Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 December 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to 2022 FIFA World Cup.

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 5 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Allow editing

When can we edit the article? Simon 1996 (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Simon 1996: Any editor who is auto-confirmed can edit the article, as it is only under semi-protection until October 1, 2022. After that point, the article will be automatically unprotected. Also, please try to add new sections to the bottom of talk pages, not to the top. You can accomplish this most easily by clicking "New section" at the top of the talk page. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Creation?

It appears Russia 2018 has been over for almost 2 months now. Is there a timetable on this article's recreation? 2601:589:8000:2ED0:8493:743A:BBA0:DCEE (talk) 00:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support: most of the required information is available.--Sakiv (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorers module

I have replaced the Goalscorers template with a module that works a similar way. I was unsure of how I could replace the number of goals with the actual total goals scored, so I left the note in lieu of my lack of knowledge with module coding. Is there any way I or anyone else can improve it?

Pinging S.A. Julio as the creator of the AFC goalscorers module to this discussion. Feel free to ping anyone else to this thread as well. Jalen Folf (talk) 00:14, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf, Jts1882, and S.A. Julio: It seems that we do not really need a module for this article. I had a discussion in Julio's talk page a few months ago,[1] in which we agreed to use modules for confederal qualifications, because they proved useful in that case. We do not have to visit multiple 'Goalscorers' sections anymore, just update the modules' data, then they will generate lists in all pages. Meanwhile, the world qualification and the interconfederal playoffs are standalone pages, here the module has few/no advantages over the template.
The more important issue here is some small technical problems of the AFC module. Firstly, when we set a minimum goal value to shorten the list, it only counts goals scored by the remaining players. Secondly, bold feature in round/group articles is undesirable (it is needed in confederal main pages only), but we cannot turn it off. Also, the CAF module is yet to be made (we are using templates there). Centaur271188 (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The |bold=no should now work to override active players.

I agree that it is better not to use the module for the whole world cup qualifying. The confederation qualifying competitions have their own pages and it would either need duplication in confederation and whole world module data pages or an extra level of code to merge them all. The module is complicated enough as it is. I also suspect it may not flexible enough to handle the Oceania and Asia qualifying (I can't remember if more than one group stage can be handled).

It might be possible to use the module to help generate the page by substituting the template for each conference to generate wikitext code for each conference list. They could then be merged manually. Jts1882 | talk 10:16, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The goal count now counts all goals when a minimum for the list is set.

Looking at the code it might not be too difficult to merge data from several module data pages as the data selection and all the sorting and display are separate. The conferation data could be added using |data1=, |data2=, etc. However, this would only work if the module was used for all the confederation qualifying competitions. Jts1882 | talk 10:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: Thanks for fixing those small issues :) Sorry for not clarifying enough, we also need bold feature for this page. It seems like the current AFC module can take care of multiple group stages, we just count them as rounds and do not treat their groups separately. I think its structure is similar to the Euro 2020 qualifying module, and can be copied to all confederations; unfortunately I know almost nothing about programming templates and modules :( About merging data, please be noticed that if we plan to use modules for all confederal qualifications and the interconfederal playoffs, the playoffs module's data may overlap AFC-CONCACAF-CONMEBOL-OFC ones. Centaur271188 (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These little issues do creep in as features get added. The module is far more complex than I imagined when we first discussed it. If you see other issues raise them at the module talk page.

