Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup/Archive 4

Introduction treatment of criticisms
I attempted to have this discussion previously but it devolved and into different discussions and the text in the article had already been changed substantially. We need to work together as editors to establish consensus based on WP policies—crucially NPOV—and reliable sources to decide how the criticisms around the 2022 World Cup should be treated in the introduction. There are grave problems with the criticisms/controversies section of this article, but that is not the subject of this section. As a starting point, I offer my vision of how the text should look:

"The choice to host the World Cup in Qatar has been the source of substantive criticism, primarily from Europe and the wider Western world.  This has focused on Qatar's human rights record (with migrant workers, LGBT issues, and women's rights), the intense climate, a lack of a strong football culture, evidence of bribery in the bidding process, and wider FIFA corruption— leading to boycotts and allegations of sportswashing. Responses to these criticisms have characterized them as hypocritical, Orientalist, and racist."

What changes would you make in wording and why? Are there any points that need to be added or removed, and why? If citing sources, please put the reftalk template in a collapse template. إيان (talk) 02:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Accusing the entire Western world alone of "racism" and "orientalism" towards Qatar when FIFA (an organization based in the West) has awarded Qatar the hosting of the tournament, and proposing to insert such a statement in the lead section of the article is simply ridiculous. South Asian and Latin American liberal democracies have critized the World Cup in the same way as Western countries did.      Moreover, Qatar and other Gulf states have been described by the cited reliable references as "authoritarian", not me. Removing sourced content multiple times from the article without consensus, as you did many times, qualifies as disruptive editing. I had the same discussion with editor  about that phrase and we agreed to remove it entirely from the lead section because it's neither neutral nor accurate, since South Asian and Latin American liberal democracies have criticized the World Cup as well.       There's no point to accuse the Western world alone of criticism when everyone else (including international human rights organizations, non-Western media, and the LGBT community) did exactly the same thing.


 * I reverted multiple disruptive edits by users who have repeatedly attempted to delete any mention of criticism of the current World Cup by different countries and of the Controversies section itself (including you, don't forget it:, , , , ); therefore, don't point the finger at me when you have engaged in the same disruptive behavior without justification as other vandals did on this article . As I said above, me and agreed to rewrite the paragraph in the lead section about the controversies due to non-neutral, polemical, and blatantly false personal opinions written by the same users who have repeatedly attempted to delete any mention of criticism of the current World Cup by different countries (including you, don't forget it: , , , , ), such as those phrases that imply accusation towards the Western world alone of "racist" or "orientalist" criticism, which are a blatant violation of the policies WP:GEOBIAS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT; moreover, reporting something like that on an encyclopedia is a completely false and ludicrous statement,    since several countries in different parts of the world (including the East) have criticized the tournament for the same reasons as Western countries did (human rights violations, bribery, corruption, slavery, migrant workers' death toll, ecc.)

GenoV84 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I never accused the entire Western world alone of "racism" and "orientalism" as you ridiculously claim. The reliable sources Le Monde, The Athletic, The Economist, and others discuss the criticisms as primarily Western and these reliable sources also report that those who disagree with those criticisms describe them as hypocritical, Orientalist, and racist, and this should be included in the introduction to counterbalance the critical claims for NPOV.
 * What you are doing is WP:cherrypicking non-Western sources that are critical of the World Cup to try and refute the characterization of the criticisms as primarily Western to push your ridiculous WP:OR POV that everyone else did the exact same thing.
 * Never did I delete any mention of criticism of the current World Cup as you ridiculously claimed above, but rather provided context and cutback undue detail in the introduction of the article on the 2022 FIFA World Cup, providing links to where readers can learn more. Wikipedia can't sponsor non-neutral views without counterbalance.
 * As far as your insistence on using the word "authoritarian," you are relying on this article from Reason magazine, which is not a reliable source. إيان (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Try again without the accusations and repeated personal attacks. I never questioned those sources in the first place, nobody said that they shouldn't be used nor that they aren't reliable. In fact, counter-criticism should be included in the article as well, but there's also counter-counter-crticism to it: as the magazine Foreign Policy demonstrates, any attempts from the Qatari government and FIFA to whitewash Qatar and the World Cup from criticism and controversies by accusing Western critics of racism is totally unconvincing and is going to boomerang at them. Btw, Reason magazine is a reliable secondary source and can be referenced on Wikipedia, just like all the other references that I provided in the article; check better next time. GenoV84 (talk) 16:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The magazine The Atlantic has referred to Qatar by using the terms "Gulf petrostate", "Middle Eastern autocracy", and "petrostate plutocracy". Do you consider any of these to be better? Are you going to say that this is also an unreliable source? GenoV84 (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I would cut off the whole tail from "-leading to..." on. The ending with boycotts, allegations, counter criticisms addresses subjects with a level of detail and nuance unneccesary for the lead, and detracts from the NPOV. A simple list of who and what is appropriate for the lead; the details are covered in the Controversies subsection (which needs some serious rework). Crescent77 (talk) 17:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree about this. We need to establish WP:CONSENSUS about what is more appropriate for the lead section of this article, without going back and forth with different revisions of the same paragraph all the time. I would move everything in the Controversies subsection and leave only the phrase "The choice to host the World Cup in Qatar has been the source of controversy" in the lead section. GenoV84 (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed based on the current body of the article that these should be excluded from the lead. The lead is intended to summarize the body of the article, so calling criticism of the tournament racist, orientalist, and hypocrisy need to be fleshed out in the body of the article. Previously the counter-criticism of the lead was as long as the section devoted to criticism, yet there was virtually no prose in the article dedicated to counter-criticism. These claims either need to be fleshed out in the article or need to be removed from the lead. Also per Reliable sources/Perennial sources, both Al Jazeera and Reason are considered reliable sources, and both should probably have their claims attributed: for Al Jazeera because it is owned by the state of Qatar, and for Reason due to being a partisan source. Jay eyem (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * What editors at Perennial sources have to say on the libertarian magazine Reason:
 * "There is consensus that Reason is generally reliable for news and facts. Editors consider Reason to be a biased or opinionated source that primarily publishes commentary, analysis, and opinion articles. Statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight."
 * WP:Due weight is the main issue for the undue, highly opinionated edits GenoV84 wants to insert. إيان (talk) 21:52, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

As discussed, I made the change. Thouhts? Crescent77 (talk) 21:23, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Crescent77, your most recent version is certainly an improvement from the previous version, but the criticisms are still there with no context or mention of where they come from. That this criticism comes primarily from the West is well attested to in reliable sources (Le Monde, The Athletic, The Economist, and others). These sources also record that those who disagree with these criticisms describe them as hypocritical, prejudiced, and fitting within an Orientalist narrative. This is essential context and should not be omitted. Presenting one side of the argument is not NPOV. إيان (talk) 22:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not presenting arguments. I've documented the list of criticisms coming from well sourced descriptions of actual occurences.

Using opinion pieces which create arguments against those criticisms is not NPOV, and gives undue weight to those editorials. Crescent77 (talk) 22:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Neither the Le Monde piece nor the Athletic piece is opinion, and this peer-reviewed academic journal article attests to the fact that this phenomenon isn't merely "editorial." The selection and focus on these issues is documented as a preoccupation of primarily the Western media, and concentrating on them is itself a narrative and an argument, and if no provenance is given and it is not contextualized, it lends Wikipedia voice to that narrative and argument, forsaking NPOV. إيان (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

The criticisms are a significant issue, as the material you provided concurs, so it is most certainly voiced in Wikipedia. That itself is not an argument. Just because a counter argument is made, does not mean it needs to be given equal weight, if it is not of equal weight. See WP:Falsebalance. As Jay states above, context is provided in the body of the article; the material documenting the controversial happenings far outweighs the material that dismisses them as prejudice. Crescent77 (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * The material I provided concurs that the criticisms are a significant issue for the West. The introduction needs to specify this so that Wikipedia doesn't voice the Western narrative as if it's the only narrative and as if the criticisms have no origin. See WP:GEOBIAS. إيان (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree with WP:GEOBIAS and its presentation of issues oft encountered in WP, but it is an opinion piece; righting the wrongs described therein does not outweigh W:NPOV, a balanced presentation of the sum of the reliable sourcing. Crescent77 (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. Anyway, are we all good with this part of the introduction as it stands? I'm good with it. إيان (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * NO, we aren't. Here's why:


 * 1) You keep deleting sources and content related to the criticisms and controversies about Qatar and the World Cup despite the ongoing discussion and lack of WP:CONSENSUS in order to present only the viewpoints from newspapers and opinion pieces who aren't critical of the country for hosting the tournament, which creates a self-evident WP:FALSEBALANCE throughout the article: Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise, articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tones can be introduced through how facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.
 * 2) Accusing the entire Western world alone of criticism towards Qatar when FIFA (an organization based in the West) has awarded Qatar the hosting of the tournament, and proposing to insert such a statement in the lead section of the article is simply ridiculous, and a blatant violation of the policies WP:NPOV, WP:GEOBIAS, and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. South Asian and Latin American liberal democracies have critized the World Cup in the same way as Western countries did.      Basically, everyone has criticized the hosting of the tournament in Qatar (including international human rights organizations, non-Western media, and the LGBT community),       except for.... obviously, Qatar.
 * 3) Moreover, as editor Jay eyem has stated above regarding the use of Reliable sources/Perennial sources, which are allowed on Wikipedia: both Al Jazeera and Reason are considered reliable sources, and both should probably have their claims attributed: for Al Jazeera because it is owned by the state of Qatar, and for Reason due to being a partisan source. Instead of listening to what other editors had to say, you have decided to WP:CHERRYPICK and delete not only the reliable source from Reason magazine but literally every reliable reference about criticisms of Qatar and the 2022 FIFA World Cup, except for those ones uncritical of Qatar that you seem to like very much. GenoV84 (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Geno discusses a good point we haven't covered here yet : FIFA is a "Western" organization, the majority of teams participating are "Western", the vast majority of resources supporting it are "Western". Following that, one could fairly say the World Cup itself is "primarily Western" and therefore criticisms would arise "primarily" in the "West". I can see why one might try to counter that perspective under WP:GEOBIAS, but the nature of the organization itself could fairly be considered "geobiased". We're not going to be able to edit that perspective out of WP, nor should we. If FIFA itself is ethnocentric, that should be shown.

But that all should go without saying : pointing it out makes it seem like the rest of the world feels the criticisms are unfounded, which I'm not seeing. The counter criticism are primarily from "Western" sources, mostly stating "It's bad, but it's not that bad. Just look at Russia/China/Mussolini/the historical "West"..." I'm not seeing sourcing, Western or not, indicating the criticisms are completely unfounded. Also notable is that Qatar's own neighbors tried to stop them from hosting the World Cup. Qatar itself recognized some of the issues and made concessions for improvement, some of which they reneged on. It doesn't seem that the controveries are solely "Western" based primarily on "racism", though it is clearly sourced that Qatar has utilized the media to try and paint it as such.

But that all seems to weighty for the lede, rather, I agree with how the lede now stands. I might even say it is understated; multuple references indicate the controversies may be as important as the event itself, and the amount of material in the controversy section supports that. But as we all seem to agree on, we don't want to overburden the lede. I think as it now stand is appropriate.

إيان, if you want to provide context, the Controversy section seems to be the place for that, but your previous attempt to erase that whole section doesn't sit well with me. I'm gonna take a good faith interpretation of that and assume you were trying to counter systemic bias, but as discussed above, from the text, it hard to discern if that is the case, or if it is part of an ogoing attempt on your part to "sportswash" issues in Qatar. Perhaps some good faith efforts in that section might rectify your concerns. Crescent77 (talk) 16:42, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I was fine with it before GenoV84 removed the statement supported by the reliable sources Le Monde, The Athletic, and the peer-reviewed academic journal article to suit their POV again with cherrypicked sources given undue weight. That user also continues to misrepresent the source by Reuters, trying to use the fact that it was republished by the Times of India to push their POV that the criticism has not been primarily Western, contrary to the reliable sources. (The source itself says nothing to counter the fact that the criticism has been primarily from the West, which means that the way this user has tried to use the source also constitutes original research.) GenoV84 also continues to push their POV by inappropriately using opinion pieces as well as a source from the impartial libertarian magazine Reason as statements of fact, though it has been explained to them that for this source "statements of opinion should be attributed and evaluated for due weight."
 * I never said the criticisms are unfounded. Whether or not FIFA is Western is not relevant and does not counter what the reliable sources say. Similarly, the Qatar diplomatic crisis had nothing to do with the criticisms we are discussing (Kafala, gay rights, climate, etc.). None of these has anything to do with the fact that the reliable sources clearly state that the criticism of Qatar's hosting of the World Cup has been primarily Western. I just want NPOV based on reliable sources., you can also strike out that veiled personal attack it hard to discern if that is the case, or if it is part of an ogoing attempt on your part to "sportswash" issues in Qatar[sic].
 * As for paring down the Controversies section, it's a separate discussion but there is consensus above from users, , and that the section needs to be summarized. (75,000 bytes is ridiculous and undue, especially when there is already a dedicated article with all the information.) I didn't delete the material from Wikipedia; every detail is at 2022 FIFA World Cup controversies and I kept a short summary and the Template:Main link to that article. إيان (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if my statement seemed "veiled", I thought I was pretty clear there are appearances you are operating in bad faith.

There was a consensus that the section needed cleanup, simply deleting the material and copy pasting the lede was an extremely low effort edit that's hard to see as a well intended effort at summation.

Continuing to push editorials and one older peer reviewed journal article that predates alot of the controversies (and admits its own shortcomings as such) is hard to see as an attempt at NPOV. Crescent77 (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Unbelievable. You have to nerve to accuse other editors with repeated personal attacks simply because they have different opinions than yours about the controversial issues surrounding the World Cup by pointing the finger at them and accusing them of POV editing while you keep deleting sourced content with multiple reliable references as if that content and those references don't matter at all, apparently favouring the point of view of a single journalist, from a single opinion piece, from a single newspaper . You have also attempted to censor pictures that you consider to be "not encyclopedic" on the Controversies article, without justification and in blatant violation of the WP policies WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:IMAGE: Since Wikipedia is not censored, readers and editors may come across offensive images. GenoV84 (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As I already explained before, me and @Adeletron 3030 agreed about removing that phrase entirely from the lead section because it's neither neutral nor accurate. Blaming the Western world alone of critcism of the current World Cup, Qatar, and FIFA is evidently biased, offensive, and flaming, since criticisms of the current World Cup have been made by several countries in different parts of the world, including the East, and by international human rights organizations, non-Western media, and the LGBT community. How many times do I have to explain the reason for removing that phrase again? GenoV84 (talk) 20:16, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but who are you to judge? If reliable sources (and NYT, Reuters, DW, Al Jazeera, France 24, The Hindu, Anadolu Agency, etc. are definitely reliable sources) have been reporting on the responses calling the criticisms hypocritical, orientalist and/or racist, then we on Wikipedia need to mention that the responses call the criticisms hypocritical, orientalist, racist. Whether it's true or not, is not for you or me to judge, and if you believe it's untrue, then you need to have reliable sources disproving it. Your mental gymnastics (calling all reliable sources that you disagree with biased and offensive) is not a reason for us to remove reliably sourced content. And as for it going in the lede, something being reported by almost every major publication does deserve to go in the lede.@Crescent77 @Vpab15 Angele201002 (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I have expanded the third paragraph of the intro and mentioned a few of the controversies. I don't have any strong opinion of what particular phrasing to use, but simply saying the choice of Qatar "has been a source of controversy" without explaining what that controversy consists of is vague and not encyclopedic. Vpab15 (talk) 14:23, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Football is not my interest, but we focus a lot of attention on the negative. This is just a general problem on Wikipedia. Tomaatje12 (talk) 20:42, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is very subjective, but considering the significant criticism that this world cup has received, I think adding it to the article is entirely WP:DUE and appropriate. Vpab15 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Angele201002, couple things to mention.

On a minor note, as discussed above, Al Jazeera has a COI, so considering that a reliable source in this situation is questionable.

More importantly, your suggestion that "something being reported by almost every major publication does deserve to go in the lede" is not feasible. We would have a lede hundreds of pages long if we included all reported material. Please refine your discussion and indicate how the material under discussion has the weight needed to include it in the lede. Crescent77 (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Al Jazeera is a reliable source, however, if you are against it being on this page/subject, that's fine, there are plenty of other sources. Also I'm not proposing to have all reported material on there. However, material reported by all or almost all major outlets does need to be there. The responses to the criticisms are important as they are being reported on widely (and simply adding criticisms without the responses to them is blatantly POV). The responses also mention (in addition to the hypocrisy, orientalism, racism, islamophobia) that other countries like China, France, Russia, the US were not treated the same way. There are even more sources than the ones I added that report on this. So why do you desire to remove reliably sourced content that provides a view on what the other side of the debate is saying?Angele201002 (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The material is not being removed, it is included in the controversy section. And I did not remove all of "the other side of the debate", I edited for brevity.

