Talk:Paris Saint-Germain FC/Archive 1

Archive 1

Team crest

What exactly are the items located below the Eiffel Tower on the team crest? I thought one was a fleur-de-lis, but upon closer inspection I'm not sure. The other looks like a baby carriage, but that seems hard to believe. 69.137.220.179 06:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a cradle. It represents Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Saint-Germain is where Louis XIV was born, thus "The cradle of Louis XIV". BobbyAFC 18:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks! Having now visited the town's page, I see that the two are adapted from the town's seal. 69.137.220.179 20:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Do we need so many former famous players? Some of them aren't famous, even for my standards as a PSG fan. Also, the addition of countless flags simply adds to the confusion

I see that someone has been messing with the page and now David Hasslehoff (the singer/Baywatch star) is on the squad. I'm not sure of wiki standards with regard to posting this, but I thought I should say something 17:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Psg badge.png

Image:Psg badge.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 23:46, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Psg8292.jpg

Image:Psg8292.jpg 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 23:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo PSG 1986.jpg

Image:Logo PSG 1986.jpg 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 04:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo PSG 1992.jpg

Image:Logo PSG 1992.jpg 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 04:28, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Logo PSG 1996.png

Image:Logo PSG 1996.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 04:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Psg8292.jpg

Image:Psg8292.jpg 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 (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Clash with supporters

In the last week, there was a racial riot of the supports. Can anyone write up a good section?--sin-man 02:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC) The supporter section is completely biased !! Please, believe that that Paris fans are not all racists are nationalists !!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.88.111.211 (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Please improve the English

The English on this page has many grammatical errors. It seems someone has simply made a word-by-word translation from French without paying any attention to the grammatical differences between the two languages. Can the person who made this article please try to correct the English?-- 10:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)Gautam Mainkar

The improvement is being worked on..Alphasig130 07:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It is much better and now is a fluid, comprehensive article. Rupert1904 (talk) 18:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

PSG always been top-flight?

This kind of contradicts the fact that it played in the lower divisions when it split from Paris FC, doesn't it?

124.182.182.118 (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

PSG never won the UEFA Cup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.87.26.68 (talk) 19:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

It didn't split from Paris FC, it merged with them, so the actual team "Paris Saint-Germain" have been playing in the top flight, it was the one of the two merger clubs that didn't. Brock 009 (talk) 08:25, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest FAC} 13:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My second GA review. I will place this on hold, as I feel this could be a GA with some work. A nicely-written article. All in all, I'll say that the lede is too long, history section is a bit short and there are some issues to iron out.

I've failed the article due to lack of response from otherwise active nominator. Sandman888 (talk) ^{Latest PR} 06:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

General

• Colours. This is not often used in other football articles, I would recommend creating a spin-off article and remove all of the images, save perhaps one or two. Also needs references.
• References.
  • This is very problematic. Many of the references are poorly formatted and needs date, accessdate, author if possible and publisher. I recommend you use the {cite web} template so you remember all the important information.
  • None of the cited books are being referenced in the article. This is a cause for some concern. Also some of the books seem to have self-translated titles, which is not acceptable. Include original title and add the "|language=French" parameter when using {cite book}.

Stadiums

• Needs references, entire sections are unreffed.

Current squad

• The "starting line-up" image caption is unreferenced, and I'll be surprised if you can find a source stating the first XI. Something seems to have gone wrong with the image.

Reserves and academy

• Unreferenced sections

Managers

• I would remove the list of managers and keep the wikilink to "List of managers".

Presidents

• Again, would remove the list, or at least format it properly. Per MosFlag, the French flag should be removed.

Le classique

• Two first sections are unreferenced.

Rivalries

• Please, consider to add new emerging rivalry with Chelsea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:718:1E03:AED2:619A:246E:D9FB:69F5 (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Honours

• See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Clubs for the manual of style. Formatting should be quite different.

Images.

• Often well-captioned, however there are some problems:
  • File:Coupe des Coupes 1996.jpg is a derivative, copyright belongs to trophy-manufacturer.
  • "Crest" section contains a gallery of non-free images, which is discouraged. One or two images should be enough to illustrate the evolution of the crest.

Lead.

