User talk:Falastur2

MCFC matches
Hi mate, cheers for reaching out. I agree that all of those would be worthy of articles, provided that they can be properly sourced and their legacy can be properly established (not that I disagree, I just think you'll stand the best chance of them being kept if the article makes plain why they're notable). Looks like you've done enough of the requisite research already, so good luck to you! – PeeJay 12:19, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sure. As long as the articles are up to snuff, I shouldn't have any problem voting !keep. – PeeJay 12:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly. I'll give it another quick look now and let you know. – PeeJay 19:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm curious, what would you submit as the DYK tag? – PeeJay 19:17, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, sums up the reason for the article quite well! Good luck, although if you want to aim for GA or FA, the match summary will need a lot better sourcing, as I'm sure you're aware. – PeeJay 19:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Your signature
Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated  tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change
 * : Falastur2  Talk

to
 * : Falastur2 Talk

—Anomalocaris (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for fixing your signature! —Anomalocaris (talk) 16:29, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

City - Spurs

 * I don't think "vs." is American English, but okay! – PeeJay 20:00, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't know what to say, pal. I think User:Black Kite needs to take a long, hard look at themselves for yanking it just because it was deleted before. I think you've established the article's notability (something that was lacking when I !voted to delete the previous incarnation, which I apologise for), so I have no idea what you need to do. Perhaps start a discussion at WT:FOOTY to gauge community opinion. Regardless, I'm livid that this was pulled from DYK at the last minute when it seems perfect for highlighting today. Good luck again! – PeeJay 13:38, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004)
Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Falastur, sorry about the delay in responding to your message on my talk page. I don't tend to look at them as I thankfully don't get into trouble (ocassionally?) too much on here so I've only just noticed your comment from a few weeks ago. It seems the page on the match passed deletion nomination and deservedly so. It's difficult on Wikipedia as there always seems to be a clear bias for Arsenal, Liverpool  and that lot down the road with Wikipedia pages on matches which barely - if at all - reach notability status in terms of references etc. A Wikipedia page simply about a football match in which a slice of pizza was thrown after the match is a joke if you ask me. It stinks and is frustrating. There is a very strong case for the City-QPR match to also have its own page considering it is often ranked as the greatest moment in Premier League - however I'm sure the other lot will do all they can to remain in denial about it and attempt to get rid of the page. So I applaud your good work with the Tottenham-City match page and will try to be more prompt in responding to any comment next time. Stevo1000 (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004)
Hello! Your submission of Tottenham Hotspur F.C. 3–4 Manchester City F.C. (2004) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

WOSO Task Force News: April 2018
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. Sent by: Hmlarson (talk) 17:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fb competition templates Italy 2013–14


A tag has been placed on Category:Fb competition templates Italy 2013–14 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fb competition templates PDL 2012–13


A tag has been placed on Category:Fb competition templates PDL 2012–13 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fb competition templates PDL1 2012–13


A tag has been placed on Category:Fb competition templates PDL1 2012–13 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:57, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Fb competition templates PDL2 2012–13


A tag has been placed on Category:Fb competition templates PDL2 2012–13 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

A double.
In football terms to receive a double you have to win the top league and a cup. A double is not two cup wins. Govvy (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not disputing that that's the traditional interpretation of a double is league + cup, I'm arguing the point that it's unfair that people seem somehow incredibly aware of the many times that City's Wikipedia article has something incorrect like this that can it can easily be stripped of, but no-one but no-one ever tries this on the likes of Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea or Liverpool, and I object to the inherent bias of that. In fact there's been a number of times I've seen my content deleted when even lower-league sides have been allowed to keep, such as articles on individual non-cup-final matches. I'm at a loss to understand why I see so many minor additions and so on constantly reverted when I can freely find the exact same claims on just about any other team's articles. After a while it starts to grate on you, you know? Hence the slightly aggravated comment on the change log, which was not meant as an aggressive outburst against you so much as an opportunity to vent some steam. Sorry about that.


 * Also, as an after-thought, if I were to make an attempt at defending this content then I would point out that the club itself claims this to be a legitimate double, as do Sky Sports, and I will also point out that this page was recently renamed on the basis that the FLC debate determined that Wikipedia does not have the right to determine what is considered a major honour and what does not, so I would suggest a similar approach ought to be taken regarding whether Wikipedia can determine what exactly constitutes a double... (Apologies that I cannot sign my comment off but my keyboard has had its settings turned to US which has altered the position of all of my characters - <>?$/\ etc - and I cannot find the right key at present to activate the signature comment)


 * The tidle button is generally above the tab key left side on the US keyboard! Also I am a traditionalist and lean towards what many refer to as old-schooled with the older style rules, hence why I say league and cup. There are a few problems with the Man City page that I feel need addressing, but why on earth are you repeating the honours information as doubles? It's technically a poor construct of information to do that in written English. It should be more like the Arsenal page where it's bold with a key telling why that year is bold. Govvy (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)


