Talk:2023 FIFA Club World Cup

Where are the stadiums
They need to be included 176.45.51.73 (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)


 * They just named the host city 2 days ago. None of this has been formalized yet. Chris 1834  Talk 19:28, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Teams in contention
What is the point of this section? Are we now going to include 211 teams in contention for the FIFA World Cup qualification? We should not have this section. Mwiqdoh (talk) 18:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said, it was done for all previous tournaments of the FIFA Club World Cup (except for the 2022 FIFA Club World Cup of course because the tournament has been announced 3 months before). Moreover, the fact that you delete all the section without posting a talk message here before is unacceptable, you can't take alone the decision to delete more than half of the page without a discussion here before. Pindrice (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We are listing 100s of teams when only 7 of them will qualify. If readers want to know who are in contention, they can click the respective competition articles. Mwiqdoh (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The World Cup has a qualification article with that information in it, although in a pass through format of the current round of each qualifying confederation. This does not have a qualification article so I would say it is good to have or to have the similar current round info the world cup qualifying has. Chris 1834  Talk 19:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Having a list of 100 teams here on the main page of every single team that "can qualify" is just a waste of space and time. For the small amount of people that would for some reason want to know every single team that could qualify to the Club World Cup, could check the articles of the competitions. Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Hasn't this topic/issue come up before? I seem to remember it on something else years ago. Is it addressed somewhere centrally, like at some task force guidelines or something? Gecko G (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I see it's now being discussed here, for any who were not notified (It appears the OP took the discussion to a more centralised location - as appropriate - but did not notify any involved - which can bad be considered bad form). Gecko G (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't know I'm supposed to do that. Mwiqdoh (talk) 05:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDLINKAVOID
Please stop reverting edits that align articles with the MOS because of some perceived need for things to be "consistent". Other articles have flaws that need to be fixed, that doesn't mean that we can ignore the Manual of Style. There is no reason that this article is so exceptional that this NEEDS to be linked this way. made the same edit, so it seems that you are the only one preventing this improvement. Cerebral726 (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * See past editions. All or nothing Island92 (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That said, I think you should get used to looking at "previous editions of the same page" prior to acting on the most recent. That wikilink is there as per past editions (consistency?) and I was not the user who decided to have it like that. Island92 (talk) 18:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * "All or nothing" is not how Wikipedia works. Surely you don't think I need to go fix every single instance of this mistake on Wikipedia all at once? Wikipedia is about incremental improvements. And you were the one who forced it to continue to not align with the MoS. I am not required to go through the history of every article before I make obvious improvements to this one. There is no Wikipedia guideline or policy that encourages users to keep articles flawed in a desire to be consistent with other flawed articles. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok but the substance in the end is always the same because these pages have the same thing in common (wikilinking the main sponsor in the prose lead). Island92 (talk) 18:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Then how about every time you feel the need to for things to be consistent, instead of undoing obvious improvements that align articles with the well established Manual of Style, you go do the actual work of improving past editions? You have given NO reason that is policy based or about the actual substance of this article I am editing as to why your revert is valid. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's why you should start (or viceversa) to the oldest who adopt the style till to the present so that all pages involved are the same. I can accept that the Manual of style is used for the most recent, but how about all the other that were not taken into account? Island92 (talk) 18:26, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you do that for the 2023 page? I could have expected you to do same before till the present or starting from the most recent to the oldest. "Why did he do that only for 2023?" How about the rest? Island92 (talk) 18:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Why not read any of my above comments. I do not need to explain to you again that Wikipedia is about incremental improvements. I am not bound to your understanding of how related articles can be improved and in what order that can be done. You are making these ideas up because of your own preference. Stop reverting obvious improvements that aligns the article to the MoS, or, better yet, use your crusade for consistency in the correct direction and go back and do the other articles that you think need to be aligned. Cerebral726 (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikilink removed in all past editions. This is simply called consistency between articles. The substance in the 2023 page edit is the same with the rest now. Island92 (talk) 18:45, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Great. Feel free to continue to make articles consistent by further implementing improvements, but you have to stop reverting my edits when they are obvious improvements such as this, especially in the name of consistency. You have to have a legitimate reason above "other articles are flawed in the same way". Cerebral726 (talk) 18:56, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Only now should I feel great? Only now should I fee free to make articles consistent? The point is: did you make the edit on the 2023 page? Why did not you do the same for the rest? That's why I could have expected you and only you to make the same for the rest. For the next case that will occur, please start implementing from the oldest edition to the present. Island92 (talk) 19:03, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't be doing that. I don't need to fix everything at once in order to make improvements. Reverting me because you think I do is indistinguishable from vandalism. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * How is called when you make an improvement on the most recent page but old editions do not take note? What does as special the most recent page have compared to old ones? The substance is the same: wikilinking or not the sponsor in the prose lead seeing that all these pages present the same structure in the prose lead. Island92 (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You refusal to read my explanations about how Wikipedia is built through incremental improvements does not mean I need to repeat them. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I do not refuse anything. You have your opinion, I have mine. I accept (and hence I understand how Wikipedia works) an implementing edit on the 2023 page, but that must be done where it should be done, especially when it's exactly the same thing. Don't you think it is contrasting when the 2022 page shows the wikilinked sponsor and the 2023 page doesn't? I find it abnormal. And that why I put everything on the same level. And what did you say? Great. Oh, thank you.--Island92 (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If you have such a problem with inconsistency, fix the ones that don't follow the MoS, don't re-introduce errors to articles. Cerebral726 (talk) 19:35, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Had you done that from the oldest page to the present I'm sure it would not have occurred. Obviously, I was not in your mind. Island92 (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2023 (UTC)