Talk:Ethan Mbappé

Montreuil

Hello GS. I'm confused. How is Paris a valid parameter for Montreuil? Montreuil is in the Paris region, but it's not in Paris. It's in the Seine-Saint-Denis department, which is not part of Paris. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

it's not - you removed the image parameters which I restored. GiantSnowman 17:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Luvo mbappe

Luvo mbappe is mbappe's son 14 years old born 8 December 2008 41.114.136.112 (talk) 21:30, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the purpose of placing this edit here? — Moops ^⋠T⋡ 21:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

which mbappe Makwan 2345 (talk) 17:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Youth career

Hey GiantSnowman, I understand you disagree. Just so you know, I already presented all my reasoning on your talk page a bit ago. Why did you revert (double)? Just so you know, I saw Frenchl's message on that discussion. Good thing he's banned, he was quite disruptive. However, he was right on one point-- Mbappé can't play youth football after June 2025. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

That's fine but also irrelevant. For simplicity's sake his senior career has started and therefore we should 'close' his youth career. GiantSnowman 22:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd understand if it truly was a question of simplicity. However, in this scenario, I can assure you that it'll be verifiable. Why sacrifice accuracy for simplicity when accuracy can be achieved without killing practicality and verifiability? Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:31, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: I'm adamant that we should be precise and not approximative. Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:33, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

OK then - so have his youth career ending in 2023 and then re-starting in 2024, if you want to be precise. GiantSnowman 12:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I would argue that his youth career has not "ended" yet. It didn't end in 2023. There is no reason why a player can't be a part of both the first and youth team. Paul Vaurie (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus for these changes. Having such a parallel career is confusing and unnecessary. GiantSnowman 19:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: GS, we don't need consensus here, it's just common sense. He is still a member of the youth team. He is listed here as a member of the PSG under-19s. This has not changed since 2023. He is both a member of the under-19s and first team, and the infobox should reflect that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It's really not that confusing, too. What's wrong with a player being part of two teams of the same club? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

No, we do need consensus here, that is how Wikipedia works. The fact he still plays for the youth team is irrelevant, how many readers will care about it? GiantSnowman 22:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

GS, I really don't understand why you're against this. There is no consensus to automatically close the youth career either (it's just what usually is the case), especially in this case where it's proven that he's on both teams. PSG themselves literally say that. We agree that players can play for the reserves and the senior team at the same time, right? Well, what's different with the youth team? I understand you're more familiar with the English "U23" youth system, but remember that the youth football system in France is different, being age-restricted without exception.
And no, it is absolutely not "irrelevant". Accuracy is relevant, and the sources say he is a part of the youth team as of 2024. This should be reflected accurately. As for the readers caring about it— if you think nobody cares, then why do you care so much what it says? Please just let me handle this one. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

"it's just what usually is the case" - so you admit it's the status quo? And therefore you need consensus to change? Which you don't have?

As I have said, it is irrelevant whether he plays 0, 1 or 100 more games for the youth teams. As far as we are concerned, his senior career has started. Trying to have a complicated infobox to accurately depict every nuance of a player's career its not its purpose, that's what the prose is for. GiantSnowman 18:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

When I said that's just what usually is the case, I meant that players usually stop playing for the youth team the same year they start playing for the senior team. However, for some players, that is not the case.
I strongly disagree with your view that the senior career automatically ends the youth career. It's really not that complicated to display this accurately. Please don't be stubborn about it. Yes, his senior career has started. That has been reflected in the infobox. But his youth career hasn't ended either. That should be reflected too. How is this "complicated"? It's not complicated whatsoever! We just leave the youth career open for now. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: See above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The reality is that it's far more complicated than the infobox can show, and so we need to keep it as basic and simple as possible. GiantSnowman 19:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Except that in this case, it's not "far more complicated"... he is on both the first team and under-19 team. That's all there is to it, and the sources support that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:47, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

He even scored a league goal for the under-19s this January. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:48, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

