Talk:List of English women's football transfers summer 2024

	England portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Football: England / Women's football

	Association football portal 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 has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the women's football task force.

Women's sport: WOSO

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's sport (and women in sports), a WikiProject which aims to improve coverage of women in sports on Wikipedia. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Women's sportWikipedia:WikiProject Women's sportTemplate:WikiProject Women's sportWomen's sport articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	Women's association football portal This article is supported by the Women's football / soccer task force.

Incomplete content

The issues of updating and presentation of information in tables is resolved, at least, is not being disputed. Should the accuracy of any entries be disputed, individual threads to discuss them should be opened. Kingsif (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

Part 1

SuperJew, you seem to be reverting edits made by myself and CommunityNotesContributor that appear to be in line with consensus on other transfer pages such as the English men's equivalent and other countries (e.g. Scotland, France, Italy and United States) that use the table format and give a complete overview instead of leaving a half-empty table of "unattached" players that were in fact not unattached during the window. The precedent set on similar pages is to detail the former club in the "Moving from" column, the destination in the "Moving to" column, and, importantly, mode of transfer (including "free" transfers after release) which would address the reservations you have. Similarly, none of the other pages clutter the table with end of loan returns. Would be my understanding that adding these details would improve the page. Appreciate the effort though. Hjk1106 (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that we should be providing a more complete picture. For example Garcia to Monterrey, Roebuck to Barcelona, and Morgan to Washington Spirit; should be included per RS coverage of WSL transfers. [1] I recommend we change the wording of "This list includes transfers featuring at least one club from either the Women's Super League or the Women's Championship that were completed after the end of the winter 2023–24 transfer window on 2 February and before the end of the 2024 summer window." to reflect these changes such as "This list includes players transferring from at least one club from either the Women's Super League or the Women's Championship..." so as to include these relevant transfers. CNC (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What is a complete picture? Of the player's career? For player's career go to the player's page. Garcia joining Monterrey should be detailed on the page of Garcia and on any transfer pages relating to Monterrey and the Mexican league. Roebuck to Barca on Roebuck's page and transfer pages relating to Barca and the Spanish league.

