Serbia competed as Yugoslavia, because there were 5 other nations involved. Write Serbia is considered as successor. Matejjj1 (talk) 10:33, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you could tell FIFA that first: Brazil, Switzerland and Serbia (competing as the former Yugoslavia) were all drawn in the same first-round group at Brazil 1950 and many other pages at FIFA.com alone.

Once they agree with you, you can request that Wikipedia should as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Usage of dialects in parenthesis for name of the game for host language

Hi, there is no need for using dialects of gulf Arabic in the article as there is no difference between them in this particular word (كَاسُ اَلعَالَمِ) and we don’t use the dialects for every little things just as we didn’t use British English for London Olympic,so please remove gulf Arabic pronunciation as Arabic language is inclusive so please don’t over crowd the article with these unnecessary things.I have tried to edit but as you have made protection I needed to emphasis that.Simsala111 (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

didn’t use British English for London Olympic - yes, yes we did... And still do. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This is dictatorship in English Wikipedia.And you are reverting all edits with no good reason.We do not have any dialects as british englsih for any events like 1966 FIFA World Cup London and there is no difference in this particular word for different dialects and we need to just have the main language that is Arabic not its dialects.Simsala111 (talk) 21:02, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is built on consensus. We do write UK based items in British English, and having an arabic name listed for an event hosted in an Arabic speaking country is completely sensible. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:19, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski I am not saying not using the Arabic language but just saying why you are using the dialect of golf arabic.Who did made consensus on this page here all you are doing here is just escaping by telling best wishes.Arabic is one language which is spoken by all Arab countries.there is no need for the dialects to be here.Simsala111 (talk) 21:35, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, clealy you aren't happy. You still need to get a consensus here that we don't need this dialect, we're in no hurry. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

there is no other one here to get consensus except you.Simsala111 (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

where are other people?!Simsala111 (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Simsala111: There are plenty of editors who are watching this conversation; but you can take our silence as consensus not to change long-standing practice. You may want to read MOS:RETAIN. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:51, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

What is the problem with using the dialect of Arabic used in the location where this event will take place? Your complaint really makes no sense. – PeeJay 00:55, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@PeeJay:The problem is that there is no need to use every dialects in all articles as this is not a special article about language and its differences and we even do not have any script in the official logo so why we need not only to use the Arabic script in the English article (which is Arabic that I don't have any problem with it but also a specific dialect of it that called golf Arabic that is a sub dialect of Arabic and is completely unnecessary and has the same word from Arabic language which also include all dialects and is completely inclusive is just repetitive) where did we ever had something like this?! and why do we need such a thing to make the article overwhelmed with useless information and ugly in aspects of viewers with so many useless information. As I brought previous example from 1995 FIFA World Youth Championship , 1988 AFC Asian Cup , 2021 FIFA Arab Cup , 1966 FIFA World Cup , 1985 AFC U-16 Championship we didn't have any in past for the same country Qatar international football host.Simsala111 (talk) 02:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

British or international English is not a dialect as you have claimed several times, it uses different spelling, but it is not recognized as a dialect.

2018 FIFA World Cup 2014 FIFA World Cup 2010 FIFA World Cup 2006 FIFA World Cup 2002 FIFA World Cup all use the host nation's language in the infobox, but not the lede. I can see the rationale for using the local language here, no need to use all variants. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:36, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Walter Görlitz: What is the official language of Qatar in Wikipedia?! the Answer : Arabic .bravo so if we need to have one thing here is Arabic not anything else as Khaliji or golf Arabic ,mars arabic or anything else.as we know the language of Qatar is Arabic.if we need to use it which I personally don’t see any point here we should use Arabic no Dialects, no variants ,no accents.Simsala111 (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I am having a hard time taking you seriously because you are attacking pretty much everyone, and your spelling, capitalization and punctuation are simply atrocious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: How many people needed to be in a discussion to be an approved consensus?! where are those people and where and when did the current version got consensus for ?! You are basically saying a controversial version should be up there for as long as years so and at last that there is no participation you say to me ok the version already is there and you have no right to edit this is funny. Simsala111 (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You have to actually get people to agree with removal of the material. At least a few editors disagree with removal. You don't just get to then remove it anyway. It's hardly controversial. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:48, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski:Who are they? please name them here and tell them to participate in the talk discussion.Simsala111 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

They already have done. Jkudlick and PeeJay were very plain about not thinking this is suitable. Walter Görlitz was a bit more on the fence, saying that it's probably only suitable for the infobox, which means we talk until we get a better understanding of what fits within policy. You can't just change the page, saying you've spoken about it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Simsala111: You may just be better off at this point if you WP:DROPTHESTICK. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm with Simsala111. The lead gives the name of the event in English and in the official language of the hosting country, which is Arabic. There's no reason to add other languages, or dialects, or whatever. Maproom (talk) 20:49, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Jkudlick: please stop replying the same thing over and over.Where are these long practices of variants of a language in the lead of an article?!where are the policies for these?!Even if imagine (which is thins case absolutely is not) if something was long practiced it means we can not change or discussed it? here for example Australian English that is a variant of the English is not used in the article.I just want to know the logic behind it if there is one. Simsala111 (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

See WP:RETAIN. That article uses {{EngVarB}}. We do have templates for {{Use Australian English}}. I'm not sure what we gain by not including translations to local languages. You also seem to have a history of being against using Gulf Arabic, but also about the use of language in general. If you would like to remove this, please come up with a policy based reason. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: Looking on a history of some users and bringing it to another discussion is not a good thing to do.Even though I just discussed it there did not do any edit war.here gulf Arabic is a variant , there wasn’t any history of using this variant in other articles about sport events held in Qatar.As I brought those examples.Official language of host country of Qatar is Arabic and we only need to use Arabic not a variant named gulf Arabic which is a variant and is exactly the same.just look at this: 2021 FIFA Arab Cup I don’t know why there is no consistency in this particular article and why this much innovation in this particular article exists.Simsala111 (talk) 14:46, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea what you just said, but just because something doesn't exist somewhere else, that doesn't mean it has to on another article. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Additionally, it's wise to know why someone is fighting so hard for something. In this case, you seem to have an intrinsic bias. I can't say I particularly care either way on dialects being included in the lede, but your behaviour and editing makes it difficult to come to an actual conclusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:05, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Bias for what for not repeating the same word in an article for thousand of times?! one time in infobox the other time in the lead.all of those article are famous enough(they are international competitions but problem is that at that time I didn't have any discussion so for having my point I always should point back at what we had in wiki is the past in those articles that it was even recent 2021 it was famous and important too.I dont know what is complicated here.even in past we did not have the language 2018 FIFA World Cup , 1970 FIFA World Cup , 2002 FIFA World Cup.But I think in future we will see all accents of each neighbors and each person in wikipedia.Simsala111 (talk) 15:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest to give the (written) script in Standard Arabic while give the pronunciation in the actual local spoken language. Simple solution. -- love.wh 10:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Al Thumama Stadium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Better sorting on Qualified Teams

