This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
UEFA/FIFA have not announced how the teams will be seeded. Edgar ( talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@ GAV80, PeeJay2K3, and Qed237: Let's come to an agreement here as to the placement of the second "2017" in the Second Round prose before anyone is accused of WP:EW. I have to agree that precedent, such as 2015–16 UEFA Champions League#Qualifying Rounds, places the year after the dates for the second legs. The only exception I could see would be if the dates crossed two years, e.g. the first legs were played on 27 and 28 December 2015, and the second legs were played on 5 and 6 January 2016. I have pinged all three of you because you are all involved in the recent squabble, but I invite all other editors to participate. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Qed237,
GAV80,
The Replicator, and
SuperJew: Yesterday, SuperJew suddenly applied a new format for 'Matches' sections of all 9 groups. Instead of placing linebreaks to enumerate goalscorers, as we have been doing since the start of qualification, it uses plainlists. To me, these changes were unnecessary and inconsistent, so I tried to keep old format. But he persisted in using the new one, and situation escalated into an edit war. He claimed that there is a consensus about using plainlists instead of linebreaks, but everything I could find is a number of editors think that plainlists are better. Then I have a look at manual:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_styles
OK, I admit that manual encourages us to use plainlists. But it is not mandatory,
WP:COMMON and
WP:CONSENSUS have to be taken into consideration as well. We have been using linebreaks in these articles for almost a year without any dispute, why do we have to change our way so drastically? If SuperJew wants to use the new format so badly, he (and other editors support plainlists) could do it in other articles, maybe
2017 FIFA Confederations Cup, a tournament is about to start, and plainlists can be applied smoothly. I am not against any particular format, if plainlists have been used in an article from the beginning, I will gladly abide. But if we chose linebreaks in the first place, then we should keep it that way.
Of course, anyone can join this discussion. But Qed237, GAV80 and The Replicator are among the main contributors here, so I will appreciate very much if all of you give some advice. Thanks all :)
Centaur271188 (
talk)
17:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@
Qed237: I am afraid that your sense of 'consistency' will not help solving this dispute. What will happen if SuperJew apply plainlist format somewhere else, and someone revert it because they think linebreak format is no less 'consistent' than the new one? Another edit war, until one side feel frustrated and give up (like I just did)?
@
SuperJew and
Sygmoral: Please stop using arguments like 'resist/stuck/...', it sounds like you totally missed my point. I, among many other editors, can adopt either format with little difficulty. You can apply the new format without problem in many other articles, big or small, highly visible or low-profile. Please do not make these changes here, or anywhere else have used linebreaks for a long time, just because you think plainlists are better, or because you want to spread your idea much faster. What about
WP:DONTFIXIT and
WP:POINT?
Centaur271188 (
talk)
10:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
In my sense of consistency, the only proper way to fix this is back to linebreaks. But you are not willing to do it, are you? You told me to bring it up, I did. And while we are having a discussion and trying to settle this dispute, you already make other moves:
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – OFC Third Round
So what is the point of telling me to bring it up? Whether this discussion exists or not, you will do whatever you want. And talk about consistency, why do you care about goalscorers only? We are still using linebreaks for match reports, technically, they are also items of a list and can be separated by plainlists.
I have made my point clear enough, and since you do not seem to care about this discussion whatsoever, I think I do not need to say anything anymore.
