Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Qatar IS NOT humid

For reasons unknown to me, it seems many think Qatar is humid. The well sourced climate table in Geography of Qatar#Climate shows us clearly that it's not. It's in a desert!!!!! Yes, it's really hot in summer, and that was why this event is happening now. Nothing to do with humidity. With so much editing going on I can't work out who keeps adding the humidity claim, so I can't address them directly. I intend to simply keep removing it every time I see it. HiLo48 (talk) 22:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Associated source [1] says humid. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:21, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - you've linked to an article with the words: The long summer (June through September) is characterized by intense heat and alternating dryness and humidity, with temperatures exceeding 40 °C (104 °F). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Please look at the actual figures in the table I linked to. They are not the figures of a humid place. HiLo48 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

But we don't cite Wikipedia, we cite the reference saying it's humid being a reason for moving the dates. Even though it doesn't matter - I'd suggest over 50% humidity to be pretty humid. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

huh? Godofwarfan333 (talk) 22:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Qatar is coastal, especially Doha. Anecdotal evidence I’ve heard since being here suggests it can get quite humid. It fluctuates a lot. – PeeJay 10:19, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I changed the line to "and often fairly high humidity" - 2nd ref from Nature says can be 60% humidity in summer. I'm optimistic this resolves this discussion so have marked it "(resolved)". Facts707 (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

while I thank you for THIS PARTICULAR CONTRIBUTION, it's humidity has never been a concern as compared to the heat, and so the lede will show heat, while the rest of the article can heavily feature humidity if needs be in the controversies section Godofwarfan333 (talk) 11:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

it's not humid in the summer as compared to the winter. Qatar is a dry country anyway so humidity is absolutely not the concern Godofwarfan333 (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

@Godofwarfan333:, final warning about removing sourced information. You're clearly not interested in reading prior article edits or talk pages, thus putting the burdern on others to revert your edits. Seasider53 (talk) 12:05, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

??? how can you possibly call it a well sourced piece of information when exactly one person claimed that? and there are plenty of sources, which are almost inarguably better sources than an opinion piece by a journo, which state that Qatar is dry. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

There's also a Washington Post reference in the main body mention of it. This is where you say, "I didn't know it was mentioned TWICE???? wth man????" Seasider53 (talk) 12:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/why-qatar-is-a-controversial-venue-for-2022-world-cup/2022/11/17/e710eaba-6680-11ed-b08c-3ce222607059_story.html

maybe if you put a little bit of effort into backing your claims up, you wouldn't be making such replies. the Washington post also has an article mentioning only Qatar's scorching heat. what now? Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You know, something can be both hot and humid, right? Your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality has to stop. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

You're right; that completely invalidates the one in which it was brought up. Seasider53 (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

it arguably does because the Washington post themselves don't consider humidity an important reason lmao. why do you want to argue so much instead of trying to see reason. Qatar is nowhere as humid in summer as it is now. all the facts and sources back it up lol. what even is your point ATP Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Jesus Christ whatever it may be, but the reasoning is CLEARLY NOT THE HUMIDITY. you guys don't even live here lmao. it's literally more humid in Qatar in winter than in summer lol. all the sources state that. Qatar's heat has always been mentioned as an issue, but it's humidity hasn't Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

sorry lad, but these people have their minds made up and won't even accept 'intense climactic conditions' so humidity unfortunately stays. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

- there are sources saying that humidity was a factor. You can point to literally any other source that doesn't mention this, but that doesn't invalidate it. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

well it kinda violates Wikipedia:WEIGHT so it shouldn't be such a focal point as it is rn Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:32, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So gaining consensus, which you seem intermittently interested in in edit summaries, is you ignoring what other people have written and edit-warring to restore your preferred version? Spike 'em (talk) 12:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And given we have sources saying humidity in the summer is an issue, you need to find sources saying it is not, rather than a few that make no mention of it. It may not be as humid in summer as it is now, but it is the combination humidity with heat that causes a problem. Spike 'em (talk) 12:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

oi, go check it out now, i think it sounds much better Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

NPOV and is rather irrelevant for a football article as an edit summary pretty much shows where we are at. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

uhm...ye because it's the bloody lede. the lede isn't supposed to focus on the controversies, and since the controversies do an apt job of describing everything well, it's rather bizarre to see that the biggest paragraph in the lede is about the controversies. and what? you literally obsess over NPOV constantly, so to see you act all sardonic about it is rather hilarious. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

How many reverts do you think you are on today? I'd suggest you self revert otherwise I will raise this at the edit warring page. Spike 'em (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you hold your tongue because proof of your violation of 3RRR from that day is still on the internet. I've let it slide trying to be the better man but your incessant cheek kinda needs a check Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

less than 3 lmao, cuz unlike you, I actually make an effort to just edit things to be better instead of abusing the revert button. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 12:57, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is 6 reverts so far: [2],[3], [4],[5],[6],[7]. Spike 'em (talk) 13:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

nope, I've not blindly reverted but just edited the reverted information to pacify the qualms of those who had an issue. try and keep up. Godofwarfan333 (talk) 13:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

So you don't know what a revert is then? Undoing someone else's edit is a revert whether you do that by clicking on revert or manually editting it yourself. Spike 'em (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

sigh.....I do know what revert is, but you sure don't know what basic comprehension is. I saw their critiques, changed the info, to fit their liking and added it with a new edit. you on the other hand keep spamming the undo/revert button, because you seemingly despise doing constructive things for any article whatsoever, and only deal in slander and deletions. we reached a consensus for almost a dozen edits, through this technique of mine. you only kept arguing about it a few days ago. and stop talking in god's name, it's exhausting having to constantly reply to you. give it a rest Godofwarfan333 (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It seems you don't. WP: REVERT says :Reverting does not always involve the use of the undo tool. Any method of editing that has the practical effect of returning some or all of the page to a previous version counts as a reversion.Spike 'em (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

yet again, you state something WHILST SIMULTANEOUSLY CONTRADICTING YOUR OWN POINT BRO LMAOOO THIS IS LIKE BANTER NOW AHAHAHA. kid, I literally specified that I added pieces of information that were different from what they were before, hence, not the same as a previous version. Jesus Christ, you really want to keep arguing all week or som'ing? Godofwarfan333 (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, TOP BANTZ BRO / KID / WHATEVER CONDESCENDING TERM YOU WANT TO USE. It takes two to have an arguement, so maybe you should stop responding to me, or is this more "incessant cheek"? Spike 'em (talk) 14:27, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

you're back. 🥱🥱🥱 if I wanted to talk with someone so incessant, I'd go to reddit.

https://makeameme.org/meme/it-was-nice-5af062 Godofwarfan333 (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:TLW Spike 'em (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

certified WP version of an i have reddit moment Godofwarfan333 (talk) 14:39, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Al Rihla.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

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

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

• Stade Al-Thumama, Doha, Qatar.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Lead section and boycotts

Our lead section currently states that "Boycotts of the event were declared by several countries, clubs, and individual players," with a link to the corresponding section and support from two sources: [8] and [9]. But that's not an accurate summary of that section or our sources at all. No countries ultimately boycotted the tournament (Norway and Germany talked about it, but didn't), and all I'm seeing from the club side is one club (Tromsø IL) calling for a boycott (that didn't ultimately happen) and fans of a few other clubs informally showing their support. It's not at all accurate to call this "clubs declaring" a boycott. And I don't see any information about boycotts by individual players either. I propose we remove the irrelevant first source (it's just a journalist's personal musings on whether a boycott is justified, and doesn't support the claim at all), and reword the sentence to actually reflect what that section and our sources say:

Boycotts of the events were called for by many fans and politicians and at least one club, but ultimately no countries withdrew for boycott-related reasons.