 * By the same logic, should we not delete the honours section entirely, since just about every piece of information contained in there can be compiled individually with pen and paper by reading the history section and jotting down when it refers to a trophy being won? The point of these sections is not to ensure that every piece of information is accessible once and only once, it's to make an article that as best as can possibly be done addresses every major point of interest regarding a team. Some people will come to this article wanting to read the club history. Some will come wanting to check the club's players. Some will come wanting to reference the honours, and of those people a few will have an interest in the doubles or trebles or however many multiples a team has won. Surely it is logical then to present this information in the most readable way? You could mark a club's doubles etc by adding an extra marking in the honours section but it looks messy and in teams who have won multiples of more than two trophies it is prone to misreading. Can you imagine if the Rangers or Celtic were to use this system, given the frankly ridiculous number of times they've each won trophy multiples? It would be nigh impossible to work out how many individual times they've done it, and I bet half the people who read the article would fail to correctly count the year Celtic won five trophies as being five - they would most likely get confused and decide it had been three or four. These are the kinds of things going through my head when I choose the layouts I use - to me, Wikipedia should be all about easy availability of information, not about making things as concise or restrictive as possible. Just because this place takes its inspiration from book-bound texts such as Encyclopaedia Britannica, I don't see why we should feel constrained to produce articles which lay out best for printing in books. Falastur2 Talk 18:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Lowland League Logo.png
Thanks for uploading File:Lowland League Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:37, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited All or Nothing: Manchester City, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mancunian ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/All_or_Nothing:_Manchester_City check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/All_or_Nothing:_Manchester_City?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Melbourne City FC
Hi, I see that you have edited Melbourne City FC (W-League) in the past 12 months. I've started a discussion on the talk page about criteria for notable former players. I would really appreciate your input. Thanks! Mightytotems (talk) 11:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve List of Manchester City W.F.C. players
Hello, Falastur2,

Thanks for creating List of Manchester City W.F.C. players! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Falastur2, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AFalastur2 added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm {talk}  04:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2012–13 Manchester City L.F.C. season, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lauren Townsend and Church Road ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/2012%E2%80%9313_Manchester_City_L.F.C._season check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/2012%E2%80%9313_Manchester_City_L.F.C._season?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Ways to improve 2019–20 FA WSL
Hello, Falastur2,

Thanks for creating 2019–20 FA WSL! I edit here too, under the username Boleyn and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:-

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Boleyn (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Europa League 2
The sentence in question (The competition will primarily be contested by teams from lower-ranked UEFA member associations.) is

A) Not present in the source material

B) Can't be deduced from the source material. I don't even understand why you provided the following quotation (That means teams from leagues below that level - which at the moment would include Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, excluding their champions - would go straight into 'UEL2' qualifying rounds.) which only talks about a part of the access list, if you make an argument that the last quotation implies that the sentence in question is true then it would make a non sequitur.

C) Easily falsifiable. Europa League 2 is a series of events that will take place in the future, with the associations of the participants being partially unknown since we can't know in advance which teams would transfer from the Champions and Europa Leagues into this competition, in fact not only a very large amount of teams is transferred from different competitions but they will also enter in the late stages of EL2

D) Vague and misleading. What does "contested" and "primarily contested" mean in this context? Is it referring to the favorites, the total number of participants or the number of participants from the later rounds? What's a "lower ranked association"? These might make sense in your mind but the reader has no choice but to draw very varying conclusions from them.

E) Pointless for the reader, the access list is provided lower in the article and the reader can learn which teams would actually participate in the competitions. Having a brief summary for the access list might be useful, but I believe making it is a very hard task and regardless it clearly should be different than what's available right now in the article for the reasons I've stated above.

Lastly (and this is not a part of my argument and is unrelated to the article) in my personal opinion teams from the big 4 leagues would dominate this cup as well, sixth placed teams from the top 4 leagues are no joke. You can ignore my last sentence in your reply since it's just rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norayr000 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Kit body mcfc0809gk2.png


The file File:Kit body mcfc0809gk2.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Women's Football / Soccer Task Force News: July 2019
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. Sent by: Hmlarson (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 03:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)

