Talk:Leicester City F.C.

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleLeicester City F.C. was one of the Sports and recreation good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
February 12, 2007Featured article candidateNot promoted
February 21, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
September 20, 2009Good article nomineeListed
June 7, 2023Good article reassessmentDelisted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on May 3, 2016.
Current status: Delisted good article

Premier League Win[edit]

The page needs to be updated as the Premier league win has not been recorded properly. The third paragraph begins with a sentence which assumes that the reader has been told of the win already. John2o2o2o (talk) 08:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi John. I'm not sure at what point the league can be claimed to have been won. I guess after the trophy is handed over as there have been cases of a points fine. Regards JRPG (talk) 08:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand. Firstly: Are you trying to wind me up? The league was won at about 9:50 on Monday night. You know that though. When leicester City are actually presented with the trophy has no bearing on the matter at all. Secondly: The point I am actually trying to make is that the third paragraph opens with the statement "Leicester's 2015–16 Premier League win ..." BUT prior to that the article should say (Something like) "Leicester City became Premier League champions for the first time in the 2015-16 season after Chelsea held their only challengers Tottehham Hotspur to a draw at Stamford Bridge on 2nd May 2016 (etc)". Okay? John2o2o2o (talk) 16:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add again to what I said before: (refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on "Writing better articles", sub-heading "state the obvious"). You MUST state the obvious. I know that "everyone" in the world just now knows that Leicester City won the 2015-16 EPL, but you must explicitly state the fact on Wikipedia's Leicester City page BEFORE talking about it. You cannot assume prior knowledge. John2o2o2o (talk) 18:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi John. I've lived in Leicester for over 40 years & celebrated their success along with everyone else in this city. I expect them to get the trophy which symbolises their achievement. Feel free to edit it yourself if you are certain -see WP:BOLD. I won't revert as I don't know at what point the trophy is deemed Leicester's but a very few might regard it as WP:CRYSTAL.
Regards JRPG (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the article seems disordered. Its one of the problems that occurs if people try to make it like a newspaper. The article should stabilise once the trophy has been presented and additional photigraphs added. JRPG (talk) 18:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have had the season 2015-2016 now, so it seems quite OK to have their win mentioned in the article. We could also mention some of the extreme ideas linked to betting odds about their winning. Vorbee (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Records section[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't leicester 1-0 down to swindon at half time, and went to 3-0 down in the second half? Guinness 23:25, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add more categories to the records sections people. I only added the first few as a suggestion and to prompt more edits. Mostly, I don't have information to hand myself, but it's def. worth putting here. Guinness 18:21, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

Dennis Wise[edit]

Should Dennis Wise be included in the list of "Famous Former Players"? There is no doubt that he is a former player, but is he 'famous' enough to be included. Having played internationally for england 21 times (according to his article), I would argue strongly that the answer is "yes." Although his departure from the club and threat to sue afterwards was acrimonious and he is not loved by supporters of the club, this does not change the fact that he is a "Famous Former Player" I further propose (to prevent any future disputes), that we accept any player who has played for Leicester City and made a full appearance for his national site as a "Famous Former Player" (not necessarily to the exclusion of others). Guinness 16:13, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Although he is famous I don't think he famous for being a Leicester player. Putting him in is just a cop out for people making the list who don't really know that much. Matt Elliott, Steve Guppy, Gerry Taggart, Kasey Keller, Ian Walker, Tony Cottee to name a few all failed to be listed ahead of Wise in this list.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimmmmmmmmm (talk • contribs) .
If the guideline for inclusion is to be "Famous for being a Leicester player," then Claridge, Collymore, Cottee, Ferdinand, Kaamark, Mancini, and Newell could all go, and arguably others too. Overall, I think putting it that way is too subjective (how do you know that they are specifically famous as Leicester players, and not just as players who have been at Leicester). I think it would better be phrased as "Famous players, who have played for Leicester." Whilst the 'famous players' part is still subjective, it is easier to define (e.g. by international appearance as above). Guinness 17:09, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Still shoudn't be included. He's was a digrace and should never be mentioned in the same breath as the club again.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimmmmmmmmm (talk • contribs) .
The incident leading to his departure and the fan's view of him may be worth mentioning in either the "History" section, or in the Dennis Wise article itself, but I don't believe that he should be excluded from the list, just because he is disliked by supporters of the club. Wikipedia is neutral to POV. Guinness 15:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Fine put Wise in but then include anyone else who ever breifly appeared in a Leicester shirt and played for their country. Including Alan Smith (ex Arsenal), Tim Flowers, Matt Jones, Danny Coyne, Stefen Fruend etc. There are much more famous Leicester players then Dennis Wise.

Jimmmmmmmmmmm

Hmm, I see your point, it's going to get big, isn't it. I was going to suggest that we just create a category for it, but it seems that there is in fact one already (here). How about we just list players who started their career at LCFC on the main article, and let the category take care of the rest. Guinness 10:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Yeah I think this should just be notable Leicester player. So not just player that began here but successfull ones to like the League cup winners and Zagoakis etc. And then let the category take care of Wise etc. Jimmmmmmmmm 1-11-05 14:45

Right then, I've updated the list and added the category link. I've removed most of the names as I believe it is best to avoid quantity and specifically avoid duplicating the category list. Just keep the real cream of the crop on the list. I'm still not 100% happy that we've got clear criteria for adding people to the list, but at least it's a starting point. Guinness 19:12, 10 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I should add Zagorakis as he did spend 3-4 years at the club and is a European Championship winning captain with Greece. Makes him notable I think.