The question at hand is how to best cover the controversies in the lede giving all info due weight, including ensuring that the lede discussion of controversies doesn't outweigh all other material. To me, including claims of prejudice is fully acceptable, but to further flesh them out without fleshing the nature of the criticism themselves gives undue weight to the countercriticism. Previous versions better covered both in better detail, but led to an extremely long description in the lede, which seemed inappropriate. Crescent77 (talk) 00:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ok but the criticisms are already fleshed out - they already mention the migrant workers, the LGBT, the climate, corruption, etc. (i.e., all major criticisms that Qatar has received); the responses centre on two aspects; one - the hypocritical, orientalist, racist and islamophobic nature, and two - that other countries did not receive this criticism when hosting major events. Just like it wouldn't make sense for one to for example, remove all criticism besides the migrant worker one, it doesn't make sense to remove the second aspect to the responses.Angele201002 (talk) 00:19, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that as a second aspect (Nor do others, as discussed elsewhere; this isn't the first talk thread concerning this topic). I see it as a continuation of the claims of prejudice, an attempt to illustrate specific examples of the bias. I think "hypocritical", as included, is a pretty descriptive term for that accusation. All that material is important to the discussion, and should be included in the appropriate place, I just don't see how naming other countries and their issues in the lede is appropriate, it seems to me to give them undue weight, and detracts from Qatar's centrality to this event.

Also Crescent77 (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Honestly, read the various sources cited and you will see that the claims are there. I can't state what other users think, but only what RS write. Maybe they didn't have the same info, maybe they were biased, who knows? Also, the hypocrisy is not related to the second part. The hypocrisy (if you read for example Infantino's comments) refers to the hypocrisy of the criticising countries. However, while France and the US have criticised the organisation, China and Russia haven't really done so, if at all. It is a pretty common response to the criticisms that Qatar has been singled out while other countries with human rights concerns have or are scheduled to host large events with nowhere near the same scrutiny. Also, we are not naming their issues, just that they have issues. I don't see how one sentence that talks about the responses detract from Qatar's organisation. If we were proposing for example, Russia's annexation of Crimea or US' invasion of Iraq or the UK's deportation of immigrants, it would be a different thing and then I would agree; however, this is a central claim to the responses to the criticism. Lastly, I think you missed a sentence after Also.Angele201002 (talk) 01:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we need to reiterate what the lead is for. It is a summary of the points introduced in the body of the article. It should therefore reflect the prose of the article, including sections on criticism and counter-criticism. What it should NOT do is give undue weight to opinions that are not reflected in the body of the article. Nowhere else in the article is there a discussion on counter-criticism regarding racism or orientalism, so it is, at the moment, inappropriate for it to be in the lead. Likewise, regarding Al Jazeera, the source is owned by the Qatari state and should be presented as such when addressing counter-criticism, similar to the issue as previously mentioned for claims attributed to Reason for partisan reasons. The claims either need to be fleshed out in the body or removed from the lead (and not just an excessive listing of citations, which is not helpful to the reader) Jay eyem (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but how is it undue when literally every publication is talking about it?? And as for it being mentioned in the prose, it is, as a response to the criticisms mentioned as titles, because that's exactly what it is, a response to the criticism. About Al Jazeera, although I am not that involved in maintaining it as a source, would you consider removing BBC for all news about the UK considering that it's owned by the UK state? Oh yes sure, it's Western so it's somehow 'unbiased' even when reporting about the UK.Angele201002 (talk) 10:45, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You completely and utterly misunderstood the point I was making. the purpose of the LEAD i.e. the first few paragraphs at the top of the article, is to summarize the BODY of the article. If the counter-criticism is not present in the BODY of the article (which I am not saying it shouldn't be, but at the moment it is not), then it does not belong in the LEAD. To present them as being evenly discussed in the LEAD is inappropriate when it isn't even discussed in the BODY (which again, as it has been added back, the concerns have STILL not been addressed). This is a really easy fix: either flesh it out in the body, or remove it from the lead. Simple. Jay eyem (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"...literally every..."? Please, No. Crescent77 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Image panorama99.jpg

Experimenting with maps
I find the current use of Location map+ in the Venues section of the article to be unnecessarily complicated and cumbersome. Especially annoying to me is exclusion of the Ahmad bin Ali, Al Janoub, and Lusail Stadiums in the Doha map, simply because they are just narrowly outside the map's field of view. Additionally, I have always disliked how maps are unaesthetically shoved into the table of venues itself, instead of simply being on the side like most other pieces of media displayed in Wikipedia articles. In response to this, I have drafted two possible replacements for the current map; one based on OSM Location map and another based on Maplink. Both in my opinion succeed at illustrating the locations of venues in a parsable way without having to disrupt the asthetics of the venues table or split the data into two seperate maps. What do you guys think ? — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 06:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. I like the top one with the numbered list under the map. Chris 1834  Talk 15:45, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the numbered list under the map, and I agree with AFC Vixen's assessment that the current maps are ... cumbersome at best. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 20:47, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I did a similar thing to this on another page. I don't think these maps show up well on mobile/tablet devices using the app (not on iPhone/iPad anyway). I did it for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–22_PGA_Tour#Location_of_tournaments. Jopal22 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Your maps on 2021–22 PGA Tour seems to work fine in Safari on both iOS and iPadOS on my end. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 09:31, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * They do for me too when using safari, but not when using the wikipedia app Jopal22 (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree. I say it would be better if the map was bigger on default so you could see the names and locations at the same time. Ozziebro (talk) 08:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2022
New pictures of the stadiums are needed 145.100.231.106 (talk) 09:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I say it would be too finnicky and cumbersome if there was an overload of pictures. Ozziebro (talk) 08:42, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Not done: Do you have any free images that would be suitable for this section?

I must say, I'm not all that sure we need images of the venues in this section at all.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:01, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree, not sure sports articles always bloat their venues sections with loads of images. Either way, unless we find appropriately licenced images, we cannot use them- this was being discussion above: . Joseph2302 (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with this sentiment. Taking the copyright situation into account, I think it would be far better to illustrate the section with one or two stadium images and a venue map, and replacing the table with a simple bulleted list of stadiums and their capacities. It would be a far better use of real estate that the oversized table full of empty image cells and a cumbersome pair of maps that poorly illustrate the location of venues. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 11:20, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am increasingly in agreement, at least for this article due to how we can't seem to get pictures for the article itself due to copyright issues. It feels inconsistent to have images for some but not for others, and has resulted in folks uploading a variety of non-free images. The section may be better off entirely without the images. Jay eyem (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering I've removed another two images again today, I think the sooner we remove the image section, the better.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 20:56, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Templates
How do you reach the templates to edit them regarding the matches? Ove Raul (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Click on the little e in the corner of the tables.Tvx1 18:06, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect cost calculations
There is no reference for the cost and it is hugely inflated. The oft cited figure of 200 billion includes the sum total of infrastructure development in Qatar from the period prior to 2010 up until the World Cup and through to 2030. These include unrelated costs such as the construction of a new airport, the refurbishment of the port, the construction of the city of Lusail, the construction of a metro, the construction of highways outside of the city of Doha for industrial purposes e.g. the Orbital Road. All of these infrastructure projects were planned prior to Qatar winning the bid to the World Cup in 2010 and I would have expected Wikipedia to be more circumspect about exaggerated and quite frankly impossible claims, does the author believe a sports stadium costs 20-30 billion dollars to build? I would encourage some fact checking prior to propagating false claims. 167.98.72.117 (talk) 15:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't really fact check, we summarise what reliable sources say about a subject. If sources say $200 billion, then it is $200 billion. Do you know if there are suitable articles about the cost that suggest other values?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The Forbes article (cite 2) is already perfectly clear on the costs and what they represent. The New Arab article (cite 3) is 200 words of propaganda that mentions the CEO of the event as its only source, and should be redacted as unreliable. 2601:500:8680:61A0:C855:7CB2:F774:5696 (talk) 22:01, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Luka Modric
Please change ((Luka Modric)) to ((Luka Modrić)) Halaby18 (talk) 20:27, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to be done. Facts707 (talk) 09:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Japan vs Croatia
One of the Round of 16 matchups shows "Spain vs Croatia" instead of "Japan vs Croatia". This is obviously either a vandal attempt or a blatant misunderstanding. In either case, I assume Wikipedia will want to restore the correct edit and its source(s). Halaby18 (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears to have been corrected. Facts707 (talk) 10:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Intro
For our American & Canadian readers, may we please not pipe-link association football, as "football", in the intro. To Americans & Canadians, "football" is gridiron football, so let's avoid the potential confusion. GoodDay (talk) 00:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The same need applies to Australia, for which Wikipedia has its own naming convention - WP:NCFIA. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. إيان (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any confusion with American football, though I don't think it's the worst idea to use "association football", considering there are World Cups for two other codes of football, Rugby World Cup and Rugby League World Cup. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 03:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I second Adeletron 3030's comments as he cited to two other types of "football", Rugby World Cup and Rugby League World Cup. This would help remove any potential confusion. Jurisdicta (talk) 07:55, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted to this (again). Even inline comments don't seem to avoid this.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * There’s a World Cup of American Football too.Tvx1 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with this, since that would mean that the 1994 World Cup wikipedia article and the 2026 World Cup article would have to be changed from "soccer" to "association football" for easier understanding for the users from the rest of the world who have only ever known the sport as football and not soccer; but when I have tried to change it from soccer to association football, it has always gotten reverted to soccer, with the reasoning that the event is held in a country (or countries as it's the case for the 2026 one) where the sport is known as soccer. And since this World Cup is held in Qatar where it's spoken Arabic, the Arabic word for football is كرة القدم (kurat al-qadam), where القدم means foot and كرة means ball, so literally football.

