Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Season article

i was hoping someone could make a page similar to the one found here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010%E2%80%9311_Arsenal_F.C._season ... cant find any link for it so i dont think it exist. just a idea i thought would be good for this wiki page as i love man utd, would do it myself but not very good with this. good job to all contributers to this page, keep up the good work, and ... glory glory man utd and the reds go marching on on on.

The article you are looking for is here: 2010–11 Manchester United F.C. season. Regards, Tom (talk) 23:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Activebass, 1 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Please add Daniel Drinkwater to the players out on loan section. He's out on loan at Cardiff City. Please add James Chester to the players out on loan section. He's out on loan at Carlisle United

Activebass (talk) 04:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

But they're not in the first-team. – PeeJay 10:53, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Celestra (talk) 00:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Premier League squads

Is there any call (both here, and on other Prem teams pages) for the Prem League 25-man squad to be listed? I only ask because I was, at first, concerned to see Chris Smalling's omission (from the squad, not from this page), and couldn't find any detail here, or on his own page, until I realised he was covered by the U21 rule. 86.135.114.58 (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say no. We don't include the Champions League squad, so I see no reason to include the Prem one. Just my view though. Tom (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.116.187.30, 6 September 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I think you should edit the template of the squad part of this page. there should be a list of the 24-man squad, a list of the under 21 players which don't have to be named, and a list of first team players on loan. You could take the example of the Liverpool page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liverpool_fc#Premier_League_squad

here is some code:

Premier League squad

• Players under 21 do not need to be named and can still be used

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
1	GK	NED	Edwin van der Sar
2	DF	ENG	Gary Neville (captain)
3	DF	FRA	Patrice Evra
4	MF	ENG	Owen Hargreaves
5	DF	ENG	Rio Ferdinand
6	DF	ENG	Wes Brown
7	FW	ENG	Michael Owen
8	MF	BRA	Anderson
9	FW	BUL	Dimitar Berbatov
10	FW	ENG	Wayne Rooney
11	MF	WAL	Ryan Giggs (vice-captain)
13	MF	KOR	Park Ji-Sung

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
14	FW	MEX	Javier Hernández
15	DF	SRB	Nemanja Vidić
16	MF	ENG	Michael Carrick
17	MF	POR	Nani
18	MF	ENG	Paul Scholes
22	DF	IRL	John O'Shea
23	DF	NIR	Jonny Evans
24	MF	SCO	Darren Fletcher
25	MF	ECU	Antonio Valencia
28	MF	IRL	Darron Gibson
29	GK	POL	Tomasz Kuszczak
30	DF	BEL	Ritchie De Laet

Under 21 Players

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
12	DF	ENG	Chris Smalling
20	DF	BRA	Fábio
21	DF	BRA	Rafael
26	FW	FRA	Gabriel Obertan
27	FW	ITA	Federico Macheda
31	MF	NIR	Corry Evans

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
33	MF	POR	Bebé
40	GK	ENG	Ben Amos
42	MF	NOR	Magnus Eikrem
44	DF	NIR	Joe Dudgeon
45	DF	ENG	Oliver Gill

On loan

Note: Flags indicate national team as defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality.

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
19	FW	ENG	Danny Welbeck (at Sunderland until 30 June 2011)
32	FW	SEN	Mame Biram Diouf (at Blackburn Rovers until 30 June 2011)
35	MF	ENG	Tom Cleverley (at Wigan Athletic until 30 June 2011)

No.	Pos.	Nation	Player
41	FW	NOR	Joshua King (at Preston North End until mid-November 2010)
43	MF	ENG	Matthew James (at Preston North End until 30 June 2011)
46	MF	ENG	Cameron Stewart (at Yeovil Town until 31 December 2010)

46.116.187.30 (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

This is far more convoluted than it needs to be. Every Manchester United player is eligible to play in the league this season, so there's no point making umpteen separate squad lists. – PeeJay 15:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Vidic is now Captain

He has been getting the armband over Giggs, Evra and others in the first few games, and today he started as captain with Gary Neville on the pitch which pretty much confirmed it. So I think it's safe to assume neither Giggs/Neville are the captains anymore. Official announcement aren't really done for these things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.194.203 (talk) 13:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Vidic may be the team captain on matchdays, but Neville is still the club captain and Giggs is still his vice-captain. They are the ones who sit next to the gaffer in the team photo. – PeeJay 01:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