Jimmmmmmmmm 14:40 28 April 2006

"but due to the loss of Premiership television money, the cost of constructing their new stadium and Dennis Wise's suing of the club after his sacking over an incident that left Callum Davidson with a fractured cheekbone, the club went into administration with debts of £30million."

The Dennis Wise incident certainly wasn't a key factor in Leicester going into administration. I've rephrased this section as it seemed very POV. 82.17.202.62 11:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple answer from me.... NO - After what he did to Callum Davidson after losing a game of cards!....

No way

86.17.160.81 17:09, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administration[edit]

This may have been discussed extensively before, but in reference to:

"It was because of Leicester restructuring their debts, which some misguidedly perceived to have given them an unfair advantage over their rivals, that the Football League changed their rules and now penalise teams going into administration with a ten point penalty."

I don't understand what the misguided perception was, it seems to be a POV for a start that the perception was misguided and I'd argue that it's not a misguided perception at all, but a quite correct one, since Leicester City were relegated with a premiership strength side and through going into administration had to surrender far fewer players that a team trying to avoid administration would have had to go under. That argument is surely going over old ground, but I don't understand why it is so obviously misguided that it can be stated as fact? (Don quixote 18:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Well I guess the arugment agianst this point would be that administration brings its own problems and uncertainties that the club had to deal with. However, I agree that misguided is a pov term that shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia. Robdurbar 22:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City sold many players when relagated from the premiership. My mind is struggling to go back without looking at facts but Savage went for 2.5 m, Rowett for 2.5 m and Piper for 3 m. There were many other players. We were also not allowed to bring in players.


I think the latest edit throws the baby out with the bathwater. It removes the contentious 'misguidedly' (which I agree is POV), but also removes the explanation of why the League was unhappy, so readers who do not already know the story need to read between the lines, which is unhelpful. A re-edit to: "It was because of Leicester restructuring their debts, which some perceived to have given them an unfair advantage over their rivals, that the Football League…etc…" might be a happy medium. This would acknowledge there was an argument (not, I feel, as simple as Don Quixote suggests, but this ain't the place) without taking sides in it. Grubstreet 20:36, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Records[edit]

Something needs to be done with, either it be scrapped or someone find the details on it. The goals is easy but I have no idea who has made the most appearences and how many this season for example.

Jimmmmmmmmm 14:44 28 April 2006

you could always email the club and ask them for the official records, i'm sure they'd happily oblige, though it might take a while. Skitzouk 11:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

squad template[edit]

Could somebody who knows about the team make a squad template? Guidelines can be found here SenorKristobbal 09:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

how do you update the following

aggreggate[edit]

Is 'aggreggate' a British slang term? Otherwise is has an extra fourth 'g' and should be 'aggregate'. Same for article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_English_football. I couldn't tell from just doing a Google search as it is spelled with the fourth 'g' a variety of times in relation to football. --darklilac 15:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably just a bad spelling. Somebody with a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary (or who just knows) should confirm the correct spelling. Guinness 11:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Having been a slave to the OED as an editor at Oxford University Press for several years, i can confirm it's spelt 'aggregate' - no need for the fourth 'g'!

Herman Dune 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May want to watch the dates of these posts. : - ) Cheers. --MZMcBride 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup results list[edit]

The results list looks unstructured and messy, and also has no date information (and scorers / cards / etc... would be a nice addition too). Haven't got time to do this myself right now. Guinness 18:15, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Guinnog, that'll about do it ;) Guinness 13:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advice for improvemnt to FA[edit]

In addition to my comments on the FAC and as promised to User:Jimmmmmmmmm, here are some more detailed comments and suggestions:

  • Opening sentence of history - is Fosse road part of the Fosse Way? If so that could be mentioned.
  • Singular / plural - the club is sometimes referred to in the plural and sometimes the singular, this should be consistent throughout. In a sporting context, the plural is more common in British English.
  • Some managers (Lee, McGhee, Taylor) are mentioned in the text despite having brief tenures which do not appear to have had a significant impact in a historical context.
  • The manager list seems overly long to be included in the main article, consider splitting it off. A team such as West Ham who have had few managers could get away with having the full list, but this one takes more than a full screen length on 1024x768.
  • Things which require citations:
    • Giles being one of the club's most successful managers, and McLintock as one of the worst
    • City's most famous home-grown player, Gary Lineker, not obvious to a non-football fan, plus some would argue Peter Shilton.
    • McGhee left the club unexpectedly
    • coupled with some poor dealings in the transfer market
    • In reaction to Leicester's restructuring of their debts, the Football League changed their rules requires evidence that this was because of Leicester specifically.
    • This change was unpopular, and dropped at the end of the season
    • this led manager Martin O'Neill to say he used to "lead new signings out backwards"
  • No section about supporters or rivalries? Rivalries are mentioned in the lead but not elsewhere. Oldelpaso 21:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I will start addressing what needs to be done but not everything is a problem. Giles lead us to 5 of our 8 cup finals, so citation not needed. We've only won 3 cups and he won one, plus lead us to two FA Cup Finals, and lead us to forth in the table. All this is in the reference website by the way.

