User talk:Anwegmann/Archives/2023/December

Changing my sentence

Excuse me why do you correct my citation a few months by changing it back from minority Scottish to women of colour? Was there something specifically offense in what I wrote? I only changed it to minority as I assumed that all women are women of colour (I.E. the Scottish flag is blue and white. Why would the white on a women’s face not be a colour). Peterpol89 (talk) 13:39, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about, but a lot of your edits incorrectly simplify historical racial categorization, especially when it is important either to the context of the article or the historical context of the article's subject. Your assumptions, in short, are very often incorrect, and you shouldn't be making edits according to them without proper sourcing. Anwegmann (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Usage

Hello. Re your edits to dual nationals: for information, "he holds both Senegalese and French nationality" is correct usage in British English. Likewise citizenship, see e.g. the UK government website, which tells us that "if you hold both British and French citizenship you cannot get diplomatic help from the UK when you’re in France." Perhaps it's different in AmEng. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

@Struway2: I don't believe any of the pages on which I changed "nationality" to "nationalities" were designated as British English-specific articles. If I did change any such articles, my apologies. Grammatically, the use of the word "both" pluralizes the collective noun—which in this case is "nationality." You wouldn't say, for example, "he has both nationality." Of course, you would say, "he has both nationalities." The existence of adjectives or qualifiers in the sentence doesn't change the state of the noun. I understand if the UK government's website makes this mistake, as it is easy to make and colloquially accepted. But technically, it's incorrect. I will be careful to note any language tags on any articles in the future. Thanks for the message, as I'm glad to have the perspective of British English. If I caused any trouble for you, I sincerely apologize. Anwegmann (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think the British difference is that we approach it the other way round, as a contraction of the qualified version "he has both British nationality and French nationality" rather than an extension of the unqualified "he has both nationalities", so removing the first of the repeated nouns doesn't pluralise the remaining one. You haven't caused me any trouble, so there's certainly no need to apologise, and I've actually no idea if any of the articles you changed were UK-specific. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Deletion review for Gaby Jallo

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Gaby Jallo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. GiantSnowman 12:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Thanks for making me aware of this. I have added my vote to the discussion. Anwegmann (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Changing playing years in infobox

I am reverting multiple edits you did for players who have signed a contract in 2023 for the 2024 playing year. Signing a contract for the 2024 year puts the player on the 2024 roster, not on the team in 2023. Demt1298 (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Demt1298: Then they are not currently members of that team and should not be listed as such in the infobox or the lede. You cannot be a current member of a team in the future. Anwegmann (talk) 02:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Consensus for MLS players has always been to include the year in which they will be joining the team e.g. if a player moves in late December 2023 to play for a team in 2024, the year is listed as 2024 in the infobox. Jay eyem (talk) 05:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree the year should be listed as 2024, but in the lede we should wait until 2024 to describe him as a player of a team. Frenchl (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I think that's fair. This kind of stuff happens every year and I think we tend to jump the gun on making those changes. It won't really matter in a few days anyway. Jay eyem (talk) 16:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jay eyem: and @Frenchl: That's a good compromise. And you're right that it wouldn't really matter in a few days. I'm just looking for consistency, and listing someone as a current member of a team in the future just doesn't make sense. Anwegmann (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

