Talk:United 2026 FIFA World Cup bid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in North America 2026 FIFA World Cup bid[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of North America 2026 FIFA World Cup bid's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "process":

  • From FIFA World Cup hosts: "FIFA Council agrees on four-phase bidding process for 2026 FIFA World Cup". FIFA.com. 10 May 2016.
  • From 2026 FIFA World Cup: "FIFA Council agrees on four-phase bidding process for 2026 FIFA World Cup". FIFA.com. 10 May 2016. Archived from the original on 10 May 2016. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 14:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What is the point of the support section?[edit]

Per title, I am confused about what the support section is meant to convey. Have these entities issued formal statements supporting the bid? Are they financially supporting the bid? Without clarification and sources I am inclined to remove the section. GiovanniSidwell (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Toronto Airports[edit]

There's a bit of a dispute brewing about whether John C. Munro International Airport in Hamilton is considered a "Toronto" airport. While not officially part of the Greater Toronto Area, it is 40 miles from downtown Toronto, listed as a relief airport for Toronto on several pages (including its own and in the linked section on Toronto's infrastructure), and part of the Golden Horseshoe. It's relation is similar to that of Mexico City/Toluca, Atlanta/DeKalb, Baltimore/Washington, and New York/Stewart/Westchester; although it isn't part of Toronto's metro area, it's closer to Toronto than several of the airports listed are to their major centres. I don't see why it should not be included in the Toronto section as it is clearly considered a secondary airport for the Toronto market, to the point airlines are setting up there as their hub for the GTA as a whole. The argument that it shouldn't be included because it's not in the GTA is a weak one. --PlasmaTwa2 05:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Wikipedia is not a travel guide, why are we listing airports at all? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's about as close to Toronto as Stewart is to New York City. Out of consistency, either the regional secondary airports should all be included, or none of them should. Smartyllama (talk) 12:39, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, the bid explicitly mentions the airport in Hamilton, in addition to Toronto Island and Kitchener/Waterloo airports. Nfitz (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The file Mosaic Stadium 4756.jpg on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for deletion. View and participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also[edit]

United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Syria also support the bid KnightRIF (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A source for each would be appreciated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it not possible to edit the page for this article? I can see that the bid has been awarded to the North American side. I would like to make the amendments necessary on the page but I seem to have lost the ability to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abedwayyad (talk • contribs) 11:23, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 13 June 2018[edit]

On Wednesday, 13 June, FIFA announced that the three countries would be the joint hosts of the 2026 World Cup[1]. Abedwayyad (talk) 11:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/world-cup/world-cup-2018-live-stream-updates-video-fixtures-schedule-2026-decision-announced-usa-morocco-a8396361.html

Is it really officially the "Canada-Mexico-United States" bid?[edit]

It seems odd that the United States of America is hosting 75% of the games, including the opening game, the semifinals, and the finals, and yet gets third billing. Also, the largest host country's name is "United States of America," not "United States." Otherwise, it could be easily confused with another host country, "United Mexican States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.220.10 (talk) 14:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is alphabetical. Last I checked U came after both C and M. If the official or common short name were America instead of United States then the country would come first instead of last. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:50, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 June 2018[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. Consensus is clear, and it is noted that the proposed title is a plausible common name, and is more concise. bd2412 T 12:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Mexico–United States 2026 FIFA World Cup bid → United 2026 FIFA World Cup bid – As noted, there were concerns over the proportionality of games hosted that is implied by the title. Even though Canada is first alphabetically, the bid's plans are that only some of the games will be hosted there, and that the majority will actually be in the United States. Plus, "United 2026" is the actual name of the consortium, and the split-screen graphics during the final announcement referred to the final two bids as "United" and "Morocco", so there's official precedent too. I think it would better-reflect the common name. ViperSnake151  Talk  14:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support: As per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. Along with the assertation that the current name suggests most of the games will be held in Canada or equally among the three nations even though in reality most of the games will be held in the US including the final.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Shorter and how they refer to themselves.  Nixinova  T  C  23:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current name is very verbose, and should really be a redirect. Tamwin (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME, moving this to the official title of the bid. -The Gnome (talk) 03:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the bid itself uses this name. SounderBruce 06:33, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Hhkohh (talk) 09:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Support original proposal, oppose United 2026 as it is not consistent with the way we title bids for sporting events and it's still not unambiguous even if United Airlines Flight 2026 is clearly not notable as many people would still interpret it to be a flight number. (And it does appear to be a valid, albeit clearly non-notable, one.)(This was my !vote which I apparently forgot to sign, or else the signature was somehow removed, changing it below.) Smartyllama (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. In the real world people are aware of the joint bid; but few are aware of "United". It's not part of the common name, nor is it consistent with other joint bids. Not sure what the best alternative is. North American 2026 FIFA World Cup bid. CONCACAF 2026 FIFA World Cup bid. CSA refers to it as United Bid of Canada, Mexico and the United States, but United Canada, Mexico and the United States 2026 FIFA World Cup bid seems too long. Conversely, the FIFA announcement refers to the United Bid. Are there better options? Nfitz (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The bid was known as the United 2026 FIFA World Cup bid, the full Canada-Mexico-United States 2026 FIFA World Cup bid could be a secondary title the article. One point I would to make is the bid often nicknamed the North American 2026 FIFA World Cup bid or even the NAFTA 2026 FIFA World Cup bid (due to all the bid countries are NAFTA countries). 159753 (talk) 21:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fortunately, I seem to get no hits on NAFTA ... - a Google search for the phrase (in quotes) returns No results found for "NAFTA 2026 FIFA World Cup bid". Nfitz (talk) 22:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is more as NAFTA World Cup that the phase come about. 159753 (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sehgal, Kabir (2018-06-10). "Why we need a NAFTA World Cup in 2026". CNBC. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
"Winning 2026 World Cup bid shows the virtues of NAFTA". Wichita Falls. Retrieved 2018-06-17.
I'd simply ignore it until such time there is such a bid. If it really goes that way, it might be more like [Euro 2020] where there really wasn't a bid, per se; we can always rename this in a decade or so, if trends shift. Nfitz (talk) 18:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "North American 2026 FIFA World Cup bid" is much less wordy while still maintaining clarity. -ThatJosh (talk) 06:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would happily go with that. 159753 (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although due only to WP:CONCISE. Long names are ugly. Heliozoan (talk) 17:04, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in light of the strong potential for future three way bids and the fact that the name wouldn't be clear to someone unfamiliar with the subject. It also doesn't appear to be the common name, though it is the official name. Smartyllama (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "North American 2026 FIFA World Cup bid" — Much less wordy while still being accurate. Aria1561 (talk) 01:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as for concerns about future 3 way bids when they happen we can re-discuss. עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – for most people, North America also includes Central America and the Caribbean. No doubt the consensus on the North America article itself seems to be that North America is not just Canada, Mexico, and the United States. So, "North American 2026 FIFA World Cup bid" is a dubious title in my opinion. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · articles · reviews) 02:06, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