Not to mention that all the other articles of the previous World Cups apart from the 1994 and the 2026, use only the short name - football in the intro, and not the full name of the sport, so I don't see a what's the problem with simply writing football, especially since the link forwards the reader directly to the article with the full name of the sport, so it's basically meaningless to add the word "association" in front, which is already written at the top of the article in the short decription where it says "Association football tournament in Qatar", so the reader can not get confused about what sport this is.

Considering that all the other World Cup articles have only football written in them as it was the name the sport was referred to by the host countries every single time, it seems disrespectful to Qatar and the Arab people for their article to be the only exception where the word they use for the sport isn't used properly, not to mention that by changing the host nation's name of the sport to include a word that they don't use, just to appease the populations of three countries (USA, Canada, Australia) doesn't seem fair especially since it makes it look like their countries and language are superior to that of Qatar or any other country in the world.

And you made the point about being easier to understand and to avoid confusion for readers from those countries, then shouldn't the 2026 World Cup article also feature the name Association Football instead of soccer so the other 7 billion people around the world that have always known the sport as simply football and not soccer, can easily understand it and so there won't be any confusion for them, especially since one of the three countries hosting it (Mexico) refers to the sport as football and the majority of the clubs from the other two (USA, Canada) use FC and not SC in their names? Or do only the opinions of these three countries (USA, Canada, Australia) count and matter above all the others?

I'm asking kindly and respectfully, please change the name from association football to only football in the article, since the link and the short description of the article clearly state what sport it is so there is absolutely no confusion, and it will actually be respectful to the hosts language. And please keep it as simply football at the description.

Thank you all for your understanding and time to read my thoughts about this, and I'm hoping that you can also agree with my points. Nori2001 (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to make it more ambiguous? There are so many different codes of football.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:00, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is still being reverted. I'm a bit bemused how the above isn't a suitable consensus for "association football", baring in mind just how many different types of "football" there are.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Because there are people clearly disagreeing with the change and the arguments in favor are very weak. Strength of arguments is what matters. How is the existence of other codes now suddenly a major issue, when no one had an issue in the previous decades worth    of FIFA World Cups? Moreover Rugby Union and Rugby League are rarely used with the word football. No one is going to confuse them with this code. How is soccer perfectly acceptable for some of these articles, even though far less people know that word than the other way round, and football not?
 * In any case, this should be discussed at WT:Footy, as it affects 20+ articles, not here among a handful of editors.Tvx1 14:47, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would having a specific word used on this page NEED to have a project wide discussion? We don't have to be consistent, neccesarily. You've already stated that there is an American football world cup, several football world cups, there's a beach football world cup. Why would making this less ambigious, by stating what the full title of the game is be worse than this?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:02, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Why don't we need to be consistent? After all, every single World Cup article has been consistent in the sense that the word used for the sport has been the literal translation of the word used in the hosts' language, even the World Cup articles when it's hosted in the US has been the same (1994 & 2026), even though just 3 or 4 countries from the 211 FIFA members refer to it as "soccer", and since it's a worldwide event, shouldn't those two articles use the word that's more known by the rest of world to avoid confusing about 7 billion people who haven't referred to the sport by the word "soccer"? But, apparently the word used in World Cup articles should be the word used by the hosts to refer to the sport, that's why soccer is used in those articles, which is fine since that's the way it's supposed to be.
 * So why would the consistency be broken only for the Qatar World Cup article? As I have explained above Qataris refer to it simply by the name Football and do not use the word association, so I believe it's really disrespectful to Qataris and Arab speaking people to not have the word that they use correctly represented in article about the World Cup held in their country and region.
 * So PLEASE do not change the word back to association football, since it disrespects the hosts' culture and language, any above all doesn't serve any purpose relating to the supposed confusion between other football codes, a confusion which is non-existent since the short description of the article clearly say that this is "Association football tournament in Qatar" and even the hyperlink of the word football directly sends the reader to the "Association football" main article when they click on it, so adding one more "association" word in this article serves no purpose whatsoever. If you have any valid argument as to why it shouldn't be just football written in this article after all of the points and arguments I presented, please feel free to write them and change my mind, otherwise I'm going to have to change it back to just football every time someone changes it back to association football, because that's the "formula" that's been used in EVERY SINGLE WORLD CUP article, so changing this only for the Qatar World Cup would be very disrespectful to their culture. Nori2001 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I've seen nothing to make me think this has anything to do with where the tournament is being held. Spike &#39;em (talk) 17:31, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Every world cup article had been changed, not just this one, despite this never being an issue before. You’re just making a problem where none exists. This is a clear case of being overconcerned.Tvx1 19:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. Why would making a change to this article to make it less ambiguous HAVE to be done at a project level? That is the argument that stifles any sort of improvement, by requiring high level discussions that have very little to do with this pages' usage.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:46, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
 * For the second time, the intent displayed was to change all articles, not just this one. Moreover, changing just one of this articles would be idiotic. Why is it unacceptably confusing here, but not in the similar articles?? That makes the argument for changing even weaker. It’s not a case of other stuff, but of the same stuff in different places.Tvx1 13:11, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

I restored the direct link on all the FIFA World Cups not held where "soccer" is used, so (again) American & Canadian readers won't be confused. This isn't a fight over who owns the name "football". GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