I propose using in the (EDIT: ...last column of the...) table of Qualified Teams, the same sorting as the one used on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. The advantage it has over the current sorting method is that it tie-breaks teams with the same best-achieved performance by the number of times each of them achieved that performance. Jkudlick used the following counter-argument to the proposal: "Your sort order also runs backwards from convention". However, if this is the main problem, we can simply invert the sign in the sorting values, but still use my proposal, because of its advantage. Anyway, I think using the same signs as on 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification makes more sense, because that way greater achievements are mapped to greater sorting values. I also note that this idea of sorting is not exactly mine, since this sorting idea is being used for several years on the qualifications pages. Moreover, I would ask for Jkudlick to present a reference to the "convention" that he mentions exist about using the current sorting method. Finally, I would like to mention that I already have created an edit for this proposal. It is in the History of the page, so we can simply use it. Joserobjr (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Are these currently sorted chronologically? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I mean about the sorting method of the last column of the table. Joserobjr (talk) 18:54, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not all that sure why it's sortable at all... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe some people can better visualize the teams that are participating by seeing them organized by their past performances. Although I am not entirely sure about that. Joserobjr (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I find the table too bulky for this article. "Qualified as" column is more than enough. If readers are interested to know their past appearances and best record, that's what 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification for. -- love.wh 04:56, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

So you consider we should remove the sortability of the last column of the table? I ask you that because my proposal is still fair while the last column is still sortable. Joserobjr (talk) 15:34, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

I think they were suggesting removing it altogether. Maybe it's worth removing the individual years they reached that milestone. Surely you just want to know that they did reach the final, or whatever. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

How should we proceed? All alternatives look better, in some extent, than doing nothing. Joserobjr (talk) 02:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest the table should only keep the country name and the "qualified as" column. Other information shall be further elaborated in 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. -- love.wh 12:52, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay, let's do that. And if someone dislikes the change, we can have further discussions here. Joserobjr (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Map

By chrological order, withdrew and then suspended should be the information reported. Per the map in 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification and Note in the box (Cook Islands and North Korea withdrew, and Russia were suspended after playing some matches. American Samoa, Saint Lucia, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu withdrew before playing) I ping @Centaur271188:. Island92 (talk) 09:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it will get past the committee, but try again with additional sources. Seasider53 (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Basically we are talking about the same map. No one was actually disqualified. Island92 (talk) 11:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

FIFA awarded Poland a walk-over, which is effectively a disqualification. However, neither FIFA nor UEFA explicitly stated that Russia were disqualified or expelled from the tournament, so using those terms could be regarded as WP:OR. Regarding the order of the terminology, I think we are splitting hairs, but multiple teams withdrew before Russia were suspended so I am leaning toward the chronological "Withdrew or suspended by FIFA" as the language in both maps. NB: I am also leaving notice on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification pointing to this discussion since that article could also be affected. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I also just realized it makes no sense to maintain two separate maps which are displaying the same exact data. One should be transcluded into the other. Since the map is a display of qualification, I suggest maintaining the map on the qualification page and transcluding it here. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree.--Island92 (talk) 13:53, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Island92, Jkudlick, Lee Vilenski, and Walter Görlitz: Hmm, I am a little bit late to the party. Agree with Island92 and Jkudlick that 'disqualified' looks like a WP:OR, and about chronological wording. But I think we do not need 'by FIFA' part, obviously this is a FIFA tournament, only FIFA can suspend or disqualify a team. Off-topic @Island92: Now you might realise that Template:Reply to does not work in edit summaries. If you want to ping me that way, you can only use wikilinks, User:Centaur271188 or (talk). Centaur271188 (talk) 02:53, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.fifa.com/tournaments/mens/worldcup/qatar2022/media-releases/fifa-uefa-suspend-russian-clubs-and-national-teams-from-all-competitions indicates Russia were suspended, and so agree with OR. As long as there is consensus, I am OK with the change here and the other article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

@Island92 and Jkudlick: I think we should not transclude map section from qualification article. Please notice the difference in our usage: the map at qualifying page is much bigger (upright=4.0, only 1.5 here) and center-aligned to make it more notable. In final tournament article, we do not need that level of highlight. Centaur271188 (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Of course, but the Legend Information should be the same, seeing that all the colours displayed do not have differences in both images. Island92 (talk) 10:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, unless FIFA specifically say they have "disqualified" Russia, we shouldn't either. They (and every other outlet) use the term suspended, so should we. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Considering Russia's participation was ended by the suspension, it serves as a de facto disqualification. – PeeJay 12:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Centaur271188: I understand the concern about transclusion and different uses. I'm fine with not transcluding between articles.

@PeeJay: Yes, it was a de facto disqualification. However, FIFA has in the past used the terms "expelled" and "disqualified" with regards to malfeasance by the associated NFA; I believe the term "suspended" has been used here because it was in response to actions by the Russian government, not by their football association. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Overlinking "Qatar"?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.

Why is adding an internal wikilink to Qatar in the second sentence prohibited? WP:Overlink is cited, but is that really a good reason for not including a link here? The prohibition specifically mentions the guideline that there should be no linking to "The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar"... but who decides who belongs in the category of 'most readers' of this article, and what is the specific criterion for being 'somewhat familiar' with a topic? Does Qatar really belong in the category of things we might expect 'most readers' of this article to already know about?