• Far too long I must say, see WP:LEAD for recommendation on the lead. Remember, lead = summary of article. I would recommend writing a new summary and stuff in the lead.

File:Paris-Parc-des-Princes.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Paris-Parc-des-Princes.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Deletion requests June 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation

The disambiguation hat note for Paris Saint-Germain Rugby League needs to stay. That team had the same name as the soccer team, meaning the articles on them need to be disambiguated. Thanks,--Cúchullain ^t/c 15:14, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've created a full disambiguation page for articles with this title.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Honours

It's really strange to see some statistical features listed along with the international titles. Another part in the table should be created to include any places and honorific titles. They're not titles to list them with the trophies which is the point in a club's history. Isksin (talk) 18:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedian fan(s?)

I happen to support the PSG AND to love football (I know, the two propositions may appear to be contrary to one another). If you share this burden with me, join the up to now segment of one :Category:Wikipedian Paris Saint Germain fans. Stephane mot (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why is this in US English?

surely as football is an English sport and uses English terminology, and PSG play in the UEFA zone where England is and not America, this should be in english. Alan McBrazil Burger (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

England does not own the sport of football or Paris St. Germain, nor is British English the primary language of Paris. Neither American nor British English has a strong claim to this article, meaning that the original style shold have been preserved and any reversions of such are acts of pettiness. Please refer to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style page and read the National Varieties of English section to learn when reversions are appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.200.10 (talk) 11:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Allez Paris Saint-Germain

As I can't change this myself, I simply ask someone who can to attribute the source of the melody for the song (that is, "Go West") to the Village People, instead of, as currently, the Pet Shop Boys.

Thx! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.115.243 (talk) 22:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. UrbanGrill (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Lucas Moura should be added to the list of Loaned Players

Lucas Moura should be added to the list of Loaned Players - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lucas_Moura 124.149.62.193 (talk) 04:21, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, what's your source? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 14:18, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Correct the current squad list

Sakho has still not left the squad yet, although he has been wanting to! 14:58, 16 August 2013 (UTC)superdoublem

Uniform description and picture don't match

Perhaps it's just me, but the description in the second paragraph and the pictures in the info box don't match. I suppose one could describe the red panel on the front of the jersey as a "bar", although I would not use that term, however there is no sign of the white borders mentioned in the picture. Maybe this is a nitpick, but. . .Wschart (talk) 13:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

IPA Please

Can someone please put an IPA on the Paris Saint-Germain F.C page I'm not sure how to pronounce it! WWE fan 4.0 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2014

Hello I'm working at the Paris Saint-Germain. We noticed a mistake in the club description. The owner of the Club is not Qatar Investment Authority but Qatar Sports Investments.

Thank you to change this.

Paris Saint-Germain. Paris Saint-Germain 70 (talk) 14:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Sam Sailor ^Sing 14:47, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2014

Hello again, I'm working at the Paris Saint-Germain. Could you change the owner of the Paris Saint-Germain ? In the article it's "Qatar Investment Authority" and actualy it's "Qatar Sports Investments", it's very important for us. Could you change it everywhere in the article please ?

Thank you by advance.

The Paris Saint-Germain. Paris Saint-Germain 70 (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Done - as you may have noticed, it was done the last time you requested this, but unfortunately, this was then reverted. - Arjayay (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2014

I believe Zlatan Ibrahimovic is (vice captain) in Paris SG this season, as he's been (captain) every time Thiago Silva hasn't been able to play. Taranodmk (talk) 11:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Sam Sailor ^Sing 13:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Show sources that says Thiago Motta is vice captain. I watch almost every game of PSG, and every time Silva has been out of the team,Ibrahimovic has been wearing the captain-thing (dunno what's it's called, the thing around the arm) even though Motta has been on the pitch with him. But no, clearly you aren't vice captain even if you're wearing the captain-thing in the absence of the first captain, not that kind of character, I should have known. Sorry, Motta is vc even if it's not him but another player who is captain when Silva is out. Thanks for letting me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taranodmk (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Logos

PSG has had a lot more logos than this article suggests. You can see them all on the French wikipedia page: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Saint-Germain_Football_Club#Historique_du_logo Funnyhat (talk) 02:09, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Memorial Artemio Franchi

