Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Colombia Citation

Colombia's cite is in Spanish, so I'm not totally positive, but could someone bilingual take a look at that source of the Colombia bid (which I've never seen anywhere else) is legit? I often search for new bids, and no one mentions this as one of the official bid that I've seen. Thanks. Leoberacai (talk) 15:57, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Format

Let's form a consensus on the way bids should be added to the page, as the format has become a major source of edits. I've put in the category "Announced Potential Bids" as a way to keep the major U.S. news in the article, and I like it as a lesser category to confirmed bids. The Canada, Colombia, and Mexico bids seem to me to be confirmed. They had migrated from this category recently. Thoughts on this? Another forum to discuss this on Wikipedia? Thanks for your upcoming contributions. [[User:Leoberacai|৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ]]^{[[User talk:Leoberacai|৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ]]} (talk) 07:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Peru & Ecuador

There have been several attempts to add a Peru/Ecuador facebook campaign to this list, resulting in a small scale edit war. Please do not put this back on the list until it is confirmed by the national officials in question. ৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ^{৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ} 17:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Asian and European Countries

Please do not add any Asian or European Countries. As the article states, the FIFA policy is currently to disallow bids from confederations who have hosted either of the last two World Cups. Thanks. ৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ^{৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ} 17:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

But why is Australia on the list then? Australian is member of the AFC, who will host the 2022 World Cup (Qatar). Wouldn't that make Australia disallowed to host a World Cup in 2026? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.124.185.10 (talk) 12:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Morocco

I've moved it to potential bid, as I believe the standard at this point between confirmed and potential bids should be a statement that there will be a bid, not that there might be a bid. Thoughts? Also, The links are in French and Arabic, so some help with verification is necessary. ৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ^{৳€Ø฿€ƦȺ₡Ⱥƪ} 06:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Format with 48 teams

Is the format of 48 teams correctly described? It says it would be "16 seeds joined by 32 winners of a play-off round". Wouldn't the play-off round have 32 teams and 16 winners joining the 16 seeds?

This way there would be 32 teams playing 16 matches in the play-off round, and after that 32 teams playing the other 64 matches of the current format, 80 total (16+64). The format should be described as:

• Expand to 48 teams (16 seeds joined by 16 winners of a play-off round with 32 teams), 80 matches overall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diogowerner (talk • contribs) 02:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Flags in infobox

@Red Jay: WP:FLAGS lists FIFA World Cup articles as an exception from the direction of not having flags in infoboxes so why keep them dull then? Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup or the Olympic Games. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

MOS:FLAG states that, but it has been applied to people pages, not the events themselves. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

So, you agree that there is no policy prohibiting the use of flags in infoboxes of event pages. Red Jay reverted me for no reason. If it has not been applied before, that does not mean it can never be applied. Meaningless reverts should be avoided at all costs. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No I do not agree that the guideline allows for that. There is no close association with the nation and so the flag and a link to the nation is not needed. WP:INFOBOXFLAG and WP:OVERLINK are a valid reasons to remove such links in this article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

More questions on Format

If the tournament starts with 16 groups of three teams each where the top two teams advance to the knock-out round of 32 teams, there will be 16 teams who will play only two games and go home. Has it been decided how the first two teams in a particular group will be chosen to play the first game, AND, which of those two teams will be selected to play the second game against the 'third team', while the other team waits to play the 'third team' in the last match. I am interested to know if all match schedules are preset or if the second and third game match-ups are based on the first game outcome as it was in 1982's second round I believe.Juve2000 (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect implications

I still think arranging the countries alphabetically creates a factual misrepresentation that Canada is the main host. ViperSnake151  Talk  05:49, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not alphabetical. Canada - Mexico - United States would be alphabetical. I have no idea whether it's a north-south representation or some other decision. It's also not about who the main host is, it's the common name. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Someone changed it after I last saw it. The order at Canada–Mexico–United States 2026 FIFA World Cup bid‎‎, despite the article name, is correct per the bid book. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Must read before I write. The bid book, http://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/united-2026-bid-book.pdf?cloudid=w3yjeu7dadt5erw26wmu, uniformly uses Canada, Mexico and United States. I do see your point about being the main host. What do others think? Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I changed the order here citing my reasons being United States hosting most matches (60) followed by Mexico who hosts same number of matches as Canada but has been finalist many times while Canada has not made to finals ever before but off course I was reverted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 15:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

The rationale is sound. Other editors haven't been keen to move forward with that order though. As long as they're not WP:OVERLINKed, I'm fine with it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd go U.S., Canada, Mexico only because it would be alphabetical order out of the countries tied for the number of matches hosted. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Seems as though @Sportsfan 1234: hasn't seen this discussion based on the edit just made. Perhaps a comment would be appropriate. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It should be alphabetical. I am not sure how that gives the implication Canada is the main host, when its clearly explained in the prose the USA is hosting 60 of the 80 games. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

This article should definitely list Canada first, per well-established precedent.  Canada should always get top billing in any article or list, per the alphabetical order rule, regardless of its level of significance to the article (see Thanksgiving and G7 for typical examples).  However, in the unfortunate instance when Australia is also on the list, Canada should be listed before Australia, because reasons and stuff (see the third paragraph in the lede to Elizabeth II).  The only time that an exception is to be made is when any Canadian province east of Alberta begins with a letter that is alphabetically superior to a neighbouring American state.  In that case, the Canadian province should be listed first per the west to east and the north to south rules and other rules of thumb that should be created on an ad hoc basis. --AntHerder (talk)

The Logo

Hi guys. Please explain me WHY we can not use this logo in Ru-wiki ? Can someone help ? Thanks in advance. M.Karelin (talk) 21:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Provisional match schedule

There is a provisional match schedue on the page for the winning bid, but not on this page. Should it be added? Why/why not? 89.253.124.158 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:23, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

MetLife Stadium

Can we just leave MetLife Stadium's location as New York City, rather than New York/New Jersey? The latter is unspecific and that part of New Jersey is a suburb of New York City itself.--Hmdwgf (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Since it's in East Rutherford, New Jersey, that would be a lie, wouldn't it? Using New York/New Jersey goes against MOS:SLASH so would "New York metropolitan area be an acceptable compromise for you? Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

