Archived discussions
2023–2024
2025
January–March
April–June
July–September
October–December
2026
January–March
April–June
2026 FIFA World Cup absentees
The absentees section barely makes a difference the qualified teams section. Why are two lines of sentences need to be deleted? It doesn't clog up the section at all. I think it is interesting and notable who failed to qualify after making the previous edition. I know you said there was a discussion but a few people have questioned the removal as well so I don't think there is a consensus. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 20:55, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- It isn't just the two lines of sentences that's the problem, it's that it opens up the article to others wanting to add more and more countries to the list. Assuming you read through the previous discussions, you should have noted that other editors had the same concern, regardless of how many actually participated. Anyways, since you don't agree, you're welcome to comment or start a new thread at Talk:2026 FIFA World Cup. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2026 (UTC)
- I understand your point but I don't think deleting it completely is the correct answer. Absentees are notable. I will monitor the section if people start adding random information. I am thinking of starting a qualified teams fact section on the qualification page so that all the information not already stated can be put there, like more recent returnees for example. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- First of all, an editor has already added Italy, but they also made mention of their 4 World Cup championships, which another editor had previously suggested not to. Also, the same editor mentioned Bosnia and Herzegovina being the team that beat Italy, which in my opinion is pointless. If someone really wants to know which team beat Italy, they can refer to 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification. The point being that we can't just keep adding irrelevant information to this article. As proof, look at the latest discussion regarding the state of Missouri passing a bill exempting tickets from state and local sales taxes. Assadzadeh (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- I understand that in the past some people added random information but I added that type of information to the qualification page, so if people want to add less notable facts, they can add it there. The only absentees that should be mentioned are Italy and the 2022 teams. If people add more then it is not notable. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- That last two sentences are about the main page, not the qualification page. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- I understand that in the past some people added random information but I added that type of information to the qualification page, so if people want to add less notable facts, they can add it there. The only absentees that should be mentioned are Italy and the 2022 teams. If people add more then it is not notable. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- First of all, an editor has already added Italy, but they also made mention of their 4 World Cup championships, which another editor had previously suggested not to. Also, the same editor mentioned Bosnia and Herzegovina being the team that beat Italy, which in my opinion is pointless. If someone really wants to know which team beat Italy, they can refer to 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification. The point being that we can't just keep adding irrelevant information to this article. As proof, look at the latest discussion regarding the state of Missouri passing a bill exempting tickets from state and local sales taxes. Assadzadeh (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
- I understand your point but I don't think deleting it completely is the correct answer. Absentees are notable. I will monitor the section if people start adding random information. I am thinking of starting a qualified teams fact section on the qualification page so that all the information not already stated can be put there, like more recent returnees for example. ILoveSport2006 (talk) 11:16, 2 April 2026 (UTC)
1994 World Cup edit someone made
Take a look at the following diff from the 1994 World Cup article and see what you think. My instinct is to revert it as unnecessary detail, especially when there is no comparable information for the other 23 teams. I also think it reads like it was plagiarized (it just does not sound like how most people write, except perhaps in advertising). But I felt like it made more sense to bounce it off someone else first and you were the first person I thought of. Any thoughts? Here is the diff. 1995hoo (talk) 21:09, 15 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. I agree, it does sound like advertising. Looks like it was already reverted by SounderBruce. Assadzadeh (talk) 02:21, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- After I sent you that message, it also struck me as WP:UNDUE to focus on one team's base camp to the exclusion of the rest. Hopefully SounderBruce's reversion will be the end of it. Unrelated to that, thanks for fixing my edit on the 2026 article this morning. I was using my iPad while eating breakfast and I didn't notice it had selected too much text. I should focus solely on text that has no citations when I use my iPad unless I pull out the Bluetooth keyboard. The lack of arrow keys on the touchscreen keyboard makes selecting text a lot harder. 1995hoo (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- No problem. You must have been editing in source mode, because part of the citation was still left. Assadzadeh (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I always use source mode. Maybe on my iPad I ought to try changing it. I've never really paid attention to that option simply because I'm used to it being that way. 1995hoo (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- Depending on the type of editing that I'm doing, I switch back and forth between "Source" and "Visual" modes. Assadzadeh (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- I always use source mode. Maybe on my iPad I ought to try changing it. I've never really paid attention to that option simply because I'm used to it being that way. 1995hoo (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- No problem. You must have been editing in source mode, because part of the citation was still left. Assadzadeh (talk) 12:24, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
- After I sent you that message, it also struck me as WP:UNDUE to focus on one team's base camp to the exclusion of the rest. Hopefully SounderBruce's reversion will be the end of it. Unrelated to that, thanks for fixing my edit on the 2026 article this morning. I was using my iPad while eating breakfast and I didn't notice it had selected too much text. I should focus solely on text that has no citations when I use my iPad unless I pull out the Bluetooth keyboard. The lack of arrow keys on the touchscreen keyboard makes selecting text a lot harder. 1995hoo (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2026 (UTC)
June 2026 GAN Backlog Drive
| Good article nominations | June 2026 Backlog Drive |  |
| June 2026 Backlog Drive:
Do you want to become more experienced in the GA process?
Interested in taking part? You can sign up here. | |
| Other ways to participate: | |
| You're receiving this message because you have participated in a good article review this year or participated in the previous backlog drive. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2026 (UTC)
indycar results
yo bro, just a random question: why havent you been editing IndyCar related pages recently? i made the 2026 Chevrolet Detroit Grand Prix and the 2026 Bommarito Automotive Group 500 pages too if you were interested. Brycenrichter (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2026 (UTC)
- I've just been busy lately. Thanks for making the pages. I haven't had a chance to review them yet. Assadzadeh (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2026 (UTC)