User talk:Sygmoral

Hello, Sygmoral, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Mushroom (Talk) 02:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why, thank you! :) Sygmoral 02:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wreed bedankt voor al jouw aanpassingen in de formats, lay-out, tekstcorrecties en suggesties om het artikel te herstructureren (en in te krimpen)!! Binnenkort zal ik het voordragen als "GA candidate", einddoel is FA nominatie.

Groetjes, Kareldorado (talk) 15:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message! En met veel plezier :) Het is indrukwekkend hoe veel aanpassingen jij er de laatste dagen aan hebt gedaan, ik had het gevoel achter te blijven, hehe. Mooie prestatie in elk geval, ik hoop van harte dat het GA of A kan bereiken! Ik zal straks nog eens over heel het artikel gaan om te zien of er (volgens mij) nog een 'obvious problem' is. Sygmoral (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ja, hier en daar heb je de tekst zeker nog een stuk vloeiender kunnen maken de laatste dagen. Ik heb het vandaag genomineerd voor "Good Article" status, zie Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Sports and recreation. Nu is het nog even wachten op iemand die niet of amper het artikel heeft ge-edited maar die wel iets afweet van reviewen en er de tijd in wil steken. (Ik heb al een paar kandidaten aangeschreven.) Kareldorado (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you like it. :D Kareldorado (talk) 08:22, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, that's fun :) I'm actually not sure Wikimedia allows 'changing the content' of a picture like that! Guess we'll see :) Sygmoral (talk) 21:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was allowed only under very strict circumstances of certainty about the colour... :( Oh well. Kareldorado (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	The idea to "retire" the talk pages of WP:FOOTY subprojects was brilliant. Keep that brain working!-- MarshalN20 Talk 15:50, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why, thank you! Now that I have my first barnstar, I should really consider making something out of my user page ... :) Sygmoral (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to inform you that once upon a time I started the 1990s page - so, don't make it yourself again; the matches and results are filled out, only many details are still missing. I will make sure to upload it this weekend. Kareldorado (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's good to know :) Perhaps I should have asked about the 2000s first too. Sygmoral (talk) 21:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to update the introduction on Belgium national football team results – 2000s by the way. I'll just add the missing match details in the coming days. Sygmoral (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the page Million, you referred to '1,048,576' as often erroneously called a megabyte). Although I understand the push to use distinct words for powers of 2 vs powers of 10 (e.g. 1000 vs 1024), the use of Megabyte for 1048576 isn't yet 'erroneous' until all standards organizations such as JEDEC switch to the new term. You might want to say something like "formerly called megabyte by IEC", or note the exception of JEDEC. Dhrm77 (talk) 15:29, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment! You're right, the term 'erroneous' is too loaded. I have changed the wording to 'an older definition' (to keep it simple), rather than an 'erroneous' one. Sygmoral (talk) 15:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks good.Dhrm77 (talk) 02:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. What or whom are you waiting for? Whoever reverted your fixes did not provide any input. Please post your improvement, correction and fixes.Thanks. Harvardton (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the great job. Now the league results are displaying nicely on one page. I think the spaces between the each team's flag and the result can be reduced further. Please take a look at United States women's national soccer team#Recent schedule and results; the Match-type is in the round and it is getting wrapped around to another line. Harvardton (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it should probably stay consistent with the regular football box template... that one reserves about 13.4% of the width for the score, while I already reduced that to 12% for the collapsible version. I think it will stand out too much if I reduce it further. The best way to ensure that the line does not split into two, is just to keep the round parameter short enough, as well as the stadium/location. But even if they are too long, they wrap more nicely than they did before now. Both already have more room now than they did before, so I think it's a good compromise at the moment. —Sygmoral (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To get back to your last comment:

