Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC)

OFC qualification pages

Do we definitely need separate articles for the various rounds? There's not too much information in them that they couldn't all be included on this page. A similar discussion took place before the 2022 qualifiers and consensus was that one article with redirects was enough (Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC)#OFC qualification pages). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: I agree, given there will only be 18 matches played in the OFC qualifiers, I see little need to create separate articles for each round. From 2006 to 2018 each OFC qualifying tournament had at least 34 matches, much larger than 2022 and 2026. I therefore have WP:BOLDLY merged the content back into the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Yoblyblob to this discussion for input. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 16:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree, because there is sufficient coverage for another article. The size of the round should not really be taken into account. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The size should be taken into account. There's nothing in the first round offshoot which isn't in the main page and it's 68 words long. It's not long enough to justify an article by itself and it just creates an unnecessary duplication of information. By providing a link to another article claiming to be the main article, we are implying there is more information available to the reader when there is not. It's unhelpful in this instance. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur that we must consider WP:SIZE when determining whether a section is worthy of its own article. The size of the round is not the important part, but rather how much verifiable information is available to justify the separate article. There are numerous examples of larger rounds without their own articles because we can't sufficiently expand upon what is already included in the parent article. Conversely, we have copious examples of individual matches, not just major tournament final matches, that have enough significant coverage to justify individual articles. I am in favor of keeping the first round information here, though the second and third rounds may have enough additional information to break them into their own articles. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Names of first round match days

@S.A. Julio: Where do you see that FIFA refers to the first round matches as semi-finals and final? I cannot find anything to corroborate that, and "per FIFA" doesn't help without a URL, and calling them semi-finals and final with further qualification rounds to be contested is counter-intuitive. I can find where OFC refer to the second round matches as "match day three, four and five," which infers match days one and two for the first round. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITE

@YangerAAS: Hey, I noticed you'd removed the citations from the football boxes. Those links are being used as a source of information so I had created citations from them in line with Wikipedia policy. I know bare URLs are not a bad thing and are a good start when it comes to referencing so I just wanted to build on that by citing them. Happy to hear your thoughts though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: There is no need to use {{cite web}} or to create <ref> </ref> tags in the |report= section of a {{football box}}. There is ample precedent for not doing so, e.g. pretty much every association football article which uses football boxes. The {{football box}} template formats the URL in such a way that it does not show as a bare URL reference.

Since there is a much wider use of the template than this singular article, a much wider discussion should be had regarding using {{cite web}} should probably be had at WT:FOOTY or Template talk:Cite web. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a requirement to reference it though. Those links are being used to source information but, at present, do not appear in the list of references which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Per WP:CITE: The second necessary part of the citation or reference is the list of full references, which provides complete, formatted detail about the source, so that anyone reading the article can find it and verify it (my emphasis). The football box template keeps it as a bare URL with no details about the source which is the opposite to Wikipedia policy. Why should football articles be any different to every other article? It also helps to combat WP:LINKROT as there are bots which archive sources cited on Wikipedia via the Wayback Machine.

This has also been discussed at WT:FOOTY before, most recently here. As I say, I'm just trying to build on the good work of the contributors to this article. I don't mind if the cite web template specifically is used or not if the source is cited. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland and YangerAAS: I was not aware of that discussion or the one from which that one stemmed. Since there does seem to be consensus (and it is policy), I have asked at Template talk:Football box if the |report= parameter can be formatted to automatically add the <ref> </ref> tags. I know bare URLs are not preferred, but I would rather follow policy. Programming the tags in place should also add the references to all instances in all articles, not just new ones. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to guess what the idea behind this, frankly, idiotic change is. Apparently, rather than having "Report" listed so you can click on it if you decide you want to see the match report for the (for example) Cook Islands v Tonga match you are reading abuot, you now have reference floating in empty space (a violation of a the fundamental point of referencing) with no context that allows you to go to another point on the page where you can see that this is the "Match Report - Cook Islands v Tonga" (that must come as a surprise) and you can click yet again to go and see it. This seems like the most pointlessly bureaucratic response to a non-problem in history. No more details about the source are provided than currently. Interestingly, this doesn't match the "solution" to this non-problem implemented everywhere else. Even the (if my opinion) massively over-referenced UEFA club tournament (for example UCL) pages still provide a direct link to the match reports so that THE PAGE IS ACTUALLY USEFUL TO HUMAN BEINGS RATHER THAN FITTING THE SMUG SELF-SATISFIED REQUIREMENTS OF SELF APPOINTED GATE KEEPERS (emphasis mine). 110.33.22.59 (talk) 09:37, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

First round MD2 match for losers of MD1

FIFA says there will be a match between the losers of the MD1 matches before the match for the winners. Should we include that here? Obviously it would have no bearing on advancement to later rounds, but it might count towards stats like goalscorers, etc. Wburrow (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I just realized the match report page doesn't make it clear that the match is between the losers, so here is the schedule that shows it more explicitly. Wburrow (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

It has no bearing on qualification so I would lean toward not including it in this article, but it should absolutely be included in the articles of the relevant national teams. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I agreed with your lean toward not including it before, but now there is more information to indicate that it appears to be a friendly rather than an official part of the qualifying tournament. The match no longer appears on FIFA's OFC Scores & Fixtures page, and the match report linked to above is now blank. OFC's match report calls it a friendly. The match did get added to the page today, but I have removed it. (I'm noting this here on the Talk page for reference in case anyone tries to re-add the match.) Wburrow (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Multiple Round 2 group hosts

@Theurgist: While I understand your confusion regarding multiple hosts for each group, you should have started discussion rather than engaging in this slow edit war. The tables were stable with multiple hosts having been indicated since August 2, so why the issue now? As Red Jay stated, there is precedent from the UEFA Euro 2020, specifically Groups B, D and F. In fact, each group had two host nations, but those groups specifically had both host nations participating in those groups. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jkudlick, @Red Jay: First, I think the "H" doesn't belong in group standings at all. The other status letters of the module indicate statuses like promotion or elimination, and being a host is no such status. But I'm not going to push this here.

When the "H" is used, this implies, and is appropriate for, a more centralized nature of the event. Even at Euro 2020, the aim was to have every host play all its group matches at home, only prevented by clashes of two hosts in a group.

While here, the host Fiji is playing 2 of its own 3 matches outside its country; same with Vanuatu. So the letter is essentially saying: "at least one of all matches of this group will take place in the country of this team". Well, matches have to take place somewhere, they can't be held in outer space.

And there never was any "confusion". I just don't think we should always do something just because we can. --Theurgist (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm removing it again, if you don't mind. "Perfection is achieved not when there's nothing more to add, but when there's nothing left to take away." --Theurgist (talk) 16:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Theurgist here. I think (H) status notation should be reserved for events where being a host entails some sort of functional difference for the host team like automatic qualification or preferential placement in draw pots (which is not the case here). The tables are easier to read w/o the host status, imo. Wburrow (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2024 (UTC)