Edge Rewrite
Jump to content

Talk:FIFA World Cup qualifiers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Jeffrey34555 in topic Requested move 9 October 2025

Untitled

[edit]

Is this what everyone was looking for when it was originally proposed on the talk page of Football World Cup? If not, I understand, I was only trying to help. I don't even know if I should have attempted to start this article so late at night (2 AM). If you have any questions, just ask. Ian Manka Questions? Talk to me! 08:25, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Let's not duplicate information from articles like Football World Cup 1934 (qualification) here. I intended for this article to contain:

  1. A description of the current qualification process (mostly format; fixtures, results, etc can already be found elsewhere).
  2. An overview of the past systems, much less comprehensive than it's now.
  3. Links to pages about specific qualification tournaments.

Conscious 09:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

Africa

[edit]

"The participants of the previous World Cup Finals and a few nations highest in the FIFA World Rankings are given byes to the First Round." - shouldn't that read Second Round...? ChrisTheDude 07:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

Corrected. Conscious 09:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

There is no year in the article title

[edit]

Some parts of this article seem to be written as if this was the article 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification. It isn't! The article should be a general summary of all qualification methods/procedures over the years. -- Chuq (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

This is wrong

[edit]

Where teams are still not able to be separated, the following tie-breakers are used (in order): 4. greater number of points obtained in matches between the tied teams 5. goal difference in matches between the tied teams 6. greater number of goals scored in matches between the tied teams

Now, if the goal difference between the teams is the same (rule 5), then the number of goals is the same (rule 6). Is it the number of away goals in matches between the teams? Anyone know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.80.148 (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

No it's not. Away goals are only used for ties that are set up over two legs - although it would be interesting to see what FIFA would decide if (say) two teams withdrew from a four team group - whether away goals would then apply (because the group would effectively be a two-legged play off) or not (because it was still a group, albeit of only two teams). Despite this, I had tended to use this criteria as an "unofficial" tool for ordering the teams in tables I am updating, if only because it tends to favour teams with more home games left (and hence are probably better placed to end up in a higher spot), but there's no necessity for that. Jlsa (talk) 01:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
When more than 2 teams are tied, same goal difference doesn't mean same number of goals, e.g. A 0-0 B, B 1-1 C, A 1-1 C, and C progresses. Conscious (talk) 09:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

Mauritania

[edit]

Mauritania is in two dates: 1978 and 2002. Which is the correct ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.114.53 (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Qualification Formats

[edit]

I think that there should be a table showing the qualification formats each confederation uses. One column should be used for each confederation, and one row should be used for each round. Some cells would be empty because some confederations have more rounds than others. Each cell should express the format used for that confederation in that round.Mapperson (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Points

[edit]

The points system used here isn't really correct per se. It would be correct if each win yielded 3 points however there was a period when wins only yielded 2 points and therefore invalids the current calculation used. Perhaps it would be prudent to remove said parameter? Transaction Go (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

It is questionable whether ANY of the new stuff is relevant given the initial rationale for this page (see top of this talk page). Jlsa (talk) 08:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Fair enough but at least the new stuff should be accurate and correct! Transaction Go (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Antique Flags

[edit]

Whoever decided it was a good idea to use flags appropriate to the year in question is a total retard. Flags should be updated to the current version for clarity —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.75.39.42 (talk) 20:49, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Disagree. Use flags relevant to era. -- SGBailey (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

National teams results in World Cup preliminary competition 1934-2010

[edit]

What do the colours of the table mean? Grey is presumably nothing special. Gold is perhaps "have won a tournament", No idea for green. A key would be a good idea. -- SGBailey (talk) 17:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

I *think* green = past qualifiers, and yes a key is definitely necessary.
The "First appearance in qualification by team" table makes no sense whatsoever. What is the "total" column (it sometimes is total the number of teams from all confederations in the other cells, at other times it seems to be a random number)? Why do teams keep reappearing in the table? How can they have their first appearance multiple times (e.g. Brazil and Turkey in both 1930 and 1954)? Why are some nations in italics?
84.114.214.144 (talk) 22:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

First appearance in qualification by team

[edit]

Hi, just wanted to point out an error:

In the table "First appearance in qualification by team", Australia are listed as making their World Cup debut in 1966. Australia actually made their World Cup debut in 1974 in Germany.

Cheers,

Darren —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janosvoron (talkcontribs) 04:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

This is "first appearance in the qualification" - not "first appearance in the finals". Australia tried and failed to qualify for 1966 and 1970. Jlsa (talk) 05:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Controversy

[edit]

There was some controversy in 2010 after FIFA changed the rules to seed the play-off spots. They (allegedly) did this to give the big teams who were unexpectedly forced to play-off a better chance of qualifying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.87.179.62 (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply

If you mean the UEFA play-offs they didn't change anything - the rules were exactly the same as applied in 2006. Some people did complain the rules weren't made clear enough (for them at least). Jlsa (talk) 01:34, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tuvalu

[edit]

I think the explanation about the 2007 qualification procedure for OFC (note #15) is unnecessary. Tuvalu wasn't a member of FIFA at the time of qualification to 2010, just as New Caledonia wasn't at the time of qualification to 2006, so we should use the note #14 for Tuvalu. Otherwise, we should explain what New Caledonia is doing on the table too. --187.67.124.216 (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

It is a bit different (and will occur against this time) because Tuvalu really entered a different competition (SPGs) that just happened to double as WCQs - in a sense they weren't trying to enter the WCQs at all. New Caledonia, on the other hand, did enter the WCQs (knowing they would become a FIFA member - they just happened to be eliminated a couple of days before the vote that made it official) Jlsa (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Article needs more details for unknowledgeable readers seeking info on a World Cup qualification game

[edit]

This doesn't tell me anything about what happens for a qualification game. It does not link to any Wiki articles explaining if there is any difference between a World Cup qualification game versus a World Cup championship game or even a non-World Cup soccer game (like compared to the rules of the Major League Soccer series). I could not find this information in the article:

  • - How many minutes are in a World Cup qualification game?
  • - Is there a difference between how many minutes there are in a World Cup game and a professional league game?
  • - How many players are allowed on the field?
  • - How big is a World Cup soccer field?
  • - How many rounds are in a qualification game?

Can these be added? 50.47.97.34 (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

We can certainly give that it actually takes 90 minutes per game but all the rest of the questions are actually general knowledge, the rounds of a game actually varies for what Continent you are actually from. User:Alexandrhnh2 (talk) 4:58, 4 June 2013 (WST)

Topscorers in preliminary competition 1934–2010

[edit]

Shouldn't Archie Thompson be on this list with this world record haul against American Samoa? It was a preliminary competition. 114.76.252.83 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Yes I agree they should put him on it but it was actually they decided not to put him on, please tell me why? Because it was a world record for scoring 13 goals in a match. And he actually scored 28 goals not 18 please see </http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Thompson> if you visit it the information is actually wrong. User:Alexandrhnh2 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2013 (WST)

Bahamas first appearance

[edit]

Why is Bahamas listed twice in the "first appearance" list? The first listing shows the name italicized, but I don't see any discussion of the reason for two listings.LUxlii (talk) 17:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

Italicized teams either withdrew or were disqualified from competition.Musicandnintendo (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Table "First appearance in qualification by team"

[edit]

I commented out the "Totals" section at the foot of the table, it's not terribly helpful information and difficult to keep updated. Dissension is welcome. Also in regards to footnoted teams, if we're noting when a team that has taken part before but competing for the first time under a new flag, there are a couple yet to be noted - the Germany split, Saarland, and South Vietnam / Vietnam being the ones that spring to mind. On the other side of that, is it necessary to note a new Yugoslav competitor every time their form of government changes? That's what it looked like to me anyway. Musicandnintendo (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Top scorers per team column

[edit]

I observe that the column indicating each team's top scorers at the World Cup qualifications is:

  • unsourced;
  • hard to keep up-to-date;
  • cluttering the already very large table;
  • not particularly notable and informative.

How about removing it? --Theurgist (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Also, some of the lists of "top" scorers per team must actually be uncertain, because many of the scorers in the qualifying matches for the early World Cups are unknown or disputed. I went on and removed the column. --Theurgist (talk) 08:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Quirky all-time table

[edit]

With Excel, I calculated every team's World Cup qualification records. I found out that the current version of the all-time table in this article is inconsistent with the Wikipedia articles on the qualifying tournaments for each World Cup, and that the table in this article matches everything that's on FIFA's website, including some bizarre oddities found on FIFA's website.

