Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC)

2019 AFC qualifiers

The qualification for both competitions will be shared in the Preliminary Round (if required) and First Round. Thereafter the qualification process for AFC Asian Cup will be documented on its own page, but not here. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Old Deletion Notification

Only historical now . . . no longer relevant as competition is now beginning. --Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Groups

Wow, some long keys, but i guess it's the format. However, should red really be used as a color, they still might qualify for something. I'd go with white over red. -Koppapa (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

A white color means they're doing nothing right after the tournament. We just ran out of colors. We could use "yellow2" though. –HTD 10:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

First Round

The draw for the first round was made before the February rankings were released, and so are ALWAYS based upon the January Rankings. I suggest that when we are getting closer to the draw for the second round - which will be based on the April rankings - that the Table is retired, or at least trimmed down to just the relevent bottom 12. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Retain the table as long as the article exists, or place it at the 1st round article, then just revert the people who insist on using the February rankings. Showing the entirety of the rankings is important as you'd never know who's at the bottom unless the top teams are included. For the second round, we can have a separate table either here or at the second round article. –HTD 16:35, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

ETA: Seeing that it is on the "Entrants" section, I suggest letting it stay here and not transfer it to the First Round article. The rankings for the 2nd round draw should stay at the 2nd Round article though, and not here. –HTD 16:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with the first part, but not necessarily the second. I think there will be reverts needed at least up to the April draw - some of the changes have just been a bit malicious, changing the relative positions of India and Pakistan and not the rest.Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The difference between the rankings for the 1st and 2nd rounds is in the 1st round, byes are determined (while also determining the pots), while on the 2nd round, it's just solely for the pots and could stay there. In theory, the 1st round rankings could also stay in the daughter article, but it is presented in the "Entrants" section here. We could completely ditch the byes though and just list the teams alphabetically, then leave the byes to the daughter article. –HTD 22:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The format for the previous 2 AFC qualification articles uses bullet points rather than a table, and maybe it would look less controversial in terms of not having the actual ranking there. To my mind the actual rankings are not important, it is only the relative rankings within AFC that matter. Also, you will always be able to see at the entrants in the parent article by looking at the tables for round 1 and Round 2 anyway, so it may suffice in the Entrants section just to say All 46 FIFA-affiliated nations from the AFC entered qualification. and leave it at that. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd also wanted to do that, TBH, but some people would rather see some form of a list. As that's an "entrants" section, an alphabetical bulleted list should suffice. That being said, 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) uses this tabular format, and seeing the AFC also gives out byes, perhaps for consistency's sake, let's keep it. After all, it seems India and Pakistan fans are doing the damage, so it could be easily reverted on sight. –HTD 23:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

CONCACAF different in that all four rounds were determined from one single set of rankings (Aug 2014), but here we have both Jan2015 and April2015 rankings involved. I think eventually the first table in its entirety will look good in the daughter first round article. I will wait until the dust settles after Round 1 (which is < 2 weeks away), and see how many more edits to the January rankings actually happen. Need to consider whether the Entrants section becomes a hybrid of the April table (for the current top 34 'seeds'), and the second column using the January rankings (for the bottom 12 seeds). I think this will work well provided the actual world ranking number is omitted (and as previously stated, it is their relative rank within the confederation that is relevant, not the actual global number). But it cannot be created until after the April 2015 rankings are released. Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Considering that in the AFC, there's only one bye for a set of teams, the January 2015 rankings would suffice. We don't have to update the top 34 "seeds" with the April 2015 rankings for those would only be for pots in the 2nd round, not byes to any more further rounds. In other words, the April 2015 rankings won't change the fact that the January rankings were used to determine which teams would get byes, which is the same case as the CONCACAF's August 2014 rankings. –HTD 02:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Second round

• The seeding for the second round has not yet been announced.

• The table with seeds has been hidden until this time, but can still be updated once the round 1 winners are known.

• There is still speculation as to whether AFC will use the March rankings or the April rankings for this, and whether the round 1 winners are automatically in Pot 5 or not; April FIFA rankings due 9th April - unlikely it will be known before then. Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

We now know it will be April rankings . . . [1] . . . --Matilda Maniac (talk) 02:14, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I've gone one step further and hidden the whole thing. Ugly and unnecessary until the draw. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

• The Philippines is on Top of Group H. Mistake there on the Table where North Korea was listed to be included 3rd round WC Qualifier Playoffs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.211.118.197 (talk) 21:36, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Fourth and Fifth Rounds

The existence of these rounds are still speculative at the moment, as FIFA has not announced the number of qualifiers per Federation for 2018. If AFC gets 4.0 slots - which is quite possible - then the Fourth and Fifth Rounds will not exist. There is an assumption that AFC will get 4.5 slots, but that is all it is at the moment. Matilda Maniac (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The allocation of slots for each confederation will be discussed by the FIFA Executive Committee on 30 May 2015 in Zurich after the FIFA Congress. Matilda Maniac (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I added talkpage reflist. Qed237 (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Asian Cup qualifying

Given that this is the page for the 2018 World Cup qualifying, should we simplify the tables to only refer to the World Cup qualifying scenarios? The Asian Cup could be mentioned in the introduction, but then the tables would only show qualifying positions for the World Cup. The same tables could then be reproduced in the Asian Cup qualifying article, with all World Cup references removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.25.83.124 (talk) 23:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I feel we should do so. Tvx1 00:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

This has already happened. Matilda Maniac (talk) 06:58, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Kuwait disqualification ?

where is this announced ? Its not on FIFA website or AFC. Vandalism ??? Matilda Maniac (talk) 04:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No, they have not been officially disqualified and the content has been restored by User:Chanheigeorge. Qed237 (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Myanmar-Kuwait

The Group G standings have not been updated on FIFA.com

Based on my previous experience with awarded matches, this means Kuwait FA can still appeal. The standings will be updated after the decision is final.

