Talk:Kevin De Bruyne

Copyright problem removed
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: www.insideworldsoccer.com/2013/07/goal-kevin-de-bruyne-chelsea-malaysia-injury-golazo.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 15:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Kevin De Bruyne
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Kevin De Bruyne's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Soccerway": From Nicklas Bendtner:  From André Schürrle:  From Romelu Lukaku:  From Daniel Van Buyten:  From Aaron Hunt:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:12, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Possible Transfer to Manchester City
When I got to the page a moment ago, it listed him as playing for Manchester City already. While there is a possible transfer that may go through this week, nothing has been confirmed thus far. Should this page be locked from editing for the time being? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.67.35.16 (talk) 01:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2015
He just moved clubs, from Wolfsburg to Manchester City.

HelloMynameiseditornumber2 (talk) 21:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Paul    Bradbury  21:20, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2015
kevin is a manchester city player now

Shreyam1008 (talk) 04:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 217.38.81.2 (talk) 08:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: his move has now been confirmed. On 29 August De Bruyne flew to Manchester to finalise his move to Manchester City, with Allofs expecting De Bryne to complete the switch that day:  217.38.95.252 (talk) 17:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, he flies over and everyone expects a smooth transfer now, but his signature still needs to stand on the contract. Kareldorado (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is article protected until 13 September? Is he going to change his mind? 20.133.0.13 (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Persistent vandalism and violation of WP:BLP not just transfer related. Paul    Bradbury  09:50, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Manchester deal amount
BBC first said £58m but now says £55m. Which is correct? Also there is no source for de Bruyne's birthplace of Drongen. 217.38.179.7 (talk) 15:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

German language ability
He can understand German and can give interviews in German, but it's not "his strongest langauge" as mentioned here. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No that's not really the case. He may understand much, but he is practically unable to express himself. I've never seen him answering a reporter's question in German. "Not his strongest langauge" is only a polite way of saying he cannot. At the occasion of what is your article is about, he only repeated the interviewer's words. DrunkenGerman (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree that was a "tricky" example. But take a look on YouTube (or maybe all the interviews I've seen there are dubbed?!) Martinevans123 (talk) 12:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have to correct my judgement. To some extent he really is able to speak German. DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that, compared with many, if not most, Premier League stars, his linguistic skills are quite well developed. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Goals
Why don't the goal totals add up properly? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw the mistake within five seconds, take a look at Genk or Gent (I'm too lazy to look that up now) ;) DrunkenGerman (talk) 17:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did take care of it. Guess the problem is that the Belgian league has extra play-offs after the regular season to determine the champion etc. and that has of course a lot potential to cause irritation for some editors. DrunkenGerman (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looking at the table: I can see 13 Genk goals, but the total is given as 15. I can see 41 League goals but the total is given as 40. I can count 54 total goals, but the total is given as 41?? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was absolutely a mess. Now I have put some work in it and checked every figure, I think now everything is fine. DrunkenGerman (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great, DG. Well done. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

His own pronunciation
Looking at this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnbcgEQwyDo he is not pronouncing the y/ij sound in Bruyne.

Maybe we should change the phonetics to [də ˈbrœ(y)nə]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MasahiroHayamoto (talk • contribs) 21:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The ipa pronunciation given is plain wrong. It's a phonetic rendering of how English commentators incorrectly pronounce his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.78.77.80 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would suggest the pronunciation is . I'm not sure what would be a suitable source for this. But I don't think WP:OR analysis of random YouTube videos is the best option. By the way, Rúben Dias, João Cancelo and even Pelé, all have no sources for their pronunciation. 86.187.226.240 (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant information
Is there any relevance to Kevin having bought a Mercedes as his first car? Why is that in the Personal Life section of the article? It isn't relevant to his playing football, and surely there are more interesting aspects to someone's personal life than which car they bought at what time. 212.88.248.164 (talk) 03:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Mother's nationality
Kevin De Bruyne's mother is not English. She's a Belgian, born in Burundi from Belgian parents who moved with her parents to England. The Bild link given doesn't say anything about her nationality. Only that she was born in Burundi, lived in the Ivory Coast and England before returning to Belgium

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/oct/20/kevin-de-bruyne-stubborn--world-beater — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finniemc (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * ✅. Corrected, thanks, using that source. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2018 (UTC)


 * This source, recently added, claims that his mother was English and that she was "born in Ealing". I would regard The Guardian as a more reliable source. And what The Independent source actually says is this:
 * "There has been a rumour around Kevin De Bruyne since he emerged as a teenage prodigy at Genk that he could have played for England, by virtue of his mother having been born in Ealing. Sat in a small office at Chelsea’s training ground this week, this comes as a surprise to the Belgium international. ..."
 * Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:26, 12 June 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: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:36, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Kevin De Bruyne celebrating Belgium's 2–1 win over Brazil.jpg

Suggest Assists tally
De Bruyne is a midfielder and his key contributions to games tend to be playmaking and assists, not goals. The statistics section should be expanded to include assists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.51.238.226 (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

"best midfielder in the world"
Re: this recent deletion, it may well have been WP:PEACOCK, but I could not find it in the source cited anyway. Is this a possible source, at least for Xavi's opinion? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:24, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It's just the opinion of one person, not a title bestowed upon. There are an abundance of superlatives in the first few paragraphs of the article already, with substantial awards noted. It isn't necessary to add the opinion of one person as a speaker for the entire world in superlatives for this player. The awards are plenty enough by themselves. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting that Xavi's opinion should be added to the lead section. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:PEACOCK in lead section
[Copied verbatim from my Talk page]: Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC) :

Greetings. The passage you restored on this article blatantly violates WP:PEACOCK. It isn't necessary to claim he is widely regarded as anything, or that he is often described as anything. The first paragraph of the article already establishes that he is one of the better players by way of presenting pure fact. This is how articles are supposed to be written. Adding the peacock passage does nothing to improve the article, and detracts from the real facts of the player. It isn't necessary, it's redundant, and potentially misleading. I am removing it again. Please do not restore it without providing a reliable source that supports he is "widely" or "often described" as anything. Further, the way in which you attempted to add sources to the passage, by way of "[157]" for example, is not the way we add sources to an article. In particular, if you want to use a source that is already used in the article, you should read through Citing_sources on how to do this. If you have questions about this, let me know. But, again, please don't add this WP:PEACOCK passage again. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Hammersoft. I didn't "restore" anything you had removed. I added two different statements that are already in the body of the article? I actually agreed with your removal (as I explained at the Talk page). I added fully sourced material. The "facts" of De Bruyne's career are why he is "widely regarded as one of the best players in the world and he has often been described as a "complete" footballer." But the making of those statement are also facts in themselves. As far as I can see, all of those existing sources, which are given in the text, are WP:RS. I have no intention of edit warring, so there's really no need for you to request I don't restore. I am well aware of how to add sources properly, thanks: the "[157][158][159][160][161]" was a cut-and-paste error that I evidently did not have time to fix (and I thought that might have been obvious). This is a content discussion that is best discussed at Talk:Kevin De Bruyne. That's why I specifically opened a new thread and requested, in my edit summary, that we do that? Thanks so much. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I just don't see the point in adding it. The article is already gushing about his accomplishments (and well deserved). We don't need to add the peacock terms. Its redundant and meaningless in the context of so many other superlatives. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. Then we'll have to agree to disagree. You have your opinion. I have mine. If someone is considered to "the best" at something, I think he deserves to be described just like that. Compare with Ronnie O'Sullivan, for example, which open with ".. is an English professional snooker player who is widely recognised as one of the most accomplished and talented players in the history of the sport." That's in the very first sentence! I think it's a matter of choice, not not a matter of "we don't write articles like this" policy. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Then we disagree. There's a reason we have WP:PEACOCK to guide us. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:55, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's "guidance", isn't it. As far as I can see, my addition was simply "imparting or plainly summarizing verifiable information." If it's a question of prominence, it could neatly be added at the end of the lead section. If it really is "peacockery", you'll also need to remove to from the main body of the article, together with those eight sources that support it. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:00, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

