Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC second round

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Notation for Saudi Arabia

Since there's an anonymous user refusing to discuss their change, I may as well bring this issue up here. @Santiago Claudio: As the other user involved in this issue of separating Saudi Arabia's result from the others in their group, what do you say about this issue? This would also affect United Arab Emirates at 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC second round since the same edits are being made there too. Jalen Folf (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JalenFolf and Santiago Claudio: Perhaps we should use |note_KSA=Saudi Arabia has already qualified for the [[2027 AFC Asian Cup]] as the host nation in the group table. This will allow the note to stay with KSA regardless of position rather than possibly having to change the qualification column after each match day. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this, and the same can be applied to the 2018 United Arab Emirates team as I described above. Jalen Folf (talk) 18:24, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria to host these matches of Palestine?

Algeria is under jurisdiction of CAF, not AFC. Whenever coming to World Cup qualification, the only exemption comes when this is about intercontinental playoffs. Why is Algeria, an African country, hosting a World Cup qualification of an Asian member? FIFA has not confirmed how to work with it. HiddenFace101 (talk) 14:34, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need some level of control over calendar schedule of the AFC second round

Consistent verbal fixing of users there are unthinkable. There are constant disruptive edits and fixing of calendar to fit some narratives. Very unacceptable when it is not a single qualification but a DUAL QUALIFICATION, meaning that AFC's schedule needs confirmation from FIFA to ensure the changes. Please keep the schedule remains intact. HiddenFace101 (talk) 07:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Syria v North Korea fixture reversals

Is there a source for this? The FIFA match link has not reversed the hosts (that is, the November clash is still listed as a North Korea home game and the 2024 match as Syria's) even though it is being played in Saudi Arabia (which, to be fair, does suggest it has been reversed). Any sort of link would be really useful to clarify - otherwise it would be quite appropriate to list the home as it is in the match report. I would note that the match links CAN be wrong (in round one the Indonesia venue was not updated in the FIFA links for some time after it had been noted by editors here) Again, sourcing these changes is really important if you don't want your edits reverted. 110.33.28.251 (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's listed as hosted by Syria in November on AFC's website, however, because this round is dual qualifying for World Cup and Asian Cup, it still needs to be reflected on FIFA's end, as stated by HiddenFace101 above. Jalen Folf (talk) 06:12, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't need to be reflected by FIFA. If it's true it's true. FIFA had an incorrect venue listed for the first round for two weeks - even though the Indonesia FA Facebook page had a link to get tickets to the correct venue - so we don't need to just copy from FIFA if there is an issue. It needs a reference if it's unusual so we can confirm the difference - or at least assess the claim and make a decision. There actually was a "sort" of reference to this change added previously but it was deleted - which is unhelpful if it leads to incorrect information on the page. 110.33.28.251 (talk) 11:18, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@110.33.28.251: The FIFA match reports do actually show Syria hosting in November and North Korea hosting in June. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

mistake in the goalscorers section

for some reason, in the goal scorers section, ali al hammadi who scored 1 goal for iraq is not there and in his place is a Saudi player called Ibrahim Al-Zubaidi despite still having the iraqi flag. i don't know how to edit it, so can someone fix this mistake. thanks! 196.75.225.103 (talk) 00:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completed Wburrow (talk) 01:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faghani nationality

We already have a source describing Alireza Faghani's Australia representation here, and his Wiki article already has a sourced statement about Iran delisting him, so what source do some of you have to switch it to Iran here? Jalen Folf (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table indicators