I know that sounds kind of clunky, so alternative rewording suggestions are welcome! -Elmer Clark (talk) 18:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's accurate to say that "many" fans or politicians called for boycotts. We could name prominent politicians or supporter groups, but I'd avoid using phrases that could be weasel words. The only real boycotts appear to be from entertainers (Shakira and Dua Lipa have both declined to perform), and we could maybe mention the drop in viewership in certain countries? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:20, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good point, even my toned-down version still isn't really supported by the sources. Now that we have the benefit of hindsight, it probably does makes more sense to recast this sentence entirely to focus more on the smaller boycotts that actually did happen (like those by individual entertainers and sponsors) rather than the larger-scale boycotts that did not happen. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Belgian and dutch riots

The paragraph regarding riots in Belgium and the Netherlands is in dire need of more context. The segment implies that the rioters were Belgians 'mourning' their team's defeat, while allegedly, these were Moroccan minorities 'celebrating' their team's victory. 2A02:A461:62EB:1:CC4A:470E:D946:5D15 (talk) 19:09, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source confirming the allegation, please provide it. Until then, we cannot publish "allegedly." — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:11, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

And I think the language is fine. It doesn't imply anything — it simply states the fact the riots followed the match's conclusion without suggesting any one group is responsible. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Adeletron that our current wording is neutral on who was responsible. But I also agree that this context would be great to include if we can find reliable sources to support it - but we don't have those yet (either here or at 2022 FIFA World Cup riots). If you learned this information from a reliable source (by Wikipedia standards), please provide it and we can probably find a way to work it in. -Elmer Clark (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Yemen

Yemen is listed in Group B instead of Iran. Did I miss something? G. Timothy Walton (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's been fixed now. Sarrail (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't expect that. Can someone find who edited this? I believe there must been some mistake here. -- Flowerinight (talk) 00:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It was an IP editor who somehow got into the "underground system" of this. Sarrail (talk) 01:00, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

So how then it managed to end up making the edit despite not showing on the History List? I cannot find them in the actual page history. Is it because IP editors are not necessarily listed into the list? The page is semi-protected, even I (a relatively new Wikipedia user) cannot edit. -- Flowerinight (talk) 01:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Because the user edited one of the templates used in this article. Templates are efficient, but they can be abused. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 01:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I see, thank you. The editor also was responsible with Group C's editing actually, after I checked out - not only they put Yemen to replace Iran and then put them on the top (pretending that the lose was instead a draw), but they also put Saudi Arabia on the top of Group C as if they won the match against Poland despite it's clearly not the case.

Apologizes for stating critic words, and thank you for warning them. Flowerinight (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

No need to apologize. It does look like the edits are being made to this article directly. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 04:07, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It would have likely been wise for the templates to have been given some sort of page protection to avoid this due to the sheer amount of vandalism on this page Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

First person to score in five World Cups

Ronaldo isn't the first person to score in five World Cups. He is the first Man. The first person was the Brasil player Marta. Migueljreis (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Easy fix, thanks for pointing this out. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:45, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Group B

Group B classification is wrong. 139.47.125.170 (talk) 00:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Also in Group C. 139.47.125.170 (talk) 00:50, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Group B has been fixed, but I don't see anything wrong with Group C. Sarrail (talk) 00:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I might been late to say this, but it might have been fixed indirectly by a rollback to the edit. Flowerinight (talk) 16:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Upon completion of the Group round

I presume we'll be deleting the "A" (for advancing) & "E" (for eliminated), once the Group round is over. Since the designations won't be required anymore. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

As each group finishes, the group standings templates are updated to remove the |status_XXX= parameters. The only one that will remain will be Qatar's (H) as tournament hosts. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:56, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022

Qatar should be labeled as having been eliminated, i.e. change "Qatar (H)" to "Qatar (H, E)" and "(H) Host" to "(H) Host, (E) Eliminated". NormanZZ (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

This is actually an edit request for the table template, though there's a bigger audience here. Anyway, it doesn't seem like a great user experience when the "A" and the "E" disappear as soon as the match is over. Not sure why we're not keeping them until the end of the group stage. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Group A is complete, so all statuses except Qatar's (H) as tournament host are removed. The same will occur in each group over the next three days as their matches are completed. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2022 (2)

Don't remove anything. Just in the broadcasting part, add a section about the Balkans. The broadcaster in North Macedonia is МРТ (Македонска Радио Телевизија - Macedonian Radio Television). Serbia is ArenaSport. I don't know the rest, so research it. 77.28.23.81 (talk) 20:51, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done, at least not yet. Please provide reliable sources for your claims, and the changes can be made. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Middle East isn't Asia.

Why do we classify the Middle East as Asia? 116.86.219.222 (talk) 10:45, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Could you provide more context to your question? Are you proposing an edit or have a question about something in the article? Or are you asking a general geographical query? Anyway, I don’t think anyone is classifying the Middle East as Asia. But it is a geopolitical region that spans West Asia and North Africa, so many Middle Eastern countries are also Asian countries. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 11:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Qatar "officially the State of Qatar,[a] is a country in Western Asia". As mentioned Middle East is a separate concept. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Middle East is also known as Western Asia.77.103.186.178 (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Better question for that article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question, just head over to Asia. You'll get your answer there. The short answer: It always has been. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 23:33, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Is Al Jazeera an RS for covering controversies in Qatar?

I don’t know why I didn’t think about this now, but it’s odd that we’re using Al Jazeera articles to cover the controversies surrounding this World Cup, considering the newspaper is essentially owned by the Qatari state, the same entity that is responsible for the events planning and operations. Whatever you think of their reporting (I think they’re fine on most topics), we shouldn’t be treating them as an independent press for this particular topic. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:41, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

It's probably fine to use as long as it is clear that it represents the view of the Qatari state. Honestly for me the biggest issue here is that the lead has gotten very out of control. The lead is supposed to summarize the contents of the article, but right now there is significantly less counter-criticism in the body than you would expect based on the lead. There needs to be either a dedicated counter-criticism section or it needs to be shortened/removed from the lead. Jay eyem (talk) 14:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I looked at the cites again. I'm still not sure about Al Jazeera used in the response to the criticism, since it's presented as one of the responses from the media in general (I agree with you about the bloat in the lede). AJ t's also as a source for the whistle-blower case, which is probably okay but doesn't seem ideal. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:19, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Al-Jazeera should be used in this discussion, but with care. It represents an important perspective but it is not impartial and shouldn't be treated as such. For that matter, it should not be assumed that other, otherwise reliable sources are impartial on this matter, either.

It has been documented that sources such as The Guardian and the The Daily Telegraph have been extremely biased in their coverage of the World Cup in Qatar, even in the preparation stages.