... I've been slow in responding because I'm still not convinced :) The asterisk you suggest may be too generic... In any case, SUS and RET are not exactly that common, so perhaps it's not such a big problem that when they do occur, there are 2 or even 3 'different symbols'. The main issue that needs to be tackled - in my opinion - is making sure that the meaning of any symbol (whether INJ or *) is clear. One thing you may have cleared up is that it should always be in respect to the most recent squad. Meaning we only ever put INJ there if the player was not selected NOW. I think that in the past the "INJ" may have lingered there in the table, just because they were injured at their most recent selection, regardless of whether they were even considered this time around. If we change that and make sure it only appears when the player was seriously considered for the current selection but was/got injured, then I think that makes it a lot more clear. Thomas Meunier is still injured for example, if I remember correctly, but unless Wilmots specifically mentioned somewhere that he would otherwise definitely have selected him, he does not need the INJ symbol. Mousa Dembélé on the other hand has sadly injured himself yesterday, so would move to the 'Recent call-ups' section with the INJ symbol -- ideally even with a <ref> next to it :D, because that's never included in the main squad publication (and a separate Notes section under Recent call-ups). I mean, so apparently it's decided that it doesn't violate Recentism, but that doesn't mean we should throw all other WP guidelines overboard! :p Finally, the legend for the INJ note should then also read more clearly that the player is not in the current squad due to injury, so that it can't be confused with any previous selections. —Sygmoral (talk) 13:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I totally agree that it should only relate to not being part of the current selection - this also what I applied in the hidden generic sentence. I know it used to be different and I 100% percent agree that something like INJ shouldn't float around for a non-selection in the past. Ok, I admit my solution was very generic.

I have the following more elegant (IMHO) proposal: an asterisk or red cross for the ones not being part of the current squad due to injury, a red card (like I used during the World Cup) for the ones not part of the current squad due to suspension, and the player name in italics for retirement from international football. Kareldorado (talk) 14:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That could work. I am a little concerned about the symbols though because they are quite a departure from how nearly all other pages do it. I've been scrolling through some of those other pages. One thing I note is that many of them note whether a player has been part of a "preliminary" squad, even for just regular matches. I think Belgium only really had notes like that for the world cup. It was also on the right of the call up then, though, not next to the player, but I guess that's because "the world cup preliminary squad" can be seen as a real separate 'object'. Anyway, this is how the following pages do it currently: Wales, Cyprus and Portugal have everything on the right there (PRE and WD (for withdrawn)); France (an older version, to see some more symbols) puts INJ with the call-up and RET with the player, and so does The Netherlands, which has both PRE and INJ on the right. Also Peru puts "preliminary" on the right (with Copa América), and has the same symbol legend at the bottom, although the symbols are not used at the moment (the word is written in full instead of "PRE"). Anyway, perhaps this sounds irrelevant because Belgium does not use an equally big "PRE" concept - although you could compare it to your asterisk idea: they were selected, and then for whatever reason they were taken out again. The French case, which put "INJ" on the right and "RET" on the left, is actually not so different I think: you could say that "PRE" and "INJ" are actually pretty similar in that sense. A final example, Argentina does it quite similar to how Belgium has done it so far: put "preliminary" next to the major tournament call-up, INJ next to the player, and note on the right that he was in fact called up at first. This looks fine today, but it gets ambiguous one month from now because you can't say anymore whether they were part of the eventual call-up. In our current Belgian idea, we'd take off INJ when injury is no longer the reason for the current squad selection, but then we lose again the information about whether they were part of the final selection that appears under "Latest call-up". Let's use Mousa Dembélé as a concrete example: he will likely move from 'current' to 'recent', get an INJ symbol, and "Latest call-up" will read BIH. That would look fine, but only temporary. In the unlikely event that is he is not called up against Andorra for 10 October, the 'INJ' symbol would disappear, and readers are left assuming that he did in fact stay in the BIH selection, and that that was his most recent appearance.

I realise I'm writing tons of text about this :) but it's because I keep hitting issues. From the above, I can only conclude one thing ... WE DO need a symbol right there at that Latest call-up! Whether it's PRE, INJ, WD, an icon or whatever -- it needs to be there to persist the information (keep it clear in the future). And in addition to that there could be an INJ symbol or icon next to the player too, for the reasons you mention (i.e. make it quickly apparent that the reason this player is not in 'Current squad' is not 'because he wasn't good enough'). The only concern I have about that is that any new standard we could try to launch, should be visibly better and easy enough to follow. So no [[File:...]] calls, but perhaps call {{inj}} and {{sus}} which should be easy enough to remember, and perhaps indeed put retired players in italic -- but I'd still put RET (or something) next to them too, because it's not quickly enough obvious to readers what "italic" means.

Let's try it out.

Pos.	Player	Date of birth (age)	Caps	Goals	Club	Latest call-up
DF	Anthony Vanden Borre	(1987-10-24) 24 October 1987 (age 37)	28	1	Anderlecht	v.  Wales, 12 June 2015
DF	Thomas Meunier	(1991-09-12) 12 September 1991 (age 33)	3	0	Club Brugge	v.  France, 7 June 2015 WD / PRE / INJ
DF	Laurens De Bock	(1992-11-07) 7 November 1992 (age 32)	0	0	Club Brugge	v.  Cyprus, 28 March 2015
DF	Jelle Van Damme RET	(1983-10-10) 10 October 1983 (age 41)	31	0	Standard Liège	v.  Iceland, 12 November 2014

.. the only issue is that the mouse-over texts do not make sense. Perhaps we need to create new templates. I could change the {{inj}} template (make it separate instead of make it redirect to 'blood bin', and make it say "Injured" or whatever a parameter indicates), and could create {{sus}} to show that red card but with a few parameters (date; 1/2/3) and 'Suspended on [date] for the next [2/3] match[es]'. Or ... we could just go back to "INJ" and "SUS". :) —Sygmoral (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So I've just implemented something for Defour replacing Dembele: a (temporary) INJ note at the player, and an actual reference at the call-up that can stay there for as long as he stays listed here. I think that's the clearest it could possibly be. —Sygmoral (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sygmoral, thanks for having replied in the Project Football. Maybe just because I come from it.wiki, which has its shortcomings but whose community is very concerned with uniformity and standards, I am surprised about how here things seem a bit more loose in terms of standardisation (for instance, the article's models written by the various thematic projects aren't usually so much prescriptive as they are suggesting), with the consequence that each page within an area can practically adopt a different styles. Regarding Italy's results breakdown, I will for grouping twenty-year periods as this way seems at least more common, considering also that I can change the format at a second stage if a different consensus should emerge. Greetings. --Tanonero (msg) 12:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, there are a lot of different styles going around... but that doesn't mean that's how it's supposed to be! There's just a large amount of different people editing all these pages, of course; many more than on any other language wiki. Hopefully one day we will be able to collectively bring all these pages to a consistent layout! In the meantime I wish you good luck with the Italian results pages :) (and perhaps our national teams will meet each other in November!) —Sygmoral (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No way... I used to listen to Gwyllion all the time since 2009 or so, and I still do! :p And now we even appear to have shared interests! Greetings, ProudTarjaholic (talk) 10:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hah, awesome! Gwyllion is the best :D Cheers! —Sygmoral (talk) 11:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why the hell did you guys stop the band so soon? :O Lost In A Dream was like 'iconic' for vivid power metal with a great build-up... Such a shame. Rock on! ProudTarjaholic (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your rationale about desire. For many years we had the light blue in all templates of squads of the national teams. Now (2015), many national teams has different colors in their squads. In the clubs (Manchester United F.C.#Players) we have the default light blue and that is distinct from the other tables. Is a default color like the lightsteelblue in the army units and war templates. This makes it easy to find and discern the current squad from the other (historic and same) squads and informations. But the fans (of each national team) wants the colors like fan pages of the national teams. Fans do not care about the simple readers of Wikipedia. But that's not the only problem. Everyone gives his version of the colors. For example, in Moldova national football team#Current squad we have colors with problem in contrast. In the future should be discussed in WP:FOOTY (you are right). That I belive. Thanks. --IM-yb (talk) 19:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, some of those colors do cause bad contrast... and then I'd suggest just making a version with better contrast :) I admit though that I remember when I first came to Wikipedia NFT pages, I also had some doubts about all the colors. But I decided to just go with it, 'since everyone does it'. Perhaps for neutrality it would be better to get rid of the colors, and then it would have to be a guideline to remove it from all tables on those articles. Although I feel like it has some benefit in the External Links infoboxes, not sure why; it sort of hurts less there and provides some unity over those infoboxes. —Sygmoral (talk) 19:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the colors in navboxes (about External Links infoboxes), I have not problem with that and I agree with you that do not cause a serious problem. --IM-yb (talk) 19:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just came to notice your contributions on the Belgian national football team U17's records, which is undone in the meantime. I read your idea on the 'correctness' of the background colours in the boxes. You should not mix up things that seem to be alike, meaning: effective medals were indeed not given for semi-finalists at European championships, and that is why the 'medal icons' should not be used. The background colours in those boxes and tables is another thing: it simply gives an indication of the team's place that was reached throughout the tournament. The third-place play-off match was abolished by the UEFA in 1984 due to the change of format. And although the format has changed a few other times since then, the abolition was kept ever since. Semi-finalists are considered on equal spot, no matter the statistics of their SF match. That's why it is indicated in bronze. You might think it doesn't feel alright to you, but it does to others, as it ain't incorrect because it doesn't refer to any medals ;-) ProudTarjaholic (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, something along those lines was explained to me on the WP:FOOTY talk page as well, so I gave in to that :) (my only remaining mission is to change the brown color to something that resembles bronze better, and fits better with the gold and the silver) —Sygmoral (talk) 17:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

... or at least for featured status. :) I just nominated it. Allow me to say that the time wouldn't yet have been ripe for that without all your constructive input, Joris! Groetjes, Kareldorado (talk) 10:41, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's "president" for at least one more month (probably 2-3)!.. :P And thanks for the acknowledgement, although of course my contributions pale in comparison to yours ;) quite cool to be so close to FA now. —Sygmoral (talk) 17:35, 22 November 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) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the discussion on WP:FOOTY. I also agree with removing the ELO and the W/L. It's very rare that readers come to the article looking for this info, so no need to include in the infobox. It looked to me like the momentum was leaning in favor of removal on the talk page, but then the discussion seemed to get sidetracked a bit and peter out. Is anything happening on this front? Barryjjoyce (talk) 17:40, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My intention was to just let it be archived, and as soon as it was, execute so that I can link the edit to the correct archive :) I see that it is archived now, so I will make the change soon. —Sygmoral (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not 'retire' pages without community consensus. GiantSnowman 20:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I realise it may come unexpected, but the consensus was there 8 months ago: [in August 2015]. It was just never executed, becaues I wasn't sure whether I was supposed to do that myself. It will ensure people actually get an answer to their concerns. Note that I am leaving the most active talk pages alone. Is that okay? –Sygmoral (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I had left the talk pages alone for the Football portal, WP:FOOTY/Assessment and WP:FOOTY/Fully professional leagues, because those seemed rather active and therefore best kept separate. You could argue that perhaps I should have left WP:FOOTY/Notability alone, too: that is the only one I "retired" that had a discussion in 2016. All the others didn't though, and were all very inactive. I leave up to you whether to retire the Notability page, but note that I had already moved the discussions to the 3rd Archive page there. –Sygmoral (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You vaguely suggesting something many months ago, and there being a tepid response, is not community consensus. Please propose again at WT:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 20:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:BRD - you were bold, I reverted, now you need to discuss at WT:FOOTY. GiantSnowman 21:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'm working on it. –Sygmoral (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joris, as you might have noticed I added quite some bits and bytes to the Belgium NFT article lately. Most of them were because I added archived links and title translations. Are you willing to proof-read the translations? I want to make sure that no 'hairy' English remains. Just do a "Ctrl-F" for "trans_title=" and you will find them all. Bye, Kareldorado (talk) 08:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did notice that, and had already been thinking about doing that :) I'll do it soon! –Sygmoral (talk) 11:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I must have read your thoughts. :) Thanks! Kareldorado (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good job in finding more appropriate synonyms and offering smoother, less humpedy-bump alternatives. Kareldorado (talk) 16:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you like them :) –Sygmoral (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Could you also do a check for my translations in sections Bibliography and Further reading? These are the last. Kareldorado (talk) 08:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! –Sygmoral (talk) 13:42, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I saw you had worked on Template:Football box collapsible, and I was hoping you could help. I am having trouble with the note parameter. If the template includes a penalty shoot-out, the note parameter gets scrunched up on the left side. Otherwise the note parameter displays fine. I put the 'if' statement on a new line (similar to how the penalty parameter section opens), which then displayed the note correctly. However, this added a blank line at the bottom of the template. Any idea how to fix this? Secret Agent Julio (talk) 19:40, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Indeed, the note parameter should have been on its own line; a bad edit in the past must have added it to the penalties section. I see that that is what you tried, but I believe you added an extra space in front of the {{!}}, which seems to have caused the issue. Constructs that start block-level elements such as lists, indents, tables, table-rows,.. all must not have a space before them, otherwise they are misinterpreted. In any case, it's working fine now! –Sygmoral (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems to still contain a blank line when there is no note and/or penalties in the template. Here's an example:

Not sure exactly how to remove that line. Secret Agent Julio (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah indeed, sorry, so your solution actually had the same result as mine... So I looked some more, and this was a very tricky one! The problem is that MediaWiki inteprets newlines as content. So if there are no penalties and also no note, then MediaWiki will just see two newlines, which it will see as a paragraph with nothing in it, e.g. our "empty line". The only way I could fix it is to "trap" that empty line into a hidden table cell. Problem solved! –Sygmoral (talk) 21:02, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joris, I must start boring you out with the NFT article by now, but would you want to take one more look at Belgium national football team#Notable? In this subsection I still did a lot of adaptations. Throughout the article, I added a couple more translated titles, so perhaps you also want to have a look at these. (General comments are always welcome.) Then, I will submit it for a general peer review, and then we finally go for the sequel: FAC2. Zomerse groeten, Kareldorado (talk) 18:55, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done! Didn't have to change much :) Fingers crossed for FAC2! –Sygmoral (talk) 00:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great! You shortened some of the very long Delpher links before, how did you do that? Kareldorado (talk) 12:45, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I just look at what the address is actually comprised of. Often, a URL contains parameters (things like ?par=val&par2=val2&par3=val3 ...) that are related to the search that got you to the page, rather than to the actual content. It's not always easy to know which parameters are important, so then it's up to you to test out whether the link still works after you remove a part. Easy examples are Report-URLs that often end in index.html, and then I just remove that filename because it also works without (index.html is a default page). For the delpher.nl links it is more complicated, but I found that the only essential parameters are "identifier" and "coll" (coll isn't actually required, but it automatically adds it back, so might as well just keep it then). This means that something like http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?query=belgi%C3%AB+voetbal&coll=ddd&page=1&sortfield=papertitledesc&facets%5Bperiode%5D%5B%5D=2%7C20e_eeuw%7C1910-1919%7C1916%7C&identifier=ddd%3A110548702%3Ampeg21%3Aa0098&resultsidentifier=ddd%3A110548702%3Ampeg21%3Aa0098 becomes http://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=ddd%3A110548702%3Ampeg21%3Aa0098. Note that you won't see EXACTLY the same when you click those links, because the original link highlights the search terms -- but the search terms aren't part of the "source", so I gather they can be left out. The 'shorter' links just point to a specific position on the correct page, without any zoom settings or highlighted words.

I just applied this to all the delpher.nl links on the BE NFT article using a regular expression (something I've only started using recently actually, it's awesome on large datasets because the rule applies to all links at once): delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?[^ ]*&identifier=([^& ]*)[^ ]* replaced into delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=$1 ^_^ Feel free to check a few links, but they should all be handled correctly. –Sygmoral (talk) 17:46, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Belgium national football team/archive2

Kareldorado (talk) 19:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right! I'll be sure to keep an eye on that page, but feel free to let me know if any urgent layout/style/structural changes are requested. –Sygmoral (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Just want to give you a head's up that I made some changes to your edits; please don't revert or edit over them again because they have been correctly cited (regarding recent call-ups and player's current club). Check out the page history for my summary first! Mightytotems (talk) 13:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mightytotems, thanks for your contributions! The Belgium - Japan selection is a tricky one though. It was never published anywhere officially for some reason - what you cite, is actually a selection for their training preparation, and out of that list, the selection for Japan would be made (that's what it says). I personally used an ESPN report to determine who had actually been part of the selection of that game. I see that I actually missed Sofie Van Houtven, so thank you for that addition, but Jody Vangheluwe was not selected for the match (even though she was there during the training period). Sygmoral (talk) 13:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I only just noticed now that I overwrote your selection edit yesterday... sorry about that, I did not notice it when I saved my selection; I thought Wikipedia would have warned about that. I will repair the other changes you've made. Sygmoral (talk) 14:15, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:National football squad player (light) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!! Sygmoral

If I am not wrong you with other editors make the Belgium national football team article a featured article. The similar I was trying to help India national football team to get a FA status. Recently i was trying to improve the article and done extensive research to get datas and information and citation to make the article more acceptable. But some retarted editors in that article not allowing to make it happen, deleted vital information and stories whcih are very important for the article to get a clear picture of wat India national team is. So, if you are interested I would like to consult with you about the specific concern about different sections and parts in the article. So please let me know. Hope you will reply. Dey subrata (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Dey subrata: I have not been very active anymore since Belgium national football team got featured, and I only make edits anymore when I see a mistake somewhere. So I am afraid I cannot commit to helping you, but I would like to refer you to the WP:FOOTY talk page. There are a lot of knowledgeable people there who will most likely help you improve your page! You could also start by reading that article, if you haven't already. It can sometimes help to keep your edits alive by linking to an official guideline in your edit summary, so that people know it's not just one user's idea. People on the WP:FOOTY talk page should be able to help you with that, too. Sygmoral (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last update for 2021 will be on 23 December. Source.--Island92 (talk) 11:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Island92: Aha okay! I based my conclusion on the red banner at the bottom of https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking. Strange that the 23 December date doesn't appear there. Guess we'll see, thanks for the edit :) Sygmoral (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. The last 2021 update was originally planned to be released yesterday. I waited for it, but in the end nothing happened. According to that link, they've put it off by seven days.--Island92 (talk) 14:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Maxim Micic is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Maxim Micic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Chris Troutman (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]