Theurgist

Welcome to Wikipedia, Theurgist! I am Mysdaao and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Mysdaao ^talk 13:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Regarding your reply to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#German language in user interfaces, can you really speak that many languages? I myself can speak four languages rather well, and have a more-or-less passing knowledge (ranging from "I can understand written text with some effort" to "I know some scattered details about the language's grammar") about four to five more. But you seem to have listed about twenty languages. Are you a really well-versed polyglot, or did you have to look these up somewhere, or ask other Wikipedians? JIP | Talk 20:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Haha, thanks for the question (and sorry for the belated answer)! Well, in cases like that one, this here often tends to be priceless. But really, sometimes I just used Wiktionary in order to be entirely sure about the classification of the words. Largely due to my Slavic background, I had almost no problems with determining what the Slavic language Wikipedias' messages were linguistically, and in a number of other cases I could pretty well rely on the foreign-language education I have received. I didn't ask other Wikipedians, but I'd like to do it now. Are "Siirry" and "Etsi" really Finnish imperatives? I was unable to find out for sure what they are, so I ticked them off with a question mark. As for the "well-versed polyglot", I guess if I happened to find an oil lamp with a genie inside, to become one would definitely be among my three wishes. Cheers! --Theurgist (talk) 16:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your reply. As to your question, yes, they really are imperatives, and single-person imperatives at that. If one were to address multiple people, it would be "Siirtykää" and "Etsikää". Infinitives would be "Siirtyä" and "Etsiä". Alternative forms could include "Siirtyminen" and "Etsiminen" ("the going" and "the searching") or "Siirrytään" and "Etsitään" ("let's go" and "let's search" - grammatically this is the passive voice, but when used in this context, it's more like an implied suggestion). On the hypothetical case that the imperatives wouldn't do (when it's most often the case that they should be used), the infinitives would be the worst choice of those mentioned here, as they would only confuse Finnish-speaking people. JIP | Talk 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Note that "Siirtykää" and "Etsikää" are also used as formal single-person imperatives when using the T-V distinction. The T-V distinction is present in Finnish, but not nearly as prominent as in German or French. Whereas in German or French it's an integral part of everyday speech, in Finnish it's reserved only for addressing elderly people, addressing political figures or other celebrities in professional interviews (as opposed to private conversations), or for use in the army. For some mysterious reason unknown to me, in the army, you're expected to address everyone, including your own subordinates, in the polite form, when speaking in army routine. You are only allowed to use the personal form on your free time. I went to civilian service instead, and there you could address anyone anywhere in the personal form. JIP | Talk 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

The situation about Bulgarian thouing and vousing has been described pretty well here; I'm not at all sure I could have put it so comprehensively. As the army was mentioned, in Bulgaria there's a weird tradition that commands to multiple soldiers are to be expressed with the informal singular form of the imperative, e.g. "Fall in!" would be "Строй се [2SG IMP]!", which in other contexts would be a gross mistake both stylistically and grammatically. But this is very much becoming an off-topic discussion, so I think we'd better get it over and concentrate on building up the encyclopedia. --Theurgist (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a lot! — Kpalion^(talk) 13:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi. In general, I agree that XXXX Something Premier League should cover league matches only. But currently, there's just nowhere to move these Eurocups tables to. As you can see in my contributions list, I'm gradually creating pages about Belarusian competitons and low level clubs. Also on my to-do list are artciles about national team seasons. And only after that, when there's enough information, I'll create "XXXX in Belarusian Football" and move that content there. Until then, I still believe its okay to keep the tables. The Eurocup performances do affect teams which become more exhausted in summer and fall and people might want to know that. As for creating separate "Belaruaisn clubs in Europe" article, I think there's no common practice on wiki to do it for othar countries. --NineInchRuiner (talk) 15:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

