File talk:2010 world cup qualification.png

Taiwan

I know this is a common issue. But should the map not show Taiwan as 'gray', as it is not recognized by FIFA? In the same way West Sahara is claimed by the rest of Morocco, but is still colored gray. I do not believe Taiwanese nationals are recognized as eligible to participate in a Chinese national team and are subsequently excluded, ie. the island should be colored gray - can someone make this change? 202.63.141.34 (talk) 01:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

You might want to look up Chinese Taipei national football team. Jlsa (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Uruguay, Costa Rica

I believe that Uruguay needs to be recolored green and Costa Rica red to correspond with their final qualification status. Other than that, this map looks great. You guys have really done a nice job with it over the course of qualification, and I have enjoyed it very much! TFCforever (talk) 01:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a "thumbnail" issue I believe. The actual picture is updated (if you click on it to embiggen it you will see) but the thumbnails don't seem to be updating automatically (which is quite annoying as you can imagine). Jlsa (talk) 01:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Nigeria, Tunisia

Please fix Nigeria and Tunisia. Nigeria have qualified. Saileshganesh (talk) 15:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Norway

Norway still hasn't been fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.146.244.1 (talk) 09:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Chile, Colombia

Will someone please edit Chile and Colombia? 190.156.158.116 (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Norway again

Norway is red —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.13.14.80 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Mauretania, Mali

Mauritania should be red and Mali pink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.166.199.110 (talk) 23:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Peru

Peru must be updated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.238.164 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Peru must be updated -- again. They shouldn't be red...they should be pink. They do still have four qualifying matches left, after all. --74.192.22.201 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea - a special colour for withdrawn countries?

Should Papua New Guinea be in Purple?

No. They entered the World Cup (as at mid-April) but withdrew due to failure to meet deadline requirements for the South Pacific Games (in late-May). This is a similar situation to Guam etc. Jlsa (talk) 02:11, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn teams should be purple. It looks now as they actually played and were eliminated.

--Ohnder (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a new color for teams that withdrew, were expelled or missed out participation, like PNG. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.82.134.159 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

French Guyana

Should French Guiana be grey? It is technically part of France.Alanmjohnson (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought about the same thing. French Guiana is as much part of France as Alaska is part of the US, there's no reason to colour it grey.JdeJ (talk) 14:14, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a football map - not a political map. Just like Reunion, Guadaloupe and (something else in the Caribbean) - French Guiana is an associate member of a football confederation (see link) and hence in a football sense it is different from France even though it is one of those DOM/TOM things politically. This is not the case with Alaska. Jlsa (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

1. French Guiana is not an independent member of FIFA, and the World Cup is organized by FIFA, not CONCACAF.

2. French Guianese people are all eligible by birth to join the French national team, which does participate to FIFA World Cup qualifiers.

3. By status, any national association which is member of FIFA can only be represented by a single national team. French Guiana is ruled by the French Football Federation, and the only national team the FFF can set up is French national team.

4. French Guianese people who play in the regional team of French Guiana are still eligible to play for the French national team with no time restrictions. This goes against FIFA rule which consider that any player can only play for a single senior national football team during his career.

Prove all those 4 points as wrong and then you will indeed be able to consider French Guianese people do not participate to World Cup. If you revert the edit without rejecting the 4 points. Then I will request this conflict to be solved by arbitration. Metropolitan (talk) 12:17, 12 may 2009 (UTC).

A French Guiana National Football Association exists - it is in Concacaf - it is not a member of FIFA. Areas not a member of FIFA are shown in grey. This is not a political map - Scotland, England are separate etc Jlsa (talk) 22:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

CONCACAF doesn't organize the FIFA World Cup, FIFA does. Great Britain participated 9 times to the football Olympics. What you're saying to me is that only England should be considered as having participated to those because Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are all represented with autonomous teams in UEFA and FIFA. We couldn't care less about it, it's the IOC which organizes the Olympics football tournament, neither UEFA nor FIFA.

Sorry to insist, the thing is that so many French Caribbean players participated to French football success throughout History that it sounds awfully ungrateful to deny the influence of their birth place as part of the team. Metropolitan (talk) 19h54, 13 may 2009 (UTC).

Reading the above, I tend to agree with Metropolitan. However, I see that the discussion was abandoned 1 year ago and the current status of the map is that French Guyana is gray. This is obviously not the consensus of this discussion, which has proponents of both views.

