Talk:Pep Guardiola/Archive 1

Manchester United

There is a lot of truth in this link, throughout the media he is tipped to take the reigns at united. Even fergie himself has requested it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.30.92.189 (talk) 18:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree this deserves to be on his page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curtbob7 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dubious Information

Caps and goal figures in the article likely contain European cup/Domestic cup data in addition to Domestic League data (this is very certain based on this user's previous edits containing similar information [1]. Please correct this issue and leave a note here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Alfmaster#Footballers.27_European_goals, to warn this person about putting improper information on Wikipedia. --Palffy 21:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality

When editing wikipedia, it is important that you remember that wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, and as such, should have a neutral point of view. However, some people are treating this page as a fansite, which wikipedia is not. Rexfan2 (talk) 05:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree Extraordinary amount of POV and un-sourced items; also OR. -The Gnome (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I deleted all (most?) of them by rephrasing, cd the tag be removed now? Sandman888 (talk) 18:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Have removed said tags --Sandman888 (talk) 18:33, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a country, in any encyclopedia you can read that Catalonia is a country. In all people references in wikipedia, first is the place of born, then the province or region, and then the country, that is, Spain. Please dont change something that is very clear, just for nationalism reasons.

spain or catalonia

Catalonia is not a country, in any encyclopedia you can read that Catalonia is a country. In all people references in wikipedia, first is the place of born, then the province or region, and then the country, that is, Spain. Please dont change something that is very clear, just for nationalism reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.83.1.242 (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

IN FACT

It's a country, recognised by the Spain's Constitution, but under de STATE OF SPAIN. Ademas que os jodan!!! Us foteu!!! t'estimem Pep, visca catalunya independet i visca el barça QUE N'APRENGUIN!!!! PERSISTIREM!!! TOT GUANYAT TOT PER GUANYAR y al que le ofenda QUE SE JODA y se haga del madrid que para eso esta!!! Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.9.29 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

(IN FACT) your message is not serious.This is not a place to defend your political ideas. I agree with the idea that Catalonian is not the country of Pep Guardiola, but Spain. Catalonia in the spanish constitution has status as a nation, not country. So place of born, you also can put Catalonia as nation or autonomous community, but if you want to be a serious encyclopedia, please add also the real country: Spain. Besides, I would like to remind you that Guardiola has been for several years in the spanish national team. I revert changes to that one who changed it in the right way. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.58.160.131 (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but the Catalonians are people. And even if Catalonia is only a region, it should still say "is of Catalonian origin, but born in Spain" --Diyairaniyanim (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you should say "is a Catalan football manager". That is the same that is done with many Scottish, English or Welsh people, even though these are not independent states, but part of the United Kingdom. So their official nationality is British, but their cultural nationality (which appears in Wikipedia, especially when they are keen on it) is Scottish or Welsh or whatever. The same with Catalonia, which is a nation (even if not independent, even if just cultural) within the Spanish Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.180.84 (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Biographies as this policy states, in relation to the opening paragraph: "In most modern-day cases this will mean the country of which the person is a citizen, national or permanent resident, or if notable mainly for past events, the country where the person was a citizen, national or permanent resident when the person became notable.

"Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability. Similarly, previous nationalities or the country of birth should not be mentioned in the opening sentence unless they are relevant to the subject's notability." Since he's a footballer and he notable for that and not having been born in some specific location, not is he known as a Catalan separatist, the lede should reflect his country of citizenship. Also. In terms of football articles, his FIFA-recognized nationality is what is mentioned in the lede. I have reverted your edit. If I didn't, there would have been about two dozen editors who would have. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Que dic q us donguin pel cul!!!

Desgraciats, catalonia IS A COUNTRY, a country UNDER THE STATE OF SPAIN, pero tranquils imperialistes ignorants i desgraciats, q els britanics sou penosos, q porteu sandalies amb mitjons, s'ha de ser inutil per anar per la vida aixi, nomes perque teniu mes diners!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.61.9.29 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

---

Josep Guardiola → Pep Guardiola – Per WP:COMMONNAME, which states that article titles should reflect "the name that is most frequently used to refer to the subject in English-language reliable sources". Going by recent news articles, it is clear that Pep Guardiola is common usage in English-language sources; 7,030 use Josep Guardiola while 17,000 use Pep Guardiola. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support — I think he is more widely known as Pep than Josep. Strafpeloton2 (talk) 00:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support – BBC News calls him Pep. Rothorpe (talk) 00:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Per nom; even in Spanish "Pep" is common. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - clearly his common name -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Common name. Adam4267 (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - WP:COMMONNAME obviously mandates this move. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Clearly common name not really known widely as anything else.Edinburgh Wanderer 12:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose - Just kidding, support. I haven't seen any English language media outlet use "Josep". --Mosmof (talk) 13:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Most commonly known as Pep in English reliable sources. Hack (talk) 06:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - Pep is far more commonly used. The article should be listed as such. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 18:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This is the same case as Cesc Fabregas. It wouldn't make sense if we left it as Francesc Fabregas. I think the same should be valid for Pep. Acmilan10italia (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support - per WP:COMMONNAME.  – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please avoid sensationalism

Guardiola does not leave Barça because of having been knocked out of UCL o losing La Liga to rivals Real Madrid. It's a decision carefully thought for a long time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.23.224.78 (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Copa del Rey

2011/12 section should end with acknowledgement that Guardiola's final game in charge was Barcelona's victory in the Copa del Rey final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.25.47.126 (talk) 10:23, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 May 2012

Teams managed 2012- Chelsea Its wrong! Hasn't been confirmed by neither by Guardiola nor Chelsea

140.112.25.50 (talk) 11:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Some one else has sorted this. Not a criticism of the IP, the request has been hanging around a couple of days. Egg Centric 23:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

the highest honour is not a regional little medal of a region of Spain

the "highest honour" of what? of the world? of Spain? of a little region? The Nobel prize? uh oh, the reference is a local TV of a little region of Spain. Please put serious references. Guardiola won better and more important honours. I can't edit because article is seized. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.162.108.69 (talk) 02:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

What a little region? Catalunya, his country!, for him is a important honor, he loves catalunya--190.15.173.210 (talk) 05:11, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Catalonia is not a country, it is only a region. It does want to be a country though.

You have no proof that it's an important honour or that he loves Catalonia. Please supply quotes from reliable sources to support such statements. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Takeover date

Is that first training session implies anything, I wondered. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 07:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It implies that he is the head coach from that date. Date is needed for the coaching record table. Kingjeff (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Still not replied my question. I mean if he is not the head coach before that date. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 04:52, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what the question is, but Guardiola is not the manager until 26 June. He may attend or even lead practice, but he is not doing it as the team's manager. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The source is quite clear. The first pre–season training session is on 26 June. Guardiola is leading it. As the new head coach/manager, Guardiola is responsible for leading pre–season training. Kingjeff (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Spanish or Catalan name?

There is a template for Catalan names. Guardiola's, through having "i" as a connective, is a Catalan name. Should this be changed at the top? The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Do you have a source for that. Reverting. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Josep Guardiola i Sala - the Spanish version would be Josep Guardiola Sala. The national language policy enumerated in article 19.1 of Law 1/1998 stipulates that "the citizens of Catalonia have the right to use the proper regulation of their Catalan names and surnames and to introduce the conjunction between surnames". How could the Catalan connective "i" be used in a Spanish-form and not Catalan-form name? What you are saying is the nonsense. How much to you know about Hispanic naming customs and the Catalan language before becoming such an expert? The Almightey Drill (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for your statement? I do not claim to be an expert in the subject and I have not stated anything that could be construed as nonsense since I simply asked for a source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, is the naming convention Catalan or is the spelling of the subject's name simply Catalan? If so, if the convention is common to all Spanish-speaking nations, the current Spanish name template is not an issue and this becomes another front for Catalan separatism and should not be. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

The naming convention of the "i" connective makes it a Catalan name. Prove me wrong. Where's YOUR source? Mine was legal code which I stated. You haven't listened to a word I said. The Almightey Drill (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

My source is that he was born in Santpedor, Spain. You requested an additional opinion so please stop Wikipedia:Edit warring. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

While mine is that the law I wrote earlier in this calls his name through its use of the "i" conjunctive A CATALAN NAME. Will you change the hundreds of other uses of this template because say Joan Miró and Antoni Gaudi were born in Spain? The Almightey Drill (talk) 00:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a law, I see you stating something without any support. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

My two cents: yes, the "i" conjunction is indeed Catalan, but where is Catalonia? Surprise, surprise, it is in Spain! Hence, there should be no CATALAN NAMES tag, or BASQUE NAMES tag or GALICIAN NAMES tag, only Spanish.