"even though Trump would no longer be President in 2026"[edit]

This point isn't in any of the three references cited for the paragraph in which it's found. In addition, it's not a certainty that Trump won't be president (note that the word is not capitalized) in 2026. He may serve a non-consecutive second term or, less likely, the United States Constitution may be amended to allow him to serve a third term (Trump has made a comment hinting he would like this to happen). And even if he's not the president in 2026, whoever is president may decide to keep the immigration ban travel ban if it's still in place when he or she takes office. Therefore, I am deleting this statement. Dyspeptic skeptic (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That gentleman, and I use that term loosely, has changed international treaties "for security reasons" when there really aren't any, and other many other borderline problematic issues. Unless you know for certain that he isn't going to unilaterally, or by charming congress and senate, change the term limits of the PoTUS, we can't assume anything about whether the current sitting "leader" will be in power in 2026 or not. If Putin can do it, I'm sure he can. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reichstag fire - Immigrant laborer (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, Trump not being President anymore doesn't automatically undo any of the things he's done, like the travel ban. So it's irrelevant regardless. Smartyllama (talk) 20:28, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Godwin's law. Anyway, this discussion has gone off topic. --173.129.214.17 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final in New Jersey[edit]

New York City doesn't have a stadium big enough to accommodate 80,000 fans, the most they have is about 50,000 seats for baseball fans.

The final is reported as being held in East Rutherford, New Jersey by various outlets, not New York City, New York. In particular, at MetLife stadium where the New York Giants and New York Jets play.

[1]https://www.nj.com/times-sports/index.ssf/2018/06/usa_mexico_canada_joint_bid_wi.html

[2]http://abc7ny.com/sports/metlife-stadium-proposed-site-for-2026-world-cup-final/3597215/

[3][1]

[4][2]

Exadajdjadjajdsz (talk) 18:08, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the venue list clarifies, this would be in the New York City metropolitan area, but more specifically in East Rutherford. This is not the only venue to have such a distinction. Radagast (talk) 00:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MetLife_Stadium
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._stadiums_by_capacity

Disambiguation of some entries in the tables describing current usage of the venues[edit]

In the tables that indicate the current usage of venues that are part of the bid, there are some ambiguous or potentially ambiguous entries.

There are several NCAA conference American-football championships, but are titled such that the sport is omitted leaving them ambiguous. Such as the "SEC Championship Game" in Atlanta, when it should really be in the table as the SEC (American) football Championship (due to SEC Championships existing for other sports).

Also, there are several university teams listed as tenants, but are simply titled with "[University] [Nickname]" without indicating the sport. Such as "UCLA Bruins" as a tenant of the Rose Bowl, when UCLA Bruins could refer to any of UCLA's sports but it's only the (American) football team that plays in the Rose Bowl.

If no objections are raised, I will attempt to revise some of the text in those tables to clarify the above points.

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 21:52, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_2026_FIFA_World_Cup_bid&oldid=1216831156"