So? Things change after the team photo you know. And it's clear now that Vidic is the captain about above both, so please stop basing stuff of a pre-season team photo rather than what's actually happening. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.194.166 (talk) 04:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between "team captain" and "club captain". Vidic is the team captain, whereas Neville is the club captain. Thanks. – PeeJay 13:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, Neville could not wear the armband for the entire season, but he is still the official club captain until we are told otherwise. Tom (talk) 13:29, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The club has posted a reason for the question everyone asked, see Neville replaced as Reds skipper - MU Official Web Site
0- HonorTheKing (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect usage for English for an English-based article

Ok, unfortunately, some editor has decided to revert my changes and forced me to come here instead of bringing the matter here themselves. Why on earth are we using American-English in the lead section? "Manchester United IS" is not correct in proper English. It should read "ARE".

"Manchester United Football Club is an English professional football club" - wrong

"Having won a joint-record 18 league titles, four League Cups and a record 11 FA Cups, Manchester United is the joint most successful club in the history of English football." - wrong

Embarrassingly, we also have inconsistencies in the lead section, as it reads "United are" in the fourth paragraph here. I dared to correct it and this individual reversed it. I can only assume they're American.

Anyone want to give a reason why we're using the wrong language? Paralympiakos (talk) 16:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for bringing it to the talk page. Firstly let me say that the fourth paragraph inconsistency was created today by an editor who changed the lead. It was consistent before then, and I have now changed it so apologies for reverting that particular edit. Secondly, I didn't force you to bring the matter here, but it is your responsibility to bring the issue here since you are the person who wishes to change the article, not me. Thirdly, you only changed it in the lead, not the entire article which created inconsistency.

OK so this point concerns the discretionary plural. I don't think you are right to say that it is not correct to say "Manchester United is"; I think both are correct, but in this case we have treated club and team as singular. As I tried to point out, there have been discussions on this in the past (I'll look through the archived discussions in a minute), where we have tried to reach consensus on this issue. I'm happy to hold this discussion again. Kind regards, Tom (talk) 16:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I'm not American. :) Tom (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. For what it's worth, the matter was forced really when you reverted. The whole principle of the link you've quoted is that it refers to the team, not the location. As such, "ARE" is the correct version. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To be frank, you're wrong Paralympiakos (I'm not American either, as you can see on my userpage). "XY Football Club is" is perfectly good usage as a club is singular, compared to a team (plural). See here for an example: "Burnley Football Club would like to place on record its thanks", rather than "their thanks". Cheers, BigDom 20:33, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Genuine question, do you say "Burnley are winning" or "Burnley is winning". Additionally "Burnley are one-nil up" or "Burnley is one-nil up" ? Paralympiakos (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, that relates to what I just said above - the club is singular, the team is plural. It would be the team that played a match, so "Burnley are winning" would be correct. It just depends on the context. BigDom 21:08, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's always "are" in British English. The only time the club is treated as singular is in a business context, as it is regarded as a legal entity. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so you think "Manchester United Football Club are an English football club" sounds right? Utter rubbish. There is only one club being discussed, not the members of the club, so the singular makes sense there. – PeeJay 12:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely no doubt about it. To use the singular is wrong in British English. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United Football Club is an English football club: where referring to an entity, as here, the British English discretionary plural requires the singular.

Manchester United were winning, or were the first English club to compete in the European Cup: where referring to a collective, as here - the team competed in the European Cup, not the club as an entity - it requires the plural. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

though it does add scope for confusion when the word "club" is used as a synonym for "team" when the verb form differs between singular and plural :-) I tend to use a different construction to avoid the problem... Struway2 (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The British English discretionary plural most certainly does not require it, and contemporary reliable sources do not use it either. One reason is precisely because only consistent use of the plural results in sentences which are not grammatically invalid. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Surely all I'm saying is what you say below: that in the business section of the papers, they use the singular because they're generally talking about the entity, business, structure, concept, which is what we're defining in the opening sentence of the lead: what MUFC is. In the sporting section, talking about MU the team, they naturally use the plural? Got to go out now, so can't reply further, sorry. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