Centaur271188 (
talk)
04:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little late to this party, but I have to agree that we need consistency. I do find the "new" method of listing goalscorers easier to read when viewing the code, and there is no apparent change to the final rendered product. I do not have the time right now to assist with altering the current tournament, but I do not see why the quasi-bulleted list can't be used in the future. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe that status 'x' should be "Assured of at least second place" - not "Assured of at least play-offs". I changed two tables earlier today, but it was reverted. As I said in my edit summary, there are two reasons why I think this would be better. Firstly, it avoids the need to have a separate letter if someone is secured 2nd place, but not secured a play-off spot; secondly, it avoids using OR in regards to what happens if different teams finish 2nd and/or what 6th places can still change resulting in other record changes. What do other users think? 46.226.49.230 ( talk) 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Despite it might be complicated (one should consider all possible combinations of arrivals in the 2nd and the 6th positions), it is still possible to show that some teams are sure to be qualified for playoffs at least. In fact, if you look at Group H, it may be shown that the runner-up will conclude with at most 14 points plus the one against Gibraltar, that is already sure to get the last place in the group. Thus, all teams that are sure to arrive, in the worst-case scenario, as runner-ups in their group and, in such case, to have at least 15 points against teams not arriving at the last position, are already sure they will either win their group or do the play-offs. -- Borisba ( talk) 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I am interested, how will the 8 best teams from the second place be divided into the play-off matches? In the way that the 1st team will play with the 8th, 2nd with 7th etc. or how? I couldn't find this piece of information in the article, sorry if it is there. Thanks. Pedestrem ( talk) 21:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I must say that I simply cannot distinguish between the second and third rows in the summary table. The colors are as good as identical. Therefore, I suggest we change them. Why don't simply use the same color scheme as we did for the previous world cup's qualification. Also I think this table is at odds with WP:Color as it uses colors as a sole means to convey information. T v x1 21:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
any reason the table of second placed teams isnt getting update along with the rest of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.211.225 ( talk) 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we need another row in the summary table now. Currently the second row denotes the teams who can still finish first or second and are guaranteed a play-off spot if second. However, this no longer applies to Italy who are certain to finish second and progress to the play-offs. T v x1 13:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC) The same situation now applies to Northern Ireland and Denmark. T v x1 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greece has advanced, Slovakia is eliminated as they are guaranteed last spot of 2nd place teams. 12tbuchman ( talk) 20:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Summary Table, the text "Will finish in at least second place (may be the ninth-ranked runner-up)" can be changed to "Finished in second place (may be the ninth-ranked runner-up)" - since only Slovakia are in this section, and they have no more games to play. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:599E:A6D9:D62D:57D0 ( talk) 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
In the qualification chart, Greece is in the wrong row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.178.138 ( talk) 00:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please make sure that my archive additions to the group articles are accurate and revert any "never-dead" references where applicable. Thank you. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 21:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
This new section was created by PanthWiki. I removed it because it seemed unnecessary, but he undid my change for this reason "it's a legitimate comparison seen in other wiki pages. it will be created during the actual world cup anyway. refer to talk page". It indeed is a legitimate comparison, but I am questioning its importance; moreover, I have not seen anything like this before in qualification articles. His second argument may be about Standings/Rankings sections in World Cup Finals articles, but they apparently have nothing to do with this one. I would still like to remove it, but in order to avoid an edit war, I bring this issue up here beforehand. Please have some words :) Centaur271188 ( talk) 17:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
UEFA/FIFA have not announced how the teams will be seeded. Edgar ( talk) 13:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@ GAV80, PeeJay2K3, and Qed237: Let's come to an agreement here as to the placement of the second "2017" in the Second Round prose before anyone is accused of WP:EW. I have to agree that precedent, such as 2015–16 UEFA Champions League#Qualifying Rounds, places the year after the dates for the second legs. The only exception I could see would be if the dates crossed two years, e.g. the first legs were played on 27 and 28 December 2015, and the second legs were played on 5 and 6 January 2016. I have pinged all three of you because you are all involved in the recent squabble, but I invite all other editors to participate. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 11:40, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
@
Qed237,
GAV80,
The Replicator, and
SuperJew: Yesterday, SuperJew suddenly applied a new format for 'Matches' sections of all 9 groups. Instead of placing linebreaks to enumerate goalscorers, as we have been doing since the start of qualification, it uses plainlists. To me, these changes were unnecessary and inconsistent, so I tried to keep old format. But he persisted in using the new one, and situation escalated into an edit war. He claimed that there is a consensus about using plainlists instead of linebreaks, but everything I could find is a number of editors think that plainlists are better. Then I have a look at manual:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#List_styles
OK, I admit that manual encourages us to use plainlists. But it is not mandatory,
WP:COMMON and
WP:CONSENSUS have to be taken into consideration as well. We have been using linebreaks in these articles for almost a year without any dispute, why do we have to change our way so drastically? If SuperJew wants to use the new format so badly, he (and other editors support plainlists) could do it in other articles, maybe
2017 FIFA Confederations Cup, a tournament is about to start, and plainlists can be applied smoothly. I am not against any particular format, if plainlists have been used in an article from the beginning, I will gladly abide. But if we chose linebreaks in the first place, then we should keep it that way.
Of course, anyone can join this discussion. But Qed237, GAV80 and The Replicator are among the main contributors here, so I will appreciate very much if all of you give some advice. Thanks all :)
Centaur271188 (
talk)
17:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
@
Qed237: I am afraid that your sense of 'consistency' will not help solving this dispute. What will happen if SuperJew apply plainlist format somewhere else, and someone revert it because they think linebreak format is no less 'consistent' than the new one? Another edit war, until one side feel frustrated and give up (like I just did)?
