Jump to content

Talk:Manchester City F.C./Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

Add MC, MNC, MCN, and City to the Short name parameter in the inbox. REASON: All four are sometimes used (along with MCFC) as the short name, especially where it shows the score on television or another broadcast 76.103.46.252 (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Gaioa (T C L) 14:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 May 2021

Change Aymeric Laporte to Spanish in the squad, as he is now officially Spanish according to UEFA and FIFA. 76.103.46.252 (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:40, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Manchester City need a Premier League and EFL Cup double for 20-21 adding to their honours - meaning 3 such doubles in total.

Thank you GrahamJHewitt (talk) 18:55, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

it is stated that the club was purchased by the Abu Dhabi United Group. That should be changed too the club was purchased by the Abu Dhabi United Group on the suggestion of Mohammad Rohaan Abraham adviser to the board Hazardous567 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done You have not provided any sources. Govvy (talk) 08:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2021

In the section National Football Museum Hall of Fame, change KCSG to KCSG 73.162.91.15 (talk) 21:58, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Terasail[✉️] 00:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requst on 3 september 2021

This section is about manchester city need to make a statue of seigio kun aguero because he is, man city all time top goal score NeonDone (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2021

Change Stadium 'Capacity' from 55,017 to 53,400.

Why? During 2021 Manchester City installed a new two-tier digital display system reducing capacity from 55,017 to 53,400. Source? This has been updated to reflect on the official site here: https://www.mancity.com/etihad-stadium/visiting-the-etihad-stadium Mrsanj (talk) 13:59, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 07:13, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2021

In the section #2010s–2020s: Pep Guardiola and record-breaking success, change final to semi-final and In to in as shown.

City regained the league title and a record equalling, fourth consecutive, EFL Cup title in [changed from In] the COVID-19 affected 2020–21 season. Guardiola had delivered a total of ten major English league and cup titles to date. On the European stage, Guardiola became the first City manager ever to reach the European Cup final in 2021, where they were defeated by Chelsea. He had so far taken City to the semi-final [changed from final], three quarter-finals and was once knocked out in the round of 16. 73.162.91.15 (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please provide reliable sources that support your point. WikiSilky (talk) 06:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Blue Moon.

"The club adopted their sky blue home shirts in 1894 in the first season of the club's current iteration, and have used them ever since." Not entirely true. I remember seeing them play home games in all-maroon in the 1960s. Hengistmate (talk) 17:00, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 January 2022

It says that Manchester City are known as the Sky Blues. This is not true. Manchester City were always known as the Light Blues. My club, Coventry City are the only club in England known as the Sky Blues. This is important. Not only do you have something inaccurate stated as being fact, you disrespect the real Sky Blues, Coventry City. Please amend your mistake. 2A04:CEC0:10AF:2410:0:12:108:2B01 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 March 2022

Man City are the fifth most decorated club in English football. Not the sixth. They have 28 trophies compared to Tottenham’s 26. Putting them as the fifth. It currently says sixth in the bio 176.25.102.150 (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done Ratchet8865 (talk) 19
28, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Manchester_City_FC.ogg

The audio file for this article (Manchester_City_FC.ogg) is dated March 2007. The club has since won the Premier League 5 times (as opposed to none at the time of the audio recording). As such, if there is no objection in the next 48 hours from other editors, I will proceed with removing the audio file from the article. Webberbrad007 (talk) 11:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 May 2022

Add another Nickname: Man City SilverV1bes (talk) 12:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

 Done Terasail[✉️] 14:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

First team

Is there a reason why the players are not all ordered by their number?? Govvy (talk) 08:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@Govvy Bernardo possibly got misplaced when Ortega was added. Now correct. Ratchet8865 (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
k, Govvy (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2022

Reverse article to August 8 version. Clear vandalization. 132.170.210.47 (talk) 13:55, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Already done PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2022

