Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC)

OFC qualification pages

Do we definitely need separate articles for the various rounds? There's not too much information in them that they couldn't all be included on this page. A similar discussion took place before the 2022 qualifiers and consensus was that one article with redirects was enough (Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC)#OFC qualification pages). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: I agree, given there will only be 18 matches played in the OFC qualifiers, I see little need to create separate articles for each round. From 2006 to 2018 each OFC qualifying tournament had at least 34 matches, much larger than 2022 and 2026. I therefore have WP:BOLDLY merged the content back into the article. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy pinging @Yoblyblob to this discussion for input. Jalen Folf (Bark[s]) 16:27, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I would disagree, because there is sufficient coverage for another article. The size of the round should not really be taken into account. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The size should be taken into account. There's nothing in the first round offshoot which isn't in the main page and it's 68 words long. It's not long enough to justify an article by itself and it just creates an unnecessary duplication of information. By providing a link to another article claiming to be the main article, we are implying there is more information available to the reader when there is not. It's unhelpful in this instance. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur that we must consider WP:SIZE when determining whether a section is worthy of its own article. The size of the round is not the important part, but rather how much verifiable information is available to justify the separate article. There are numerous examples of larger rounds without their own articles because we can't sufficiently expand upon what is already included in the parent article. Conversely, we have copious examples of individual matches, not just major tournament final matches, that have enough significant coverage to justify individual articles. I am in favor of keeping the first round information here, though the second and third rounds may have enough additional information to break them into their own articles. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:17, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Names of first round match days

@S.A. Julio: Where do you see that FIFA refers to the first round matches as semi-finals and final? I cannot find anything to corroborate that, and "per FIFA" doesn't help without a URL, and calling them semi-finals and final with further qualification rounds to be contested is counter-intuitive. I can find where OFC refer to the second round matches as "match day three, four and five," which infers match days one and two for the first round. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 23:07, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:CITE

@YangerAAS: Hey, I noticed you'd removed the citations from the football boxes. Those links are being used as a source of information so I had created citations from them in line with Wikipedia policy. I know bare URLs are not a bad thing and are a good start when it comes to referencing so I just wanted to build on that by citing them. Happy to hear your thoughts though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 13:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland: There is no need to use {{cite web}} or to create <ref> </ref> tags in the |report= section of a {{football box}}. There is ample precedent for not doing so, e.g. pretty much every association football article which uses football boxes. The {{football box}} template formats the URL in such a way that it does not show as a bare URL reference.

Since there is a much wider use of the template than this singular article, a much wider discussion should be had regarding using {{cite web}} should probably be had at WT:FOOTY or Template talk:Cite web. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 20:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

There is a requirement to reference it though. Those links are being used to source information but, at present, do not appear in the list of references which is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Per WP:CITE: The second necessary part of the citation or reference is the list of full references, which provides complete, formatted detail about the source, so that anyone reading the article can find it and verify it (my emphasis). The football box template keeps it as a bare URL with no details about the source which is the opposite to Wikipedia policy. Why should football articles be any different to every other article? It also helps to combat WP:LINKROT as there are bots which archive sources cited on Wikipedia via the Wayback Machine.

This has also been discussed at WT:FOOTY before, most recently here. As I say, I'm just trying to build on the good work of the contributors to this article. I don't mind if the cite web template specifically is used or not if the source is cited. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Stevie fae Scotland and YangerAAS: I was not aware of that discussion or the one from which that one stemmed. Since there does seem to be consensus (and it is policy), I have asked at Template talk:Football box if the |report= parameter can be formatted to automatically add the <ref> </ref> tags. I know bare URLs are not preferred, but I would rather follow policy. Programming the tags in place should also add the references to all instances in all articles, not just new ones. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)