MUFC "is" more than one thing: it refers to a business, but it also refers to a set of players on a pitch. For various reasons, we treat the two as one and the same. Intermingling our terminology, even if only one time in the lede, results in an inconsistent and unduly confusing article. The vast majority of contemporary reliable sources in the UK use the plural consistently (or in the case of the media, at least consistently outside of the business section); we should too, which requires that we pick one or the other, and given that the plural form is by far the most widely used for this subject in the UK it should be the plural throughout. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The "discretion" in discretionary plural lies in deciding whether the subject of a sentence should be treated as singular or plural in the context of that sentence. That may appear inconsistent, but it is grammatically correct. The idea that because we say "Manchester United are winning", we also have to say "Manchester United Football Club are a football club", gives us no discretion at all. However, as we each know the other to be wrong ;-) and the readers have probably given up on this bit of the thread long since, I'll leave it here. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Manchester United is", in a sporting context, is rank illiteracy in British English. No British publication uses this ghastly formation. In the business section of newspapers, the singular is normal, but never in the sporting section. That the article currently completely fails to be consistent about this is to its detriment. Consistent use of the plural form would be a massive improvement. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 22:24, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If something is united, isn't it singular by definition? =) Powers ^T 23:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

"United we fall" (???) Paralympiakos (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Cute, but this is a proper noun. Indeed, it's far worse when such things are treated as singular, because then you end up with the teeth-grindingly awful en-US phrase "The Dolphins have the ball, Miami scores", where the same entity is treated as both singular and plural in the same sentence. This applies to musical groups as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 09:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It only sounds awful to you because you grew up with a different tradition. Taken in isolation, "Dolphins" is clearly plural, and "Miami" is clearly singular, so they take the appropriate verb forms; the fact that they refer to the same entity is syntactically irrelevant. Powers ^T 12:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

No, it sounds wrong to me because it is wrong. It's a grammatical nightmare, mixing singular and plural up at will like that. "Miami" is not "singular" here, it's a contraction of the proper noun "Miami Dolphins". However, I'm not especially prepared to argue here with the accepted grammatical wisdom of the North American continent, save to say that it doesn't apply to articles written in en-UK, of which this is one. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Its not wrong. Both are technically correct, it just comes down to personal preference. Tom (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, the club use 'is': http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid=%7Bf9e570e6-407e-44bc-800f-4a3110258114%7D&newsid=6651318 Tom (talk) 13:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The club use both. The club are not exactly arbiters of the English language anyway. And as a comment, you used the plural there yourself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

So surely that supports my assertion that both are technically correct? I think the issue is consistency; if you choose one and stick to it throughout the article, then its fine IMO. Tom (talk) 13:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, no, all it says is that some people use both. It doesn't make that right. Nevertheless, consistency either way would be far better than the current jumble. Consistent use of the plural would be vastly preferable, given that it is the convention used by practically all contemporary en-UK reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Where is it currently inconsistent? Tom (talk) 13:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I count thirteen instances of "they" instead of "it". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Are we changing then? This discussion appears to have cooled over the last 24 hours. Paralympiakos (talk) 17:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should. This is, after all, the very essence of the discretionary plural. As Struway has pointed out, if the plural sounds correct in context, then of course we should use it. Consistency naturally goes out of the window, but that is something you let yourself in for with the discretionary plural. – PeeJay 19:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

That is an entirely illogical argument. Why should they not be changed, exactly? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As I'm sure you're aware, English is a highly illogical language, and the discretionary plural is one of the most illogical aspects of it. And yet, in some ways, it's also quite a logical form, since we simply use either singular or plural depending on which sounds correct. If you can point out to me any particular instances that don't sound right when you say them out loud, I'd definitely give them some thought. – PeeJay 22:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

You simply can't mix and match singular and plural at will. English may be inconsistent, but that is not reason to entirely forgo consistency. The current use of the plural pronoun is nothing more than a mistake, no doubt a result of a British editor attempting to use the singular consistently and missing the pronouns. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"You simply can't mix and match singular and plural at will." Actually, according to the definition of the discretionary plural, you can. That's the whole point. – PeeJay 20:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a naive understanding of the rule. But I'm not prepared to argue it further here. If need be, I'll fix it myself. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 01:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Chris, are you proposing we change the current instances of 'they' to 'it', or are you proposing we use the plural throughout, regardless of whether it is referring to the 'club' or the 'team'? Tom (talk) 11:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My personal feelings aside, better that it be consistently singular than inconsistent. FWIW "Club" and "team" are used pretty much interchangeably, so I don't think using that as a distinction works. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 12:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The article sounds as if it was written by an American. This is NOT a matter of personal preference, all British newspaper standard usage guides insist on the use of the plural. Please change it immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.70.98.2 (talk) 08:35, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

