Open main menu

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2014Edit

I request you to grant me the permission to edit this article about Ter Stegen because the footballer's current club mentioned in the article is incorrect that is Borussia Monchengaldbach. He recently moved to a new club, his current club is FC Barcelona, as mentioned in the official website of FC Barcelona http://www.fcbarcelona.com/. So I hope you will take my request into consideration and grant me the permission to edit this article.

Saadmasood10 (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

  Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
Ter Stegen's current club is still Borussia Monchengaldbach, as he cannot join Barcelona until the transfer window opens on 1 July.
The article already states there is "an agreement to join the Spanish club FC Barcelona during the 2014 summer transfer window." - Arjayay (talk) 10:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


—Who ever is maintaining this page ,, its more appropriate for goalkeeper if you put clean sheet status instead of goals for goalkeepers .. its for all goalkeeper pages on wiki if anyone can communicate to all who are maintaining goalkeeper pages

Thanks— — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.55.108.248 (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

please checkEdit

Edit protectedEdit

I request you to grant me the permission to edit the article about Marc-Andre ter Stegen under honours. He has won La Liga 2014-15 with Barcelona too and not only Copa Del Rey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fcbarca2210 (talkcontribs) 00:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  Not done The reason it's protected is because people were editing incorrectly. Feel free to add your request for changes here and an established editor will either add the content or explain why it shouldn't be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Marc-André ter Stegen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc-André ter Stegen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:04, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modifiedEdit

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marc-André ter Stegen. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

RfC on ledeEdit

The consensus is for the lede to use the terminology of Spanish club Barcelona. As pointed out by participants, this option is prevalent among other players as well as the club with which the player currently has a contract with. This RfC is thus closed, with no prejudice as to the formation of proper Manual of Style guidelines with respect to football subjects. --qedk (t c) 11:19, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
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.

The "Spanish club" wording in lede was observed in 2014. it was not objected by one of the member of the party of edit war (Special:Diff/621517408, Special:Diff/629467180), thus i would considered the version with "Spanish club" is the stable version. I started the Rfc was for forming consensus for the lede on this matter (or in case of no consensus, which is the "stable" version). So, should the wording before FC Barcelona was :

  • A. Spanish club Barcelona
  • B. La Liga club Barcelona
  • C. none: just Barcelona
  • D. other proposal.

--Matthew hk (talk) 23:54, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 13:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