[The above copied verbatim from my Talk page. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)]
 * I think in this case, with many thinking so, it's a valid summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

It isn't necessary to summarize. The superlatives in the lede are already gushingly positive. We don't need even more of it, and per WP:PEACOCK it's inappropriate. We don't need to state opinions. It's not our job to do so. We state facts. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You've already agreed that the statements made about De Bruyne, which appear in those eight sources, are facts? Consensus is against you here. It's starting to look a lot like WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it's starting to look like I need to exit the conversation. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You really have nothing to add? So I assume you accept the consensus. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm now being accused and bludgeoned. Having a conversation about this appears to be impossible. I'm not doing this. Goodbye. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You've repeated your initial arguments several times. If you choose not to respond to my counter-arguments, I think it's only fair to suggest that you're not really listening. I wouldn't call that "being accused and bludgeoned." Martinevans123 (talk) 15:17, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * You are free to change the article to whatever you want. If you want to say that Kevin is the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel that's fine. What you want to add directly violates WP:PEACOCK. There are plenty of other facts in the lede of the article that speak to his accomplishments. We don't need to having gushing commentary about how great he is when we have all these facts present to do so. I can't speak any more plainly on the point. I am repeating myself at this point. I have no desire to do so. I further have no desire to continue a conversation where you are attacking me personally by commenting on me, rather than content, which is going directly against WP:NPA. I have no interest in interacting with a person who behaves in such a manner. So, go ahead. Change the article to gush about how great he is. It matters not to me. I won't be part of it. I have unwatched this article. do not wish to be pinged anymore to this conversation, and would ask you to stop attempting to interact with me unless you show a desire to stop violating WP:NPA. Enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Wow. The invention of the wheel hasn't figured that much in my argument. You first came to my Talk page and accused me of WP:PEACOCK. I have not "pinged" you once. If you wish to pursue a claim WP:NPA, so be it. But I guess, as you've unwatched this page, you won't actually see my invitation. Kindest regards. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

So I would propose copying the existing sentence: "De Bruyne is widely regarded as one of the best players in the world and he has often been described as a "complete" footballer" from the "Style of play" section, into the lead section, possibly at the very bottom. But I welcome comments from other regular editors who might have this article on their watchlist and want to improve it. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC) So, the lede now says "De Bruyne is widely regarded as one of the best midfielder’s of all time". This just seems complete nonsense. From a fact sense, this can't be validated, and from a football sense - De Bruyne is rarely, if ever, mentioned during the conversation of best ever. This sentence needs removing in my opinion John arneVN (talk) 04:31, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This seems to still be a problem now. Football Wikipedia, particularly of contemporary players, is plagued by users who bomb the very first paragraph with weak sourcing to make their favourite player "widely regarded as one of the best [player/position] in [his generation/his country/the world]". This is usually cited by listicle websites such as 90Min, Sport Bible or Give Me Sport, or occasionally quotes from obviously interested parties such as the player's own teammates and manager. This is bizarre because as said upstairs, De Bruyne has so many factual achievements, such as goal and assist records, Player of the Year awards, etcetera. If there are so many cold hard facts of how good he is, why would anyone want to over egg the pudding by adding vague and disputable claims of the extent of his talent? Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:36, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * You have read all of those 8 WP:RS sources in the main body, at the end of the first paragraph under "Style of play", yes? And the 12 under "Reception" The lead section ought to reflect the contents of "Player profile"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

What are his children called?
Where does it feature his children’s names? 90.242.20.223 (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * As per WP:BLP it is usual Wikipedia policy not to name children unless they are themselves notable. But all three of his children are named in the "Personal life" section: Mason Milian, Rome and Suri. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Kevin De Bruyne
Pôžičku si zobral keď začal hrať za Menchester 78.98.204.55 (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023
Could you add this to external links ? and his ID is: 4288 41.239.127.69 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ NotAGenious (talk) 07:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

 * FIFA Club World Cup: 2023 2402:800:F282:5BFC:4001:83DA:63A5:EEB8 (talk) 01:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg 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.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 09:39, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2024
please let me edit this i want to update some stuff Supersigmarizz (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 05:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)