People aren't going to respond well to you if you insist on giving orders like that. Anyway, the current format was required for the article to reach FA status, so I can't see it changing any time soon, unless the FA review committee gets a clue about the discretionary plural. – PeeJay 22:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, your own link contradicts your stance. Clear as day, it says "in British English, names of towns and countries take plural verbs when they refer to sports teams but singular verbs when they refer to the actual place". Damned by your own evidence! Case closed.

and I'm not ordering anyone to do anything. I will happily make the grammatical corrections myself. Isn't the whole point of wikipedia that those who actually know what they are talking about have the final input? 213.70.98.66 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - Will Keane squad number

Hi there, quick request for Will Keane's # 48 to be reflected on the page, as per http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/clubs/club=52682/index.html. I've amended the reserves page accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSB689908 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Will Keane is not listed as a member of the club's first team or reserve team squads on the official website. Since he is part of the B List squad for UEFA competitions, I can understand adding him to the reserve team article, but not to this one. – PeeJay 23:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

That's fair enough. I'd argue that this is more due to a certain ineptness on the part of the fishal site (prematurely announcing Ramsey's signing; describing Bebe as a striker just because the press did, etc.), and that Keane is as much part of the first team squad as Dudgeon and Gill; but I understand that you need to remain consistent with the official source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RSB689908 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Absefd124k3, 24 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Sport is named Association Football Absefd124k3 (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from GreenPuffle92, 31 October 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} I may be wrong or right, but according to the official Man Utd Website(Manutd.com) the Captain is Nemanja Vidic right? The why does it show 2 captains, Neville and Vidic? It should only say Nemanja Vidic as captain and have the blue captain sign next to his name. GreenPuffle92 (talk) 11:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears one person is the team captain and the other is the club captain. Though I don't really know what that means... Thanks, Stickee (talk) 03:51, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Page Update

Main Page needs updating, Vidic is United's official club and team captain (Neville relinquished both roles on MUTV at the beginning of the 2010-2011 season due his likeliness of not playing much first team football stating it's unfair to the 1st 11 to have a captain who doesn't play) Ole Solskjaer unfortunately no longer works for United after been installed as the Molde manager and don't say source it?, all you have to do is look on TV and Man United's official website. 91.105.38.64 (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request - Nick Ajose squad number

Another quick one - Nick Ajose has been awarded the # 38 shirt - confirmed on the fishal squad page: http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={91EA3BE2-963A-4BAB-802C-F46A0EF3FCA3}&teamid=458&page=2. Also, he's invariably referred to as Nick or Nicky, rather than Nicholas. RSB689908 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, do you know how to pronounce his surname? I can never tell if its "Ah-joes" or "Ah-joes-ee". – PeeJay 19:15, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not the foggiest I'm afraid! I always go Ah-joe-say myself. Could even be A-hose-ay! From a quick search on wiki it appears to be of Nigerian origin, and the talking head on this video pronounces boxer Ajose Olusegun's forename 'Ah-joe-say'.82.17.138.185 (talk) 20:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pronounced Nick 'Ah - Joe' Say' 91.105.38.64 (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Club Colours

There appears to be some confusion within this page and on various websites about 'red & white quartered' shirts.

There are a number of sources that claim Newton Heath wore red & white quarters at times in the 1890s however all the sources that refer to the 1892 quartered shirts seem to have misunderstood what 'quartered' shirts actually are.

In normal football terminology quartered shirts have 4 sections on the front (and pre-numbers on the back), not 2 sections on front and 2 on back (they are 'halved' shirts). A typical quartered football shirt is that worn by Bristol Rovers (since 1930s), while a halved shirt is like Blackburn Rovers - or Newton Heath's green & gold. The 1892 photo shows a 'halved' shirt, not quartered. During the 1890s no one ever confused quartered and halved shirts because they were fairly widespread in field sports.

Until someone produces actual evidence of the side wearing quartered not halved shirts we really need to focus on the facts and correct this confusion.