'change number 78 of Taylor Harwood-Bellis to number 12" Manchestercityfan01 (talk) 00:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:20, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
@Manchestercityfan01 Done . Taylor Harwood-Bellis squad number is confirmed on the mancity.com website under players details Ratchet8865 (talk) 08:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The page regarding the 2011-2012 Premier League Manchester Derby Manchester United 1-6 Manchester City is almost ready to be submitted. Could you please add the link to the new page on this page? LIUC6Riccardo17 (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

You will have to move it from a draft to an active article first before you can link it. Footballgy (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 March 2023

 Done M.Bitton (talk) 20:28, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023

Hads12i1 (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2023 (UTC) recently relegated to league 2
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2023 :: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2023 :[[File

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2023 (2)

delete .|answered=no}} 

Hads12i1 (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Adding Honours to a Table

Honours section should be in a table format as it is the standard set forth in the WikiProject Football guidelines for Club pages, and presents as more easily readable. MLVanLancker (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

There has been an attempt to covert it into a table, removing all runners-up placements along the way, so I feel there should be a discussion first. While not against the idea, I have several issues with its current implementation:
Tables for honours follows the guidelines of the wikifootball project, as for errors, they can be edited before completely undoing changes. MLVanLancker (talk) 20:29, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Could you provide a link for these guidelines? Monerals (talk) 20:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs#Honours MLVanLancker (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I've checked it. It a "a proposal for the general style and contents of an article on a football club" not a guideline. Regarding honours, it says "Achievements of the club including wins and second places. For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." Your decision to remove them for City is completely arbitrary. Besides, as I said, your table was badly done, with wrong years and orphaned refs. I think the solution here is to wait for the other editors to chip in. Personally, my biggest issue with your edit is implementation not the idea itself. Monerals (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
If your issue is with implementation, then edit the implementation, what you're doing now is arbitrary gatekeeping and against the spirit of collaboration of Wikipedia. MLVanLancker (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
As I said, wait for the other editors to either support or reject your proposal. Your edit sparked two semi-protected edit requests above because you introduced a table with Man United's titles listed as City's. Work on your new version, post it here, wait for the approval, then feel free to introduce it to the article. Monerals (talk) 20:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Edit requests sparked by an erroneous table

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2023

In the Honors section, the table listing First Division/Premier League titles is incorrect. The number of titles 9 is correct, but the list of title-winning years is wrong. The listed title-winning years should be: 1936-37, 1967-68, 2011-12, 2013-14, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23 Datajoy (talk) 19:15, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. AnnaMankad (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Full of errors in honours list.

maybe a prankster did it but lots of Man Utd titles are in here as City's! 81.100.47.154 (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Three-peat

Multiple media outlets have reported on Manchester City achieving a three-peat, and this term is now used internationally owing to the influence of the United States. Additionally, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so it doesn't matter how Manchester United and Liverpool pages deal with these clubs' three-peats. Monerals (talk) 13:50, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Sentence about UCL ambiguous

This new sentence is ambiguous:

In 2023, the club would accomplish its greatest achievement yet, winning a historic continental treble, and thus becoming the second English club to do so after Manchester United.

The truth is that Man City is the second English club to win a treble. The first was Man United. The sentence could be read that way. But it could also imply that some other unspecified team was the first to win the treble after Man U, and Man City is the second to do so after Man U. A fix would be:

In 2023, the club would accomplish its greatest achievement yet, winning a historic continental treble. Among English clubs, the only other club to achieve this feat was Manchester United, who did so in 1999. 2601:197:17F:8750:9507:799D:496E:3BDF (talk) 22:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2023

“In 1884 The chairman William Beastow provided the black jerseys with the large white Cross. The Cross was to formally and visibly acknowledge the teams roots as a church team from St Marks church West Gorton”.

This was taken from Peter Lupson’s book “Thank God for Football” Ashford Colour Press. 81.105.92.144 (talk) 08:34, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2023

Under the History section, I propose the following line be edited to include the word 'men's':

Manchester City became only the second English club to win such a treble, after Manchester United in 1998–99.