This article forget one friendly title win by PSG in 2009. It was the Memorial Artemio Franchi against Fiorentina. This article about This friendly match exist on Wikipedia. (Akli11 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC))

neutrality

The "Support" section has a lot of weasel words and POv-inducing sentences. The section needs to be rewritten.Abcmaxx (talk) 23:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Pet Shop Boys or Village People

The article says: ""Allez Paris Saint-Germain", to the tune of "Go West" by Pet Shop Boys, is the official anthem of PSG." I think this is false because the original song is from Village People, and it should be changed as such.--85.76.74.246 (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2016

Laurent Blanc is officially left PSG with Assistant coach Jean-Louis Gasset and head fitness trainer Philippe Lambert need edit at management technical staff section source: http://www.psg.fr/en/News/003001/Article/76063/Laurent-Blanc-leaves-Paris-Saint-Germain Haipek123 (talk) 14:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 03:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Rivalries section - PSG = upper class?

Hello, I think this sentence needs to be amended:

"It involves the two largest cities in France:[8] the upper class in Paris against the working class in Marseille, capital against province and north against south.[45]"

Three of the four statements are true - Paris and Marseille are the largest cities in France, Paris v. Marseille represents the capital v. province and definitely North against South, which is a prominent cultural divide in France (Paris and Marseille are almost two separate countries in a lot of ways). But in no way is this a divide between the working class and the upper class - this is factually wrong. Both teams' supports are notoriously working class and have been historically. Sure, to Marseille fans PSG represents the arrogance and pretentiousness of the 'capital' city, of the North, but this isn't about social status at all. Besides, nothing in the referenced articles suggest that PSG is a representation of the 'upper class', so I think this bit should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hffmnn (talk • contribs) 09:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Article Introduction Structure

Hello, Wikipedia contributors.

I recommend that structural modifications in the introduction of the Paris Saint-Germain article, do not misconceive the current structure. The article is structured similarly to other similar articles and conforms to the standards and rules of Wikipedia. I recommend that modifications be made to update or supplement existing information.

In case there is any need for extreme modifications, I propose that there be a discussion among other contributors, here on this page. -- Ravenanation (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2018

Kévin Rimane is a French Guiananese professional footballer! 163.131.152.156 (talk) 23:50, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2020

Please restore "Category:Football clubs in France" and "Category:Football clubs in Paris", they were removed by a user who did not know of WP:EPONYMOUS 2A00:23C5:E1AB:4500:A59D:3431:1A3A:3482 (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:, could you please comment on this edit request? Thanks. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I think Football clubs in Paris should be a subcategory of Category:Football clubs in France.Rathfelder (talk) 16:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rathfelder:, it appears the hierarchy goes Category:Football clubs in France -> Category:Football clubs in France by city -> Category:Football clubs in Paris -> Category:Paris Saint-Germain F.C.. So what's displayed on the article page is "Categories: Paris Saint-Germain F.C..." which may appear overly-narrow or redundant to a reader. I'm not an expert on categories, but it may assist a reader if this article is in both cats, although that seems a bit circular. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• The general rule is to put articles into the lowest suitable category.Rathfelder (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Right, closing. Thanks for your input. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

"Category:Unrelegated football clubs"

As sourced in the history section, PSG were relegated for administrative reasons in 1972 when Paris FC split out of them again. Ergo, PSG were relegated and are not unrelegated. This is like saying that Juventus were never relegated as their only demotions were for matchfixing, or Rangers for financial reasons. It's false and being removed. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Unknown Temptation so was it removed? Matthewishere0 (talk) 15:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

“the” Parc des Princes

In the first paragraph, at the end of the synopsis, the text reads “Their home ground is Parc des Princes.” What I don’t like about this is that nobody refers to the stadium as Parc des Princes, it’s THE Parc des Princes. So someone please change it to “Their home ground is the Parc des Princes.” Thank you. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

History

See the last lines in the History section— it is written that “PSG has not made the semifinals since 1995,” which is not true anymore. Paris Saint-Germain have qualified for the semifinals in the 2019-20 UEFA Champions League, so it should be updated in the history section. Paul Vaurie (talk) 13:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Runners up of the UCL

Can we add PSG as being the runners up of the 2019–20 Champions League? Or is that not significant enough to be listed in the honours section of the club? If someone could answer that would be nice. Paul Vaurie (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Other players section.