I guess the question to solve is whether for FIFA, French Guyana is a part of France. I am not entirely sure that thsi question has been solved above. If FIFA considers the part of France, represented by FFF then they should be colored green. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, i just see that there has been a mediation to this, the link to which strangely made it to the wrong section. I move the reference to here, noting that the mediation did not bring up a clear result. The mediator's comment, however, indicated that they feel French Guyana is regarded as a part of France by FIFA. Therefore, I strongly asking to color it green. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:13, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

You should ask FIFA to change their map as well then. FIFA has a map that shows where "France" is. Surprisingly, it doesn't include FG. Nor does it include Reunion - which FIFA regard as "different" enough to have a code for and referees from (see here for a list of Reunion referees). Yet, according to the logic above, it should also be "France" precisely as much as FG (see DOM TOM). Facts are facts, mediation cabals are what proved Galileo wrong. This is NOT a political map, it is a FIFA map. Jlsa (talk) 12:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Mediation request

For information purpose, I have requested a mediation which is filed here:

• Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2009-05-13/File:2010_world_cup_qualification.png

Metropolitan (talk) 21:24, 13 may 2009 (UTC).

• To let everybody know, I have picked up the mediation case at the Mediation Cabal, and have some thoughts to begin a discussion on finally settling this issue. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 03:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Eritrea, Bhutan

Also, Eritrea and Bhutan should be in purple, not red, per what the article says about them. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 05:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Paraguay

Paraguay qualified. Anyone fix it, please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.22.82.148 (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Non-members (Greenland, French Guyana again)

The colour codes for Greenland and French Guyana indicates that they are not members of FIFA, but they are, as parts of Denmark and France respectively. At least French Guyana is legally an integral part of its "mother land" France. The Great Cucumber (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

When reading above, I see this has already been discussed. I didn't see it before, because I didn't read through all the text which I thought was about Uruguay and Costa Rica above - since there were no headlines. I have added headlines now, so it is easier to navigate the page and see what subjects have already been discussed. I suppose French Guyana should be grey after all. The Great Cucumber (talk) 10:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

From where do you derive the conclusion that it should be colored gray. To me, the mediator's comment sounds much more like they are favoring green. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

From the simple fact that the mediation is closed and no change has been made. Hence, the case is closed and I was wrong in waking it again. The Great Cucumber (talk) 08:29, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You should read the mediation result, before you derive conclusions from it. Tomeasy _{T C} 09:09, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Despite a clear resolution at mediation, the map still erroneously has French Guyana and Greenland as grey (non members of FIFA). If there is no desire to make the map accurate, then the only recourse is to remove in from the target page. Kevin McE (talk) 07:49, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

FIFA clearly defines where "France" is in FOOTBALL terms (just as it does for England, Scotland etc) as well as where "UEFA" is - neither of which includes French Guiana. This is NOT a political map. I'm not sure what your problem with Greenland is. Jlsa (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

"FIFA clearly defines where "France" is in FOOTBALL terms": where?

I have no "problem" with Greenland, but it is not a sovereign state: it is part of the Kingdom of Denmark. Any part of any sovereign state that does not have autonomous membership of FIFA is represented at FIFA by the football association of its sovereign entity. Greenland is no less covered by Denmark than the Isle of Wight is covered by England's membership. Kevin McE (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Quoting FIFA see here The CFU, the nominal governing body for Caribbean football met in between the meeting of the FIFA Executive Committee and the FIFA Congress in Nassau. It comprises 25 of FIFA's 208 Member Associations as well as French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint-Martin and Sint Maarten, who are not affiliated to FIFA. Jlsa (talk) 22:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Color blindness

This image is very difficult to comprehend for people (like me) who are colorblind. Is there a way that the red/green contrast can be avoided? ThemFromSpace 05:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Plumber (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! It's much easier to see now! ThemFromSpace 23:52, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Pristino (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

New Colours

I know the guy that changed it was thinking of the colourblind, but for those that can see colour, the yellow, blue and black is just harsh and garish. 86.178.213.190 (talk) 18:04, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Far better garishness than lack of clarity in the colour scheme. If someone can come up with something that meets your taste and is clear, that's one thing, but otherwise we should keep to the current, subject to comments about the blue and black below.--Peter cohen (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

This is possibly the worst map that I have ever seen on Wikipedia. I appreciate the colour-blindness scheme, but all the connection lines are just confusing and unnecessary. Also, Somaliland is separate from the rest of Somalia; although it is de facto independent, it is (I believe) still part of Somalia as far as FIFA is concerned. Bazonka (talk) 18:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Blue and black

The blue for the countries participating and the black for those that didn't enter at all are hard to distinguish at first sight - even for me, and I am not colourblind and know very well that Laos and the Philippines did not enter. Isn't there a way to change the black to, say, pale yellow or beige or something? --Магьосник (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)