Jump to content

Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Iggy the Swan (talk | contribs) at 18:05, 21 November 2021 (→‎Requested move 20 November 2021: o). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconFootball Start‑class Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

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.

A grid cartogram rendering of FIFA federations, colored by 2022 World Cup qualification status
A grid cartogram rendering of FIFA federations, colored by 2022 World Cup qualification status

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? [2] 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]

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

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

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

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]

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

– 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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification&oldid=1056419699"