This is only a personal opinion, i will not revert/add/remove anything because, in EIGHT years of editing i have never edited in Guardiola's page and do not intend to start now. Attentively --AL (talk) 00:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this is really a debate on the relevance of Template:Catalan name. Personally, I think that as it is the difference between him being Josep Guardiola (y) Salas and Josep Guardiola i Salas, it's a relevant seperate template from a separate custom. The Almightey Drill (talk) 10:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This isn't about the spelling of the name, it's about the naming convention as described at Spanish naming customs which is no different than where the template above links except it links to a sub-section that starts by saying "The Catalan-speaking territories also abide by the Spanish naming customs". What we have here is Catalan separatism rearing its head again. Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:56, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

So don't tackle me, just an Englishman using a template I saw. Ask for the template to be deleted if you are so sure. Go save the pages of Miró, Gaudí and Dalí from this evil "seperstism" As your argunent is on the relevance of the template, you're better off arguing there than here as this fits all of that template's criteria as a "Catalan name" The Almightey Drill (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with The Almightey Drill. The template exists to point to a specific section of the Spanish naming customs article; Guardiola's name exhibits traits specific to Catalan names (i.e the "i" between "Guardiola" and "Sala"), and the template helps indicate that the "i" is a conjunction and not part of either his paternal or maternal surname. Of course, if you don't think that the {{Catalan name}} template should exist, feel free to nominate it at TfD. – PeeJay 21:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I feel that the Spanish naming custom refers to Castilian while Catalan naming customs relate to Catalan specifically Catalan naming customs which are discussed here. This reference also talks about the law that The Almightey Drill mentioned earlier EddieV2003 (talk) 14:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand. This guy has a name that's *Catalan,* not Castilian. Naming conventions are indeed different for Catalans than they are for Castilians, despite these folks (often) being citizens of the same European state (though not always-- see Andorra, Catalonia North). This guy is a subject of the Spanish state, and he's Catalan in terms of his *nationality* as this term is used in the Constitution of Spain. Anything other than this-- and anything other than a failure to recognize this-- is political posturing, and very naked and rather ugly at that. This is not the place for that. If you'd like to dispute Catalan Independence, pro or con, there are plenty of forums for that. This is not the place for it. Please, stop it. I mean, I'm just not going to pretend that the motives here aren't rather opaque. They are. If a strident Catalanist with nothing better to do wanted to take out reference to Spain or Spanish from this guy, my reaction would be the same. Can we move on? The article deserves a template for Catalan naming, and the article deserves recognition for the fact that he is a Spanish citizen and is Catalan as a matter of "nationality" as this word is understood as a constitutional matter in the country where he lives. There are ways these things are taken care of-- without controversy-- on so many other articles: Josep Pla i Casadevall --RangerRichard (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It's easy for nuance to be lost on some. Of course, just because a nation exists doesn't mean it has one homogenous ethnicity/language/people. Killiondude (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Is birth state necessary in the infobox?

I don't see any other Spanish footballers with it. Generally speaking, the only time I see state listed in infoboxes is on articles of US subjects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:51, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And what if he were to suffer a heart attack and die in Munich, would we then list his death place as Munich, Bavaria, Germany? And if the same were to happen on the road in Manchester, would it be Manchester, England, United Kingdom? No special cases need to be made for Catalonia. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You can't use player articles from England, Wales or Scotland because they have teams that play in FIFA sanctioned matches and their union is quite different than that of Spain's. Nor can you use American articles, which was already mentioned. Feel free to stay on-topic and discuss here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You are mistaken. London is not in fact noted as being in the UK, only England. UK:Spain::England:Catalonia, as I've argued elsewhere. Thus my suggestion to you that look at how English footballer Beckham from London, England, is handled. Beyond that, Munich and Manchester are world cities-- as would be Barcelona. This is not the case for Santpedor. Noting it is in Catalonia is helpful even if it's not consistent. Being helpful and informative is .... Well, one of the best reasons I can think to not engage in what Emerson would label a "foolish consistency."RangerRichard (talk) 21:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Umm, you're mixing apples and oranges. Whether we generally say "London, England" as a matter of geographic designation is not a matter of FIFA rules. If there were only a British team, this would not be license to label his birthplace "London, UK" instead. FIFA applies to the team in question-- whether someone plays on an English team, or a Spanish team, and it might even be the basis for properly calling someone an "English player" (regardless of birthplace or citizenship). But FIFA doesn't affect what we call places in England or Catalonia or Surrey. It remains London, England.RangerRichard (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

You're the one mixing apples and oranges. While FIFA doesn't affect place names, it does determine player nationalities. Catalonia doesn't count in that regard.

As for London, England, UK, it's immaterial to this article. Find another Spanish player that is formatted this way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:19, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

And according to London, "London is the capital city of England and the United Kingdom." And There are wikipedia articles and addresses replete with "London, UK". Google it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wait, you're the one who takes out accurate geographic data, and tells me to justify it? What's wrong with you? We're not talking about his nationality or how best to describe it-- we're talking about where a particular town is, a matter that is in no way a FIFA rules issue. When has geographically useful information been taken out on such a basis? RangerRichard (talk) 21:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

We are not talking about the town, but the infobox. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I recall. That's where you took it out. But you want me to justify my accurate data; your aesthetic considerations, however, you seem to think need no justification at all. You're wrong. You're in a realm that's FIFA rules-free, so let's not go back to that nonsense. And let us again not bring up the issue of ethnicity, nationality or citizenship. This is geography.RangerRichard (talk) 21:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I suggested that you justify its use in this infobox by showing other Spanish football player articles that do so. You started talking in generalities so I followed.

As for the opening paragraph, it is a matter of nationality, and nothing more. See WP:OPENPARA. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Walter, I'm trying really, really hard to think you're working in good faith here, but nothing about that characterization is true, You are the one who began speaking in generalities by noting what is done elsewhere for justification for your own changes. We've established he's Spanish in terms of citizenship, that he's Catalan in terms of ethnic identity and that he was born in Catalonia. I presume, I think I presume, that you would agree with me that having those things somewhere in the article is important. So we're covered on that, and the article meets those informational requirements. Beyond that, my only dispute with you is that you've taken out additional geographically accurate information on the grounds that a rigorous analysis of every other entry would reveal that geographic data is not handled in exactly that way in other entries. Let's presume you're right. So what? You're the one who's removed it, and your justification continues to be that the information is likewise absent from some other unnamed articles. How is that a justification? What does that have to do with this entry? And more importantly, how is it remotely possible that you're in the position to suggest other folks speak in mere "generalities" to make their points when your justification for removing factual information here appears to be ... Based on the absence of similar data from other unnamed entries. Tha't sounds like the very essence of a generality. Could you maybe try for something like an actual defense with regard to this article, and how you've made this article better? I mean, even the title of this section, "birth state," is practically intentionally misleading on your part. Surely you know better than that.RangerRichard (talk) 04:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's good that you're assuming that I'm working in good faith here, but it's not about me in any way. Read what I wrote and provide the precedents. What I want you to see is that there are none. You have made comparisons to dissimilar situations.

I assume that you're a Catalan nationalist pushing a POV that doesn't belong in any English Wikipedia article about a footballer. His birth state is immaterial to the infobox. He national team is listed. The state team is also listed, although it shouldn't be. That's enough Catalonian nationalism for one infobox.