PS: As somebody suggested, I brought my concerns to WP:FOOTY. I'm hoping I won't be reverted 'again', but if I am? I'll leave it alone & see how the discussion goes at WP:FOOTY. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You should never have changed it to begin with and certainly should not have reverted in ignorance for discussion. Americans and Canadians don’t use the term “Association football”, they use soccer. The proposed change is not less confusing. But I still doesn’t this is an issue necessitating a change. You are simply overconcerned. If this had truly been an issue for the people of the countries concerned, we ‘d known about it a long time ago in the nearly twenty years this we’be covering this tournaments. Lastly, just in case some people would actually be confused, we invented the wikilink.Tvx1 13:14, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Only 'two' editors in this discussion seem to be against & you're the only one who (twice now) has been reverting it, with a claim of no consensus. I hope you're not suggesting that 'a consensus' is only possible, with your support. GoodDay (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not a head count, but judged but by strength of argument. You have not provided a single valid argument as to why an unacceptable confusion would have suddenly started to exist now in late 2022. You just don’t go and alter every single FIFA world cup article despite the status quo having existed for decades without any complaint. You are making a problem where none exists! Tvx1 15:16, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree, there does seem to be a consensus through editing built up over the years in the previous versions. Obviously consensus can change, but given the long history of using plain "football" the onus is on those wanting to change to gain that consensus. I've not tried reviewing the above to see if this has happened, and given it is continuing to be edit warred, it would probably need at least an uninvolved editor, if not an RfC, to make a change. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely the more important consensus is the one on the sport itself (Association football) and the one on the competition itself (FIFA World Cup), both of which use "association football." Instant Comma (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point, but I'd personally disregard what the main article is called, as we have many thousands of articles that link to it in a piped manner. I must admit I've taken what people have said above on face value and it's not as clear as made out. I went searching for the change to FIFA World Cup to find when the pipe was removed (it passed featured article status and a review with "football") and it seems to have been introduced in April 2010. I can't find any discussion on in the talk page archive nor at WT:FOOTY at the time discussing this.
 * I then looked at 2010 FIFA World Cup, and that seemed to be stable with "the world championship for men's national association football teams" from 2010 until it was changed earlier this month, I guess as part of this discussion. The opposite holds for 2006 & 2014 in that they were both stable with a piped link for years, until being edit-warred this month. I guess it's more complicated that I suggested! Spike &#39;em (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (Though I don't know if the 2010 uses "association football" because it was in South Africa using the same rationale as people have suggested for using "soccer" in 1994) Spike &#39;em (talk) 17:55, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate that the majority 'here' have supported my argument. But, I haven't seen anybody else undoing Tvx1's reverts. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Because they shouldn’t be. The articles were perfectly fine before you started to interfere with them. The problem you complain about just doesn’t exist. People are not being confused at all.Tvx1 15:20, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

One more point: If there wasn't confusion about the meaning of the word football, the word football in this article would link to the page on football, not the page on association football. The article doesn't link to football, precisely because the page on football lists many different sports. I would also point to the page football (disambiguation), which exists only to clear up the ambiguity that some editors are denying exists. It surprises me that editors outside of North America would be telling the 300+ million of us who grew up speaking varieties of North American English what a word means in our language. Instant Comma (talk) 18:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

I believe all the objections to changing "football" in the opening to "association football" have been addressed. If not, please let me know what I have missed. Instant Comma (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think there has been consensus reached. Being the last to speak does not close the discussion. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you have a substantive comment to make? All the objections to changing "football" to "association football" seem to have been addressed. Have they not? Instant Comma (talk) 15:45, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes: I see no consensus being reached in the above discussion. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:02, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the substance of the dispute. Where is there disagreement that has not been fully addressed? Instant Comma (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Lede sentence
Looking at the history, there's quite a lot of back and forth on the opening lede sentence. Rather than an edit war, here's how I see the opening sentence. It's either: "the 2022 FIFA World Cup is the 22nd FIFA World Cup, an international football tournament contested by FIFA's member associations."

Or: "the 2022 FIFA World Cup is an international football tournament contested by the men's national teams of FIFA's member associations, and the 22nd FIFA World Cup".

My impression is that the former is a bit obvious. It reads to me a bit like "The World Cup is a World Cup", rather than explaining to the reader exactly what it is - a football tournament. The fact that it is the 22nd edition of the event isn't all that important in understanding what the article is about.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel the link to FIFA World Cup needs to come early on and MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID says not to put it in the bold part. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I get that (and, quite rightly so), but should it really show before stating what type of sport we are talking about? I do think it should be a part of the lede sentence, just not necessarily the first link. I tend to think if someone hit "random article" and came across this page (and I am aware almost all people know what the world cup is, but that doesn't change how we should treat the page) they would be better served having info on what thing we are talking about than a link to the lineage of the event. I don't think one (now temp blocked) user edit warring over this has helped, mind. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:56, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Could we not do something like "the 2022 FIFA World Cup, the 22nd running of the competition, is an international football tournament contested by the men's national teams of FIFA's member associations." That avoids the duplication of the words World Cup. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That is better, in that we no longer have a tautology (this dog is a type of dog sort of thing), but then you'd likely have people searching for the link, it's quite subtle. It's not a super massive issue, I just get a bit anal about lede sentences, and I've used the previous wording (introducing the sport first) on many an FA.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Is this section actually here? Asking for an editor. Seasider53 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I know I'm just popping in here, but here's my suggestion for a lede sentence:
 * "The 2022 FIFA World Cup is an international football tournament contested by men's national teams of FIFA's member associations. The 22nd FIFA World Cup in history, ..."
 * Where the "..." is, it can mix into what is already written in the lede paragraph of the article. Halaby18 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's reasonably similar to what we've got now, but "in history" is implied. Why would you have 22, plus a few more?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * , if you have time, I'd like your opinion here, as you've now changed it twice back to the tautology of "the World Cup is the World Cup".  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:27, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, of course it looks like a tautology when you take out all the modifiers, but we're not saying "the World Cup is the World Cup", we're saying that the 2022 FIFA World Cup is the 22nd FIFA World Cup. You have to name the subject, and then you have to explain what the subject is. You can't just say this particular tournament is a football tournament for men's national teams when that same statement applies to the FIFA World Cup as a whole. We're better off linking to the FIFA World Cup article as early as possible, regardless of any perceived tautologies. Furthermore, the wording you've proposed, as I said in my edit summary, is clunky as fuck. The fact that it's the 22nd FIFA World Cup is unrelated to the fact that it's being played in Qatar and all the other records that stem from that. Its status as the 22nd World Cup is more of a core fact than its location and dates. – PeeJay 18:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no need to swear. Actually, my proposed wording is the 2022 FIFA World Cup is an international football tournament contested by the men's national teams of FIFA's member associations, and the 22nd FIFA World Cup. I'm not sure why we need to link to the it being a FIFA World Cup so early, before we even mention what sport it is. The way to think about it is if someone had clicked the "random article" button, came to this article and read the first sentence again. Considering there's lots of World Cups, we are better off describing what the sport is, that the event is a tournament for men's national teams, and then leave the link after that. Saying "The 2022 event is the 22nd event of its type" (which is the equivalent of it weren't the World Cup) isn't all that helpful. I'd actually argue that it being the 22nd staging isn't all that important at all in the first place, however, I don't think it's THE MOST relevant piece of information for the bigging of such an article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:44, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

tl;dr on the above discussion, but I reverted an edit that referred to the consensus on this page because of a rather obvious grammatical error in the second sentence. I'm pretty sure none of you agreed to this:
 * ''The 22nd FIFA World Cup, it is taking place in Qatar from 20 November to 18 December 2022, making it the first World Cup to be held in the Arab world and Muslim world, and the second held entirely in Asia after the 2002 tournament in South Korea and Japan.

Please feel free to edit the lede to remove the redundancy again. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:16, 12 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Anyway, here's my suggested edit:
 * The 2022 FIFA World Cup is an international association football tournament taking place in Qatar from 20 November to 18 December 2022, contested by the men's national teams of 32 FIFA member associations. This is the 22nd edition of the competition, the first to be held in the Arab world and Muslim world, and the second held entirely in Asia after the 2002 tournament in South Korea and Japan. At an estimated cost of over $220 billion, it is the most expensive FIFA World Cup ever held; this figure is disputed by Qatari officials, including organising CEO Nasser Al Khater, who said the true cost is $8 billion, and other figures relate to overall infrastructure development undertaken since the event was awarded to Qatar in 2010.
 * Hierarchy of information tells us we should have the what, the when and the where as early as possible. Then we can talk about the milestones. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 21:46, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where are we linking the tournament in this? Seasider53 (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * The 2022 FIFA World Cup is taking place in Qatar from 20 November to 18 December 2022. It is the 22nd FIFA World Cup, an association football tournament organised by FIFA for the men's national teams of its member associations. It is the first World Cup to be played in the Arab world and the second held entirely in Asia after the 2002 tournament in South Korea and Japan.
 * The location and dates are far more important to the average reader, so why not lead with that? – PeeJay 23:13, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @PeeJay Of the 5Ws (what, when, where, why and how), I think the "what" should come first. As a tweak to your edit, I'd go with
 * The 2022 FIFA World Cup is an international association football tournament taking place in Qatar from 20 November to 18 December 2022. It is the 22nd FIFA World Cup, a quadrennial tournament organised by FIFA and contested by its' member associations' men's national teams. This edition is the first World Cup to be played in the Arab world and the second held entirely in Asia after the 2002 tournament in South Korea and Japan.
 * And @Seasider53, sorry I just copy-pasted plain text and forgot to hyperlink. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 00:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't buy that the where and when is more important than the what. Those two are only more important if you already know the third. It's a lot more encylopedic to state what something is right out of the gate (with very minimal exceptions). I actually like the above, it's a lot more informative, although I dislike the word "quadrennial", as it's a word most people would need to look up. It's also not all that important that it happens every for years, or at least we could say It is the 22nd FIFA World Cup, a tournament organised by FIFA and contested by its' member associations' men's national teams, held every four years. if t's completely neccesary.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes it’s more important to have something that reads well than to go with what the very most important facts are. You can lead with what you think the most important facts are, but if the sentence is clunky, it needs rewriting. – PeeJay 13:41, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Lee Vilenski Yeah, I'm fine without the frequency, and "held every four years" just might be one too many detail to add to that sentence. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 14:28, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The Croatian Players' Names should be unbolded.
In the Goalscorers part of the Statistics section, it states that the players whose names are in bold are still in the game but Croatia lost to Argentina earlier today(check the data of this post for the time), so their names should be unbolded as they are not in the tournament anymore. Arnab14008 (talk) 04:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * None of them should be bolded anyway, as it's a violation of MOS:BOLD. Though Croatia are still in the tournament, as there's a 3rd/4th-placed playoff which they could score in. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