Saying that Roebuck moved from Manchester City to Barca is painting an incorrect picture. She left Man City at the end of her contract and became a free agent. She then signed as a free agent for Barcelona. Barcelona did not pay a transfer fee for her to Manchester City. What is relevant to a page about English transfers is that she departed her English club, not where she ended up later after a month, 2 months, 6 months, or season. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You state "where a player ends up a month or 2 after departing England has no relevance to a page about English transfers" and while I understand your notion of what is a "direct transfer" and what isn't, it is not relevant to this page. A top player such as Mary Earps may run down their contract due to interest of a "big" club such as PSG so implying they have been released and are unattached is misleading. A further element is an influx of players moving from one league to a league like the US or Saudi Arabia shows patterns within the transfer landscape and league growth, and likewise those entering the league from other specific leagues may show similar patterns. This page, as the similar ones I previously linked, should show a large overview of a league's transfer market as a whole. Hjk1106 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The overview will show that most players leave at the end of their contracts and aren't revenue of transfers. --SuperJew (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So why not use the note "Player was released to free agency before joining new club" as is present on List of English women's football transfers winter 2023–24 for Lois Roche's transfer? CNC (talk) 12:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roche departed an English Championship club and signed with an English Championship club. The note is intended so it can be in one line instead of having duplicity and a double line. --SuperJew (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry regarding content I missed out the sentence about Earps running down their contract due to etc. That could be a reason of why she left. Or maybe she saw the direction Man U's women's team is going and didn't have any interest sticking around. Or maybe the club decided she wanted too much money and it's not worth it for them. Either way we shouldn't be guessing why she left at end of contract, but rather stating factually that that's what she did. --SuperJew (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does a reliable source reference a transfer from Utd to PSG then? [2] CNC (talk) 22:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I already answered you about that: The Guardian's page you're referencing lists the scope of top 5 European leagues which include both English and French leagues so therefore both Utd and PSG are in the scope and that's why they list them both. --SuperJew (talk) 22:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm That's in the list of WSL transfers, as I already referenced below. CNC (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the filter, I doubt the Guardian (or any news site for that matter) would invest in having the extra code to have the filter change the display to that extent. --SuperJew (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm Please tell me you checked for yourself before typing that. CNC (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to address your "Saying that Roebuck moved from Manchester City to Barca is painting an incorrect picture" concern, as previously stated in my initial post, that is why the "mode of transfer" column exists on all the other pages - to give that kind of context. Hjk1106 (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating the same arguement that it won't show that players are leaving at the end of contracts when it will, just like the other previously linked pages that are written in the way CommunityNotesContributor and I are trying to bring this page in line with. Are there any concerns you have that aren't actually solved? Hjk1106 (talk) 15:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say it wouldn't show it. I said it's not relevant --SuperJew (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to this one specific page by the set of parameters you are solely trying to impose, but relevant to the aforementioned similar pages that are all showing the info we are trying to add but you keep reverting? --Hjk1106 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Answer the question based on the page we are discussing. How is the club a player ends up at a week/month/etc. relevant to the player leaving their first team? If it's a direct transfer or loan it's relevant, as there could be a fee involved etc. --SuperJew (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and consensus around how to format similar articles. You're experienced enough to realise that. I have answered the question. The article is about the transfer window relating to England. Where has a player come from, where has a player gone to and via what mode of transfer? Both I and CNC have pointed that out to you but you seem to be intentionally missing the point in order to prevent anyone else making edits. Hjk1106 (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Player can come from free agency or go to free agency. --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that adding in movements which happen after the official move, like the examples above goes towards creating an unequal situation where a well known player like Roebuck will have the club she eventually ended up at added, while if say Faith Nokuthula returns to S. Africa and next week joins a club there, much less chance it will be added.. --SuperJew (talk) 20:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this consensus you're talking about? If it's a consensus, point me to where it's discussed and defined --SuperJew (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is genuinely tiresome. There is a clear consensus across all the linked articles I have pointed at several times but you are hiding behind WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead of acknowledging. Who cares at this point. I just took a glimpse at some of your most edited pages and got deja vu from the first page I looked at! Reading Talk:2016–17 A-League I quickly saw how naive it was to attempt to improve an article an edit warrer and sockpuppeter with a previous indefinite ban like yourself has taken ownership of. This instance is a complete carbon copy. In the words of Matilda Maniac, edits have to "suit the SuperJew Wikipedia format, which appears to be the only correct one whenever there is variance in formatting" and I see Macosal has also called you out for similar WP:OWNBEHAVIOUR. Interesting to note you were similarly in the wrong in that instance and the consensus formatting the others were trying to use are still in effect today in spite of your stubborn solo attempts to say otherwise. Says everything you need to know. Maybe at some point you will come to the same realisation about this article that just because it is not a change you have thought of, it might actually be an improvement. Disappointed but not surprised at this point that what I presumed would be a quick "thanks for pointing that out, I'll do that in future" from you has turned in to an exercise in what it is like to bang your head against a wall. Hjk1106 (talk) 20:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow you're doing a lot of work into researching my editing history and behaviour for an article that you only bothered interacting with two months after the transfers started, while also that you're only bothering to add information about the big names. Also kind of hard to take you seriously for conesnsus etc. about the subject of women's football transfers when you haven't added anything to the subject at all until 3 days ago. Maybe coming in making massive changes and expecting everyone to accept your say lying down isn't the best way to go about it? At least Matilda Maniac and Macosal had already a history of editing in the subject and actually have the credit to talk their talk about it. --SuperJew (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming we're not WP:CANVASSING, I'm pinging two notable editors of women's football pages @TheRowdyruffBoys and @‎Kingsif to balance this out (apologies in advance to both of you for trying to drag you into this discussion). CNC (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just pinged them in relation to Hjk talking about them and bringint them up from a discussion from 2016. I'd actually not really sure they'd be at all interested in this discussion anyways haha. Also they're both too independent minded with their own opinions to be good picks for Canvassing if that's what I was doing 😇 --SuperJew (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok fair enough. The two editors I pinged are very active on English/WSL based women's football pages, which is relevant to context of English transfers here, even if they will likely also be uninterested in the argument. CNC (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed at length here and here, at least. I think there was consensus to include movements of released players only during the current transfer window or until the new season starts. Seasider53 (talk) 23:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's 2am here so I skimmed through, but it seems that a lot of the comments (including yours) seem to favour players released to unattached, rather than listing a club they joined an x time period later. --SuperJew (talk) 23:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to leave them unattached. Happy to be corrected if that wasn’t the consensus. Seasider53 (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OFFTOPIC