Lee was manager when were close to getting relegated to the 3rd division so his role in saving us was important to our history. McGhee's section is small and just bridges the gap from Little to O'Niell. Taylor ruined all O'Niell work and pretty much lead us to where administration with over spending on bad players, of which I'll try and find a reference as you've asked.

Fosse Road isn't part of the Fosse Way it's just named after it so thats fine.

I'll try and do something with the list of managers but would be a shame to lose the alltime record.

Lineker/Shilton, you right needs addressing.

As for the football league administration there should be BBC story on that I'll look.

Rivalries I'll get on it, and the O'Niell quote I know he said just a matter of finding it.

Jimmmmmmmmm 13:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure this request is in the right section, but could the last sentence of the opening section, describing Martin Allen's appointment, be corrected to: '...Allen had signed a three-year contract'?

Herman Dune 09:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA candidacy[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

Several things need to be done before GA status is approved. None of them are major and should be possible in 5 days. The minor things are jargon, major things are referencing and citation:

  • Jargon, only one issue. Not sure what is mean't by administration (see history section) "In October 2002, the club went into administration with debts of £30 million." I'm from NZ and from what I can figure you are talking about receivership I don't know though (hence havn't changed it myself). Whatever it is exactly, simply wiki-link it. That way there is no confusion.
  • Inline citation, any statements that can be considered POV need an inline citation. Whether this manager is regarded as the best or worst, or this player best or worst can have a citation. At the moment there is nothing, hence very difficult to verify.Here are some examples:
  • "with the help of Arthur Rowley, one of the club's most prolific strikers"
  • "Under the management of Matt Gillies, one of the club's most successful managers"
  • "Due to City's relegation in at the end of the 1977-78 season and McClintock's subsequent resignation, he is regarded as one of Leicester's worst managers."
  • "one of City's most famous home-grown player, Gary Lineker"
  • "He is regarded today as easily the best manager of recent years, and one of the most successful in the club's history."
etc etc...
  • Weasel words need to be removed, see above.
  • Put citations in for all the club records and statistics, nothing wrong with having an inline citation repeated several times if the source is the same for several of them.
  • Cite the source for the info on Milan Mandaric's interest in buying the club.
  • There are statements in the Colours, Crest and Traditions section that are just external links, make them inline citations. If not the referencing format is inconsistent.
  • The external links and references section has links that are identical, this is pointless.
  • See Wikipedia:Citing sources for citation style. Add when a link was accessed for example as links can go dead.

Once above things are done change from Hold to GA. - Shudda talk 05:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have failed this article, has on hold for over one week. - Shudda talk 01:32, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chairman[edit]

The Milan Mandaric article claims "As the club are still a PLC, he won't have the title of Chairman for a further 23 days."

Can anybody confirm/clarify this? Is Cahill still legally the chairman? Guinness 12:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]


But will be on the 8th of March so don't forget to change it when the change is made.Jimmmmmmmmm 19:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be on my snowboard, somewhere ;) Guinness 02:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lucky you. well seeing as I'm the mug who'll probably have to change it back I'm leaving Milan up there. It's only two weeks away can't see much point changing it to change back. Jimmmmmmmmm 14:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Era[edit]

Why has there been a Milan Era section added? Most of it is in the History section anyway, but you either break up the history section or you don't. This should just be part of the history section, look at the Arsenal article for example. The main layout of this page is fine so please don't mess with it, it is not too far off FA just needs more references.Jimmmmmmmmm 16:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Leicester-City.png[edit]

Image:Leicester-City.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals[edit]

can an admin ban this 80.43.69.197 ip as who ever it is had attacked the artical numorous times in the past 30 mins alone AfTaDaRkCrU 21:32, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} can an admin please lock this topic from edits by unregistered and newly registered users until the following IP, 81.156.137.157 finally grows up from vandalising the artical. AfTaDaRkCrU 22:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Report on WP:ANI. Miranda 22:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer page[edit]

is it worh setting up an independat artical that lists all the transferes in and out during the current and future transfer windows, we could list them per season in summer and january sections and just do the same for future seasons, whats your thoughts? AfTaDaRkCrU 13:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The ins and out section will be gone come the new season, they are only there to keep track during the busy summer. JimmyMac82 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but i was thinking it could be something we maintain to keep a log of ALL future transfers for many seasons to come. AfTaDaRkCrU 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But then you'll end up with a huge page. Each season has a tranfer section, so you can find them on there. Plus each player has it's own page, so you can check that to find out when they moved to the club. JimmyMac82 19:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with Afta Dark that it would be useful to have a list of recent transfer ins and outs (in fact, I was looking for this information myself recently, and WP was my first port of call), however WP:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary is worth taking into account at this time. But, despite this guideline, I still think that 'recent' transfer activity is valuable in the context of it being extra-ordinatry (as in lcfc have a new manager, and 11 transfers in a few months is an awful lot), and that we could, in the sort term at least ignore this guideline. I do agree with Jimmy though, that in the long term, this is not valuable information. Guinness 23:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Records and Statistics[edit]