Sure, many active Wikipedians already know what and where Qatar is, but your average young sports fan seeking information about the 2022 World Cup may not – Qatar isn't exactly the world's biggest and best-known country, particularly to Western audiences. It's certainly not in the same category of familiarity as, say, Russia or Brazil, and could not reasonably be called a "major example" of a country as the notion is used at WP:Overlink. Even I sometimes forget where exactly Qatar is situated on the Arabian Peninsula, and what its borders are. The whole guideline of asking yourself "whether reading the article you're about to link to [Qatar] would help someone understand the article you are linking from [2022 FIFA World Cup]" is ambiguous; what do we mean by 'understand'? To me, part of 'understanding' the 2022 FIFA World Cup in particular (as opposed to the FIFA World Cup in general) is knowing that it's a specific edition of a recurring sporting event, held at a particular place and time; if it was being held in a place I'd never heard of, I would very much hope to learn something about that place beyond just its name alone. If I didn't know anything about the place itself, how could I interpret the significance of the event at all? Like it or not, the meaning of "Qatar" is inseverably connected to the meaning of "2022 FIFA World Cup", because the FIFA World Cup in general is not held in Qatar in every instance.

To me, the intention behind the overlink guidelines has always seemed to be more about curbing excessive and repetitive linking, e.g. linking to Qatar every time "Qatar" is mentioned, in every sentence, and about preventing extremely superfluous links to every generic word in an article, e.g. having a link to the page for "competition" in the first sentence, which would probably be considered unnecessary in this context. If the primary argument for not having a link to Qatar is that 'most readers' of the 2022 FIFA World Cup article will already be 'somewhat familiar' with Qatar before arriving at the article, then the same logic could be applied to the link to "football" in the first sentence. Certainly we can expect readers of an article about the FIFA World Cup to already know what football is. Yet it's linked here anyway, and Qatar is not.

Or, if the primary argument is that we should only link to articles that 'would help someone understand' the 2022 FIFA World Cup, and "Qatar" itself doesn't meet this criterion, then why do "Arab world" and "kafala system" meet it? Exceptions to and contradictions of WP:Overlink are ubiquitous in almost every article on WP, because WP:Overlink tries to systematize something that can only be addressed with highly contextual, case-by-case judgment. The guidelines are useful in some cases. But in this particular case they seem to have been misused.—PJsg1011 (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree, Wikilinks should be provided to Qatar in both infobox and first mention. This is a level of absurdity I have not seen before on Wikipedia, this reeks distinctively like @Walter Görlitz:. Clearly the links should be added since the average reader would know little to nothing or all about Qatar. As per WP:OLINK "Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked", given that the 2022 World Cup is in Qatar, the country in this case should be linked. The names of other countries in the lead and infobox should not be linked as they provide no context to the article. Words in the Wind(talk) 06:39, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Matilda Maniac: Can you provide comment as to your edit? PS Best not to accuse editors of pontificating unless ones own edit summary also comes off as such. What's happened to all the WP:EQ around here. Words in the Wind(talk) 04:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

@Words in the Wind: Thanks for the backup here! I certainly did not mean to pontificate in my edit summary; I just wasn't sure how to draw attention to the issue except by making the edit myself and hoping it provoked discussion here on the talk page. I figured that mentioning my talk page comment in the edit summary might help other editors understand my reasoning - my apologies if opening the edit summary like I did is bad form! Thanks again.—PJsg1011 (talk) 11:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Obviously Qatar should be linked here. It is ridiculous that people keep unlinking it. Qatar is a small nation that is geographically and politically distant from most of the English-speaking world. People will be curious about where it is and its place in the world stage, especially given the controversy surrounding this World Cup.

There are no good reasons why it should not be linked. BenJenkins (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Clearly not obvious. This is not about the nation. This is about the tournament. Each city and stadium is linked. The nation is linked at each of them. The search bar is readily available if readers do want to read about the nation itself, they can use that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:05, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Qatar should be linked. The consensus seems quite obvious. Seasider53 (talk) 08:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth: MOS:OL states:

Everyday words understood by most readers in context (e.g., education, violence, aircraft, river) Common occupations (e.g., accountant, politician, actor) The names of subjects with which most readers will be at least somewhat familiar. This generally includes major examples of: countries (e.g., Japan/Japanese, Brazil/Brazilian) geographic features (e.g., the Himalayas, Pacific Ocean, South America) locations (e.g., New Delhi; New York City, or just New York if the city context is already clear; London, if the context rules out London, Ontario; Southeast Asia)

I'd very much argue that Qatar isn't a major country (with respect), nor a major location that everyone will be familiar with. I do think we should link the first usage in lede and prose. (It's worth noting that OL doesn't effect infoboxes and tables, so these should be linked regardless). Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Glad you're arguing for it, but it does not need to be linked as it is not about the nation itself but the sport and as such it does not "aid a reader's understanding" of the tournament itself. The fact that the stadium locations and cities are linked, they offer a geographic view if required by the reader. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It is scheduled to take place in Qatar from 21 November to 18 December 2022. - is the wording from the lede that this would effect. I'm not sure how this doesn't aid the readers understanding. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 06:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the ol’ edit-warring warning I predicted would come. My reversions will continue to be pointing to this discussion. For the love of all that’s holy, let’s not have this go to admin intervention, or whatever it’s called this week, over something so blindingly obvious. Our reasons have been given for the linkage (to assist the layman). Seasider53 (talk) 09:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the archives might be the better place as there was an RfC there. Another is required to overturn that. Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1#Inline link RfC Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit of a misnomer to suggest that there was a close in that RfC that suggested anything other than a procedural close. More to the point, I can't believe that we are STILL talking about this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Me either. No need to link it with all of the other geographic links in the article... Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Reading the above, WP:CON seems to be met with everyone but Walter Görlitz. Given that unanimity is not necesssary for it to be considered consensus, I am linking only two instances of Qatar, one in the sidebox and one in the first paragraph. I trust they won't be reverted, which would go against the established consensus. CannedLizard (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I've reinstated the links again, since they were sneakily removed without explanation. Seasider53 (talk) 13:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extremely detailed criticism in intro

Why does this page (in contrast to most World Cup pages I've seen, even the 1934 world cup page, which was hosted by a country being led by Mussolini) have an extremely detailed controversies section in the introduction? In fact, it makes up the majority of the introduction.

Other "controversial" World Cups, like 2010 (which also had corruption allegations) have their own sections/pages for the controversies (as does this one), and a brief mention in the intro.