OK. But what do you do if a youth player spends 4 years with the senior team, and then returns for 1 match? - say he was a youth player for all that time? GiantSnowman 21:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: There are several ways this could be resolved. You would just have to look at the precedent for what happens for similar scenarios with "reserve" sides. However, hypothetical scenarios aren't really helpful here— in this example, it is quite clear what the answer is. This is just "whataboutism". Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

No, it's about having consistency. GiantSnowman 22:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Consistency is irrelevant when it impedes accuracy. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

But true accuracy is too complex to show, as I have repeatedly said. GiantSnowman 21:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Why don't we just go on a case-by-case basis? Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Because that leads to anarchy. GiantSnowman 19:12, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

This isn't anarchy. Let us follow what you say for cases in which it's unclear. But here, sourcing goes against that. Why can't we just listen to the sources? Isn't that a core principle of Wikipedia? Also, WP:IGNOREALLRULES tells us to improve Wikipedia. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

OK then let's change the infobox to this then?

Ethan Mbappé

Personal information
Full name	Ethan Mbappé Lottin
Date of birth	(2006-12-29) 29 December 2006
Place of birth	Montreuil, France
Height	1.76 m (5 ft 9 in)
Position(s)	Midfielder
Team information
Current team	Paris Saint-Germain
Number	38
Youth career
2015–2017	AS Bondy
2017–2023	Paris Saint-Germain
2024–	Paris Saint-Germain
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2023–2024	Paris Saint-Germain	1	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals, correct as of 22:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

GiantSnowman 21:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

And why in the world would we do that? He hasn't left the youth team at all! Why is it so hard for you to understand that a player can be on two different teams at the same club at the same time?
The infobox should say "2017–" for Paris Saint-Germain youth career and "2023–" for Paris Saint-Germain senior career. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Your proposition doesn't make any sense at all, either! He is on both the pages of the U19 and senior squads on PSG's website. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

But he's not playing for the senior team anymore? You said he is back with the youth team? GiantSnowman 17:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

GS, he's on both teams. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

He trains with mostly the senior team, regularly appears on the bench for the senior team, but plays consistently with the youth team. Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Training/being on the bench is not indicative of being a first team player. GiantSnowman 17:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

He's also been played three times and is in the official squad list for the senior team. There's no way you can twist it. He's on both teams. Paul Vaurie (talk) 18:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@GiantSnowman: Can you get a RFC, because right now the opinions are just 1v1. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:29, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You are the one trying to change the status quo. GiantSnowman 19:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I've also made a stronger, more coherent argument so far... Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Quick summary. What I said: Mbappé has played for both the U19s and the senior team in both 2023 and 2024, and PSG official sources back that information as showing him as a member of both teams across that time period. GiantSnowman says that because he made his professional debut in 2023, we should close off the youth career then, even if he plays youth football in 2024. My rebuttal is that this would be an appropriate way to do things in countries where youth football is not age restricted, but here in France, it is age restricted.
Overall, just a fundamental disagreement over whether youth career should be left as "2017–0000" or "2017–2023". Please offer your insight. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I think they should both be left open as there could still be a chance he could still play with the Academy as well as the senior side. His name is still on the U19's squad list on Wikipedia as of 11 January 2024. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 10:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Iggy the Swan: To be even more precise, he is still playing for the Academy these days. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Playing back for the youth team after playing for the senior team is irrelevant. Look at Jay Spearing etc. in England! GiantSnowman 10:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

GS, I've iterated this several times: youth football in England is entirely different than youth football in France and holds no weight here. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

...in your opinion. GiantSnowman 15:53, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not an opinion, youth football in France is age-restricted. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So are you saying that every under-19 player in France must have an open youth career (even if they do not play youth football anymore), and every over-19 player in France must have an open senior career (even if their senior career has not yet started)? GiantSnowman 16:05, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The youth career is left open on a case-by-case basis. If they are only playing for the senior team but are still eligible for youth football, then close the youth career , like on Warren Zaïre-Emery. If they play for both, like Ethan Mbappé, then leave both open. If players are not eligible for under-19 football in France, they will be one of three: playing for the reserves, playing for the senior team, or quite simply not at a club. After under-19, there is no under-23 in France. Once a player is not eligible for U19 football in France, the youth career is closed off forever. No re-opening it. There is a fourth situation that I didn't mention: if a player is at a club but isn't on the reserves or under-19, we just open their senior career (regardless), because that is the only and best way to represent that, like was done for Tidjany Touré, I believe. He wasn't in PSG's senior squad but he wasn't on the reserves or under-19s either. He was a senior player who was not selected for an entire year. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If this didn't make sense I can explain it more in depth. It's not that complicated if you understand how the youth system works in France. Someone born in 2006 is no longer eligible for youth football in July 2025, or at the end of the 2024–25 season (2006+19=2025). Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:18, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

'Case-by-case' leads to disputes, clearly, and is therefore not advisable here. GiantSnowman 18:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, in what way is anything not case-by-case? Not every single player stops playing youth football when they start senior football and not every single player still plays youth football while they are playing senior football. There is no SINGLE set-in-stone rule, but several rules or guidelines to follow for different scenariors. I've outlined them above. They're not that hard to understand, and they all display the information more accurately than your "this is too complicated, I refuse to dig deeper" view of the situation. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It still just generally makes no sense why you oppose this. Ethan Mbappé is still on the PSG youth team. Therefore, his youth career should remain open. How is that complicated? And again, this is not mutually exclusive with him being on the first team. Nowhere does it say that a player can't be on two teams. It's not complicated, the sourcing backs it up, and it's accurate. Just because this is not how you have done things historically doesn't mean this way is wrong. In fact, I'd argue this is a better way of doing things. Being accurate. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

If we can have not-too-complicated accuracy that is also verifiable, I'm in favour. That is the case here. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I can back that statement, Robby.is.on. Could you please just clarify what you meant by "here"? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This article, Ethan Mbappé's. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes of course. I should explain better— I meant, what do you mean that it "is the case here"? Have we found that complicatedness-accuracy-verifiability balance, and if so, what is it? Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Robby - the 'accuracy' is as per the infobox I suggested above, which is, of course, ridiculous. GiantSnowman 22:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely no reason why they can't overlap. We've had this discussion on the FOOTY board a few times and many users agree that they can overlap and is common sense. A player can play on a youth national team and senior national team and those are both open, this is the same. We have overlapping between different sections of the infobox between club and international, club and college, etc all the time. There is zero reason why youth and senior cannot overlap, especially when it is clearly WP:VERIFIABLE. RedPatch (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

RedPatch — I 100% agree. GiantSnowman — that is a very misleading statement. Accuracy is not reflected in that infobox you inserted above. Accuracy would be youth career (2017–0000) and senior career (2023–0000). You seem not to be able to comprehend that a player can be on two teams at the same time, like RedPatch said. There's no rule against this. And once again, everything here is WP:VERIFIABLE.
Robby.is.on — for further clarification, can you please explain what you meant by the "not-too-complicated accuracy that is also verifiable" being "the case here"? Would you agree that leaving both open is both accurate, verifiable, and not too complicated? I, and seemingly RedPatch, seem to agree that it's not that complicated, that the sourcing backs it up, and that this is the true representation of the facts. Paul Vaurie (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. Robby.is.on (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Paul - you're wrong. He played for the youth team, then he played for the senior team, now he's back with the youth team. My proposed infobox is accurate as it reflects that. GiantSnowman 09:27, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Player Player

Team information
Current team	Barcelona
Senior career*
Years	Team	Apps	(Gls)
2020	Barcelona C	1	(0)
2020–2021	Barcelona B	5	(0)
2021	Barcelona C	3	(0)
2021	Barcelona B	4	(0)
2021–2022	Barcelona	8	(2)
2022	Barcelona B	6	(1)
2022	Barcelona	11	(0)
2022–2023	Barcelona B	7	(1)
2023	Barcelona	1	(0)
*Club domestic league appearances and goals, correct as of 22:04, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