East Rutherford is only 8 miles west of New York City, and no because then its inconsistent with other singular cities where the stadiums are in the metropolitan area but not in the city itself (Los Angeles, Washington, Boston, Miami, Dallas, San Francisco (that should only be listed as the "San Francisco Bay Area" because there are 3 major cities in that region within a 50 mile radius)). I would have thought an ideal compromise had already been reached when we put the actual locations of those stadia underneath the dominant city- and those stadiums are associated with their respective dominant cities in the bid book.--Hmdwgf (talk) 22:35, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

We could quite easily link to the metropolitan area articles for those stadiums as well. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. But the main cities in the first column should stay as they are. --Hmdwgf (talk) 05:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Levi Stadium

Levi Stadium is located in Santa Clara not San Francisco ElBarbudo96 (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

How does the bid book refer to it? Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@ElBarbudo96: You took a good first step by coming here to discuss, but you've forgotten to continue to discuss.

To answer my question, the bid book in several locations states Levi's Stadium is in the "San Francisco Bay Area". On page 196 states "Location 4900 Marie P. DeBartolo Way, Santa Clara, CA 95054, USA" and follows that with "Candidate Host City Name San Francisco, California" https://resources.fifa.com/image/upload/united-2026-bid-book.pdf I did not check whether other stadiums in neighbouring communities follow the convention of listing the closest large city as the host city, but it seems the bid book thinks the candidate host is San Francisco, not Santa Clara. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Do not soccer here

Fifa does not call the game soccer. This is an intermational tournament and majority that will qualified to play tournament there, do not refers to game soccer, they all call football. Please do not change it! Jozamba (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jozamba: FIFA isn't American, and "soccer" is the term in American English, where the majority of games will be played, and several other varieties as well. See WP:LANGVAR and get over it. We've had this discussion multiple times in multiple locations. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and @Jozamba: this link says you're wrong. The word "soccer" appears on the FIFA.com website about 288,000 times. About 259,000 times if I exclude "beach soccer". Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this was discussed at footy, but I don't see any discussion of this here. I don't really care either way, but pointing out that 1994 FIFA World Cup uses association football. Let's have some consistency shall we. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

That article only used it because Jozamba added it there. It's been discussed in many other places. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I should've looked at the history first, but can do without the template, thanks. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 21:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Aye. Apologies. WP:DTTR and all. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Date format is in British English

British don't use world soccer but football. The soccer wasn't here before so why now. Please change this article back to football. FIFA is a global game and Mexico will be hosting the tournament too. Jozamba (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Date format was MDY. Once again, you're wrong. Did you bother to read the corrections to your errors I provided above? Walter Görlitz (talk)

You're a Canadian and I respect Canada's culture but in most of the world football refers to association football. It be much better to put association football rather than soccer. Jozamba (talk) 21:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you have an understanding what is being discussed here? You've been pointed to WP:LANGVAR at least a six times over the time I've had to deal with you, yet you still do not understand, do you?

You incorrectly stated that FIFA does not use the term "soccer" yet I showed you that it appears on their website (see the section above).

You also claimed the article here use DMY, but it officially used MDY and an editor made one change against that format. That has been corrected. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:45, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Although, perhaps you thought this was the 1994 tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

However, the article used DMY until an editor changed it in August 2018. The tournament is being hosted in three countries, I think there should've been a discussion prior to changing the format for the entire article. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS:DATETIES is pretty clear for situations like the 1994 FIFA World Cup being based only in the U.S., but is a little more unclear in this situation with Mexico, however 2/3 countries use MDY, where most of the games are being played. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Per MOS:DATETIES, the tournament has ties to two different English-speaking countries, the United States and Canada. While the U.S. uses MDY, articles related to Canada may use either format with (as always) consistency within each article. Given this split, I think retaining the date format which the article primarily developed with should be used, per MOS:DATERET, which would be DMY (prior to the undiscussed change last year). S.A. Julio (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Canada was an afterthought. It's a U.S. tournament with games in other nations. The majority of the games are in the U.S. The opening and final game are in the U.S. TIES applies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Canada are a co-host, and will likely get an automatic spot at the tournament. Though more matches are in the United States, it is not a solely U.S. tournament. This is not a clear case of DATETIES. S.A. Julio (talk) 08:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I can tell you that this is still hotly debated—we ourselves are unsure if we will get an automatic berth—even so, you've completely ignored my point so I'll make it again: of the venues, there are three each in Canada and Mexico while there are seventeen, almost six times as many, in the US. The bid book makes it clear that opening and closing games will be the U.S. "Twenty-three cities across the three countries are bidding to be selected as one of the 16 eventual host cities. Mexico and Canada are expected to host 10 matches each, using three stadiums, with the US hosting the remaining 60 games in 10 stadiums. Mexico and Canada would each host seven group matches, two matches in the round of 32, and one match in the round of 16. Every game from the quarter-final stage onwards would be in the US, with the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey expected to stage the final itself." Since Canada uses both date formats, MDY is valid here. So in short, the date format is one of the acceptable ones for Canada, but this is a primarily US tournament. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:15, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Estadio Akron aerial view.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Estadio Omnilife (Chivas).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Estadio Azteca, 2015.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz Stadium photos

I see in the notes that interior photos of stadiums are preferred, but we have an exterior shot of the Atlanta stadium because there are no good photos. I think I'd say that there aren't great photos of M-B Stadium, but there are adequate ones in Commons:Category:Interior of Mercedes-Benz Stadium. Would any of these work for the venues table?