This is how the table in this article differs from the Wikipedia articles on the qualifying tournaments for each World Cup.

included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Czechoslovakia 2–0 Poland
rankings at fifa.comPldPts
Czechoslovakia24
Poland20

not included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Sweden 8–1 Finland
rankings at fifa.comPldPts
Sweden24
Ireland43
Finland21

included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Ivory Coast 1–0 Libya

not included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Libya 0–2 (awd.) Algeria
rankings at fifa.comPldPts
Algeria47
Ivory Coast56
Zimbabwe41
Libya10

included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Zaire 4–2 Liberia

not included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Liberia 0–0 Cameroon
rankings at fifa.comPldPts
Cameroon46
Swaziland33
Zaire43
Liberia10

included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Zimbabwe 2–1 Egypt
Egypt 2–1 Zimbabwe
Egypt 0–0 Zimbabwe
rankings at fifa.comPldPts
Egypt710
Zimbabwe710
Angola54
Togo50

included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Zambia 2–0 Tanzania
Tanzania 0–0 Madagascar
Tanzania 2–0 Namibia
Tanzania 1–3 Zambia
rankings at fifa.comPldPts
Zambia610
Madagascar57
Tanzania43
Namibia50

included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Guinea 3–0 Zimbabwe
Burkina Faso 2–3 Guinea
Guinea 1–1 Malawi
rankings at fifa.comPldPts
South Africa616
Zimbabwe712
Guinea37
Burkina Faso75
Malawi72

included in the list of results at fifa.com:

Morocco 3–0 Ethiopia
Ethiopia 1–2 Rwanda
Mauritania 0–1 Ethiopia
Ethiopia 6–1 Mauritania
rankings at fifa.comPldPts
Morocco512
Rwanda512
Ethiopia46
Mauritania60

--Theurgist (talk) 10:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Kinda "fixed"

[edit]

I've updated and "fixed" the table in the article. Basically, I followed FIFA's website for borderline cases (such as whether a match is counted as an awarded win/loss or not), and I corrected obvious flaws in that website (such as where a team played a few matches in a group, then withdrew, these matches were annulled, the group continued without that team, but the matches in question are nevertheless counted in the rankings).

What I've counted and how:

  • 1934: Czechoslovakia 2–0 (awd) Poland
  • 1974: Chile 2–0 (awd) USSR
  • 1978: Cameroon 1–2 Congo
  • 1994: Zimbabwe 2–1 Egypt; Egypt 0–0 Zimbabwe

What I haven't counted:

  • 1950: Sweden 8–1 Finland
  • 1990: Ivory Coast 1–0 Libya; Libya 0–2 (awd) Algeria
  • 1994: Zaire 4–2 Liberia; Liberia 0–0 Cameroon
  • 1994: Egypt 2–1 Zimbabwe
  • 1994: Zambia 2–0 Tanzania; Tanzania 0–0 Madagascar; Tanzania 2–0 Namibia; Tanzania 1–3 Zambia
  • 2002: Guinea 3–0 Zimbabwe; Burkina Faso 2–3 Guinea; Guinea 1–1 Malawi
  • 2010: Morocco 3–0 Ethiopia; Ethiopia 1–2 Rwanda; Mauritania 0–1 Ethiopia; Ethiopia 6–1 Mauritania

--Theurgist (talk) 21:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on FIFA World Cup qualification. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Rank

[edit]
Footnotes

 Preceding unsigned comment added by Tallsmart (talkcontribs) 17:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think a "Rank" column is needed. Indeed, all-time tables usually order teams by points as in a league competition, and so does this table. But in this case the "positions" don't have any sort of official backing. Moreover, they're not particularly meaningful, because qualifying tournaments have had very different structures. Anomalies such as Germany and Brazil being ranked 20th and 21st despite having qualified for every single World Cup they've entered, while Costa Rica and Australia being ranked 2nd and 3rd despite having qualified for just about one third of the World Cups they've entered, speak for themselves.
I think the table should refrain from definitively determining which team is ranked at what position. All the other columns are sortable, and that's enough. Maybe a column of the appearances in the finals could be added as well. --Theurgist (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Qualification competition entrants over time

[edit]

Number of teams entering UEFA qualification 2018 (including automatic qualifier Russia) should be 55 (54+1) instead 54. The 53 UEFA teams entered qualification before draw, and 2 (Gibraltar and Kosovo) entered in June 2016, after were officially admitted as FIFA members on 13 May 2016.