So instead of trying to persuade your way into a precedent, don't. I just want you to see how other player articles are listed and give this fight up before it continues. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

It's shocking to me that you're assuming I'm not working in good faith and that you would admit as much. Again, Walter, I must ask: What is wrong with you? I'm a park ranger from Alaska. I have a great interest in languages, Catalan among them (I'm pretty sure that noun and adjective form of Catalonia is Catalan, FYI). I can honestly state I have no opinion on Catalan independence, not being Catalan, not being Spanish, by national origin or otherwise. For the record, I'm opposed to Alaska independence. Can we move on from that? I am interested in geography. I am interested in noting when someone is in some measure part of the Catalan/Valencian cultural environment. There's nothing non-encyclopedic about any of those things. And it's not about "enough"-- if things are true and relevant, they belong in an article about someone. There 's no "enough" criterion for true and relevant data, and to the extent you've bullied your way into similar solutions in other infoboxes, I still am at a loss as to how that constitutes a valid argument either (my use of the term bully, as a verb and noun, is based on your penchant to speak to other people in the imperative mood, generally used in English for commands and the like-- seriously, what is that about?). To reprise your arguments elsewhere, we should limit ourselves to what's relevant here-- which you smartly keep a moving target. But let's do that anyway, and you can assume good faith about me rather than what you have been doing.RangerRichard (talk) 15:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

PS the really dumb thing there is that, taking a look a random Canadian footballer, I found Ashtone Morgan on my first random selection. My problem here, in terms of geography, in terms of encyclopedic content, and not in terms of how you may have bullied people into submission in the past, is that despite your representations to the contrary, it appears as if footballers in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom all have their second-order geographic areas noted in the info boxes, despite differing FIFA treatment in these countries for subnational political units (thus I would suggest to you that FIFA is not relevant to purely geographic questions, though it might be relevant to matters related to, you know, sport). You want to suggest to people that Catalonia is an exception or people want it to be. It looks more to me as if Spain, a country that is at least semi-federal with strong regional sentiments as your own, is the exception. Why? You don't seem to have an answer for that, except "consistency" (though there does not appear to be anything akin to pure consistency elsewhere; again, despite your suggestions to the contrary). The geographic problem with Ashtone Morgan is that noting Toronto is in Ontario in his article is largely pointless as folks generally know where Toronto is, and there are no other Torontos in other provinces competing for attention. Certainly this is not the case with Santpedor, the birthplace of Pep Guardiola. Even to the extent I recognized it as a Catalan name, that does not mean it is located in Catalonia; there are at least three other autonomous communities (the proper term, by the by) where it might be. Noting here that it's in Catalonia is actually meaningful in this case. And thus encyclopedic. Appeals to consistency, real or imagined, will not undo this. Thus it remains the case that you have offered no justification for your deletion of relevant, accurate and encyclopedic content here, in the context of this article. Sending me on wild goose chases and questioning my motives are not justifications for your own actions, and you have said nothing else in that regard. Nothing. RangerRichard (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

PPS this is almost off topic, but I'm not sure you have a full understanding of the term "nationality" in the Spanish context. Guardiola is obviously a Spaniard. He is a citizen of the Spanish State. Yet Spain in the Spanish context is not generally understood as a nationality. Indeed in the Spanish Constitution, being Catalan is defined as a "nationality." You're importing Anglo-Saxon ideas of statehood and nationhood and mapping them onto another cultural context. It's not "nationalism" to note, even repeatedly, that someone is Catalan when this is commonly and uncontroversially understood to be his nationality. Again you are correct to note that he is a "Spanish footballer" for purposes of FIFA rules, or at least he used to be. It does seem odd to punch away about something he used to be though, when his nationality, as understood in the Spanish constitutional context, is not ever going to change. You want to equate this with Catalan nationalism. I'm going to equate it with understanding Spain in Spanish terms, and, you know, not so much in Canadian terms (indeed it cracks me up you've labelled this section as "birth state," which in the Spanish context would be understood as referring to Spain-- so, yes, keeping Spain is probably necessary; adding Catalonia is probably helpful-- and I don't think you're even honestly disputing that). As I'm sure you'd agree, cultural illiteracy isn't a basis for making changes either. So it's not so much *Catalan* nationalism I see as a problem here; it's the less sexy but far more common North American ethnocentrism I'd say is the issue, as is tellingly revealed by the inaccurate title of this section itself.RangerRichard (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

So no examples from Spanish football that support the adding of state to the infobox? Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You do realize by setting the terms of the debate, you automatically win. Yet I never agreed to those terms. No one gave you that power, and I decline to recognize your authority to do so here. Your assignment in light of your edits is to justify the removal of encyclopedic information in this article. You have not done so to date. Gamesmanship is not a substitute for that. Being clever is not a substitute for that. Questioning motives is not a substitute for that. Perhaps that works with other people. I'm not other people, Walter, and I'm not playing your games. I suggest you redouble your efforts to answer the question at hand. In the absence of any good-faith effort on your part to engage with me on the matter of the edits you made, I will proceed accordingly. In the meantime, I would hope you reconsider and supply an actual response rather than changing the question and going off on jejune yet ultimately inapposite tangents so you wouldn't have to justify your actions with regard to this article and the very specific circumstances in question here. RangerRichard (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's an outright lie. I only win if I set out the terms and I know what the results are to be. I don't, which is why I asked you to find other Spanish footballer articles that include the birth state. Perhaps your blanket arguments work with other people who don't care about Wikipedia or who can't think rationally or for themselves. I can so your ploys don't work with me.

In short, there's no precedent of Spanish footballers to change this article to include the subject's state in the infobox and so your arguments in favour of it are grasping at straws. I won't participate in your tangential arguments because there's no need to. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

There remains nothing in your response about this article. Apparently you've read nothing I've written. Spain is the birth state here. Catalonia is not a state. I'll wait a few days unless you'd like to try again. Gosh, you really do like to lecture others, but you really don't like to hear it, huh? Anyway, I'm not here to do research at your command to justify your deletion of relevant, accurate and encyclopedic data-- not a tangential matter, but the only matter, and just about the only thing you haven't addressed. I remain interested in learning how it is not at least one of those things. If it's a lie, let me know where you've addressed it. It must be hidden somewhere ... Is that crickets I hear? Crickets and your good faith, so quiet they can't be heard! Anyway, Walter, you're wrong. You don't win if you're right and you know the answer to the question you pose. You win if you can justify your actions.RangerRichard (talk) 03:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC) is

Exactly. Catalonia is a region of Spain and it includes four provinces. It would be like indicating, as you were trying to do on my talk page, that Beckham was born in London, Southern England, England, United Kingdom; or for Iker Casillas: Móstoles, the autonomous community of Madrid, Spain; or for Sergio Ramos, Camas, province of Seville, Andalusia, Spain. Shall I continue or have I made my point? The region is not needed in the infobox.

Instead of acting like no one knows anything, perhaps you should WP:assume clue and stop being a META:DICK. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. Your points apply to London, Seville, Munich, and would apply to Barcelona too. Your points do not apply to Santpoder, which is not a town whose location most folks will know. You claim I'm engaging in dissimilar comparisons, but I would suggest to you that your comparisons could not be more far apart. To the extent there are other obscure places that might be aided by adding second-order, or third-order, geographic units, but do not currently have them, that doesn't take away from the fact the addition here would be useful. You're aiming both for a consistency that does not exist, and even if it did, would serve no particular purpose, or at least no purpose you've articulated. I'm presuming you have a clue, and are able to respond to this in a reasonable non-META:DICK way. Eventually. Because you haven't yet. As above, merely attacking me doesn't substitute for a response, as emotionally satisfying as this might be for you.RangerRichard (talk) 03:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