Quite a few things need to be done if we are to have all world cup qualification goalscorers handled by the module. It's not quite as easy as I said above, but shouldn't be too difficult. However, it would require module data pages for all the confederations. If we do decide to do the merge, it will involving passing several data pages to the module instead of just one. The play-off games can be placed in a separate module and added to the appropriate confederation (with special handling to identify players with their confederation). Anyway, there is no rush for this, but if someone sets up the African qualifying page I will try and do some experimenting in the sandbox when I have time. Jts1882 | talk 15:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: Another clarification: my point is we should keep playoffs data separately, instead of adding to confederations' records - logically, they are not a part of any confederal qualifications. Sorry again if my expression confused you :) Centaur271188 (talk) 16:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The updated and matches parameters do not work when we use templates, instead of invoking modules directly (see this article and CAF pages). Have they been merged so much that some changes in the module's code can affect the template? Centaur271188 (talk) 08:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The module generates the output in all cases, as requested in the merge/delete discussion and closure. It can use data stored in a module subpage or data provided by parameters. I had a typo in the code that meant |updated= wasn't working (I used 'update') when parameters were supplied. It should be now. The matches parameter is used to calculate the average. Is the absence of "in x match(es)" what you are referring to? Jts1882 | talk 09:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jts1882: Yes, it is. Thanks again, everything is OK now. Centaur271188 (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good. I delayed updating the template to use the module because I was concerned that there were uses of the template that were different from the module version using data subpages or I had missed something. I have dropped a few parameters that weren't used (|bottom=, |bottom_text= and one with a single use (|intro=). If there is a need for some sort of footer information I can add something. Feel free to add any suggestions for improvement. It's much easier to make the changes in lua than in the template language (especially when repeated 30 times). Jts1882 | talk 12:46, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Russia banned

BBC website saying Russia is banned from the world cup - where is best to update that? 141.92.67.43 (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

News sites often publish exaggerated headlines to generate more views. This article has a better explanation. Russia can still enter World Cup qualifying, so unless FIFA announce otherwise, we should not be listing Russia as banned from qualifying. S.A. Julio (talk) 17:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy, FIFA has now officially banned Russia from the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This is the official statement. [2] This is what you wanted so you may now list Russia as BANNED, KICKED OUT, WIPED OUT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenny230 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grid Cartogram for qualification map

A grid cartogram (where each country gets equal size) might be an improvement over a more accurately geographical rendering of countries. A typical map rendering obviously assigns vastly more space to some countries than others for reasons that don't help in communicating anything about those countries. It's particularly noticeable this year, in which the only federation that's qualified so far (the host Qatar) is barely a pixel on a typical map. But maps have some benefits over lists as they're easier to digest quickly.

I've taken a shot at creating a grid cartogram of FIFA federations, which is roughly similar to other attempts to tile map the world here, but with the expected differences for FIFA (the home nations, Puerto Rico, no Monaco, etc) and using FIFA's 3-letter country codes. Here's the result, with the same coloration for qualification status that we have on the world map.

Leaving here for feedback. If there are no concerns I'll clean it up and swap it in for the existing qualification map at some point. Simianvector (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how this is an improvement. I think it would take a lot of explaination as just looking at this, it doesn't really explain what it is, or how it works. I'm not a fan of the map in the first place, as I'm not sure what you gain by knowing the geography of the countries for who has qualified is. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is enlargeable if clicked on, the box it has been placed in is just small. Its purpose is to show a quick view of the status of teams, and I don't think changing all the teams' representation in the graphic to the same uniform boxes with their country code would help most people distinguish most teams from one another. JenningsTheCrow (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. Sounds like in trying to bridge the gap between a map and a list the grid map ends up not doing a very good job at either. I still think a traditional map devoting 1000x more real estate to telling me whether Russia qualified than whether Wales qualified isn't a great reader experience, but I'll leave it for someone else to solve :). Simianvector (talk) 23:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The comment that "trying to bridge the gap between a map and a list the grid map ends up not doing a very good job at either" is spot-on; I do like it on a personal level, though - appeals to my way of thinking. There are many, many Wikipedia articles that use the existing format for all sorts of things, so I think it would need a lot of debate and a lot of traction at this football forum to be deemed acceptable as a change from the normal geographical representations throughout Wikipedia articles. Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the map

I wrote it on the file's talk page, however as the discussion there may be inactive I write it here. What if teams who officially qualified with games still to play are shown in a colour another than those who qualified and won't play new matches (similarly to teams eliminated with games to play)? For example, it may be dark green. I would even consider a separate colour scheme for Qatar as they're hosts and don't participate in qualifiers (purple, for example). Of course, when qualification tournament concludes, these colours will no longer be in use.--Joél be back (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At what point will a team be qualified with matches to play when other teams have qualified with no matches left to play? I think that most national teams qualify at close to the same point. Also, does it matter if they have matches to play? I'm not sure I understand, but I do appreciate the symmetry. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was quite useless when UEFA qualifying groups had 6 teams, but now they have 5, and there can be a situation in which a qualified team has a bye on matchday 8. Moreover, there is time zone difference between continents, thus even at previous qualifying tournaments, for example, Germany played their last qualifying game some hours prior to Brazil. Also, I feel there would be more interest to strong teams than to weak ones who lose theoretical chances in the midgame, as usually many teams who eventually don't make the cut have formal chances prior to the last matchday (however, they should win by 10 goals, and the rival should lose to team like Andorra/San Marino, thus in fact they're out of contention).--Joél be back (talk) 08:07, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@009988aaabbbccc, GazThomas402, Joél be back, and Walter Görlitz: What if we adopt the way we used for Euro 2020 qualifying? [3] Only "qualified", "can qualify" and "eliminated". I agree with Walter that "qualified with games to play" seems not very notable. So "eliminated with games to play" seems not very notable either. Also ping some editors who often update this kind of file in Commons. Centaur271188 (talk) 13:34, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with removing the "games to play" section. For me it was always nonsensical. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I am not against. Either both qualified/not qualified with games to play, or neither of them.--Joél be back (talk) 14:00, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the "games to play" section is unnecessary and inconsistent as pointed out here. I think all eliminated teams should be shown in yellow, like with the 2018 map, instead of red, to save having to change them all at the end of qualifying. GazThomas402 (talk) 14:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goals Scored

North Korea matches doesn´t count any more. FIFA declared them, nule. Please, don´t count goals and matches for totals. Fix it.--181.229.135.137 (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is ahead of USA on away goals in direct competition

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

Canada should be 2nd and USA should be 3rd. Canada is ahead of USA due to away goals in direct competition. These tie breaks are clearly explained in this article. 198.254.166.94 (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Looks like this edit was already made to Template:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF third round table. Jalen Folf (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Overall rankins for the UEFA region

I suggest having overrall rankings like the Euro qualifiers on the UEFA page Cw131007 (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2021

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

I need to add some more information into the UEFA section. Minh Dang 1801 (talk) 08:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific with the edit you're proposing. Thanks. Ytoyoda (talk) 12:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenia Is unable to qualify

So in the map Slovenia is marked as color blue, indicating that they still have chance to qualify. They have currently 10 points and can get to max 16 points, while Croatia sitting in 2nd place has 17 points, making it impossible for Slovenia to qualify. Please change it's color to yellow, as I'm unable to do it myself. Pioter1936 (talk) 07:24, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pioter1936, As of writing this reply, it is still possible for Slovenia to advance to the second round as one of the two highest ranked Nations League group winners that did not reach Top 2 in qualifying groups. Things can still change during the matches on 12 October, however, Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL. Jalen Folf (talk) 07:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind then, thank you for correcting me. Indeed I don't really get how these Nation League group winners mechanics work, I'll now try and understand what they're about Pioter1936 (talk) 07:32, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OFC Set to begin qualification play in March 2022 - additional source

A recent source has confirmed that OFC will begin qualification play in March 2022 and end in June 2022. Source is : https://www.republicworld.com/sports-news/football-news/fifa-world-cup-2022-how-many-teams-from-each-continent-can-make-it-to-qatar.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:283:4501:A340:DD96:96AD:E034:D172 (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not changed. This is contradicted by the OFC's last known official statement here. FIFA has yet to approve the OFC's qualifying proposal. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2021