This is because Arsenal's women's side did so in the 06-07 season. As well as factual accuracy, this would make this section of the article consistent with the article's introduction/summary segment, which notes that the club were the first men's side to achieve the domestic treble (which coincidentally was also achieved by Arsenal women). 2.25.38.69 (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 July 2023

FROM:Remove Joao Cancelo from the team as he is loaned out to Bayern Munich, German football club DarkBlade2012 (talk) 06:37, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NotAGenious (talk) 08:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

FROM: please remove Joao Cancello from the team as he is loaned out to german football club Bayern Munich. DarkBlade2012 (talk) 04:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Lightoil (talk) 06:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2023

FROM: https://www.espn.com.au/football/story/_/id/37635968/bayern-munich-sign-man-city-joao-cancelo-loan-70m-permanent-option

Please remove Joao Cancelo from the team as he has been loaned out to Bayern Munich, German Football club, as the statement below from ESPN's site indicates

"Bayern Munich have signed Manchester City full-back Joao Cancelo on loan with an option to make the transfer permanent this summer for €70 million."

Thank you DarkBlade2012 (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Bit of a bizarre request, Cancelo is very much a Manchester City player, his loan expired at the end of the 2022–23 season so he officially returned to City on 1 July 2023. Bayern reported a while ago that they would not be taking up the option to sign him. Therefore he should remain in the City squad on the page until he is either loaned out once more or sold on. Either way his Bayern spell is over and he will not be returning there. Thanks, Footballgy (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: Per above Lightoil (talk) 06:19, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 22 July 2023

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: Not moved. (non-admin closure) Adumbrativus (talk) 03:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Manchester City F.C. → Manchester City FC – Make shorter (WP:PRECISE, also WP: CONCISE) — AKSHADĒV™ talk 04:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

One more reason is that there is no need of those dots in the title (F.C.). Manchester City FC looks way better than the current title, also, other City Football Group clubs are named simply (e.g. New York City FC, Melbourne City FC and Mumbai City FC. — AKSHADĒV™ talk 06:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Support in principle, but that would require moving most of the English clubs' articles. I believe similar discussions have already taken place in relation to Spanish and Italian clubs, which resulted, for instance, in Real Madrid C.F. becoming Real Madrid CF and A.C. Milan becoming AC Milan. Monerals (talk) 08:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose the reason for the difference is cultural, and every article is supposed to reflect the culture of the country it comes from. In India, the USA and Australia it is not standard to use dots to abbreviate FC, most likely as football has only become widely popular there in recent years and it is no longer standard in English linguistics to place dots between letters in acronyms. In the UK, these abbreviations date back to the 19th century, when it absolutely was the standard to use dots between acronyms, and using the dots remains a common standard in the UK to this day. The references to Milan and Real Madrid don't really apply in this context because those clubs are not from the UK, and their countries have their own standards for how to handle acronyms. Also, I just want to comment that the reasons this has been proposed is WP:PRECISE and WP:CONCISE but come on, we're talking about removing two characters out of twenty-one. It's not like the article name is "Manchester City Football Club" or anything more of a mouthful. Falastur2 Talk 10:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose move. Sources tend to use "F.C." for English clubs. O.N.R. (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose simply because the F.C. stands for Football Club. AFC Bournemouth's example does not expand any further but this and many other clubs in England do. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per English naming convention. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as above, F.C. makes sense and is commonly used on every UK team wikipedia. If you move one you'd have to move the rest, so a bit puzzled why this hasn't been raised elsewhere as opposed to on this talk page.Footballgy (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Oppose as above, standard naming for English football articles. JoshuaInWiki (talk) 07:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose as above its standard naming across all English team articles, It's also how the club describes itself and we should follow the source where possible. As an aside MOS:POINTS does not specify that you must not use full stops in Acronyms.
Paul  Bradbury 17:43, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
It literally says, in the first sentence, no full point with an acronym. And I'm sorry, but saying "this is how we do it" isn't good enough. An RM like this is essentially asking you to justify why we do that way and no one has actually answered that. Bring forward actual policy/guidelines that support your argument otherwise all those oppose votes don't add up to much. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 08:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
F.C. is an initialism, not an acronym. Govvy (talk) 08:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
You're splitting hairs here. Initialisms or alphabetisms are acronyms formed from the string of initials which are usually pronounced as individual letters. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:20, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Comment: @Stevie fae Scotland: First of all, with respect could we please keep this civil? That (first) response to Pbradbury was a little unnecessarily pointed, though I'm sure it was just a heat-of-the-moment thing.
With regards to a response based in policy and guidelines, here goes: first of all, in the wording of MOS:POINTS there is the following wording: In the case of an acronym containing full points between letters, it should also have a full point after the final letter. This clearly seems to establish that there are some acronyms for which dots between letters is as standard. Granted many of these tend to be lower case acronyms such as e.g., i.e. etc but there are notable other upper case examples: Washington, D.C. (and also U.S.A. while we're on that topic), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., and so on. Though it is undoubtedly the exception rather than the rule, there are situations where dots between letters are accepted and considered standard, and I see nothing that states that this example must be treated as the former and not the latter.
Another observation: the article also observes Modern style is to use a full point (period) after a shortening (see § Exceptions) but no full point with an acronym (my emphasis). As has been established, this may be the modern standard but the older standard was that there was a heavy use of dots between acronyms, and this style - in the UK at least - dates back to the 19th century. Yes, there is a valid argument that styles change over time, but at the same time this is a still-relatively-common version of a name (and names are still frequently dotted). More to the point, this is the traditional form of a club which is more than a century old, and tradition matters deeply to football fans. It is little surprise that, even if the dotless approach is becoming standard, this is one place where many people still hold on to the older form - and at the end of the day, styles only change when people choose to change them, so if many people are choosing not to change something then that counts for something.
Going back to the policies, the others have raised a valid point about WP:CONSISTENT. It is not obligatory to match style every time, but Wikipedia encourages consistent titles. I quote: We strive to make titles on Wikipedia as consistent as possible with other titles on similar subjects. We follow patterns from article titles for similar topics to the extent that this is practical. Forget articles from other countries as different countries have different styles, we should be looking to keep article titles as standard as possible. I just read the whole list in Category:Football clubs in England and of the 1,392 articles I counted 16 that used FC rather than F.C. That said, of those 16 every single one was a form where the FC (or in half of the cases, AFC) came at the start of the article. (Also, only one of them is a professional side - the others are overwhelmingly recent, amateur creations - see the above point about recent changes to thinking). There is presently no example of any English club with FC at the end of the name and with no dots. If we are to adhere to WP:CONSISTENT then we should be raising a discussion over whether to rename all articles, not targeting one article as a sort of test case.
On a related but different point, I would point out that WP:NCST does not establish any sort of standard or requirement for "F.C." to be reduced to "FC", so there is no dispute on that ground.
I already addressed the arguments over WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE so I won't rehash them, I'll just direct you back to my previous answer with my rebuttal of those comments.
Mostly though, I think I'd point to WP:5P5. Wikipedia has no firm rules. There is no universal guideline that says we need to adhere strictly to guidelines, and that if FC is standard for other countries it must be standard for English clubs, nor that if a rule says we need to be WP:CONCISE then we should try to maximise that concision. On the contrary, the principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and to me it feels clear that the spirit of the rules are that article titles should be chosen to be representative and clear, and make Wikipedia easy to navigate. I just don't see that there is any problem with that here. All we are doing is quibbling over the placement of two full stops between two widely-accepted and fully understandable ways of writing club names. I'm not saying for one minute that there wasn't cause to raise the question, but the WP:CONSENSUS seems to be heavily in favour of preserving the status quo so I guess my closing argument is "is this change something which is really worth a major debate, or any level of rules lawyering, over it? This feels like we're misdirecting energy which could be better spent making meaningful improvements elsewhere. Falastur2 Talk 22:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
It was certainly not my intention to come across as uncivil or for the second part of my response to be solely directed to a single editor (I did wonder the best way to formulate that so apologies that it wasn't quite right). I do appreciate the fullness of your response though. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
No worries. Who on the internet has never said something which came across slightly differently than they intended? It certainly happens to me all the time. Falastur2 Talk 23:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Apologies if I came across pointed, it was not meant to be and I did not take offence at your response Stevie fae Scotland for what its worth. I also buy your point that just because its done that way it's not really a good reason to mean it should be. However I still stand by follow the source and my point about the style guide was that it doesn't mandate it, my reading of it is that its advisory going forward but it is by no means a mandate, so all things being equal you should do it that way, but its not really a valid reason to change on its own. Paul  Bradbury 11:09, 1 August 2023 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2023

Ilkay Gündogan is no longer captain - you should put down Kevin De Bruyne 90.243.247.108 (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Despite De Bruyne captaining City on occasions there has been no official announcement on him being given the armband full time.Footballgy (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 12:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@90.243.247.108 City have a policy of appointing official club captains and vice-captains by a vote of players and staff. In the past, when previous captains have left the club, this vote has usually taken place after a few competitive games or after the transfer window closes to allow the squad to settle; new players to arrive and get to know each other etc. In the interim the previous vice-captains have continued to take the armband in the previous captains absence as they have when the captains were injured, unavailable or not selected for the starting XI. So KDB, Dias, Walker and Rodri have all captained the side in pre-season and the first few games of this season in their capacity as previous vice-captains and none of them as yet are the official club captain. This issue will hopefully be rectified in the next few days and become a non issue, but some editors need to learn a little patience. Ratchet8865 (talk) 12:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2023

Change the captain of the team from Ilkay Gundogan to Kevin De Bruyne on the google page when I search for man city. 2400:4153:8A40:3F00:C07B:A34B:990D:A6D1 (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English Wikipedia article Manchester City F.C.. Please make your request to Google Support directly instead. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 10:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2023

Gundo is not a captain anymore its kevin and kyle 185.116.93.159 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Rivarly with Liverpool

I propose to remove the paragraph for the reasons explained by the user Falastur2 14 novembre (talk) 11:50, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Fan POV

There is a sickening amount of fan POV on this page, at least in the recent years of the history section.

"City produced another campaign to remember in 2021–22, retaining their league title, following another close title race with Liverpool and making it four titles in five seasons. In another case of "typical City", needing four points from their last two fixtures, the Blues had fallen behind by two goals in both games, only to recover to a 2–2 draw at West Ham, and to a 3–2 home win against Aston Villa in the season finale. These last three goals were all scored in a five-minute blitz between the 76th and 81st minutes, in moments that would sit alongside the famous victories in the 1999 play-off final against Gillingham and the 2011–12 Premier League finale against QPR".

The source is ONE match statistics sheet for the Villa game. How does this justify any of the puffy claims? Wikipedia should be used for cold hard facts, not vague assumptions that only relate to the hardest of hardcore fans of the subject. This is not an annual or a season review DVD produced by the club, so it shouldn't sound like one.