• 
  A
• 
  B
• 
  C
• 
  D

Ytoyoda (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

My preference is D, purely from there being soccer lines on the pitch as opposed to gridiron. Radagast (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

• Exterior or if we need interior, D because it's not a gridiron set-up. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I should point out that the majority of the US stadium photos in the venue box have NFL markings. I think image quality is a higher priority than whether we see the field set up for association football. Ytoyoda (talk) 00:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
• Exterior I personally like A. It shows off more of the interior than the others.--Hmdwgf (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Stop correcting what is good, vandal administrator

I have been adding to this article for days valuable and key information in this section of: controversies, referring to the complete monopoly that the USA has planned a total monopoly of the number of parties, it is perfectly valid, real information and that above is in the same wikipedia article in Spanish, there is no reason for this abusive administrator to pass it on to him, erase and erase and erase said paragraph, being an administrator does not give you any right to make such a vandal act, I hope that action is taken on the matter and fire if necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexander HK (talk • contribs) 21:27, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Good? Without a source, how can you claim it is good? You're edit warring and that's unacceptable. Supply a source. You're on your way to a block for edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexander HK: Looks like you were blocked for abusive language before you were blocked for edit warring.

When your block expires, please come back and either supply a source that shows that "the distribution of games between the three countries" has been routinely criticized. Canada doesn't have the required number of venues so no one was complaining there. It's my opinion, as a Canadian, that the US was being magnanimous in allowing Mexico and Canada to enter a bid with them since they have the required facilities, the financial ability to host the games, and the organizational stability to do so without help. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Potential venues

According to news reports the Los Angeles area is submitting both Rose Bowl and Sofi Stadium in their bid to be a host city. https://soccer.nbcsports.com/2021/07/06/montreal-out-as-2026-world-cup-site-fifa-to-pick-in-2022/ 79.161.46.148 (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

The bid book is complete. I'm not sure if they can retroactively add stadiums. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:18, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Replace Seattle Stadium Image

The field is home to the sounders. Example appropriate image http://soccerstadiumdigest.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/centurylink2019-scaled.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:a000:9010::3 (talk) 19:16, August 8, 2021 (UTC)

"2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 27#2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONCACAF) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

FIFA approved names with sponsor names

Now that we know the host venues, the official FIFA approved names for the venues will be announced some time between now and kickoff (since FIFA does not allow stadiums to have sponsored names). Gillette is already announced as being Boston Stadium. My question is how are we going to list it? Are we just going to make it a {{note}} or are we going to do it similar to 2010 FIFA World Cup and do it in small bold under the stadium's sponsor name (a spot currently in use by the cities of the stadiums)? Elisfkc (talk) 16:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's going to be a mess because every stadium except Azteca and Arrowhead has a sponsored name.

My preference would be to have the official name first, and then sponsored name and location in parenthesis. So for example, Dallas would be:

Dallas

Dallas Stadium

(AT&T Stadium, Arlington, TX)

What do you think? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I prefer the opposite. The stadium has a name that FIFA has decided to supersede with its own made-up name. The made-up name is the one that should be in parentheses. – PeeJay 01:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm with PeeJay if we are doing it that way. The other way I was thinking of doing was Gillette Stadium ^a

^Known as Boston Stadium during World Cup Elisfkc (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Sponsored names are unhelpful to most of our readers. Obviously they will be far more interested in the fact that a stadium is in Boston, than in which company of no interest to them wants us to help with its advertising. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48: No one is saying that we aren't including cities, like we do now. It's a matter of how to present the official name and the FIFA approved name. Elisfkc (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused. Official names are not the same as sponsored names. Which are we talking about? HiLo48 (talk) 04:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

In the case of North American stadiums, sponsored names are almost always more helpful than names that would only be used for the duration of the tournament. "Boston World Cup Stadium" is likely meaningless to the majority of the audience (particularly as it's 30 miles outside of Boston), while "Gillette Stadium" is what's used by the media and fans. Imagine if O2 Arena was renamed to "London Arena" or if Allianz Stadium was renamed Turin Stadium for a single event. The sponsored name would likely be more useful. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:52, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@HiLo48: In the US, the sponsored names are the same as the official names. Some of these stadiums have never had another name, except for a name when they were being proposed and/or constructed. That's why it was somewhat surprising that we already know that Gillette will be known as Boston Stadium, because it has never been called that before. It has only been known as Gillette Stadium or CMGI Field before this, which is why Google shows Fenway Park if you search for Boston Stadium. If you can find a reference pointing to any of the other stadiums "official name" that is not the sponsored name, that would actually be very helpful. Elisfkc (talk) 18:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• FIFA WORLD CUP 2026 INITIAL LOGO.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Gender clarification

Since there is also a periodic FIFA World Cup for women, this article should indicate that it is referring to the 2022 Men’s FIFA World Cup. 174.126.202.134 (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

As it is, the name of the tournament is ungendered and the common name is also ungendered, and it seems unnecessary since there is no other senior FIFA World Cup in 2022 (although 2022 FIFA U-20 Women's World Cup is happening right now). If FIFA rebrands the tournament to include the gender or reliable sources start referring to the tournament as the Men's World Cup, then we can follow suit. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 19:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Teams already qualified

FIFA President Gianni Infantino annouced on 31 August 2022 six CONCACAF teams will qualify for the 2026 World Cup, including Canada, Mexico and the United States as hosts. I'd like to put this information on the page. However, I"d prefer an official annoucement given by the FIFA Council for example. What should I do ? Please give me an answer. AncientEgyptFan (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

why is new york even mentioned in the locations?

metlife stadium is in east rutherford. east rutherford is in new jersey. new jersey is its own state. new york city isnt even in new jersey. the 'new york' part should be taken off, unless this is another 'new york hype' (much like its terrible, biased nyc wikipedia article). stick to exact places and facts. its a matter of geography. 2A00:23C5:B408:B601:D5FC:EDAB:938C:4B30 (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"New York/New Jersey" is the official host city name and all the media events will happen in New York City. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

New York metropolitan area. Here is your geography lesson. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 09:39, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

The USA goal scorers are still in bold. 37.111.205.220 (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry, but what are you talking about? Unless you have a vehicle with a flux capacitor, I’m not sure how you know who scored goals in 2026. Did you mean this for some other article? 1995hoo (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Image choices

I thought it was more or less established that we prefer venue photos with soccer fields rather than American football lines. I want to avoid getting into an edit war over this revert of my revert, but [1] and [2] indicate to me that is indeed the consensus. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:10, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