The intro reads like it was written exclusively from the POV of someone who resents the the fact that Qatar was chosen as host, and is front loading the page with controversies to make those stick in the mind of the reader. The "intro controversies" seem to be a copy-paste of the controversies section later on the article as well, so really not sure what purpose other than the malicious one I've stated above. 165.0.181.240 (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The lead section reflects significant media coverage of the controversies surrounding this World Cup and all the information in the article to date. When some football is actually played, the balance will change, but right now I don't see any problem with it. – PeeJay 13:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, those other events you mentioned have actually happened. As it hasn't happened yet, the main of the article will be the hosting and qualifying. There's been plenty of issues surrounding the hosting, so it's natural it has a lot of the lede too. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:

• Aerial view of Education City Stadium and Oxygen Park in Al Rayyan (Education City Stadium) crop.jpg (discussion)
• Al Bayt Stadium 02 crop.jpg (discussion)
• Al-Rayan-Stadium-doha.jpg (discussion)
• Stadium 974.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

probleme of flag

hi how to insert a wales' flag and thanks--Yazid6 (talk) 10:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Use this: WAL to make a Welsh flag. 171.250.181.5 (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, don't. Not all decorations are accepted as per MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Prize money

FIFA has announced the prize money for the FIFA World Cup. Why don't the editors can edit this section? Please editors can edit it. Thank you. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.250.181.5 (talk) 01:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The prize amounts have historically been added to the "Statistics" section of FIFA World Cup articles. When the time comes, it will be added. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

47.61.7.167 (talk) 16:10, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Add an image of the mascot to show it in the page.

 Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Kpddg ^(talk) 16:15, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

47.61.7.167 (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Add new photos of the stadiums, specially from outside.

 Not done for now: Please provide images with acceptable licensing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Addendum to this: Because Qatar does not have freedom of panorama, it makes it difficult to upload up-to-date images of stadia. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixture change

FIFA is discussing of conducting opening game on day before it's going to start , we should either put tbd on the games whose kickoff times or dates might be changed or add this thing in schedule part and if that proposal is successful, then change it 49.204.120.99 (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of any future changes, all fixtures have had their dates and kickoff times announced. We currently have nothing but speculation regarding any future changes, so there's no need to edit this page. What is your source for these discussions anyway? – PeeJay 12:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

All future fixtures are "subject to change". Hardly worth stating this unless it's announced it's changing. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:34, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2022

Original text in line 1 and line 2:

The 2022 FIFA World Cup (Standard Arabic: كأس العالم 2022, romanized: Kaʾsu al-ʿālami 2022; Gulf Arabic: كاس العالم ٢٠٢٢, romanized: Kāsu al-ʿālami 2022)

I suggest, kindly, to correct the romanisation of the Arabic texts so that they are pronounced correctly. The changes should be:

• romanized: Kaʾsu al-ʿālami 2022 → romanized: Kaʾsu l-ʿālam 2022
• romanized: Kāsu al-ʿālami 2022 → romanized: Kās el-ʿālam 2022

Thus, it should be:

The 2022 FIFA World Cup (Standard Arabic: كأس العالم 2022, romanized: Kaʾsu l-ʿālam 2022; Gulf Arabic: كاس العالم ٢٠٢٢, romanized: Kās el-ʿālam 2022) Rayen Ben ALI (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the Arabic all together. It isn't a local event, it is an international event watched all over the world. Most of the other cups do not have local languages. --Mvqr (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

I propose three changes to fix nonstandard usage of English.

Change 1:

Due to Qatar's intense summer heat

to

Owing to Qatar's intense summer heat

Change 2:

Qatar has faced strong criticism due to the treatment of foreign workers

to

Qatar has faced strong criticism owing to the treatment of foreign workers

Change 3:

The Guardian has estimated that up to 4,000 workers may die due to lax safety

to

The Guardian has estimated that up to 4,000 workers may die owing to lax safety

98.128.180.111 (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done This is not nonstandard English. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Removing "men" diciture in the introduction

Nowhere in the FIFA World Cup rules does it mention that it's exclusively reserved to men.

In fact, every rule mentions "player/s" and there is never a reference to gender that would imply a certain gender is excluded from competing. The fact is that during the creation of the national teams there weren't any women that figured in the Top 11/20 players of that nation which subsequently results in basically all teams being formed of men.

The proposed modification is to change, in the Introduction, "the quadrennial international men's football championship" to "the quadrennial international football championship". Kuroen110 (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

It may not be listed in any rules, but FIFA explicitly categorizes the FIFA World Cup as a men's competition. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 03:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Why is Norway in black on the world map?

Norway didn't qualify, but entered normally and never withdrew from the World Cup. It should be yellow not black? 2A02:8388:28CA:1A00:582C:44E5:BBF8:C581 (talk) 11:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

It's now back to yellow after someone misrepresented a source. -- AxG / ✉  12:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

No prize money?

I am surprised that there is no mention of prize money. I mean, isn't that why people play? Embarrassing that the important parts of the event are missing, but we sure can list all of the social ills, rumors, and commentary associated with it. Let's get the basic facts right. I like to saw logs! (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

It appears this mention was already in the article under a hidden notice, however, it was recently removed by S.A. Julio for necessity reasons. Probably best not to make mention of it before the tournament ends. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why the section was hidden, I have now added it to the article. I had removed the other code as it was not needed until during/after the tournament, and added blank lines to the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 19:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I had added the prize money to the hidden section since that same section is where it has been located in previous tournaments' articles. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2022

I noticed, that the link to the article "Qatar Faces a Tight Squeeze for Its Compact World Cup" doesn't show up correclty. The first https: must be removed to fix this, so replace

url=https:https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/sports/qatar-world-cup-visitors.html

with

url=https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/14/sports/qatar-world-cup-visitors.html

Thank you. Neon700 (talk) 21:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Best regards, Vukky ^Talk_Guestbook 21:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 November 2022

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please remove LGBTQ section from this sporting event. This is football sport, not a social expression event. 2600:6C50:637F:B0F1:5420:29EC:9F58:30F1 (talk) 03:02, 3 November 2022 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. We do not remove sections because of one's personal bias. Jalen Folf (talk) 03:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Section moves

Hi! I've taken a good look at the article, and made a few copy edits. I've started up a section for the tournament summary, which we should really update after matches - shouldn't be too long, more of an overview of what happens in the actual tournament.