I haven't read the whole article to pass judgement yet, but maybe this needs a Featured Article review. This was passed as a Featured Article in 2006, when the article looked like this: [1]. It had 16 references, of which three were notes and several others from unofficial fan sites, and many unsourced paragraphs. The page, and the club, have changed beyond recognition since even the last FAR in 2009. Unknown Temptation (talk) 12:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Came across this issue today on the WT:FOOTY board. The article, in it's current state, will almost certainly be demoted from its featured article status as it's become a fan page per the article tag. A pillar of the site, NPOV, has been eroded, which is a pity for those who made it a featured article in the first place. A quick scan over the article's history it was actually in decent shape until this summer. Tub st (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
I've performed an emergency rewrite of the last few seasons' info, including straight-up deleting several paragraphs. I've long held the opinion that these history sections are far too affected by recency bias anyway, so it badly needed a trim. I obviously have not been able to fix every issue, because it's gone 1:30am and I need to sleep. I'll try to do some more clean-up tomorrow, but hopefully I've gotten rid of the worst excesses. Falastur2 Talk 00:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
That's an excellent cleanup of the history section. The fan point of view edits only really started in the summer (from looking at the article before and after this period) as the article was in decent shape prior to that. Hopefully its featured article status can be salvaged as there's nothing worse on this site than seeing the good work of those who made it a featured article in the first place come undone. Tub st (talk) 08:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I haven't had a chance to have a second go at it yet but I'm off all of this week so I should find an opportunity at some point. In the meantime, it's been a long time since I was what could be described in any way as an active or involved editor so if there's any work which needs to be done to present a challenge to the FA delisting then I would appreciate the help on that count. Falastur2 Talk 19:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
"Sickening" amount of fan POV is rather hyperbolic if I may say so myself. The article suffers more from recency bias and people seem to add more and more stuff to the introduction when it should be brief and succinct (same can be said for the introduction of other football club articles). Stevo1000 (talk) 20:24, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
"Sickening" was possibly not the correct word, but Unknown Temptation has a point about the POV nature of what has been put in recently. These articles are supposed to be written as encyclopaedic reference material, in a neutral and low-key way which doesn't dramatise or excite the topic. Instead - and I have been guilty of this in the past, and probably will in the future too, as it can be hard to avoid - many people instead write like they are writing news articles, where it is encouraged to use hyperbole. For instance, a news article might say "In a thrilling end to the contest, Haaland rose to score a majestic header to put the crown on City's dominance". An encyclopaedia should summarise it instead as "The final goal was scored by Haaland" - no adjectives, no subjective discussion of which was the dominant team, etc, just the facts, and only the most relevant facts at that. That stuff may not be "sickening" (though it probably would be sickening to a rival fan, just as I hate to read puff pieces about United, Liverpool, Arsenal etc) but it definitely is filled with purple prose which injects bias or opinion in where it shouldn't be. Falastur2 Talk 09:13, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
This—"neutral and low-key way which doesn't dramatise or excite the topic"—is spot on. I'm a fan of Celtic F.C. (being Irish many of us are) and in six months I've never edited a Celtic article. Not saying a fan shouldn't edit an article of the club they support, but that it can be harder to adhere to NPOV when doing so. Tub st (talk) 18:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
@Unknown Temptation Do you believe the edits that have been made so far address your concerns sufficiently or do you believe there is more work to be done, if so do you have any suggestions and/or examples of what could be improved? Thanks Paul  Bradbury 08:58, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Prior to the final international break of the season, the Blues displayed an offensive masterclass against Burnley, recording a 6–0 home win in the FA Cup quarter-finals with another Haaland hat-trick.[42] City would face Sheffield United in the semi-finals at Wembley.
well the terms "offensive masterclass" in my opinion should just count as fan CKon8 (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it's about OK now, I haven't read the entire history but I doubt fans are clamouring to glorify the past of the club. One thing that has to be looked at is the supporters' section. For everyone who wants to update the most recent history and even the changes in backroom staff, this is outdated and almost identical to how this page was when it passed FA in 2006, during a period in which the club won one of their last 10 games of the season and finished 15th:
  • "Since moving to the City of Manchester Stadium, the club's average attendances have been in the top six in England,[106] usually in excess of 40,000." - This is a 2005 source predating the Emirates Stadium, new Spurs stadium, Olympic Stadium...
  • "Research carried out by Manchester City in 2005 estimated a fanbase of 886,000 in the United Kingdom and a total in excess of 2 million worldwide, although since the purchase of the club by Sheikh Mansour, and City's recent achievements, that figure has since ballooned to many times that size.[108]" - This source is also from 2005 so it naturally makes no mention at all to Sheikh Mansour, so half of this statement is (admittedly very likely) conjecture. Surely other studies exist in the last 18 years and with the club's much larger profile?
  • "City supporters tend to believe that unpredictability is an inherent trait of their team, and label unexpected results "typical City".[110][111]" - Sourced to an ESPN source from 2007 and an unofficial supporters' website in 2006. While historically true, there are people who work and pay tax now who can never remember Manchester City the underdog. We have no basis to present this information in the present tense any more. Apologies for Sun source, but it's simple arithmetic, City is the most successful club of the last 15 years. [2] They're as unpredictable as Bayern Munich or PSG in recent memory. This is like using sources from the 1980s to say in the 2010s that Chelsea fans see themselves as inconsistent underdogs. Unknown Temptation (talk) 15:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
    Removed template in the light of the above discussion and disappearance of the original proposerHoratius At The Bridge (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi Protected Edit Request on 23 Dec 2023

