Talk:Málaga CF

Adding current players profiles

There are a couple of players that do not have their profile and I was considering translating it from Wikipedia Spanish pages, is this ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockbottom (talk • contribs) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is OK. Please help us to create the wikipedia pages for Atletico Málagueño's players! —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Etzo (talk • contribs) 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Data and History - This is not fair

Can someone explain me why this club has his data and history separated into two different entries, CD Málaga and Málaga CF, while Fiorentina, which happened to have the very same fate, has everything merged in just one single entry?

I believe CD Málaga and Málaga CF history and data should also be merged into only one entry, being that Málaga CF is just the natural succession of CD Málaga and in the same fashion that ACF Fiorentina is from AC Fiorentina.(Mr Wesker (talk) 09:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC))

Split you the Fiorentina article, Málaga CF not is the sucessor of CD Málaga. If Málaga want be the sucessor of Málaga, firt must be pay the debts of CD Málaga. (Raymond Cruise (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Split it yourself, along with Torino, Palermo, Napoli and Catania which are in the same situation and are doing exactly the same merging, being you the person claiming to split stats. But no, you plain do it here and in nowhere else, for a reason.

We are all the same here in Wikipedia, so if these Wikipedia articles are considering the refounded clubs as "heirs" of previous disappeared ones, merging the stats of both, then this is also the way the stats of CD Málaga and Málaga CF should be. (Mr Wesker (talk) 22:38, 23 July 2008 (UTC))

Málaga CF is the heir of CD Málaga

Maybe it's not a legal recognized succession, but Málaga CF is the natural heir of CD Málaga in almost all ways. Exposition of the reasons follows:

• Málaga CF keeps all signals of identity that CD Málaga previously portrayed. It has exactly the same logo and uses exactly the same colours. It also plays in the same stadium, La Rosaleda and even has the same official anthems, Málaga La Bombonera. All in this club is exactly the same it was before. The only REAL DIFFERENCE is the name, which is Málaga in both of them, but one being Club Deportivo and the other Club de Fútbol, but that's all. If Málaga CF wouldn't be the heir of CD Málaga, it would probably have other different signals in order to have a new identity, but it doesn't, as what the clubs wants is clearly preserve continuity.

• Málaga CF has an association of retired ex-players of the club, which include retired ex-players of CD Málaga. If Málaga CF wouldn't be the heir of CD Málaga, there would be no reason these CD Málaga ex-players would be affiliated in this associated, together with the Málaga CF ones. They are there because Málaga CF is now the heir of what CD Málaga was, which includes its ex-players.

• Málaga CF has the CD Málaga trophies in its display cabinets, and all of them are its property. If Málaga CF wouldn't be the heir of CD Málaga, there would be absolute no reason these trophies would be in Málaga CF display cabinets. They would be anywhere else, but not along Málaga CF ones, because CD Málaga and Málaga CF supposedly not have any relation. But they have.

• Even if some official institutions split the data of CD Málaga and Málaga CF in two separate entries, others institutions as official do merging of the data of CD Málaga and Málaga CF aswell, with absolutely no legal issues given because of the situation. This is the case of ONLAE (Organismo Nacional Loterías y Apuestas del Estado), the official organism which carries the Football pools in Spain (among other things) and which considers CD Málaga and Málaga CF into a sole "Málaga" entry, as stated in its [historical classification] section, in its [history of clubs] section, or in its [history of matches] section.

• And most importantly, as some Fiorentina fan said here in Wikipedia (they share the same situation): "There are no AC Fiorentina fans and ACF Fiorentina fans, there are just Fiorentina fans". It is exactly the same here. There are no CD Málaga fans and Málaga CF fans, there are just Málaga fans. This wouldn't be the case if they would be different clubs with different identity. But they are, and they share it completely.

• And even if this is not directly related to Málaga, there are also other clubs with articles here in Wikipedia, which have had the same fate of disappearing and refunding in their history, and are allowed to have merged all their history (as the former and the new club which acts as heir) in their single respective entries. Some examples are the Spanish clubs Mérida UD and Burgos CF and the Italian clubs U.S. Città di Palermo, S.S.C. Napoli, Torino F.C., Calcio Catania and ACF Fiorentina. In any of these case exist two separate articles doing splitting of the former and the new, heir club.

