Talk:Leicester City F.C.

Leicester 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 28, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed
February 12, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
February 12, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
February 21, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
September 20, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
June 7, 2023	Good article reassessment	Delisted
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

England Mid‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: England Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:

May 1 to 7, 2016 (4th)

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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

( Comment or view )

( Article history links:

)

Leicester City Won the 2015-16 Premier League

... that Leicester City Won the 2015-16 Premier League with the odds of Leicester City winning the 2015-16 Premier League being 5,000/1(pictured)?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Leicester City

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

Leicester City F.C.

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.

Semi-protected edit request on 31 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To remove maresca as manager Oli187 (talk) 12:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: per news reports, although there are talks that he may be stepping down, Maresca is still currently manager. Until he has actually stepped down/been replaced, it wouldn't be appropriate to remove him from the infobox as manager. In future, please also add reliable sources to any edit requests to back up the changes you want to be made. Irltoad (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2A02:C7E:2EF1:D500:3C61:1067:2225:B9E7 (talk) 01:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No manager at present

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Charliehdb (talk) 10:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced and Irrelevant Flag Decoration

My edit to remove the flags on the list of club staff, without explanation. These flags are against the Wikipedia manual of style.

They are flag decoration that draws undue attention to these people's nationality. Indeed, far from being paramount, their nationality is irrelevant. It plays no significance in their job and they are not representing their country.
In most cases it is unsourced and unverifiable. Who knows where this information came from, or if it is in anyway accurate?

Unless someone can explain why I'm wrong about the above, I shall remove them again. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]