SurveyEdit

  • A is the option i would go with. They play in the spanish league and not the catalan and the article itself says "Spanish Club". Kante4 (talk) 10:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A as previously stated. FC Barcelona says they are a Spanish club and that has not been contentious. Stable. Enigmamsg 18:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
  • B (Summoned by bot)I don't think there's anything wrong with A, but unlike Juventus, Barcelona has the name of the city in the name of the club, and it's a well known city (especially for someone looking up a Barcelona player), so it's more informative to say the league. A better comparison would've been Paris St. Germain, and by clicking on a totally unscientific random sampling of the player articles linked there, it seemed like most of them said "Ligue 1" instead of "French". signed, Rosguill talk 05:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A or D (as nominator), either "Spanish club" or "Spanish club ...in La Liga (,Copa del Rey, and the UEFA Champions League)". Many league carried their own demonym (e.g. Swiss Football League, Campeonato Brasileiro Série A), as well as ESPN FC use "Italian Serie A" for extra disambiguation purpose, so despite La Liga did not carried a demonym , it was organized by sub-organization of Royal Spanish Football Federation, so it is not exist of separatist concern (e.g. can't compare to Kosovan that have their own league and partially recognized by some countries). Matthew hk (talk) 10:26, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A or B - certainly not D. GiantSnowman 13:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • PeeJay makes a good point - they are more than a 'La Liga' club, and 'Spanish' is more useful to the reader given his status as an expat player. Not including the league also gets rid of the possibility (not in Barcelona's exception, of course, but for other clubs) of a club changing leagues through relegation/promotion and the intro not being updated accordingly. GiantSnowman 15:01, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
  • B They play in a specific league. No need to be inflammatory to a small section of readers whether here or anywhere that the team's name is used. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:07, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
  • A - They don't just play in the league, they play in several competitions. Specifying where the club is from is only needed because Ter Stegen is an expatriate in Spain, it is not intended to establish the calibre of the club. – PeeJay 11:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
  • DFC Barcelona. This is the common name of the club, is the title of the article FC Barcelona, all the many other spellings redirect to it, and it finesses all problems of league, country, and city. Why create extra strife when it's not necessary? Call it by its name. Anybody who doesn't know where Barcelona is, or what league FC Barcelona is in, is one click away from enlightenment. Mathglot (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A - We are only having this discussion because of the Catalonia question which is not a basis for special treatment; wikipedia should not be editorializing whose sensibilities need protecting. Also from a practical standpoint, I can't add anything to what PeeJay said, "Spanish" makes the most sense. Maranello10 (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not only because of "the Catalonia question", we have the option of listing the league and several articles (I showed this on the Footy talk page) list league only while others list nation and league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
    • My point is why did this specific example make it all the way to RfC and not all the others? I can appreciate there being wider language options, if my use of the words "special treatment" is implying treatment outside accepted language conventions I am happy to withdraw the implication of that phasing. However, the rationale in your initial contribution above when choosing "B" was you did not want to be inflammatory, so even you are acknowledging "the Catalonia question" as the basis of your opinion. I am simply saying political considerations should be ignored; making a change as a result of a RfC is almost political by definition, given as you point out both styles are accepted. In any case, "A" is also better from a practical standpoint for the aforementioned reasons. Maranello10 (talk) 15:30, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
  • A The FC Barcelona page states that it is "a Spanish professional football club" so to remain consistent across the pages I believe A is the best option. Cook907 (talk) 12:50, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
  • (Summoned by bot) Is there a broader consensus on this, or is the format decided on a case-by-case basis? In my opinion, the most important thing for something as simple as this is to create internal consistency. I don't know which option is most common across all Spanish football biographies but Messi's article goes with A so I would support that in this case. Hrodvarsson (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
    • @Hrodvarsson: I tried to get one at the footy project but they avoided coming up with a MoS or guideline. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
      • Maybe this rfc could be used for that purpose. After it concludes, cite it when applying consistency across similar articles. If other editors complain, start a more general rfc. I don't see why there should be rfcs about this wording for individual articles. Hrodvarsson (talk) 05:05, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