"A lot of work" literally the first talk page I clicked on. But here we go again, trying to take ownership in exactly the same way you did on the tagged talk page. You claim that people only "bother" to add information about "big names" yet I literally only had the chance to make one edit that included all moves up to that point and you immediately reverted. I included players like Jade Moore going to TB Sun, massive move right? Like I would have had the chance to make further edits about "small names" because you do what your pattern of behaviour seems to always have been and claim ownership so nobody can make these changes. And at what point does me pointing out that Matilda Maniac and Macosal, good editors you seem to have learnt to not completely disrupt, have previously had issues with you doing this exact same thing (and as previously mention, were in the wrong), mean you should ping them? Very transparent. Hjk1106 (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

listen, bringing up someone else's editing behaviour (especially a discussion from almost a decade ago) and not commenting on actual content is quite low class --SuperJew (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite obviously they've given up. Your editing behaviour is however relevant historical context as it seems like not a lot has changed, even if the information doesn't help to win arguments or resolve consesnsus. CNC (talk) 21:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I repeatedly brought up content and you have ignored it every single time. Stop arguing I haven't done so when I spent a sizeable chunk of time doing so. If you had acknowledged the content in the first post instead of stubbornly attempting to own this article, we could have had it sorted in one interaction. And I'm bringing up your editing behaviour because after so many nonsensical replies I thought hmm what's this person's deal? Oh... historical pattern of exactly the same thing. I'd say it's pretty straight forward why that is relevant. But sure, call me low class because that's classy. Hjk1106 (talk) 21:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only interaction you're interested in is "oh you're right all knowing genius Hjk"... --SuperJew (talk) 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatantly bait. CNC (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

dude half of Hjk's comments are blatantly personal attacks --SuperJew (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. Clearly you're provocative comments are trying to acquire that though. CNC (talk) 22:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Projection much, this is what you're literally doing and have a previous history of. If you think somebody pointing out that you have been in this exact situation before and were also wrong is a personal attack then I don't think you know what a personal attack is. Hjk1106 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