References

إيان (talk) 02:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion of criticisms in the introduction

The introduction needs to maintain WP:NPOV in its discussion of criticisms of the tournament. The POV rationale for this edit giving WP:Undue weight to Western opinions, makes absolutely no sense: Trying to promote the Qatari government's comical viewpoint of "the hypocritical West" (despite the fact South American countries are the ones most active in the world cup) violates the neutral point of view clause. And as far as I remember, the main point Infantino raised was that he was a gay disabled woman.
GenoV84 copied the same nonsensical rationale to make similar edits at 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies.
With regard to the discussion of criticisms in the introduction, please discuss here any proposed changes that maintain WP:NPOV and are supported by WP:reliable sources and otherwise respect Wikipedia policies. إيان (talk) 16:21, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

This is the text as it stands:

The choice to host the World Cup in Qatar has drawn substantive criticism, primarily from Europe and the wider Western world. This has focused on Qatar's human rights record (with migrant workers, LGBT issues, and women's rights), intense climate, lack of a strong football culture, evidence of bribery in the bidding process, and wider FIFA corruption— leading to boycotts and allegations of sportswashing. Responses to these criticisms have characterized them as hypocritical, Orientalist, and racist. On the eve of the opening ceremony, FIFA president Gianni Infantino defended the hosting of the tournament in Qatar and accused Western critics of being hypocritical based on their past deeds. إيان (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

References

GenoV84, now let's focus on the main subject of the discussion: how the introduction handles the matter of criticisms of the tournament. Given the cited sources, how do you justify repeatedly removing a balanced presentation of the topic, both on this article and at 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies? What changes would you make to the above text and why? إيان (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

In case you didn't notice, the introduction was definitely not balanced, since you tried to remove sourced content multiple times both on this article and the one about the controversies. As I said before, an opinion piece from Le Monde is not enough to accuse the entire Western world of "orientalism" and "racism"; read the WP:NEUTRAL and WP:CONSENSUS policies. Criticism about the 2022 FIFA World Cup doesn't come only from the Western world either. I agree with the fact that the two articles (this one and the one about the controversies alone) should present both viewpoints. There's no need to delete sourced content, we can merge both revisions in one paragraph. I propose to do so in order to avoid further disagreements for all parties involved. It could look like this:

"The choice to host the World Cup in Qatar has been the source of substantive controversy, primarily from Europe and the wider Western world. This has focused on Qatar's human rights record (with migrant workers, LGBT issues, and women's rights), intense climate, lack of a strong football culture, evidence of bribery in the bidding process, and wider FIFA corruption— leading to boycotts and allegations of sportswashing. Responses to these criticisms have characterized them as hypocritical, Orientalist, and racist. Others have said Qatar's intense climate and lack of a strong football culture is evidence of bribery for hosting rights and wider FIFA corruption. Boycotts of the event are planned by several countries, clubs, and individual players, and former FIFA President Sepp Blatter has twice said that giving Qatar hosting rights was a "mistake". The attendance figures at the matches has also come under scrutiny as the reported crowd attendance has been more than the stadium capacities despite games having visible empty seats. Current FIFA chief Gianni Infantino has defended the hosting of the tournament in Qatar and accused Western critics of being hypocritical based on their past deeds."

GenoV84 (talk) 03:44, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Note: @إيان: Meanwhile, other editors have greatly improved the lead section and did a better job at rewriting the introduction than we could ever do, therefore this discussion has become quite pointless since our fellow Wikipedians have already resolved the issue. GenoV84 (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

...and in the body

Putting aside the WP:GEOBIAS issues, there are serious WP:UNDUEWEIGHT issues with current Controversies section. Most of the details should be moved to 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies; if there's going to be a standalone "controversies" article, the details of each controversy should be moved there with a summary remaining in the main article. —  AjaxSmack  16:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. I tried to change it but my edit was reverted. إيان (talk) 16:49, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Note: GenoV84 please discuss here instead of edit warring like you have on this article and at 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies. إيان (talk) 16:51, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

@إيان: Did you just remove my comment ([10])? Anyway, as I was trying to say, an opinion piece from Le Monde is not enough to accuse the entire Western world of "orientalism" and "racism"; read the WP:NEUTRAL and WP:CONSENSUS policies. Criticism doesn't come only from the Western world either; international human rights associations, the LGBT community, and other governments have expressed criticism of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. GenoV84 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

References

It seems to have been deleted accidentally as I fixed a typo in mine. إيان (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry about that. إيان (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As you can see above, Le Monde is only one of several sources cited. Here's another one. إيان (talk) 16:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Let's put it aside for a moment. Could you please explain why did you remove the entire Controversies section from this article today by claiming that it was a massive undue POV ([11]), and did so without WP:CONSENSUS on the article's Talk page? GenoV84 (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

As AjaxSmack noted above, it's WP:GEOBIAS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. There is an entire article dedicated to the topic, and virtually everything said here is also said in that one, where it should be. I propose a short introductory paragraph and a sentence on each main criticism and a main article hatnote linking to 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies. إيان (talk) 17:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The current Controversies section looks fine to me and it's supposed to stay for its encyclopedic relevance and well-sourced content; controversies and criticism have been a major part of the 2022 FIFA World Cup, it would be rather WP:UNDUE to remove the Controversies section from the main article. Nobody else has attempted to delete it in its entirety, except for you ([12]). Furthermore, it is closely related to the main article, therefore it deserves to stay here. I agree with the fact that the two articles (this one and the one about the controversies alone) should present both viewpoints. There's no need to delete sourced content, we can merge both revisions in one paragraph. I propose to do so in order to avoid further disagreements for all parties involved. It could look like this:

"The choice to host the World Cup in Qatar has been the source of substantive controversy, primarily from Europe and the wider Western world. This has focused on Qatar's human rights record (with migrant workers, LGBT issues, and women's rights), intense climate, lack of a strong football culture, evidence of bribery in the bidding process, and wider FIFA corruption— leading to boycotts and allegations of sportswashing. Responses to these criticisms have characterized them as hypocritical, Orientalist, and racist. Others have said Qatar's intense climate and lack of a strong football culture is evidence of bribery for hosting rights and wider FIFA corruption. Boycotts of the event are planned by several countries, clubs, and individual players, and former FIFA President Sepp Blatter has twice said that giving Qatar hosting rights was a "mistake". The attendance figures at the matches has also come under scrutiny as the reported crowd attendance has been more than the stadium capacities despite games having visible empty seats. Current FIFA chief Gianni Infantino has defended the hosting of the tournament in Qatar and accused Western critics of being hypocritical based on their past deeds."

GenoV84 (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

 Note: @إيان: Meanwhile, other editors have greatly improved the lead section and did a better job at rewriting the introduction than we could ever do, therefore this discussion has become quite pointless since our fellow Wikipedians have already resolved the issue. GenoV84 (talk) 03:57, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

References

The current controversies section detailing every last criticism seems too long to me and most of the details should be in the daughter article. There should still be a summary of the main issues in the section though (a sentence or 2 about each main one?)Spike 'em (talk) 09:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'd agree with this - although I don't know if the section itself needs to be short, (it's clearly a major factor of the tournament), however, I do think we should be talking summary style, rather than every piece of info on controversial items. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Spike 'em and I proposed it earlier. There's already a dedicated article, so the section in this article should just give a brief summary of the main points and direct readers to where they can learn more. إيان (talk) 03:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Western opposition and "Poor" Qatari human rights record in Wikivoice

Some editors keep wanting to add "poor" human rights record to the lead. While I agree: Even countries such as North Korea aren't described as such in Wikivoice. And it goes against the site's principles to explicitly lay down a list of objective human rights. Reliable sources have also overwhelmingly stated that criticism of the Qatari position on humans rights has been limited predominately to the West.

Or this from CNN:

Qatar’s organizing committee, meanwhile, has previously promised to host “an inclusive and discriminatory-free” World Cup in the face of Western criticism regarding its anti-LGBTQ laws – criticism Infantino, speaking generally about Qatar’s human rights record, slammed as “hypocritical” ahead of the tournament.

And so on and so forth. I agree with the feeling. However, we're not here to right great wrongs. KlayCax (talk) 06:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

@GenoV84: Ping.