No line break between "competition." and "5 goals" in section 9.1
The title is rather self-explanatory, but there is no line break between the word "competition" and "5 goals" in section 9.1 - Goalscorers; it reads as "... competition.5 goals" instead of

"... competition.

5 goals ..."

I would try to fix this myself, but I am very new to Wikipedia and I have not clue why it is doing that. I looked at the source, but I don't see the issue. I think it is an issue regarding templates or something like that, as I have seen it in other lists about FIFA 2022 which use templates. I am just making people aware of this so someone with more Wikipedia expertise can hopefully fix this.

JacobMetz4 (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It took navigating through a transcluded section, a template and onto a module but I reverted a change in Module:Goalscorers to fix this. Spike &#39;em (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * @Spike 'em Alright. Thank you!
 * JacobMetz4 (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

New Venues section
I went ahead and of the table, map, and illustrations in the venues section, acting on previous discussions. It would be great to hear your opinions, and opinions from others reading this, on how we can further improve this section going forward. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% better and realistically how we should always treat this. Do we need an image of every venue even when we have them? I feel like we don't make any critical commentary on them anyway, so WP:NOTGALLERY applies.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that it does. There is context and there is text for identification accompanying them. WP:NOTGALLERY does not request critical commentary. Tvx1 18:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Even if WP:NOTGALLERY doesn't apply, I believe this overhaul works much better as it conveys the same information in a much more compact space. We don't need images of every stadium to be used in these articles – just look at how many stadia will be used in 2026; a few in the margins to illustrate important points is sufficient. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks much better now in my opinion. I am not opposed to having images of the stadiums in these sorts of articles per se, but in this particular case, because we have been unable to obtain free images for each stadium, this is a better option than having images for some and none for others. Jay eyem (talk) 22:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be one to disagree, but because there are only 1 or 2 pics that are even legal, this is a good alternative. Hmdwgf (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks good considering we have almost no free images of the stadia. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 10:14, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not something we should do often. It should be a last resort kind of thing. Hmdwgf (talk) 22:51, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 100% better. Thanks! Ozziebro (talk) 06:03, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Request to add MOTM for every single match
I ask you please add the MOTM (Man of the Match) for every single game played in the World Cup.

If there is any suggestions about MOTM (Man of the Match) being added, put them here. Ozziebro (talk) 08:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is the website I found a summary of the entire MOTM (Man of the Match) so far. Ozziebro (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We really don't need a list of this ilk. We aren't a statistics factory.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:56, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok, got it. Ozziebro (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Ozziebro (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This information can be found on the group/knockout articles, for example 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage, as well as on the statistics article. However, it would be too much to add to the main tournament article. S.A. Julio (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it. Ozziebro (talk) 06:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

About the merger of the "Group stage" and "Knockout stage" sections
Hi, I noticed that after a recent edit those two sections were merged together. I agree that it makes little sense for the summary section to be separate from the sections about the matches, but I'd say that having a giant section that contains all the matches is impractical. This is because, if someone is reading the article from mobile, then they have to scroll a lot after expanding the "Tournament" section before they find the bracket. I think separating the opening ceremony, group stage and knockout stage into three distinct sections could be a solution for this problem, even though the section about the opening ceremony would be really short. For what it's worth, this solution would also make the structure of this article more similar to that of the current version of 2018 FIFA World Cup. --Sirio Resteghini (talk) 17:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense for the summary of the tournament to be intermingled with match results. We are an encyclopedia, where prose should be read, not twisted into statistics and tables.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:33, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why you reverted my change to put the host and venue sections next to each other, though. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 19:01, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with merging the summaries with the group/round sections, this is the format already used on the featured article 1999 FIFA Women's World Cup. It is an easy way for readers to find information on each group/round of the competition. S.A. Julio (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'm not the biggest fan of it - I do think it breaks the flow of the text by having so many tables in between it, especially the individual match reports - but I can get behind it if it is agreed. I don't think an all encompassing level two header for all of the results is suitable, however.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 22:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It would be more convenient for readers to not have to constantly scroll up and down between the two sections just to cross-reference what they are reading with the tables. — AFC Vixen 🦊 (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Croatia and Morocco goalscorer names should be bolded
They are not out of the competition. They still have the 3rd place game during which either could score. 79.140.148.212 (talk) 03:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ StAnselm (talk) 05:07, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Statistics-Goal Scorers
Hi, you may like to add the following to this section, "Goals scored from penalty shoot-outs are not counted towards an individual player's goal count." It does appear in other WC articles & it probably is prudent to have it there. Thanks 120.16.196.235 (talk) 12:06, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

"the BBC refused to broadcast Qatar's 2022 FIFA World Cup opening ceremony"
The BBC also "refused" to broadcast the opening ceremony for the 2018, 2014, 2010, 2006, 2002, 1998, 1994, 1990, 1986, 1982, 1978, 1974, 1970, 1966, 1962, 1958, 1956 and 1950 world cups. The BBC *never* broadcast the opening ceremony - this is their usual policy, nothing to do with this year's hosts and has never previously been cause for comment. The reference given is to an opinion piece rather than a news article, which should not be used unless other sources can also be found to give some context. It is true that the BBC opened with coverage of the controversy, including why it was controversial, providing information for viewers as this Wikipedia article does. Not mentioning the controversy would have been extremely surprising and the current wording of the last paragraph of the Migrant workers subsection of this article is highly misleading. 217.169.17.163 (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Ye - I'd say that unless you can prove they didn't show it due to it being Qatar related - it shouldn't be in.  and the BBC themselves have clarified that they didn't show it because they never show it. 148.64.28.75 (talk) 11:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I have boldly removed the statement. It's presence has bothered me since I first saw it. The word "refused" was the main trigger for me. It's pure tabloid language, ALWAYS used in a non-neutral POV way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)


 * My removal was reverted. with the incorrect claim in the Edit summary that there was no reason to remove it. Obviously this discussion gives the reason, and I had referred to this discussion when I had removed it. I have tried again, asking editors to discuss it here before restoring again. Let's see how that goes. HiLo48 (talk) 21:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Group F final outcome
As the two teams that progressed out of the group stage from Group F, Croatia and Morocco, faced each other in the third place playoff, should this be mentioned in the 2022_FIFA_World_Cup section? TubularWorld (talk) 22:52, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Please add final standings once tourney ends
Example from 2014- pasted from 2014 wiki page

Final standings Per statistical convention in football, matches decided in extra time are counted as wins and losses, while matches decided by penalty shoot-outs are counted as draws.

