Talk:2034 FIFA World Cup

Headers

Proposal: Change sub-header "Indonesia-Thailand" to "Association of Southeast Asian Nations"
Rationale: The first sentence of the section says "proposed as a collective bid by the members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations". Moreover, Malaysia and Singapore are also mentioned so the section is not exclusively about Indonesia and Thailand. TeraTIX 06:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Is there any use of that anywhere? I would only accept that if it's a WP:COMMONNAME. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• COMMONNAME refers to article titles; I'm talking about a sub-header. TeraTIX 23:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• And you think that if they win the bidding that the heading name won't be used to start the article. You should have seen the debate at the 2026 article! Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Joint bids not clear

There are several sources listed in the bid section. Many of the sources say joint host bids are being considered, many in SE Asia. The list of nations listed here in the article doesn't state much about joint bids, but it lists some nations together with "and" but no explanation, suggested it might be a joint bid but not stating it exactly. The sources then describe other nations may be joint bidding not the ones listed. The article lists "Australia and New Zealand" together with a source, but the source states Australia and Indonesia are considering a joint bid not Australia and New Zealand?? There are a few more similar discrepancies, I won't list them all. Someone with more time than me might want to clear this up, it's confusing and maybe incorrect.  Carlwev  18:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Bids

So The Bids Aren't Really Explained Well/Expanded Much. So Here Is What I Would Do. (I Might Do it)

There are three tiers. - Confirmed - Proposed - Speculation/Intentions.

Currently (August 2023) there are 2 Confirmed Bids. The ASEAN Bid And The Australia Bid (Possibly with New Zealand Or Indonesia)

There Are 3 Proposed Bids. The Egypt Bid. The China Bid. And The Kazakhstan + Uzbekistan Bid.

Finally. There are 2 Speculation/Intention Bids. The Saudi Arabia Bid. And The Zimbabwe Bid.

To End Things Off. India And Nigeria Should Be Removed From The List. Their Credited Sources Are Opinion Based Like a "Top 10 Reasons Why Northern Ireland Should Host the World Cup." 47.20.46.230 (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Fixed Bids.

The Bids Tier is Now Changed Massively for the Better. If you want to ask Questions. Do Ask But don't Remove it as that is Vandalism Orange Anomaly. (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

SAUDI ARABIA

It is Confirmed! Saudi Arabia Is Seeking To Host the 2034 Cup! "Saudi Arabia Switches From 2030 Joint Bid to 2034 sole bid." Is the name of the Article By "Inside The Games." Orange Anomaly. (talk) 22:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Please provide a link to this article. – PeeJay 11:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I literally put the name of the Article as well as the Website Responsible for the Article. I don't know how to do links anyways. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 14:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Just copy the URL into a reply. It's not that hard. – PeeJay 16:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Content relating to possible Saudi bid

The whole section related to a bid by Saudi Arabia reads like a press release. I suggest that this is edited to make it more in line with Wikipedia standards. Mwmonk (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome to edit it yourself. – PeeJay 08:19, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

"Saudi Arabia 2034" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Saudi Arabia 2034 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 24 § Saudi Arabia 2034 until a consensus is reached. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

OSM Location map

@Cergun62: Colours are used in the {{OSM Location map}} on 2026 FIFA World Cup, primarily to distinguish the three "regions" as a way for readers to better parse the sixteen host cities. Here, there are only five host cities – a map much more easier to digest. I don't see why we need to overcomplicate this by giving each single host city a different colour. The only reason given, that they're the "official colors", doesn't explain why the default colour is a problem. — AFC Vixen 🦊 20:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Just like numbers are used in the legend, tying a color to a city will present an easier way for the reader to know the name of the city. This has nothing to do with how the OSM map is used in the 2026 WC article. It also looks more visually appealing. Cergun62 (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I was using 2026 FIFA World Cup’s map to try and illustrate to you a utilitarian use for colours in this context, and why colours in this article’s map would not be utilitarian. It seems there’s an undue lack of faith that readers won’t be able to understand such a relatively simple map with numbers alone, and that aesthetics are being prioritised over simplicity and accessibility here. — AFC Vixen 🦊 06:47, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don’t see how adding colors has any affect over either simplicity or accessibility. Numbers still exist. And again, colors will make it easier for readers. This is not stemming from lack of faith. Cergun62 (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The numbers won't help for certain people if they're written in white on yellow and light orange circles. And again, there's no need to overcomplicate five points on a map. There's still no explanation as to why the default colour is a problem here... — AFC Vixen 🦊 05:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

What do you have against making things more visually pleasing and easier to connect? Here you go, you got your explanation. The hex number for every single color used is from an official document that I linked with the edit. Cergun62 (talk) 12:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

It seems we're just repeating ourselves here, so I've requested a third opinion. — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

3O Response: I don't see any reason not to have the colours. As Cergun62 says, they make "things more visually pleasing and easier to connect". I don't see what part of MOS:ACCESS is being compromised, as the numbers are still present. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

It's just difficult for me to see

4

and a little bit hard to see

3

in particular, and so I presume people with eyes similar to mine would feel the same way. Can we use more similar and better contrasting colours at least to better distinguish them in the context of the map's blue, grey, and beige colours? I'm still frustrated that nobody has explained why the default colour is bad and instead opined about why the alternate colours are good. Your "visually pleasing and easy to connect" is simply my "visually ugly and hard to connect", it just seems. — AFC Vixen 🦊 12:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Ok just make them all a single color, just not the default dark red one. Cergun62 (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

I still would like to know what you think is wrong with the default colour, but I doubt that'll ever be answered at this point... In lieu of an explanation, I'm just going to completely guess at what you'd find to be an acceptable colour, and offer the background colour of the Saudi Arabian flag (#005430;

1

) as a compromise – a clear contrast between a dark colour and white text, and a clear relation to the subjects of the article. Would this work for you? — AFC Vixen 🦊 01:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

In lieu of a response, I've boldly made the change. — AFC Vixen 🦊