These are some of the reasons that consider CD Málaga and Málaga CF stats should be in the same article: the one of the actual Málaga CF, as this is the heir of CD Málaga to the eyes of almost everybody. There's no need for a separate article for CD Málaga when you can know everything about it in the article of its heir, Málaga CF. It's just a waste to have this kind of separation of what, maybe not legally, but naturally is the same. (Mr Wesker (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC))

Article separating again

I though this was settled up many months ago, but the user Raymond Cruise is now once again removing all CD Málaga info from the Málaga CF one and adding it to a separate CD Málaga article. No real need to do this. Málaga CF is the heir of CD Málaga, as it was stated with arguments in this discussion page. Málaga CF was built from the reserve team of CD Málaga upon its demise with the intention of self-developing itself into a carbon copy of its disappeared ancestor, and as such, all the past merits now belong to it. They retain everything from it, even its trophies and acknowledgements, and is the one moving forward its legacy, also stating clear its past with history museum sections and ex-players association from that era. As such, and as it's the case of many teams in the same situation here in Wikipedia, there's no point into having two different articles for what it's essentially the same thing. It would be incoherent. (Mr Wesker (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

According official website of malaga cf http://www.malagacf.es/, According LFP http://www.lfp.es/, and According all websites and all people that I Know. Is the last time, friend. your argument of the heir is a authentic stupidity and No one believes anyone --Raymond Cruise (talk) 15:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

All spanish football club are separate, if yet still remain some clubs, immediately I will edit these clubs. do you known some club? --Raymond Cruise (talk) 15:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

U.S. Città di Palermo, S.S.C. Napoli, Torino F.C., Calcio Catania, ACF Fiorentina. Are you still thinking this is an authentic stupidity no one believes? (Mr Wesker (talk) 15:40, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Yes, is a stupidity, These clubs are spanish? In Italy exist a law that permits to clubs be refounded, In Spain not, chaoo. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

No. Not a refounding. Those are still separate entities from their originals, with a different name, a separate register and a new founded date. There is no such law to allows any resurrecting of a disappeared entity. What is dead, it's dead forever and can't be brought back. Yet, these clubs prove heritage to their disappeared ancestors by adapting their shape and even retriving their trophies and belongings, and thus, the merits of the originals are brought back to them. Atlético Malagueño did that in 1994 when it was re-transformed into a carbon copy of the fallen CD Málaga. No one insists so much into separating them. (Mr Wesker (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

OK, the seasons and honours of CD Málaga can be add to Málaga CF article, but not can join to information of Málaga CF. the information of every club separately. At beggining of Málaga CF article, makes one reference for differentiate either clubs. --Raymond Cruise (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I agree with this. But please, let's keep it this way and don't revert back. I wouldn't want to see the polemic changes and this discussion brought back once again in the future. Adios. (Mr Wesker (talk) 16:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC))

Reads like a commercial...

The part on the Sheikh sounds like a promotion. If Al Thani is so great in "achieving his projects' goals in just two years time", why didn't he pay the players over the summer and sold some of Malaga's best and most important players abroad?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.199.180.109 (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Article contradicts itself as of now

I have noticed there has been several modifications done to the article. The first and most important one is the "Founded" data in the Infobox which has been changed from 1948 to 1904, according to the new information officially provided by the club since several months ago. Also, the "Season to Season" section has been modified to merge the 1929-1992 years of CD Málaga with the 1992-present years of Atlético Malagueño / Málaga CF in a joint line, therefore dismissing all the 1949-1992 years of Atlético Malagueño entirely. While I don't disagree with these modifications, I can see several remnants still present in the article from the previous line of procedure (that is, Málaga CF was a separate club founded in 1948 and not a part of the one founded in 1904 and which ceased to exist in 1992) which contradict the new one.

• The "History" section of the article is still attached to the old situation. It mentions a club founded in 1948 which was the reserve team of a separate club previously founded and which ceased to exist in 1992. There are brief mentions to the 1948-1992 gap of years and NO mention at all to anything that took happen before 1948 and beginning with 1904. This is the major issue of contradiction of the article as it doesn't match neither with the 1904 founding date nor with the updated "Season to Season" section.

• The "History" section is headed by an external reference to the CD Málaga article in a ambiguous manner as of now, like somehow attempting to appoint to a diferent club apparently unrelated to this one for some reason. In the new situation, CD Málaga and Málaga CF are supposed to be the same entity, the same thing, and their trajectories even overlap themselves in this article as can be seen in the "Season to Season". There's no point in going to another article in order to obtain certain information which should actually be in this article given the new situation. And due to the aforementioned, the separate CD Málaga article has lost all its reason of existence as a separate article covering a separate club which is now supposed to be a inherent part of Málaga CF according to what the club is now oficially stating.