I know using E would not make sense in these rounds for the purposes of the dual tournament qualifying format, however, I don’t see what’s wrong with not using A rather than Q for some teams. I mean, this edit seems to indicate that teams that aren’t guaranteed to qualify for the World Cup qualifying third round instead advance to AFC qualifying third round. Any other opinions on this? Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 13:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Q is correct. Otherwise you would initially have to have A for every team in every group for at least the first three rounds, as every team in every group moves to another round, just not certain to which competition. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I appreciate the logical elegance of Q being correct for both types of qualification, I think it leads to a lot of confusion for readers and a lot of unnecessary work reverting well-intentioned edits. I'd prefer something like Q for the top 2 slots and then X for something like "Advance to Asian Cup third round, eliminated from World Cup". Or maybe drop Q altogether and use X and Y instead. Wburrow (talk) 15:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What could be less ambiguous than Group E, where all 4 teams have qualified to the phase indicated? This is what Q is for. I do not see a lot of confusion for readers, merely an IP with an opinion that was also changing the correct status of blank to Q or E, and kept changing them after reverts. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As i mentioned (Q) is because the team qualified for 2027 afc asian cup (act as 2026 world cup qualifier), and if you put (Q) for rank 3 & 4 , which is basically not qualified yet (still in third round qualifying), wouldnt it be confusing? putting (A) advance to further round, would be a more suitable for the situation, which these team still need to compete to qualify for 2027 asian cup 202.43.228.98 (talk) 08:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pos	Team	Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	Qualification
1	Iran (Q)	4	3	1	0	12	2	+10	10	World Cup qualifying third round and Asian Cup	—	11 Jun	5–0	4–0
2	Uzbekistan (Q)	4	3	1	0	10	3	+7	10	World Cup qualifying third round and Asian Cup	2–2	—	6 Jun	3–0
3	Turkmenistan (Q)	4	0	1	3	3	11	−8	1	Asian Cup qualifying third round	0–1	1–3	—	11 Jun
4	Hong Kong (Q)	4	0	1	3	2	11	−9	1	Asian Cup qualifying third round	6 Jun	0–2	2–2	—

Updated to match(es) played on 26 March 2024. Source: FIFA AFC
Rules for classification: Tiebreakers
(Q) Qualified for the phase indicated

I will add that we have had to revert multiple such attempted changes on this article since March, the first attempt of which goes back as far as this edit, the first in a series of such edits by the same IP before reversions by other users. I will not be opposed to whatever consensus we try to reach here, just that we enforce whatever is best for the regulars of this subject area. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 23:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia for the readers, not what's best for Administrators. "Power to the people" I say. I note your comments about duration of reverts, and my opinion had been for a long while that heavily trafficked and politically sensitive articles should have a permanent semi-protect applied. So I would agree that this issue is more about reverts than changing Wikipedia table formatting letters. I also consider that this particular IP is WP:NOTHERE. Matilda Maniac (talk) 00:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because (Q) means qualified for 2027 afc asian cup, and basically this is the qualifier for 2027 asian cup, but act as 2026 world cup qualifiers, so if you put (Q) for rank 3 & 4 it will confuse reader, which not qualified for the 2027 afc asian cup yet, which is still in qualifying round 3, so (A) would be a clearer information for reader to understand the team status. 202.43.228.98 (talk) 08:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is using Q to mean "Qualified to the phase indicated" when there are different possible qualifications unique to Wikipedia? I've never seen it used elsewhere. When I've seen letters used like this before, there has always been a distinct letter for each type of qualification (e.g. x=won division, y=wild-card berth). That's what makes it a less-than-ideal system to me: you have to read the fine print to know what the letters mean exactly since it's not a system used anywhere else. I agree with your point that WP is for the readers, but to me the high level of reverts needed is a reflection/symptom of a high level of confusion among readers on this topic. We don't see the same level of edits needing to be corrected when there aren't different levels of qualification.^{[citation needed]} Wburrow (talk) 16:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone notice that Malaysia's chance to qualify to third round just thin as Bahrain in the 2014 World Cup Qualifiers?

Kyrgyzstan 1-1 Malaysia. Probably Kyrgyzstan had a bigger chance to qualify with only draw with Oman, while Malaysia need to beat Chinese Taipei up Kamoverapo124 (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason we keep reverting you. Do not randomly declare teams qualified without checking their chances. Professional predictions do not equate to statistics of all possible outcomes. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 17:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Yuning or Behram Abduweli?