@KlayCax: That's not a big deal, the real problem here is that South Asian and Latin American liberal democracies have critized the World Cup in the same way as Western countries did. Moreover, Qatar and other Gulf states have been described by the cited reliable references as "authoritarian", not me. Removing sourced content multiple times from the article without consensus, as you did many times, qualifies as disruptive editing. I had the same discussion with editor @Adeletron 3030: about that phrase and we agreed to remove it entirely from the lead section because it's neither neutral nor accurate, since South Asian and Latin American liberal democracies have criticized the World Cup as well. As you just said, we're not here to right great wrongs, so there's no point to accuse the Western world alone of criticism. GenoV84 (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

GenoV84, you have been doing the same WP:disruptive editing to push your POV that you accuse others of doing. Cherry picking South Asian or Latin American sources critical of Qatar does not change the fact that reliable sources discuss these criticisms as primarily Western. You also consistently remove balance and context added to get the introduction closer to NPOV, on this article and at 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies. We have to make sure that we don't give WP:undue weight to opinions and characterizations that don't belong in the introduction to an article about the 2022 FIFA World Cup. إيان (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

@إيان: I didn't push any POV, quite the opposite. I reverted multiple disruptive edits by users who have repeatedly attempted to delete any mention of criticism of the current World Cup by different countries and of the Controversies section itself (including you, don't forget it: [13], [14], [15]); therefore, don't point the finger at me when you have engaged in the same disruptive behavior without justification as other vandals did on this article ([16], [17], [18]). As I said above, me and @Adeletron 3030: agreed to rewrite the paragraph in the lead section about the controversies due to non-neutral, polemical, and blatantly false personal opinions written by the same users who have repeatedly attempted to delete any mention of criticism of the current World Cup by different countries (including you, don't forget it: [19], [20], [21]), such as those phrases that imply accusation towards the Western world alone of "racist" or "orientalist" criticism, which are a blatant violation of the policies WP:GEOBIAS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT; moreover, reporting something like that on an encyclopedia is a completely false and ludicrous statement, since several countries in different parts of the world (including the East) have criticized the tournament for the same reasons as Western countries did (human rights violations, bribery, corruption, slavery, migrant workers' death toll, ecc.) There's no point to accuse the Western world alone of criticism when everyone else (including international human rights organizations, non-Western media, and the LGBT community) did exactly the same thing. GenoV84 (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Controversy section

Isn't the controversy section a bit cumbersome? Since we already have a separate page covering the controversies, shouldn't we just link to the page and split off or greatly reduce the section?--Ortizesp (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes. إيان (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Advance to knockout stage

Two teams in each group are highlighted in green with a note advance to knockout stage (Section: 2022 FIFA World Cup#Group stage). Have these two teams per group already advanced to knockout stage? 134.36.244.75 (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@If you have a suggested edit or believe there’s incorrect information or the formatting breaks Wikipedia conventions, please let us know. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Two teams from each group are shown in green in this section. If they haven't already advanced to knockout stage, I suggest removing the green colour. 134.36.244.75 (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

This is already an established consensus to leave the colours as is regardless of active status. If this is still a concern, please bring it up at WT:FOOTY. Jalen Folf (talk) 19:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

​​It may be established practice, but it is misleading; it implies there is some pre-tournament way to advance to the knockout stage. WikiProject discussions should not trump WP:READERSFIRST. (This was brought up again below.) —  AjaxSmack  16:22, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree, it looks silly and potentially misleading to have "advance to knockout stage" against Spain before they have even played a game...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:29, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

It is reasonably standard in football league tables to indicate that certain positions qualify for some further progress (e.g. the current Premier League table on BBC has dotted lines to split up the table. The table functionality on WP goes a bit further and allows these positions to be coloured and have text added to indicate what the division means. Once a team has confirmed progress, this is added by a letter after the team name, and has been like this for years. These tables are not just used for football tournaments, but across many sports. There needs to be some way to show potential further progress on the tables but it may need to be reworded. Spike 'em (talk) 16:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Fine for "football league tables" &c., but Wikipedia is a general reference work with a different audience and purpose (nb WP:AUDIENCE). —  AjaxSmack  16:47, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

If no country in a group has played yet, it should feature no green fields, and all the position fields should either be empty or say N for not applicable. Once the first game has taken place, both teams can be ranked first and second and color green, while the other teams in the group should still say N. Any other solution implies some countries that have not competed yet would qualify while others would not, or that multiple teams that all have not played yet somehow have an inherent ranking beyond alphabetical order. Its not just confusing, the information the table is providing is just wrong otherwise. It makes it seem like there is a ranking when there in fact isn't one yet. --jonas (talk) 23:09, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The green coloring is useful to show who would advance at the current moment. 18:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.152.48 (talk)

I've seen this discussed a lot, which clearly suggests there's something not right. My suggestion is to change "advances to knockout stage" to say "position advances to knockout round", and then change to "advanced to knockout round" once the group stage is over. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

I mean the article also pretty clearly shows that not all matches have been played. What is the confusion here? Do we seriously need to wait until the end of the group stage to include that the top two teams qualify to the knockout stage? Do we seriously need to indicate that the team has not yet qualified in the current position when it is clear that not all matches have been played? Who is confused at all by this? Jay eyem (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Consensus was gained on the exact formatting of these tables a number of years ago when Module:Sports table was introduced. I don't find it misleading, but if any changes were to be made, a larger discussion should take place beforehand. S.A. Julio (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Jay eyem: Just as the host nation gets an automatic berth, it could be surmised by someone in someone in Wikipedia's general audience that there are other ways to advance to the knockout stage or that the qualification process has changed since 2018 &c. "Everybody knows" or "we've always done it this way" or "a lot of football editors like this format" are all poor reasons to ignore WP:READERSFIRST. The fact that four editors brought up the same issue shows it is not an idle concern. —  AjaxSmack  03:25, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, I feel to see what is complicated about this. The tables clearly show that the top two teams advance to the knockout round. The tables are then clearly followed by a list of matches that have clearly not finished. Do we also need to explicitly state that 3 points are awarded for a win, with 0 for a loss and one for a draw? Do we need to explain what a draw IS? Hell, do we need to explain that a win is when one team scores more goals than the other?? Honestly, who is genuinely confused by this? If you really feel passionately about this, and want to write out, in detail, all the mechanics and tiebreakers in its own section at the beginning of an article, including that the top two teams go through, then be my guest, because I think expecting a little bit of basic knowledge on a tournament format that is older than Wikipedia itself does not mean that the article is not "useful" for readers (also, continuing to reference an essay rather than a policy or even a guideline is really not productive to this conversation). Jay eyem (talk) 04:47, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the revision history for the article. Before this conversation was revived, there is prose at the beginning of the group stage section that clearly states "Competing countries were divided into eight groups of four teams (groups A to H). Teams in each group are playing one another in a round-robin, with the top two teams advancing to the knockout stage." So I further fail to see why highlighting the top two spots in green when it is explicitly stated that the top two teams advance in the round robin stage go through is not "useful" to the reader. Jay eyem (talk) 04:55, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

A team could in theory qualify before all matches have been played. Sure, if you look at all the data (at this moment) you can figure out that the highlighting cannot possibly mean that the 2 teams have qualified. But reading a standings table shouldn't require that much thought. The current format is misleading. Rcaetano (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth noting that a lot of readers don't read the prose, which, whilst not ideal is expected. Knowing exactly what positions you need to be in to progress (is it the top team, is it the top two, are there something for third, etc) is pretty important information. The issue is that it can get reasonably complicated before the event finishes. This is the same module that does quite complicated league systems, so I'll potentially put my own thoughts at WT:FOOTY when I get a few minutes for a demo. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:13, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Came here to report the same issue. Whatever much Talk is done here, the information is wrong. "Advance to knockout stage". Why can't someone wrote something with a Readers Eye? DePiep (talk) 12:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

