Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 2022 qualifying

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Europe This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Football: Women's football Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the women's football task force (assessed as Low-importance). Women's sport: WOSO Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.

@Sb008 and S.A. Julio: Looking to establish the way forward regarding the top goalscorers section. I've reverted to the status quo prior to the most recent series of edits and I assume we would all appreciate if no one re-reverts until we've come to some kind of consensus.

I've already cited

I would appreciate your input regarding this fairly minor dispute and hopefully, we can sort it sooner than later (even if we need go and change the older articles as a result). Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Stevie fae Scotland: For now I've only 1 questions:

You state a consensus was established. Please provide a link to the page with the discussion which resulted in a consensus.

--Sb008 (talk) 15:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:EDITCONSENSUS for more information.) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Stevie fae Scotland: What you define as a comsensus I define as a consensus with a very limited vality, or better a bogus comsensus.

• It's supposed to be the consensus because it's the format as established in the most internatiional qualifying tournament 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA)
  1. More recent is the 2019 FIFA U-17 World Cup which has a different format, a full list of all goal scorers.
  2. You could argue the 2019 FIFA U-17 World Cup is not a qualifying tournament, but then the 2019 UEFA European Under-17 Championship tournament was the qualifying tournament for the 2019 FIFA U-17 World Cup tourmament. This tournament was also more recent and uses a full list as well.
  3. The 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification – UEFA preliminary round is part of the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA) tournament. Again this page uses a full list.
  4. So, based on your logic, a full list should be used as used for the most recent tournament 2019 FIFA U-17 World Cup
• It's furthermore the consensus because it's displayed in the same format as the previous consensus UEFA Women's Euro 2017 qualifying
  1. It's not as you state youtself: "but now includes links to the full list of scorers".
  2. If the addition of the links doesn't "violate" the consensus, the addition made by me, doesn't "violate" the consensus either. Same template is used in all cases, and the display format is therefore not altered. Changing the display format requires changing the template.
• Finally, the consensus definition as you use it: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus."
  1. So all it takes, I go and change the 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA) and/or UEFA Women's Euro 2017 qualifying page, and there's no longer a consensus (or the "consensus" prior to the now disputed "consensus" is the consensus again). Why I call it a bogus consensus.
  2. Furthermore, consensus implies for me consistency between similar pages as well. Reading your statement "even if we need go and change the older articles as a result", it seems you agree there. So how can a page which is "one of a kind" be the consensus?

All in all, the argument of an established consensus seems to me a false claim. Maybe we should simply focus on whether my addition adds extra information or not. So far I heard only 1 argument: "not necessary when already linked". My response, if that's an argument, you remove all players listed as well since them are linked too. Effectively, only put the links there. --Sb008 (talk) 17:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sb008: To be blunt, yes it is unnecessary because it's a top scorers section and not an every scorer section.

The reason all the articles you've listed are different is that they are different types of article. For example, 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification – UEFA preliminary round is a sub-page of 2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA) and all sub-pages list every goal scorer while the qualification article lists the overall top scorers from the entire qualifying process, including the preliminary and play-off rounds. In contrast, 2019 FIFA U-17 World Cup and 2019 UEFA European Under-17 Championship are articles about finals tournaments which don't have sub-pages for individual stages of the competition so the only place to list goalscorers is within the article itself. I've used directly comparable articles to establish what the consensus is. That consensus has evolved and that's why it's different on older pages which means they should probably be updated.

Aside from that, I think you've slightly misunderstood the consensus definition. This is supposed to be a fluid and flexible process to allow Wikipedia to develop and enhanced itself over time. If you change an article and no one changes it back a new consensus is established. The only time that doesn't happen is an instance like this when someone disputes the change. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]