One might disagree with the lack of pages about the European performances by the teams from a particular country, given the existence of articles like those: [1], [2], [3], [4], [4.1], [4.2], [4.3], [4.4], [4.5], [5]. But I would support the idea they can hardly be classified as something the encyclopedia needs badly. OK, good luck with your work then! --Theurgist (talk) 16:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, there's an issue with the French Guiana flag here and I think that maybe you could help us, since you seem to have done so in a similar issue with the new flag of Malawi. Please check it out. Thanks in advance. Ipsumesse (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, man! You've been very helpful, at least to me. Regards. Ipsumesse (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your recent archiving efforts on the Science, Humanities, Language, and Miscellaneous desks while the bot was indisposed. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:50, 20 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're welcome, I had done it before and it wasn't much of a problem. I was going to take care of the rest of the desks later the same day, but I gladly found out that the bot was already back to work. By the way, have you considered creating a provisional bot that would take the regular one's duties whenever the latter gets out of order? As I understand, this has happened on several occasions before. --Theurgist (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply

Swedish hundrade, apart from meaning "hundredth", is also an obsolete form for hundra, so uti hundrade år = i hundra år = for 100 years. Is this right or wrong? --Theurgist (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Precisely. The word hundrade is nowadays only used in the ordinal sense, such as hon är den hundrade kunden idag ("she is the hundreth customer today"). However, in older texts it sometimes signifies the cardinal. SAOB gives examples like Sexhundrade krigare stormade ner ("Six-hundred warriors stormed down") and Alla hennes hundrade sysslor ("All one-hundred tasks of hers") for this. The preposition uti is itself archaic, so that serves as a clue. Gabbe (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. --Theurgist (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for modifying my note G idea. You made it much better by applying it to the groups which can provide the winner rather than my clumsy effort. Keep up the good work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alun009 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

No problem, that's the fruitfulness of collaborative work. Thanks for initiating the idea, and for the kind words. --Theurgist (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, that's weird, sorry. Usually I get an edit conflict, but that's not the first time it's just erased previous comments. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)Reply

Hello!

First of all I would like to express my happiness that someone is paying so much attention to fix all these problems and make the articles as tidy as possible. Thanks! :)

I'm not an expert of the topic, but made some research, so, from 1920 to 1945 Hungary used the tricolor with the coat of arms of the kingdom, which is similar to the current one, so the usage of 1940 flag is just correct.

Talking about the situation between 1949–1956, Hungary became one of the communist states in the Eastern Bloc, and the constitution was modified as the following "68. § A Magyar Népköztársaság zászlaja piros-fehér-zöldszínű, középen a Magyar Népköztársaság címerével." ("68. § The flag of the People's Republic of Hungary is red-white-green, with the coat of arms of the People's Republic of Hungary in the middle." So, the 1949–1956 flag looks okay as well.

For a brief period in the 1956 Hungarian Revolution the coat of arms were cut off from the flag, however, it can't be taken as an official flag. After the revolution it was planned that the CoA without the crown wll be used, but the constitution finally approved the plain tricolor: „68. § A Magyar Népköztársaság zászlaja piros-fehér-zöld színű.” („68. § The flag of the People's Republic of Hungary is red-white-green.” This appeared in the Magyar Közlöny (kozlony.magyarorszag.hu/pdf/1370; page 24), Hungary's Official Bulletin on 23 May 1957, so I guess the matches played before that date should use the 1949–56 flag, while the events happened after should stick to the new one. Hope this helps.