You'll all have to excuse me for not reading the whole thread, but I feel like a simple fix is changing "Advance to knockout stage" with "Top 2 advance to knockout stage". And we have X and * and other markers for teams that clinch qualification, right? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 16:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that is the simplest solution. There are markers to add when a team does get enough points to progress, or lose too many to go forward, which are then cleared off once the tournament is older. Part of this tidy up can then change the wording to "Advanced to knockout stage". Spike 'em (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

And could just as easily temporarily remove the green colour at the same time if consensus is to do that before any games are played. Spike 'em (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the colours and such, so long as it states that the formatting only applies when the matches are all played. I'd suggest starting with "Position advances to knockout stage", then changes to "Advanced to knockout stage" when all matches are played. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:07, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Lee Vilenski. I don't think there is quite as much confusion as is being made out. The colours denote what happens to a team and that is explained in the end column. I do think any confusion would be cleared up by changing the wording though to make sure readers understand that it is conditional on future events and may change which the suggested wording would do. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally find it confusing. I thought certain teams were advancing when they weren't, and only figured out the table was wrong because I saw another table where the teams were shown as advancing before they'd played any games, and then remembered the same confusion from 4 years ago. I'd support removing the green color and the 'advancing' wording in the top two rows until the advancing teams are actually decided. The teams can be ordered according to points in the meantime, but on a solid grey background. — kwami (talk) 08:35, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Changing the wording to "Top two advance to knockout stage" from "Advance to knockout stage" would clarify this and would be simple to implement. Please see Template talk:2022 FIFA World Cup group tables#Suggest changing text to "Top two advance...". Facts707 (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the proposal by user:Spike 'em, which is unambiguous. We need something to clearly distinguish a provisional ranking from an actual advance.

I personally find it confusing. The problem is that the tables are factually wrong. The argument to keep is that it's acceptable for WP to peddle falsehoods if we expect our readers will understand that they're falsehoods. The problem is that a lot of people like me won't understand that. It took me some time to figure out that the teams shown as advancing weren't actually advancing.

The current display may or may not be confusing depending on how far the match has proceeded. As of today, Group A of the FIFA World Cup is quite confusing. We show Netherlands and Ecuador, each with 3 pts, advancing to the knockout stage, and Senegal and Qatar, each with 0 pts, not advancing. When I look at that table on its own, I conclude that Netherlands and Ecuador are so far ahead that the group has already been called, much as winning candidates in elections are called before all the votes are counted, because at that point their competitors can't possibly win. If I follow politics more than soccer, then I'm likely to conclude that the Group A match has already been called. (In fact, that is what I concluded, before I saw the other tables and reconsidered.) Maybe the remaining games are just to decide who's in 3rd and 4th place, like what happens after the semi-finals.

Group G and H, as of yesterday, were not confusing. All teams had 0 points, yet two were already shown as advancing. The obvious conclusion is that some idiot filled out the table wrong, and by extension that WP coverage of the World Cup is incompetent and not to be relied on.

Either possibility is bad: either readers come away with a false understanding of the match, or conclude that Wikipedia is not to be trusted. Soccer fans may understand that that's just how things are done, but new people attracted to soccer by the coverage of the World Cup may be put off.

I vaguely remember the same thing from the last World Cup. I'm not a soccer fan. Yet I am curious which teams are advancing during the WC, because I know how important it is to some countries, so I only visit these articles every 4 years. Then I look at the tables and am confused by why some teams are advancing. If I were only checking up on a single country, and thus a single group, I would likely not notice the discrepancy. I'd then be confused later when that country did not advance after Wikipedia said it had already advanced. It shouldn't be this difficult to interpret a simple table. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Kwamikagami has said it far better than I could. :) Double sharp (talk) 23:44, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both Spike 'em and User talk:Adeletron 3030, the backgrounds should stay white until a team is advancing (green) or won't advance (lightgray [new]). Wordings: "Final top two advance to knockout stage", "Advances to knockout stage", "May advance", "Will not advance" (currently marked as E). It looks good in a test but I don't know how to upload a screenshot. What does everyone think? Facts707 (talk) 09:29, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Anything accurate is better than what we have now, per what kwami said. Double sharp (talk) 21:18, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

User:Facts707: That sounds good. I only hope that, although the issue is moot (US) this round, it can be applied the next time around. —  AjaxSmack  20:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Support I agree with the new white → grey color change, and your changes in wording sound good, though I don't understand what "may advance" would mean, or how we would choose which countries "may" advance. But please don't let that presumably minor point hold up implementing the change. — kwami (talk) 18:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Minor point on "matches played"

Since all group matches are played on the same day (accept for the opening day match), I believe it's ok to write 'updated to matches played on' without the brackets around the 'es'. I am not making any changes at this time.2607:FEA8:2422:7000:34E6:D59:E26E:F91A (talk) 18:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

That is something coded into Module:Sports table and cannot be changed by anyone who is not a template editor, as it would require a change to the Lua code. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Byron Castillo controversy

Byron Castillo played a lot of matches for Ecuador in the qualifications stages using a false passport. Despite this Ecuador did not get disqualified from the 2022 World Cup. This should be added to either the qualifications section or the controversies section.

• https://www.sportingnews.com/us/soccer/news/ecuador-ban-world-cup-2022-disqualified-fifa-chile-byron-castillo/cludb9lrcmarvi5yb8aa27ef

(Fran Bosh (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2022 (UTC))

Not true. His Ecuadorian passport was and still is authentic and legally valid. He was therefore properly eligible in the games in question, hence why they were not disqualified. The only thing that was determined, was that some information in the passport was incorrect (mainly his birthplace). But that didn’t void Ecuador’s authorities having properly declared him a citizen of Ecuador. Just read the CAS ruling. The complaining focussed too much on his birthplace.Tvx1 21:57, 30 November 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:

• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 06.jpg (discussion)
• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 10.jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2022

I'm not Canadian, but I think it's unfair that there's an (E) or eliminated note beside the name of Canada in the group stage section. I don't see that (E) note beside Qatar's name, even though they were the first who got eliminated. Hope you understand my point. Thanks! G0ddessdianna87 (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

REMOVE THE (E) NOTE NEXT TO CANADA'S NAME AT GROUP STAGE SECTION

I'm not Canadian, but I think it's unfair that there's an (E) or eliminated note beside the name of Canada in the group stage section. I don't see that (E) note beside Qatar's name, even though they were the first who got eliminated. Hope you understand my point. Thanks! G0ddessdianna87 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Qatar's group is now over, so there are no need for these tags. Canada are mathematically eliminated, but the rest of the group is not. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference of mathematically eliminated to those who were eliminated before and after Canada? I don't get the point. Sorry! G0ddessdianna87 (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The reason is because of the way teams are confusingly displayed for advancement even though group play isn't finished. When group play is finished (each team has played 3 games) there's no need for the (E) for eliminated since only the top two will advance. But if group play is still on-going, teams that has no chance to advance (Qatar earlier for example and Canada) despite having games left are tagged with the (E) to denote not having a path to advance. It's not to 'mark' teams but more to makeup for the lack of clarity in how group ranking is display. Conversely the top two nations in group shouldn't automatically be shown with 'Advance to knockout stage' from day 1 until status has been confirmed. Mad Dog Fargo (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Group stages map