Hello. I've noticed that Kays Ruiz-Atil has not been added into this section. It would be a nice thing to do if someone did it; I do not know how to. Thank you and have a good day.Paul Vaurie (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

"Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (amateurs)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (amateurs). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15#Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (amateurs) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

"Paris Saint-Germain (amateurs)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Paris Saint-Germain (amateurs). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 15#Paris Saint-Germain (amateurs) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:27, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Players under contract

Hello @Paul Vaurie: and @DroopyDoggy:. Saw a slight edit conflict between you two, so I thought we should reach a consensus on it. Also, I would like to make one or two other points.

1 - Think it is better to have 'Other players under contract' like the current version, rather than having it overcrowded with all the youth players. Never seen it in any other club's pages either. Would be better to have them in under-19 or under-17 section in academy article like we had last season.

2 - In both 'Other players under contract' and 'Academy players with first team appearances', contract duration of players are given in brackets. Have only seen that when they go out on loan. Think it would be better to remove those brackets.

3 - Both Pembele and Nagera are born in 2002 and are not qualified to play in U19 league from this season onwards. They are currently under 'Academy players with first team appearances'. Maybe we should move only those 2 players to 'Other players under contract' ?

4 - There are 6 other 2002-born players (Franchi, Alloh, Balde, Mutombo, Ahamada, Bitumazala) who currently have pro contract. There are also two 2001-born (Fressange, Oufella) with pro contract. None of these 8 players are qualified to play in U19 league next season. They haven't made first team appearances either. Imo, we should add them under 'Other players under contract' like we did with Saidani, Makutungu, Kapo etc last season.

Let me know your opinions. Thanks! Kokoeist (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Kokoeist: Seems reasonable. Just one thing - who said Franchi, Mutombo, and Bitumazala are not eligible for the U19 team? They are all still 18 years old. When is the deadline for the age? Is it 31 December? Paul Vaurie (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

@Paul Vaurie: Yes, it is 31st December. It happened in Makutungu's case last season. He was 18 when the 2020-21 season started. His DOB is 21st December 2001. And he was ineligible to play in U19 league matches last season. So, only players born on 1/1/2003 or after it will be eligible to play in U19 national league this season. I am not sure if there is a minimum age required to play in that league. Kokoeist (talk) 10:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Gianluigi Donnarumma

The addition of Donnarumma as a PSG player could be controversial but let me explain.

1 - One of the most reliable transfer sources Fabrizio Romano confirmed the transfer that will be announced after the Euros.

2 - He has already completed his medical in Florence.

3 - The next source is his Italian and PSG teammate Marco Verratti, who said that he is excited to be teammates with him.

I think I provided enough evidence to not delete Donnarumma as a player right now. Noogometni urejevalec (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2021

Add 30 As Messi Number Gjoandet (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Lead fails to clarify ownership

PSG is not just owned by some random businessperson through a private company (as the lead currently states). PSG is owned by the authoritarian ruler of Qatar through a state-run company. An editor removed language that clarified the ownership with the edit summary "no politics here" which is puzzling.[1] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Again, it's clearly pertinent that the team is owned by the authoritarian ruler of Qatar's state-run company. The current version of the lead suggests it's run by a random businessperson through a private company. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

PSG History

In the introduction of the article, i ask you to not remove anything because its more completed and there were some big facts that were omitted from that part, like the merger of Paris FC and Stade Saint-Germain and also the split between Paris FC and PSG. Then at the history of the club, i recommend that we should change the part of the QSI regime, but not to much, due to the other part that you reverted being very incomplete and missing various key points that were part of the regime, like this years summer transfer window. I suggested a final edition by using the information provided by both of the users, but one of the users reverted it, in order to end this futile dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7Road (talk • contribs) 23:26, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2022

Hello im Megaso22 i am wondering if anyone in wiki Knows aboit the PSG and if you know them is Lional Messi in the team?😏😏😑 Megaso22 (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Mbappe

Kylein mbappe is a good, excellent player get him a good coach — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.114.228.220 (talk) 08:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Adding reference / bibliography

There is a number of books and articles talking about PSG, among which the recently published Ranc, David (2012). Foreign players and football supporters: The Old Firm, Arsenal, Paris Saint-Germain. Manchester: Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-8612-0. Retrieved 2012-03-19. {{cite book}}: Check |authorlink= value (help); External link in |authorlink= (help)