In fact, a depiction of stadiums in soccer configuration for this page was the consensus reached. But another consensus that was reached was that these images have to be high quality and depict the whole or a large amount of the stadium, which that one simply does not. The composition is vague, there is no stadium concretely established and the image has clearly been modified and worked on. I found 3 other images of Gillette Stadium in soccer config., and none of them are very good. There are 3 2 other stadiums depicted (Houston, Los Angeles and Philadelphia) that are also not depicted in soccer configuration. So we need to get images for those also. Hmdwgf (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the top view is of much better quality than the crooked partial view, even if it depicts Gillette in soccer configuration. Perhaps a better soccer photo can be found on A View from My Seat, which has all photos released under a CC-BY-SA license. SounderBruce 04:20, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Replying to an old comment here, but View from My Seat is a potentially great resource! Is there anything for the Linc that's usable here? They're all have something I don't like, though your mileage may vary: https://aviewfrommyseat.com/venue/Lincoln+Financial+Field/seating/soccer/?page=1& Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 15:09, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I went ahead and uploaded one of the photographs and used it as a replacement. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 13:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

ENGVAR

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Based on this edit, I come here to suggest a formal discussion about the ENGVAR in this article. I see it is mentioned above, but that appears to be more of a "use American" assertion than discussion.

While I would like this to be a discussion, I personally think that there is no good reason to use any English besides Commonwealth. Arguments:

First, the United States is only one of three nations hosting this World Cup, so preference for US English over Commonwealth (Canada) seems undue. Second, in terms of the ENGVAR relating to the article, the subject of World Football seems more relevant than the location, to me, anyway. Both typically in media and in the other FIFA World Cup articles here on Wikipedia, the lingua franca is Commonwealth English. Third, and what will undoubtedly become a point of contention: the vast majority of the world calls this sport football. (Including Mexico, remember.) When it gets closer to this event happening, I also have no doubts that at least 50% of edits will be changing "soccer" to "football" and vice versa, and that can be simply avoided by agreeing upon maintaining internal consistency of using Commonwealth English. (Instead of choosing to make this one article different because the United States has a bigger role than usual.) Kingsif (talk) 05:31, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The U.S. is undoubtedly the main host of the tournament, with 11 of 16 venues and 60 of 80 planned matches, including all of the knockout fixtures beginning in the quarterfinals. Given that Canada, the only other predominantly English-speaking host, also uses soccer, there should be no debate on the use of "soccer" rather than "football" (which would need to be disambiguated as "association football" due to the popularity of American and Canadian football). SounderBruce 05:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't mean for the discussion to just be about soccer/football, but I do think that is an important element, since the subject is global, not American (despite where it takes place), and readers will likely use more "football" (and similar) than "soccer", we are just asking for edit wars from both annoyed and trying-to-help non-Americans when the tournament eventually happens if choosing to keep changing it to "soccer". I doubt a compromise is needed, but I personally typically always link "football" to association football anyway, so I wouldn't argue against that.
I do not think it can yet be said that the status quo is US English, and I would argue that every other World Cup article using Commonwealth should be taken into account - we didn't use South African English for the 2010 World Cup article, if you want to compare with other English-speaking host nations.
Of course, I started this discussion over the z/s difference (and also the edit reason "no such word as criticise" that came with it; while I know that is trying to say "I think ENGVAR should be American", a random football fan thinking they're fixing spelling getting that in response is just going to be confused or annoyed and change it back). Enforcement needs some consensus. Kingsif (talk) 06:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is to say, ENGVAR asks for cultural ties, not location. While in most cases, the location of something denotes the relevant culture, in this case, the culture of global men's football does not change regardless of what stadium you put it in. MLS and NWSL articles should use soccer et al. The concept of the men's World Cup has more cultural ties to pretty much every single other English-speaking nation than the US, though. Kingsif (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

MOS:RETAIN applies, and the status quo is definitely the use of American English. For the 448 million people live in English-speaking countries where the most common and least confusing name for the sport is "soccer", and there's no real issue with the change of spelling. SounderBruce 06:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Keeping it as it was started just for the sake of it when there are, as I believe, good reasons to at least discuss a change is simply not a good argument. (Given the few editors, I also don't think it can be called status quo). A worse argument is citing population figures of just the nations that use "soccer", when not only are there simply more that use "football" (India and Pakistan alone are 4x that), the concentration of people interested in the sport (and thus engaging with this article) is much larger in those nations, too. And you know it.
Based on your responses, I do not think you are open to discussion, and that instead you have been responding in bad faith with attempts to shut this down and retain AmEng despite the many valid reasons to consider a change. I will start a discussion at the football project for actual views. Kingsif (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

First, I apologize for the edit summary. I was in a bad mood at the time and seeing yet another use of British spellings rubbed me the wrong way at the time because I felt like "here we go again." There have been a ton of anonymous IP editors vandalizing this article in the past few weeks—it ultimately led to the page being protected—and that was the first thing I thought of, but of course my doing so violated WP:AGF. I suppose I should have followed the same rule that applies to responding to e-mail or a text message—don’t do it when you’re angry about something, especially something unrelated to what it is you’re responding to. I will also note that in my experience there is a definite anti-US attitude among many Wikipedia editors (the same thing has come up when Canadian editors have tried to force the use of Canadian English on articles about hockey teams and players from the USA, for example), so part of my reaction was due to that sort of thing. I once got told American English is wrong because the Brits "invented the language and are therefore correct." I should have told the guy, "Right, and the Americans then improved upon the crude beginnings the Brits made." :-)

With that said, I don’t think it’s reasonable for you to accuse SounderBruce of bad faith simply because he doesn’t agree with you about forcing British English on an article about an event being staged in North America. Under WP:ENGVAR, the term used in Mexico is irrelevant because ENGVAR asks about whether an article has strong ties to a "particular English-speaking nation," which Mexico is not. (Sure, as a tourist it’s easy to find people who speak some level of English, but most reasonable people will agree that it’s not an "English-speaking nation.") The USA and Canada definitely do qualify, notwithstanding the presence of French as a second language in the latter, and both of those countries use the word soccer. Furthermore, WP:RETAIN strongly points to retaining American English here because changing to another variety does not "reduce ambiguity" and it is indisputable that the article has no strong national ties to any English-speaking country outside the USA or Canada, which are the two tests cited in RETAIN. Readers aren’t going to be confused. At most, some of the more militant types—what are sometimes called "soccer snobs" in the USA—will grouse about their preferred vocabulary not being used. But that’s not important. They know what’s being discussed. Likewise, nobody is going to be confused by the used of month-day-year dates (other than, perhaps, the people who keep forgetting to insert a comma after the year, but that’s a different matter). I sincerely do not understand the outlook I sometimes see on Wikipedia of assuming that readers are helpless and will not be able to understand an article not written in their own country's style.