@
SuperJew and
Sygmoral: Please stop using arguments like 'resist/stuck/...', it sounds like you totally missed my point. I, among many other editors, can adopt either format with little difficulty. You can apply the new format without problem in many other articles, big or small, highly visible or low-profile. Please do not make these changes here, or anywhere else have used linebreaks for a long time, just because you think plainlists are better, or because you want to spread your idea much faster. What about
WP:DONTFIXIT and
WP:POINT?
Centaur271188 (
talk)
10:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
In my sense of consistency, the only proper way to fix this is back to linebreaks. But you are not willing to do it, are you? You told me to bring it up, I did. And while we are having a discussion and trying to settle this dispute, you already make other moves:
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)
2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – OFC Third Round
So what is the point of telling me to bring it up? Whether this discussion exists or not, you will do whatever you want. And talk about consistency, why do you care about goalscorers only? We are still using linebreaks for match reports, technically, they are also items of a list and can be separated by plainlists.
I have made my point clear enough, and since you do not seem to care about this discussion whatsoever, I think I do not need to say anything anymore.
Centaur271188 (
talk)
04:40, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm a little late to this party, but I have to agree that we need consistency. I do find the "new" method of listing goalscorers easier to read when viewing the code, and there is no apparent change to the final rendered product. I do not have the time right now to assist with altering the current tournament, but I do not see why the quasi-bulleted list can't be used in the future. — Jkudlick ⚓ t ⚓ c ⚓ s 16:17, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe that status 'x' should be "Assured of at least second place" - not "Assured of at least play-offs". I changed two tables earlier today, but it was reverted. As I said in my edit summary, there are two reasons why I think this would be better. Firstly, it avoids the need to have a separate letter if someone is secured 2nd place, but not secured a play-off spot; secondly, it avoids using OR in regards to what happens if different teams finish 2nd and/or what 6th places can still change resulting in other record changes. What do other users think? 46.226.49.230 ( talk) 12:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Despite it might be complicated (one should consider all possible combinations of arrivals in the 2nd and the 6th positions), it is still possible to show that some teams are sure to be qualified for playoffs at least. In fact, if you look at Group H, it may be shown that the runner-up will conclude with at most 14 points plus the one against Gibraltar, that is already sure to get the last place in the group. Thus, all teams that are sure to arrive, in the worst-case scenario, as runner-ups in their group and, in such case, to have at least 15 points against teams not arriving at the last position, are already sure they will either win their group or do the play-offs. -- Borisba ( talk) 11:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I am interested, how will the 8 best teams from the second place be divided into the play-off matches? In the way that the 1st team will play with the 8th, 2nd with 7th etc. or how? I couldn't find this piece of information in the article, sorry if it is there. Thanks. Pedestrem ( talk) 21:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I must say that I simply cannot distinguish between the second and third rows in the summary table. The colors are as good as identical. Therefore, I suggest we change them. Why don't simply use the same color scheme as we did for the previous world cup's qualification. Also I think this table is at odds with WP:Color as it uses colors as a sole means to convey information. T v x1 21:42, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
any reason the table of second placed teams isnt getting update along with the rest of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.211.225 ( talk) 21:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we need another row in the summary table now. Currently the second row denotes the teams who can still finish first or second and are guaranteed a play-off spot if second. However, this no longer applies to Italy who are certain to finish second and progress to the play-offs. T v x1 13:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC) The same situation now applies to Northern Ireland and Denmark. T v x1 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Greece has advanced, Slovakia is eliminated as they are guaranteed last spot of 2nd place teams. 12tbuchman ( talk) 20:47, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the Summary Table, the text "Will finish in at least second place (may be the ninth-ranked runner-up)" can be changed to "Finished in second place (may be the ninth-ranked runner-up)" - since only Slovakia are in this section, and they have no more games to play. 2A02:C7D:15A:AB00:599E:A6D9:D62D:57D0 ( talk) 20:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
In the qualification chart, Greece is in the wrong row. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.178.138 ( talk) 00:58, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Please make sure that my archive additions to the group articles are accurate and revert any "never-dead" references where applicable. Thank you. jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 21:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
This new section was created by PanthWiki. I removed it because it seemed unnecessary, but he undid my change for this reason "it's a legitimate comparison seen in other wiki pages. it will be created during the actual world cup anyway. refer to talk page". It indeed is a legitimate comparison, but I am questioning its importance; moreover, I have not seen anything like this before in qualification articles. His second argument may be about Standings/Rankings sections in World Cup Finals articles, but they apparently have nothing to do with this one. I would still like to remove it, but in order to avoid an edit war, I bring this issue up here beforehand. Please have some words :) Centaur271188 ( talk) 17:22, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)