Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 2022 qualifying

Top goalscorers
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 MOS:ARTCON in edit summaries as the style I reverted to at the time was consistent with the consensus established in the article regarding the most recent international qualifiers (2019 FIFA Women's World Cup qualification (UEFA)). This is displayed in the same format as the previous consensus (see UEFA Women's Euro 2017 qualifying) but now includes links to the full list of scorers on each article regarding the qualifying stage. It should be noted that the 2019 and 2021 qualifiers utilise Template:Goalscorers while the 2017 qualifiers (and several previous editions) do not.

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)


 * 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)


 * Consensus isn't only established through discussion. No one has disputed or reverted edits regarding the top goalscorers sections on those pages so it is considered that the format used is the consensus (see WP:EDITCONSENSUS for more information.) Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 15:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * More recent is the 2019 FIFA U-17 World Cup which has a different format, a full list of all goal scorers.
 * 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.
 * 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.
 * 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
 * It's not as you state youtself: "but now includes links to the full list of scorers".
 * 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."
 * 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Requested move 21 October 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Consensus to move. (closed by non-admin page mover)   SITH   (talk)   10:27, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

UEFA Women's Euro 2021 qualifying → UEFA Women's Euro 2022 qualifying – Unlike the 2020 Summer Olympics, the UEFA has now officially renamed the Women's Euro with the new year (see https://www.uefa.com/womenseuro/). Seany91 (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. UEFA have re-branded the competition. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: However UEFA Euro 2020 (men) moved to 2021, the official name is still UEFA Euro 2020 and not 2021. So why rename the women's article? Stef1999 (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why UEFA decided to treat the men's and women's Euros differently, who knows (sexism perhaps?), but they have and the articles should reflect that reality. Seany91 (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Since UEFA changed the name. Kante4 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support since it's official and appears widely recognized. Sakkura (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - the official name has changed to 2022 per this and this, amongst others. GiantSnowman 11:35, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems fairly simple and clearcut to me. It will be played in 2022 and UEFA has renamed it to reflect that. A redirect from 2021 seems enough for people who look for info about this and don't know. I actually came here and for a moment thought about moving it myself, before I saw there already was a discussion in progress. I agree with Seany91 comment. Dutchy45 (talk) 10:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nom has showed it is now the WP:OFFICIALNAME and this has now started to percolate down into the sources to become the WP:COMMONNAME. Eg., , . Although apparently not yet in every case . Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. RedPatchBoy (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Support since it's the official name. -- Lejman (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.