Finally, the 1994 World Cup article, which is about a tournament played solely in the USA, uses American English, as do the 1999 and 2003 Women's World Cup articles. (2015 uses Canadian English, I believe.) I see no reason to depart from that precedent. 1995hoo (talk) 13:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

One other thought: I personally would go further in the use of American style to swap terms like "matches" in favor of "games" and similar, but I haven’t done so in part because I know it’ll just spark an edit war, in part because it’s not important enough, and in part because I know FIFA uses that word in the rulebook and some people therefore accord it special significance. Point simply being, I view your gripe as mainly being another iteration of the crusade some people have against the word "soccer." I highly doubt you feel strongly about date format, "color versus colour," etc. 1995hoo (talk) 13:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Er, sorry, what change made me start the discussion? Again, I would say you wanting to dismiss my concern entirely and characterise it as just not liking "soccer" is enormous bad faith. (Not that the wars over the term, if that was the motivation, are something to be dismissed.) The tone you continue to use, even after saying you're in better disposition, also seems incredibly patronising.
Simply, it is not that you and Bruce disagree with me, you are absolutely entitled to think you can use AmEng (and, olive branch, I find your argument about reader understanding the most convincing yet), it is the fact that both of you insist there is no discussion to be had on the subject. I asked for discussion and was immediately met with "no need, just use American". If you have already had to protect the article, four years out, to stop similar changes being made, perhaps community consensus is actually against you.
I will be starting a formal RfC at the football project, because it readily seems to me that there is a small number of editors here who have their own internal consensus, think they OWN the content, and don't want to see it as much as questioned. Kingsif (talk) 15:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to say something like "soccer (association football)" in the first sentence. That would be eminently clear to all readers regardless of their preferred style of English. BTW, the "soccer versus football" aspect of this issue has been discussed multiple times going back to 2019 (check the archived talk page)—it’s not two or three people, it’s been the consistent consensus throughout. The ENGVAR issue has arisen as part of that discussion, although the sport's name has typically been the focus because that’s the one about which the anti-US types seem to feel the strongest. 1995hoo (talk) 16:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@1995hoo: Thank you for the offer. I note that the original text of the 1994 article used something like that, but I agree that whichever term is used, especially if it is piped to association football, people will understand. I thought I made it clear in my above comments, I guess I didn't: seeing my edit reverted so quickly, my main concern is, when the subject of this article is more 'current' in the coming years, the inevitable edit wars. Most likely over "soccer", yes, but I would guess there will be more contributors who use Commonwealth English (and, to be fair, "soccer" is absolutely valid in ComEng, maybe two discussions are needed) seeing their "travelling"s and "criticise"s and whatever changed, too. Constantly editing the ENGVAR, or just debating it in four years rather than now, will be massively disruptive if the editing level gets anything like the current World Cup articles. You note there has already been disruptive editing regarding this, and that isn't even while lots of people are trying to update it as a current article and keep it tidy as a highly-viewed article. Both for that, and for hopefully attaining a stable version in perpetuity, I think there is a basis to revisit discussion of which version of English is used in general. Kingsif (talk) 16:22, 17 December 2022 (UTC) (postscript: (edit conflict) I refer to the IPs you mentioned that change the article when I say "community"; if this talkpage is currently most frequented by US-based soccer fans wanting to get it in shape, a noble pursuit, the discussions will reflect that, while the edits to the article itself may not. I intend to start the RfC neutrally and will link all relevant discussions and any article edits, I assure you. Kingsif (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC))

Switching the word to association football would be European centrism at its finest on this project. The word soccer is used in 2/3 of the host countries (the third which English is not even an official language). The discussion should stop here. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Responding with that to a long comment that explains how my primary concern is edit warring, is dismissal at its finest; you're not even reading, just being reactionary about one thing that hasn't been the main point. And that's before taking into account that "association football" is the correct term everywhere, however one shortens it. But don't worry, it was evident that the occupants of this talk page have a somewhat hostile attitude to the suggestion of change before you jumped in to repeat an irrelevant point (I again thank 1995hoo for willingness). Therefore the discussion should, you're right, stop here. Emphasis on the "here"; it will go somewhere it can actually be had. Kingsif (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opening paragraph

Hi, the wording sort of suggests the tournament had/has already begun, "Argentina are the defending champions, having defeated France 4–2 on penalties in the 2022 final." Perhaps you could change "are the" to "will be the", or something similar. Thanks 120.16.6.69 (talk) 00:48, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022 (3)

For group stage, Guadalajara, Mexico City, and Monterrey is in CDT (UTC-5:00) 76.166.180.149 (talk) 16:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oh never mind, Mexico abolished DST this year, so only the border towns can keep it unless the US does the same. 76.166.180.149 (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Images of stadiums

So I want to clarify the types of images of those stadiums that we need. I'll give some parameters we can follow:

• In the image, at least half- and I mean at least half the stadium (ideally one end and one side parallel to the field) and it's dominant-element design architecture has to be shown. The current shown images that fail this test are Mexico City, Boston, Miami and Toronto. Those images will do for now but they at some point need to be replaced.
• These have to be portrait shots- there can't be any other elements in the shot that distract from showing off the stadium. The stadium as a whole must be the dominant element. One user uploaded a pic of the Philadelphia Eagles stadium that although shows the stadium, the foreground was dominated (before I cropped it) by the crowd. Multiple-ground-element images like that typically are designed to lead your eyes into the image. We are looking for portraits of the stadium, and little to nothing else (although high-capacity crowds in those stadiums would be nice!)
• As established, we want pics of these stadiums in soccer/association football configuration. Right now we don't have a pic of the Los Angeles Rams/Chargers stadium in soccer configuration, so the one will have to do for now.
• Daytime shots are preferable. But if anyone can get a night shot where the scale of the stadium is clearly seen, that would be good too. A large amount of the shot of the Houston Texans stadium is still a bit dark; I tried taking out some of the contrast but that wasn't enough.
• These pictures have to be high quality. Anything below 1000 pixels wide and 600 pixels tall is not good enough. Anything that is out of focus, too bright, too dark, distorted, etc, etc. should not be used.