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

Serbia has only 2 consecutive appearances, they didn't feature at the 2014 world cup 178.148.184.222 (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Jalen Folf (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What if the Russia in the Final

Russia is banned , but if they suddenly make it to the final (very unlikely, but suddenly) , then they can use their anthem or flag, is it after December 16? --212.164.204.182 (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is a decision that will be made by FIFA should that occur. Anything we say here will be pure speculation. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually explained in the article, though we could possibly make the section header more obvious. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The question is actually whether Russia would be allowed to compete as "Russia" (as opposed to "Russia: Neutral Athlete" or something similar) should they reach the third-place or championship matches, which are scheduled to be played after their suspension is lifted. That will be something for FIFA to determine should the scenario actually occur. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:08, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick Sorry, I was confused about "Finals" (i.e. the tournament in Qatar) vs the final match (though that seems like a discussion for the main tournament article, not the qualification article). This article is the only one that I've seen mention the timing of the ban and the final match, though I don't know that it's very credible, especially since uniforms are determined before the tournament and I can't see FIFA referring to the Russian team by different names before and after the semifinals. But like you said, it's all speculation and we'll wait until if/when Russia qualify and FIFA are compelled to make a statement one way or the other. Ytoyoda (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update qualification map

Czech Republic and Austria are eliminated from World Cup and Ecuador & Colombia have qualified to the World Cup. Please update the map if it surely happened. HONDA Gang (Talk) 15:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Czech Republic and Austria have advanced to the play-off round to determine that last three qualifiers from UEFA, so they still have a chance to qualify. The only two nations from CONMEBOL that have qualified are Brazil and Argentina - that's why they have the (Q) designation in their table. The map is correct. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Fourth Round format

Discussion at Talk page of the AFC fourth round article. Matilda Maniac (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 20 November 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 12:20, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– For consistency because this format already used in qualification articles (example 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Second Round & 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group A) and also in all Olympics articles (example Athletics at the 2020 Summer Paralympics – Men's 100 metres. Hddty (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - per WP:ATDAB and WP:QUALIFIER parenthetical or comma-separated disambiguation should be used unless there is a more natural title. You could turn them around and have UEFA qualification for the x FIFA World Cup or AFC–OFC play-off for the x FIFA World Cup but in this instance, I think parenthetical is best. I agree we should be consistent though which is why I've wondered why one was parenthetical and one wasn't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per WP:QUALIFIER. If anything, pages such as 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA Group A should be renamed to conform to policy. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as above. Feel kinda bad for the nominator spending the time doing this, but they should have asked at WT:FOOTBALL first... Giant Snowman 18:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and the other articles should be renamed to fit with the parenthesis policy.--MarshalN20 ^✉🕊 21:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Consistency's sake --Integer123 (talk) 05:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - mass renaming to some of those entries and not others doesn't work and per GiantSnowman, it would have been better to discuss on the football talk page for a wider audience than here where fewer people have their eyes watching this page or others. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There isn't a good reason for doing this, as the parentheses show that it's a subgroup of the 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification. Tumford 2:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Moral support. This is not about disambiguation at all and should not be measured by same rules: those are subtopics and should properly be separated by a dash, as proposed (we do the similar with seasons of TV series, versions of video games, etc: ). Such format would be probably used in real life, for example, for reporting results on a web or a newspaper page. Granted, the matter is minor and possibly not worth the effort of mass-renaming, but the proposer should not be put down for it. No such user (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Rendering of French Guiana on map.