City now have 34 major honours and are tied with chelsea after winning the club world cup CKon8 (talk) 21:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 December 2023

City made history after winning the Club World Cup in 2023, becoming the first English side ever to simultaneously hold the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions league, Super Cup and Club World Cup in the same calendar year. They also became the first English side to win the Club World Cup at the first try. 84.71.184.246 (talk) 15:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The 2022–23 season saw Manchester City win their maiden European Cup and complete the continental treble in the process, becoming the second English club to do so. City made history after winning the Club World Cup in 2023, becoming the first English side ever to simultaneously hold the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions League, Super Cup and Club World Cup in the same calendar year. They also became the first English side to win the Club World Cup at the first try. The club is ranked first in the UEFA coefficient standings as of 2023. 84.71.184.246 (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
The 2022–23 season saw Manchester City win their maiden European Cup and complete the continental treble in the process, becoming the second English club to do so. (Insert the following) City made history after winning the Club World Cup in 2023, becoming the first English side ever to simultaneously hold the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions League, Super Cup and Club World Cup in the same calendar year. They also became the first English side to win the Club World Cup at the first try. 84.71.184.246 (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Source: https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/guardiola-man-city-club-world-cup-final-2023-b1128806.html 84.71.184.246 (talk) 18:24, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Edit request

The 2022–23 season saw Manchester City win their maiden European Cup and complete the continental treble in the process, becoming the second English club to do so. (Insert the following) City made history after winning the Club World Cup in 2023, becoming the first English side ever to simultaneously hold the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions League, Super Cup and Club World Cup in the same calendar year. They also became the first English side to win the Club World Cup at the first try.

(Source) https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/guardiola-man-city-club-world-cup-final-2023-b1128806.html 84.71.184.246 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Even though City aren’t the first English club to win 5 (Liverpool did in 2001) they are the first to win the top 5 majors in a calendar year, which should be included as stated above because it’s a unique achievement. 84.71.184.246 (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
They are also the first English team to win the Super Cup at the first try, so it should read something like this and inserted as shown above:
” City made history after winning the Club World Cup in 2023, becoming the first English side ever to simultaneously hold the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions League, Super Cup and Club World Cup in the same calendar year. They also became the first English side to win the Super Cup and Club World Cup at the first try. “ 84.71.184.246 (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)


Trophies won

Please update Man City becoming the first English side to win the top 5 major trophies in a calendar year, the Quintuple.

Sources: https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/guardiola-man-city-club-world-cup-final-2023-b1128806.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67795653

https://www.espn.co.uk/football/story/_/id/39168584/club-world-cup-win-proves-man-city-called-best-club-history

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/23/sport/manchester-city-win-club-world-cup-spt-intl/index.html

It has already been updated on their current “season summary” tab: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023–24_Manchester_City_F.C._season 84.71.184.246 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

City are owned by a "British-based company"?