The group stages map that is being used (File:2022_world_cup.png) at 2022_FIFA_World_Cup#Knockout_stage is incorrect as it has all countries not at the finals being greyed out as "Failed to qualify". Tonga, Samoa, Vanuatu, North Korea, Saint Lucia, American Samoa, and Cook Islands all withdrew, Russia were suspended, while Greenland, Vatican, Micronesia, and a host of others are not even FIFA members. Can the map be updated so as not to include such inaccuracies? Cheers. Bob247 (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Great point! I marked the gray in the legend as "Did not qualify or did not (fully) participate" – we could mark "withdrew", "suspended", "not a FIFA member" in other colors but I think that's overkill and distracting. Facts707 (talk) 09:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

"Concussion substitute"

Iranian goalkeeper Alireza Beiranvand became the first concussion substitute in World Cup history -- firstly, this is verbatim a subtitle of the cited source, so I believe the burden is upon us to paraphrase these things rather than copy-pasting from the news. Secondly, does this make grammatical sense? A "substitute" is a person who stands in for someone who is unable to perform. Therefore, if Beiranvand was taken out of play, he is not a substitute himself, but the player who comes in and covers for him becomes the first substitute. I don't know what you'd call Beiranvand but I wouldn't call him a "substitute" on this basis. I can't say I have ever heard of the news outlet "LondonWorld" but shoddy reporting like this puts a bad taste in my mouth. What are other sources saying? Elizium23 (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that we shouldn't be copying sources verbatim, the term "concussion substitute" is what it's called (see [22]. Might I suggest Iranian goalkeeper Alireza Beiranvand was replaced by Hossein Hosseini after suffering a concussion. This was the first use of a dedicated concussion substitute during a World Cup. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:23, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it should be substitution rather than substitute. Tvx1 17:19, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

I updated the article per Lee's suggestion mostly: "...suffered a concussion in his country's opening match against England and was replaced by Hossein Hosseini. This was the first use of a dedicated concussion substitute during a World Cup." Thanks to all. Facts707 (talk) 10:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

FIFA match reports

It looks as if the automatic linking to FIFA match reports needs to come with some form of health warning. Looking at Saudi Arabia-Argentina, they do get the final score right in the first line, but then its a mess. The scorer of the second goal is missing in the very next line. Conversely the third goal is completely missing from the so-called live blog - did the blogger take a toilet break? That FIFA report is also linked from the Group C page. I have no idea whether this is an isolated example, but FIFA have already had two days to correct at least the first issue. Davidships (talk) 21:01, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Seems okay now, although they spelled Al-Shehri as "ALSHEHRI". They also always place later goals before earlier ones by the same team "SALEM 53'

ALSHEHRI 48' ". I also see you have to press a down arrow button to see all the goals. Thanks for bringing that up, Facts707 (talk) 10:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Drop down for group matches hides the match time in the App version of Wikipedia

When browsing through the upcoming games in a given group, in the App version of Wikipedia (at least this is true on iOS), I think the text, More information, should be removed, if possible, as it causes most of the rest of the text, including, in particular, the time of the match, to be hidden behind an ellipsis. Anyway the little caret at the right of the dropdown makes it clear that you just need to tap to see more. I don’t see what usefulness is added by the More information text.

See the image below for what I mean.

Image showing More information text that dominates dropdowns in the app.

I’d be happy to do this but it seems like some sort of widget and it’s not clear to me that it can be edited directly. Am I right about this? If so, would someone with access to hose widgets be able to fix it? M cuffa (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I suspect this is an issue with the app rather than this page (or the modules that are indirectly invoked). I had a look at the source of Module:Sports table and Module:Football box and could not find the text "More information". Not sure where to go to get that changed, sorry. Spike 'em (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@M cuffa Yeah I noticed this too MatsLP (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

@M cuffa Perhaps you should write a review and let them acknowledge the issue on the Play Store's Wikipedia app page. MatsLP (talk) 19:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

This happens in the Android app as well. Not just the match date and time, but also e.g. "20 November 2022 19:00.....Al Bayt Stadium, Al Khor Attendance: 67,372 Referee: Daniele Orsato (Italy)" is all missing. Facts707 (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

What on earth is match time doing in our article in the first place? That has to be the ultimate, non-encyclopaedic trivia. HiLo48 (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Match date and time are encyclopedic and are often useful to see which of two games was played first, if a game was played during, before or after some other major event like an earthquake nearby, etc. Facts707 (talk) 10:45, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Canada eliminated

Canada has been eliminated from World cup, so let's put (E) next to there name in the table 2603:8000:1801:6500:1996:AAD3:71F8:D52 (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

To delete without previous discussion

I just undoed a data wipe. Except for cases of obvious vandalism, I think it would be good not to delete the information added by another contributor without discussing the case on this page. Something especially recommended on issues that may be controversial, so we avoid edition wars.--Noventamilcientoveinticinco (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

• We can't discuss every single edit on the talk page. You can make an argument for it here, but I happen to agree with User:Wroclaw2468. Drmies (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

2 own goals

As described in the sub-section, there have been two own-goals that have been scored so far in the World Cup. However, the section heading states that only 1 own-goal has been scored. Not sure if it's misinformation, or just a mistake by the editor. Halaby18 (talk) 00:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Not quite what that sub-heading is implying. It is showing the number of players that have scored one own goal, not the total number of own goals. By contrast, there are five players that have each scored three goals listed at the top, where it says "3 goals", not because three goals have been scored, but because each of those players have scored three goals. Hopefully that clarifies what is written. Jay eyem (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay, gotcha. When I saw '1 own goal' I just thought that it meant only one own goal had been scored.

This one's on me. Halaby18 (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

File:2022 world cup.png

File:2022 world cup.png is missing the shading for Costa Rica. Pinging @Argybz: who appears to updating the map. I would do it myself, but don't know how. SSSB (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The bench available to the coach for a match

The summary of each one the games of the tournament on Wikipedia is thorough and amazing, like everything else on WP. Kudos! But I just realized that it lists only the substitutions made, not the entire roster of substitutes that were available to the coach at the beginning of a specific game, but were not used by him/her for some reason. Would it be too hard to try and add that important feature (in my own view at least...) to the current templates used? In my view again, that would be a worthwhile improvement to the overall game summary currently available on WP. Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 17:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about listing each teams full roster or something like that? --Malerooster (talk) 18:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

No. That is available on WP and it is fine. In the game extended summary in the groups page (on the bottom left), under the starting line-up we have a "substitutions" sub-header that describes what substitions were made throughout the game. I am saying that the sub-header should be "substitutes," instead of "substitutions," and it should include the complete roster that was available to the coach at the beginning of that match. On TV, Fox Sports is not even aware of this feature. On the web, only the ESPN soccer site has that available in their summary (even though you can never find the name of the coach of the team on that site's summary... Oh, well. That's what Wikipedia is here for, in my view, i.e., completeness and accuracy.) Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:23, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

But the full list of people available are the players who were part of the squad - this isn't like domestic football where you have to name possible substitutes. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, no. The complete bench available to the coach for a specific match does not include injured or sick players, suspended players, and also players absent from the bench for that specific match for some other reason. Look at the UEFA Champions League matches on TV, or on the ESPN site as I said, for exampes of this important feature (in the summary section there). Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:33, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

The current standard on Wikipedia is to only list the substitutions made for international matches. Listing the (usual) 15 substitutes for all 64 matches would be quite cumbersome. The full squad lists and tournament suspensions can be found at 2022 FIFA World Cup squads and 2022 FIFA World Cup#Discipline, respectively, while the linked FIFA match reports also include the full bench. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:47, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Also thank you for the tip on the linked FIFA match reports. I had forgotten about that additional external source, that can also be accessed directly from Wikipedia. Kudos again! warshy ^(¥¥) 22:10, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to list every player available. That is present under the squads article/report. Kante4 (talk) 19:10, 2 December 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:

• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 06 (cropped).jpg (discussion)
• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 10 (cropped).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:51, 3 December 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:

• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 11.jpg (discussion)
• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 16 (cropped).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrej Kramaric

please change ((Andrej Kramaric)) to ((Andrej Kramarić)) 2601:541:4580:8500:2525:E1E:22E0:779F (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:26, 3 December 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:

• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 04 (cropped).jpg (discussion)
• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 12 (cropped).jpg (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:36, 4 December 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:

• HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 05 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Costa Rica is not in colour on the map in the Group Stage section

It was forgot to mark Costa Rica in maroon (group stage) on the map: 2022 world cup - 2022 FIFA World Cup - Wikipedia 193.154.73.92 (talk) 21:16, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks fine now. Facts707 (talk) 05:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Why South Korea ?