• The "Honours" section appoints the trophies won since the nineties and onwards and then sub-sections to "Honours CD Málaga" with trophies won previously to the nineties, with redundant categories that were already in the previous like the "Segunda División" and "Trofeo Costa del Sol" trophies. Given the new situation, I don't see the need to do this classification. The "Note" is also irrelevant as of now, given that we now understand CD Málaga and Málaga CF as part of the same club which was named differently before and after. Or that's what the club is pretending to tell us in their website (see their "Previous names of the team through history" line).

• The summary which is in the "Season to Season" section is now structured in five sub-classifications which could be confusing for the reader. The club simplifies this in their website by combining all the seasons in "Primera División", "Segunda División" and "Segunda División B" (no mention to "Tercera División" seasons, but they should be assumed) in the same joint basis. If the Wikipedia article strictly follows what they say regarding the year of fundation of the club as of being 1904, then this summary should be readapted into the same as theirs: a sole category with all seasons together and no naming classification to structure them.

• The "Selected former players" and "Selected former coaches" sections both have a note saying something in the likes of: "This list includes players/coaches of CD Málaga and current Málaga CF". This distinction is unnecessary given the new situation, therefore there's no need of this remark. The "categories" links in each section should also be joint into one for the same reason, rather than having two separate articles referencing two separate clubs.

• The presence CD Málaga article in the "See also" section. It applies the same to what was stated in point 2.

• The "category" sections reference to "Association football clubs established in 1948" and "1948 establishments in Spain".

So please, if the article has or seems to have ben adapted to the new situation officially given by the club (which is fine with me), then this has to be done entirely and not just change a few things while leaving the rest as it previously was. Anyone not familiar with the club background at all which goes and reads the article as it is now can be quite mistaked by the series of contradictory informations there are now in there because of confronting situations of what the club considers regarding its past history. (Mr Wesker (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2012 (UTC))

History section

Would it be possible for someone either bi-lingual or skilled enough in both English and Spanish languages (or at least, someone either native or skilled enough in English language with a minimal understanding of Spanish language) to bring an accurate English translation of the History section which is now in the Spanish Wikipedia article [1]?

The Spanish equivalent of this article is now featuring a longer and more complete History section that traces the origins of the club all the way back to 1904. This is the foundation year Málaga CF is now oficially considering of its own, as it can be seen in the club website [2]. The club no longer recognises its origin as starting in 1948 with Club Atlético Malagueño, which is what the English article reflects in the History section. Therefore, a change is needed, and my guess regarding the best option to do it is to perform a English translation of the History section featured in the Spanish article.

If there are no users interested to do this, then I'll try to do it myself at a certain date. If there's any objections to it, please bring them in this discussion section. (Mr Wesker (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2012 (UTC))

Objection. Claiming to be founded in 1904 is not actually being founded in 1904. Current Málaga CF was founded in 1949, and changed it name in 1994. If it's the natural heir, might be, but it's a fact that this is not the very same club. Andalús (talk) 23:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, if you don't agree, then you can always contact the club and see what they answer you. This is not something to be discussed here either. Given the official statement from Málaga CF, the club is definitely tracing its founding roots to 1904, and this article is also supporting this as a fact. And this is reflected in several instances of the article EXCEPT for the history section, which is minimal to none.

That's why I was requesting IF someone would be able to expand it according to the historic background situation the club is currently proposing. Translating the Spanish Wikipedia history section equivalent would be enough. If you are not willing to either contribuite this or even support this new position the club is enforcing, then you are welcome. (Mr Wesker (talk) 02:28, 20 March 2013 (UTC))

Dortmund - Malaga 2013

I made an edit to the section about the Dortmund vs Malaga Champions League quarter-final in 2013 because the old entry did not cite its sources properly. Reference no 16 makes it clear that the two "highly controversial goals" in that game were Malaga's second and Dortmund's third, thus giving both sides something to have grievances about. The way this section was written before, however, stated that two of Dortmund's goals were controversial. (128.176.228.13 (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC))

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Málaga CF. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121109073238/http://www.malagacf.com/en/club/organisation to http://www.malagacf.com/en/club/organisation
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101108112457/http://www.malagacf.com/noticias/manuel-pellegrini-nuevo-entrenador-del-malaga-club-de-futbol-3501.html to http://www.malagacf.com/noticias/manuel-pellegrini-nuevo-entrenador-del-malaga-club-de-futbol-3501.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Málaga CF squad section