The map implies French Guiana is not a FIFA member. That's not all that accurate. The French Guianese CONCACAF team isn't part of FIFA, but its players can also play for the French team, which obviously is a FIFA member. 50.65.18.163 (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the map was colouring French Guiana qualification colour dark blue - since France qualified - this would be more misleading; it would be the equivalent of having the qualification colour dark blue for Greenland since Denmark qualified. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:12, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update on OFC Qualifiers

FIFA released that the OFC Draw will take place 29 November 2100 CET and have given more clarity on the qualifiers, i.e. American Samoa and Samoa have withdrawn from the qualifying, which will bring down the number of Nations Started to 9, and it also shared the format of the qualifying. Suvannixb (talk) 09:14, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Canada from concacaf

Canada had 100% qualified 207.6.108.116 (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Third Round#The X should be removed from Canada for an explanation of why this is not the case. Jalen Folf (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They have not. The earliest they can clinch their berth is March 24. [4] Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Russia

Russia has officially been disqualified, the page can be adjourned. Source https://www.newsweek.com/fifa-set-suspend-russia-football-2022-world-cup-report-1683272 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.23.225.204 (talk) 17:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suspended Russia on maps

@009988aaabbbccc, Chajusong, GazThomas402, and IAmBrazilian: Currently we have black (rgb 0-0-0, world PNG file [5]), red (rgb 255-0-0, world SVG file [6]) and a paler red (rgb 255-64-64, UEFA file [7]). I do not know about Wikipedia or Commons colour guidelines, but I think the 2 reds are somewhat annoying for readers, and we have only used red as a temporary colour ("eliminated with games to play", until we decided to simplify the map and abandon that section). Black has been the suspended/withdrawn colour since the beginning, so I would like to use it instead of red. Please comment, thanks :) Centaur271188 (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black makes most sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely black. 009988aaabbbccc (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And this should probably be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football rather than here as it potentially affects multiple articles. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To make maps consistent with previous WCs then sure, rgb 0-0-0 would work. IAmBrazilian (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. 2603:7000:2143:8500:D19C:A36E:6A3A:C15E (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italy is Eliminated from World Cup 2022

Although Italy wins the Euro 2020 back and it was Eliminated in 2022 FIFA World Cup for 3rd Time Italy failed World cub it was lost by North Macedonia by 0-1 a former Yugoslav republic that has never qualified, and until this year never even came close this is the same happened in World cup 2018 in Russia that Italy is also eliminated since they eliminated first time in 1958.

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2022

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

In the figure Canada is in light blue indicanteing that it is not qualified yet, but in the same document in CONCACAF section it is qualified. it hould be in blue in the figure. 152.77.221.185 (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Canada is assured a playoff spot but not a Word Cup spot as of yet.

Croatia was 3rd at 1998 world cup

Croatia was 3rd at 1998 world cup 179.56.48.190 (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The table is only meant to display the best of all of a team's results, which for Croatia's case, is the 2nd-place finish in 2018. Jalen Folf (talk) 17:58, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

About teamwidth of some tables

@Jkudlick: Hi, I open a talk here as you advised. Please be noticed that applying some teamwidth value is common for large tables (8 teams or more, I think). You can check out CONMEBOL tables from 2002, editors there use 110 or auto (1 and auto do the same job, the module will then choose the smallest possible value). 1998 and 2006 tables have default teamwidth value because they omit match results part and/or 'Qualification' column. The point here is trying to have enough space for 'Qualification' texts, so the tables look neater. If we have to break those texts, they should be broken least annoyingly ('2022 FIFA World Cup' or 'inter-confederation play-off' should be in one line), usually by using a nowrap. Normally we do not need it, the default teamwidth seems enough for 7-team-or-less tables ~~and not too long team names - Bosnia and Herzegovina can fit, but Trinidad and Tobago will cause some trouble, so CONCACAF Hexagon tables of 2002 and 2018 also have teamwidths~~.
P/S: Never mind the strikethrough part :3 After some experiments, I realised most (or all) team names will fit in a normal table, even Turks and Caicos Islands (I do not know any longer one). Centaur271188 (talk) 19:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188: "Saint Vincent and the Grenadines" is one of the longest country names I know off the top of my head, and is one of the very few that will cause the team column to be wider than the default. As far as the formatting issue, forcing a linebreak in the Qualification text can cause a single row to become two rows tall. For example, one team from CONCACAF will go to this year's interconfederation playoffs, so forcing the linebreak causes a discontinuity in the row height for that one team. I understand that for people with lower resolution monitors, the text will wrap where the computer decides it should, but forcing the line break will cause that single row to be rendered as two rows tall on every monitor, even 1440p or 4K displays. While not technically a violation of MOS:TABLES, it creates unnecessary whitespace in the other cells in that row and disrupts the visual presentation of the table.

