Talk:Pedro Pereira (footballer, born 1998)

Cup notes

Nehme1499 - your notes here make no sense. He started his club career in Italy, went to Portugal, then went to England and is now back in Italy. How does listing "National Cup means Coppa Italia, Taca de Portugal, and FA Cup" make any sense? How does the average reader know which cup refers to which club and year? And where is the Taca da Liga note in the League Cup? I understand your intentions are well-meaning but there is NO ambiguity in what a national cup and a league cup are. You introduce ambiguity by adding these notes. It's unnecessary and not a good system and there is no consensus to add to a stats table. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:36, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Rupert1904: You are entitled to your own opinion. You may think that it's unnecessary, but most editors in this discussion agree that it's better to use notes for clarity. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 19:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for acknowledging that I am entitled to my own opinion. I was not aware you thought that previously. Most editors do not agree on a consensus. And you skirted my question. You previously said your notes were clear and explanatory and that you included all cups when I referenced the issues with Kevin de Bruyne's table. Why are not all cups included here? Why does it not follow the trajectory of the player's career? Your inability to have any dialogue on this is extremely disturbing and upsetting. Rupert1904 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I have already expressed my opinions very clearly in both the linked discussion and the one preceding it. Feel free to refer to those for my point of view. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:03, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You said, and I quote, "If it were for me, all cups would be included." So why are not all cups included on this article then? Why is there no reference to which these cups refer to? This is an article you edit regularly. The cup notes are incredibly confusing as this player has been bouncing around leagues and nations. The note adds ambiguity and has no frame of reference. Rupert1904 (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You may think it's ambiguous and confusing, most other editors don't. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 20:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

They do as they have indicated in the discussions. It's also confusing to the average reader which is more important. It gives no context. There's no indication in the MOS to include this and there's also a consensus to avoid lists in general so again you have no standing here. Rupert1904 (talk) 22:31, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Show me the consensus to avoid lists (and, also, what list are we discussing about here?). You can't speak for the average reader: I can state the same thing, in fact, saying that without indication for the cup names it's not clear what the statistics refer to. I don't know what discussions you are reading, but they are clearly different from the ones I'm talking about. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 22:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

A national cup is a national cup. It is very self explanatory. There is only one national cup in each country. When you drag in a list of notes that are on an island and not corresponding to a specific season or stat, you add ambiguity that confuses a reader. This article is a fantastic example. The player is currently plying his trade in Italy, but the last note on the national cup is FA Cup. The FA Cup is in England not in Italy. How does that make any sense? That is just confusing. You've started to add these superfluous notes to stats table but have failed to add how they relate to the player's career or which clubs, leagues, or seasons these cups are in reference to. It is baffling and wrong. And if you were to correspond the national cups to the specific clubs then it would likely end being too busy. And may I say again, it goes against the MOS. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

We are going around in circles. You will remove the notes, I will add them back. You will say that it's unnecessary and against the MOS, I'll say that it's useful and that there is consensus to keep them. This cycle clearly won't end. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 00:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

You have failed to ever address any concern that I have brought up or explained your rationale coherently. Just saying they're useful is not enough. You haven't proved that and the fact that it's not in MOS and there is not an overwhelming consensus or decision to include these notes justifies my stance. You openly make edits that go against MOS, to your own admission even. I don't understand why you are so destructive in this matter and fail to cooperate in any sort of dialogue. Rupert1904 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)