BTW, it may be forgotten or not updated, but there was Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Players, suggesting to use domestic league. However, in Cristiano Ronaldo, it use "Italian club Juventus". More counter-example on using country or domestic league or none are listed in this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 123#Marc-André ter Stegen for people outside football project to compare. Matthew hk (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
A lot of research you did. I did more at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_123#Marc-André_ter_Stegen. Some player articles list the league. Others list the league and nation. Others just the nation. There's even a template for English clubs that will provide the name and the current league. I requested standardization, but there wasn't an appetite for it.
I'm opposed to use of nation for this club only because it could cause even more edit wars with Catalan nationalists who see this team as their symbol. However, if that's what's decided I will abide with that. However, if Fcbjuvenil (talk · contribs) doesn't participate, I doubt we'll have a concrete solution. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
BTW2, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, admin Enigmaman stated that the lede of FC Barcelona use "Spanish club" (despite the exact lede was " Spanish professional football club"). Matthew hk (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought there was a general consensus Spanish was okay on the WikiProject talk recently? In any case, I think "Spanish" is fine and neutral. SportingFlyer T·C 06:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
SportingFlyer It is not "fine" if Walter reignite the edit war, claiming "no consensus". Matthew hk (talk) 06:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
It calls them a Spanish club. I don't know what you mean. Straight from the lead of FC Barcelona: "In 2009, Barcelona became the first Spanish club to win the continental treble consisting of La Liga, Copa del Rey, and the UEFA Champions League..." So yes, it does call them a Spanish club. Enigmamsg 18:15, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean the first sentence of the lede of the football club, the wording was " Spanish professional football club". It was so odd that in the current lede of "ter Stegen", only the first "Spanish" in the lede in the first sentence was censored by Walter, while he keep the Spain in "He won the treble in his first season in Spain". So Apple to Apple, at least in the football club article and teammate Philippe Coutinho, the first sentence of the lede use "Spanish". Matthew hk (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
I personally think this survey is a bit of a joke, Barcelona is still a Spanish club playing in the La Liga, why people want to fault the basic logic is beyond me. As for edit-warring, Fcbjuvenil and Walter Görlitz waged the same battle for a second time on this article from 16:56, 23 March 2019‎ to 00:01, 24 March 2019. I am surprised no one has reported it, if it happens again I will report you both. Govvy (talk) 13:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Govvy: It did reported. But gaming on which one is the 4th revert, only ONE side was blocked. Certainly something overlooked, given the unblock log within that week....Matthew hk (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Okay, amazing that Walter didn't get punished, I swear Walter has more lives than a cat. Govvy (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Based on officially wording from admins, block is to prevent further damage to wikipedia, not a punishment, thus stale vandalism account are seldom blocked, so did stale sock account. So far no one remove the "Spanish" wording yet, including the mystery ip. I hope this Rfc at least somewhat work, or at least in a no consensus way of no one support the option C. Matthew hk (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
@Matthew hk: Please stop bringing up your unfounded claims, or at the very least insinuations, that I socked to make this happen. WP:NPA, etc. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I say again. So far only you Walter and the mystery ip keep trying to remove the "Spanish" wording and a few admin add it back. You can accuse other admins are edit warring with you. So far no prove who is the master behind the ip, but the last filing on edit warring, on me as the one who reporting the issue, clearly you are actively involved in the edit war and became your battleground , instead of seeking a legit way to solve it such as rfc or third party option or just walk away. Matthew hk on public computer (talk) 11:37, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Well, then take it to a forum where someone will believe your lies. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
───────────────(outdent) Everybody knock it off, and stick to the Rfc question. This is not a forum for reliving previous disagreements. Mathglot (talk) 01:54, 6 April 2019 (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.

Infobox photo consensusEdit

@Ureinwohner: and @TheSoccerBoy: you have both technically breached WP:3RR over the infobox photo. I could file an edit warring report now for both of you and I will if any more reverts happen. However, I'm starting this thread to see if there's consensus to change the photo in the infobox. I don't have a strong opinion either way and only reverted to get the page back to the way it was before the new photo was added. That being said, the German national team photo is of much better quality. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Use 2017 in the infobox as better quality, and place 2019 in the article body. GiantSnowman 20:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Um, first to SportingFlyer, no they have not. They are both at three reverts.
Agree with GiantSnowman on the image placement. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
@Walter Görlitz: you're right. I was mistaken and remembered the policy as a three strikes you're out policy. I apologize to both @Ureinwohner: and @TheSoccerBoy: for the mistake. SportingFlyer T·C 03:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I say to use the higher quality one (2017) in the infobox. It is a significant difference in quality. --SuperJew (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The 2017 photo is better. --Jaellee (talk) 21:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Side comment. For the record, I wasn't trying to put you on the spot, just correct the situation. Thanks for recognizing WP:3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:57, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
What's bad about putting my photo in the body of the article? :( HaGamal 07:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Body? No problem. Infobox? That's explained above. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I didn't put it in the infobox, as indeed its quality is worse than the one over there. It was the other editors that "fought" about it. I'd just be glad that my photo would appear anywhere in the article. I don't want to breach any rule. Can you or someone else add the photo in a proper location? HaGamal 04:54, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Return to "Marc-André ter Stegen" page.