According to the rules of the Royal Spanish Football Federation (point 4 on page 5: https://rfef.es/sites/default/files/images19/001_primera_y_segunda_division.pdf) players who wear a squad number between 1 and 25 are part of the first team and those who wear squad number 26 onwards are part of the reserve teams who have been called up to the first team, so I think they should be listed separately so that people can see the difference between first team players and players who, although they have been called up to the first team, are officially members of the reserve teams (whether they have played 1 match with the first team or 100 matches). AlejandroR1990 (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

First-team squad

I would like to improve the Malaga CF page by using the 'Current squad' format rather than the 'First-team squad' format when listing the players in the team. The reason for this is because if you exclude youth players it can give the impression to the reader that these players are not involved in the first team and playing regularly with the club. This is not true because 26 Antonito Cordero and 35 Aaron Ochoa are playing regular football for Malaga CF. For example, Cordero has scored two goals in the first three games of the 24/25 La Liga 2 season.

The 'Current squad' layout is used for the majority of football teams including many in La Liga 2. Feel free to visit the pages of other clubs (none of which I have edited) and you will see that a lot of them use this format to reflect the regular involvement of youth contract players.

Yes, it is true that these players are registered as reserves. Young players are more likely to be registered as reserves because players over the age of 23 must be given professional contracts by their clubs. Young players who have recently transitioned from the reserve or B team are of course still on reserve contracts until they become professionals. However I believe if a player on a reserve contract is regularly featuring for the first team they should be grouped with the first team players they play alongside.

I don't think the insistence on using the 'First-team squad' format is helpful and I think the format is less relevant to this particular club at this moment in time. Especially because, as the other user has pointed out in edit history notes, readers can already see which players are registered as professionals by their 1-25 squad numbers.

I would like to reiterate that the 'Current squad' format is widely used across Wikipedia and the edits I have made are in line with many other FC pages. These edits are in no way vandalism as labelled by the other user.

I would also like to point out that these reserves are listed as part of the Malaga 2024/25 squad on the official La Liga website - https://www.laliga.com/en-GB/clubs/malaga-cf/squad - although I have only included 2 reserves in the first team because for the others we appear to agree that they have not had enough first team involvement yet.

I think the other user should reflect on which format is more accurate and informative to someone visiting this page rather than their own preferences. In the 'Current squad' format a reader would be informed of which youth players are involved with the first team and to what extent. In the other user's preferred format that would not be the case. In my opinion the other user has been to stubborn and too concerned with the contractual status of players rather than their actions on the pitch which is more relevant. For example, if a youth player on a reserve contract played every single minute for Malaga CF in the upcoming La Liga 2 season and played zero minutes for the reserve team Atletico Malagueno the other user would group that player in the reserve team section that redirects to the Atletico Malagueno page. Quote from the other user in their edit history notes: "Don't care how many matches a player played with first team. If he wear a squad number over 25 he's a RESERVE player."

I also believe I have tried to compromise in a way the other user has not. In the 'Current squad' format a reader can still see who is registered on first-team contracts because of their 1-25 squad number as explained in the user's above post. However in the other user's preferred 'First-team squad' format the reader would not be aware of a youth player featuring and contributing to the first team, as is the case with Cordero and Ochoa at the time of writing.

I hope this explains the differences in opinion between myself and the other user. It is of course a matter of opinion as to which layout is more appropriate. MalaguistaUK (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that they wear numbers 26 onwards already indicates that they are players from the reserve teams who are related in some way to the first team, there is no need to put them together. AlejandroR1990 (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually the opposite is true - there is no need to separate them. The squad numbers tell you who is registered as a professional player. You would list a youth player who plays 1 minute this season alongside a youth players who plays 1000. The 'Current squad' format fixes that problem and also shows who is registered as a first team player. It is common practice on Wikipedia and more appropriate in the case of Malaga CF.

I will likely not make another edit as I have made my point and I agree that an edit war is silly behaviour from us both. But I really do not see why is it essential to group regular first team players away from their team mates only because of their contract status. MalaguistaUK (talk) 23:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