All. Please note that: Arsenal, Chelsea, Everton, Leeds, Leicester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle United, Tottenham Hotspur and West Ham have at this time never played a game outside of the top two tiers of English football. This is 10 (ten) teams. Leeds are likely to play outside the top two tiers, this coming August, but have not done so at this time. Please do not introduce factually incorrect information into this article. Thanks. Guinness 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Campbell[edit]

the transfer fee for dj was 1.6 million not 1 million

International Players[edit]

would it be worth putting the players that have international caps in bold? i have seen this on other teams pages and was thinking about doing it here but thought i'd gage people's opion 1st. Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 00:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it looks terrible and also makes players who have international caps look more important than other players. Which they are not. JimmyMac82 12:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Rudkin[edit]

i have made a start in this article but welcome all help to improve the look and contents of it.Skitzo, co-founder of the AfTaDaRkCrU 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lee[edit]

Am I right in thinking that Gordon Lee was only caretaker manager (inbetween Pleat and Little), and never officially appointed as full time manager? Guinness 17:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be correct as to his appointment being only in a caretaker basis, but Lee is still one of City's most important managers. After Pleat's dismil era he saved us from relegation to the Third Division, a level we have never been down to. JimmyMac82 20:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, I wasn't going to remove it, just make it clear that he was caretaker, not full time. Guinness 12:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Leicester-City.png[edit]

Image:Leicester-City.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Managers[edit]

Levein, Megson etc. There seems to be a big gap between Micky Adams's departure and the successor managers that are missing. I reckon there are five,at least, if you include caretakers.Jatrius 09:50, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its a notable managers section, none since Adams have done anything note worthy. Skitzo 11:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wot about Nigel Worthington? He saved Leicester from relegation like Gordon Lee, so that's something to note. Why not put his name in? 219.74.250.100 (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was also only a caretaker manager thus doesn't qualify.Skitzo (talk) 09:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, we never got CLOSE to relegation under Kelly or Worthington, compared to when Gordon Lee took charge for that game against Oxford. It was completely out of our hands that game, no season since then have we looked so much like being relegated. Don't ruin his or Tony James' legacy by adding frivolous "notable" managers. --MikeMetaled (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exactly If Ian Holloway does nothing of note he will be removed when he leaves the club.Skitzo (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer Listed players[edit]

what is the concencious for removing that tag? i added it in the 1st place but i now feel it should be removed atleast until a new manager is appointed or until the transfer window reopens as someone like Kenton (and maybury to a lesser degree) are featuring regually for the 1st team.Skitzo 20:19, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Interwiki[edit]

Please new interwiki [el:Λέστερ Σίτυ] --Tony esopi patra (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Women's Football[edit]

Is there a women's team? --202.47.49.144 (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a section which tracks their progress on the official site, as yet therre isn't a Wiki article about it though. Skitzo (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Music/Song[edit]

Can someone please tell me what music/song is played before a Leicester City home game? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherbed (talk • contribs) 18:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they play a number of songs, you'd have to be more specific. Skitzo (talk) 09:00, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Holloway - Worst manager ever[edit]

Not sure that the remark saying "Ian Holloway is regarded as Leicester's worst ever manager" is really factual. It is an opinion at best and anyone who witnessed Frank McLintock's tenure as City boss would be sure to disagree! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.144.230.202 (talk) 11:10, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is based on the fact he is the ONLY manager to relegate the club to tier 3rd tier of English Football. Skitzo (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LCFC Squad 2008/2009[edit]

With regards to reserve players, LEAVE the current squad alone. I understand there is players like Sappleton, Odhiambo, Cisak, Cox etc. on the fringes on the 1st team, but if they were to be part of this season's squad, why haven't they been issued a no. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikinixon17 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

they are listed on the clubs official website in the 1st team squad level, that is the ONLY criteria needed.Skitzo (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only players that are listed on the website should be added, unless they debut/signed before the site is updated and addition is supported by a reliable source, such as the BBC website. Skitzo (talk) 22:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Captaincy[edit]

Stephen Clemence is the club captain but5 is out injured therefore Matt Oakley is vice-captain, unless you find a source to say otherwise please leave this alone. Skitzo (talk) 19:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new home strip[edit]

Leicester have launched a new home strip and will be adding a new away 1 too, can someone with more knowledge then me update the info box please. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 11:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Leicester City F.C./GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

OK, I will begin now and likely make some straightforward copyediting changes as I go. Please feel free to revert any that inadvertently change the meaning. Let's see how those foxy foxes are....Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • It would be good to format the references in cite web format, so that other information such as authors, work (i.e. website), publishers and publication dates can be added. Luton Town F.C. is a recently-promoted Featured article to compare with.
  • Overall, the article is a bit rough around the edges, but I will help with that, and call in some others.
  • Anything on famous supporters?
Please forgive the interjection... WP:FOOTY consensus is that "Famous supporters" sections are not encyclopedic and should not be included in team articles. The information could be added to the individual biography articles of the celebrities concerned, if it is deemed significant. --Jameboy (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Books are often better refs than websites.
  • The two links in the first couple of sentences in the Colours, crest and traditions section are dead. Surely the Leicester book will have material on this.