For the Group H, it should be nice to add some comment to explain why South Korea and not Uruguay team qualified for the second place in the group. There are rules for tiebreak, and it would be nice to add some details in the article for this very situation. M.Karelin (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, they tied against each other. Have the same amount of goals for & goals against, after each playing three games. So what's the tie-breaker? GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

The tie-break criteria are at the top of the group stage section.

Spike 'em (talk) 09:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I will clarify here. When two teams tied on points, the first tiebreaker was goal differential. Since both KOR and URU had the same goal differential, the second tiebreaker was goals scored in all group matches. KOR scored 4 goals while URU scored 2, therefore KOR won the tiebreaker. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Not they don’t have the same goals for and the same against. Tvx1 14:59, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

France's past flag in 2018 FIFA WC

To, S. A. Julio

Do the same with all the previous FIFA WC events what you did here, because those articles are using that past flag of France RealSirSavage (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@RealSirSavage: Since those tournaments the flag has changed, see Flag of France#Design. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:10, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

See the further contents of that article and its talk page. Both versions are still officially valid and in use.Tvx1 15:08, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Per Talk:France#RFC regarding the flag, the "navy blue" flag is now the preferred version, hence why it is the default for Template:Country data France. There is no reason to go against this consensus. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Stadium pictures

Over the last few days the venues section has been a carousel of pictures coming and going. Therefore I'm starting this discussion to generate a collaborative effort to finally create an acceptable gallery of pictures of the stadiums. The main issue is Qatar not having a freedom of panaroma. As result we only have two options to include pictures here.

1. Pictures of the stadium's interiors which do NOT show copyrighted architecture.
2. Fair use pictures of the stadiums exteriors directly uploaded to English Wikipedia.

Any help to acquire such pictures is welcome. Tvx1 22:04, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Option 2 is not acceptable, as the only fair use of a stadium image would be on the article about the stadium, not anywhere on this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:NFTABLE is the relevant policy for fair use images. We can use freely licensed photos that are uploaded here, but not copyrighted photographs.

Question: would File:HK 中環 Central 租庇利街 Jubilee Street 中環街市 Central Market mall sign 足球世界杯 FIFA World Football Cup 模型 展覽 exhibition 足球場館 stadiums November 2022 Px3 12 (cropped).jpg, currently listed for deletion on Commons, be appropriate for our purposes if it were uploaded locally? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 22:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

The only issue in relation to uploading images of any of the stadiums right now relates to current laws in the Middle East, especially in Qatar. commons:COM:FOP Qatar has the answer for images uploaded to Commons, although I don't know if there's an equivalent policy here on enwiki. Jalen Folf (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Excessive attendance statistics?

There is currently a section on the ten highest-attended matches in the tournament, is this really necessary? Such a table was never included on previous tournament articles, and attendance numbers for each match are already included on the article. It seems excessive to include this table on the article per WP:NOTSTATS, detailed statistical information has already been split to 2022 FIFA World Cup statistics, and any attendance records can be summarised in prose. However, one user seems insistent on restoring the section to the page. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There seems no reason to separate this information and make it appear twice in such an extensive articles. I’m unsure why an arbitrary “top 10” would be useful to anyone. I would suspect by the end of the tournament the top 10-15 games will all have marginally similar attendance anyway. It would be removed. Jo Jc Jo (talk) 00:31, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, not needed here. -Koppapa (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Quarterfinal Dates

The dates say the 9th and 10th but they are a day too early. 2001:1970:4F40:B300:0:0:0:1196 (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The official calendar says the dates are correct: https://digitalhub.fifa.com/m/7aefe2d8cee025b2/original/FWC-2022-Match-Schedule-281122.pdf Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

So many templates

Does 2022 FIFA World Cup really need to have the following templates on the bottom: {{2022 FIFA World Cup finalists}}, {{2022 FIFA World Cup stadiums}}, {{2022 FIFA World Cup referees}}? All of these are more specific topics than this general article. Also, {{List of football stadiums in Asia}} is so tangentially related it's pointless. There's way too many templates at the bottom of this article to be useful. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed {{List of football stadiums in Asia}}. I was going to remove the other three templates you mention, but then saw previous world cup articles also have them, so it might be better to have a centralised discussion. Unless anyone wants to boldly remove them, which I wouldn't oppose. Vpab15 (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Expansion tag on LGBT - time to take down?

There are 14 paragraphs on LGBT issues, including one about a publicity stunt by a British comedian. Surely it's about time that the expansion tag comes off it, as it would make casual readers think this is a vastly ignored work in progress. In comparison, there are only eight paragraphs about group stage matches. I don't see why there's an expansion tag on LGBT but not on women (two paragraphs), when there are quite likely many more women fans than LGBT and the article is saying that Qatar persecutes women too. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:45, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the Expansion template. I agree the section is too long and a lot of the content is either already in 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies or it should be moved there. Vpab15 (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Missing Match Summaries

For the knockout stage rounds, there is a match summary for the Spain-Morocco match (the most recent match), however, it is missing summaries for the Brazil-South Korea, Japan-Croatia, and Portugal-Switzerland matches. When summaries for these matches are added, please remember to put them in the correct order. Halaby18 (talk) 00:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Time zone missing

Kickoff-times do not have any time zone indication. This is an omission. (And no, "see section X second line says ..." is not the right way to do it). DePiep (talk) 10:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This could be done for all matches, Template:football box shows an example using "CEST" after the time in the "time" parameter. Personally I like the idea but am not inclined to do it myself at this point. Also I don't see why the time can't be beside the date rather than on the next line. Stadium too for that matter. Thanks for bringing this up. Facts707 (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually this was done in 2018 FIFA World Cup, so if anyone wants to add "AST (UTC+3)" after the time in the group subarticles, that should be fine (the "matches" in the group subarticles are copied here automatically). Facts707 (talk) 11:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nice solution. Elsewhere I could be bold, but since I do not get why other obvious improvements like § Advance to knockout stage (signaling wrong teams) are not implemented for opaque reasons, I won't edit this one either. DePiep (talk) 11:59, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

It does say "All times are local, AST (UTC+3)." Above the matches, which whilst I'd prefer it to be in prose, seems suitable enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

As I wrote in OP: no, not suitable because I missed it. "But it is somewhere else so OK" is bad Reader-perception. DePiep (talk) 13:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to repeat the same time zone 64 times, it can be mentioned at the top of the sections. The 2018 tournament was played in multiple time zones, which is not the case for this tournament. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with S.A. Julio, repeating the same timezone 64 times is ridiculous, as every match is in the same time zone. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Can we agree to add the timezone hatnote to the Group stage and Round of 16 sections as suggested by S.A. Julio and then add the timezone to each match in the quarter-finals, semi-finals, third-place, and final matches? These are the most notable and important matches and are most likely to be viewed before and after the fact by readers without reading the previous sections. In addition those sections can be accessed from the Bracket without viewing the earlier stages. Also the final match is a separate article. Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 06:55, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The hatnote is sensible to be added to each section. Much more sensible than repeating the timezone 64 times. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