PS. Southern England might be a region, but it's not a political unit-- that is, it's not a region with a government. Wales and Catalonia, by contrast, are second-order geo-political units, in a sense the equivalent of states in the United States and provinces in Canada, but only because these are second-order units as well. I suppose there's an argument to be made for including third-order political units for Spanish place names. With Santpoder, that would be Barcelona province. That's a bit confusing, suggesting without substantive explanation it's merely part of Barcelona city, but then again it is probably as confusing as footballers I saw whose birthplace was given as Scarborough. Unlike you, I don't see precedence as binding, I suppose, particularly when improvements are always possible in any article. You essentially give no response to this idea, which if you didn't take as potentially true would mean nothing in Wikipedia could ever change. Precedence! That's the way it is now! No, you need a reason beyond that, particularly when you're making the change. Also, the autonomous government in Catalonia (is making mention that this government exists "Catalan nationalism" or some sort of, I don't know, interest in current affairs?) has been working to abolish provinces, so that's a bit problematic too, the idea that now is the time to add names of provinces to place names. Other political units are obviously more powerful and more meaningful, in some places more so than others to be sure. You want to talk about consistency. I want to talk about how the world is and is perceived. It's a complicated place, and Wikipedia needs to capture that complication. You say nothing in response to that except, essentially, Richard, you're an idiot, shut up. That's not enough, and it won't do, short term or long term.RangerRichard (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Southern England is not a political unit. Bad example. Do you have any examples of Spanish footballers who list either their province or region in the infobox? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of Spanish footballers from relatively small, unknown towns, where adding additional geographic information would be unencyclopedic?RangerRichard (talk) 05:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

All of them. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Or more to the point, I can't think of any where adding that information to the infobox would be of any encyclopedic value. The infobox is to be a summary of key features of the page's subject. It's not designed to list minute details. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but not one you do not even attempt to support, and certainly not one that flows ineluctably from the guidance-- your argument, "because I say so," or even more to the point, "because that's what I say it says," isn't a reason. Here's my plan: I'm going to start with reviewing the infoboxes of footballers from the Balearic Islands and work my way westward. To the extent I add useful and encyclopedic geographic data, I will justify that in the talk section. This is far and away more than you've done with regards to your edits on this article, which you to date have not undertaken to analyze and justify in any serious and thoughtful way. I will not entertain naked appeals to consistency and precedence without some effort to join these abstract notions to the article at issue and its encyclopedic content, an effort in persuasion which you have yet to attempt. Do understand my position: I do not believe that I am wholly right, and you are horribly wrong, and I will never back away from that. Rather, my position is that you have not done anything valid to justify your position to date with regard to *this article,* and as best I can tell, you believe you need not make such an argument but instead point to articles which you believe are similar in certain respects, and discounting examples when you don't believe they support your thesis. All to the good, but then the argument becomes about the similarity of these examples to this article, and not about *this article,* a topic which you seem nearly allergic to discussing. That might serve some rhetorical purpose of yours, but it doesn't help support your edits.RangerRichard (talk) 06:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If it were vital to an encyclopedic understanding of subjects it would be commonplace and you could show me article after article of cases to support your claim. Clearly, you're the minority and it might be best to support your claim rather than try to use this article as a precedent. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Being "vital" isn't the test of whether something is encyclopedic. If we took out everthing but "vital" information from Wikipedia, I shudder to think where that would stop. You still will not address yourself to the information under discussion in the context of this article. I've come to the conclusion you have nothing to say about this article *in particular* about the supposedly "non-vital" information you've removed. Do let me know if I'm mistaken. Wikipedia isn't about holding back the dyke of what you consider to be "vital" precedence. It's about employing thoughtful flexibility so the encyclopedia is useful. You've again failed in the regard, and you've taken an abstract notion as if it's evidence for what really matters here *instead.* Again, could we focus on this article? Even if you believe I will use this article to change every other article (based on your odd ideas about consistency and precedence, and what roles these play in editing), that still does not get you out of having to take a stand and make an actual, particularized argument here with regard to the very article we're discussing and the deletions you've made to accurate, encyclopedic data. You don't get to opt out of that, you know, just because you "say so." How many times can you told that's not a reason? RangerRichard (talk) 22:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh-- by the by, I have found articles of Spanish footballers where there is a notation of second-order geo-political unit in the infobox. But surely you don't think I'm going to tell you what they are, do you? I'm not going do so, because as is the case here, I would expect you to revert them to what you believe is required by "precedence" and "consistency." Regardless, I believe an individualized determination is required, and whatever is the case in other articles in toto is simply not germane. Madrid, Barcelona and Seville obviously won't require any particular second-order specification in infoboxes glanced at hurriedly. Other smaller or lesser-known places, or places that otherwise are geographically unusual, might.RangerRichard (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of Catalan or any other type of nationalism to include the names of provinces or autonomous communities (there are no regions) of Spain when indicating a place name. The names of provinces or autonomous communities are frequently added to addresses as they are in other country (i.e., the United States) so that it is clear where a town is located. Because this is standard practice in Spain, it is also standard practice in Spain in both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia for footballers from Spain.Cameta (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

In the United States, states are technically independent and I believe that this is why they're listed. I have seen many BLPs where they don't even list the nation, such as "Los Angeles, California", and some where they don't list the state, such as "Los Angeles, U.S.". Canada, because they live next to the U.S. often follow that practice: "Toronto, Ontario, Canada", but when editing football articles—although not BLPs—it's usually "Toronto, Canada". Australia also frequently lists states. I'm not sure why.

Since it's such a common practice in Spain, would you show me either BLPs here on English Wikipedia where this is done? Football player articles would be preferred. I have given a few, but David Villa is from a small region in Spain and that's all that's listed. (population-wise)

Similarly none of the current starting squad of the Catalan national football team have the link, and many are from small towns.

Jordi Codina

Kiko Casilla

Joan Capdevila

Gerard Piqué

Marc Bartra

Martín Montoya

Jordi Alba

Marc Valiente

Víctor Álvarez Delgado

Sergio Busquets

Cesc Fàbregas

Sergi Roberto

Víctor Sánchez Mata

Jordi Xumetra

Aleix Vidal

David López Silva

Oriol Rosell

Sergio García de la Fuente

Bojan Krkić

Piti (footballer)

Cristian Tello

Oriol Riera

Now perhaps I'm being pedantic, but I'd be glad to know why this is suddenly an issue. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The states of the United States are not independent, technically or otherwise. At any rate, this is a matter of geography, not the nature of American federalism. Is this some sort work list for me? When you set about asking about the matter on Wikiproject Football, I don't recollect a lot of support for your position. Things change Walter, and perhaps is this something you might step back from this and look at it without continuously ascribing motives to me which I simply don't have. As I have repeatedly said, you may have a valid point with your regard to this article, but I continue to be perplexed by what it is. You wish to talk about just about any other article but this one. So I'm at a loss. RangerRichard (talk) 05:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe the point of the above list is that it shows the current starting squad of the Catalan national football team, and if we were to click each link and examine the article we would see that the infobox contains text like "Place of birth Reus, Spain". In other words, the existing articles do not have "Place of birth Reus, Catalonia, Spain", and that confirms what has been said above, namely that this article should not include a gratuitous linked mention of Catalonia. I support that view. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's just a circular argument-- it shouldn't have it because it doesn't it. At any rate, it's been Walter's argument from the start, which is to say out of concern for consistency. It's a very selective use of the term-- it's not consistent with "this set of things," but don't look at "those things over there" because they don't count, because, well, they're not consistent. Otherwise, one would be forced to make a substantive argument on the merits instead, or a argument specific to this article. Those are lacking here. RangerRichard (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason to provide superfluous birth place details in this article, and the fact that the information would be superfluous is well demonstrated by the list of articles above. Scanning through this talk page shows that plenty of nationalistic fervor has been devoted to the issue of Catalonia, but that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 07:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not responsible for any of the intra-Spanish clashing above. I'm not Catalan, I'm not Spanish, I'm an American of English descent from Alaska. My interest is geography and language. I'm not second-guessing your motives, so I would ask you do the same. RangerRichard (talk) 07:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnuniq didn't even imply motives. He made a statement. Please quote the exact words where he discussed your motives. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I only ask that he not do so. I'm sure you'd agree that's a fair request of anyone. Meantime, Walter, perhaps we could return to the issue at hand, which is *this article,* a matter that remains under-discussed while so many other things unrelated to it are abundantly discussed. That's a shame. RangerRichard (talk) 07:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

RangerRichard said "The states of the United States are not independent, technically or otherwise." So Alaska requires permission from Massachusetts to changes its laws? Each of the states is indeed independent from each of the other states, but none of the states are a sovereign nation; they are organized under a federal government which provides defense, international relations, and other services. The provinces of Canada and the Australian states operate in a similar fashion.