So yeah. If anyone else could add some more parameters we could discuss that would be great. Thanks. Hmdwgf (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022

Hi, I know SoFi hosted a Leagues Cup showcase between the Galaxy and Chivas and LAFC and America, so if anyone has high quality photos of it, could you put in in so it's consistent. If not, we can wait for the 2023 CONCACAF Gold Cup instead. Thank you. 76.166.180.149 (talk) 15:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022 (2)

There is no citation needed near "Coupe de Monde FIFA 2026" since French is an official Canadian language and is used across the country even outside of Quebec and New Brunswick 76.166.180.149 (talk) 01:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for "criticisms"?

Is there any sourcing that there actually is a campaign for Mexico to be stripped of its games, rather than a WP:PRIMARY source from an American group that is advocating this? Seems undue to me. There's nowhere near the opposition there was to Qatar 2022, heck there's not even the half-arsed opposition there was to Russia 2018 or the Sochi Olympics. I think the world sees foul-mouthed chanting towards open heterosexuals as a different issue to state persecution of gays, and with good reason. Maybe someone inserted this minor, obscure and primary source to try to kickstart a narrative, who knows. Unknown Temptation (talk) 21:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Feel free to ping the editor who added it (me) next time. Your assumptions of bad faith/agenda editing are pretty ridiculous, as is characterising Outsports as minor and obscure. I also think your characterisations of the prose I added to the article are inaccurate; the prose does not say "there is a campaign to strip Mexico of its games" as you claim, it says Cyd Zeigler of Outsports has suggested that [...] FIFA should ban the nation [Mexico] from competing in its own tournament – that is, inline attribution to a notable voice on the subject for their opinion (and no "campaign", no "stripping of games").
  Now, I read the story in question when I was checking sources for OneLove (before it went onto DYK today), and thought it relevant enough for a brief mention at this article. There was no existing section, so I made one and titled it "criticisms". You can change this header to whatever you think is more appropriate if that's a concern. I also appreciate the PRIMARY concerns, and though it toes the line, you can probably remove the second sentence about Zeigler's opinion on that basis. The first sentence, however, is simply stating that some organisations have been criticised for giving the tournament to Mexico in the first place when it has a track record of FIFA sanctions (for homophobic fans). Not as big a criticism as Russia and Qatar, but still one that exists and is being independently reported by Outsports - no sourcing concern as I see it.
  The other thing you mention is UNDUE. I can see that; with it being the only thing mentioned under "criticisms", it does appear in the article as more significant than it probably is. The answer may be to find other sources mentioning criticisms (there always are, 'big' or not); to add a tag that the section is incomplete; or to draftify the section pending discussion or addition of other items without time limit. Kingsif (talk) 22:32, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

  This criticism section is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. Although. there could be genuine criticism in the future. But, as of now it should be removed right away!! 39.41.149.16 (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

  Another on the pile of "unencyclopedic" when someone has no good reason for objecting to content. And, no it shouldn't!! Kingsif (talk) 21:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

A Google search for 2026 world cup mexico puta (with no terms in quotes) produces 14 results. Most of those results do not even include "puta." The top results that do include "puta" have nothing to do with any proposal to sanction Mexico by withholding the 2026 World Cup (e.g., a commenter uses "puta" in a comment on the article; another article refers to the chant but makes no mention of the 2026 World Cup). This was just a simple experiment, but it shows that there's no campaign for Mexico to be stripped of its games. Holy (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Nobody said there was a campaign, the article certainly doesn't. Also note, the slur in question is "puto", so your search terms were wrong and obviously wouldn't show anything. Kingsif (talk) 21:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Criticism sections are a blight on Wikipedia. Almost all of them, particular for large events like this, end up as simply a long list of things people don't like about a host country. They are unencyclopaedic, and add nothing to our articles. HiLo48 (talk) 21:57, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• I believe WP:CSECTIONs like this should in general be avoided, but they can be acceptable if criticism is a major part of the sourcing on a subject and it's too difficult to work throughout the rest of the article (for instance, we have material in this article about criticism of the format of this world cup, but it's placed in the section on the format). The material in the criticism section now is a bit obscure—I can find almost no sources about the "puta" thing being a criticism of the 2026 world cup—and not cited to a particularly good source, so I've removed it. Endwise (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2022 (2)

For criticisms, there are some that are worried about the long distances required by plane that players, staff, and fans will have to travel across North America. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2022/12/16/world/greener-sporting-events-qatar/ "However, environmentalists and analysts say that will not be the case with the 2026 World Cup, which will be held across three countries: the United States, Canada, and Mexico. “Everyone will fly everywhere,” said Elgendy of the Middle East Institute. “There is no promise of any kind of carbon reduction, let alone a net-zero carbon event.” 76.166.180.149 (talk) 15:41, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

 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. Lemonaka (talk) 15:27, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

On criticisms, you could paraphrase information about heat and safety from this yahoo source (also make sure to link if needed, i.e. for safety mass shootings in the united states and the mexican drug war) "Heat. Ironically, after all the outcry over Qatar’s climate, some U.S. cities will be hotter in the summer than Doha has been in November and December. Eight of the 16 North American cities regularly experience June temperatures in the 90s, and only three of those eight stadiums have roofs. Infantino indicated earlier this year that climate-proof venues could be candidates for afternoon games, while games at outdoor grounds will kick off in the evening. But heat could still impact the fan experience away from stadiums.