I'll add more later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:32, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Have also asked a chum to take a look. We'll help get this one over the line. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JRA_WestyQld2's comments[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)

It was a hard decision whether to put this on hold or fail it right now due to a high backlog on good article nominees, but because there is quite a bit of work put into this page, I think if editors show some initiative on this page, it should get a second shot sooner, rather than later. I could not find problems with grammar, spelling or any major MoS mistakes, so if someone wants to clean it up, I'll decide what to do with it. JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 07:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Maybe history can be broken up into sections
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    Biggest problem for this article, it lacks a lot of citation for facts. For reference number 3, if it is used multiple times, provide page different references for different page numbers.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Very broad. I tend to disagree Casilber about more content for a good article, trivial sort of things like that could be used for feature articles.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    I'm a bit nit picky on this one, it isn't too bad.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    Captions could be better by being more in depth and putting the images into context. Read WP:CAP.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The article will be put on hold for a week, in this time there needs to be significant improvements to citations and referencing.

Thank you for your patience! Looks good =] JRA_WestyQld2 Talk 08:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article problems[edit]

  • Citations - Cite the following
    • Third paragraph of History Leicester reached the FA Cup semi-final in 1974.
FixedCptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourth paragraph of History. Jock Wallace resumed the tradition of successful Scottish managers (after Peter Hodge and Matt Gillies) by steering Leicester to the Division Two championship in 1980.
Fixed?Cptnono (talk) 07:08, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fifth paragraph of History. McGhee left the club unexpectedly in December 1995 whilst Leicester were top of Division One to take charge of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
FixedCptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sixth paragraph of History. O'Neill was the first manager to win silverware for 26 years, winning the League Cup twice, in 1997 and 2000, and Leicester were runners-up in 1999.
    • Final paragraph of History. On 22 November, Ian Holloway was appointed manager. Holloway made history when he became the first Leicester manager in over 50 years to win his first league game in charge, beating Bristol City 2–0.
FixedCptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Final paragraph of History. Leicester were voted as 'The Best Club In The East Midlands '09' in a national poll, following on from two consecutive awards in '07 and '08.
Removed?Cptnono (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • First paragraph of Colours. The first commercial logo to appear on a Leicester kit was that of Admiral Sportsware, the kit designers, in 1976.
Fixed? See below
    • First paragraph of Colours. Cite all these facts. The first sponsorship logo to appear on a Leicester shirt was that of Ind Coope in 1983. British snack food manufacturer Walkers Crisps held a long association with the club, sponsoring them from 1987 to 2001. On 24 April 2009 the club officially unveiled their new 2009–10 home shirt during the last League One home game against Scunthorpe United. The new shirt will be without a sponsor in honour of the club's 125-year anniversary. The shirt is manufactured by Joma. The new kit features a central crest with "125" below.
Fixed? See aboveCptnono (talk)
    • Second paragraph of Colours. Another new character who is now seen every week at home games is TOPPS, the (Topps Tiles Tile) becoming a brand new mascot.
    • Stadia. Just about the whole section...
Half fixedCptnono (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Club Honors. The 1942 and 1941 championships need referencing.
    • Records and statistics. All facts that aren't referenced.
  • NPOV - The following are NPOV unless cited
    • Fourth paragraph of History. Due to City's relegation in at the end of the 1977–78 season and McClintock's subsequent resignation, he is regarded as one of Leicester's worst managers.
RemovedCptnono (talk) 07:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fourth paragraph of History. Why was it unsucessful? Plus citation needed Milne left in 1986 and was replaced by in 1987 David Pleat, who oversaw one of the club's most unsuccessful periods in its history.
Removed
    • First paragraph of Colours. Why was it unpopular? Citation needed This change was unpopular, and dropped at the end of the season.
RemovedCptnono (talk) 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article summary[edit]

Lead

  • Fine.

History

  • Content fine apart from references and NPOV mentioned above.

Colours

  • Referencing needed for this section most.
  • I found a great resource for historical kits that looks to be properly vetted. Made a mention of it at the footy project. Forced to remove a few lines regarding when and how often the blue and white was used. Removed Admiral logo since I could not find it. Inde Coope is shown on this page and I have found a fanzine. I was hoping to find something better for the "first logo" line. Any thoughts?Cptnono (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added source for last few lines regarding newest kit.Cptnono (talk) 07:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rivalries

  • Fine

Club honors

  • One reference needed

Managers

  • Fine.

Records and statistics

  • Ref it!

League history

  • Fine

Players

  • Fine

Backroom staff

  • Fine

References

  • References should come under References rather than Footnotes. The referencing should also be tidied up to meet WP:HARV and many of the references are deadlinks or redirects.
Fixed layout (but not citaiton style)Cptnono (talk) 06:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Founding[edit]

I have this 1974 book, Observers Book of Association Football. and it says "A dozen old boys of Wyggeston School piad ninepence each to buy a football and start a soccer team in 1884. They called themselves Leicester Fosse." I was musing on putting this in, but had not seen this written elsewhere, and pondered its veracity. Further info would be welcomed. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was also on the now out of print DVD release in 2003 "The Official History of Leicester City Football Club" which has been used for other reference points on this article, i think it's safe to put it in. MIR17 17:10, 26 August2009 (UTC)

26th fiercest rivalry[edit]

I was absolutely sure it was the 25th fiercest. Seriously, what value does that statement add, especially given that ferocity of rivalry is very subjective anyway? --Jameboy (talk) 11:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This just got promoted and there are already problems. Football Pools isn't important is it? Even if it is it is user contributed. Even though we directly cite it, it might be better to find a good solid RS that says there is a big rivalry instead of qualifying it like this.Cptnono (talk) 11:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Managers List[edit]