Now, to the issue at hand, I can understand needing to put a secondary-level indication if there is more than one town or city with that name within a nation (how many "Springfields" are there in the United States?), but reference to the nation suffices if there is only one town or city with that name, or if there is one which is generally presumed to be the one discussed (e.g. Manhattan can refer to the island borough in New York City, or to the town in Kansas, but the general presumption when discussing Manhattan is New York). Unless there is more than one town named Santpedor in Spain, then reference to Santpedor, Spain is sufficient. Just my $0.47. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 12:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure, well, yes. In that very limited sense, US states are independent are "independent" from one another, but so are, you know, Alaska boroughs. One town is likewise-- and as a matter of definition--- "independent" from the next too (in fact Virginia boasts a whole series of cities that are called "independent cities" because they're not part of a county, but they won't be getting UN seats anytime soon). Perhaps more to the point, so are Spain's autonomous communities-- Catalonia couldn't legislate for Galicia. Though your notions of federalism are not where I hang my hat, they are at least weakly suggestive of a broader and more important general principle that these are all second-order sub-national geopolitical units used generally for identification and clarity. As you correctly note, in nations with a federal or semi-federal structure, those sub-national units often play a number of similar roles. RangerRichard (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The principal question here is whether it is vital to the understanding of an article on Pep Guardiola in which region the town in which he was born is located. I think not. If people want to find out more on Santpedor, they can by virtue of one single click on the town's name. Furthermore, as correctly pointed out above, the name of the state/region/province is only provided in case of need for disambiguation. For instance if we are writing an article on a German footballer born in Frankfurt, it is preferred to add the correct state of Hesse or Brandenburg to the birthplace information (although in that particular case the Germans themselves will disambiguate through providing the city's full name, either Frankfurt am Main or Frankfurt an der Oder). So as long as there are no additional towns called Santpedor there's no need to provide the region here. Tvx1 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That is true, and there is no other "Toronto" or "Saskatoon" so likewise in those cases any provincial designation is pointless, except that they're routinely included. So, that. In the United States context, of course outside of those cases where there could be confusion, the same principle could be applied, and state designations could be removed from infoboxes on the theory links could be followed to learn the state in question, or the text could be read to learn that East St. Louis is really in Illinois. Things could be done this way, but probably shouldn't-- because the "vitality" of the information isn't the issue in North America, and it shouldn't be here. Appeals to consistency should be ... consistent. I think folks who espouse consistency as an abstract notion should be less, you know, inconsistent, and provide Spanish place names with the same level of extra clarity provided to their North American counterparts. In the name of consistency-- if consistency is your touchstone.RangerRichard (talk) 19:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, this isn't North-American wikipedia. So we are not in the very least bound by writing this encyclopedia following North-American traditions. Secondly the whole of your last reply is an argument to remove state names from inboxes dealing with North American subjects if there is no need for such disambiguation. I agree with that notion. It certainly isn't an argument for including Catalonia in this person's infobox. Tvx1 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The milieu of North American place names does not extend to Europe in general. I have tried to explain that several times and regardless of how many different times you come back to it, it does not make it so. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I suppose if you place the biographies important to you into a class different from all other Soanish biographies, you might be right. But you have to work hard and create classifications relevant to you, but not to users generally, to make those points. Because I see this as a Spanish biography first, and not merely a biography about a Spanish footballer, I don't see the supposed consistency as you do. It's also important to note that subnational units for the article appear elsewhere, including both the Spanish and Catalan entries (and the Chinese and Japanese versions). So it's somewhat unseemly to say that English language Wikipedia will treat North America place names in a peculiar way when this is not only the very same practice in Spain itself for Spanish place names as noted above by another commenter, but in other places too. It looks likes ethnocentricism, whatever the motives, and indeed it does make English Wikipedia look like North America Wikipedia. And the fact it applies to this unique set of Spanish biographies only makes that North American ethnocentrism look worse. Again, any appeal to consistency has to be .. calibrated and applied *inconsistently* even to formulate it. Thus it fails. I'm sorry the first people who pointed this out were football-loving patriotic Catalans then followed by other equally boisterous Spaniards all advancing specious arguments in this regard. That doesn't take away from other arguments that legimately support the same or similar matters for very different reasons.RangerRichard (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a pretty simple place—if someone has a suggestion that things should be done differently from how they normally are done, they should find the right wikiproject and start a serious and widely advertised discussion to get support for the great new idea. I'm not sure of the right venue, but the invitation list would need to include multiple wikiprojects and the people who work on WP:MOS and infoboxes. The generic place is WP:VPR. At any rate, what is definitely wrong is to pick off articles one-by-one. Johnuniq (talk) 09:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

And definitely WP:BLP. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is is not the place to discuss. It's proposal for changing a widespread practice and this should be discussed one person's article since this would affect hundreds and hundreds of articles. I can't make much out of your last reply, RangerRichard, but it seems to me that you too agree that there should be no ethnocentrism and that states should only be included in a person's infobox unless there is no need to disambiguate. Furthermore I still don't see just how Santpedor being located in Catalunya is so important to the subject of Pep Guardiola. Surely that is something for the article of Santpedor and it actually is quite rightly included there.Tvx1 (talk) 21:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Global changes versus individual changes based on the content and context of the article and the subject of the biography

I think you're right again, Tvx1. I've never sought to change or propose edits for every biography for every Spanish footballer, for which other considerations might dictate other solutions. I've sought to improve and provide clarity for *this* biography. To the extent I believe the appeals to consistency are misplaced, you are right. This is not the forum for that. It is not my argument. Improving the clarity of this biography is. To the extent subnational units are often provided for Spaniards who are not footballers, and for footballers who are not Spanish, I see no issue of consistency, real or imagined, that requires resolution. I believe, instead, that individualized, particularized, careful analysis is more beneficial than rules mechanically applied. Surely no one would seek to add "New York State" to a biography where the infobox read "New York City" as a birth place. That said, nor would I take out the second New York if it read "New York, New York," because the subject of the biography went on to be the governor of the state of New York. The subject of the article *matters,* the needs of users *matter,* the placename itself *matters,* the dictates and needs of geography *matter.* Context and content *matter.* The guidelines are guidelines; they are not rules. None of those things have been addressed as far as *this very article* goes, much to my continued frustration. People want to discuss every single scenario *except* this article, and when they do, it comes down to "it's not here because it's not here." Well, if precedence is enough never to change an article, we can all close our user accounts now. RangerRichard (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

