User talk:Wburrow

Archives

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 365 days are automatically archived by if there are more than 5.

Look at the talk section in 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification

Hello Wburrow, can you please see this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2026_FIFA_World_Cup_qualification#Probably_Congo_team_ban. (By the way I don't have an account yet) 2A02:587:6D14:1D00:92B0:53F2:EC48:58B7 (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I might not have a chance to update further until Monday. Wburrow (talk) 19:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay and you’re welcome! :) 2A02:587:6D14:1D00:F996:1B43:A9BE:EE47 (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://worldsoccertalk.com/amp/news/fifa-makes-an-unexpected-turn-lifts-suspension-of-one-national-team-from-participating-in-the-2026-world-cup/ Is this real or fake? 2A02:587:6D14:1D00:92B0:53F2:EC48:58B7 (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's real, but a misleading title because Pakistan was already eliminated from the WC even before the suspension, so they still can't qualify for 2026. But they are able to proceed with 2027 AFC Asian Cup qualification – third round. Wburrow (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read the down comment. 2A02:587:6D14:1D00:92B0:53F2:EC48:58B7 (talk) 15:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even the one that says "This effectively eliminates Congo from the 2026 World Cup qualification process." 2A02:587:6D14:1D00:92B0:53F2:EC48:58B7 (talk) 15:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking less and less likely that Congo will get the suspension lifted in time to continue qualifying, but nothing official has been announced yet. The latest reports I can find simply say that "Soccer Congo Republic seeks talks with FIFA to lift suspension". There's also the question of what happens to their matches (past and future) if they aren't able to continue: Will the past matches be voided? Will future matches simply be cancelled, or will they be awarded 3-0 forfeits? I think it's best to hold off on making any updates until there's something official to report. Also, for what it's worth, I think worldsoccertalk.com is a pretty terrible source - they have a tendency to overhype and exaggerate. I'd recommended double-checking anything you find there with other sources before you fully believe it. Wburrow (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your accidental comment on my talk page

I got the notification of a talk page comment and then saw you left one accidentally that you meant for someone else. The funny thing was that I saw the edit you were referencing where someone reverted you and I then went to look at the relevant MOS pages to see whether to revert the other user so that you wouldn’t have to revert someone multiple times and possibly get accused of edit-warring or similar. But then I got interrupted and never got around to doing anything about it. While there is at least one other Nashville besides the one in Tennessee (my wife got rather confused when we passed the Big Green Sign for Nashville, North Carolina, on I-95 a few years ago), I cannot see how any reasonable person would think it would be necessary to include the word "Tennessee" in the link. I wonder, though, whether citing the user to MOS:GEOLINK might be the more emphatic guidance to use, as it’s hard to argue against your position after reading the examples there. 1995hoo (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that including Tennessee isn't necessary there. They were right to de-pipe the link, and while I would have gone with just [[Nashville]], I don't see a particular problem with [[Nashville, Tenessee]]. I think it's ok with MOS:GEOLINK as long as it's not including a separate link for TN like [[Nashville]], [[Tennessee]].

Again, sorry about the accidental comment on your talk page. I'm not sure where my brain was yesterday - maybe my coffee hadn't kicked in yet. Wburrow (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearing things

Hello. Firstly 5 or five are both accepted. I've always used letters for other competitions and no one has gone against it. Secondly, despite the report listing attendance data, if attendance data is reported in the PDF document is better source anyway. @S.A. Julio: started to add attendance data including PDF source. Regards. Island92 (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Island92 - thanks for reaching out.

For the infobox: I think the Manual of Style exists for a reason. It represents Wikipedia-wide consensus, and we should follow its guidelines unless there is a very good reason not to. What's the reason for ignoring that consensus here? I also happen to agree with the MOS in this case: IMO the infobox just looks better if figures are used consistently. A written-out number seems out-of-place and jarring.

For the attendance data, I don't have a problem with it being referenced separately, I just don't understand why it's needed, so I was simply trying to clean up duplicative refs. Everything else (like referee, stadium, score, etc.) uses the match report for reference, why is attendance different? Obviously, if the match report doesn't contain the attendance data then a separate reference is needed (which was the case here: attendance figures weren't initially available in the match reports). But once the match reports have the data, what's the point of the extra reference? Wburrow (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA doesn't provide attendance data via report pdf. UEFA does. The point is that per experience attendance data between FIFA and UEFA may differ. Considering these are UEFA matches for qualifications to a FIFA tournament, I'd rather have those UEFA pdfs. The normal UEFA report (link) doesn't provide attendance. Island92 (talk) 17:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation, @Island92. I'll leave UEFA references on attendance figures alone in the future.

For the infobox: can we agree to follow the MOS (at least on WCQ pages)? Or as a compromise, should we list the top_scorers out since there aren't too many (at least for now)? Wburrow (talk) 17:50, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MOS ok. Island92 (talk) 17:52, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iran possible ban.

I heard these days some news that Iran might be ban from the World Cup cause of the war against Israel and what will happened if this happens? 2A02:587:6D18:B000:7967:4DDF:6337:865F (talk) 16:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NEW ONE: Also according to this article it’s says that Iran will not be banned, or something else? https://www.theguardian.com/football/2025/jun/23/fifa-2026-world-cup-iran-usa-military-action-canada-mexico-gianni-infantino 2A02:587:6D18:B000:7967:4DDF:6337:865F (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting info - I'm curious how it will be handled as well, but I'm afraid I don't have any additional knowledge to share. We'll just have to wait and see how the situation unfolds. (And sorry for the delayed response - I've been on vacation with limited access to the internet.) Wburrow (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Double standards KamalJamal500i (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You changed my edit for no reason.

How does it feel to censor everything? 2600:6C52:4000:B31:5CA4:BD9:14EA:F648 (talk) 17:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was factually incorrect. It said UEFA gets a playoff spot when they do not. Wburrow (talk) 17:16, 3 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please, it’s important!

Hello sir, recently I made a post about that African map in the new talk page in 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification and people still did not notice, so please do something. Link: Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup qualification#Guys, listen (update on the african map). 2A02:587:6D09:1900:20F6:FA22:D0FD:6B4F (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not able to update the file due to its update settings. The file creator has been alerted that it needs to be updated. Wburrow (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAF Ranking of runners-up

Have you seen this? I just saw it in internet but I couldn't validate it https://x.com/windowintlpod/status/1976346552588435512 It describes how the Ranking of runners-up would be. Seems to come from CAF in March this year Enrique1777~enwiki (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing this. I always thought that would be the case, but it's nice to have some confirmation. We'll see what the consensus is on how to incorporate it into the articles. Wburrow (talk) 22:12, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Error in CAF group I

I think that Madagascar finished with a Goal Difference of 17-12 (not 16-12) which impacts the ranking of 2nd placed teams 2601:640:8E81:3330:65FA:6810:2F8A:19CC (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I've corrected the tables. Wburrow (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]