However, I have taken a look, and I feel like it's a bit cold to go from the lede and straight into the host selection. The body of an article should be written as if the lede doesn't exist; so I feel like an overview of the event should come at the top - what the world cup is, a very short history (when it started, what happened last time out) and the format of the event (ie groups and knockout), plus a bit about the total number of teams participating (in event and quali). This could then include subsections that we currently have for the schedule and also the prize money. This would help give readers a better understanding on how the event is played before going into depths about where and what happened at the event. I'd be Be bold and update this, but it's quite a bit of text on a very visible page and thought it better to make the comments here. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I've made this change. It does read a lot better, however, the overview does need filling out a tad. Is there any reason why we have both a "Host selection criticism" and "criticism" section? I feel it should be merged. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

finished venues

ladies and gents, a day before the tournament, the venues section is now complete. your welcome Godofwarfan333 (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

All of the photos you have uploaded to commons are non-free and should be removed immediately. There was even messages in the text to tell you not to do this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:16, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted these image additions. See also the freedom of panorama policy in Qatar. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:48, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022

Please change all Table names for Matches to "Match 1", "Match 2", etc, rather than "Table 11", "Table 12", etc. This will make any data references to this article much easier to manage. Thanks! Kmac52492 (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kmac52492: Can you explain your request in more detail? Is there a specific section or table to which you are referring? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Sure! When I try to pull info from the article using Excel's Power Query, the Match Results show up as just "Table 11", Table 12", etc., but I can see that the Group tables show up as "Group A", Group B", etc., which is easier to manage.

So I was hoping that something similar could be applied to individual match results. Thanks! Kmac52492 (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Kmac52492: I think I understand your request. All the match data is transcluded from each group's main page (e.g. 2022 FIFA World Cup Group A), so you may be better off pulling the data from those pages. Nothing I see here or on those pages has the data organized in table format, though. Have you tried pulling data from other football articles to see if the same thing occurs? — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Jkudlick, I thought that might be the case. I'll try to find an alternative source. Kmac52492 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. I'm closing this request pending clarification, feel free to re-open it when the confusion has been cleared up :) Actualcpscm (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Clarity on Controversy

"The choice to host the World Cup in Qatar has been the source of significant controversy. These include Qatar's poor treatment of migrant workers, poor human rights record, persecution of LGBT people, among others; leading to allegations of sportswashing"

The article seems to make a judgement on the various reasons why Qatar's selection as host has been controversial as opposed to presenting the information and allowing for the reader to make their own decision.

I propose rephrasing the paragraph as such: "The choice to host the World Cup in Qatar has been the source of significant controversy. Critics have cited Qatar's reported poor treatment of migrant workers, poor human rights record, persecution of LGBT people, among others; leading to allegations of sportswashing"

Secondly, I believe this edit is an improvement on the original text. The original text seems to cite each of the various reasons why parties are opposed to the World Cup being hosted in Qatar is a seperate controversy surrounding the world cup.

My proposed edit frames the reasons as factors that inform the current controversy of Qatar's selection as host, which I feel is more relevant with regards to the subject of the world cup specifically. 105.4.4.11 (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Concussion protocol substitution rule

I think this needs to be mentioned since it occurred during the match between England and Iran. Iranian goalkeeper was substituted off after being hit to the head. However, this did not count as one of permitted five substitutions and Iran used six in the match. BleuDXXXIV (talk) 16:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Now  Added. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

cite 186 error

Invoked but never defined? Anyone else able to see what happened? Govvy (talk) 12:07, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It's because there's a ref "Atlantic 2022" and also one at 186 at "Atlantic 20222", which I assume is supposed to be the same one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like it's fixed now. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 15:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

"adavance to knockout stage"

Why are countries in groups that did not have a single game yet marked in green with the note that they advanced? There is no ranking when no one has played yet, and until there is an official ranking these markings should not be displayed, its misleading. And giving them position when there arent any yet is straight up wrong. jonas (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

This is discussed above at #Advance to knockout stage. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

​Please weigh in above. —  AjaxSmack  16:25, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Difficulty in finding qualified teams and venues

Simple links in the Infobox were made to be able to go to the list of qualified teams and to the list of host venues and cities, e.g. Teams: 32. These were unlinked, twice without comment and then claiming WP:OVERLINK. It is quite difficult just to find out who are playing and MOS:REPEATLINK clearly encourages linking in Infoboxes to help the reader. Facts707 (talk) 12:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Internal links to the same article are pretty unwise. We shouldn't link to pieces to suggest they have articles about them, nor include WP:EASTEREGG links to items, so "32" shouldn't link to a list of teams, as the obvious link would be to 32. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Clearly WP:EASTEREGG does not apply here. The word "Teams:" with a colon clearly indicates what's coming and no WP reader would think "32" following "Teams:" is a link to the number 32. Facts707 (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

It does. Why would you like "32", rather than "teams"? What's more, I don't think these links are suitable for internal use - simply wanting to have a quick link to a certain part of an article isn't really good enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:59, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Qatar v Ecuador attendance

The attendance listed for Qatar vs Ecuador in Group A is listed as 67,000. The stadium can only hold 60,000 and watching the telecast, there were many empty seats. What is the source on this figure and are there multiple? Milkk7 (talk) 13:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

The match report listed below the score includes the attendance. And the seats were empty in the second half, not from kick-off. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

@Milkk7: good spot but the listed capacities were those of the FIFA reference requirements which are different from the actual capacity. For example, Al Bayt Stadium, where Ecuador played Qatar, was built to meet the FIFA requirement for a 60k stadium but the actual capacity is 68,895. You’ll see the capacities have been updated on the article now. reference Jo Jc Jo (talk) 16:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit suggestion

Original text: The controversy was described as a cultural conflict between the Islamic morality and secular Western liberal democracies.

Change to: The controversy was described by some as a cultural conflict between the Islamic morality and secular Western liberal democracies. LittleStrayKitten (talk) 04:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

REQUEST TO ADD TO "Host selection criticism" SECTION

Football fans around the world may find some apprehensions about going to the World Cup in Qatar because of the alcohol laws concerning consuming alcohol in public places, but World Cup organizers announce the creation of designated “sobering up” zones as a way to make fans feel safe and comfortable while attending the World Cup. The implementation of designated “sobering up” zones helps serve as an alternative to wide-scale arrests of intoxicated fans throughout the World Cup.

Qatar’s World Cup chief executive of the supreme committee, Nasser Al Khater, was cited by Sky News ensuring safety for implementing the designated sobering-up areas. “It’s a place to make sure that they keep themselves safe, they are not harmful to anybody else.” According to ESPN if a fan is sent to the “sobering up” zone, they will be permitted to leave when they can display clearheaded behavior  

GEBO23 (talk) 05:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

hello Jalen, thank you for replying and informing me to add a reliable source. below are articles from fox news and ESPN that I found that had information about the sobering up zone. Please let me know if it's alright and how to properly add teh cited sources to what I want to add to the "HOST SELECTION CRITICSM"

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/inotoxicated-fans-attending-world-cup-in-qatar-will-be-sent-to-designated-sobering-up-areas

Martin, Chantz. “World Cup Organizers Create Designated ‘sobering-up’ Areas to Curve Fan Drunkenness.” Fox News, 13 Oct. 2022, www.foxnews.com/sports/inotoxicated-fans-attending-world-cup-in-qatar-will-be-sent-to-designated-sobering-up-areas.

https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup/story/4769547/qatar-to-send-drunk-fans-to-sobering-up-areas-during-world-cup

“Qatar to Send Drunken Fans to Sobering-up Areas During World Cup.” ESPN.com, 13 Oct. 2022, www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup/story/4769547/qatar-to-send-drunk-fans-to-sobering-up-areas-during-world-cup. GEBO23 (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

hi jalen, here's another source for sky news about the sobering up zone for the Qatar World Cup

https://news.sky.com/story/turning-world-cup-into-platform-of-political-statements-is-not-right-for-football-qatar-boss-says-12719115 GEBO23 (talk) 16:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

References

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. GEBO, unless I'm wrong, looks like you received your autoconfirmed status not too long ago. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:27, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

hey jalen hope all is well. thanks for letting me know about the protection level changing. appreciate it and appreciate you. I'll give it a try and hopefully everything works out. 2603:8000:9B42:6176:60F6:EF1:96A9:DFB8 (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Appears to be resolved as "sobering up" Appears in article. Facts707 (talk) 10:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2022

Fahad Al Muwallad (Saudi Arabia) is out from the list because he is under investigation for doping. https://twitter.com/SaudiNT/status/1591713724469227520?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1591727902114340868%7Ctwgr%5E848f5635dd7e49fd63c74240e74257bbf94535df%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fcms.tvp.pl%2Flisting%2F64495085 His substitute is Nawaf Al Abed (January 26 1990) from Al Shabab 54 caps 8 goals 95.60.52.243 (talk) 10:35, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. As per WP:UGC and WP:SPS, content on Twitter is considered user-generated and therefore not an appropriate source in this case. Actualcpscm (talk) 12:50, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Fahad Al-Muwallad's article states with news reference that he is not going to the 2022 World Cup due to doping. Whether this should be mentioned in the main article is up to you and other editors. Thanks for bringing it up. Facts707 (talk) 11:10, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Humidity

A reference for the humidity was asked for by the same editor who later removed both the reference and the mention of humidity. They’re now asking for a discussion on the talk page? I’m on mobile, so unable to re-add the source until later. I did find at least one other reference for the humidity yesterday. And we don’t use Wikipedia as a reference (which said editor keeps doing). Seasider53 (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

see. #Qatar IS NOT humid above. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

they keep editing it back to being humid smh this is such a hassle Godofwarfan333 (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

what is going on

why th are there such few pictures in this article????? no photos of the stadium because of some dodgy panorama law. and that might be, but why are there no photos of the official match ball, or the mascot etc??? Godofwarfan333 (talk) 15:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyright reasons Wikipedia requires all photos to be uncopyright with a few expections listed on Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_use and Wikipedia:Non-free_content_criteria Qwv (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can find Creative Commons images please feel free to add them to the article! Sure it will help improve it. Edit away WP:JUSTDOIT! Jo Jc Jo (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Godofwarfan333 - it's not some "dodgy panorama law", Qatar doesn't allow pictures taken of copyrighted art, which includes those of stadiums. However, more to the point, you can't just go on Google and upload any old image you find. We require that the image is not copyrighted, or is at least released under a compatible license. That would generally mean that either a governing body would need to release the items (and thus relinquish the copyright they have on an image), or for you to specifically take an image of what you want to be in the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:01, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

read my whole comment Godofwarfan333 (talk) 19:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to have read. Do you have any free images of such things? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

i clearly mentioned, that while the panorama law, which i personally consider dodgy, but needs be respected either way, is not the only issue at hand. no official match ball photos, nor any mascot photos are being uploaded despite this being a high priority article. it just strikes me as uncanny yk Godofwarfan333 (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

No, you didn't read anything which I have written. The freedom of panorama is not the issue - we only accept free images, not ones that you just pluck off Google. Do you have any images of the match ball or mascots that you have personally taken, or have the rights too? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean, yes, I do, have pictures I've taken, but I doubt y'all would accept that Godofwarfan333 (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

@Godofwarfan333 If an editor believes we absolutely need an image of the match ball, a sufficiently bold editor could acquire a version of the ball (the replica should do for our purposes) and take a photograph of it without unreasonable hardship. A mascot image could be included, but it would have to satisfy all NFC criteria. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:08, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

alright I'll try doing this in within a few days time Godofwarfan333 (talk) 08:12, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Should the 7-0 Spain V Costa Rica match be on the Wikipedia main page

2022 FIFA World Cup Group E

Article: 2022 FIFA World Cup Group E (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Spain wins 7-0 against Costa Rica in a football match in the 2022 FIFA World Cup marking the biggest win of a team in a match since the 2010 FIFA World Cup. (Post)
News source(s): [9]
Credits:

• Created by Oddballslover (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Oddballslover (talk · give credit)

We do not post intermediate results of an ongoing competition. --Masem (t) 00:35, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This game is not ongoing it has already ended. Oddballslover (talk) 01:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oddballslover (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

This is not suitable. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Saudi vs Argentina

As per the Group C article, the Saudi win over Argentina was "one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history" and should be described as such. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Blimey, we shouldn't be calling it that - potentially including it as a quote, but probably overkill for an article like this. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Maybe you'd like to kill it over there, then? Might be a bigger upset if they go on to win. It seems it was the opinion of Gracenote, but based on numeric probabilities. 205.239.40.3 (talk) 14:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

it's not overkill lol what? as an Argentina fan myself, this was certainly one of the biggest upsets in World Cup history. even the Fifa website put out an article declaring this that Godofwarfan333 (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between saying "it was one of the biggest upsets" and attributing a quote. We don't do the prior one. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

oh cool. also, I think you'd like to have a word with the people who are intent on reverting the second paragraph's opening line constantly Godofwarfan333 (talk) 11:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"Last to do so"?