Guns. For all Qatar’s problems, it is a very safe country. The U.S. and Mexico, on the other hand, less so. FIFA can impose strict security at matches and official fan festivals, but it can’t control guns and ensure safety anywhere else if governments don’t." https://sports.yahoo.com/2026-world-cup-usa-canada-mexico-format-schedule-151604076.html 76.166.180.149 (talk) 01:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

 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. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:52, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 December 2022

Move mexico down one to create it has Canada United States Mexico

Thank you. BilIyidol (talk) 01:30, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: Why? casualdejekyll 01:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Football, not soccer

I think it should be stated this is a football competition, not a "soccer" competition. I mean, in the end - it's a FIFA World Cup, not FISA. 46.235.98.109 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Well I hope you enjoy the Super Bowl. In any case, the fact that a large chunk of this next competition with US soil, the consideration on the usage of "soccer" is relevant. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 13:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Soccer is the more specific name for the code of football sanctioned by FIFA (the international federation of association football — it's FIFA, not FIF, after all). More crucially, it's the WP:COMMONNAME for the sport in two English-speaking cohosts for this event. Please see WP:ENGVAR. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

To add to the points Adeletron 3030 makes: That issue has already been discussed (see the archived talk page) and consensus was that it's controlled by WP:ENGVAR, Wikipedia's policy regarding respecting national varieties of English. There can be no serious dispute that in the United States and Canada—the two countries in which the overwhelming majority of the games will be played during the 2026 World Cup—the sport is called "soccer" due to two versions of what is sometimes called gridiron football being more popular. The mere name of an organization can hardly be considered a compelling reason to depart from Wikipedia's general rule, and it's certainly not a situation like the one with the British Open golf tournament where the sponsoring organization purports to object to the use of a name other than the one they use. FIFA doesn't discourage anyone from using the name "soccer," at least not to my knowledge (and if they did, surely we'd have heard about some controversy involving the name "Major League Soccer," and surely they'd have complained about how the president of South Africa referred to the "FIFA Soccer World Cup" at the 2010 opening ceremony). 1995hoo (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

change it to football - which is what it's known as to the rest of the world - or 'association football' for 100% accuracy. 2A00:23C5:B408:B601:D5FC:EDAB:938C:4B30 (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Does the rest of the world include Australia, Ireland, Japan, South Africa, New Zealand, or whatever country Soccer Saturday is from? Also, Italians call it "calcio". Anyway, it's already explained above why we're calling it soccer. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be written as soccer/association football or soccer (association football), since it's a global event and at least 7 billion people out of 8 billion, call it football or some literal translation of it, therefore just using soccer I believe would be confusing to the majority of the worldwide readers who have never referred to the sport as just soccer.

The concern should be about all readers not just readers from the 4 or 5 countries that call it soccer, after all that would mean that their cultures or countries are superior to the rest of the world, which shouldn't be the case, especially since football is not even the major sport played in those countries while the rest of the world lives and breathes football everyday.

And since Mexico is also hosting, regardless of how many matches, their language should also be respected, that's why I believe the correct decision would be to use both as soccer for the audiences that refer to it as such and for the two of the three hosts and association football for Mexican readers and the rest of the world so there won't be any confusion for any reader, regardless of where their from. So the the correct way it should be written is soccer (association football) , especially since it's a global event and assuming that 4 countries who call it soccer qualify for it (USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand), that still leaves 44 other countries who call it football or some literal translation of it, who will be confused of seeing just the word used by 4 countries that play there and not the word (association football) of the other 44 countries that will be represented there. Nori2001 (talk) 16:51, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

You think Italy, Ireland, South Africa, Japan and South Korea will all fail to qualify for 2026? Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 17:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nori2001 has already been through this argument over a year ago and you can see the discussion on his talk page. He's simply determined to advance his own point of view and to demand that somehow his opinion should control over the established consensus and the clear policy on national varieties of English. The term used in Mexico is simply irrelevant here because Mexico is not an English-speaking country, at least not as the primary language (I certainly recognize there are plenty of people, especially in the tourism industry, who speak English, but the country's first language is Spanish). Should we start including piped links to "futbol"? For that matter, Canada has two legal languages at the federal level, so do we also have to include piped links to "le soccer" to recognize Quebec? It gets ridiculous when you start trying to factor in every minuscule little issue. 1995hoo (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, "soccer" is used enough in all Anglophone nations that it's hard to see it causing actual confusion. As far as I can tell, Britain, Nigeria and Ghana are the only major English-speaking soccer nations that use "football" ahead of "soccer". Readers from those countries are going to be fine. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 18:41, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I must say I don't quite understand the attitude I see among some Wikipedia editors (to be clear, I don't mean you) that we should assume readers are stupid and can't understand things without having their hands held or that readers can't understand anything that isn't expressed the way they might expect to find it expressed. (To use a different example, would ANYONE be confused if you referred to a team as wearing a "uniform" rather than the Britishism "kit"?) When it comes to things like "football" versus "soccer," that's the sort of discussion that, at least here in the USA, causes many people to say that one of the biggest obstacles to soccer becoming more popular here is the belligerence and intolerance exhibited by many hardcore soccer fans (sometimes referred to as the "soccer snobs"). 1995hoo (talk) 19:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The governing body of the sport is FIFA - Federation Internationale de Football Association. There is nothing else to say. NFL - Football, ICC - Cricket, ITF - Tennis, FIFA - football and so on. Newport40 (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

@Newport40: Right: "Football Association", or association football. In American English, the term for that sport is "soccer", not "association football", so the shortened form is used. —C.Fred (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

I strongly suspect, but cannot prove, that there are some sockpuppets involved here. In particular, one of the edit summaries reads quite similarly to edit summaries by someone else (I’m deliberately not naming usernames because I have no proof), and I note how a couple of people are right up against 3RR without going over because of "timely" vandalism by other editors. Maybe it’s time to protect the article again. I wasn’t online last night, but I see there was an absolute barrage of vandalism from the "football" crowd. Maybe it’ll quiet down after the current World Cup is over and they stop thinking about it for a while, but I wonder whether it would make sense to protect the article in the interim. 1995hoo (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it will subside by Christmas. That's my prediction. HiLo48 (talk) 22:14, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