Regards, Thehoboclown (talk) 14:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

I am grateful for the nice words, I gladly do that sort of work because I enjoy exactness, and usually am irritated with untidiness until I fix it. My further reply is here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hungary#Possible anachronisms regarding historical Hungary flags. --Theurgist (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note. Your edits completely screwed up the way the template worked. I brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#subst:nft template. Perhaps you could look at my my test page to see the effect of what you did. I think you need to look rather deeper to fix your perceived problem. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 17:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to 1934 FIFA World Cup qualification. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Not sure why the change was made and I wouldn't be surprised if someone else reverts because no comment was left. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I forgot to provide an edit summary, sorry about that. My edit was not vandalism, nor have I intended to vandalise the article. I'm giving you a relevant link and a brief explanation on your talk page. --Theurgist (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Didn't say it was vandalism, however according to the link you provided on my talk page the 1934 tournament should be using the civil ensign. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

(continuing the conversation here) Well, according to {{Infobox Olympics Hungary}} - yes, but according to the posts by Thehoboclown - not really. Thehoboclown recommends File:Flag of Hungary 1940.svg in their post of 20 December (which is here just two sections above, too), and once again does so in their post of 21 December. The situation is still not entirely clear, and the Hungary flags across the Olympics articles might need adjusting too. But yet, I feel that is a good starting point, and I find the comments by Thehoboclown (who seems to be Hungarian) reliable. --Theurgist (talk) 03:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Dear Theurgist, thanks so much for your swift and comprehensive reply to my query on this pronunciation. Either of the Hebrew transcriptions you suggested are worthy of consideration. As for the .pdf of the guidelines ("2007, updated") of the Academy of the Hebrew Language - after an initial enthusiastic look, I was disappointed at its generalities - the source language indicated by the geographical location of the example? - and imprecisions. Next stop will be the Hebrew Wikipedia's pages on the individual languages, something I've yet to tackle. Interesting stuff, challenging problems! -- Deborahjay (talk) 07:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

No problem, I'm always happy to assist where I can. Some other documents for transcriptions into Hebrew might exist out there - that one is just the only one I'm aware of. You may consider consulting the Hebrew Wikipedia's Language Reference Desk. They get transcription requests fairly often there. --Theurgist (talk) 22:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi. When someone says a schedule for something (in this case a football match), is pushed back, it means that its being delayed or even postponed. If a schedule is "pushed/moved forward", its going to take place earlier. Banana Fingers (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - responding on your talk page. --Theurgist (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

For your excellent work on the 2012 African Cup of Nations page

Patrourke (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! --Theurgist (talk) 02:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I'm agree with your proposition...--Karakizi (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm... which one specifically? --Theurgist (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey, yeah i will add them tomorrow. Need to find a source for the captains, too. Kante4 (talk) 04:36, 4 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(Vietnamese)#RfC_on_spelling. KarlB (talk) 13:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that an ongoing poll is taking place to move Burma to Myanmar. I know this happened just recently but no administrator would close these frequent rm's down, so here we go again. This note is going out to wikipedia members who have participated in Burma/Myanmar name changing polls in the past. It does not include banned members nor those with only ip addresses. Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I forgot to thank you for the clearly laid out statement of the linguistic issue on the Međugorje restore. Can I ask, did you base that on Ronelle Alexander's textbook or is there another textbook I should be aware of. (or maybe you just did it from general knowledge off the top of your head!). Cheers. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. No, I didn't use any textbooks - that's just some very basic knowledge on the language and its alphabet. Cheers! --Theurgist (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Reply

Re User_talk:B_jonas#For_your_collection, nice article, thank you for pointing to it. – b_jonas 21:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I'm really sorry - my comment wasn't directed at you. Apologies for the confusion. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 16:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

 Template:Nft has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.. QED237 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wes Mᴥuse 00:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Reply