A hatnote for the group and knockout stage sections seems fine, I do not think anything more would be necessary. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2022

146 goals have been scored. You are 2 out 195.166.201.156 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: No, there have been 148 goals. S.A. Julio (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Transliteration issue not fully resolved yet; yet someone has already removed clarification tag

The article contains:

”الآن هو كل شيء‎

Al-ʾāna huwa kul-lu shayʾ”

I had asked for clarification: and a reply has been given by Nori2001 (whom I thank for replying):

”Why is there a hyphen in kul-lu? (Because this particular phrase is read this way and that requires for the l to be connected to both ku and the u). And why is it within the root, i.e. among the the three root consonants k-l-l? If there were to be a hyphen at all, I would only expect it between the root kull and the declension ending u. (In Arabic most times the words are written in their root form, however Arabs know how to read them without a problem, so I wrote the complete way how it is read for easier understanding for the rest of the world who don't know how to read Arabic without the symbols above or below the letters, for confirmation that this is the correct way this phrase is transliterated you can check: https://transliterate.arabicalphabet.net/?text=%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A2%D9%86%20%D9%87%D9%88%20%D9%83%D9%84%20%D8%B4%D9%8A%D8%A1&action=transliteration”

From the explanation I understand the hyphen is to do with the pronunciation, more in particular the syllabization. But then I would have expected:

”Al-ʾā-na hu-wa kul-lu shayʾ”

So the current hyphenation seems illogical in part.

Moreover, the reference provided does not seem to give the explanation announced by Nori2001, since the website gives:

”ạl̊ậna hūa kulũ sẖaẙʾiⁿ”

where I fail to see any hyphenation.

Nori2001 refers to the (one) l that should be connected both to the left and to the right, whereas as far as my knowledge goes there is not just one l but two l’s, one of them hidden only since shaddah has been omitted.

Anyhow, I would only have expected a hyphen after “Al”, according to e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:About_Arabic. Arguably the hyphen in kullu is spurious and not part of the transliteration.

Also, the clarification was hidden so soon that reasonably I had not had a good chance to read, reply to and assess Nori2001’s response before myself deciding whether I would agree to removing the tag. Please allow for a reasonable time (a week?) after any meaningful response has been submitted for the author of a tag to assess the response. Or ping the author.

In short: I welcome the transliteration with vowels; I can see no pronunciation problems for Latin-alphabet readers if the hyphen in kullu is omitted; and I suggest that hyphen be removed.

Any substantiated objections?Redav (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

• It's a bit odd, because that's not really what captions are for - they are supposed to explain either what's in the image, or something about how the image and article are related. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:11, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nori2001: I saw the removal of the hyphen, but I wonder why you also removed an l.

I know there are various ways of transcribing Arabic-script Arabic-language text into Latin script. And I have read [23]: “Modern Arabic is always written with the i‘jām—consonant pointing, but only religious texts, children's books and works for learners are written with the full tashkīl—vowel guides and consonant length.”

Now, starting from the slogan:

”الآن هو كل شيء‎”

I can see two “logical” (according to me) ways of transcribing the Arabic would be:

1. one Latin-alphabet sign for each Arabic sign (i.e. transliteration);
2. one Latin-alphabet sign for each Arabic sign assuming it were fully pointed after having “translated” the pointing into its meaning, e.g. lām shaddah = lām lām, etc. (i.e. one particular kind of transcription), and under adding capitals where appropriate and hyphens between main words and their clitics (like articles, one-letter prepositions, pronouns).

The first would give something similar to:

• alān hw kl šayʾ

This is actually a transliteration and that has clearly not been your choice.

The second kind of transcription would give (something similar to):

• Al-ʾāna huwa kullu šayʾ

Your current transcription is somewhat different, in using one l in kullu, two Latin letters sh instead of š for one Arabic letter, and a hyphen where there is none in Arabic (and where there are no two word parts or two words to be connected, nor a clitic).

I fail to see the logic of your choice … or maybe I should say: failed, since I am starting to suspect that with your explanation: “Because this particular phrase is read this way and that requires for the l to be connected to both ku and the u”, you may actually have meant to express what I would express as: “Because the l is geminated and because speakers of English usually do not pronounce double l as a geminated (i.e. lengthened) l.”

=> Is my suspicion correct?

I had not come across the use of a hyphen to indicate gemination ever before, and I do not think it is customary. That said, kul-lu to me is still better than kulu. The use of sh for š, though, does occur more often. But I propose the second transcription above.Redav (talk) 04:03, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I can also refer to https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/كل and https://en.m.wiktionary.org/wiki/شيء and other Wiktionary pages, all of which support transcribing as “Al-ʾāna huwa kullu šayʾ”.Redav (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I only wrote "kulu" so it can be distinguished from kullu since, L and LL are pronounced differently in Arabic for example: LL is pronounced like in the word "late", and L is pronounced more smoothly like how the French pronounce "le" in their language.

So I thought that most readers who are not familiar with the language would would read kullu as in the word "late", so that's the only reason.

However I agree with your assessment, and the only improvement that I suggest is that the word "šay" be written as "shay" since š is mostly used in Slavic countries and in their languages and the rest of the world might not be as familiar that the letter š simply represents sh.

Other than that, I think this "issue" has been resolved. Nori2001 (talk) 16:21, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Nori2001:: Thanks for giving more explanation!

As to the (English) pronunciation of l, I would like to refer to:

• https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/late#English: pronunciation for “late” is indicated in IPA as /leɪt/;
• https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/will: pronunciation for “will” is indicated in IPA as /wɪl/, [wɪɫ].

There is already an indication here that in English l is (or may be) pronounced differently before and after a same-syllable vowel (plain or light l vs. velarized or dark ɫ) in e.g. Received Pronunciation (RP). (I say indication, because it seems that velarization of English l is not consistently indicated in Wiktionary.) This is also mentioned in English phonology, section Sonorants.

From e.g. Arabic phonology I understand that Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) has plain / clear l everywhere except in a few words. I therefore presume you would wish to guide the reader of English to the plain / clear pronunciation of l, which is the same as in the RP pronunciation of English “late”.

Writing “kul-lu” might actually lead the reader to (try to) pronounce a velarized l plus a plain l in quick succession. From the perspective indicated above, I fail to follow your analysis.

But English - as Arabic - has many dialects, or even vernacular varieties. So I wonder which ones you are referring to.

As to the transcription letter š, readers of English may indeed not be (all that) familiar with it. But the same holds true for other signs you yourself have already used, to wit ʾ, i.e. the glottal stop, as well as ā.

Given that:

1. not all Arabic sounds can be completely accurately represented by English letter signs anyway;
2. there are (internationally known) football players whose written name contains š: Josip Šimunić, Martin Škrtel, Dario Šimić, so quite a few football fans may actually know something about how to pronounce š;
3. DIN 31635 (using both ʾ and š) is a well-established transcription method which gives a one-to-one correspondence of letters when full pointing of Arabic is considered,

I would still prefer š over sh.

But I would not (propose to) revert sh to š as long as it seems to be part of a consistent transcription method, since I can see an understandable reasoning for it about readability for English readers, which I consider a valid consideration in this context.Redav (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2022 (UTC)