But you at least bring up something that is valuable in the context of this article. You ask the question, implicitly, why is the fact that Santpedor is located in Catalonia (English spelling) so important for this article? Here is where Catalan nationalism rears its ugly head (if you think its head is ugly)-- but it's not the nationalism of any of the editors, it's the nationalism *of the subject of the biography.* In addition to being a footballer, Guardiola is of course an important "hometown" hero. And he has said that Catalonia is his "patria" (there are various ways to interpret that-- motherland, fatherland, homeland), and Catalonia is not Spain (I'm happy to provide a reference from a newspaper of record and add it to the article). That's his opinion, and it's really rather a striking thing to say when you recollect he helped win an Olympic gold medal. For Spain. He's a public figure. Perhaps you don't believe that politics has any place in sports, but that is what he has said, so there's no changing history here. Many folks obviously think he's something of a traitor (I'm happy to add that and references for that as well). It's actually not exactly why I think it's important (I just didn't know where it was, so I believe the extra clarity of North American practice is often useful where the locals *have the same norms*) but there is a reason that transcends sport in this case, because he is more than a footballer, like it or not. RangerRichard (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Guardiola's CatalonianCatalan ethnicity is already mentioned multiple times in the article and his participation with the CatalonianCatalan team is mentioned in the infobox. I see no further need for the infobox of person to stress in which region of Spain a particular town is located. As pointed before this article is not about Santpedor. The only argument you seem to be able to provide for putting Catalonia in the infobox is to further decorate Guardiola's Catalonian Catalan identity. That are not good reasons. Wikipedia's goals do not include advertising a certain region. Tvx1 (talk) 00:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In Spanish terms, in Spanish legal, constitutional terms, being Catalan (this is the correct noun and adjective, not Catalonian) is his "nationality." Spain is his citizenship. This is indeed why subnational units appear on both *Spanish* and *Catalan* Wikipedia-- it's an explanation of someone who's *Spanish* in *Spanish* terms, not in terms that might be more familiar to us. It's not a matter of decoration any more than it is an North American context when subnational units are routinely used-- as they are routinely used in Spanish addresses. This is the problem: Could birthplaces be deleted from footballer biographies and we say that information in the article is sufficient? Sure, it's all there. But once you decide to place the birthplace in the infobox, truncating the name *deforms* as it generally appears locally and takes it out of its native context. It doesn't help, it confuses, as the truncated name brings up more questions than it answers (mostly the question being: what's going on here?). Yes, you can follow the link to find out where it is, or you can read the article to find out critical information (yeah, I'm going with "critical" in the sense of "crucial," as it explains why someone would say Spain wasn't his country despite winning an Olympic medal for the nation). But why bother having a truncated placename in the infobox if *that's what you have to do?* It also brings up the question, why is name truncated, and what's the agenda in it appearing in this form (I mean, sometimes the *very name* of the article of the placename needs to be cut short to so that these placenames appear the truncated form)? I can't help but notice, when I look at the FC Barcelona website and others, for example, they *do indeed* include subnational geographic units. Why do you think that is? Decoration?? Or do think it's something more than that you might not be fully appreciating? RangerRichard (talk) 02:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

When we use the word nationality on wikipedia, we refer to citizenship. When we want to refer to your version of nationality, we use the word ethnicity on wikipedia. Yes, literally speaking the Spanish law uses the word "Nation" but you would be interpreting it to literally then. It doesn't refer to it in the sense of citizenship. His passport will still read Nationality: Spanish (or Nacionalidad: Española), like in the following example:

File:ESPpassportdatapage.png

His Catalan identity is already addressed in the article. Stressing the Catalan location of a town in the infobox will not enlarge that. Tvx1 (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm surprised by you posting this, but I thank you all the same. Immediately after the town of the place of birth is a subnational geographic unit-- Palencia, much as is indicated on my passport (Alaska, which of course would routinely appear in a footballer biography, leaving aside there are no footballers from Alaska, only hockey players). Anyway, yes. This is precisely what football clubs in Spain do when showing birthplace as well-- town followed by some sort of subnational unit, just as in North America. Another editor (Cameta, I believe) made this point above. Thanks for posting this. If you'll read in detail what I've written above, my primary concern is a geographic one, not one of "nationality," or any such thing (though I do believe that's relevant if it's a biography of Catalan nationalist, because it's a *biography*, but that's not the only reason). That's covered, as you note, in the article itself. But truncating the name of the birthplace in a way that it is not done *in Spain itself* doesn't make any sense. Geographically. RangerRichard (talk) 04:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yet once again your American state is not the same as the Spanish milieu. Please stop pushing that non-point. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm "pushing" (you like that word!) what a Spanish passport says at the moment in the context of how Spanish place names are represented on it. In Spain. By Spaniards. For Spaniards. Incidentally, not in Catalonia. Actually, I'm not "pushing" it. I'm pointing it out. Talking about me, and my state, and what I'm doing, won't make that go away, and doesn't address the issue at all. Talking about me isn't an argument, Walter. But I'm flattered by the attention. RangerRichard (talk) 04:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The municipality, Carrión de los Condes, is located in the the autonomous community of Castile and León, but that's not listed. No, they list Palencia which is about 40 kilometres (25 mi) away. Why? I don't know. Feel free to explain why they list a large city rather than the autonomous community.

But as I've said, adding provinces, states, or even autonomous communities is not representative of addresses in Europe. But you don't believe me, so I'll rely on other Wikiedpians instead. Let's look at how this subject is viewed in European editions of Wikipedia.

• City and Major Geographic location (country/nation)

1. ca:Josep_Guardiola_i_Sala Santpedor, Catalunya (not surprising for the Catalan project).
2. da:Josep_Guardiola Santpedor, Spanien
3. el:Ζοζέπ_Γκουαρδιόλα Σαντπέντορ, Ισπανία
4. es:Pep_Guardiola Sampedor (Barcelona), España
5. fr:Pep_Guardiola Santpedor (Espagne)
6. pt:Josep_Guardiola Santpedor, Espanha
7. pl:Josep_Guardiola Santpedor, Hiszpania
8. sv:Pep_Guardiola Barcelona, Spanien (Barcelona?)
9. fi:Josep_Guardiola Santpedor, Espanja

• All three

1. de:Josep_Guardiola Santpedor, Katalonien, Spanien

• Nothing!

1. it:Josep_Guardiola (they cleverly don't even list birth place, only nationality, which is Spanish)

I would argue that they know better than us. But then again, I'm of German heritage and should be supporting their method, shouldn't I?

PS: Happy Thanksgiving. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. My (Belgian) passport just displays the city of birth. No province, no autonomous community (which would be Flanders). And the also includes Nationality:Belgian. Nice of you to mention your US passport. But as far as I can find, US passports only display the state of birth, whereas Canadian passports only display the city/town of birth:

File:NewCanadianPage2Passport.png

So do you want us to remove all the towns/cities of birth from our biographies about people from the U.S. just because that's how they are indentified on their passports? Tvx1 (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Not really the crux of my argument. RangerRichard (talk) 05:55, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't give a crap about the above arguments. All I will say is this: adding "Catalonia" to Guardiola's place of birth might seem like an act of Catalan nationalism, but even if it is, that doesn't matter; his place of birth, Santpedor, is a very small town and no one could be expected to know where in Spain it is without listing its autonomous community. We do the same with English footballers who are born in small towns (e.g. Michael Carrick, born in Wallsend, Tyne and Wear). If Guardiola was born in Barcelona itself, this wouldn't be an issue, as Barcelona is big enough for people to know where it is and it won't easily be confused with other cities of the same name. But he was born in Santpedor, and without looking it up, who the fuck knows where that is? – PeeJay 15:09, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your conciseness. If only there were a way to link to the village so people could learn more about it for those who wanted to know in which region it was. To be fair, how many English readers likely don't know where Catalonia is?

The English player article is not a good precedent in that it's not a player from a non-English speaking nation. We have to remember our audience.

Finally, the subject is addressed and linked later in the article. Why is it important for the infobox? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Because the infobox is meant to summarise concisely the contents of the entire article. It doesn't make the infobox any bigger, hence it definitely doesn't cost anything to add it. – PeeJay 15:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Concise is the word. The region is not required to remain as concise as possible.

Adding the term doesn't make it any smaller either, and it costs with distraction.

