Talk:Timo Werner

The pronunciation

@Donare Vitae: Are you sure the trascription is correct? As for w in German, it is pronounced [v] instead of [w], and you didn't add stress. I have removed it. LoveVanPersie (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@LoveVanPersie: Yes the transcription was incorrect, a mistake I didn’t notice (or mean). Thanks for notifying me.

@Donare Vitae: OK. It's fixed now by Mr KEBAB. LoveVanPersie (talk) 03:54, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Donare Vitae and LoveVanPersie: The only mistake he made was with the [w-v] thing. The stress could be easily deducted from the way he transcribed final vowels - [o] is an alternative way to transcribe an unstressed word-final [oː] and [ɐ] can't ever bear stress.

Either way, I've indeed fixed the transcription. Mr KEBAB (talk) 11:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

@Mr KEBAB: Thanks :)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2020

Timo agreed to join Chelsea today 5 June — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C8:B87:B901:E83F:5B33:8AFB:88FB (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Werner is set to be a chelsea player when the new season starts (unknown date for now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zed I Chelsea (talk • contribs) 04:35, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Can you change his team to chelsea as he is gonna sign for them Dr.Gan Wiki (talk) 14:06, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when he signs and it is officially reported, the article can be changed. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:58, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2020

he going to play for Chelsea. Yeish123 (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2020 (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. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2020

I want to edit the club since he’s moved

2A00:23C5:1402:A801:FC2D:318:BBA8:5105 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

I want to write about timo leipzig carrer ending in 2020 Danke Thetruthisnigh7 (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Not done: Your request is blank or it only consists of a vague request for editing permission. It is not possible for individual users to be granted permission to edit a semi-protected page; however, you can do one of the following:

• If you have an account, you will be able to edit this page four days after account registration if you make at least 10 constructive edits to other pages.
• If you do not have an account, you can create one by clicking the Login/Create account link at the top right corner of the page and following the instructions there. Once your account is created and you meet four day/ten edit requirements you will be able to edit this page.
• You can request unprotection of this page by asking the administrator who protected it. Instructions on how to do this are at WP:UNPROTECT. A page will only be unprotected if you provide a valid rationale that addresses the original reason for protection.
• You can provide a specific request to edit the page in "change X to Y" format on this talk page and an editor who is not blocked from editing will determine if the requested edit is appropriate. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2020

The club he is playing for is Chelsea FC now 41.204.224.52 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

This seems like a reliable source https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52970103 Haris920 (talk) 16:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

Under Senior Career profile section, please change date format for VFB Stuttgart II from ‘2014’ to ‘2014-2015’ to reflect season. Shashan.v (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. He only played between March 2014 to June 2014. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

But it was part of the 2013-14 season, and it also doesn’t look aesthetically pleasing to just display 2014. Please reconsider Shashan.v (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

In what, way, shape or form is it not "aesthetically pleasing to just display 2014"? Mattythewhite (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

It should read 2013-2014 as it was part of that season regardless of how many appearances he has made. This is not consistent with similar situations with other players on Wikipedia. Please change accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shashan.v (talk • contribs) 23:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It should read 2013-2014 as it was part of that season regardless of how many appearances he has made. This is not consistent with similar situations with other players on Wikipedia. Please change accordingly. Shashan.v (talk) 00:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

To further solidify my argument, I can confirm this follows the same format used on players such as: Leon Goretzka, Mickael Cuisance, Kingsley Coman, Cristiano Ronaldo etc. Shashan.v (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't include seasons in the infobox, we include calendar years. Mattythewhite (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

If it’s calendar years, why does Cristiano Ronaldo’s state 2002–2003 for Sporting CP B for his 2 appearances in one calendar year? I don’t think there’s a consistency here.. I can see you’ve changed Leon Goretzka. I feel there’s no sense to put calendar years.. I feel going by seasons is a much better way of displaying it - what do you think? Shashan.v (talk) 23:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

You would need to achieve project-wide consensus for such a change. In all my time here, we've always used calendar years and not seasons in the infobox. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