Result of countries participating in the 2014 FIFA World Cup Champion Runner-up Third place Fourth place Quarter-finals Round of 16 Group stage Pos. Team	G	Pld	W	D	L	Pts	GF	GA	GD 1	 Germany	G	7	6	1	0	19	18	4	+14 2	 Argentina	F	7	5	1	1	16	8	4	+4 3	 Netherlands	B	7	5	2	0	17	15	4	+11 4	 Brazil	A	7	3	2	2	11	11	14	−3 Eliminated in the quarter-finals 5	 Colombia	C	5	4	0	1	12	12	4	+8 6	 Belgium	H	5	4	0	1	12	6	3	+3 7	 France	E	5	3	1	1	10	10	3	+7 8	 Costa Rica	D	5	2	3	0	9	5	2	+3 Eliminated in the round of 16 9	 Chile	B	4	2	1	1	7	6	4	+2 10	 Mexico	A	4	2	1	1	7	5	3	+2 11	 Switzerland	E	4	2	0	2	6	7	7	0 12	 Uruguay	D	4	2	0	2	6	4	6	−2 13	 Greece	C	4	1	2	1	5	3	5	−2 14	 Algeria	H	4	1	1	2	4	7	7	0 15	 United States	G	4	1	1	2	4	5	6	−1 16	 Nigeria	F	4	1	1	2	4	3	5	−2 Eliminated in the group stage 17	 Ecuador	E	3	1	1	1	4	3	3	0 18	 Portugal	G	3	1	1	1	4	4	7	−3 19	 Croatia	A	3	1	0	2	3	6	6	0 20	 Bosnia and Herzegovina	F	3	1	0	2	3	4	4	0 21	 Ivory Coast	C	3	1	0	2	3	4	5	−1 22	 Italy	D	3	1	0	2	3	2	3	−1 23	 Spain	B	3	1	0	2	3	4	7	−3 24	 Russia	H	3	0	2	1	2	2	3	−1 25	 Ghana	G	3	0	1	2	1	4	6	−2 26	 England	D	3	0	1	2	1	2	4	−2 27	 South Korea	H	3	0	1	2	1	3	6	−3 28	 Iran	F	3	0	1	2	1	1	4	−3 29	 Japan	C	3	0	1	2	1	2	6	−4 30	 Australia	B	3	0	0	3	0	3	9	−6 31	 Honduras	E	3	0	0	3	0	1	8	−7 32	 Cameroon	A	3	0	0	3	0	1	9	−8 2600:100E:B0AE:158F:75DB:6D71:25BA:61EA (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We would only include a table if one is released by FIFA. Otherwise, it's completely WP:OR  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:41, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Request final standings similar to 2014 World Cup wiki page
Would like wiki staff editor to add final standings to both 2018 and 2022 World Cup wiki pages similar to all previous wiki pages 1930 to 2014 World Cup wiki pages 2600:100E:B0AE:158F:75DB:6D71:25BA:61EA (talk) 23:49, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * If FIFA has released similar tables then they can be added. The appropriate place to ask for the 2018 table is Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup, but please have a source for the table ready if you make the request. — Jkudlick &#x2693; (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct sponsor in the wrong section
The Saudi Tourism Authority (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Tourism_Authority) is supposed to be on the Middle Eastern supporters section and not on the European supporters section on the sponsors area of the Marketing section 188.236.70.58 (talk) 12:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Mbappe now top scorer.
Kylian Mbappé has surpassed Messi as of at least right now. Gazozlu (talk) 16:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't update things during matches. Wait for the match to be over.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what i'm doing. Gazozlu (talk) 17:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like @Julio beat me to it. Gazozlu (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like somebody reverted the eddit and put Messi back in Top Scorers section. Now there is a reason to talk about it in the talk page! Gazozlu (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2022 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Lusail Multipurpose Hall 02.jpg

Trip to space
Anyone think this is particularly relevant information for this article?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:46, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, sounds like a publicity stunt to me. Spike &#39;em (talk) 22:50, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Final standings
Are we going to include the final standings? JoshuaInWiki (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * If and only if FIFA produce a list themselves. Otherwise we are giving rankings where there are no rankings to be had. That would be like us giving a team third place over the other if there wasn't a third place playoff.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 06:52, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

They got the final standings up, so we should get started — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.84.129 (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Where is this mythical table?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/s/www.sportingnews.com/au/amp/soccer/news/fifa-world-cup-rankings-2022-final-list-teams-record-finish/yvwh7l1urgugycsmmxqflp7y — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.102.84.129 (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Those are not the final standings. The link doesn't even work. JoshuaInWiki (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * So a news site has published some data - it's not any different from a news site giving its own Man of the Match award. We shouldn't be giving out positions to teams unless one is specifically denoted by the organisers.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:35, 20 December 2022 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Iran national team fan 01.jpg

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: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Argentina team celebrate World Cup win in 2022.jpg

Flag icon of Qatar in infobox
Question of whether the "Host country" should have a flag icon (and hyperlink of the country name). The infobox looks incomplete at best and snubbing the host country at worst for not showing its flag. There is a specific exemption to allow this in the MOS:

Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG: >>Generally, flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field: they could be unnecessarily distracting and might give undue prominence to one field among many. Flag icons should only be inserted in infoboxes in those cases where they convey information in addition to the text. Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup... <<< Facts707 (talk) 07:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out somewhere in the edit log, 2019 Rugby World Cup and previous and future editions have the flag icon. It doesn't appear to me to place undue emphasis on the host but instead quickly identifies the host country (or identifies its flag for those not familiar with it). Facts707 (talk) 08:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXFLAG is very clear that a flag next to a country name is not suitable for an infobox.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:38, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Clearly you didn't read my full post or WP:INFOBOXFLAG, where it says "acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup" (my emphasis). Facts707 (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * That is for sporting use, not for a country name.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:15, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Is almost as if someone predicted this: Flag icons lead to unnecessary disputes when over-used. Spike &#39;em (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)


 * what utter nonsense: "snubbing the host country". Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion. What's "utter nonsense" to you may not be to others. Facts707 (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * On this - why do we have flags for the winners-4th place? Surely that doesn't meet WP:INFOBOXFLAG. Purely decorative.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. If the players that won the awards and the top four countries have their own flag icon, the host country should have one. 2A02:C7E:4C8E:CB00:BD9B:A81F:E320:1D56 (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is quite clear, there is no reason to include the flag for the host country: flag icons should not be used in infoboxes, even when there is a "country", "nationality" or equivalent field. It is however acceptable to include the flag for listing the teams finishing 1st to 4th, as these are linking to the national representative football teams of each country. Per MOS:FLAG: Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. This is what MOS:INFOBOXFLAG is referencing when mentioning "examples of acceptable exceptions include infobox templates for military conflicts and infoboxes including international competitions, such as FIFA World Cup", not that we should be using a flag for the host country. S.A. Julio (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Asian teams in round of 16
Hi,

Can we talk about the number of Asian representatives in the round of 16 (Australia, Japan and South Korea) in the paragraph that starts with the tournament being full of rich upsets and suprises, as it the 1st time that there are 3 Asian teams in a round of 16. 59.102.84.129 (talk) 08:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You may need to be clearer about what you're asking here. Australia obviously isn't in Asia, but it IS currently in the Asian Football Confederation. The word "currently" is important. It has, in the past, been in the Oceania Confederation. And, given the likely qualifying arrangements for the next World Cup, may well change again. It's a transient arrangement. HiLo48 (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I had removed that whole paragraph in the lede as it wasn't really a summary of the event as a whole, rather than "omg, this happened". Outside of describing how the defending champion and hosts gets on, we shouldn't comment on much more about individual teams until the final... Unless they have specific need Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 09:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Round of 16 descriptor incorrect
While it is impressive that CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, UEFA, CAF, and AFC were all present in the Round of 16, the current page is incorrect in saying that this is the first time it happened. In the 2002 FIFA World Cup, not only did all five major continents (Oceania excepted as with in 2022) make the Round of 16, but all five were represented in the quarterfinals as well (United States, Brazil, Germany, Senegal, Korea Republic in order). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.186.32.167 (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems to be removed now. Facts707 (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Martinez name spelt wrong
on the 'best goalkeeper' part of the wikipedia it says 'Marcinez' rather than 'Martinez' and therefore the hyperlink doesn't work 81.79.160.97 (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems to be corrected now. Facts707 (talk) 10:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