This is text.	This cell does not have a linebreak.
This is also text.	This cell has a forced linebreak.
Here is more text.	Another cell with no linebreak.

— Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: Ah yes, thanks for mentioning Saint Vincent and the Grenadines :) So nowrap is better than linebreak, I understand. Would you be fine if I reinstate teamwidth and use nowraps? Centaur271188 (talk) 22:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188: Yes, that would be fine. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Qualified teams - "CONMEBOL Round Robin"

@UltraBlazer: I do not know how that phrase became a Wikipedia's norm (it also looks like a Wikipedia's invention, a strict Google search from my PC provided results largely from our pages or pages quoting us directly [8], I assume that mostly nobody else refers to CONMEBOL qualifiers like that), I just think it is neither necessary nor proper. Round-robin is a format, not a specific stage, round or group; including it in the table is an inconsistency to me. Centaur271188 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188: While I also agree that using "Round Robin" really isn't necessary, we must also take MOS:RETAIN into account. As UltraBlazer stated in their last edit summary, "Round Robin" has been used in each World Cup qualification article at least since 1990. Since its use has been consistent, the MOS calls for its continued use unless there is consensus to remove it from all other qualification articles. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jkudlick: I think MOS:RETAIN is about the variety of English used in articles, which is not the case here. Anyway, before the 'round robin' stuff, I fixed the capitalisations (AFC Third Round, CAF Third Round etc.) which I think is a clear MOS:CAPS issue (normally those rounds are not considered proper nouns) also happens consistently in most World Cup qualifying articles (sorry for not changing older pages, I only have time and interest for the most recent campaigns). Consistency should not be followed if it is wrong or problematic. Centaur271188 (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188 In that case, I would be happy to go ahead and change the other FIFA World Cup Qualification pages from "CONMEBOL Round Robin" to just "CONMEBOL", since that is the correct term that should be used. UltraBlazer 03:30, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA's page for CONMEBOL's qualifiers calls them a "Round-robin". I don't have much opinion on what Wikipedia calls them, but it is the term that FIFA itself uses. Wburrow (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wburrow: Round-robin, used independently, can be a format indicator. I have never seen the whole "CONMEBOL round-robin" at fifa.com. By the way, sorry for editing your comment, but your link needs fixing. Centaur271188 (talk) 03:42, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"No preliminary draw"