The only photo that appears to show Newton Heath actually wearing quarters (and even then it's not a great action photo so difficult to prove conclusively) appears on page 63 of "Manchester A Football History" (ISBN 978-0-9558127-0-5). The game is a Manchester derby from Boxing Day 1898 and appears to show Newton Heath with quartered shirts (top right chest panel is light; bottom right dark; top left dark, bottom left light). Could this be the mythical quartered red & white kit? BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

"Quartered" in today's fashion would refer to shirts in a harlequin style with four panels on the front of the shirt and four on the back. In the 1800s however, "quartered" referred to shirts/jerseys where the entire body was made of four panels - two on the front and two on the back, in alternating colours. Blackburn Rovers famous blue and white shirts were referred to at the same time as "quartered", for example (link). The style of shirts you describe were very rarely worn in the victorian era of football (link) and were always described as "harlequin" style.

The evidence of this "mythical red and white" shirt is in the photo you refer to. Look closely, the back of the shirt is made of two panels of alternate colours just like the front. The other evidence is that the (first choice) club colours were registered with the league in 1892 as red and white. That is the same red and white quartered jersey they are wearing in the photo. There is only one photo surviving that may depict a NH player in a green and gold quartered jersey and that is the one of Sam Black in the mid 1880s, though it is possible that was red and white too as there are references in contemporary newspapers to the club wearing the latter colours as early as 1883.

You might be right about the photos you mention showing harlequin style shirts though. I'd struggled to interpret that image before, but it does seem that they were two dark and two light panels on the body and the arms were in two colours as well, with a seam at the elbow. It's perhaps easiest to see on the player on the far left of the image which shows the engine works and the church (the still surviving St Benedict's?) in the distance. This is odd because we believe the club had adopted plain white jerseys as a cost cutting measure. The previous season, the club were photographed in striped change kits (which we believe were green and gold) so buying a new set of change jerseys (that would have rarely needed to be worn) when the old ones would have sufficed seems a bit strange. Also, during that era, it was normal for the home team to wear change strips when there was a clash (which there would not have been against City in blue anyway). The photos also show Newton Heath playing in white shorts, but photos from previous and later years show them only in navy shorts. Again, it would have been unnecessary (in an age when referees were not bothered about shorts and socks clashing) and expensive. A photo from a match away at Spurs taken in January 1899 - just weeks after the the derby game the photos are supposed to be from - shows the Heathens in their white shirts and navy shorts and socks. Spurs are in stripes (there is some confusion about whether these were still their home colours or whether they had already switched to their now traditional white and navy colours which were exactly the same as NH's).

I'm extremely sceptical about the photo in James' book to be honest. The fact that it had not appeared in United books elsewhere previously, that the club who he says are Newton Heath are wearing such alien kit and that there is grass on the ground in Manchester in December! Most damningly of all, the pitch markings in the photo of the goalmouth show that the photos were taken after 1902. In 1898 the goal areas would have had the double arc markings rather than a six yard box (link). I wonder if this is going to be corrected in the soon to be released revised version of his book? Decorativeedison (talk) 16:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I disagree about the quartered V Halved shirts comment, but more interesting are the photos mentioned. Looking at them again I see what you are saying about the middle image but Di Jones who is photographed died in April 1902 (that predated the modern pitch markings as, I believe, they were in place for the 1902-03 season). The goal area seems to be short of turf, but the top photo must presumably be near the halfway line and could therefore possibly still have grass. If it's not the half way line, then we're back to the pitch markings pre-1902/03 and this is the 12 yard line in front of goal. Actually, considering the position of the photographer that seems highly likely (which then raises the question again about the turf).