BBC poll for best world cup this century
This Fifa won the vote for BBC's poll for best Fifa cup this century. Should we add this in the article? where should it be added?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/64075135 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:4C22:4C00:98C1:C047:79DF:56D2 (talk) 23:06, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * No, it suffers from huge recency bias. Spike &#39;em (talk) 00:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Third final hat-trick
The article states that "Mbappé scored his third goal, becoming the second player ever to complete a hat-trick in the final of a World Cup after Geoff Hurst for England in 1966". However, Carli Lloyd actually scored a hat-trick in the 2015 Women's World Cup final. I think this should be edited to mention that, to something like "Mbappé scored his third goal, becoming the third player ever to complete a hat-trick in the final of a World Cup after Geoff Hurst for England in 1966 and Carli Lloyd for the United States in 2015" Idkjustathing (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Carli Lloyd didn't score a hat-trick in the final of the FIFA World Cup, she scored one in the final of the Women's World Cup. The wording could be improved a little, but I don't think this is especially contentious. – PeeJay 04:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Also wording is consistent with the source Jopal22 (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, and the women's cup is a separate competition. They aren't compared stat wise. -- Mvqr  (talk) 13:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's like adding in all of the Club World Cup hat-tricks and the Cricket World Cup.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 16:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we specify "Men's" then? Idkjustathing (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No because: (1). We follow what sources say. (2) The FIFA World Cup means men's event in all sources, not the FIFA Women's World Cup. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:28, 16 January 2023 (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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * World Cup Opening Ceremony in Doha, Qatar (52515886760).jpg

Wrong design agency
The Branding subsection of the Marketing section is wrong because Brandia Central is now defunct and the logo was actually designed by Unlock Brands 188.236.29.232 (talk) 15:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have a source for that? – PeeJay 17:05, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2023
On reception, mention things about
 * high viewership and attendance despite controversy
 * the runs of Morocco and Argentina as well as some non traditional soccer/football nations that made the event popular
 * high attendance of fans from Africa, South Asia, and the Middle East due to less strict visa requirements
 * first major international sporting event with fans attending since the COVID-19 pandemic (2020 Summer Olympics and 2022 Winter Olympics had no attendance due to restrictions)
 * some potential positive growth and impact for the Middle East economically (and culturally?)

I know this isn't perfect but obviously since I can't edit, I can only do this much. If there is anything else, feel free to add it 76.166.183.180 (talk) 01:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  JTP (talk • contribs) 05:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So alright I'll say add something about the large amount of traveling fans from Latin America, Asia, Africa because of Qatar's much easier visa policy for those regions. https://www.dw.com/en/world-cup-2022-how-traveling-fans-gave-the-world-cup-its-soul/a-64122784 76.166.183.180 (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Reception
I suggest putting more time and effort into the reception section and digging deep to find honest responses, whether it's positive or negative. An example would be the BBC poll. 1ArcticDude (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Biased article
While the various objections of the European media were mentioned, the defenses of the FIFA officials and the Qatari government were not mentioned. This article is highly biased. In the case of hospitality and accommodation, you have considered one source as a document in general. What does this mean??!! Verddieta (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true that the article shows a Western slant, especially over controversies. Thus, I have added a message to let viewers know of this. Scientelensia (talk) 14:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The fact that you copy pasted this both here and in the Controversies page indicates less than a good faith argument, especially considering it appears you didn't read the material. Defenses from both are included, specifically attributed to FIFA's president and Quatari owned media.

If you would like to include more sourcing for the hospitality section, please do so. Crescent77 (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)


 * You will need to be a bit more specific as to what needs adding/removing with relevant points, rather than tag a full article like this.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True:
 * - Concerns have been raised over whether people may be biased against Qatar owing to Islamophobia and it has been pointed out that arguably worse regimes hosting major sporting events such as those of Russia and China have not been criticised in the same way.
 * - Qataris have also spoken out about how Western countries have spoken of tolerance but do not themselves display it.
 * - Many have pointed out that the issue of LGBT rights is not specific to Qatar. Scientelensia (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These concerns are not reflected in the article. Scientelensia (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What sources are talking about this, is the question. I'm happy to implement some changes, but we would need some sources to implement to counter the narrative. I'm not sure tagging a whole article for these two points is suitable.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:08, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Good point, here are some sources I found very thought-provoking. Scientelensia (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * These sources also suggest that many criticisms of the world coup have been founded in Islamophobia. Scientelensia (talk) 15:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you by any chance know how to get letters to represent notes? I can’t seem to manage this on the page… Scientelensia (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be a notes section. I don't believe a banner at the top of the page makes this less biased.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Does it not encourage people to update the article and encourage neutrality? I don’t really understand why you are opposed to this banner. Scientelensia (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks 🙏🏼 for the notes though. Scientelensia (talk) 18:56, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You are making the lead impossible to follow with the nested citations and footnotes. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:50, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The lead should summarise the rest of the article, so the footnotes and refs should be moved into the section where this is covered in more depth. Spike &#39;em (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There are lots of footnotes which I didn’t have. I will say two things:
 * - In the lead it should be stated that the event came under criticism and that these critics were themselves accused of hypocrisy etc.
 * - All other analysis could be moved to relevant sections. Scientelensia (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * There is rarely a need for notes in the lede section of an article. This is generally only used for really important things that should be denoted in the lede, but are a bit more complicated to explain (something like a disputed name or dates - say some sources suggest that something finished in 1997, when most other sources say 2000, that might be better covered in a note). Otherwise, the lede is a full summary of the rest of the article. It is not any less biased to include both "sides" of an argument to the lede. Realistically the majority of sources condemned the event for various reasons, so that's what we should state in the lede. We can include opposition on its merits in the body.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a very brief mention that the criticisms were disputed could go in the lead, but the "what about China and Russia" should absolutely not. Spike &#39;em (talk) 16:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * True, perhaps that should not go in the lede. But it is important and should go somewhere else, where do you suggest? Scientelensia (talk) 16:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Opposing viewpoints / defence of Qatar
I'm all for introducing a worldwide view of the subject, but the recent additions which the editor kept pushing into this article after being reverted smell as Qatari propaganda. I suggest WP:BRB. Rennespzn (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello @Rennespzn,
 * I would just like to say that by no means do I want to push propaganda into the article and you will understand that I find your comments to be somewhat insulting and misleading. If you consider the text to be too misleading itself, I would be very happy for you to edit it and make it more worldwide as this would undoubtedly be beneficial. I’m sure you can understand why I would like your comments to be striked but at the same time I know that we both want to improve the article for the better. Thus, I’d be very happy to work together to improve the article with a more worldwide view to make a vastly positive contribution. Scientelensia (talk) 15:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Start by selecting non-biased and independent references. Rennespzn (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We aren't looking for a defence of anything. We summarise what sources say about a subject. It's not "important" to include a defence for Qatar's hosting. If there are some good RS that make some claims, then we can summarise that.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:23, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I found sources from the Times and the Economist, two reliable sources. I van find more sources if you wish. Let’s summarise the content then. Scientelensia (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * So because something is Middle Eastern, while it may have a bias, it is still useful as it represents Middle Eastern views. Western sources criticising the event could also be biased. Scientelensia (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add them then, but I'm not sure other editors will accept your contributions because they genuinely sound like apologetics. Rennespzn (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate that; how would you suggest I made the edits less apologetic? Scientelensia (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Or, if you like, I can create a section entirely on defence of the event. Scientelensia (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think whataboutism needs to be reduced to minimum, so I suggest focusing on Qatar's responses to specific criticisms and not on comparisons to other authoritarian countries, like Russia or China. Rennespzn (talk) 09:12, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Right, will do. Scientelensia (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Give "Brazil v Croatia", " Argentina v Netherlands", "Portugal v Morocco" And "France v England" their own Pages.
All Four Quarter-Finals Matches are Really Important In World Cup 2022. "Brazil v Croatia" was a Big Upset. "Argentina v Netherlands" was a Extremely Close Match that Argentina just barely won. "Portugal v Morocco" was Another Big Upset And a Big Moment in Morocco's History. And "France v England" was A Hard Fought Match that got France One Step Closer To a Second Consecutive World Cup. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 17:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * None of those games have any lasting notability as encyclopaedically significant games in the history of football. If you want to add content about those games, feel free to do so in the 2022 FIFA World Cup knockout stage article. – PeeJay 11:36, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Plus Argentina vs Netherlands already have its own page. Red Devil (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in Japan v Spain 2-1
It says Kaoru Mitoma was the one that scored the goal, but it was Kaoru Mitoma that put in the cross for Ao Tanaka to score the goal. Dogpt (talk) 18:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2023
The reference to the company that created the brand/logo is wrong. It was not Brandia Central but Unlock Brands.

You can check that in https://www.unlockbrands.com or by doing a google search. The founders of Unlock Brands worked in Brandia Central, but they no longer do. In fact, the company closed in 2016. JTBC70 (talk) 21:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)


 * ✅ using the company's press release on their website as the citation. (Next time it would be nice if you gave a specific URL instead of just the company website.) Xan747 (talk) 22:20, 6 July 2023 (UTC)