A sentence in the lead says that there was "no preliminary draw," and that individual confederations held their own draws, in contrast to other WC qualifiers. I cannot find support for this statement in the citation (https://www.espn.com/soccer/fifa-world-cup/story/3860182/2022-world-cup-how-qualifying-works-around-the-world) or anywhere on line. On the contrary: (1) Preliminary draws for WC qualifiers seem to be only for the purpose of deciding inter-confederation matchups, and there was indeed such a preliminary draw for the 2022 WC qualifiers, as our article 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (inter-confederation play-offs) notes: "The draw for the inter-confederation play-offs was held on 26 November 2021, 17:00 CET, in Zürich, Switzerland." (2) In other WC qualification years, the individual confederations always have had their own draws to determine how they place teams in their qualifying tournaments. At a minimum, this sentence needs to be rewritten and it needs a new citation. The citation says nothing about whether there was a preliminary draw for WC 2022 qualifying and it says nothing about how any of the facts purported in this sentence were different from previous World Cup qualifying tournaments. It would probably be best to delete the entire sentence unless someone can explain, with citation, what exactly the intended meaning was. Holy (talk) 20:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HolyT: A quick Google search (2018 "world cup" "preliminary draw", then change the year to 2014, 2010 etc.) provided interesting results: 2018, 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998. It was a regular notable event, in which FIFA decided inter-confederal play-offs, UEFA's groups, CONMEBOL's schedule, and groups or knock-out ties of other confederations' early rounds. It did not dictate everything, the confederations held separate draws for their earlier and later rounds, but it was still worth mentioning. In 32-team era, this is the only time it did not happen, which is also notable to me. Currently we have no sources saying that directly, but it is still verifiable - we have draw information with sources in all sub-articles. Centaur271188 (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for chasing that down! I think that the assertion that there was "no preliminary draw" for 2022 is not correct based on the information I mentioned in the inter-confederation playoffs article. Still, your research makes a noteworthy point: that the earlier draws did more than determine the inter-confederation matchups. So, we should change the lead as written, but is the distinction about what didn't occur at the 2022 preliminary draw worth mentioning in the lead? It seems like kind of an administrative detail. I mean, the decisions that were made eventually were made, just not all at the same time as in previous tournaments. It's interesting, and probably noteworthy enough to be included somewhere. Holy (talk) 00:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@HolyT: If you want to remove that information from the lead section (it stays there in 2018 and 2006 articles), I am OK too. Perhaps it should be in 'Qualification process' section, like in 2014 and 2010 pages. We have been inconsistent about where to place it. Centaur271188 (talk) 00:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Map Discussion

There is currently a discussion at Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup#Map regarding the terms "suspended" vs. "disqualified" in regards to Russia, and the exact terminology to be used in the map. I am of the opinion that both maps should be the same, which may be most easily solved by transcluding the map from one into the other, much like transcluding a template or section of prose. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 June 2022

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

Change the time range of the 2022 FIFA World Cup Qualification from Thursday, June 6 2019 - Thursday, September 22, 2022 to Thursday, June 6 2019 - Tuesday, June 14 2022 Dieplsdieplsdie (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not done As explained in the article, the match between Brazil and Argentina that was suspended last year has been rescheduled for 22 September. Even though it has no effect on overall qualification, FIFA and CONMEBOL still consider that match to be part of qualifying. Therefore, qualifying for the World Cup will conclude on 22 September. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 21:21, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'Qualified teams' table

@Island92, PeeJay, and S.A. Julio: Hi, I and PeeJay have an issue about how to sort it. For teams qualified on the same day, he would like to use 'Qualification method' column (winners -> runners-up -> etc.; or A -> B -> etc.), while I prefer the old chronological order. @PeeJay: you may think the hours or minutes difference between those teams is not very relevant or important, but some sources are still aware of that detail, so our sorting could be too. E.g. [9] (title - "Spain, Serbia 8th and 9th qualified teams for 2022 World Cup"), [10] (title and content mention USA before Mexico). Centaur271188 (talk) 02:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Centaur271188, Island92, PeeJay, and S.A. Julio: A possible solution to this would be to use {{DTS}} with the |addkey= parameter. This would allow for teams which qualified on the same date to be sorted by time without altering the look of the table. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

22 September ?

Qualifying will end on September 22, not September 21. fix it. 212.164.205.154 (talk) 13:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@212.164.205.154: Firstly, a little bit of civility will go a long way. Your comment reads more like a demand than a request. Secondly, there is conflicting information even within FIFA about when the match will take place. Their press release states 22 September, but the match page states 21 September. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

- @Jkudlick:Thanks for info and Sorry, I didn't mean to offend anyone. 212.164.205.154 (talk) 16:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Norway

Norway didn't withdraw from the tournament, they actually voted against the suggestion 2A00:23C6:C70C:5201:C199:7EF7:E4F7:B22 (talk) 11:04, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morocco

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

Moroccan-Sahara4ever (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correct Morocco map including southern part of Morocco

Not done: The Southern part of Morocco is Western Sahara. The southern part of Morocco doesn't need to be corrected. Sarrail (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]