@Davykamanzi: Thank you very much! --Theurgist (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Copa América records and statistics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raúl Toro. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I am just taking your basketball example and discuss it further here, because the example itself is not relevant to the football project. Even though Module:Sports table is currently worked out for football application and is only being rolled out for the football project, it is easy to adept for other sports as well. I implemented it for 2014 European Korfball Championship with different columns, which was easy to do through it's own style definitions (Module:Sports table/WL OT). I was waiting for the module to mature a bit more at the football project, before bringing it to more sports projects. Eventually these kinds of basketball tables, would be good candidates to be replaced (it would be straight forward to remove the OTW and OTL columns and makes goals for/against switchable to have goals/points for/against/differential.
The basketball example is a bit of an anomaly in the sense that Belgium was actually ranked above Great Britain and Germany, but had less points. I don't see why there is a need to always give the losing team a point. Regardless of the situation, it would be confusing, having two eliminated teams placed above a advancing team is tricky at least. In this case a note would almost be needed to explain the situation, but it is also very easy to move the colour bands with text along as follows (just copied from {{UEFA Euro 2016 qualifying Group A}} as an example:

The module allows for a lot of relatively easy customization (I sometimes think there is too many options for the documentation to remain concise). CRwikiCA talk 19:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

I see. I, too, am wondering what the point of giving points to losing teams is. --Theurgist (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)Reply

It definitely makes things a lot more complex, but if the solution above works for you in such cases, then it shouldn't be an issue. Although there might still be the theoretical case of a forfeit leading to 0 points... CRwikiCA talk 15:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Note that both hud and hudd are indicated in Wiktionary as Britishisms, and are absent in the American M-W dictionary. HOOTmag (talk) 09:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

I replied at WP:RDL. --Theurgist (talk) 18:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Me too. HOOTmag (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

You participated in a Burma RM in the past so I'm informing you of another RM. I hope I didn't miss anyone. New move attempt of Burma>Myanmar Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Keane may have been sent home from the 2002 World Cup, but he was still part of the Ireland squad. See here. – PeeJay 23:29, 19 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Technically true, but so misleading. I've added a clarification here. By the way, was he sent home, or did he choose to leave? --Theurgist (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Theurgist, I’ve seen your work here and found it of great help. Nevertheless, there are still some differences between the statistics in this article and the data shown in some of the individual Qualifiers articles. So maybe you can help me out here. According to the individual articles, there were 304 matches and 785 goals in 1982 qualifiers, 276 matches and 723 goals in 1986 qualifiers (these are HUGE differences!), 491 matches and 1429 goals in 1994 qualifiers, 774 matches and 2443 goals in 2002 qualifiers, and 2350 goals in 2014 qualifiers. I hope you may bring some light here, since you’ve been working with this material. Regards. Ipsumesse (talk) 00:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ipsumesse: I have an Excel file, where I enter the results and it calculates the records for me.

Year	Table	Article	Mine	Yours
1934	27/141	26/139	27/141
1950	26/121	27/130	26/121
1982	306/797	306/797	306/797	304/785
1986	308/801	308/801	308/801	276/723
1990	314/735	314/735	313/734
1994	497/1446	497/1446	491/1429	491/1429
2002	777/2452	777/2452	774/2442	774/2443
2010	853/2344	852/2341	849/2330
2014	828/2303	820/2303	820/2350	—/2350
2018	663/1903	767/2177	766/2192

I hadn't actually noticed these differences because I hadn't paid much attention to that specific part of the article; I had been focusing on the tables of the teams' debut appearances and overall records instead.

Sometimes the Wikipedia pages and FIFA's website disagree on if and how certain cancelled, annulled, awarded and replayed matches should be counted. There are some annulled matches that clearly shouldn't be counted, but FIFA's website still counts them for some reasons.

See the talk page, where I've explained how I've handled the issue for the purposes of the table of the teams' overall records. Basically, I've followed FIFA when in doubt, and I've done the obvious when not in doubt. You'll see that the differences regarding the 1934, 1950, 1990, 1994, 2002 and 2010 qualifications must be due to the matches in question, because the values add up exactly if one adds or subtracts the statistics from those matches (you have to use the table's values for 2010; why the individual article's are different, I don't know).

But where did you get your values from? They match neither the table nor the articles, though some of them do match my values.