This discusses many of the issues with this article (logo, supporters, players). The book also references Paul Dietschy's article and Thierry Berthou reference book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.17.232.254 (talk) 12:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Error in lede

They’re not the sixth highest revenue earner, but the seventh. According to the wikilinked article. I haven’t made the edit as I can’t see where the replacement revenue figure comes from. Boscaswell talk 23:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Messi

Why Messi is not visible in the player list, yet there is a Messi entry when "edit page" is opened? Is it a bug? 46.10.148.234 (talk) 21:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Squad

So the pre-season have ended and the new season have started. We are yet to know how the 'first team' would 'look like' from the official website. There is no confirmation about 'elite squad' like last season either. In this scenario, what do you all think 'other players under contract' should look like? This is my personal opinion with the players currently listed in the page.

Gharbi - U19 career is over and looks like to be part of first team. Also featured in league matchday squad. Should stay in current squad section.

Kurzawa - loan return, featured in matchday squad. Stay in current squad section.

Draxler, Dagba, Michut, Nagera, Wijnaldum - back from loan, yet to be named in matchday squad in official match. Dont think any of them in coach's plans. Should be in other players under contract section

Nhaga, E.Mbappe, Lemina - they were part of preseason tour. Unless they are going to be part of elite squad, they should be only named in the reserves & youth academy page. Not in main page. Yes, they are under pro contract but also eligible to play for U19 team, where they'll mainly play

Mouquet, Randriamany, Fernandez, Bodiang, Muntu Wa Mungu - U19 career is over and wont be part of first team dynamics. Proper 'other players under contracts' players.

Tagging usual contributors User:Paul Vaurie and User:DroopyDoggy to know opinions.

Kokoeist (talk) 22:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Kokoeist: I agree with all of what you stated up here. For their inclusion in the most recent squad, Zaïre-Emery, Gharbi, and Kurzawa should be in the current squad section for me, along with Navas. About Draxler, although he was on the Japan tour and was assigned a number, he was not on the team last year and didn't make the recent squad, and should be in the "other players" section. Mouquet is now a senior player just like Gharbi, and was also included in the Japan tour, but he has never appeared in a squad, so I would keep him in the "other players" section. Then we have the cases of Nhaga, Housni, Lemina, and E. Mbappé. All of them participated in the Japan tour, and received squad numbers. However, apparently the first three were sent back to train with the U19s upon their return in France, while E. Mbappé stayed in first-team training. Housni is the only one to have made an official first-team appearance. I think that sending them back to the U19s based on the media report creates updating problems, and it raises a question about what Housni's appearances last season mean now. My personal opinion is that until the "elite group" and/or the first-team squad drops, we should just keep Nhaga, Housni, E. Mbappé, and Lemina in the "other players under contract" section. It would complicate our life if we didn't, because then we have to follow media reports and make rules and exceptions that don't make sense. Since they're already here, let's just keep them here for now until we get PSG's official squad. Lastly, Randriamamy, Bodiang, Dagba, Fernandez-Veliz, Muntu Wa Mungu, Michut, Wijnaldum, and Nagera are all first-team players not included in the Japan tour or the recent squad this season, and should thus be in the other players section.
Essentially, my conclusion is that right now, nothing needs to be changed. We should wait for the official squad to drop to make according changes. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Short Verison: While You Guys Are Right. PSG Should Be Scared for the Future.

Long Version: For The Most Part. You Guys Are Correct. But PSG Should be Scared About the Future. Messi Left for the U.S.A. Neymar was Sold To Saudi Arabia. They are Soon Going to Lose Mbappe in July 2024. Not to Mention that they had to Cut Players and Management for Said Players and More. Over 11 Players were put on transfer List! If we Can Learn Anything From This. It's that you Have to Start Small. And Grow from that. Teams like Real Madrid, Bayern Munich, Inter Milan. And Barcelona Start like That. Recently We Saw Sevilla Win The Euorpa League and Put up A Good Fight Against Manchester City In the Super Cup. You Need to Start Small and Grow The Foundation from there or else You'll Crumble. The Problem is that PSG Never Got to Start Like That Because At the Start They Overspent on Players and Almost Went Bankrupt. With The QSI Buying Them Being Their One Saving Grace. And After. They Kept Spending On Big Name Players. And it All Came Crashing Down After 2021. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Dangling modifier/Non-parallel comparison

Considered the club's golden era, the Parisians won nine trophies and reached five consecutive European semi-finals during the. . .