Is it still worth having this on here? Most club pages just have a full list of the managers. The list also seems to biased towards modern managers. What makes Brian Little or Micky Adams more notable than Jock Wallace or Norman Bullock? What makes Peter Taylor or Ian Holloway a more notable bad managers than Frank McLintock? Shall we just change this to a full list of managers? --MIR17 (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was a challenge getting this to GA status. This section and subsection detracts from the quality. The section needs sources. The list in the subsection simply needs to go. "Notable x lists" have been a problem across the FOOTY topic since editors are making their own interpretation of what is "noatable". This is shown with the recent removal of a manager who could or could not be notable. Unless there is a source saying that the manager is particularly notable then we don;t need it. Even better than a list is expanding the prose. There is wikilink to a list so why do we need two? Cptnono (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Lennon[edit]

Any Foxes fans want to add more to the Neil Lennon page? His Leicster days are somewhat glossed over.Mattun0211 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Club History[edit]

I think this needs sorting. It's far, far too modern weighted. 1990 onwards takes up over half the section. Either there is far too much detail on the last 20 years or there is far too little on the previous 105. --MIR17 (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Squad table format[edit]

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

  • It features a sort function
  • Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
    • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
    • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
  • It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
  • It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
  • It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Leicester City F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, Edinburgh Wanderer 19:41, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bakayogo[edit]

please stop adding him to the squad list as he wasn't named in the premier league squad and given that he has another knee ligament injury he won't be getting added either, also there ias no confirmation he is no. 21, he wasn't names on that list either. Jimmy Skitz's Answer Machine 19:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • He doesn't need to be in the Premier League squad to be named on the list, as far as I am aware (although feel free to point to a consensus that disagrees with me); he's not a youth player, so he should be included *somewhere* if he is still verifiably a Leicester player. It does seem to be the case that he is; but I do agree that there is no evidence he has the 21 shirt (and I don't tend to accept training shirts as gospel myself). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations ![edit]

Boeing720 (talk) 21:02, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The warning signs were showing,
T'was April and snowing,
The hunt was still going,
Their horns were still blowing,
'Cause the Foxes were still running free,

They raced blinding bright through the Palace of Light,
Drew the Red Devils well on a cold day in hell,
Though Spurs dig deep in and Lions chase, neither win,
So the Foxes are still running free,
We know you don’t believe us,
We know you don’t believe us,
We know you don’t believe us but…

THEY'RE GONNA RUN THE LEAGUE!!! Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the greatest achievements[edit]

@AlexMlcfc: Hi Alex. I snipped this bit you wrote, 'Due to the magnitude of Leicester's title win, it is categorized as one of the greatest achievements in English football history'. The first bit I chopped because it's possibly inaccurate: at max 83 points, the magnitude of the win itself isn't that high; it's instead impressive because of how unlikely it was. The second bit is probably not that WP:NPOV. One source saying it's 'surely the most remarkable' isn't definitive or widely held enough for Wikipedia to declare that as fact. It's better to provide info on the things we can prove, like whether it was the longest odds paid out by a bookie. I kept the Economist bit though, because that will be a nice piece of history. I'm not trying to be annoying removing your edits, and I hope this explains why! :-) Madshurtie (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Madshurtie, yeah that's absolutely fine about the recent edit, to be honest it's worded better now anyway. I understand entirely so please don't feel bad about removing some of my edits. Would you mind though if I was to still put in the part about the achievement going down in English football history, but I would reword it better? I feel this is very relevant information and it has not yet been mentioned in the article at all. I will use proper sources of information if you agree with me to do it. Thank you for giving me feedback about the sources by the way, much appreciated. All the best, Alex. AlexMlcfc 17:42 May 6 2016 (UTC)
@AlexMlcfc: I think talking about historical importance is great, I just think it should be kept concrete. For example, phrases like 'one of the greatest' are vague (how great, top 3, top 5, top 20?) and indicate that we don't really know how great it is. We also should be careful putting the opinions of journalists down as facts, rather than widely held opinions. Notice Federer leads with 'his accomplishments in professional tennis cause him to be regarded by many as the greatest'. Though I think even better writing is if we can prove that it's remarkable in some way, like the stuff about how Leicester overcame the longest odds for a victor. This stuff can be verified and isn't open to opinion, and means Wikipedia is giving more information to the reader. If you think we should add a bit about how massive a challenge Leicester overcame (i.e. the scale of the achievement, rather than the scale of the surprise), this fivethirtyeight article is a good starting point for facts about how unprecedented Leicester's feat was. Madshurtie (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Madshurtie, I have just added new content on this section, and tried to make it worded to sound more factual. Feel free to take a look to check if it's ok with you. Hopefully I have understood correctly what you meant, with the changes I've made? If you think it's still not quite right, please go ahead to make the changes you feel necessary. Thank you for your understanding. AlexMlcfc 22:51 May 6 2016 (UTC)
@AlexMlcfc: Hi again. The thing is it's better if we show the reader how great it was rather than telling them. There's good example on the wiki manual of style here. Another thing is that it's subjective whether it's the greatest achievement. Is it greater than the Barcelona sextuple or the Arsenal Invincibles? There weren't even odds offered on those, so we have no guide for how unlikely they were. So if we just describe everything that's remarkable about Leicester's triumph, it allows the reader to see for themselves. I've tried to rework it a bit more. Take care. Madshurtie (talk) 10:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, well I may leave editing this section for a bit now. I may come back to this in the near future though. By all means, if you can add something in about it being one of English football's greatest achievement, then of course go ahead, but at the moment I don't think I can quite find the right wording to explain the point. Many thanks. AlexMlcfc (talk) 13:25 May 7 2016 (UTC)
@AlexMlcfc: It's just that wiki generally frowns upon statements like 'one of the greatest', because they sound boastful and aren't very precise. For example, the Liverpool, Arsenal, and Man U articles (all featured articles) all used to have text in the intro saying they're 'one of the most successful' clubs, but editors have since removed it, leaving the specific achievements to speak for themselves. The best way to get away with it is like the Federer page, where it takes a neutral stance by saying 'he is regarded by many as the greatest' and then cites a long list of commentators who've said that. Even then it's not ideal, because there's no way of knowing what proportion of commentators disagree. I personally think the current intro 'by some measures it was the greatest sporting upset ever...' is effusive enough, though other editor's opinions might be interesting. I think I'll move this conversation to the club talk page. Thanks. Madshurtie (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the whole, it's more amazing because of the combination of the lousy last season and how predictable the Premier League has become in recent years. It's a shock because the team is full of transfers and budget buys like Marhez, a £350,000 buy with the change down the back of the Foxes' couch. In the end it wasn't exactly a close run for these last five games. I would have been more shocked if the Tots had taken it by this point; they were up against rivals Chelsea, who were hardly going to give that match away, especially with home pride on their side. They'd also have to deal with Newcastle, who are themselves frantic for their own win to escape relegation. Chelsea might have posed a problem to us, but a home Everton match was never going to be an obstacle, especially when they had nothing to play for. Of course if you'd been partying in Leicester this last week (and probably the next month too) you'd be forgiven for thinking it's some kind of miracle... Harley Quinn hyenaholic (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it's not a 'miracle', I'm just saying it's more encyclopaedic to show that it's a miracle than to say that it's a miracle. Madshurtie (talk) 10:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion Between Leicester Fosse and Leicester City[edit]