I must admit that adding it without linking was better than the alternative. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3:. Can you please tell why it is important, let alone vital, when writing about Pep Guardiola to include a birth region to add birth town? This article is NOT about Santpedor but about PEP GUARDIOLA. It's mentioned multiple times in the article that he's Catalan (even that Santpedor is in Catalonia) and there are two links to Santpedor as well. If anyone really wants to find out more about Santpedor they can by virtue of ONE click. Tvx1 (talk) 22:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3:. Of course I completely agree with you, but I also think it's pointless because we're never going to reach agreement on this here. What I find so ... frustrating is that the conclusion is that we must have an all-or-nothing solution, rather than a sensible solution; that is, either in *every infobox* a subnational unit must be included, even if it doesn't clarify anything at all, or in cases where it might be helpful it *cannot* be included. Thus I have not engaged in a "request for comments" on this basis because it has never been my position that something like that would constitute a common-sense approach, emphasis on common sense. The fact that it's included for non-Spanish players won't convince the some folks in this discussion that anything like a common-sense solution might be something that should be attempted in these cases. The problem is, they will see *any* such attempt in any Spanish footballer's info as a "precedent" that then can be used in every other Spanish footballer's infobox to do the same. I don't know why even if that's the case it constitutes an argument for *this* article, but they believe it is. I don't pretend to understand when "vitally necessary" became a criterion for inclusion or exclusion of information (rather than, say, usefulness or clarity or something ... legitimately encyclopedic), but that is what editors in this project believe is the appropriate standard. There doesn't appear to be any way to convince them of anything different merely through dialogue. I mention this because it has been going on for some time. I've continued to engage in it only because I have been trying to understand the deeply-held nature of opinions against inclusion of this information in infoboxes, and I will admit to you that I am stumped. Notice that my comments are directed at you, rather than generally, because I have otherwise made my position abundantly clear, though it continues to be misrepresented (and perhaps legitimately misunderstood) all the same. Cheers. RangerRichard (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Consistency, Precedence, Clarity, Usefulness

Against all my better judgment, I supply the following biography of a Spanish basketball player wherein a subnational geographic unit is noted:

• Raül López

Vic is of course a small town located beyond the Barcelona Metropolitan Area but within the province of Barcelona, as one would immediately grasp from the infobox. Clarity achieved. Consistency with footballers' biographies? No, but I'm not concerned about that, I'm concerned about judging its encyclopedic quality and its geographic utility. A+. Incidentally, it has included Barcelona province as an intermediate subnational unit since October 2010. I have made no edits to this page. I have not otherwise been involved in the editing of this page.

Moving on. Next we have the biography of this footballer who was born in Spain:

• Martí Ventolrà

This biography has read "Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain" since November 2012. I likewise have had no part in its editing. As a general principle, it violates how I would treat an infobox as "everyone" knows that Barcelona is in Catalonia. So. I will, however, attempt to reconstruct why the infobox includes Catalonia here. This footballer is Mexican, but a Mexican of Catalan descent. The fact that he is Catalan is meaningful-- he was part of the exodus of Catalans who were on the losing side of the Spanish Civil War. Many established themselves in Mexico. I suspect the editors were making this point about history-- leaving Spain after the war and coming to Mexico as a result-- with clarity in the infobox. And there it is. Should it be changed now? I can't think of reason why it should be. Consistency? I've found others, but as I've said before, I'm not identifying biographies that some people believe should be changed, such as this one, for reasons that do not bear on their biographical significance.

Again, if I haven't made my point that the particulars of the biography, the life of the subject of the biography, and the needs of geography are what matter, and not consistency for consistency's sake, let me state it again. Those determinations are what a useful encyclopedia needs in order to meet the interests of those who use it, rather than the caprices and hobby-horses of those who compile it. These biographies make that point.

If a "precedent" alone is sufficient to change the infobox here, there is precedence. I do not subscribe to that theory, but if you do, here it is. My reasons for including a subnational unit do not require any such "precedence," but rather the needs of the article in question. But there you go. As I understand the objections to the most recent edit by PeeJay, and the basis of the revert, those have been met. And the revert should be undone unless yet another objection will now be tendered in its place to ensure a consistency which does not and should not exist. RangerRichard (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

And not for anything: I believe there have been quite a few opinions expressed on whether subnational units should be included, which in the main, as of today, have included voices generally favorable to the idea on an as-needed basis and indeed some people have supported that concept for reasons I had not considered (and all that despite the slanted title of the post):

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_90#Catalan_nationalism_on_Talk:Pep_Guardiola.3F RangerRichard (talk) 22:19, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on this. Shall we take it to an RfC now? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I still maintain that unless required for disambiguation, listing Town, Nation as the birthplace is sufficient. As for the examples provided above, Ventolrà was born in Barcelona (which needs no disambiguation), and López was born in the only town named Vic in Spain (at least according to a quick Google search), thus also needing no disambiguation. The fact that those two athletes were born in the region of Catalonia is not of major import to their notoriety, at least not until Catalonia becomes a sovereign nation. I will argue this point for anyone born anywhere. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 16:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

As my grandmother would say, you people do what you want to do, you always do, generally followed by a you're a disgrace, not to anyone in particular, just sotto voce. She was a riot. I've provided, Walter, exactly what you were looking for regarding this article. It stands on its own merits. I do not support the idea that a universal solution is required, but rather I support a case-by-case analysis made by individual editors based on the biographic needs of the footballer in question (why? because the contents of every article are produced in exactly this way)-- the subjects of the biographies of course often times are in fact a whole human beings with a life beyond sport and this needs to be taken into account as well. Thus as I have indicated before, I am not prepared to advance an RfC on the basis proposed, because any solution would obviate what I believe should be the approach (thus even if I "won" and the consensus was that subnational unit should be shown in the infobox-- this goes against my entire idea that the infobox summarizes the article, and sometimes a subnational unit is necessary to make that summary comprehensible based on the contents of the article, and sometimes it's not). I am satisfied *this article* should be changed, and I believe the comments which you solicited support this change by way of consensus. Supporting any other course of action with regard to *this article* I believe would be disingenuous. Additionally, if you were to use the work I have done to change those articles (which have been happily supplying users of Wikipedia with useful information on subnational units for years) that I have brought to your attention rather than *this article* in the name of consistency, that of course would be even more disingenuous. RangerRichard (talk)

And of course when I speak of the comments you solicited, Walter, I mean these comments, in which general support is expressed for the notion that subnational units might sometimes be necessary, or perhaps just even a good idea. What else is there to say or do about *this article*? I note some English (I'm guessing) guy named Struway (nope, don't know him) makes the point that the MoS does not mandate that subnational units be excluded. I'm guessing that means something like, as I've noted above, the writers of the MoS perhaps believed that common sense should be our starting point. And maybe our end point. You know, our work is done here. Let's stop, and follow the consensus in the comments you solicited about *this article.* I presume you're a reasonable person, right? I also presume you have other substantive edits you might be interested in making rather than continuing this. Plus it's the Christmastide! Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_90#Catalan_nationalism_on_Talk:Pep_Guardiola.3F RangerRichard (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're offended. How many articles did you find to support "subnational unit" in? How many articles are there for Catalonian subjects on Wikipedia?

The consensus in this article is that we not include it. The discussion in other articles is welcome to inform here, but if they want to comment here or apply somewhere to make a policy, guideline or MoS, I'd be happy to discuss that in those locations. So shall we start an RfC or are you going to throw more insufferable rhetoric at us? Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know I've said I'm offended (but if you think you're offensive, I'm in no position to argue). Let me know what your threshold is for number of articles required to establish inconsistency, or you might instead address the substance of my argument-- which is that editors should be permitted to construct infoboxes that fairly summarize the contents of their articles, not reflect mechanically what appears in some other article or some other group of articles. Or do both. Or do both and some third brilliant thing that occurs to you. Hey, I'm easy. But let's make a deal, how's about you not call me insufferable just because you don't like what I have to say? I bet you could do that too. So many reasonable options. Meantime, the comments you helpfully solicited did not merely inform you, they informed all of us. So thank you again for that.RangerRichard (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but I just want proof that it's a common practice. What would you consider common? 50% of all biographic articles on Catalan? 10% of those BLPs of subjects in small towns in Spain? 1% of BLPs that have achieved Good Article status where the subject is from a small town? What's your take? You clearly understand the problem. There's no absolute threshold to show it's common. This is a relatively highly visible article and it will become a precedent so I would proceed with caution.

It's not up to me along though, which is why I keep asking for input from others.

As for name calling: I didn't. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I know this is hard to believe, but I don't have your problem. I have a different problem that does not have to do with consistency. Eventually you will believe me that this is the crux of my argument. Do you think I'm lying? I mean, I play along with your arguments. You could pretend to do the same.RangerRichard (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@RangerRichard: You seem to be missing the point that Walter Görlitz and I are trying to make. Wikipedia strives to contain encyclopedic content, part of which involves consistency in information provided, as well as avoiding any appearance of violating WP:NPOV as required by WP:BLP. Any appearance of Catalan nationalism (no matter how remote), unless such reference to Catalonia is required for disambiguation or is truly encyclopedic in nature, is thus required to be removed. The same holds true for appearances of Basque nationalism, Chechen nationalism, South Ossetian nationalism, etc.

