Jump to content

Talk:Brennan Johnson

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Edit war: A few times now I've added the 2021-22 season to this article, but Talk:Uncle Tupelo keeps removing it as incorrect and unneccessary. It's not. Chris (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No other Wikipedia article for a footballer follows the pattern of having separate boxes for each season? His stats for Forest don't need segmenting as they're continuous from when making his debut in 2019. His move to Lincoln was a loan, not a permanent transfer, so no need for two Forest sections. This seems very basic info for editing footballer articles? UncleTupelo1 (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Ryan Allsop, Chris (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what the Ryan Allsop article demonstrates? UncleTupelo1 (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was demonstrating that information on Johnson's loan season should be placed within the Forest heading, as this is waht the Allsop article does.
However, there are certain players whose career is formatted in a different way, such as Harry Kane having a section on his loan seasons, which has been assessed as a good article. Despite this, I do think that Johnson's loan season should be included within the Forest heading, rather than formatted like Kane's. He only had a single season and the article itself is not as expansive in nature yet. JuliusAlexander96 (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brentford?

[edit]

He still plays for Nottingham Forest unless proof can be provided otherwise? Codeye (talk) 04:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

Surely too low quality? You cant even see his face on his main image. I dont know how to edit it. 86.18.201.131 (talk) 21:06, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearly AI generated, it has been vandalized. I don't know how to change it either though. Cofcevicz (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, it's a cropped version of the only freely-licensed image of the subject we have. It's crap, I agree, but it's legitimately the only freely available one at the moment. If you've taken a better one or know someone who's taken a better one, by all means upload it to Commons, but it has to be own work and can't be taken off Google Images. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:12, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://x.com/hftsuk/status/1806410488193880415?t=TOzmCrZFHCWnfkMno7Sznw&s=19
How about this? Sorry, I'm not up to speed with free use, etc. 86.18.201.131 (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately we can't use people's images off Twitter unless they specifically license them for usage. It's a pain in the ass, but unless someone posts an image and says that they release it under a free usage license (like CC-BY 4.0) we're not able to use it. In the meantime, I do hope that people will see this terrible image and be inspired to take a better one at some stage... ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 08:25, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a terrible image, can't see his face so have removed it. Govvy (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]