The article's values for the 2018 campaign (still in progress) would equal mine if adjusted to reflect the annulment of the South Africa vs Senegal match and all the awarded 3–0 scores in lieu of the original ones, while the table's values are probably simply outdated. What exactly the flaws with 2010 and 2014 are, I haven't been able to figure out, but they're perhaps yet again due to some annulled and awarded matches (there were quite a few of them during these campaigns), and that 828 instead of 820 looks like just a typo. These campaigns are recent ones and well-documented ones, and I'd think the records from them must be fairly unambiguous, so it probably wouldn't be too hard for us to calculate the precise values. Wikipedia already was around while those campaigns were taking place and was being actively updated during them, so I guess errors and oversights might have easily occurred during the process.

Hope that helps. --Theurgist (talk) 16:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Ipsumesse: Allow me to summarize.

1934: FIFA counts Czechoslovakia 2–0 (awd) Poland, and so do I.

1950: FIFA does not count Sweden 8–1 Finland, and neither do I.

1990 through 2010: FIFA counts multiple matches from the African zone, which obviously shouldn't be counted, so I don't.

2014: not sure.

2018: the stated values don't reflect the annulment of the South Africa vs Senegal match and all the awarded scores, while mine do.

Here I've listed all these and a few other controversial points that came up while I was working on the article.

I'm still curious where you got your values from. It can't have been from the individual articles because the values there are different, and haven't been changed lately. --Theurgist (talk) 06:28, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hey! Would you mind explaining some of the recent edits you did with the summary "original scorers in eventually awarded matches should not be counted"? I'm no expert at this topic, but as per the information at this link, the number of goals scored by Mohammad Al-Sahlawi should be 16. This caught my attention when I found this edit while looking through the pending changes backlog. Jiten ^talk _contribs 17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jiten D: When a match is abandoned, or when a match finishes but later one of the teams is found to have breached the rules (e.g. by using ineligible players), then the responsible team forfeits the match and the other team is awarded a victory. The default scoreline for such an awarded victory is 3–0, but if the winning team had already won by an even larger margin (such as when Saudi Arabia beat Timor-Leste 7–0), that scoreline also remains the awarded scoreline.

Original goalscorers in such matches are no longer counted, and if I'm not mistaken, player appearances aren't counted either. The records that remain are the awarded win/loss, which, like any other win/loss, gives the winning and the losing team 3 and 0 points respectively, and the awarded goals, which contribute to the teams' goal differences. These goals aren't attributed to any player. It's similar when, through the fault of one of the teams, a game doesn't take place at all, like it happened with three games involving Kuwait. Then the the other team is handed a 3–0 win, with no goalscorers and no player appearances.

This is what is done in principle. I haven't specifically checked the regulations of this tournament, but it would be odd and would make no sense if original scorers were to still be counted in such occasions. It could be just that FIFA have forgotten to update the statistics on their website, I guess.