Proposed deletion of File:Kit body mcfc0809gk1.png


The file File:Kit body mcfc0809gk1.png has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 7
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * City Football Group ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/City_Football_Group check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/City_Football_Group?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Catalan
 * Girona FC B ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Girona_FC_B check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Girona_FC_B?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added a link pointing to Catalan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manchester City W.F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Leigh Wood ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Manchester_City_W.F.C. check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Manchester_City_W.F.C.?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:36, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The English Game, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Raison d'être ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/The_English_Game check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/The_English_Game?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Assessments for articles
Hi there, how are you doing? Been a while since we last spoke. I know you have messaged me in the past with some valid information so thought I'd ask you how to change an article from Stub status to a better status once the article has been fully updated and edited. My recent club season 2019–20 Aberdeen F.C. season is listed as a stub but I see it being better and more than just a stub. I still don't understand this so wondering if you can you help please? Many thanks Davezo33 20:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:2020–21 FA WSL table
Template:2020–21 FA WSL table has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Quayaquil City F.C. badge.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Quayaquil City F.C. badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Quayaquil City F.C. badge.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Quayaquil City F.C. badge.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Alethea Paul


The article Alethea Paul has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG; I figured that she may have some good coverage because of her time at Man City and because of her injury struggles but all I could find were passing mentions, primary sources and routine databases like Soccerway"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Spiderone 18:00, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Women's Football / Soccer Update > October 2020
Subscribe or Unsubscribe here. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manchester City F.C. 3–2 Queens Park Rangers F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Mumbai City FC departments
Template:Mumbai City FC departments has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

List of Manchester City F.C seasons
Hi Falastur. Have you been able to look at the latest version of your proposed new format for the seasons table? Do you intend to copy it over to the live page? Thanks. Ratchet8865 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Ratchet, sorry. It's been quite a week for me, didn't really have a chance to properly think about this up to now.


 * I like what you've done. The only thing I'm not sure about is the turquoise-y colour for lower division runners up. I have no issue with the shade, I just wonder whether we could get another colour to better represent the "gold lite/silver lite" contrast which I think works quite well with the colour you picked for the division winners. I've tried adding a "silver lite" shade - see what you think. That said, I'll freely concede that it's not a perfect choice - it's a tiny bit too close to the usual silver, but any more "lite" and it would be getting close to being white - so I'm open to criticism if you don't like it.


 * Other than that, I'm happy with it all, so if you're good too then I'd be quite happy for us to put it into the regular article. Falastur2 Talk 19:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi. No problem. I've used a hex colour wheel to try to make the silver lite a bit lighter but still visible. I hope that's OK. I've also moved the key outside the div fontsize format as that seemed to be incompatible with viewing on the mobile app. if you're happy with the current version I'm good to go. Ratchet8865 (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with that, nice selection. And I'm glad you thought of checking it on a mobile version, because I have to admit I never tend to think of what tables look like on anything other than my own monitor, so it's really good to hear that that's been checked. Personally, I'd be quite happy to see this go live. Do you want to do the honours? Falastur2 Talk 20:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * OK if you're happy for me to. Ratchet8865 (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NYCFC II squad
Template:NYCFC II squad has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Joeykai (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited City Football Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page City Football Academy.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Manchester City F.C. 3–2 Queens Park Rangers F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Mirror.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Manchester City Esports China moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Manchester City Esports China, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Pbrks (t • c) 19:24, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Manchester City Esports Korea moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Manchester City Esports Korea, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. – Pbrks (t • c) 19:25, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Undraftifying articles
Hi Falastur2. It's not really good practice to re-create articles that have been draftified by another editor by simply copying-and-pasting them back again into the article namespace like you did in the case of Manchester City Esports China and Manchester City Esports Korea because it can end up creating confusion and even possible issues per WP:CPMOVE. You submitted each draft for review at AfC and then decided to skip the review process and recreate the articles yourself, which is also not a good thing. If you disagree with original decision to draftify those two articles, then that's OK. The thing to do in such a case, however, would be to make your concerns known to Pbrk and see what (if any) common ground can be found. If no agreement can be reached, the draftified article should be moved back to the mainspace per WP:DRAFTOBJECT and then discussed further at a different venue as needed. Now there are essentially two versions each of these articles floating around Wikipedia and this is something that is not needed. If you really think these articles meet WP:N in some way, then it's OK to create articles about them; if someone disagrees with you assessment, they nominate the articles for deletion at WP:AFD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)