GS, I disagree. If your logic is correct, then whenever a player switches between an A and B team in the same pyramid, we'd have to close and re-open multiple times, which of course we don't do because that would be ridiculous (see right). However, it is the same situation as your point, he played for one then the other. RedPatch (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Precisely - we have a system in place which works, just as we (should) do for 'youth' players who play senior games... GiantSnowman 12:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree entirely. I don't see how overlap between senior clubs is different from overlap between senior and youth. They are not mutually exclusive. If we allow overlap between A and B teams to show reliable information to the reader that the player rotated between the two over a time period, then we should also show that they rotated between the youth and senior over a time period. Otherwise, we are lying and misrepresenting that the player never played for the youth side again. RedPatch (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

We are not 'lying', what a dramatic thing to say. The infobox is meant to be a brief summary of a player's career. Having an overlap causes confusion. GiantSnowman 16:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

GS, you seem to be the only one who thinks that there is a problem with having overlaps. Everyone else here agrees that there's no "rule" against it, and that it's the best way to be accurate when verifiable. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we've found some sort of consensus. GS — if you can't understand why four editors disagree with you here, take some time to re-read the arguments and statements above. Paul Vaurie (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that there is consensus here, and that it goes against me. That does not mean I have to think the decision is correct. GiantSnowman 17:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Ligue 1 title.

Stop applying Premier League standards everywhere., GiantSnowman. According to LFP rules, players having played at least one minute are declared champions. See this article that talks about how Jesé won a champion's medal despite only playing a single minute (and, trivially, while being on loan at another club). Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:01, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

En effet, les règles de la LFP, la Ligue de Football Professionnel, établissent que tout joueur d'une équipe qui a joué pendant au moins une minute, doit à tous égards être considéré comme champion. (transl. Indeed, the rules of the LFP, the Professional Football League, establish that any player from a team who has played for at least one minute must in all respects be considered a champion.) Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:02, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Even transferred or loaned-out players are declared French champions per RMC. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:04, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Then that's all you had to say! GiantSnowman 17:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Although you should NOT have re-added the content without waiting for my response, very poor form. GiantSnowman 17:22, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 June 2024

Ethan no longer plays for PSG 2A00:23CC:B5B3:AA00:C1F3:EAEC:73DC:A703 (talk) 06:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 07:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was no. FMSky (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Should this story be included in the article?

"In January 2022, Mbappé was involved in a minor traffic accident, after the car he was in was struck by a drunk driver. He did not suffer any major injuries." -- FMSky (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

An RFC for this, really?! What a waste of time. GiantSnowman 08:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

The incident was covered in multiple RS by the way, see [1] and [2] and [3] etc. GiantSnowman 08:14, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see another way. You have been fighting for years to keep this story in (1, 2), and it doesn't seem like you will change your opinion --FMSky (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

In the 18+ years I've been here, genuinely one of the top 5 most ridiculous reactions I have ever seen. WP:LAME. GiantSnowman 09:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah its exactly that, that's why I'm trying to resolve it quickly by this RFC and we can all move on --FMSky (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

...how quick do you think a RFC is?! It's usually 30 days... GiantSnowman 09:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• No: per WP:NOTNEWS. It's about as relevant as saying someone had a cold --FMSky (talk) 08:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  but people having a cold doesn't tend to get reported by multiple relabel sources... GiantSnowman 09:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• No, per FMSky and WP:NOTDB. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• No A minor traffic accident with no major injuries. Seriously?? This is not relevant or significant, and doesn't help our readers have a better understanding of the subject. This is trivial information. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Isaidnoway (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• Yes - has been reported in multiple RS. Might seem trivial to some, but it's clearly not. GiantSnowman 08:18, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
• No Count me in the some that thinks this is trivial information that doesn't pass WP:10YT. Nemov (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• No, per WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE (verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) and WP:NOTNEWS (Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details [...] only those for which they have notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest). It is natural that events that have only received routine coverage receive scrutiny whether they are due to include. In this case, I believe they are not. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
• No: per WP:NOTNEWS. It's about as relevant as saying someone had a cold and yes, sports people having colds does tend to get widely reported if it impacts their performance, even temporarily, but WP is WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE and verifiability does not guarantee inclusion.Pincrete (talk) 10:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
• No per above. And close per WP:SNOWBALL.~ HAL333 (VOTE!) 15:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
• No per above.--Ortizesp (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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.