Talk:2022–23 S.L. Benfica season

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Linking Benfica within "Football box collapsible"[edit]

Sakiv (talk · contribs) says that it is WP:OVERLINK to link Benfica inside {{Football box collapsible}}, per MOS:OVERLINK, which states "An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding." Linking Benfica doesn't make anything difficult. But what really matters here is MOS:REPEATLINK, which states "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article". However, Sakiv links other clubs twice and doesn't even leave a link for Benfica – and that is a blatant contradiction. MOS:REPEATLINK also states that a link "[...] may be repeated if helpful for readers, such as in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead". Clubs have always been given a link more than one time within templates, be in on club season articles, on competition articles, etc. Also, by not linking Benfica inside infoboxes, it creates a terrible aesthetic: boldface and no link vs. bolface and a link. Awful. SLBedit (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you here. First, let our discussion be civil and don't resort to personalization. Your say that Benfica has been fully delinked is not true. Benfica is already linked in all three table templates (League/Taça da Liga/Champions league) as well as the twice lede above. That's full 5 times. I don't think this makes it that hard for readers, if they want to read about the main article. For Benfica's opponents, linking them twice in the same subsection is not excessive linking and preserves the order of the article. We should not disagree on such small matters.--Sakiv (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those table templates are separate from other templates. I wrote you didn't leave a Benfica link within "Football box collapsible" templates. You just left a link in the lead, one above the infobox (which is separate from the lead), and only two, not three, in the tables (you removed a link from Taça da Liga). And that's WP:UNDERLINK. The sections/subsections that include matches are separate from the ones you and I have mentioned, thus they should have a link. If someone opens this article and clicks on "Pre-season friendlies", they can't go to the Benfica page from there, they have to scroll up or down. The only logical compromise would be to link Benfica and other clubs once in each section, but it would still look weird, especially in (sub)sections with two matches only, and I'm not for it. It would be a small matter if it didn't affect navigation and aesthetics. SLBedit (talk) 19:46, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you just ignored this discussion? "You have gone too far"? There is no prose about the preseason, only friendly matches, and one of them in December 2022. SLBedit (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a solution, I wanted to maintain a link in each subsection, but it seems that you reject all solutions and only want to implement your point of view. You can clearly see what I did. As for the "pre-season and friendlies" section I wanted to conform with other big club season articles. This is no longer an encyclopedia! If you want your own encyclopedia you can create one but here you have to accept the opinion of others. Sakiv (talk) 00:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pre-season and friendlies" is misleading because there's no prose about the pre-season; the section only lists friendly matches. Before the latest (and most likely the last) friendly of the season, it made sense to show "Pre-season friendlies", as they all were played during pre-season, but now it's different. As for the links, why did you link "Friendly" more than once then? SLBedit (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stop edit warring. SLBedit (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You definitely want a block by doing this damaging behavior. In the last two seasons we did not link Benfica in every footballbox. So it's you who needs to stop.--Sakiv (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus at WT:FOOTY? If not, you should stop, as there is no overlinking in templates. SLBedit (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Matchday 20 before matchday 18[edit]

@BigLordFlash: Benfica's matchday 20 will be played before matchday 18, and, according to the Liga Portugal website, I was right about sorting those matches per date (as it was the most logical thing to do), not per matchday. Let's not edit war over this. SLBedit (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SLBedit: But the round 4 was played before round 3 and its sorted per number of round. Matches are sorted per number of round, not per date. BigLordFlash (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't see that, otherwise, I would have changed it. I think they should be sorted per date if brought forward, like Liga Portugal did. I'll ask at WT:FOOTY. SLBedit (talk) 21:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted myself and will await a reply at WT:FOOTY. SLBedit (talk) 21:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]