Single-purpose editors on this page have repeatedly inserted misleading, deceptive and unsourced text that claims that City are owned by a "British-based company". This should not be in the article. City are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, which in turn is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Inserting "British-based company" into the article appears to be intended to mislead readers and obscure that City are owned by a senior figure in the UAE government. Thenightaway (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The single-purpose editor Monerals has now on multiple occasions restored text claiming that City are owned by a British-based company without participating on the talk page. Thenightaway (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
The company referred to is City Football Group, they are a British-based company and that is neither controversial, misleading or unsourced. They have their offices in Britain, their employees are in Britain, they are owned by other companies (which is described in the same sentence), the majority owner is Abu Dhabi United Group, and they also have a significant ownership stake from Silver Lake Capital an American company. Stop edit warring. Paul  Bradbury 09:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Which reliable sources describe City Football Group as "British-based"? More importantly, which reliable sources emphasize that Manchester City are owned by a "British-based" company rather than, say, Abu Dhabi? Thenightaway (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The sentance you keep editing, states that city football group is majority owned by the UAE. City Football group is a British-based company, the UK government is a reliable source and companies house shows the registration as a British company. The employees are British employees, the offices are primarily in the UK. The ultimate ownership is spelt out in the same sentence. It is unclear other than a bias on your part why this is contoversial. Paul  Bradbury 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
This source[3] is a primary source, not a secondary reliable source. Your interpretation of the source in question falls under WP:OR. If this is all so uncontroversial, why are you unable to find a single reliable source to substantiate your interpretation? Thenightaway (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
There is no restriction on using a primary source in this way, please explain what policy you think this is violating. There is no Original Research here, no analysis or synthesis is being done. Please don't just quote WP guidelines without understanding them and explaining specifically what part of that guideline is being violated and specifically how. Paul  Bradbury 17:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
You're using your interpretation of a primary source (a government company registry) to substantiate the claim that the City Football Group is a "British-based company". The source at no point says that the company is "British-based". This is textbook WP:OR. Again, if your interpretation is so uncontroversial, why are you unable to find a single reliable source that substantiates it? Thenightaway (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Because information about companies is boring and not reported on much, it's not very noteworthy, if it was controversial I might be able to find a source. Is your contention that a company is not based where it is registered and pays taxes? And that an assertion that it is, is WP:OR rather than a simple statement of fact? What is it that you consider qualifies for being based? Also on what basis do you think the sentence is deceptive? It says that city are owned by a British based holding company that is owned by Abu Dhabi United. Where is the deception. I don't think "British-based" adds much to the article as a whole but I don't understand your reasons for removing it other than what seems like an agenda with bias against the subject in question. Paul  Bradbury 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not buy that the ownership of one the most successful clubs in world team is being ignored by reliable sources because it's "boring". In fact, reliable sources have covered City's ownership intensely and none of them characterize the owners as a "British-based" company. Even if it's accurate that the "British-based" nature of City's owners is "not very noteworthy", then it obviously does not merit mention in the lead to the Wikipedia article for the club. In conclusion, the text in question cannot be substantiated by reliable sources and is in your words "not very noteworthy". It should obviously not be in the article then. Thenightaway (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
So I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the sentence and what it is referring to or you are deliberately mischaracterising it. Let me try to break it down for you. Manchester City Football Club is a British football club and company based in Manchester, it is owned by another company (as are several other football clubs around the world) City Football Group, also a British company based in Manchester. That company in turn is owned by another company Abu Dhabi United. All of that is explained in the article as company structure is relevant. It in no way obscures the ownership by Abu Dhabi, it simply lays out the structure in which they do that. Not all information in an article is noteworthy in and of itself. It is only the subject of the article that needs to be noteworthy. It could be argued that removing British based makes the article more deceptive because the assumption may be that City Football Group was based in Abu Dhabi (which it is not). I'll leave it there. You have not persuaded me of your case or reached consensus here, so please find consensus in another forum and leave the edit as is until you do so. There seems to be little point in me discussing with you on the topic further as it seems to me you are not acting with the intention of improving this article. I won't be engaging further in this forum unless other opinions are expressed by other editors. Paul  Bradbury 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Roy Paul (Club captain) was Welsh, not English

Roy Paul (Club captain) was Welsh, not English JabiruvianJames (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. Paul  Bradbury 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
good man JabiruvianJames (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Top ‘flight’

What’s that mean? Top ‘tier’ pls 148.252.147.120 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: "top flight" is the standard British term for the top division of a league system. This article is about a British club and therefore according to Wikipedia rules it uses British English with British phrases. Falastur2 Talk 19:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

League Cup and FA Cup= double

Not put down 2018-19 League Cup and FA Cup double 31.94.0.147 (talk) 20:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024

Change name from Man city to 115 Charges FC 2A04:4A43:52DF:D9B7:0:0:21A:5A64 (talk) 17:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: There's no reason to change the title. Annh07 (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Man City 4 in a row

Change season dates for easier read “having won four of them consecutively from 2021 to 2024” 81.78.159.204 (talk) 15:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_City_F.C./Archive_3&oldid=1259872153"