We need to get hold of the originals. It's possible the images are from different games. The Jones image also appears in "Manchester The Greatest City" but, interestingly, is on an Ogden's Cigarette card. The caption with that version of the image says it was taken during 1900-01, but if that's true then the markings issue appears again. Worth pointing out though, that there are plenty of photos of United in action that have not yet appeared in United specific books. Almost weekly the Umpire & Athletic News photographed United's games (certainly home matches/others in Greater Manchester) and they lived for many years at the modern day Printworks. BillyMeredithShorts (talk) 15:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know where Gary James sourced these images from. Charbel Boujaoude's "Story of the Green and Gold" shows one one the photos and identifies the "Newton Heath player" as Billy Draycott. Personally, I don't know how anyone could be properly identified from such low quality images. The City player on the back post looks like Billy Meredith, but then again it could have been anyone with dark hair and a mustache! I only have copies of two of the photos in question as I do not have the book with me, so I'm not sure about your other points. I suspect the images were scanned from a newspaper and the originals were lost - possibly in the fire at Hyde Road. Many other original photos were lost in the Old Trafford bombing. I know (or know of) a few people who have spent cumultive weeks in the central library (and other local archives) with microfiche film looking through old newspapers (including one of the authors of The Definitive Newton Heath and my partner on unitedkits.com) and no one has discovered any other images that shed any further light on the kits. I'm not sure how many copies of Umpire and Athletic they have down there though, I've not been on them myself. Have you spent some time down there too? Might be worth discussing elsewhere if you have found things which are of interest to us on unitedkits... Our research at this point suggests that for the majority of the Newton Heath era, the jerseys were red and white or plain white.

As for the quartered vs halved debate, I think it's been settled by Dave Moor over at historicalkits. Photos of teams wearing what we would described as halved shirts were in those days recorded and registered as "quartered" shirts.

The photo from 1892/93 (link) shows the team which played away at Stoke City on 7th January 1893. They are photographed in their first choice "home" kits - it was the home team who had to change if there was a clash of colours. The Association of Football Statistics Annual for that season states the club had recorded their colours as red and white quarters (apparently - I do not have a copy myself, but this info was sent to us by someone who does own a copy). Decorativeedison (talk) 18:25, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand vice-captain?

I may be incorrect, but is Rio Ferdinand vice-captain? I probably am wrong, but the squad does not list a vice-captain. Someone should put down the vice-captain. If Ferdinand is not vice-captain, then tell me who the vice-captain is and put down the vice-captain. Velociraptor888 16:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

To say any player is the vice-captain at the minute would be complete conjecture. Obviously the captaincy structure at United has been re-shuffled since the start of the season, when Neville and Giggs were captain and vice-captain respectively. I would tentatively say that Ferdinand is vice-captain right now, but that would just be a guess. – PeeJay 01:39, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I saw somewhere on manutd.com, that Ryan Giggs was vice-captain and Nemanja Vidic was captain.GreenPuffle92 (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Rivalries?

"the rivalry with Leeds United has its origins in the Wars of the Roses" LOL err I don't think so. The particular bitter relations between Man U and Leeds really only date from the 1970s. It coincided with the development of Leeds' hooligan problem and was fueled by the media who still heaped attention on Man U even though at that time they were rubbish. (86.129.52.65 (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2010 (UTC))

Manchester United website changes!

Hello everyone, Today Man Utd offical website has changed his entire look and links, therefore, there will be needed to fix ALL! links who goes to Man Utd website, the majority is ofcurse the seasons and the scores which will now will not work (some will be redirect to the fixed pages and some won't).

Please let us all aid and help to get it fixed as soon as possible.

Note, now all broken links will link to en.aspx or home.aspx pages.

Thanks to all follow fans, -
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 06:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

European home colours

Since 1997 (when that kit which worn in the Champions League final was unveiled), United's European home kit (also used in the Club World Cup/Championships and Intercontinental Cup) features white socks instead of the traditional black — I think that could be mentioned under Crest and colours. Anyone agree? VEO^onefive 23:01, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from MrDoubleU, 13 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Please add the following to the section "Ferguson years (1986–present)" As of Sunday 19th December 2010, Sir Alex Ferguson has been the longest reigning Manchester United manager in history, surpassing the landmark of Sir Matt Busby. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-1339586/Alex-Ferguson-Manchester-United-years--picture-special.html MrDoubleU (talk) 21:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Logo Change

The current logo for Manchester United is outdated. I extracted the vector version File:Manchester United FC crest.svg from a PDF taken from their website. The vector version is an accurate version of the current logo. I am aware that the vector logo has rough edges, but that is how Manchester United has published it. --JovianEye (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Just because Manchester United published a low-quality version of their logo doesn't mean we should be satisfied with that. If we can use a better version, we should, regardless of whether it is SVG or PNG. – PeeJay 23:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The issue isnt about SVG vs PNG. The SVG version has accurate colours and gradients which the PNG version does not have. And since the logo is a non-free file it should be represented accurately. --JovianEye (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The logo is outdated and should be replaced with the current version but I think the "R" should be removed since wikipedia is contributions and not and official site of man u --FG7 (talk) 1 March 2011

Ok, I have removed the registered symbol from the file. --JovianEye (talk) 03:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Much better I have changed it on the front page --FG7 (talk) 1 March 2011

Rivalries subsections?