@Mattythewhite: I hope that you noticed that this incompetent User:JMHamo has reverted my edits three times, I have written "hence, he finished his tenure at Leipzig with 95 goals, to become the club's record goalscorer, overtaking Daniel Frahn" which is clearly stated in the same source of his last match against Augsburg. I wrote that user in my talk page to find the info in the source but he kept reverting the edits blindly. I do not want to deal with this kind of stone-headed users, so you have to find a solution for this madness since you edit here as well. M900417 (talk) 14:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

VfB Stuttgart II Statistics

Given the fact Liga. 3 was not professional at the time, along with Werner's overall lack of presence within the club's reserve team, the career statistics for VfB Stuttgart II should not be included in the page. MG000000000 (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Professional or not, the 3. Liga is a senior, competitive league and as such appearances and goals from it should be included. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

It wasn’t at the time of event though, so I agree that it should not be included in the info box. Shashan.v (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

You're actually disagreeing with me, as I'm stating they should be included. There is no requirement that leagues be professional for us to include player appearances and goals from them. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, the 3. Liga has always been a fully professional league since its founding. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

VfB Stuttgart II Reserve Team Stats in Infobox

I find it extremely irrelevant to include stats from one appearance in the second team when Timo Werner was actually a part of the first team that season and only made one appearance for the second team. Usually when players are injured and need to build fitness, they are given minutes in the second team and hence may have the odd appearance in the youth/second teams. I don't think this warrants a whole new statistic for the infobox or you would have to go through every single player and add second team appearances across the whole of Wikipedia. I have also noticed other users have requested this not to be shown so I would suggest you take into account what the majority are saying as well as applying some consideration to the matter itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:7A88:601:9C6B:B6BC:8AF4:AF3E (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Werner's appearance for VfB Stuttgart II should be included as the game was in the 3. Liga, which is a senior league. If they played in a separate league system for reserve teams, I might agree with you, but that's not the case. – PeeJay 16:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

Werner has 2 league caps for Chelsea, not one (vs Brighton and Hove Albion and vs Liverpool). 76.103.46.252 (talk) 16:06, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:44, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Chelsea love him

When Werner left we all felt like crying but now we know Leipzig are taking care of him 2A00:23C7:F11B:6B01:303B:84B7:5279:F265 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

How is this in any relation to the Wikipedia article on Timo Werner? JoshuaInWiki (talk) 09:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede Phrasing

I was reading the first sentence of the lede, and realized I'm STILL not sure what it's saying. The current version reads:

[Timo] is a German professional footballer who plays as a forward for Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur, on loan from Bundesliga club RB Leipzig, and the Germany national team.

I can't tell if that's saying he plays forward for the Germany national team, plays some other position for the Germany national team, if he's on loan from the Germany national team, or if it's somehow ridiculously claiming he is the Germany national team. I assume he plays forward for the Germany national team. If that's correct, I propose rephrasing by adding a final 'for':

[Timo] is a German professional footballer who plays as a forward for Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur, on loan from Bundesliga club RB Leipzig, and for the Germany national team.

Thoughts? EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:43, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and boldly made the edit. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not the best English, people were reverting my editing to bad grammar, simply because they didn't like my edit before and now I see you're pointing out the same issue. It does make me laugh, I had a shit load of stupid comments to my talk page over this. But please edit even more. I would have the national team bit on a whole new sentence. Govvy (talk) 23:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dillbob07: Can you please put that "for" back thank you. Govvy (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Dillbob07 Seconded or, alternatively, if you think adding "for" is not an improvement, could you explain why? I think I've explained above why I feel the previous version is ambiguous and confusing, especially to readers (like me) which aren't familiar with the topic. EducatedRedneck (talk) 14:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Profavi1 I saw that you also reverted. Would you be willing to discuss your objections here? Thanks, EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck Certainly. Here, the commas function as a clause in between the main sentence, something that could also be achieved with brackets:

Timo... is a German professional footballer who plays as a forward for Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur (on loan from Bundesliga club RB Leipzig) and the Germany national team.

Or, alternatively, with dashes:

Timo... is a German professional footballer who plays as a forward for Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur – on loan from Bundesliga club RB Leipzig – and the Germany national team.