calling someone a "edit warrer and sockpuppeter" is clearly personal attack which is both wrong and has nothing to do with the discussion. Also bringing up almost decade old irrelevant discussion someone was in is quite close --SuperJew (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw, an England international with over 50 caps is not a small name --SuperJew (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A championship player going to a new, low profile league? If you had greater awareness of context maybe this article would be better than the half-baked, useless list it is at the moment. Hjk1106 (talk) 21:54, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Hjk1106 has said it all already and clearly there isn't an ability to reach desirable consensus among the three of us (2 vs 1) compared to other similar transfer pages. Last thing I want to be wasting my time with is an RfC over the content that should be included, while notifying Women's football task and Football/England task force participants, but ultimately I don't see any other way this will be resolved (for future transfer articles as well for that matter) without one (unless other editors spontaneously appear with an opinion). The frustrating aspect is seeing RS such as The Guardian (among others) documenting these transfers from English club to another, such as most recently Mary Earps,[3], but this is being completely ignored in this article. Since when did we ignore the inclusion of content from RS, based on our own interpretation of a transfer? Ideally this article would be an expansion over the work done by outlets such as TG, not a reduction. CNC (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Guardian page you're citing is not for English transfers only, but rather all deals from Europe’s top five leagues: Every deal in the WSL, Liga F, Frauen-Bundesliga, Division 1 Féminine and Serie A Femminile. Therefore having Earps leaving Man U and later Earps joining PSG are both relevant to the scope of their page and both included correctly. But this page's scope is smaller. --SuperJew (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? You can refine this to Women's Super League transfers only, and this includes all the examples listed above: Earps, Garcia, Roebuck and Morgan - because they are all deemed to have transfered from WSL clubs. CNC (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You want to bring it to RfC or any other forum for a bigger discussion to get consensus please feel free to do so. However coming into an article and try to force a different way in your first and only edits is not a way to get consensus and not a way to get people to want to side with you --SuperJew (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not here to get people to side with me, only the idea that myself and Hjk1106 have presented and you categorically reject, in a WP:NOTGETTINGIT type way. I have faith in others listening to reason and logic. CNC (talk) 21:25, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt any new people would read this talk page, it's such a waste of time and energy once you realise who we're dealing with. Long since lost AGF that I had so much optimism for in my original post. Think I'm going to avoid in future. Thanks for being reasonable though. Hjk1106 (talk) 21:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt they would as well, hence a straightforward RfC would only be worthwhile when requesting comment from related task forces. My issue is more so that if this isn't resolved with this page, it will bleed into the next transfer article, continuing to effect other editors contributing in good faith and being put off (similar to yourself), while I respect the fact you've had enough. Personally I see the list of relevant and omitted transfers (as referenced) only growing and continuing to be excluded, which is only further frustrating me knowing that this page is incomplete and could be improved. CNC (talk) 21:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew, CommunityNotesContributor, and Hjk1106: Hi all, I got some pings, and I've read the whole thread. As I can see it, there's two parts to this conflict, and some arguing across purposes between both. While "incomplete content" isn't the issue as I see it, it's a symptom of the two areas of conflict and clearly the part that the reader sees, and which users want resolved.
So it looks like 1. the format of the table, and 2. the theory of transfer vs free agency and what counts for inclusion, are the issues.
Number 2 could either be very hard or very easy to solve: the difference between a free transfer at the end of a contract, and free agency before joining another club, is little understood and often disputed anyway. If we're trying to actually define it, it's going to be hard. That's why I just follow what the sources say. Compare the news of Ellie Roebuck and Lucy Bronze's transfers: Roebuck's is described as Man City to Barça, while Bronze is described as having left Barça, become a free agent, might sign for Chelsea. Just follow the sources.
Of course, this sort of becomes irrelevant depending on the table format. I have handled many ways of doing this, and the only one I would never recommend is the trade-recipient-club-centric one that NWSL articles use, though I can understand why they have to with the bonkers trade system. The format I prefer is one that lists previous club, new club, and mode of transfer separately. It doesn't have to be player-centric but generally is easier to understand that way. And while what transfers 'count' could still be up for debate, the separation of information makes it easier to point directly to a source for each column. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTY is a more appropriate place to discuss. No one has reverted my edits more than SuperJew, 2 in the last 5 weeks, and just because I hardly ever engage in responding to his reverts anymore is not a reflection of whether I believe the reverts are warranted, I just dont have the energy or time to debate against stubborn. I don't consider pinging me to the conversation as WP:CANVASSING, but I have been similarly described as displaying that behaviour in debates on Talk pages that likely have very little traffic (like this article and indeed lots of list articles). Matilda Maniac (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OFFTOPIC

Apologies, I didn't think bringing up your name to point out someone who has previously had to deal with this sort of behaviour from SJ would mean you would pinged in to this discussion. Hjk1106 (talk) 22:17, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