By the way, I've noticed similar inconsistencies in the articles on other continental zones of the World Cup qualification, but I didn't have time to go on to them today. --Theurgist (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the explanation! Interesting stuff. I did a brief scroll through the FIFA website but I wasn't able to find the specifics regarding attribution of goals or if appearances are counted, etc. The next best thing is probably a working example: so I took a forfeited match in 2014 qualifiers and searched for the stats of one of the players who scored in the match (Ismail Al-Ajmi). Per his stats on the site, it looks like they counted the goal as well as his appearance in the match. A tad odd, but if it's common for FIFA to include the goals and appearances, I think we should too. Let me know what you think about it! Jiten ^talk _contribs 09:52, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Jiten D: So it's basically "verifiability, not truth" versus common practice and common sense. Personally, I'd prefer the latter for this one. But I unfortunately won't be available for the next few days starting right now because I'll be travelling abroad, so I'm instead redirecting you to WT:FOOTY, where you and some of the diligent and competent regulars may work out a solution until I'm back, and I'll be happy with it whatever it is. --Theurgist (talk) 22:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Also @Jiten D: Hi, I have just seen Theurgist's change and would like to join you guys here. Please be noticed that there was a discussion about this issue (Talk:2018 FIFA World Cup qualification#Goals scored in nullified/forfeited/... matches), in which we agreed to follow FIFA and retain goalscorers' statistics. As far as I know, FIFA does the same thing: several months ago, in an article, it mentioned Mohamed Al Sahlawi (Saudi Arabia) as one of the highest goalscorers (16 goals). I know this method seems awkward, but it is Wkipedia's policy, and the consensus has also been reached. @Theurgist: I think I will revert your edits without waiting for your return. Hopefully you would not mind that. :) Centaur271188 (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the information Centaur271188! I wasn't aware that a discussion had taken place already. Theurgist started a section at WT:FOOTY but it went unnoticed and was eventually archived. I was planning on reviving the conversation there once Theurgist returned to editing. Looks like that wont be needed. Per the example I gave above, it does seem like FIFA retains goals and appearances in forfeited matches. I guess it makes for easier verification of data on the part of the reader :-P Jiten ^talk _contribs 08:02, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't aware of that discussion either. As I promised, I'm OK with the decision reached. (This specific article is from November 2017, while questions and ambiguity regarding the number of goals by Al-Sahlawi couldn't have arisen before December 2017 because it was only then that FIFA awarded the matches involving Timor-Leste.) For the record, the unnoticed and now-archived section at WT:FOOTY is here. --Theurgist (talk) 09:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for your suggestion. My idea was to add the maximum number of templates for the each list of the matches, but also to point out the continuity between the Croatian national football team of the 1940s and that of the 1990s in the list containing the matches played between 1940 and 1999. As you may know, FIFA regards the Croatian national football team from the 1940s to be the same as the one playing in the 1990s as well as today. This is my opinion, you are free to disagree. :) You can, however, start a vote regarding your suggestions and invite the users via the WikiProject Croatia. Best regards.

P. S.

Thank you for your edits on the page in question.

--Governor Sheng (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Governor Sheng: Yes, I will consider starting such a discussion. Meanwhile, I corrected some mistakes in the pages and added a few more things to them. Please take a look and let me know what you think.

I think the content in the footballboxes is a bit of overkill. Yellow and red cards, assistant referees, fourth officials, goal-line assistants, men of the match – is all this really needed? The external reports are there for whoever is too interested in that sort of stuff, that's what they're for.

On the other hand, the coaches seem notable enough. Maybe remove all that data (with the possible exception of the red cards) and instead add the coaches into the footballboxes somehow? --Theurgist (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Just stoped by to tell you that I love your work on the articles regarding Croatia's team results. :) Great job. These articles, as you modified them, should serve as a template for other similar articles. --Governor Sheng (talk) 15:06, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I'm really enjoying myself doing it. I'm glad to have bettered the pages. But I feel there's still what to better and what to discuss. Hopefully one day we'll have at least equally good pages for every national team. --Theurgist (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please, sign as co-nominator, since I think these lists deserve the status of featured list. You made your contribution, which was significant for the improvement of the standard of these lists. All three are nominated.

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Croatia_national_football_team_results_(1940%E2%80%9399)/archive1
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Croatia_national_football_team_results_(2000%E2%80%9309)/archive1
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Croatia_national_football_team_results_(2010%E2%80%9319)/archive1

Detailed reasons for the nominations are writen in the links above. Understandably I nominated those pages because I consider they meet these criteria - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_list_criteria. --Governor Sheng (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Governor Sheng: I'm glad to have helped. But I think these pages still aren't good enough FL candidates. The prose they contain is significantly less than that of the featured lists of Faroe Islands, Montserrat and Scotland (1872–1914) results. And once again, there are all those details in the footballboxes. Not only are they non-notable, but they also clutter the footballboxes and actually make them harder to navigate. For example, because the yellow cards are represented equally with the goals, it's harder for one to follow the development of the scoreline for most matches.

