Talk:European Super League

Did you know nomination

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: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

The Super League logo

• ... that UEFA threatened a ban from all other competitions to any football clubs that joined the proposed breakaway Super League (logo pictured)? Source: BBC Sport
  • ALT1:... that footballers who played in the proposed breakaway Super League (logo pictured) were threatened by UEFA with bans from playing international football? Source: BBC Sport
  • ALT2: ... that when the European Super League was proposed, UEFA threatened to ban any footballers who took part from playing international football? "They [UEFA] also reiterated Fifa's stance that players taking part in the Super League would be banned from all other competitions at domestic, European or world level and could be prevented from representing their national teams." Source: BBC Sport

• Reviewed: Social media in the 2016 United States presidential election
• Comment: The page title has not been confirmed yet so it may be changed

Created by S.A. Julio (talk) and The C of E (talk). Nominated by The C of E (talk) at 07:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC).

I think that this article should be checked for impartiality before it is nominated/included in DYK. Otherwise, it matches all the requirements so is suitable for DYK. MBihun (talk) 17:15, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@MBihun: This was nominated before the big expansion. Is there an area in it you have a concern about? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: Hi, I feel like the negative reception of the Super League takes up about half of the article, and may not completely use impartial language when describing/explaining these reactions. MBihun (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you specify where exactly please @MBihun:? The thing is, there isn't an awful lot in favour of it, it's almost worldwidely panned. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I completely understand, but some people like myself have expressed concerns that the Reception section of the article is too heavily focused on negatives and may use some impartial language. Please also feel free to look at the talk page section I made: Talk:The Super League#NPOV review. MBihun (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@MBihun: Thank you. I will try to look into sorting it once the heat and media attention has died down. Give it a few days to cool. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@MBihun: I have added a little about some support for it from fans, but its hard because it is almost unanimously opposed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

As per recent updates by the creators of this nomination I find it is suitable to include in DYK (personally I prefer ALT1). MBihun (talk) 11:00, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Article is currently proposed to be merged, and since the Super League never happened the hooks are inaccurate - you can't threaten sanctions for doing something that can't be done. Kingsif (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Woah woah woah! There's no need for that. All it needs is to be held until that discussion is concluded. It is completely inappropriate to use the X sign for this. The hook can easily be reworded. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

You want to write a hook for something that existed as a proposal for three days? DYK that had X gone ahead, Y threatened that they might have put sanctions on players if they were to... no, there's nothing viable to say. Kingsif (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding the proper icon for when a merge discussion is ongoing and the nomination goes on hold. Should the article survive, then any new hooks can be judged on their interest. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: The merge tag has been removed so this can proceed. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The C of E, the hooks remain problematic as written, so I've struck them. Once you have proposed a new hook, I'll be happy to call for a new reviewer. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

ALT2 ... that when the European Super League was proposed, UEFA threatened to ban any footballers who took part from playing international football? @BlueMoonset:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

• Reviewer needed to check new ALT2 and also make sure there aren't any issues in the current article as there have been hundreds of edits to it in the weeks since the earlier reviews above. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems
Adequate sourcing: Neutral: Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited: - I assume the source is BBC Sport but it's not listed.
• Interesting:

Image: Image is freely licensed, used in the article, and clear at 100px.
Freely licensed: Used in article: Clear at 100px:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: ALT2 hook needs the citation added, but other than that, it looks OK to me. (Note, the Copyvio report shows possible problem, but it is primarily from direction quotations & phrases like "European Super League".) QuakerSquirrel (talk) 19:04, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@QuakerSquirrel: It's in there under reference 40 in the football governing bodies reception section. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@The C of E: I meant that the link to the source was not next to ALT2 & I thought it was supposed to be. I've moved ALT2 up to the top part & added what I think is the correct citation. Please verify & then I can approve. QuakerSquirrel (talk) 11:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@QuakerSquirrel: Yes, I can verify that's right and it is inline with the claim in the article. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me with the ALT2 hook! QuakerSquirrel (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Summarize

cc: @Koncorde:

The article, as noted by others in this talk page, is too long and detailed. Reactions could be trimmed, responses from other clubs and officials (especially since they're all words and basically repeat the same sentiment) can be summarized, choice quotes / quips removed, "may do" / "will do" (will take legal action, will expel from competition) content is probably redundant now given things may "have been done" (no legal action was taken, no club was expelled). Only the subsequent responses of the super-league clubs and from legal bodies, governments, and the big-4 leagues probably deserve the detail they're afforded. Some relevant reading: WP:RECENTISM, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:DETAIL. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Trying to do it:
It is necessary to create an introduction that is as concise as possible, so that anyone consulting the article on Wikipedia can get an approximate idea of the content that will be developed later with all the details. Therefore, I move text to other headings, summarise or delete some sentences. As for the legal part, the process of creation, rejection, sanctions to the clubs and warnings from UEFA and FIFA, complaint to the Court of Justice of the European Union etc. is part of the process that is ongoing and topical. It is important the encyclopaedic style and not a reproduction of the most recent news on the subject.--Miskito89 (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the lead section could be more concise. Also, thanks for your efforts. Murtaza.aliakbar (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Tebas Statements

Tebas did not say that exactly, I am rewording his statements with the appropriate reference.

https://www.marca.com/futbol/2021/07/15/60efd8af22601dfc5e8b45d8.html

--Miskito89 (talk) 09:32, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Call to all editors personally involved with the article's subject

Greetings. The editing history of this article, as well as the texts edited-in, bring into relief a potentially significant involvement of editors who are either paid for their work or have a conflict of interest. This is a call to have everyone who belongs to these categories and has contributed so far to the article's text to reveal themselves in the interest of clarity, objectivity, and transparence, per WP:PAID, WP:PEW, and WP:COI. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion : Has the ESL been "founded"?

Greetings, all. The infobox contains an entry for the date the ESL was ostensibly founded. However, the ESL, as a competition, has never taken place. It's still at a stage where proposals are being made, contracts are signed and/or annulled, etc. The corporation owning and promoting the ESL competition is quite alive and active. But the competition itself, the subject of the article, has never, or not yet, been launched. We should do away with the "founded" entry in the infobox. Opinions? -The Gnome (talk) 16:23, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

I think it should be replaced with proposed date Mrinmoy17 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Poorly organized

This article mentions a lot of dates. Would it make sense to have a heading titled chronology? I found the article to be a huge amount of paragraphs added randomly. 82.147.226.185 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)