User talk:Seany91/Archives/2023/April

Mallory Swanson

@Seany91 It appears INJ is the correct format to list her as due to the injury she sustained. Her caps are appropriately counted to reflect her playing in the April 8, 2023 match. PRE suggests they were named to the Preliminary squad and then dropped for an unknown (non injury) reason. If you look at the USMNT or any of the USYNTs you will see that injured players are listed as INJ. On the USMNT, you can see it currently with Timothy Weah and Reggie Cannon, where Chris Richards (soccer) is list as PRE because he was dropped prior to the game being played for a non-injury reason. Why would the USWNT use a different format then the other NT articles under USSF? I even did a quick check of both the England MNT and England WNT and both show INJ on players that have been injured. INJ is the standard for players who were injured rather then players who were dropped prior to matchs. Demt1298 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Demt1298: Thanks for writing – happy to discuss but think this is better for Talk:United States women's national soccer team. First, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. In cases where there aren't consensus on WP-wide policy, we resolve in article-specific talk. At least at USWNT, the long-standing practice has been that PRE tag is used for players not being on a game's final roster for *any* reason, in part of because of past WP:FOOTY discussions that indicating injury status for every player is too much detail and may inadvertently introduce factual inaccuracies. This is borne out even in the example you cited for USMNT – Chris Richards couldn't be on the final roster because he was injured! So we've been using PRE here as a catch-all. Again, I'm not saying there is necessarily a correct way here, but merely that if you want to change long-standing practice on a page, follow WP:BRD. Finally, even if we use INJ and PRE tags differently, your initial edit was still factually incorrect. Swanson did play in the 4/8 match, so the appropriate tag date (INJ or PRE) would be on the 4/11 match because she was initially named to the roster for the 4/11 match but ended up not being on it at the end. Seany91 (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

@Seany91 I appreciate you follow up! I concur that this discussion on your talk page won't solve the problem. That is why I have added it to Talk:United_States_women's_national_soccer_team#Injury_status under a previous post requesting further discussion as I believe the current consensus isn't in line with what is being used on the USWNT page. Also I placed a discussion in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#National_Team_Injury_Status looking for further input on this subject. I assumed the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS discussion point would be used in my response to you, which is why I bring it up in the WP Football discussion as a trend that suggests current football editors are in favor of the INJ status. I agree WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, isn't an argument, but I think the fact it exists at such a level throughout national team pages isn't something we should try to discredit by saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a discussion point. I stand corrected on Chris Richards, but still believe his release from the team prior to the games is different then being release by an injury that happen during a game in a specific international window. I understand the correction of 4/8 to 4/11, but I don't think it effects the INJ/PRE discussion. You are correct she was called up for the 4/11 match, but I think there might be some inconsistency among football editors here too. I would use Reggie Cannon as an example, he was called up for the Saudi Arabia match, but injured prior, but is listed as final call up against Japan. Just one example of the inconsistency throughout the football editor community. I hope our discussion stimulates some further discussion within the football editor community and a final consensus can be determined. Demt1298 (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Seany91. Thank you for your work on Emily Madril. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this article! Keep writing!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 07:16, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

How to handle WP:OVERCITE in sports

@Seany91 So I can better contribute to Wikipedia, can you please describe how you select which citations to keep when addressing WP:OVERCITE in sports articles?

For example, in three replacements between [1] and [2], you replace an editorially independent source with a primary source. What is the rationale for preferring the primary source in the context of WP:OVERCITE? Is it contextual, as in, are certain facts better served by primary sources over editorial sources? How can this best be balanced with WP:GNG and particularly WP:SPORTBASIC suggesting or requiring editorial sources in order to establish notability?

In some cases I can understand concerns about the triviality of a source's coverage/WP:SIGCOV, but particularly in [3] the editorially independent sources and primary sources cover the same subject in the same scope, which leads to some of my confusion on which should be preferred if only one is allowed, and how else to use editorially indpendent sources toward satsifying WP:GNG.

Thanks! -71.34.68.140 (talk) 18:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Hey there! Appreciate you reaching out and all the awesome edits you've been doing! Huge improvements on so many articles already.

Here are my two cents: there are few "hard" rules on Wikipedia – the community of editors come up with all the rules collectively anyway – so people are gonna disagree sometimes and that's fine. Specifically about the examples you asked here, it's 100% contextual and I can explain how I see it in detail. There are a few things happening simultaneously that influenced my editorial choices:

1. All the articles involved here don't need additional independent sources to establish GNG – that's well established already.
2. You're totally right that in general, we try to use independent sources whenever possible. But all the replacements here are factual announcements (e.g., a club announces a new captain; a league announces a new team), where "official" sources like press releases from the entity in question would be more appropriate IMO. (Note that this applies to citations for those facts only. If, hypothetically, you write another sentence that's, say, about the previous captain being unhappy that they lost the captaincy to another player, then of course independent sources work way better. Similarly if you're looking for citations for behind-the-scenes development that led to a new club joining a league. But for the fact itself, official announcements work fine.)
3. There are a few other instances where I've replaced paywalled sources with non-paywalled ones, sometimes going from independent sources to primary ones. I try only doing that when the citation is for a fact only (see #2 above), and the rationale there is that for facts, the benefit of everyone getting to see the announcement outweighs having an independent but paywalled source. (Of course, if the thing being cited is about more than just a factual announcement, then paywalled independent sources are certainly preferable.)

These are how I make editorial choices when balancing different guidelines like GNG, OVERCITE, etc. And other editors may disagree (which is totally fine!) – in which case I try to always adhere to (and ask others to also follow) Wikipedia:BRD. So really appreciate you reaching out! Seany91 (talk) 19:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a fantastic response that really clarifies the tension I was feeling between following each policy, and helps me better understand the goals they're designed to serve in this context. I'll try to keep these points in mind going forward and improve my sourcing accordingly. Thanks again for your time and help! -71.34.68.140 (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Of course! Glad you found it useful. Happy editing! Seany91 (talk) 20:51, 17 April 2023 (UTC)