You actually did make another edit, and you continued the edit war. That was not a good idea. Drmies (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Drmies I actually undid your edit before posting the comment you have replied to. I have explained in lengthy detail why I have been making edits. It appears you have no response to the reasons I have given and then you block me. Is this not the whole point of the Talk page? The other user is equally involved in the edit war as myself. You have no explanation why you reverted back to the previous format and your contribution here is not helpful. 2A02:C7C:E17D:A400:159F:9FE0:EC70:CBDD (talk) 07:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:C7C:E17D:A400:159F:9FE0:EC70:CBDD Yes, but I stopped to editing when he told me. And yes, the format in another Spanish clubs is that, but I think that it has to evolve because in Spanish football leagues the numbeering is more regulated that in other several countries (in Italy, for example, a first team player could wear 90 squad number and a reserve player the number 14). My format could help to understand people that in Spain the system is particular. AlejandroR1990 (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@MalaguistaUK I explained this in a section in Málaga CF's talk page. Separate them is correct because ones are officially first team players and the others are officially reserve players. In Reserve team section are put only players related to the first team, not all of them (nobody will think that in the reserve team there 4 players only. People understand that they're related to first team). It worked perfectly since December 2023 when I put it in this way. AlejandroR1990 (talk) 09:06, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@AlejandroR1990 The specific squad number rules, that I understand as well as you, actually make it less important to separate the reserves and first team players. This is because, as you point out for the thousandth time, first team contract status is already indicated by the respective squad number.

I would encourage you to update the out of date reserve team page. This is something I was researching but I am now blocked from editing. You act like it is a necessity to separate youth team players when it is actually your personal preference.

My edits never stated that Antonito or Ochoa are registered as first-team players. Hence why I changed the header from 'First-team squad' to 'Current squad' which is commonly used on Wikipedia and NOT vandalism as you falsely flagged it. We will see how many minutes Antonito plays with Atletico Malagueno. I ask what is more important - how a players is registered or how a player acts on the pitch? You do not acknowledge the contributions of these academy players in your format and you make the page less accurate and informative for visitors. Have a good day. 2A02:C7C:E17D:A400:159F:9FE0:EC70:CBDD (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@2A02:C7C:E17D:A400:159F:9FE0:EC70:CBDD Again, in Reserve team section are put only those reserve players related to first team, not all reserve players. So people can check that these players are important (and more when they have their own Wikipedia article as is the case of Antoñito, Izan and Ochoa. Chupete is still not so important so for this he has not his own article). We'll see their contribution with Malagueño since 6 September when their season start, yes. AlejandroR1990 (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@AlejandroR1990, @Drmies: I'd endorse what @MalaguistaUK initially said, with this: the official web of Málaga actually list all those three players (Izan, Antoñito and Ochoa) in the first team squad, while for an example, Chupete (who made his debut in the main squad this season) is not there. All those three players did not feature in a single minute for the reserves, in fact Antoñito is actually the club's "star player" so far... Plus, CD Mirandés often register several players in the reserve team to "dribble" the LFP registration rules and comply with the financial fair play. Would you all say that Bassinga, Roca, Dadie and Parada (all of them on loan from other clubs) are members of the reserve team?

@GiantSnowman, @Kante4, @Struway2: some help/input would be required since it's been a while that Alejandro thinks he WP:OWNs Málaga-related articles, and more than one user actually pointed out the opposite of his edits. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with MalaguistaUK to have as 'Current squad'. GiantSnowman 16:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe I own anything. I base myself on the rules of the LFP which, as I said, govern all Spanish professional football teams. In Spain (unlike in the other European leagues) the first team players and the reserves are perfectly distinguished thanks to their squad numbers. AlejandroR1990 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

@AlejandroR1990: That's honestly not a valid argument, per the Mirandés one placed above. I'd put those three in "current squad" since they are clearly a part of the first team squad, not the reserve team, and then let the other ones as it is. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give in on this, but there's something to fix. AlejandroR1990 (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we should use [3] as explained above (and that added as a ref for the section would be good). Kante4 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

So from now on:

1st: If a player with a reserve squad number (above 25) plays exclusively with the first team, he is placed in the "first team" section.

2nd: If a player with a reserve squad number (above 25) plays with both the first team and the reserves, he is placed in the "reserves" section.

Agree? AlejandroR1990 (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, because it's not a question of playing "exclusively" or not. I'd say in Spanish football, I actually follow the official website, since it's more accurate to determine who's in the first team and who isn't.

Example: UD Almería's official web lists Bruno Iribarne, Paco Sanz, Gui Guedes, Perovic and Rachad as first team members when they all have a number above 25. If you take a closer look, only Rachad and Gui actually play for the first team in a regular basis, but most of them are actually called up to the main squad in the last few matches.

Why should we doubt what the club's official listing say? They may be training with the main squad day in, day out, what makes them not first team members? What makes them do? It's way too subjective for us to determine basing solely on a LFP rule, IMO. That's why I follow the official web. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 22:45, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The teams are not clear on this either. Before being relegated to the First Federation, Málaga CF included in the first team section even reserve players who had only played one game with the first team, but it seems that is not the case now, since Chupete has already made his debut and is not in that section. AlejandroR1990 (talk) 23:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)