Talk:Tosin Adarabioyo

Apps

Appearances, as listed on the side, are only to include league appearances, correct? If that is the case, his appearances should be listed as "0" because he has yet to make a league appearance for Manchester City, as shown in the stats — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.94.102.3 (talk) 14:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

That is correct. Thank you for bringing this error to our attention. OZOO (t) (c) 15:08, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Subject's name

In response to a request (ticket:2016051610006792) I made an edit to the subjects name. I thought this would be uncontroversial but apparently not. I initially responded to the talk page of an editor User_talk:Mattythewhite#Tosin_Adarabioyo, but the full discussion belongs here.

Part of my rationale invoked COMMONNAME. It is been pointed out to me that this policy covers article titles not article content. Accept that distinction but think some of the rationale in that policy is relevant.

The issue appears to be whether the subject's name is:

• Abdul-Nasir Oluwatosin "Tosin" Adarabioyo or
• Abdul-Nasir Oluwatosin Oluwadoyinsolami "Tosin" Adarabioyo

There is a PDF document produced by the football Association supporting the second option. However, the subject (presumably) contends that this publication is in error. We are all aware that even reliable sources occasionally make mistakes and it is not our interest to perpetuate such mistakes if they are in fact mistakes. It would obviously be helpful if we had a statement from that organization conceding it is in error, but short of that, if the second name is in fact correct one would expect to see it in other sources. There are a number of sources discussing the subject none of which I have seen uses the second name.

The subject has offered to provide a copy of the passport. I believe that would be considered a primary source and per WP:PRIMARY, is not as solid a source as a secondary source. For that reason I haven't requested that the subject provide a copy of the passport. However, if the second option is correct, it is puzzling that it would not be in the passport.

This is already turned into a bigger deal than it deserves.

It is my opinion that when a subject disputes something that they ought to have knowledge about (their own name), any insistence on a different result ought to be supported by more than a single possibly mistaken source.

Is there a consensus that we ought to override the position of the subject on this issue? Is there a consensus that a single, possibly mistaken reference is sufficient?--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

We have a reliable source that states the subject's full name, yet we're overruling that based on original research? Mattythewhite (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I sent an email to the subject's representatives, to see if there are ways to produce some better evidence.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tosin Adarabioyo 16 Fulham FC c.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:23, 26 August 2022 (UTC)