This sentence starts out describing an era, but immediately following the comma, where the specified era should be, there is instead "the Parisians." This is a classic dangling modifier grammatical error. The sentence should instead read:

In what was considered the club's golden era, the Parisians won. . . 2600:1700:5B2C:A090:8C2C:5BAD:F790:E967 (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Paris Saint-Germain F.C./GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Paul Vaurie (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review. It will be used for the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. Comments to come soon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

General comments

• Nice article on such a big club! Per the authorship statistics, you are not the main author of this article. Has DroopyDoggy given their consent for the nomination?
• I would suggest standardising how the club is referred to in prose. The nicknames "The Parisians" and "the Red and Blues" need to be replaced where they occur in the body. As "Paris" and "Paris SG" are not used in the body, I would suggest removing them from the first sentence as far-less-common variants.
• The subsections "Out on loan" and "Other players under contract" need sources.
• As I do not see any WP:QUICKFAIL-criteria fulfilled, I will start with the source spotcheck tomorrow. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Spotcheck

This is a large article with 212 citations, so I will be spotchecking a random 10% selection. Citation numbers refer to this version.

• 44 N The words "crowning glory" and "legend" are not supported by the source.
• 106 link should be marked as dead; otherwise good
• 182 N the source does not support "OM was bought by Bernard Tapie"
• 45 N neither this source or 46 support "the youngest club in history to win a European title at 26 years of existence"
• 2 N should be marked as dead; sentence closely paraphrases the source, and should be paraphrased.
• 117 N Again there is WP:CLOP: "The connection between Paris Saint-Germain and the city's fashion houses is a longstanding one." is a direct copy of the source
• 61 N should be marked as dead, alongside citation 60. Most of the preceding sentences are not supported by these citations, such as: "The club secured a maiden domestic treble (Ligue 1, Coupe de la Ligue and Trophée des Champions) in the 2013–14 season", "unprecedented", and "winning the latter with a record-breaking 96 points, becoming the only first French men's team to achieve that feat".
• 18 N This source is, judging from its homepage, a student assignment, and is thus unreliable.
• 207 good
• 110 good
• 165 N this appears to be a fan website and thus not a reliable source
• 146 good, but 2023 doesn't need to be mentioned once, let alone twice, given the year is clear from the previous sentence
• 81 N "PSG won the Coupe de France" is not supported by the citation
• 175 good
• 205 good
• 26 N I don't think www.paris-canalhistorique.com is a reliable source—it seems more like a blog to me.
• 31 N Same for www.psg70.free.fr/
• 88 N "a tie amplified by the uncertainty surrounding Kylian Mbappé's future" is editorializing; the source does not say such a thing
• 25 N parisunited.fr appears to be a fan-published source, so not reliable
• 79 good

There are thus issues with 13 out of 20 citations spotchecked—a huge proportion, and a look at the "References" section reveals significant reliance on fan-published websites. This is not acceptable at GA, and the article will likely need a large rewrite to achieve the required quality of reliability and source-text integrity. I will put this nomination on hold until 3 April to see if the nominator, who has waited a long time for a review, feels that this judgement is unfair. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: The general analysis of the article and of the spotchecked sources seem to be accurate and fair to me. I can definetely fix everything you listed above in the next week, but fixing 65% of 212 citations is going to take more time than that. Paul Vaurie (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sadly, per the GA instructions, and considering much of the current article (prose and citations) will either be rewritten or replaced, I will have to fail this nomination then. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. Would you be willing to re-open it (via direct request to you specifically) if all citation issues are dealt with in the near-ish future? Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:45, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I can do that. If you rewrite and renominate, let me know on my talk page, and I'll try to review ASAP. Is that alright? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

That works! Just FYI, I might get there this summer if I get to it at all. I nominated this article a while ago while I had more time, and these days I'm shorter on time. So, we'll see in a bit. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:08, 28 March 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.