“FIFA World Cup, the quadrennial international men's soccer championship” There is no such thing as a international soccer championship . To have a international soccer championship the only National sides in the championship would be USA, Canada and Australia. There is no national team in Europe that has entered a international soccer championship. Newport40 (talk) 07:40, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

That's better than the World Series. HiLo48 (talk) 08:53, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Right—it’s "an" international soccer championship, not "a" international soccer championship. 1995hoo (talk) 12:35, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

New Zealand as of 2007 officially calls it football. Since it was said the only major english speaking nations that refer to it as football as being three, you must add to that Ireland, Wales, South Africa and New Zealand. Also all the spanish speaking countries that call it futbol are using an english term transliterated for spanish. The snobs referred to do not seem to be of the football camp. It comes off as an insular argument. It's fine. Call it soccer. You are right, the rest of the world will understand. Ekmsid (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I would agree that the word "Football" should be used instead of "soccer". The word soccer is used in the US and Canada. In Mexico, when translating to English the word used is football. As this is a FIFA-sanctioned event, it is worth pointing out that FIFA calls this game "football" so therefor this page should use the term "football" instead of soccer. The full name of the sport is association football, so perhaps that would be a reasonable compromise? --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 17:59, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

"Soccer" is also used in Ireland, Australia and South Africa. The number of people for whom English is a first language who call it soccer is probably larger than those who call it football. Do you realise that FIFA is a French named organisation whose title translates to International Federation of Association Football? (i.e.not just football) Soccer is universally understood to mean only one game. That cannot be said for the word football. Why don't you prefer the non-ambiguous name? HiLo48 (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

The French word for football is football. It is worth noting that FIFA does use the French language but are headquartered in Zurich which is the German speaking part of Switzerland. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Soccer -> Football (soccer) or Soccer (football)

This would be a good idea because it includes both and it is already used on all the articles regarding Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics and United States at the 2020 Summer Olympics, so we can do the same as what they do there. Mwiqdoh (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose. Soccer is the name of the sport in the 2 English speaking hosts of this tournament. The discussion should end there. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:25, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: Soccer is the name of the game. I understand that this is contentious, especially to Europeans, but we use our terms here. For 2030, you can use football since that's the name over there (unless Australia hosts, then it's soccer). 76.166.180.149 (talk) 18:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons amply discussed in prior threads both above and on this talk page's archive. However, I would ask @Sportsfan 1234: and @76.166.180.149: to go to the Wikiproject Soccer talk page (link follows: https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football ) and weigh in there. A user started an RFC to force the use of British English in all its forms (not just the use of "football," but also their spellings like using "-ise" instead of "-ize" and using day-month-year dates) in all World Cup articles. Not surprisingly, there are a disproportionate number of Europeans, so it's hardly a true "consensus," but please add your comments there ASAP if you are willing. 1995hoo (talk) 18:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe the reason why it is referred to as "Football (soccer)" on those pages is that "Football" is the official name of the discipline at the Olympic Games, and not "Association football", so "(soccer)" was added as a necessary qualifier. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Most of the people in the world knows Association football by just Football only Australians, US, Japnese call it Soccer so keep it as Football. FIFA call it Football not soccer.Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 11:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Everyone knows what soccer means, and it means only one thing all over the world. A majority of native English speakers primarily know the game as soccer. You left Canada, South Africa and Ireland off your list. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

If USA, Canada ,Australia want to hold an international soccer tournament no problem, but if they want to hold the FIFA WORLD CUP Then it must be called an International FOOTBALL Tournament anything else is total arrogance supported by the editor. Newport40 (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

That's a very arrogant statement. You KNOW what soccer means. It's unambiguous. It has only one meaning, everywhere. But football is ambiguous, especially in Ireland, South Africa, Canada, USA and Australia at least. That's probably a majority of the world's native English speakers. It means sports that aren't soccer. Why not use the word that won't ever confuse anyone? HiLo48 (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Contraversies

Let’s talk about the 2026 World Cup with its carbon footprint and dodgy hosts (msn.com)

Brilliant article highlighting issues with the 2026 world cup in regards to climate, migrants and several other areas. I expect woke-epidia to have as long a contraversy section about all this as Qatar.

if not, as it points out - your are 'at best hypocrites and at worst racists.' 148.64.9.75 (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

We almost certainly will have a controversies section, likely longer when the tournament gets closer as not much will have emerged 42 months before it starts. However, a "letters to the editor" page of people's views won't be the source. Also, a little tip, which applies here and elsewhere. If you word your request as an attack piece ("woke-epedia", "hypocrites" etc) it'll become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as people will dismiss you as a POV pusher and ignore your request. Valenciano (talk) 10:03, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks more like a group of fan opinions than a source. I have suggested a Yahoo source that has some of the same issues as well since I suppose that they might allow that one. 76.166.180.149 (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Probably won't be as long since the US, Canada, and Mexico have a better human rights record to many 76.166.180.149 (talk) 15:19, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

the aritcle is not mine 148.64.9.75 (talk) 10:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

They didn't say the words were yours, they said you used them in your request and you did so as a sign of force to try and get people not to dismiss you. This is an opinion piece and has no sources to support it. I am not disputing the reality of what is said but you have to have valid, real sources, not opinions, to source Wikipedia changes. It isn't a "brilliant article" it is an opinion piece. Chris1834 Talk 14:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

That "article" appears to be a compilation of letters to the editor, some of them borderline incoherent. It's not even remotely a reliable source. 1995hoo (talk) 15:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

This is letters to editors. This has nothing to do with how the tournament is organized. As for racism, well that exists in every country and no one has a monopoly on that. As for climate change, again, that affects the whole world. The migrant crisis has nothing to do with the organization of the tournament. Opinion-based journalism and opinion pieces can not be influencing wikipedia articles. If it does then this place certainly is not neutral. --IndustryPlantCooper (talk) 20:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)