Number of teams entering qualification (including automatic qualifiers)
Continental zone 1934
Italy
(16)
1938
France
(15)
1950
Brazil
(13)
1954
Switzerland
(16)
1958
Sweden
(16)
1962
Chile
(16)
1966
England
(16)
1970
Mexico
(16)
1974
West Germany
(16)
1978
Argentina
(16)
1982
Spain
(24)
1986
Mexico
(24)
1990
Italy
(24)
1994
United States
(24)
1998
France
(32)
2002
South Korea
Japan
(32)
2006
Germany
(32)
2010
South Africa
(32)
2014
Brazil
(32)
2018
Russia
(32)
2022
Qatar
(32)
2026
Canada
Mexico
United States
(48)
Europe 212619292730333133323433333950515253535555
Africa 30116211324262929264038515153525454
Asia 2435718222127262936423943434646
Oceania1 00000045710101211111111
North and Central America
and Caribbean2
473568101414171518162330353435353535
South America 42869910101010101010910101010101010
Total entrants 32373445555674759910710912111614717419919820542042112115
Teams played3 27211933464951689095103110103130168193194200420320812
Matches played 27222657899212717222625230630831449764377784785382887211
Goals scored 14196121208341325393542620723797801735144619222452246423442303245432
Average goals per match 5.224.364.653.653.833.533.093.152.742.872.602.602.342.912.993.162.912.752.812.812.91

--89.70.54.251 (talk) 07:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Spots by continent

[edit]

This is the current table. In the 2026 column, the play-off tournament can be reflected by adding ⅓ to the value for each confederation to be represented there – not ½ per seeded team and ¼ per unseeded team, because the places in that tournament were decided long before it's known which teams will be seeded and which won't.

The teams qualifying from that tournament will still belong to their confederations. The tournament doesn't essentially differ from the inter-continental play-offs used until 2022, so it makes little sense to have a separate row just for it. The table would look like this.

Then we can achieve consistency throughout the table by changing the decimals in other columns to vulgar fractions, even though this would be less faithful to FIFA, which uses decimals. It would now look like this.

Which version do you like most? --Theurgist (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Question

[edit]

SEE THE TALK PAGE REGARDING THE INCLUSION OR NON-INCLUSION OF CERTAIN MATCHES.

this matches is better listed at the end of article.--Toimeska (talk) 12:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

list of matches was removed from table with reason and source:

  1. X
  2. Y
@Toimeska: This is not necessary. As seen above, most of those are annulled matches that were included in FIFA's databases for some reason, or matches where it's unclear whether the scoreline was awarded or not. Right before the table there's a brief outline of what types of matches are counted and how. It's up to the articles on the respective rounds to dive into details. Those articles should be consistent with official and proper record-keeping, and this page in turn should be consistent with them. --Theurgist (talk) 22:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Use of Spanish and Portuguese in the tables

[edit]

Some tables in this article seem to have been copied from other languages and left without translations. The responsible editors should change them.--2001:16B8:31EC:E00:3CE1:EDCD:6F65:41FE (talk) 17:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I think the new additions aren't even necessary. We don't need three different tables, one of them singling out a clear-cut top 20, for an improvised unofficial ranking. The list of biggest wins is trivia. The numbers of matches and goals per tournament belong to the respective tournament pages. The list of top scorers might be notable, but is out of place in a page otherwise entirely dedicated to team records. Pinging User:Toimeska. In fact I don't think the whole "Current format" part belongs here either, but I never was bold enough to delete it. --Theurgist (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Check

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_Islands_national_football_team#FIFA_World_Cup

118 / 123

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#Overall_team_records

102-Solomon_Islands

GA 121 or 123? --MuoX1, 21:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

The confusion stems from the two separate finals that were held in 2004 and 2005. The Solomon Islands lost to Australia 0–7 and 1–2 (agg. 1–9) in the final round of the 2006 qualification, and 1–5 and 0–6 (agg. 1–11) in the final of the 2004 OFC Nations Cup, which was not part of the qualification. The national team article was wrong; I've corrected it. --Theurgist (talk) 01:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

The new content

[edit]

The first and last matches and goals in each campaign might bear a mention in the respective campaign articles, but I don't think they're notable enough for a centralized list. This is merely a matter of scheduling, and the heavyweights are rarely seen in such matches since they usually play neither preliminary rounds nor play-offs. Plus there's the element of original research, given that the timings of certain matches and goals may be ambiguous.

