Talk:Manchester City F.C.
Manchester City F.C. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2006. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Edit request
The 2022–23 season saw Manchester City win their maiden European Cup and complete the continental treble in the process, becoming the second English club to do so. (Insert the following) City made history after winning the Club World Cup in 2023, becoming the first English side ever to simultaneously hold the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions League, Super Cup and Club World Cup in the same calendar year. They also became the first English side to win the Club World Cup at the first try.
(Source) https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/guardiola-man-city-club-world-cup-final-2023-b1128806.html 84.71.184.246 (talk) 19:53, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
- Even though City aren’t the first English club to win 5 (Liverpool did in 2001) they are the first to win the top 5 majors in a calendar year, which should be included as stated above because it’s a unique achievement. 84.71.184.246 (talk) 06:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
- They are also the first English team to win the Super Cup at the first try, so it should read something like this and inserted as shown above:
- ” City made history after winning the Club World Cup in 2023, becoming the first English side ever to simultaneously hold the Premier League, FA Cup, Champions League, Super Cup and Club World Cup in the same calendar year. They also became the first English side to win the Super Cup and Club World Cup at the first try. “ 84.71.184.246 (talk) 09:24, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
Trophies won
Please update Man City becoming the first English side to win the top 5 major trophies in a calendar year, the Quintuple.
Sources: https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/guardiola-man-city-club-world-cup-final-2023-b1128806.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/67795653
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/12/23/sport/manchester-city-win-club-world-cup-spt-intl/index.html
It has already been updated on their current “season summary” tab: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023–24_Manchester_City_F.C._season 84.71.184.246 (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
City are owned by a "British-based company"?
Single-purpose editors on this page have repeatedly inserted misleading, deceptive and unsourced text that claims that City are owned by a "British-based company". This should not be in the article. City are owned by the Abu Dhabi United Group, which in turn is owned by Sheikh Mansour bin Zayed Al Nahyan. Inserting "British-based company" into the article appears to be intended to mislead readers and obscure that City are owned by a senior figure in the UAE government. Thenightaway (talk) 16:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- The single-purpose editor Monerals has now on multiple occasions restored text claiming that City are owned by a British-based company without participating on the talk page. Thenightaway (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
- The company referred to is City Football Group, they are a British-based company and that is neither controversial, misleading or unsourced. They have their offices in Britain, their employees are in Britain, they are owned by other companies (which is described in the same sentence), the majority owner is Abu Dhabi United Group, and they also have a significant ownership stake from Silver Lake Capital an American company. Stop edit warring. Paul Bradbury 09:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which reliable sources describe City Football Group as "British-based"? More importantly, which reliable sources emphasize that Manchester City are owned by a "British-based" company rather than, say, Abu Dhabi? Thenightaway (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- The sentance you keep editing, states that city football group is majority owned by the UAE. City Football group is a British-based company, the UK government is a reliable source and companies house shows the registration as a British company. The employees are British employees, the offices are primarily in the UK. The ultimate ownership is spelt out in the same sentence. It is unclear other than a bias on your part why this is contoversial. Paul Bradbury 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- This source[1] is a primary source, not a secondary reliable source. Your interpretation of the source in question falls under WP:OR. If this is all so uncontroversial, why are you unable to find a single reliable source to substantiate your interpretation? Thenightaway (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is no restriction on using a primary source in this way, please explain what policy you think this is violating. There is no Original Research here, no analysis or synthesis is being done. Please don't just quote WP guidelines without understanding them and explaining specifically what part of that guideline is being violated and specifically how. Paul Bradbury 17:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're using your interpretation of a primary source (a government company registry) to substantiate the claim that the City Football Group is a "British-based company". The source at no point says that the company is "British-based". This is textbook WP:OR. Again, if your interpretation is so uncontroversial, why are you unable to find a single reliable source that substantiates it? Thenightaway (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Because information about companies is boring and not reported on much, it's not very noteworthy, if it was controversial I might be able to find a source. Is your contention that a company is not based where it is registered and pays taxes? And that an assertion that it is, is WP:OR rather than a simple statement of fact? What is it that you consider qualifies for being based? Also on what basis do you think the sentence is deceptive? It says that city are owned by a British based holding company that is owned by Abu Dhabi United. Where is the deception. I don't think "British-based" adds much to the article as a whole but I don't understand your reasons for removing it other than what seems like an agenda with bias against the subject in question. Paul Bradbury 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do not buy that the ownership of one the most successful clubs in world team is being ignored by reliable sources because it's "boring". In fact, reliable sources have covered City's ownership intensely and none of them characterize the owners as a "British-based" company. Even if it's accurate that the "British-based" nature of City's owners is "not very noteworthy", then it obviously does not merit mention in the lead to the