bringing up someone else's name because they of an interaction they had with me almost a decade ago has no relevance to this discussion anyway. --SuperJew (talk) 22:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many times will you intentionally miss the point. I merely stated "this has happened in exactly the same way before, maybe you can learn a lesson?" Hjk1106 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not here to teach me a lesson. If you have a problem with my editing behaviour here on this page and now in this time period, talk about that and don't bring up something unrelated to you from over a decade ago. --SuperJew (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I took your advice and shared with FOOTY in an attempt to gain more opinions on this topic. CNC (talk) 22:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple and has been achieved on countless other similar pages: if a player joins another club within that window, their new club is listed and you just note it down as a free agency move. Otherwise they have gone unattached throughout the window. That is what other pages do and what my original comment was advocating but unfortunately SuperJew was unwilling to allow any other method than the one they implemented. Hjk1106 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer Kingsif. I have two questions about "just follow the sources": 1. What happens if we have 2 (let's say same level) sources which describe the same move/set of moves in different ways. 2. What do we do with less big name players who won't get as much coverage? Just as an example Polly Doran joined Crystal Palace from Melbourne Victory a couple of seasons ago. It was quite unclear from sources if it was a loan or permanent transfer (CPFC, Melb, CPFC extension, CPFC dep, Linkopings). --SuperJew (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew: For the second possibility - really, likelihood, given there are more small-name than big-name players - then we still follow the sources. If there is 'missing' information, leave that column blank. If there is unclear information, use something general (if possible) and add an WP:explanatory footnote with some explanation. For the first possibility, when there's contradictory information, then I would again recommend either blank column/accurate generic statement, plus an explanatory footnote. Say we have two same level sources, and one says free transfer and one says free agency, while it is more likely to be free agency, it could just be blank with a note that attributes both. Kingsif (talk) 22:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that genuinely all this is based on? You can't hold back information on 99% of transactions because one isn't as clear as you'd like it to be. Every other article manages Hjk1106 (talk) 22:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly this isn't "all this is based on" It's an example (i.e. a thing characteristic of its kind or illustrating a general rule, OED). Secondly, it's not holding back information - it's talking about what is the scope of this page. You're claiming that (for example) not writing that Roebuck joined Barca is holding back information because you think it's part of the transaction. I, however, am claiming it's not part of the transaction, i.e. the full transaction (relevant to the scope of English women's football) is that Roebuck left Manchester City. --SuperJew (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're recycling the same issue that both I and CNC have already addressed Hjk1106 (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per RS, she transfered from City to Barca (as a free agent). [4] Do you have a reliable source discrediting that? CNC (talk) 22:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay regarding the Guardian's transfer list, again, it's not conclusive in any way, as it lists all the leagues so of course it'll list both English and Spanish clubs. However looking further into this, I see here that Roebuck actually signed a pre-contract with Barca, so this case is different.

Otoh, if we take Emma Koivisto or Nikola Karczewska, in both cases the mentions of the English club is just in line with the history of clubs she played with and it's understood she signed as a free agent.

Anyways this is a case by case issue. --SuperJew (talk) 22:38, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, as frustrating as trying to improve this page is, I appreciate how much detail and effort you are going to to get this stuff "accurate" but this is also why the tweaks i recommended in the first place help and not hinder you. You do not need to get in to the mixed reports about whether a pre contract was signed or whether discussions took place but a contract was signed after because either way under the changes proposed, they will be listed as moving to their new club for free. I'm not trying to complicate things for you, quite the contrary. Please tell me you understand where I'm coming from. Hjk1106 (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think also having any player released moving to "unattached" except for rare cases such as a pre-contract, is simple enough. And as you say it's more accurate. Also a player who say is released in June by club A and in September joins club B, it's quite clear it's not the same transaction, yet such a format would suggest it is. Also as I previously stated, I fear this can create unbalance as if we have 2 players released in June, one a starting keeper for a top-10 international team and the other a squaddie young player who hasn't been called-up yet, if both players join a new club in September, it's quite clear that if one gets missed which one it will be. --SuperJew (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this goes with what Kingsif said above. This page is league-centric more than player-centric. --SuperJew (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per Earps, was set to join PSG prior to leaving Utd [5][6]. CNC (talk) 23:07, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since May Garcia was set to join Monterrey [7] and Morgan was set to join Washington Spirit [8], prior to leaving respective English clubs and transferring. Reliable sources are reliable for a reason, and I shouldn't have to provide evidence of why they are reliable. CNC (talk) 23:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, we don't just assume a source is reliable. There are parameters for that. But I assume that's not what you meant?

