This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Surrey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Surrey 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.SurreyWikipedia:WikiProject SurreyTemplate:WikiProject SurreySurrey-related articles
You keep justifying its over-detail without actually telling why it is. I do not agree. And there's precedent in noting down important matches and performances in other football-related articles like Leo Messi's. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 10:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is long established consensus at WT:FOOTBALL that we do not include every single game or goal or event. We are an encyclopedia, not a sports almanac. Please see WP:NOTNEWS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE for Wikipedia wide policies that justify this position. GiantSnowman 10:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but you may be wiki-lawyering at this point. You repeat the same thing without addressing the points I raise. I pointed out that:
1. This was Gallagher first man of the match performance.
2. There is precedent in noting down memorable matches in other football related pages.
With the above in mind, please explain what makes you consider a one-liner on a MotM performance by the player "excessive detail". Thanks. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why is MOTM notable event, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This is certainly not standard in my experience. GiantSnowman 11:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reading - I just don't agree. You also appear to ignore WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You haven't explained why it being his first MOTM makes it notable - are we going to include first yellow card, red card, corner kick, thrown in etc.? GiantSnowman 18:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You went from "consensus in WT:FOOTY" to "not standard in my experience" to "I don't agree". Good thing that I don't have to convince you when there's a set precedent of MotMs in articles, in a way reflecting consensus (which is what you've been claiming absence of so far! but wait... its wp:otherstuffexists... come on now). Reg your slippery-slope argument (first-ever throw-in, kick-in, corner), yes it is notable and amply captured with "made his/her debut ..." in almost all articles you'd find on footballers, like Mbppae. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 18:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
First match, first goal? notbable. Anything else? Run of the mill. There is no consensus to include this content, so stop claiming otherwise. It doesn't matter that it's in other articles. GiantSnowman 19:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: you repeatedly claim "no consensus" but fail to demonstrate why that is the case. Why does your adhoc opinion matter at all over anyone else's? Let's go back to the WP:BRD you cited, which goes "Do not revert unnecessary edits (i.e., edits that neither improve nor harm the article). For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse. Wikipedia does not have a bias toward the status quo (except in some cases of fully developed disputes, while they are being resolved). In fact, Wikipedia has a bias toward change, as a means of maximizing quality by maximizing participation."
And then it goes: "Whenever you believe that the author of an edit was simply misinformed, made a mistake, or did not think an edit through, go ahead and revert. If that editor (or anyone else) re-reverts, you will know it is more than that, and you should be more conservative in deciding whether to revert it again."
Either ways, since you claim there's "no consensus", how do we prove there indeed isn't one? May be WT:FOOTY is where we establish this? May be there's already a discussion on this for you to have claimed so emphatically that there indeed is a lack of consensus given you've reverted the edit twice? Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus to inlclude the material, it's just you and me arguing. If you want to post at WT:FOOTBALL in an attempt to get consensus then feel free. GiantSnowman 11:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus is implicit (!) in other pages related to football having such information. You claimed there's no consensus but haven't shown me any proof of that. wp:whataboutx is an essay not a policy. The rest of your points are your own opinions without any basis in wikipedia policy on consensus: editors open a section on the associated talk page and try to work out the dispute through discussion, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense and In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever. At this point, you may be stonewalling: ...the dissenting party has to state how the current proposal fails to meet the interests of the wider group, rather than merely stating they will not accept it.. Absent a proof of "no consensus" (which you claim exists), I am tempted to go ahead and reinstate the edit. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 17:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not. That's like saying vandalism which has been left untouched/un-noticed in one article is justification for vandalism in other articles. Absolute tosh. If you re-instate the edit, I will remove again. I have suggested you seek input elsewhere, so why not do that instead? GiantSnowman 19:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You make one slippery slope argument after another, build up one straw man after another. Wow, what an utter waste of time this has been. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