The article has been altered to say this will be the last World Cup to feature 32 qualified teams. That's supposition and likely wrong. Going to 48 teams in 2026 probably won't work and in all likelihood we'll be back to 32 teams for the 2030 World Cup . 78.82.80.49 (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty WP:CRYSTALBALL either way really, but considering FIFA want to do 48 and it's confirmed for future events, this seems like the best way to deal with it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

this is a very very poor argument Godofwarfan333 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with user:lee Vilenski. Although not perfect, currently it is planned by all authority to be the last WC with 32 teams. I would argue that on balance, and with consideration to WP:RUMOUR it is, on balance, more true to say it will the last with 32 than to not include it because of rumour. Whether a new decision is taken at a later date then the article should be updated.

Maybe as a middle ground we can add “expected to be the last…” Jo Jc Jo (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that having gone to 48 teams for 2026, with the extra revenue that brings, FIFA would then switch back to 32 teams for 2030. More likely they'd tweak any format. So we can say "is planned to be the last" or variations. Valenciano (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that seems fine (if not a little wordy). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

the current form is fine as it is and will not be changed Godofwarfan333 (talk) 19:20, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You really don't understand how Wikipedia works, do you? Tad Lincoln (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of what is worded, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball; see WP:CRYSTAL for more. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

finally, someone here with a brain Godofwarfan333 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

i do, but you most certainly don't lmao. wth are you smoking 'is expected to be the last' lol this ain't some odds betting site. respect common sense and stop using absurd language in your edits Godofwarfan333 (talk) 21:16, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

no Godofwarfan333 (talk) 21:18, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I see you’ve gone ahead and implemented your preference Godofwarfan333. I don’t think anyone here is particularly bothered by this issue but please get consensus before unilaterally making a decision and implement an edit that’s part of an on going discussion. And please remember the 5 pillars. WP:5P4. Let’s keep things civil and I hope you’re enjoying the football. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 22:03, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

this isn't a preference. this is you crystal balling a statement onto the lede when it clearly makes 0 sense when compared to past occurrences of similar events. so all i did was revert it back to what it was before you and some IP unilaterally decided to change it and make it verbose and confusing. please try and avoid painting me as the villain here when all i've been doing is revert unsanctioned edits Godofwarfan333 (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I’ve made no edit to the lede. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

"Unsanctioned"? Seriously, please read wp:own. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I made the following compromise "The tournament is expected to be the last World Cup with 32 participating teams, with the field to increase to 48 teams for the [[2026 FIFA World Cup|2026 edition..." indicating 48 teams are coming next Cup. I hope this resolves this discussion and so I have boldly marked it. Facts707 (talk) 11:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

your edits aren't some 'word written in stone' moment. you have a highly questionable idea for an edit, and 'expected to be the last with 32' is a very poor sentence to be featured in the lede of an encyclopaedia.. what happens later is not wikipedia's right to speculate over. do refrain from making this edit again. this will be the last World Cup with 32 participating teams. that's it. otherwise, if we follow your logic, every single use of past tense in a sporting article when talking about an event that used to exist/used to happen but doesn't should be changed to 'expected to be the last'? your edit doesn't follow wikipedia's standard usage. here are some examples:

Champions League Twenty20

2008 UEFA Intertoto Cup

I guess you think both of these articles should also be changed to "was the last ___ to happen". Godofwarfan333 (talk) 11:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

lol Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Visita ao estádio de futebol Al Janoub.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

File replaced in this article. Facts707 (talk) 12:49, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Attendance figures

The attendance figures cannot be reliable. The stadiums are listed with specific attendance figures yet there were visibly thousands of empty seats. I don't think the attendance figures should be posted. Hmdwgf (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If they come from reliable sources, then that's the official amount. Whether that's privately emblished isn't really our issue.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I believe there have been some news articles questioning the veracity of the attendances, it could be worth mentioning somewhere in the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

The attendance figures in many instances seem so blatantly inaccurate they shouldn't even be mentioned by default in my opinion. Shadess (talk) 12:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Education city stadium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

File no longer used here. Facts707 (talk) 12:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

instructions for lede over the course of the next month (resolved)

As the tournament starts, the lede will greatly change to mirror a lede similar to past world cups. the excessive criticism of qatar will be toned down, whilst still being featured. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what argument you are making, or why we would "mirror" other articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  ???what??? Godofwarfan333 (talk) 14:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

  read the lede now Godofwarfan333 (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The lede reflects what’s in the main body, so there’s no issue. And “This is the way it’s always been done” never ends well. Seasider53 (talk) 16:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

that might be, but the focus of a tournament is the sporting achievment that occurs during it. not the shady parts. ofc i'm not saying that should be cut out, but it will certainly be revised considerably and shortened after the games are well underway Godofwarfan333 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia, not a football ticker. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

which has no bearing over the fact that the lede will resemble the one for the previous tournament's article soon. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 17:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

But it shouldn't... – PeeJay 13:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

yes it should and it will Godofwarfan333 (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not up to you. You don't wp:own this article. Tad Lincoln (talk) 17:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

straw-man. i never said i do Godofwarfan333 (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

- I'm very much worried you do believe you own this page, looking at now several comments you have made. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:42, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

well unfortunately, your worries arise from a bad understanding of what my intention here is. I've radically cleaned up the lede, have made several contributions to the body, constantly correct the numerous semi-vandalistic poor grammar using edits, and want this article to be featured- article level in quality. my apologies if i've been a bit brusque in the talk page, it's mostly due to frustration dealing with the antics of people making weird edits. hope to be working closely with you here Godofwarfan333 (talk) 21:22, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