If your meaning was that you don't have to provide evidence for the information you're providing (namely that Garcia/Morgan were actually moves that were in the making and the release from contract was to allow them to do it), then of course you have to provide that evidence. Otherwise we could write whatever we want and tell readers to go look for the sources themselves? --SuperJew (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEGUARDIAN is an RS for facts, so yes we assume it's very much reliable. No we don't need to add background context to prove these were transfers, RS is enough. If anyone wants to find out background information then can use a search engine as this isn't what the scope of this article. Citations of transfers should be based on RS, there is no need to back it up with WP:CRYSTALBALL references as you have done with Roebuck ie "Roebuck set to join Barclone" - so what? CNC (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what you're saying with Roebuck is that we should have followed what a reliable source said all along, great! Now can you discredit the other examples: Garcia, Morgan and Earps? Thanks. Also, are you intentionally ignoring that it says "Club A to Club B" for each of those examples? It's getting hard to tell. CNC (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure I admitted Roebuck was a different case which I wasn't aware of it's details until I looked into it, part of that because no one else brought in a reliable source or even mentioned this. Also I'm not sure what you mean by it says "Club A to Club B" for each of those examples - Where are you talking about, and I hope it's not the Guardian's transfer list of the top 5 European club which seems to be the only source you think exists --SuperJew (talk) 23:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you can't discredit it then? Just above I provided further reliable sources which further confirms why The Guardian is a reliable source, which should never have been doubted. CNC (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be claiming (not for the first time) that I'm trying to say The Guardian isn't a reliable source. Which isn't at all what I'm saying. I'm not having any go about it's reliability or credibility. All I'm saying is the specific page you brought as your source multiple times is a page which it's scope is Europe's top 5 leagues, and therefore transfers of all those leagues would appear in it - therefore having it on that page doesn't translate to having it on a Wiki page which scope is English women's football transfers. --SuperJew (talk) 23:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It documents English women's football transfers from WSL clubs, as I've already told you over and over again. Please try and WP:LISTEN to what I am saying. CNC (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying it's just wrong. The page doesn't document English women's football transfers from WSL clubs, but rather documents Women’s transfer window summer 2024 – all deals from Europe’s top five leagues - Every deal in the WSL, Liga F, Frauen-Bundesliga, Division 1 Féminine and Serie A Femminile (emphasis mine). SuperJew (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith, this must come down to comptency at this point: "the ability to read sources and assess their reliability". Per source [9]

Mary Earps: Manchester United to Paris Saint-Germain. Free. Y
Lucia Garcia: Manchester United to Monterrey. Free. Y
Ellie Roebuck: Manchester City to Barcelona. Free agency. Y
Esme Morgan: Manchester City to Washington Spirit. Free. Y

As you are aware, United and City are WSL clubs. If we're including Roebuck that moved from free agency with a note, we're including the rest that in that list that were free transfers. You've failed to discredit this reliable source despite multiple requests to do so. CNC (talk) 09:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By this point I must assume you're deliberately not bothering to read my answers. I have multiple times told you I don't doubt the reliability of The Guardian and that I'm not trying to discredit the source as a source. The only issue is that it's scope is different from the scope of this article and therefore the information might not be relevant.

Here I'll give you an example. Say you're writing a Wikipedia article about types of citrus fruits including oranges and lemons, and you find a source in a reliable newspaper that details different types of popular fruits, including oranges, apples, pears, and bananas. According to this source, you wouldn't add information about a Granny Smith apple since it's not in the scope of the Wiki article, even though the newspaper gives information about it since the scope they chose to write about is larger.

Again, this is not a question of reliability in any way and I never questioned it. It's a question of scope of both the referenced and the referencing and the relevance between them. --SuperJew (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By discredit the source I mean provide an RS that discredits the content. Given you've failed to do so after repeatedly being asked, I rest my case, so no need for further circular or straw man arguments. As you elaborated, being unable to recognise the scope of relevant content for an article would be a competency issue for sure. CNC (talk) 10:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're doing quite the one editor show. Anyone say anything different? "Quiet down you don't know what you're talking about and I'll completely ignore what you say anything and reply irrelevant answers" Honestly quite sad you seem to have a competency issue and are missing the basic fact that the scope of transfers in and out of the English women's football leagues is different than the scope of transfers in and out the top 5 women's leagues in Europe (I'll help you out: the WSL is in both scopes, Women's Championship is only in the first, while Liga F, Frauen-Bundesliga, D1 Féminine, and Serie A Femminile are only in the second. Perhaps a Venn diagram would help you understand?)

I also like how your editing is just showing my point: You're so stressed on having a "complete picture" that you completely missed the transfer of Olivia Smith to Liverpool even though it was in one of the reliable sources you cited.