FIFA and AFC reports constantly showed Zhang Yuning to be the scorer in China's 1-1 draw to Thailand, but footages showed from the match revealed the one who scored was Behram Abduweli and it was not clear if this hit the back of Zhang. If it is a contradiction, we will have a big problem with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8bq7GnBdkc This video has something to say. HiddenFace101 (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interpreting video to support a conclusion in contradiction of what's found in sources is WP:OR. If there's a reliable source that says Behram scored the goal, we can consider changing it, but we need a reference we can cite. FWIW, at the end of the match it was showing as a Behram goal in the reports, but was later changed (and needed to be updated in the match summary on the page). Wburrow (talk) 20:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well IDK if FIFA re-changed it or just forgot to check in June, but there seems to be a contradiction within the FIFA webpage itself. On FIFA's webpage for this match, the goalscorer is credited as Behram and Zhang in two separate places. Zhang in "Timeline" but Behram in "Lineup". I'm not sure if it's a bug in my page or if it is indeed. (FIFA page: https://www.fifa.com/en/match-centre/match/520/288263/288267/400017244?date=2024-06-06)

As another point of doubt, the CFA credited the goal scorer as Behram (Goalscorers page: https://www.thecfa.cn/src/CoachPlayers/CoachPlayers.html?rankingGoal & Match Summary: https://www.thecfa.cn/src/oneGameData/oneGameData.html?compId=1641&matchId=1569305 , "拜合拉木" = Behram ). All things considered, since the FA have access to the official match reports that FIFA don't release to the public, and both the AFC and FIFA's official website data is actually a direct and simple copy of third party data , I extremely doubt that the original match report did identify Behram's goal, but sadly it's probably something we'll never be able to prove.

Additionally, it still raises a serious question: should we use CFA's data in Behram's Wikipedia page? Or just ignore it? Spinel1126 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need to distinguish two Ahmed Al-Alis

In AFC referee list, there are two referees with similar name Ahmed Al-Ali. One is from Jordan and one is from Kuwait. However, the Jordanian one has the middle name "Faisal", so to distinguish, the Jordanian referee will be known as Ahmed Faisal Al-Ali, while the Kuwaiti will be Ahmad Al-Ali. HiddenFace101 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorer for BAN v AUS

@Matilda Maniac, @RKC Vakwai: The FIFA Match Report shows conflicting information. On the Timeline tab (and in the summary at the top) it shows the 29' goal for Hrustic, but on the Line up tab, it shows the goal as an o.g. for Hasan. My take on that is that it was credited to Hrustic in real-time, and has since been changed to Hasan, but I have no way to verify that's what happened. I also found this 11v11 match report that gives the goal to Hasan. With that info, I think we should show the goal for Hasan in the article, but are there other sources we can use to confirm this one way or the other? Wburrow (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If FIFA is primary source, then perhaps you could say that AFC is a secondary source as better. Or is it still a primary source? I think you need to explore other secondary sources and see if it's consistent there. Also look at other sites for top goalscorers/all goalscorers, which way do they lean? If it's not consistent, then I would suggest bumping it up to WP:FOOTY for further discussion in a wider audience. Matilda Maniac (talk) 23:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCN6gXKvFXE Hilights of this game. I think fifa referees of this game conclusion take this goal to Hrustic. but when report send to main of FIFA. main of FIFA overule Hrustic goal to Hasan. FIFA rewrite who take this goal in line-up. RKC Vakwai (talk) 07:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think AFC would still count as a primary source. I can check some other secondary sources to see if they're consistent. Do you know of any secondary sources that show lists of all goalscorers for the AFC qualifiers? My quick Google search only found lists that have players with at least 2 goals. Wburrow (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]