Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL)

Qualification Statistics
Every federation has its own WC qualification rules. Within those rules there is exists a set of statistics for 1st place, qualifying, wild card, etc. With that said, I'd like to know what thoughts there are on including them in this article. Elandres (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All federation have the same rules and wikipedia is not a place for lists of stats. Qed237&#160;(talk) 23:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Every federation has a different amount of participating countries, and thus a different format for qualifying. For instance CONCACAF has 5 rounds in which 35 teams try to qualify. CONMEBOL only has 10 teams and 1 round of 18 games. To clarify, I should not have said 'statistics' as I meant chances. For instance, there is something going around saying that a team only needs 25 pts (which is equivalent to 8 wins and 1 draw) to qualify in CONMEBOL; however, I can only figure that it's 33 points (or 11 wins). While the actual qualifications are very dynamic depending on inter-statistics of every team involved, there does exist a minimum chance for qualifying in every place. I do believe that Wikipedia is a proper forum for that information, albeit not as important as the tournaments rules, format, schedules, results, etc. At very least within the talk section I'd like to see what they are and a discussion of how they are figured.Elandres (talk) 00:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure what "chances" but it sounds very much like original research. Qed237&#160;(talk) 00:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for this insight. I did try to research this myself and could not find anything online, instead just the conversational reference to "25 pts." So yes, my reference to 33 pts is indeed of my own research, which is by no means extensive. What would you recommend on homing in on those figures? I do believe that it is relevant to content as it purely derivative from the official format and not my opinion. Elandres (talk) 01:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in pursuit of the minimum number of wins to guarantee qualification (i.e. be in at least 4th place). Without going on too much about it, I have come up with 2 ways of thinking about it that kind of sets limits on this number: 1) Proportional Domination and 2) Draw Reduction. In 1), there is the most idealized domination by the best teams; that is, 1st place wins every match, 2nd place wins all matches except 2 against 1st place, and so on to last place which loses every match; there are no draws. In this case 4th place wins 12 matches. 2) approaches this from the other extreme, since the worst the federation can perform is if no team ever wins a match, every match results in draw. From this draws are reduced: for instance with one win, the team that wins gets 1st place, the team that loses gets 3rd place, and all other teams tie for 2nd place. This reduction can be increased so that there are 10 wins with only 4 teams that get wins and 4 different teams that get losses. Furthermore, the teams that win any matches draw against each other and the same goes for those that lose any match. One team wins against all the losing teams, another team wins against all the losing teams except for 1, in which they draw, and so on to the fourth winning team, which wins against only the team that had 4 losses. In this case (if I have explained it well enough), the 4th place team only wins 1 match, and ties all the rest. Both 1) and 2) are highly idealized and very improbable, but they do set the limits for minimum wins to guarantee qualification. And yet I have heard from many conversational sources that only 25 pts are needed to qualify.Elandres (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * And talkpages are to discuss content and not our own views. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 00:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm clearly talking about potential content. You have made your views quite clear with very little factual reference to the content, I'd like to know what others think about what I have proposed. Elandres (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that what you propose amounts to original research, which is unencyclopedic and prohibited from inclusion on Wikipedia. If you wish to maintain such statistics in your sandbox, you are free to do so as long as you do not violate WP:NOT.— Jkudlick t c s 01:56, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of match information
Please provide a source in your edit summary when adding match information if it is not supported in the official match reports. Also, per WP:BRD, you were obligated to begin discussion after I reverted your change. I have begun the discussion for you. If you can provide a source for your edit here, then I will not change it back. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC) I misread your username, so I'm pinging you now. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 02:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Please leave match days in the headings
Why revert the addition of the match dates? It makes the page more difficult to navigate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lleeoo (talk • contribs) 18:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think I can answer this. First of all it was ugly (my point of view) but also it made headers to long and complicated, it is not standard and finally you used a template inside the header (a big no). <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I can see no good reason for including matchdates in the headers. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 21:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Qed, no need to extand anything, you can easily find interesting date by scrolling. User:TigerTatoo 22:17, 12 November 2016
 * I agree that it makes it more complicate to navigate when the dates are in the headings... Really, there is no good reason to include them. Kante4 (talk) 09:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Venezuela
Why can't they qualify directly? That is an exceptionally odd thing (as teams ordinarily either qualify normally, or aren't allowed in at all) and should be explained. Macktheknifeau (talk) 12:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It is impossible for Venezuela to finish in the top 4, but they could still finish in 5th and go to the inter-confederation play-offs. Colombia (4th place, 21 points) and Ecuador (5th place, 20 points) face each other one more time; regardless of the outcome, one of the teams will have at least 22 points, while Venezuela can finish with no more than 21 points. Since every team in the top four will definitely finish with at least 22 points, Venezuela can't qualify as a direct result of this tournament, but they still have an outside chance at making the play-offs. — Jkudlick &#x2693; t &#x2693; c &#x2693; s 12:44, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Match times: Matchdays 15 and 16
I am looking to resolve differences with an IP based on several revs I made after the same IP added or changed matchtimes in Matchdays 15 and 16. The IP cites foreign language sources for his edits, while FIFA.com, where I'm used to sourcing matchtimes, does not show this. I need some clarification before I pursue further action. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 03:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

The IP used this to cite a time addition for Uruguay-Argentina Matchday 15, which I readded but in a comment pending resolution, and this to cite a time change for Paraguay-Uruguay Matchday 16. I've questioned the reliability of these sources in my reverts, and this is where I wish to seek resolution. Feel free to look at the diff as well to see the edits I am referring to.

Pinging for help in the matter. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 14:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm no expert but seeing as I was called I'll stick my tuppence worth in. The first one looks like the official site of the Uruguayan FA which for me would make it an OK source for the change. I would be more wary of the second one as I don't know how reliable it is and it doesn't specify time zones so it's unclear if it means Colombian time or Paraguayan time (assuming they are in different time zones, that is). I don't read Spanish either, which doesn't help! Keresaspa (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

More supposed sources that could fail RS. here and here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 13:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Which time is being used in the wiki page? Because FIFA and the AUF (Governing body) both agree that the match is 31st Aug 2017 @ 20:00. I'm not sure what the the problem is for the matchtimes. Martinluna1909
 * This edit was already done by after FIFA posted the match time on their website. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 12:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Sweet, so there's no problem then? Martinluna1909
 * Not at the moment. We'll just wait until the IP (186.154.38.190, based on edit history) comes back; they appear to have gone quiet for now. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) 23:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Requesting addition of match time for Venezuela vs Colombia on Matchday 15. FIFA website has confirmed the match time. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 10:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)