Wikipedia article for the club. In conclusion, the text in question cannot be substantiated by reliable sources and is in your words "not very noteworthy". It should obviously not be in the article then. Thenightaway (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- So I think you have a complete misunderstanding of the sentence and what it is referring to or you are deliberately mischaracterising it. Let me try to break it down for you. Manchester City Football Club is a British football club and company based in Manchester, it is owned by another company (as are several other football clubs around the world) City Football Group, also a British company based in Manchester. That company in turn is owned by another company Abu Dhabi United. All of that is explained in the article as company structure is relevant. It in no way obscures the ownership by Abu Dhabi, it simply lays out the structure in which they do that. Not all information in an article is noteworthy in and of itself. It is only the subject of the article that needs to be noteworthy. It could be argued that removing British based makes the article more deceptive because the assumption may be that City Football Group was based in Abu Dhabi (which it is not). I'll leave it there. You have not persuaded me of your case or reached consensus here, so please find consensus in another forum and leave the edit as is until you do so. There seems to be little point in me discussing with you on the topic further as it seems to me you are not acting with the intention of improving this article. I won't be engaging further in this forum unless other opinions are expressed by other editors. Paul Bradbury 18:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- I do not buy that the ownership of one the most successful clubs in world team is being ignored by reliable sources because it's "boring". In fact, reliable sources have covered City's ownership intensely and none of them characterize the owners as a "British-based" company. Even if it's accurate that the "British-based" nature of City's owners is "not very noteworthy", then it obviously does not merit mention in the lead to the Wikipedia article for the club. In conclusion, the text in question cannot be substantiated by reliable sources and is in your words "not very noteworthy". It should obviously not be in the article then. Thenightaway (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Because information about companies is boring and not reported on much, it's not very noteworthy, if it was controversial I might be able to find a source. Is your contention that a company is not based where it is registered and pays taxes? And that an assertion that it is, is WP:OR rather than a simple statement of fact? What is it that you consider qualifies for being based? Also on what basis do you think the sentence is deceptive? It says that city are owned by a British based holding company that is owned by Abu Dhabi United. Where is the deception. I don't think "British-based" adds much to the article as a whole but I don't understand your reasons for removing it other than what seems like an agenda with bias against the subject in question. Paul Bradbury 18:17, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- You're using your interpretation of a primary source (a government company registry) to substantiate the claim that the City Football Group is a "British-based company". The source at no point says that the company is "British-based". This is textbook WP:OR. Again, if your interpretation is so uncontroversial, why are you unable to find a single reliable source that substantiates it? Thenightaway (talk) 18:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- There is no restriction on using a primary source in this way, please explain what policy you think this is violating. There is no Original Research here, no analysis or synthesis is being done. Please don't just quote WP guidelines without understanding them and explaining specifically what part of that guideline is being violated and specifically how. Paul Bradbury 17:42, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- This source[1] is a primary source, not a secondary reliable source. Your interpretation of the source in question falls under WP:OR. If this is all so uncontroversial, why are you unable to find a single reliable source to substantiate your interpretation? Thenightaway (talk) 17:02, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- The sentance you keep editing, states that city football group is majority owned by the UAE. City Football group is a British-based company, the UK government is a reliable source and companies house shows the registration as a British company. The employees are British employees, the offices are primarily in the UK. The ultimate ownership is spelt out in the same sentence. It is unclear other than a bias on your part why this is contoversial. Paul Bradbury 16:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Which reliable sources describe City Football Group as "British-based"? More importantly, which reliable sources emphasize that Manchester City are owned by a "British-based" company rather than, say, Abu Dhabi? Thenightaway (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
- The company referred to is City Football Group, they are a British-based company and that is neither controversial, misleading or unsourced. They have their offices in Britain, their employees are in Britain, they are owned by other companies (which is described in the same sentence), the majority owner is Abu Dhabi United Group, and they also have a significant ownership stake from Silver Lake Capital an American company. Stop edit warring. Paul Bradbury 09:46, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Roy Paul (Club captain) was Welsh, not English
Roy Paul (Club captain) was Welsh, not English JabiruvianJames (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- Fixed. Paul Bradbury 20:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
- good man JabiruvianJames (talk) 08:50, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Top ‘flight’
What’s that mean? Top ‘tier’ pls 148.252.147.120 (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not done: "top flight" is the standard British term for the top division of a league system. This article is about a British club and therefore according to Wikipedia rules it uses British English with British phrases. Falastur2 Talk 19:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- Old requests for peer review
- FA-Class England-related articles
- Mid-importance England-related articles
- WikiProject England pages
- FA-Class football articles
- High-importance football articles
- FA-Class football in England articles
- High-importance football in England articles
- Football in England task force articles
- WikiProject Football articles
- FA-Class Greater Manchester articles
- Top-importance Greater Manchester articles