The top scorers of each campaign are somewhat more notable, and the top scorers overall would be even more notable (in fact a list used to be there), but here the concern is how such individual records would fit into an article otherwise entirely about teams. --Theurgist (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

2030 berths

[edit]

2030 World Cup is hosted in 3 continents. It is not clear which continent(s) will get extra berth in the intercontinental play-offs. Should 2030 berths be removed before it has been announced? Shingkei (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 9 October 2025

[edit]

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jeffrey34555 (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2025 (UTC)Reply


FIFA World Cup qualificationFIFA World Cup qualifiers – As enormous moves not only for FIFA World Cup but other tournaments such as European Championship had to be conducted when this move is approved, I need to start a request move discussion here. I'm proposing to change the word "qualification" into "qualifiers". That's not only multiple qualifier tournaments use the brand "qualifier", but also the meaning of "qualification" and "qualifiers" gives different. "Qualification" means something you gain, but "Qualifiers" means the process for gaining. So I start a discussion here. KyleRGiggs (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:43, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Support - my first view was oppose, as article is about qualification process, so absolutely accurate and fine. However, it appears that 'qualifiers' is now the term used, see e.g. FIFA and BBC etc. GiantSnowman 08:46, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
    Same here. That's why I did not move the article as I do not have any stance on it. Besides, as Wburrow said, WP:AINTBROKE. However, it seems going tilted by the continental associations and press. The situation has existed approximate ten years when UEFA started the European Qualifiers brand, and FIFA used 2026 Qualifiers directly, something shocked me. KyleRGiggs (talk) 15:53, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
  • Question: Are you saying that you eventually want/intend to move all tournament qualifiers pages from "qualification" to "qualifiers"? I.e. if this move request goes through, you'd then want to move 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification and all it's associated supporting pages to 2026 FIFA World Cup qualifiers, and so on for all years? And do this for the Euro, and AFC Asian Cup, and basically all other tournaments?
If so, I strongly oppose the move. If we were starting from scratch, I'd chose "qualifiers" over "qualification", but "qualification" is just fine, and I don't see a need to move hundreds (thousands?) of pages for a slight improvement (WP:AINTBROKE).
If we're just talking about this page, I weakly oppose. I think it's better to keep the same word in this page's title as is used for the tournament pages, but I agree that "qualifiers" is more frequently used in sources. Wburrow (talk) 14:51, 11 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Your opinion is too divergent between agree and disagree so I think we should treated it as "Neutral" instead. You said you'd chose "qualifiers" over "qualification", and agreeing "qualifiers" is more frequently used in sources, but because of WP:AINTBROKE, you'd chose to oppose it. Well, in my opinion, I strongly agree with your opinion when I started this discussion, but considering the sources, I think it is the best timing to do this, otherwise it is too late and being a real WP:AINTBROKE. I don't think we could do a bulky move at once intentionally, but I think it is rather easier to access the article when readers use the word "Qualifiers" instead of "Qualifying", as the latter word should be "Qualifying round" in full. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:04, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
And if talking about WP:AINTBROKE, I felt something when I review the phrase "XXX Tournament qualification" after the previous reply sent. What is "XXX Tournament qualification"? "To participate into XXX Tournament, you must have the experience to apply an entry. It made me rolling on the floor laughing when I thought that, "Hey what the hell is it?🤣". In addition, comparing between "qualifying", which used for the European Championship qualifiers, and "qualifiers" when I thought that, of course I'd chose the latter one, as the aforementioned word omitted the word "round" making the single word abrupted. So if it is really WP:AINTBROKE, I don't agree to move it. But what is the happening proportion? I don't think it happened heavily. KyleRGiggs (talk) 16:16, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Each page should be on a case-by-case basis - the outcome of this discussion should not act as precedent. GiantSnowman 17:39, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
You're right. However the reason why I was motivated to make the word change is, AFC Asian Cup used the word "qualifiers". So I think I will place the discussion for the Euro qualifiers once again, but not too soon. KyleRGiggs (talk) 23:28, 13 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
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.