In this way, the sentence should make sense without the phrase within the commas/brackets/dashes too; in all these cases, it implies that "Timo... is a German professional footballer who plays for Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur and the Germany national team". The phrase ", on loan from Bundesliga club RB Leipzig," simply adds additional information; as such, there is no need to add an additional 'for', as the 'Germany national team' section is already defined by the previous 'for'. This grammatical construction can be explained by this article.

Furthermore, the current wording which I have reverted the article to is consistent with articles of other players who are on loan and represent their national teams, such as João Félix, João Cancelo, Nicolò Zaniolo, and many others. The current wording does not imply that he is on loan from the Germany national team.

I hope this all makes sense! Profavi1 (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the issue is that the sentence can easily be read as one of,

Timo... is a German professional footballer who plays (as a forward for Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur on loan from Bundesliga club RB Leipzig) and the Germany national team.

Timo... is a German professional footballer who plays as a forward for Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur (on loan from Bundesliga club RB Leipzig and the Germany national team).

and

Timo... is a German professional footballer (who plays as a forward for Premier League club Tottenham Hotspur on loan from Bundesliga club RB Leipzig) and the Germany national team.

I can see what it's trying to say, but again, as a casual reader, it wasn't readily apparent to me. After all, being grammatically correct doesn't always make it clear. Is there a reason why the added "for" for clarity makes it worse? Because as far as I can see, it costs 4 bytes and gives clarity. As for the other players, perhaps we should change their construction, too.

Finally, thank you for the detailed response! While the article link felt a little patronizing to me, I'm sure you didn't mean it that way, and in general I appreciate you taking the time to lay out your position here so we can find a good compromise. EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck With all due respect, none of the examples you have given are correct ways of reading the sentence, and any misunderstanding/ambiguity on that front would be due to an error on the part of the reader. The examples I provided only included brackets in place of the commas that are already there; your examples add brackets that are not substituted for anything else in the original wording, and so would be incorrect readings of the sentence. The commas that are present in the wording in the article mean that there is only one correct and unambiguous way of reading the sentence. I don't believe any of this warrants changing on Werner's page, let alone any others.

As for the article link, I am sorry if you felt that it was patronising, but it proides a concise and simple way of explaining the grammatical construction present in the sentence. Thank you for taking the time to engage with my response! Profavi1 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I understand that none of the ways I gave reflect what the sentence intends to say, but there are two angles here. 1) What is grammatically correct, and 2) how an average reader is likely to interpret it. Finally, 3) Why not change it?

1. For grammatical correctness, I disagree that my readings are necessarily wrong. One could easily argue that "as a forward..." is all part of one subordinate clause (which the "on loan" clause correctly modifies) but that "and the Germany national team" is a separate subordinate clause. Thus, it could be broken into two sentences: "Timo... plays as a forward..." and "Timo... plays as the German national team." There are other even less sensical but grammatically correct interpretations.
2. As far as the average reader, I assert that the average reader would not diagram the sentence, and would give it a cursory read. I'd also note that the average reader has the lack of linguistic skills that has lead "funner" to become adopted by dictionaries. So regardless of whether this grammatical construction is technically correct, we have to be aware of how readers may misinterpret it. After all, the priority is what the reader experiences, not whether it satisfies what a bunch of old white men in the 1800s had to say about grammar.
3. Why not change it? I haven't heard you say that adding "for" is incorrect, so the problem seems to be something else. What I'm hearing from you is that you want it to be consistent with the other articles (which you listed above), which is a nice thing, but not required. WP:OTHERSTUFF is about deletion discussions, but the point carries over that just because something is done elsewhere doesn't mean it has to be done here. Unless there's some MOS or RFC around this particular phrasing I missed? If I'm misunderstanding your objection to the proposed phrasing, please correct me; I'm far from a mind reader!
4. The final thing I'll note is WP:IAR. While I believe there are strong arguments for the change, I could be wrong, which is what consensus is for. And right now, four editors have touched on this, including you, and only you have objected to the change. Of course, the discussion is still young, and I'm hoping other editors will join; a consensus of 3 vs 1 isn't a solid margin, and any other editor input (whether supporting or opposing the proposed change) would be important. One way to do that is to reinstate the change, and if it bugs new editors, let them change it back. This would be a strong indication that it's not just you who opposes the change, and hopefully bring them into this discussion.