This article (and the history) make it sound as though Leicester City was a continuation of Leicester Fosse. It was not.

The history article states

Due to financial problems, Leicester Fosse had ceased to exist when the League resumed in 1919.

As it says, Leicester Fosse had ceased to exist so it could not be reformed. The history of Leicester Fosse is distinct from that of Leicester City, the two should not be confused. 86.151.36.84 (talk) 11:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Runners up consensus[edit]

@Qed237: @AlexMlcfc: Hi Qed, just wondering where the consensus was outlined that runners up finishes aren't to be included on the honours page. I have seen them on other pages (e.g. West Ham, Bayern Munich) so was just wondering whether it's left to the consensus of the club community, whether those clubs need correcting, or whether there isn't really that clear of a consensus. Thanks. Madshurtie (talk) 08:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't; in fact, our manual of style says that we should, or at least, can, include runners-up places: Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs. The only questions would be on whether to include the play-off wins? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Unless editors consider Leicester to have won a sufficient amount of trophies to not include this? I'd set the bar higher than what Leicester have! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:21, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. Just to input on the conversation, I personally really do want to add the runners up, in the Honours section, as they are still key dates in the club's history, and I just feel for them not to be mentioned it's almost not showing a full history of the club in major competitions (i.e 4 FA Cup finals, Premier League runner up in 1929-30 etc). There is more to show in the honours section I feel. I've been told not to add the runners up in the honours, but would like to. Of course, Qed237 makes some good points about it so hope you don't think I'm criticizing Qed237. Just genuinely think it would improve this section of the page though. I know entirely what to add if I get the green light to do this. Oh! Just noticed it's added in, are we all agreed now then on this?

@AlexMlcfc: I'm agreed about keeping runners up. I think runners up status in some high profile competitions is more notable than winners status in some low profile friendlies. I was pretty surprised when Qed said there was a consensus to exclude them. On other pages, Qed has favoured inclusion when it comes to low profile friendlies, which made it more surprising. I mean technically the club doesn't hold the honour if it doesn't win it, but the honours section could be about the club's achievements under that honour, rather than whether it actually won it. Madshurtie (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, why is Leicester's european record highlighted in Red? I think it would be improved by having a key at the bottom rather than a colour code. With a key it is just simpler to understand in my opinion (i.e 7-2 but to who? Can we put opposition as the right and Leicester as left?). However, again not a criticism, just a suggestion.