You're being a bit arrogant in assuming that your contributions are unimpeachable. – PeeJay 11:30, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Marked as (resolved). Editors are free to make any edits they wish, which are subject to review by the WP community after being made. Suggestions for edits are fine but "instructions" on content are not. Thanks everyone for your good faith input. Facts707 (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Protection

Should we remove protection a few months after the end of the World Cup? I am autoconfirmed, but I’m expecting the editing to die down by a bit after the end of the World Cup. Super yoshi013021 (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

please fix group a and group c

it should be netherlands vs qatar, poland vs saudi arabia, and argentina vs mexico Mugiwaraghali (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done I found other changes that had been made by IPs in other groups as well. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

group g

brazil vs switzerland not switzerland vs brazil 2001:448A:3042:4543:50F7:2CC7:3B62:CA9A (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Al Bayt Stadium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Eliminated teams

Are we not showing an E for teams that have been eliminated from the Group Stage? Example: Qatar currently has 0 points while Ecuador, Netherlands and Senegal all have 3 points, the most points that Qatar can end up with is 3 while all other 3 teams will end up with at least 4 points. Xolkan (talk) 16:57, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

You're wrong. There's no guarantee that Equador and Senegal will draw their game and thus would have a minimum of four points. Equador could win both the game they are playing now against Netherlands and the one against Senegal, while Qatar wins against The Netherlands. That would leave Equador with 9 points and all others with three, meaning Qatar can still advance. Tvx1 17:32, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

That is true, I was overthinking it lol. If Netherlands do end up winning today then Qatar would be eliminated. Netherlands would have 6 points and either one of Senegal or Ecuador will end up with 4 or 6 points as they play each other in their last match. Xolkan (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The draw was enough to eliminate Qatar. Tvx1 18:01, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2022

AICR7 (talk) 17:08, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

(Copyright violations removed)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 17:41, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Copyvios images removed. See also commons:COM:FOP Qatar. Jalen Folf (talk) 20:12, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

(resolved)

Does anyone else think that it is up to one editor to decide when a discussion is resolved? These are not RfCs or other such formal processes. The edit requests already have an "answered" table. Spike 'em (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

As the editor who started adding "resolved", the idea was to help other editors focus on outstanding issues, not ones that clearly appear to have been dealt with such as use of copyrighted images when the image has been removed. With over 30 active discussions, it is a lot for any editor looking to help to wade through to the bottom of each only to discover the matter has been dealt with. As to who decides "(resolved)", I think any good faith editor can do that and also any good faith editor can remove "(resolved)" if they feel more discussion is warranted. Facts707 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit overkill, and the template is usually {{resolved}}. The way it's currently being done is very much "I think this is fine, don't further comment". Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

If there's a clear agreement and that has been implemented, then and only then should it be marked as resolved. If ongoing discussions have been marked as resolved when people are still debating them, then that's not fine. Although either way, it doesn't really need to be marked, the talkpage archiving should be setup/time for archiving reduced to fix this automatically. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we're doing a disservice to WP and other editors if we don't do something. There are now 45 lengthy discussions. Yes it's overkill for most WP articles, but not for a high-traffic limited-time one of global interest. Facts707 (talk) 12:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Isn't that what user:Lowercase sigmabot III is for with the auto-archival? Putting things in these topic just prevents that.Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Error in lead

"Qatar were eliminated, the earliest a host team had been ejected from the tournament, and only the second host nation to not progress to the knockout stage."

This isn't entirely true. Spain in 1982 didn't get to the knockout stage as both the opening rounds were group stages. 2A00:23C8:4F05:9001:FCFF:D6B3:5239:2789 (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah, that does make sense. Shall change to "opening round" to avoid confusion as group stage would also not be true. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Teams in round of 16

@Cococ2001: Not all readers will be navigating to the knockout stage page. We should be including the most important details on the main article, if you navigate to the knockout stage section on this page you should expect to see what teams will participate. This is also standard for other competitions such as the Euros and Champions League, the table is always removed once the final group positions are confirmed. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:26, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Khalifa International Stadium

Why does it say "Khalifa International Stadium, Al Rayyan" if the stadium is located in Doha? DSOFOreverTYU (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Great question! Al Rayyan is a suburb of Doha immediately to the west and is part of metropolitan Doha. The stadium is in the Aspire Zone, Baaya district, about 5 km west of central Doha. I've updated the stadium article for clarity. Facts707 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

France vs Denmark

Mbappé 68' is wrong (1st goal 61') // same for A.Christensen => 61' is wrong Il Finnico (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I see it is correct now and matches the FIFA report. Facts707 (talk) 09:02, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stade Al-Thumama, Doha, Qatar.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022

Change "Due to Israel's continuous invasion, bombing and occupation of Palestinian territories" to "Due to the Isreali-Palestinian conflict. 2601:44:201:87B0:E088:E3C3:6F17:8271 (talk) 20:09, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Removed the contentious phrasing but also didn't mention the conflict, because the intentions of the people disrupting Israeli reporters aren't verifiable. We just know what those reporters are saying.Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 01:16, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2022 (2)

"CHANGE ANTI JEWISH TO ANTI ISRAELI JBStarbuck (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The section covers promises made to Jewish visitors, so it still applies. But the wording was unclear so retitled. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 01:18, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"First to take place in northern winter"

From the lede: first tournament not held in May, June, or July and to take place in the northern winter.[10] -- the "winter" reference is not supported by the source, and it's generally accepted that winter starts on 22nd December in the northern hemisphere, while the World Cup lasts only until 18th December. byteflush _Talk 23:30, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

This has been resolved; "winter" now only appears in Winter Olympics and in references to news article headlines. Thanks for bringing that up! Facts707 (talk) 10:13, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

this is a bad argument. while astrologically, yes it's not winter, seasonally, December is definitely considered winter Godofwarfan333 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion

Add the fact that Argentina vs Mexico is the biggest attendance for a WC match since 1994 MatsLP (talk) 19:16, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, edit made. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 01:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adeletron 3030 thank you MatsLP (talk) 04:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Al Rihla.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)