Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification – AFC third round

Significance

What is the significance of finishing first rather than second? And if there is none, why is there any need to distinguish the outcomes (in what is a particularly ugly and pointless looking table)? 110.33.22.59 (talk) 11:34, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Can anyone add any countries that already had a chance to this round to any groups, before draw?

Because they are qualified to this round, so can I do it? Kamoverapo124 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

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]) 18:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Fixtures table with dates

Why the table of fixtures with match dates is deleted which was next to the standings? 195.158.16.210 (talk) 06:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

It is too early for these tables. Unless someone can add the match templates that make the anchors for the links on these tables work, we cannot have bot edits like this ruining the article. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 08:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is the ranking updated without consent?

The scheduled update for FIFA ranking is on 19 June, so why was it surprisingly updated? HiddenFace101 (talk) 20:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Finish in second round holds no bearing on third round this time around

The table that is being continuously reinserted into this article to indicate which teams finished in what positions in which groups worked in past qualification articles as the runners-up of second round groups entered a different round (between FIFA third round or AFC third round) dependent on group result. This same table does not work here, as winners and runners-up always qualify for this round regardless of how they finished. I do not believe the table should be restored here. I would also like some other input regarding this table. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 03:10, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: leave the Qualified teams section as it is for now - it is appropriate. If something different later occurs with the draw mechanism, update then, but don't speculate that the format will be anything different to what Is already announced (under WP:CRYSTAL). Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Mediocre Legacy since I see the table of second round results was restored during this discussion. I'd like to see if there was a reason behind this. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 03:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

I have reverted that edit citing this discussion. I originally removed the table specifically because the results in the second round do not, at this time, hold any bearing on the third round. Should the draw procedure state that group winners will be seeded higher than group runners-up regardless of the world ranking, then I will personally restore the table unless someone else does so. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 15:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Removal of unreferenced, unfinished and commented out content

I have removed all of the unreferenced content from this article, as well as unfinished content such as the group tables and the commented out content which should be referenced regardless of whether it's commented out (readers can click edit or view source at any time and see what's been hidden). This is per WP:VERIFY, WP:MOS and WP:CRYSTALBALL. I see no benefit to adding any of them back to the article before reliable sources are reporting the information. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 08:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Sources for the qualified teams and the group formats were already in the article, so I've restored those sections with citations. That info was easily verifiable even if not directly cited - did you consider trying to WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM instead of removing good content?

I'm not sure I fully understand your objection to the commented out content. I agree that it's not ready for inclusion yet (hence being hidden), but it's helpful to get the sections ready for when inclusion will be appropriate. That's specified as an appropriate use of hidden text per WP:HIDDEN: Preparing small amounts of information to be added to the article in the future (such as when a known event will occur). (And I'd argue that the hidden content is small enough to qualify, although I'm not exactly sure where to draw that line.) Wburrow (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I noticed there was a content dispute on this article, which is the only reason I had taken a look at it. WP:VERIFY is one of the most important Wikipedia policies and should take precedence over all others. This article has been worked on by many editors and really should have been appropriately sourced by now. Also note that the verification policy says Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed. Editors should not have to try to fix the problem if content is uncited.

I'm not sure I would agree that the content is "small", and as another editor uncommenting content was part of the dispute I'd argue its removal is better for page stability (it can always be found in the page history when it's time to restore).

I still don't think the Groups section should be in the article yet. It is unfinished. There are no teams listed, instead A1-6, B1-6 and C1-6. Prose explaining the group structure would be better until the teams are known. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 18:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Re Qualified teams: WP:V says an inline citation is needed for material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged. The verifiability of which teams had qualified for the round was never in question (the content dispute around this section was about how to present the information, not whether it was verifiable or accurate), so an inline citation was not required. If you really felt one was needed, a "citation needed" tag would have been a good alternative to removing the section.

Re hidden text: I hope you're right that totally removing the content is better for page stability, and I'm not in any hurry to restore that part, although I do think it's (barely) permissible as info to be added later.