Excellent, thanks for listening to my suggestion about the European record and including runners up, means a lot. As long as other users are ok with this of course, I hope I haven't ruined anyone's edits, I didn't intend to, I was just suggesting what I think is best from my perspective. The runners up being included, and the european record not being in red, looks great at the moment. I hope both aspects are kept as they are currently, as I personally think it's good how it is at the moment, but that's just my own opinion. Thank you very much. All the best. AlexMlcfc (talk) 15:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leicester City F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:35, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 1 June 2016[edit]

Brackets need to be inserted on IPA 88.104.44.229 (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a little more specific exactly where in the text this "IPA" you are referring to. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:21, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester City Football Club /ˌlɛstər ˈsɪti/ → Leicester City Football Club (/ˌlɛstər ˈsɪti/) 88.104.44.229 (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that. LynwoodF (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where vas Leicester during Uefa 2016 Cup? Nowhere, as th coach decided so. Only Vardy some short time — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.218.42.132 (talk) 13:35, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Leicester City F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reversion of Ladbrokes deal[edit]

@Mattythewhite and Fares57: Greetings Fares57 and thanks for your clear comment on my talk page. Coming from a numerical sciences background, I will admit I only ever bet when the odds are stacked in my favour -a rare event. Whilst kit is clearly essential and half time refreshments served at the ground desirable, a bet is of marginal importance for adults and illegal for under 16's. Also unlike food it could be placed with any on-line bookmaker. The source itself sounds like an overhyped poor translation & is certainly not a wp:RS. To me the whole thing seems to falls foul of wp:advert but I could live with it. I'm hoping Mattythewhite can provide an unbiased view -for which thanks in advance. Regards JRPG (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @JRPG:, thanx for your reply. I am very new to the Wiki community, so I can't reply to all this. If it is a "foul", it can be deleted. Just started learning! Fares57 (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adrien Silva's number...[edit]

...should not be inserted until January as both sources currently do not show that and I have not found any websites on that anyway, Iggy (talk) 12:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Leicester City F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:16, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Leicester City F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Split international honours into new article[edit]

The list of players achieving international honours at the club is getting very long and likely to only get longer still. Should this be split off into its own article? Skeene88 (talk) 15:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section in the article appears to be entirely unsourced. This is a good article but this one huge unsourced section is not good. Without any sources, this part has the potential of incorrect facts on certain players. I suspect that some users would remove the whole section and also the caps won by them are not relevant to domestic football in terms of stats.
Some users may agree on removing the whole section (and the page history says so in March 2017) so this *not so* notable section has been around here for two and a quarter years.
The article should not be overcrowded with statistical facts on each player as one day it could end up exceeding the template include size allowance like the Cristiano Ronaldo article. We'll see what others think on this section. Iggy (Swan) 18:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just looking at this list, can we get rid of it? Seems ambiguous to the article in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 00:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there are similar articles for other clubs so I would prefer a split but as it stands it should not really be on this article just as a list, certainly without any references.Skeene88 (talk) 16:07, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can move it to List of Leicester City F.C. records and statistics. Govvy (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Leicester City#International honours: I can still see that is still on the article without any sources - it is something I don't see in other articles when I do some reading myself... Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 15:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit late to this but would anyone have any objections if I move the 'World Cup players', 'continental competition players' and 'PFA Team of the Year' sections onto List of Leicester City F.C. records and statistics page too? @Govvy, @Iggy the Swan and @Skeene88. I've already moved the international honours section as this didn't seem especially notable for this page. Thanks Michaeldble (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
go for it. WP:BOLD Skeene88 (talk) 22:42, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rivals[edit]

Leicester fans do not consider Coventry City to be their biggest rivals. I expect a Coventry City fan is vandalising this page. The only reputable surveys done have Nottingham Forest as the club's biggest rivals with Derby and Coventry behind. [1][2][3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:D292:1501:11BD:B109:C962:12AC (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Even the sources in the current section state that Coventry are tertiary rivals.

References

  1. ^ https://thechriswhitingshow.wordpress.com/2012/08/28/2012-football-rivalry-census-results/
  2. ^ https://www.skysports.com/football/news/2288869/football-rivals-the-census
  3. ^ https://www.sportbible.com/football/reactions-news-rivalries-the-top-five-rivals-of-each-premier-league-team-according-to-data-20190826

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2021[edit]

In the infobox the away kit has shorts shown that are the same colour as the shirt. The actual shorts are dark blue. Proposed edit:

Replace this line:

| shorts2 = D6F3F1

With this line:

| shorts2 = 2B3A5B

Based on this picture: https://shop.lcfc.com/leicester-city-away-shorts-2021-22

Arkadye (talk) 11:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Already done. 𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 03:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

International honours[edit]

What are people's opinions on removing the International honours section. It is completely unsourced and I don't believe it is especially notable as Leicester are an established Premier League club therefore are likely to have several international players at any one time. Would it be acceptable to remove it to avoid the article becoming overly crowded? Michaeldble (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by Cowlibob (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

( Comment or view )
Leicester City Won the 2015-16 Premier League
Leicester City Won the 2015-16 Premier League

Created by SpyridisioAnnis (talk). Self-nominated at 14:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • I don't even need to look at anything else to know that this is an instant fail. Per Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria this fails the newness category. None of the articles were created, converted from a redirect, 5x expanded, or turned into a good article in the past week. Thus, this is an instant fail. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:09, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @SpyridisioAnnis: since I forgot. But PLEASE, this is the second nomination of yours like this (with your first being the Dominican Republic nomination). If you want to nominate DYK hooks then please follow the DYK criteria. If you have any questions talk on the talk page. Thank you for reading if you are. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

Leicester City F.C.[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
Result: Although the MOS:OVERSECTION and WP:RECENTISM has been (mostly) fixed, the article still fails GA criterion 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:12, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GA from 2009. There's quite a lot of uncited material in the article that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Leicester_City_F.C.&oldid=1203543048"