Besides, you haven't actually listed the three nomination pages at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates, so they're still invisible to almost anyone. No wonder they haven't had any feedback in 10 days. --Theurgist (talk) 09:58, 12 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

Jalen D. Folf (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

FIFA World Cup qualification--Hao Xia Xia (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've updated it. I'm currently in a country where I have very limited access to the Internet. --Theurgist (talk) 13:31, 10 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

 Template:FIFA World Cup Comprehensive team results by tournament has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Place Clichy (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Natg 19 (talk) 22:18, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello. pls create FIFA Futsal World Cup qualification

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FIFA_Futsal_World_Cup

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualifications_pour_la_Coupe_du_monde_de_futsal_de_1992

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualifications_pour_la_Coupe_du_monde_de_futsal_de_1996

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualifications_pour_la_Coupe_du_monde_de_futsal_de_2000

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualifications_pour_la_Coupe_du_monde_de_futsal_de_2021

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mod%C3%A8le:Palette_Coupe_du_monde_de_futsal

I don't expect a very big page like football from you. Just a small page that has the basics. Maybe I or other users will complete it later. Just do the initialization if you please. Because I have no experience in making it. Thanks in advance. --Olelixx, 04:05, 23 February 2023

Unless you want the article to be a stub, it actually requires a lot of research, data collection, and structuring. If you have enough time and motivation, I'm sure you can make it yourself – assuming that the topic is indeed notable enough for a page of its own. --Theurgist (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Matches of Matchday 7 12–14 October 2023 and Matchday 8 15–17 October 2023 were played as scheduled for other groups. The note is essentially there to specify that those matches involving Israel were moved during the Matchday 9, hence the new schedule 12–18 November 2023 for all groups. No matter if matches have been played. Island92 (talk) 20:09, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Island92: Even the UEFA match reports literally say "Matchday 7" and "Matchday 8". This was not during, but still before Israel's Matchday 9 (and Matchday 9 in general); a team cannot play three matches on a single matchday. Also the two sources are from before these matches were held, they report the rescheduling and say they would be played on those dates. Now that the matches have taken place, their dates are easily verifiable, so references are not needed there. --Theurgist (talk) 20:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

No, it's up to when they were played. The note makes it clear that Two fixtures of matchdays 7 and 8 were moved... in November, in this case during Matchday 9. Those matches involving Israel were never played for 12–14 October 2023 or 15–17 October 2023. Island92 (talk) 20:43, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Pinging user @S.A. Julio: who in the past took care for similar cases. For the time being let's keep the current version. Island92 (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Fixed. It was my fault. I understood the point. Note and respective sources left the same. Island92 (talk) 21:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just saw the talk page of Afghanistan Champions League regarding the move of the page and the concerns if the league is a continuation or completely rebranded. However I am pretty sceptical about it being a continuation as the teams of the new league are completely different, consisting of clubs that were runners up or winners of their respective provincial leagues (12 teams from 6 zones or provinces). Sources such as RSSSF and the official instagram page of the Afghanistan Football Federation you posted in the discussion also indicate about 2021 and 2022 being the first and second seasons respectively. Can you please have a look again on it as I have revamped the page and you will see clearly my doubts and see it is a completely different and revamped league. Regards Throwawayjamal047 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Throwawayjamal047: As you can see there, I also was in favour of creating a new page, based on the evidence. With that being said, comments and contestations about the outcome should be posted there. --Theurgist (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Participate in this discussion. thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoomia (talk • contribs) 09:20, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:UEFA_European_Championship_records_and_statistics#%22Semifinal_appearance%22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xoomia (talk • contribs) 09:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on 2026 FIFA World Cup qualification (OFC). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

I really don't think the situation warranted this kind of warning. But yes, I'm taking it to the talk page. --Theurgist (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)Reply