Finally, I wanted to thank you again for engaging here. I know I talk a lot, and I really appreciate your detailed responses. Even if/when I turn out to be wrong, I count this as a positive interaction, and thank you for being so thorough! EducatedRedneck (talk) 13:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck Thank you for your reply. As for 1) and 2), I think the average reader is smart enough to figure out that Timo Werner, being a football player, is not the Germany national team and is not on loan from the Germany national team, and I think the existence of the commas negates any potential reading of it as that, but I digress.

You are right in that all this faff over the simple addition of a word is definitely unnecessary, and, as you pointed out, the inclusion of the 'for' does not make the sentence grammatically incorrect, and certainly removes any ambiguity to those perhaps less familiar with English grammar, so I will relent on my insistence at it not being there, and revert the edit.

Lastly, I wanted to thank you for engaging so politely and so thoroughly with my points despite our disagreement. @Govvy has not extended the same level of courtesy, stubbornly insulting my intelligence and frequently threatening to report me to administrators despite being unequivocally wrong on the wording of the article in the past. Wikipedia is better off with editors like you, @EducatedRedneck! Profavi1 (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Profavi1 Thank you so much! I am still thinking about the notion that it's better to have standardized phrasing. Do you think it's worth opening an RFC at WP:FOOTY on changing the standard phrasing for articles like this? I'm not sure this is a big enough change to warrant one, but on the other hand, I don't want to annoy a bunch of editors with an edit that may be controversial! I can also just drop it if you think it's not worth pursuing.

Thank you again for discussing things so thoroughly and politely with me; I was worried that I was annoying you, so I'm really glad that you're as pleased with the interaction as I am! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:29, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck I’m not sure if it’s a big enough change that warrants it, but if you feel that it is then by all means go for it — it may be helpful!

No worries at all and thank you again. Profavi1 (talk) 12:50, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Profavi1 I realized I forgot to ping you above; my apologies! EducatedRedneck (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, more, can't believe the bad grammar these days, people have a go at me and can't even see through the clouds! All those other loan pages need adjusting. Govvy (talk) 21:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Govvy We have already established that you were being wrong. Please stop engaging with this topic. Profavi1 (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Profavi1: I'll give you an opportunity to revert your editing, otherwise, if you don't do it. I just have to report you for edit-warring, WP:OWNing, the article, and frankly, your grammar is terrible, you obviously don't know how to construct a wikipedia article. This is one opportunity for you, if you're unable to revert, it's clear you shouldn't be here. Govvy (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I have explained the correct grammar to you numerous times. Need I link the BBC Bitesize article again? You are the one who is frequently reverting the edits to the article. Please stop being so stubborn and just leave it as it is! Profavi1 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be some bad blood here. If I may be so bold, it doesn't seem like either of you is likely to convince the other, so perhaps it's best to disengage? I've had positive experiences with both of you, so I'd like to keep things from getting out of hand. After all, I hope to continue to have positive interactions with both of you! EducatedRedneck (talk) 12:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@EducatedRedneck I am very happy to disengage. Govvy already had the opportunity to do so and stubbornly chose not to. They are welcome to make this more of an issue if they please but, personally, I am not particularly fussed. Profavi1 (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Loan to Tottenham Hotspur Section

I've reverted @SparklessPlug's edit, which changed the first sentence of the section from Werner joined Tottenham Hotspur on loan...

to

With forward Son Heung-min playing in the Asian Cup and striker Alejo Véliz out with injury, Werner joined Tottenham Hotspur on loan...

Sparkless included sources that verify Son Heung-min and Alejo Veliz's statuses, but I think the issue with this inclusion is that it implies that Werner joining Tottenham Hotspur is because of of status of Son and Veliz, which neither source supports. That would make it WP:SYNTH, and so I have reverted.

The other change that was made, which I also reverted, was linking a bluelink to Tottenham Hotspur. Because it's already linked in the infobox, this constitutes duplciate linking.

If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss here. EducatedRedneck (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2024 (UTC)