I have no issue if the result of an RfC is that subnational units are to be included in birthplaces in association football infoboxes, since that result would be the consensus of a number of editors; I would then include subnational units where I see them missing in infoboxes. Until then, inclusion of subnational units where disambiguation is not necessary borders on WP:OVERLINK, which is even less desirable in infoboxes than in the body of an article. Perhaps these discussions could be linked in an RfC, as it seems general consensus is necessary. -- Jkudlick ^tc_s 13:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

If the edit was made the way that PeeJay2K3 did, without linking, it wouldn't violate OVERLINK. I commented on that earlier. We could make that an option in the RfC. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In response to Richard: I don't think you're lying. I also don't think it's either important enough (if it were we'd see it everywhere on Wikipedia) and not necessary for an understanding of the subject. And for the record, that has been my argument all along. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:58, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right. Indeed having the birthplace itself is not strictly speaking something that's "necessary" for inclusion in the infobox, so I've never understood that argument. I think the "necessary" argument, while true, proves too much. I don't know how you apply the "necessary" rule, as you wish to, wholly in the abstract, not with respect to any particular biography, but with respect to a whole class of biographies. You're not really in a position to do any analysis on "necessity" unless you take the odd position that most folks have life events of more or less equal importance. If that's the case, you don't need to be writing a biography, which as a definitional matter is about one life, one single unique human life. Designing trading cards, maybe, might abide a universal graphic approach mercilessly applied. But not an entry in an encyclopedia.

Geography isn't nationalism, though it surely can be. But geography, it's worth pointing out, can be used in the service of Spanish and Russian nationalism as well as Chechen and Catalan nationalism. The need to maintain a NPOV works both toward larger and toward smaller geographic units when in conflict--- or you're "pushing" (Walter likes that word) an unacceptable POV. RangerRichard (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I still don't think this article needs to include this in the infobox. This article has no geographical purpose whatsoever. It's a biography about a man whas been active in the sport of footballer, both as a player and a coach. Explaining in which region Santpedor is geographically situated is not vital for our readers to be able to understand who this footballer is and what he as achieved. It's just no the purpose of this article. Tvx1 (talk) 03:17, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the article does have a geographic purpose. Birthplace is geographic information. In fact, if you took out every other geographic data point from the article, there would be quite a number of edits. Your argument seems to be that because the article is about a sports figure that geographic information can be displayed in a half-baked, desultory way. If that's your argument, fine. It's not a terribly good one. RangerRichard (talk) 18:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

His birthplace is listed in the infobox. The region is not. It is listed in the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. As inconsistently as the infobox reflects the text, both bear witness all the same to the geographic elements treated in the article.RangerRichard (talk) 16:33, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2015

2013–2016 Bayern Munich 2003:6C:A05:F743:280F:EBC5:52FA:A983 (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

 Not done We do not include end dates, even when they are know, until that date has elapsed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Managerial

Please add the last 3 games since 28 November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.129.126.228 (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified January 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pep Guardiola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070314200740/http://futbol.sportec.es:80/seleccion/ficha_jugador.asp?j=258 to http://futbol.sportec.es/seleccion/ficha_jugador.asp?j=258&n=guardiola/josep/guardiola/sala
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110711103938/http://goal-arena.com/2011/02/guardiola-accepts-new-deal-until-2012/ to http://goal-arena.com/2011/02/guardiola-accepts-new-deal-until-2012/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified February 2016

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Pep Guardiola. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100224053924/http://www.sport.es:80/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=44&idioma=CAS&idtipusrecurs_PK=7&idnoticia_PK=689215 to http://www.sport.es/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=44&idioma=CAS&idtipusrecurs_PK=7&idnoticia_PK=689215

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

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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} 10:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016

Pep Guardiola has signed a new contract with Manchester City that will make him Manager of the club. The page needs to be updated because of the incorrect info that he is head of Bayern Munich, which is wrong. He is with Manchester City. CallMeRory (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

In fact, the article clearly states that his contract starts on 1 July 2016. He is not yet with Manchester City.

The article does not state that he is the head of Bayern Munich, only that he is still their manager. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:59, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2016

Manchester City FC already confirmed Pep Guardiola becomes MCFC head coach for the 2016-17 EPL season. It is clear and there's no reason not to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RayArcane (talk • contribs) 10:55, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done. How does "finalised contractual negotiations" mean that he has become the head coach? It does clearly state that it is "for the 2016/17 EPL season onwards". The season does not commence until 1 July 2016. Cheers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:02, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 May 2016

make Manchester City as the club he's managed 75.68.52.132 (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: See above, the new season starts 1 July. Qed237 (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

He has not managed the team and won't start until 1 July. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Number of matches played in Serie A is inconsistent

The reported number of matches player for Serie A is not consistent, the table next to the summary (top of the page) says 13 matches for Brescia and 4 for Roma, but the "Serie A" section says "finishing with 71 games in Italy" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.37.0.111 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pep Guardiola. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130127205655/http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/the-honours/detail/card/fc-barcelona-team-records to http://www.fcbarcelona.com/club/the-honours/detail/card/fc-barcelona-team-records

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) 19:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Pep Guardiola. 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 https://archive.is/20120525172745/http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/noticies/futbol/temporada07-08/05/n080508104104.html to http://www.fcbarcelona.cat/web/english/noticies/futbol/temporada07-08/05/n080508104104.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/noticies/futbol/temporada08-09/07/n080723102534.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120709100016/http://www.sport.es/es/noticias/barca/20110827/pep-guardiola-supero-marca-johan-cruyff/1131117.shtml to http://www.sport.es/es/noticias/barca/20110827/pep-guardiola-supero-marca-johan-cruyff/1131117.shtml

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) 17:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Tactics

I like Pep Guardiola... however in Tactics... this sentence is not true... "However at Manchester City, he evolved this idea one step further by utilizing the fact players cannot be offside from a goal kick and ensured a goalkeeper with the necessary kicking force to kick the length of the pitch in signing Ederson."

Reality he incorporated this idea developed by Rui Vitoria, Benfica coach (previous club of Ederson)... take a look at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8DxZs8i57I where Rui Vitoria warns Ederson to kick directly to Raul Jimenez that scores, no offside from goal kick.

Paulomdferreira (talk) 01:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

OVERLINK in infobox

The questions are: is linking the infobox to Francoist Spain against, WP:OVERLINK. As it's not a well-known entity, I'd say no. Is it an WP:EASTEREGG to pipe it to Spain, probably. Glad to discuss it or remove the link in the infobox and leave it for a discussion in the article. But the link is certainly not vandalism. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

Add 10 games and 1 goal to Pep's time at Dorados 2005-2006 in his senior career box. Hydeparkhamster (talk) 11:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Done--B dash (talk) 05:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

please let me edit please Beefy667-connor (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2019 (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. aboideau^talk 15:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit requests are not designed to allow individual editors to edit individual articles that have auto-confirmed protection, that happens when editors show a history of good edits. So make good edits to articles and you will, in time, be able to edit here. Until then, if you would like to see a specific change, please describe it using as "please change 'x' to 'y'" and supply an appropriate source. Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

"He holds the record for the most consecutive league wins in La Liga, Bundesliga and Premier League."

I think the wording of this is a bit misleading. The "most consecutive league wins in La Liga, Bundesliga and Premier League" makes it sound like he has won the League title the most consecutive times in all 3 nations which is not true. I believe a better wording would be "He holds the record for the most consecutive league game wins in La Liga, Bundesliga and Premier League" as this is what you are trying to say. A simple one word edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootballPhilosopher (talk • contribs) 14:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2019

2409:4073:83:2A59:9B60:877B:3C3F:D600 (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2019 (UTC) grammer mistake

 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. Melmann 11:24, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• AmorFerrerMussonsGuardiola.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)