Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup qualification

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2006 FIFA World Cup qualification article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Qualified Teams List

Why are we not including the old Yugoslavia with Serbia-and-Montenegro (and Czechoslovakia with Czech Republic) and we do include W. Germany and Germany? It doesnt make any sense. Either we do it one way or the other....
Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:33, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It has been changed. IanManka 17:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where? I was talking about the "Qualified Teams List". I'll check and change it myself. :) Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. The split in Czechoslovakia (Czech Rep and Slovakia) is the same as the split on Germany (East and West). If we don't count the former, we shouldn't count the latter. Same goes for reunification. I am personally in favor of counting the "previous countries" (in this case, both Czech Rep and Slovakia should take credit for Czechoslovakia) but I adjusted the only one that was different in the list. If we reach consensus here, I'll modify all of them to the unified stats. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:46, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't quite understand what you meant the first time. I like the idea of earlier appearances as separate countries being included. There's my vote. IanManka 04:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC) Which means it should be included in the table, and not hidden in bothersome footnotes :) IanManka 04:04, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do too, what do you propose we do? we seem to be the only two in the talk page. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 18:19, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What if we added a row to those who have played under different names? I hope you can catch my drift when I say this, so bear with me.

Have a double height row (height = 2) in the first column with Czech Republic in the cell; In the next column, split that has a row at normal height (height = 1): have one row read "Czech Republic," and the other read "Czechoslovakia"; in the subsequent columns, list the statistics of each country participating, such as in the first row (most likely Czechoslovakia, as it would make more sense chronologically): 8 (Appearances); 1 (Streak); 1990 (Last Appearance); I plan on explaining this through a table once I figure out wikitables, or html tables for that matter. I will come back with an example. IanManka 20:55, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An example is below.

Qualified Teams
Czech Republic	Czechoslovakia	8	1990
Czech Republic	Czech Republic	1st	2006

Or something like that. Do you get my drift? IanManka 21:05, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly, add another set of columns with total appearances between the two, and so on; Make these span the two rows in between, so that it looks like Czech Republic did on the right; ~~also, sorry about not using wikitables... I don't know how to use them that well :P~~ IanManka 21:08, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Converted Wikitables 24.164.118.68 00:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not really digging it, I think the footnotes explain plenty... Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 03:26, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The table is hideous, and forgets the fact that Yugoslavia can be a former team of Croatia also. Is a complete misnomer. I will revert the table and we can discuss here. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree, the table was hideous; I decided to post it for no apparent reasons. The footnotes now make sense. Thanks. IanManka 21:59, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, good idea, though. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 22:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Germany Revertion

It is contended than Germany is equal to West Germany but Russia is not equal to USSR because the formers were a result of unification and the latters of separation. Do I need to point out that West Germany started from a separation (from Germany) thus making the point totally moot? I reverted the changes.

Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 20:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am with the train of thought including West Germany and Germany as one and the same; West Germany's government system is more akin to Germany's government today, East Germany was radically different, and thus not included. Any thoughts? IanManka 01:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Majority rules. I am still in dissent. If the Russian and Yugoslavian split in 1991 makes 2 (or more) teams, the German one in 1947 also does. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 02:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved for consistency

Moved per consensus. --Pkchan 13:38, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Intercontinental Playoffs into one article?

Agree or disagree? --Howard the Duck | talk, 15:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ Support. Such a move would make the article an immense size, and readers may lose information about individual games. No thanks. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 22:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it'll be relatively short. It's certainly shorter than 2006 FIFA World Cup (qualification UEFA). It'll only include the Asia-CONCACAF Playoff and the Oceania-CONMEBOL Playoff. Take a look ~~here~~ (removed old link). --Howard the Duck | talk, 02:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I am stupid. I misread that entirely. I thought you meant that you wanted to merge all of the continental zones into one article. That is, CONCACAF, AFC, etc. all in one big article. Go ahead and do it. Sorry for any confusion. I can't believe I misread that so badly. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 02:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I wasn't able to express the idea nicely. But how about the UEFA qualifications? Since they're not intercontinental they'll be left out. How about either adding them to the bottom of the already long European qualification article or instead of creating an intercontinental playoff article, lets make it a qualification playoff article, although that'll make the now proposed intercontinental playoff article a bit longer. --Howard the Duck | talk, 06:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ukraine and Croatia

I think it is irrelevant to mention that their entries don't include entries from Yugoslavia and the USSR, that only logical because they are brand new countries. We should only mention it with Serbia & Montenegro and Russia, so I will delete it.

It IS relevant, as these regions contributed players to the national teams

Please make it also for 2002 and 1998.

Please make it also for 2002 and 1998. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.78.146.186 (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

List of top goalscorers?

How about making a list of top goalscorers in the qualifiers? I'm surprised the article doesn't include this already. Timbouctou (talk) 06:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreaking rules

Usually when teams are level on points, FIFA competitions use overall goal difference as the first tiebreaking criterion, unlike competitions organized by UEFA, which give precedence to head-to-head records. Indeed goal difference is listed first in the "Tiebreakers" section of the qualification article. Based on that, Sweden should be the winner and Croatia should be the runner-up of UEFA Group 8, and I just edited the relevant articles to reflect that.

However, I then noticed that archived versions of FIFA's website such as this one and this one go by head-to-head and rank Croatia above Sweden, and so does RSSSF. Rankings are not available in FIFA's current website.

Besides, said section actually contains the sentence "This is a change from the 2002 FIFA World Cup, where total goal difference was the first tiebreaker", which may be a remnant of some earlier version where head-to-head was first. And also, while the equivalent section of the main tournament page lists goal difference first, it also says, "In the original version of the rules for the final tournament, the ranking criteria were in a different order, with head-to-head results taking precedence over total goal difference. The rules were changed to the above in advance of the tournament, but older versions were still available on the FIFA and UEFA websites, causing some confusion among those trying to identify the correct criteria".

Admittedly this doesn't ultimately matter as both Sweden and Croatia qualified directly anyways. But still, how shall we resolve this? --Theurgist (talk) 04:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From 1958 to 1990 Ukraine competed as Soviet Union

From 1958 to 1990 the Soviet Union national football team played in 7 World Cups. Ukraine was part of the USSR from 1922 to 1991. Many Ukrainian players played for the Soviet Union national football team during this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ЛексВМ (talk • contribs) 17:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA records consider Russia to be the successor team to the USSR, with Ukraine and the other former Soviet republics starting their teams in 1992. See this document for an example of how FIFA attributes World Cup appearances. Wburrow (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, FIFA on the initiative of the vice president of FIFA Vyacheslav Koloskov (1980-1996) has double standards and an unfounded lying position. The FIFA member of the GDR ceased to have them, and the FIFA member of the USSR did not. This is a lie. The USSR ended in 1991. Such a country does not exist! There is no international document according to which the Russian Federation was the sole legal successor of the USSR.It is bad that FIFA and Wikipedia support the imperial narratives of the Russian Federation that led to the war in Ukraine. This should be stopped and not considered that the Russian Federation and the USSR are one and the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ЛексВМ (talk • contribs) 07:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]