@Anwegmann@Frenchl@Jay eyemThere is a long discussion in WP Football [1] about this and the idea of waiting until July 1 for winter leagues and Jan 1 for summer leagues and the extra work of July or Jan 1 that has to be done to appropriately adjust all of the players that have received offers during the off season. There is discussion about the fact that if the team the player came from and the new team they are going to has no more games in the season, then the season is over an we can work on the new season. Based on the idea you should wait to make that change on a player page until Jan 1, 2024, then you should extrapolate the argument to the fact that there should be no 2024 season pages for any of the summer based league teams and we should wait until Jan 1 to release that, even though the league have release schedules and teams are prepping for the future year. The argument doesn't hold water. We know that argument to be inaccurate, so why are we making it with the players page. Are we suggesting that a person using Wikipedia can't look at the players article and see they were signed for the 2024 season and even open the reference mention in the information about the signing if they wanted to understand the information? I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill and causing more work for editors in a shortened time period. Demt1298 (talk) 21:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as the timing for making these changes, I am personally pretty indifferent on the matter. I rarely edit player articles outside my area of interest because of the amount of maintenance they require. Winter transfers, and MLS infoboxes in particular, seem to have this issue a lot. I suppose if we want to re-hash this on WT:FOOTY instead of here we can, but I would rather just wait a few days and not worry too much about it. Jay eyem (talk) 22:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Demt1298 that this is just making a mountain out of a molehill. It's basically a matter of a few days now. After making all of these changes to hundreds of articles because they mention 2024 a week early, Anwegmann are you going to re-edit all of them on January 1st to change them back given you decided to edit them all, or are you going to just leave them for others to fix again? I have pre-maturely added the 2024 to a few articles when updating the pre-contracts recently, just so I wouldn't have to re-edit it later in a few days to save some time, plus others are going to put the 2024 anyways, so why bother fighting a matter that would just self-resolve in less than a week. I get that they're not officially on the team until Jan 1, but to undo and re-add additions over the course of 2-3 days is just getting too worried about the details in my view, when it could be left as an automatic self-fix. RedPatch (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think changing these back to "2024–" is appropriate, because I don't think it's correct to list "2024–" in the infobox. It's not a "fix" to revert them back to "2024–" in my view. I understand that people disagree with me. But I stand by the belief that a player becomes a member of a team when they sign the contract to join the team. So either the infobox should list "2023–" or every player with a pre-contract with a team should not have that team listed as their current club in their articles until their real contracts begin (I'm still a bit unsure exactly what a "pre-contract" is when compared to an actual, functional contract). I recognize that "it's just a few days" to you, but if we're interested in having correct information in these articles, "just a few days" is the difference between one year and another—in the end, not a minor difference. If a player signed their contract and was announced as a player for a team in 2023, then they became a member of that team in 2023, not 2024. To me, that's very simple, and I genuinely don't understand why we're going for simplicity over correct information. If a player is not yet a member of a team, then you shouldn't have added it to their article in the first place. "He will join [team] on [date]" in the lede is totally acceptable. Simply put, I guess, these players are not "receiving offers" from MLS teams in November and December 2023. They are signing contracts and being announced as members of the MLS teams in November and December 2023. If the contract doesn't become official until January 1, then we shouldn't edit their articles accordingly until January 1. If we are going to follow the practice of editing a player's team when they sign the contract, the date(s) should represent when they signed the contract. Anwegmann (talk) 01:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess my point is that maybe I'm inappropriately taking contract signing too literally, but you are all making signings "official" prematurely. So we're kind of at an impasse—if we approach things strictly from your collective perspective, none of these players are actually members of the MLS teams yet. So they should never have been listed as such. If I shouldn't have changed the year to "2023–" in the infobox, you shouldn't have put the new team in the infobox or the lede in the first place—at least, not until everything became official. It's not about ease. It's about providing clear, direct information. I'm not trying to annoy anyone. I have many thousands of edits, and I genuinely care about this website and its mission. That's why this is bothering me, I suppose. If you all simply cannot see why I made these changes, I'll revert my own changes to the "hundreds of articles" I edited in this way. But I sincerely think that we, as a collective, need to reconsider our approach to this. What appears to be the consensus practice on this is misleading at best and incorrect at worst. Anwegmann (talk) 01:12, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

{od} (edit conflict) Pre-contracts are very common in world football. It's not an MLS thing with signing for January. It's under the Bosman ruling, where players can sign with a new team if their contract expires within the next six months. For example, a player can sign a contract starting in July for another club, while still playing for another club in January. Here's an example of a player who signed for Real Madrid while still playing for Liverpool. That's what a pre-contract is - signing a contract with a future start date. So these players signing in December are doing so with a contract that begins in January. Although, I totally get what you mean about players not officially being part of the team until the first of January. I actually agree with it, but the reason I don't care too much about getting that specific is that in the past when I've tried to wait until the 1 January / 1 July to add the new club, it just keeps getting added by IPs/other editors, that I basically figured it wasn't a battle worth fighting and I gave in. Even though the player isn't officially a member of the team, in practice the general public will just assume he is, so I don't bother fighting it and eventually just started doing the early year addition when it's so close (for example something in say september/october for January, I would put the will join in January (since it's way far off) rather than saying they are part of the club, but for a late December signing, I just put it because it's so close anyways, it's not too big of a deal for me. RedPatch (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I totally get it. And I understand and have seen the practice before, especially in the context of world football. I guess I just think it is a battle worth fighting. I will change my edits back, but I do think that the practice of listing these players as members of a team before they members of the teams should change, as it misrepresents what these pre-contracts actually do. I appreciate your explanation and your willingness to understand my perspective without dismissing it out of hand simply because it goes against standard practice. Sometimes standard practice is worth questioning. All the best, Anwegmann (talk) 01:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)