Re Groups: It is a long-standing and common practice to include group structures with placeholders instead of teams for the time period between the announcement of the group structure and placement of the teams via the draw (see here for one of many examples). I see no reason this page should be an exception to that practice. Wburrow (talk) 20:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

In regards to the hidden text issue: there is a reason we have the edit history: to look back on revisions and, if necessary, copy content from said old revisions. Even if the hidden content was to be removed again later, we still have said edit history to recover that content when the time comes, even if we're only restoring part of the old content and not the whole. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 03:58, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2024

The AFC draw is happening right now I would like to edit it in real time AngyShuggness (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Liu1126 (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

4 v 5 is Listed Twice

In the Schedule table, Matchday 5 and Match 10 both say 4 v 5. One of them should be 5 v 4. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hosting rights for fourth round

Link provided only notes that potential hosts are the best two qualifiers from previous round, not necessarily the best two third placed teams. It is possible (though not likely) that the fourth placed team from one group has better results than the two third-placed teams from the other two groups. Therefore the excessively long description in the tables is currently not correct.165.12.252.114 (talk) 01:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Specific matches in schedule table

I'm starting this discussion to allow both @Malelectrical and Matilda Maniac to argue their cases over inclusion of pot-based pairs in the schedule section's table. I can understand where Mal is coming from with matching the pairs to each team's draw pot, but I can also understand Matilda's argument for the precedent of exclusion after some time. However, I must ask as the neutral party here: is there an established consensus somewhere favouring displaying these or not? Or if both users can elaborate their cases in the case that one does not exist? Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:20, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I concur with Matilda Maniac that the allocation of specific pairs to specific match days is trivial and, as such, is inappropriate for inclusion. Any use we have for such schedule table expires upon completion of the draw since the actual teams are known. Match schedules can change, and they often do change, which renders the table inaccurate and moot even if it were still included; thus it is best not to include these tables after the draw in any article. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 17:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Japan play-off spot

It's a moot point really, but Japan - like Iraq - are already guaranteed a play-off spot. While any of the other teams can catch them, they all play each other and are guaranteed to drop too many points, so Japan can't finish lower than 4th. 2A00:23C8:4F2B:EA00:95D1:74C5:D4A1:2153 (talk) 21:28, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

This is correct, but I'm concerned that giving Japan the X status would cross the line from routine calculation into original research unless we can find sources that say the same. Wburrow (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the calculation to show Japan is guaranteed a play-off spot is this: Japan is in 1st with 16 pts. For them to finish 5th, 4 other teams would need to earn at least 16 pts. So Australia needs 9 pts, and 3 of the other teams need 10 pts each. That's a total of 39 pts needed. But there are only 12 matches remaining, so only 36 total points available to be earned. Since 36<39, there's no way for 4 other teams to reach Japan's 16 pts.

Per WP:CALC, routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the results of the calculations are correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. So does anyone have an opinion as to whether this counts as a routine calculation, or is it original research? Wburrow (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Define "routine". Either we can add designations like this if true or we can't add any designations like this. It is ridiculous to set some hazy "this is too hard" level for something that is a matter of checking all in a relatively modest set of possibilities - especially when the result of only including it sometimes would be to imply something incorrect by exclusion. Who would set the level of easiness? What would it be? "Can fit on an A4 page"? "Can be explained to a random person in under 45 seconds"? Editors here can probably assess whether the statement is plausible (I asked myself whether this was the case - thought it looks likely - but wouldn't be completely surprised either way). And if it is incorrect then someone will point it out fast enough (and all it takes is a worked through counterexample) and then any attempt to add it back can and will be reverted. 165.12.252.109 (talk) 04:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Basically, "routine calculations" use only the four basic mathematical operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division). Since Wburrow used only basic mathematical operations to show the impossibility of Japan finishing worse than 4th place, these were "routine calculations" and are not original research. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

What a hilarious non-answer. Tell me, using only "addition, subtraction, multiplication and division" how (in a hth group) if Team A has 9 points and Teams B and C (who play each other in the last game) have only 8 and have the "correct" hth history, then Team A is guaranteed a top-2 position - surely the analysis of how the group standings rules are applied must count as "original research". And is there a limit of how many operations can be used - is exponentation okay given it is just repeated multiplication or is that not routine. The whole thing is classic wikipedia non-policy by ineptness. Define a "policy" in terms that literally defy any real usefullness and then let the loudest or most persistent voices railroad the final position. 110.33.22.59 (talk) 06:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

round 6 match attendance

第6節の、まだ試合結果に載せていない残りの観客数はどうしたのでしょうか？

What happened to the remaining attendance figures for Round 6 that have not yet been included in the match results?

(Match): PRK v UZB, KGZ v IRN, PLE v KOR, KUW v JOR and BHR v AUS

日本より（From Japanese wikipedian） Weathermania5 (talk) 22:48, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The FIFA and AFC reports for those matches don't show the attendance, and I have not been able to find the figures in other sources. Wburrow (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Weathermania5 (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)