Talk:2006 FIFA World Cup qualification (UEFA)

message: * How were the groups drawn? Was it totally random? Based on a strict seeding order? Or slightly random, based on general seeding tiers? And in the latter two cases, where did the seeds come from? The article is incomplete without this info. Doops |  talk 00:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear! 

message: Group 4 help on explaining scenarios. It might be confusing to readers who are not fans of soccer/football. The grammar is confusing as well. IanManka 18:41, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing -- Group 4 

message: I see that as results trickle in today, some people have started to edit the scenarios to reflect these. With respect, do you really want to do that? You're working harder than you need to. Why not just put a caption at the top of each scenario section warning that it's presenting the situation As of 7 October 2005 and wait for all of today's results to come in? Then you can just rewrite the (presumably much simpler) scenario rather than trying to figure out which bits still apply and which bits don't. Doops |  talk 18:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  rewriting scenarios in the middle of the day 

message: How are multi-way ties settled, as in the potential three-way tie between France, Israel, and Switzerland? I see two possible ways to settle this tie: (1) In H2H goals scored, ISR 4, SUI 4, FRA 2, so FRA is 3rd; overall GD puts SUI 1st and ISR 2nd. OR (2) First is between ISR and SUI on H2H goals; SUI is 1st on overall GD; then go back to determine second, which is deadlocked until overall GD, which would put FRA 2nd and ISR 3rd. I know method #2 is used, for example, in the NFL, but does anyone know for certain which one is used for World Cup play, i.e. do you rank the group as a whole, or determine the top team, then the next team, etc.? Jonpin 07:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume (1). You rank the teams, then apply various criteria to differentiate among tied teams, then apply further criteria to differentiate among still-tied teams. But, no, I don't know for certain. Doops |  talk 07:23, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I figured. Of course, it won't come to that, and if it does, France has only themselves to blame. Jonpin 08:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group 4 tiebreaker question 

message: It is easy to see that Group 6 is far more detailed than all the rest of the groups, this is obviously not neutral point of view, all groups should be as detailed as each other. I'm not sure whether all should become like Group 6 is now or whether to change Group 6 so it's like all the others.
It certainly shouldn't stay this way though. - MTC 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - Group 6 coverage is different to that of the rest of the groups.  It looks as though a lot of work has gone into it - and it shows.  For my money, Group 6 looks much better than the rest of the Groups in this qualification page - it follows the style being used for the main results page, which I would support.  It would be a little extra work for me, but I would be willing to look at the feasibility of writing a small script to moving this page to a unified format which copies Group 6. --Zaphod Beeblebrox 15:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Group 6 format versus everything else 

message: All the links leading to the match reports on this page and the specific group pages have gone dead. I'm not sure if this is just because of them getting moved on FIFA.com's part, but I was unable to find them anywhere else on the site, and just thought something could be done about it.
This is what the pages look like:
http://www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/germany2006/preliminaries/preliminary=8071/matches/match=43736/report.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.255.231.3 (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead links 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2022 FIFA World Cup qualification which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress