User talk:173.179.105.16

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made on Malbrough s'en va-t-en guerre‎. I greatly appreciate your constructive edits on Wikipedia. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might like to see:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Simplified Manual of Style
 * Recent changes patrol

You are welcome to continue editing without logging in. If you like, you can  [ create an account] . Doing so is free, requires no personal information, and provides several benefits, such as the ability to create articles. For a full outline and explanation of the benefits that come with creating an account, please see this page. If you edit without a username, your IP address (173.179.105.16) is used to identify you instead.

In any case, I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your comments on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:That_Coptic_Guy&action=edit&section=new my talk page], or ask your question and then place  before the question on this page.

Again, welcome! — That Coptic Guy (talk) 05:39, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Substitution
If I substitute A for B, that means I am using A instead of B, i.e. "substitute [new thing] for [original thing]". See the OED, which states, 2d. With for, indicating the person or thing being replaced. "If you substitute apple cider for the white wine [...]" As written, the article currently implies that Beiranvand came on as a substitute for Hosseini - which is nonsense. For substituted by, OED gives 3a. To take the place of; to become a replacement for; to supplant; a) In passive, with by. "A float seaplane [...] differs essentially from a land aeroplane only in that the landing chassis is substituted by a pair of floats.". Or we can just avoid this headache entirely and, as the OED and other dictionaries imply (for ex. Merriam-Webster), use the equivalent "replace". 173.179.105.16 (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Replying here as I cannot ping an IP. "[Player A] was substituted (off) for [Player B]" is clearly not saying B went off and A came on. Look at where the "was" is, and you can see the verb phrase applies to A. So, I see the dictionary passage you quote and I agree with it; I must assume you are interpreting the subject of the sentence in the article incorrectly if you think there's an issue. Yes, my shorthand (due to limited characters) edit reason was imprecise, sorry – speaking of that. 1. You are edit warring. You should have brought the issue to discussion WITHOUT reverting. 2. You should have taken the issue to discussion at the ARTICLE talk page. But since we're here, if there are issues with knowing which player is the subject, which I will not say is a you issue but a phrasing issue, then the fragment should be reworked. Substitution is the association football technical term, it does not work like an interchange in rugby football (who comes back off), and so the correct term should be used. I suggest you start a discussion at the article talkpage on better phrasings, since this is clearly an issue. Just not a grammatical one, except where ambiguity in sentence subject exists. Thank you for leaving a message, even if you did revert, at least. I can now see where you're coming from. Kingsif (talk) 00:42, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Substitution' being the technical term does not mean we're forced to employ it. Some variety doesn't hurt.That parenthesis aside, if you insist on not substituting "replace" for "substitute", and considering that the order of the players can't really be altered on account of the "After collapsing on the field minutes later" which precedes, short of rewriting the sentence in a way which is probably far less concise, my suggestions would be to at least use "by" - OED has plenty of examples of that, Rodriguez..was substituted by Henry Mosalvo in the first half on account of injuries, or failing that, trying to write something without the preposition entirely: The Villa boss decided enough was enough after just 45 minutes..and substituted him at half-time. Usage with "for" seems to rather consistently imply that the first thing replaces the second, ex. again from the OED: Spector was joined on the pitch by O'Shea and yet another youngster, David Jones. O'Shea replaced the limping Eagles and Jones substituted for Djordic; McCormack also impressed when he was substituted for Steve Innerd early in the second half.The use of "eventually" is also unnecessary as the timing of events is already made clear ("After collapsing ..."). 173.179.105.16 (talk) 01:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No. Take your last examples, and compare with what I wrote; note (with mine) the inclusion of "was" (i.e. "X substituted for Y" and "X was substituted for Y" are completely different; in the first, X is doing the substituting, in the second, something unspecified is doing the substituting to X, see – this is why there are also issues with "by" depending on the complete verb phrase) ...and the potential to add "off" for clarity. Your understanding of the intricacies of the formulations seem to be dictated by dictionary examples rather than your own knowledge, unless you're just trying to recite to sound more authoritative. I personally think we need to use "substitution" because, as I said, there are different kinds of replacements that have different rules - people are unlikely to misunderstand, but why be less clear. Now, take it to the article talkpage, where content issues should actually be discussed. Kingsif (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2022 (UTC)