--SuperJew (talk) 11:55, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's refereshing that WP:PA is all you have left. I didn't miss Smith, I got an edit conflict from you when trying to add. Interesting differences: I used PRT not POR flagicon (though both are correct), I used the full title not a summary and cited news not web, but you included Liverpool F.C. wikilink. Congrats for WP:WINNING the edit conflict though! In all seriousness, it's good to see we are on very similar pages now, and a relief to be able to work collaboratively. I was otherwise "kept behind" correcting caldentey that you incorrectly added as unattached, even though the source didn't support the claim, and RS documented a free transfer, but didn't feel put out as I don't see editing as a contest. We're all here to improve the encylopedia at the end of the day. CNC (talk) 12:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

– For any editors led here by pings or from the notification at FOOTY, the missing transfers have now been added. CNC (talk) 10:58, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperJew and CommunityNotesContributor: Guys, if we're confident the question of table format is resolved, I will close this thread with the recommendation that individual entries are brought to discussion if there's any question about accuracy of how transfers are represented. Kingsif (talk) 20:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh we're done here it seems, no more issues at present, not from me at least even if can't speak for everyone. New topics can always be opened with any specific issues/concerns over content included etc as you say. CNC (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Part 2

@SuperJew. Re same story different player, Emma Koivisto per your revert [10]. Will try and make this as clear as possible:

Didn't leave Liverpool on May 17: "will leave the club upon the expiry of their contracts at the end of this season." [11]
Signed for AC Milan on June 26: "effective from 1 July 2024." [12]
Set to join AC Milam on July 1: "following the expiry of her contract with the Reds." [13]

She was never a free agent or unattached. She signed for Milan on June 26, prior to the expiry of her contract with Liverpool on July 1, as sources confirm. This is why it's documented as a free transfer from Liverpool to Milan [14]. CNC (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

OFF TOPIC

I'm gonna stay awayfrom this page and it can stay CNC's little project which will be the big names and where they ended up eventually. honestly had enough --SuperJew (talk) 20:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in becoming a majority contributor in any article, never have, and fortunately it's never happened. So can't imagine the false sense of responsibility or ownership. I'm more interested in making corrections or including missing information as I've already done. If the article fails to remain updated I'll leave it with an update needed template, no issues there. CNC (talk) 20:48, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah nice, so you come to an article, work hard to abrasively chase away the editor who is actually contributing to it, and then going to walk away. Nice! Taking ownership so you can let it rot. --SuperJew (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, let's focus on the content. I can moderate if you don't want to reply to each other, but I'd rather not. Kingsif (talk) 21:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job CNC on closing another disucssion someone opened to talk. Your behaviour keeps on showing you're not actually interested in discussing anything. --SuperJew (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have re-opened Part 2 for you, since you still have more to say. What's your issue with Part 2? CNC (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Part 3

@CommunityNotesContributor and Hjk1106: Please make the updates to the article (see rest of talk page for what's missing exactly)! There are many missing transfers and we wouldn't want there to be incomplete content! Thank you, --SuperJew (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bex Rayner is leaving Sheffield United

@CommunityNotesContributor: Please update. Here is the source. I wouldn't want to log it wrongly --SuperJew (talk) 08:06, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

OFF TOPIC
Not done anyone is welcome to edit this page, there is no ownership. CNC (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] I'm just afraid I'll do it wrongly against CNC consensus. If you think there's no ownership, please don't act as the owner of the page thank you. --SuperJew (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham City signed Tegan McGowan

@CommunityNotesContributor: Please update. Here is the source. I wouldn't want to add it wrongly not according to the CNC consensus. Thank you! --SuperJew (talk) 08:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

OFF TOPIC

Not done anyone is welcome to edit this page, there is no ownership. CNC (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just afraid I'll do it wrongly against CNC consensus. If you think there's no ownership, please don't act as the owner of the page thank you. --SuperJew (talk) 08:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold, you can't break it! Is there anything I can help you with in particular? CNC (talk) 09:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was and then got hounded and chased away by you so I have no interest in editing the page under your ownership. --SuperJew (talk) 09:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't been hounded and there's no need to have a tantrum. You can just return to editing the page when you're ready. No one owns this content so I suggest you drop the stick and get over it. CNC (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet you act as if you own the page. Any attempt at disucssion with you is shut down. --SuperJew (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sunderland signed Demi Lambourne

@CommunityNotesContributor: Please update. Here is the source. --SuperJew (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

OFF TOPIC
Not done I've now muted your notifications. Hopefully another editor can help with your request. CNC (talk) 10:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply] I hope you realise the irony that in your quest to be providing a more complete picture, you've actually created a situation where the page is much less up to date and much less a complete picture. --SuperJew (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]