--Edgar (talk) 07:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

You are correct that Kuwait can still appeal. Per the FIFA Statutes, Kuwait has 21 days from notification (i.e. until 3 February) to appeal the forfeiture and fine to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. However, it is unlikely that the CAS would overturn the decision; FIFA did, after all, take almost two months to make the decision. I also note that AFC does include the result in its standings tables. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 08:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Timor L'este disqualification

Retrospective disqualification from this tournament and others due to fielding ineligible players . . . AFC Statement : Discussion HERE.

Matilda Maniac (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (AFC). 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160412093837/http://www.the-afc.com/2018-world-cup/stage-set-for-russia-2018-asian-qualifiers-final-round-draw to http://www.the-afc.com/2018-world-cup/stage-set-for-russia-2018-asian-qualifiers-final-round-draw

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Goalscorers

Seriesly, you don't need to list every player who stored a goal just the top 20 will do. Govvy (talk) 11:52, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Soccerfootballwiki: Before I revert, please read this! This was why I reduced the Goalscorers list. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Having just the top 20 makes it a pain to look for less prolific goalscorers, since you have to hunt around four different rounds looking for them and tallying them up, and it also makes the format of the goalscorers list inconsistent with the qualifying rounds of previous World Cups.Westindiaman (talk) 03:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree with listing only top goalscorers, listing every single goalscorer easily fails WP:NOSTATS, you dont see every player with 1 or 2 goals listed at 2016–17 Premier League either. Snowflake91 (talk) 09:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The lists of goalscorers are always at the bottom of articles, which makes it so that they don't impede readability in the rest of the article. While you don't see every player with 1 or 2 goals listed at 2016–17 Premier League, you do see every player with 1 or 2 goals listed at [[2]], [[3]], [[4]] and [[5]], as well as the equivalent articles for other confederations.Westindiaman (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not correct, at UEFA qualfying article, there are only players with 6+ goals listed, and those AFC articles for 2010 or 2006 should have goalscorer deleted as well. Snowflake91 (talk) 10:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

When I mentioned other confederations, I was referring to previous qualifying campaigns, which do have every goalscorer listed (see: 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA) and 2014 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)), and those that don't have every goalscorer listed have no goalscorers listed at all.Westindiaman (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

We cannot blindly follow tradition just because of consistency. Confederal qualification articles are quite long already, showing every goalscorer would be ridiculous, because it really harms readability. The only allowed exception is CONMEBOL, because we only have 1 article there, and its goalscorers cannot be mentioned anywhere else. Centaur271188 (talk) 16:44, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how readability of the rest of the article is harmed with the lists? The only things below them are footnotes, references, etc. Making top-X lists removes information for the sake of aesthetics, despite the aesthetics in this case being fairly irrelevant.Westindiaman (talk) 20:13, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if the article's readability was not harmed, the 'Goalscorers' section itself would suffer. Every confederal qualification had hundreds of goals scored by hundreds of players, therefore a full list would be terribly and unnecessarily long. I felt annoyed everytime I watched it (I watched and used it a lot, you can see 'A proposal' section below), and many editors felt the same. Moreover, I (maybe others as well) would like to question its importance. Is every goalscorer worth mentioning in a confederal qualification's main article? Centaur271188 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

A proposal

Hi, I think it is a good idea to shorten goalscorers lists; but if we do that for confederal qualifications that are still active, there may be some difficulty. For example, I have been using those full lists to keep track of every player's goalscoring records; if someone scores in a recent match, I simply look him up in the list to know what to do with him (add him as a new scorer, or move him from "1 goal" section to "2 goals", etc.). With incomplete lists, I am quite puzzled: "How many goals has he scored before? Does he have enough goals to appear in this list? How can I check his records?" Of course, I can obtain those information from qualification articles, but it is considerably more difficult than doing a simple search. Therefore, I would like to temporarily keep full goalscorers lists for all qualifications, even OFC (we will have to deal with inter-confederation play-offs). By the end of November matchdays, you can reduce all lists to 10-20 players. Thanks for considering my idea :) Centaur271188 (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

 Note: This message has been moved from my Talk page to allow for open discussion. As for my thoughts, I've already set up the Goalscorers section in a hidden notice in the inter-confederation playoffs page, so the OFC issue is taken care of. I decided to leave both UEFA and CONMEBOL alone when reducing these lists as their qualification processes are mostly one round with playoffs after anyway. As for the others, my assumption with what Govvy was trying to say was that the full goalscorers list gets a bit extensive if all the goalscorers were listed, when the same information could easily be found in the individual rounds, provided one were also able to add together each individual round a player appeared in. It was a reason I agreed with and acted accordingly based on such reasoning. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Jd22292: Thanks for explaining. I get your point now. About UEFA, I think you can still reduce its list, because we have 'Goalscorers' sections in 9 groups and play-off round; this case is similar to other qualifications which have many rounds. I assume (and agree) that you intend to keep CONMEBOL intact, because we have only 1 article for that confederation. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Archive additions

Please make sure that my archive additions to this article as well as the fourth round article are accurate and revert any "never-dead" references where applicable. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 10:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)