 * That's fair enough. You're right that I could've definitely handled it better - I suppose the legacy of being here so long I've become a bit jaded and lost my assumption of good faith. That's on me, not Pbrks. I'll try sending them a message tomorrow. Falastur2 Talk 22:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Falastur2. I hope you understand why I sent the articles to the draftspace; it was not an attack towards you. The both articles had only one source, and the sources were not independent (mancity.com). There was no indication that either team met WP:GNG at the time. Even now, the sourcing is not great. Take a look at an AfD for Stalwart Esports. At the time of the AfD, this page had pretty good sourcing (e.g., Vice India, The Indian Express, The Esports Observer) and the result of the discussion was "no consensus". Many users argue that esports teams need to not only meet GNG, but also WP:NORG. It is in my opinion that if these pages were taken to AfD, the consensus would be to merge to Manchester City Esports. Frankly, I don't see enough significant coverage of these subjects to warrant separate articles for each division. Of course, I may have not researched enough for sourcing, or there may be non-English sources covering these topics. – Pbrks (t • c) 04:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I do understand. In fairness, just for the record, while your comments to me when you moved the articles to draftspace do mention the GNG, the reason you gave for removing them from mainspace did not mention notability - which, admittedly, even as a die-hard inclusionist I would have found harder to argue - but instead seemed to solely be about the use of an untrustworthy source, so I took the understanding that the only thing you wanted me to do was add more reliable sources. I will also mention that the main reason I decided to bypass the system was because after submitting the article for review, I couldn't help but notice the warning which said that reviews typically take 3-4 months before they are even started.
 * Anyway, for context, at the initial time I saw your message, it hit a little too much on the nose; it reminded me of other tactics I'd seen to try use to suppress articles which individuals do not want to see created in the generally tribal and sometimes downright hostile world of football article editing on Wikipedia. As mentioned above, I appreciate now with a slightly cooler head that this wasn't what you were trying to do but, as mentioned above, I've been worn down over time by some of the many, many fights to justify inclusion which I've been in that I sometimes now find it hard to not see everything as being done in bad faith.
 * Anyway, moving on from my own insecurities, because this is really not your problem to solve, it's mine. Honestly, the best thing here would probably be if you we merged those articles into the primary one. If I copy over the information, can you then handle the speedy delete? Falastur2 Talk 08:17, 17 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if the draftify messages were not clear enough for the reasoning. Yes, the sole reason for the draftification because it needed more reliable sources to warrant it having its own article. I probably should have left an non-automated message on your talk page, regardless. It is fine that you bypassed the review; if you are ever in a similar situation, you can simply move the article from the draftspace to the mainspace, rather than copy and paste. In regards to the merge, I think redirecting one merged would be appropriate, as they would still be valid search terms. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * It's really no problem. I was just acting on my obsessional need to provide context for everything I do or think. Your comment was really not that bad, I just misinterpreted it. Thanks for the redirect suggestion, by the way - I'll use that idea. Much appreciated, and sorry for the confusion and the problems I caused. Falastur2 Talk 17:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, that's done. What do I need to do to withdraw/withdraw the AfCs? Falastur2 Talk 17:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the quickest route would be to tag them with db-g7. – Pbrks (t • c) 15:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Mid-week is not always the easiest time for me to get things done on Wikipedia. I've requested speedy deletion on the two drafts now; could you possibly oblige? Thanks again for a decent person and putting up with my stupid behaviour earlier. <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 09:31, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 31
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 2022–23 Manchester City W.F.C. season, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mary Fowler.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Possible help on converting SVG images to PNG
Hi Falastur2,

I wanted to ask if you possibly know how to convert PNG football logos to SVG, I want to do so for a non league club, as PNG images look blurry on mobile, thank you very much. Joseph1891 (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hey Joseph. I've only played around with this once or twice, and that some time ago, so I'm no expert at all on this. There are some image converters around if you google "png to svg" or something similar, but I'm not sure how well you'll find they work, especially if you don't have a very high res image to work with in the first place. Any loss of image quality will be retained by the image converter, so you can end up with something like this. If you do have a high quality image to start with, though, then I quite like the look of this website.
 * Not sure how much I've helped? Good luck though, you're fighting for a noble cause! <b style="color:#000000;background:#AAD0FF;">Falastur2</b> Talk 22:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

New York City FC stadium - WP:3O
@Falastur2 and @Thenightaway

I came from WP:3O since last 3 days no one seem to have taken up the issue I thought to communicate with both of you on user talk page since I follow less of US local politics and also NYT is pay walled.


 * Since both of you are actively discussing specific sentences of NYT then quoting those as is, in talk page discussion is likely to be fair use under copy right, I think so, and shall be helpful to other users to share their inputs.


 * When RS mentions any criticism I am usually for taking on board but here in this case, things seem to be projected and still to be affected.


 * I would suggest a separate sub-section about investments, costs and revenues with:
 * Clarity in Whether agreements are MOUs or final signed agreements approved by the respective institutions officially.


 * clear identifiable differentiation is what is projected and what is actual.


 * Clarity in what are direct costs estimated and real to the tax payers and other respective institutions. Mention indirect costs and opportunity costs if any separately and clearly.


 * "Under the deal," Which deal? try to remain clear and specific.


 * Generally, do not conflate, i.e. avoid to state costs as losses in Wikivoice. Mention actual costs and attribute if any critic claims those costs are losses in part or full.


 * "economists say" Which / who? are they notable and prominent enough economists? You shall need to name them if you wish to take the criticism on board. I think so.


 * Provide synopsis of main points in your discussion being discussed at the article talk page.

I hope above inputs may help you to some extent in sorting out the issue. Happy editing to both of you.

&#32;Bookku   (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2023 (UTC)