I don't think we need to use individual subsections for each of Manchester United's major rivalries. In User:FGaribay's version, each subsection only has one paragraph, which is hardly enough to justify splitting the "Rivalries" section into subsections. Opinions? – PeeJay 23:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it should have its own section and not part of supporters because Rivalries has its own characteristics and orgins, meaning Manchester United is a big team and long story short this wiki page should have its rivals listed in their own section. – FG7 1 March 2011

You're talking about a different issue here. But now that you've brought that issue up as well, I will respond by saying that rivalries are defined by supporters, so it makes perfect sense for the "Rivalries" section to be included under "Support". – PeeJay 20:12, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay2K3, its perfect like it is now.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with both of you, rivalries or no rivalries you still support the team, I supported man u againts wiggan I supported them againts chelsea? I dont see how "Support" has anything to do the the history of Rivals when you support Manchester againts any opponent. It dosent make sence whats so ever. – FG7 2 March 2011

Sorry for butting in but what FGaribay? What you just said makes no sense. They don't really do local rivalries in US sport, due to the whole franchise 1 team 1 city thing. But rivalries most definitely are created by the supporters (the fans). The club is a non-human entity, I don't see how it could have rivalries. Maybe it could if they were 'rivalries' like in the NFL, based on big results in big matches, but they're not. - skip88 01:40, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

okay I will change it back to how it was but can I add the wiki link Arsenal F.C. and Manchester United F.C. rivalry since it states they are both rivals? . – FG7 3 March 2011

Even tho it have its own article, its not a good one like the others, not to mention there is no such thing as true rivalry between the two, but if you will be able to fix that article, I my self won't see a reason why not, but if you find a ref that state that its a rivalry.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I have protected this page to allow a compromise to be worked out here. --John (talk) 05:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I feel we managed to fix the dispute, so please open the article back, tnx.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will do. --John (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Arsenal and Manchester United rivalry

I decided to add the wiki link to the rivalries section because Arsenal is a rival. Hope it helps – FG7 7 March 2011

The article of the rivalry is still lack of info, we should first improve it b4 we add it here.

Not to mention its fairly new one since Wenger arrived, so we can keep it out aswell, cuz then we will have Chelsea rivalry and it will never end.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Championships Section for Infobox

In some of the professional North American sports clubs, the number of championships won is listed. Something like that should be listed for all the football clubs too. FIFA World Cup Titles, Champions League Titles, Premier League titles, etc. If someone could add to this that would be great. Arnabdas (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

I for one against such a thing, thats why we have the Honours section.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Aon

Small correction. In the sponsorship section Aon are described as a reinsurace company. This is incorrect they are an insurance broking company. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.196.72.160 (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Aon Corporation (NYSE: AON) is a provider of risk management services, insurance and reinsurance brokerage, human capital and management consulting, and specialty insurance underwriting"

So basicly they both are currect.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Rio Ferdinand Vice Captain?

Correct me if im wrong but dont you think Rio is the runner up captain when vidic is not present? --FGaribay7 (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no such thing as vice-captain realy, Evra was captain number of times, so was Giggs, Rio, Wes Brown, Rooney, Carrick, and I think so was Scholes.

I say lets keep it with captain only.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree - under GNev as captain, Giggs was vice-captain. Rio was generally 3rd choice. Under Vidic, that still seems to be the most common 2nd and 3rd choices, though Vidic has played just about every game this season. IIRC, against Schalke in the 2nd leg, O'Shea captained.

85.167.222.28 (talk) 23:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Edwin van der Sar

Why isn't van der Sar listed as a current player? 76.175.194.47 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Even tho he retired/will retire now, it's better to not remove players until the 2011-12 season, including Van der Sar and Hargreaves.

Edit request from 93.172.243.161, 30 May 2011

0wen Hargreaves has been release by Man Utd, therefore he should no longer be in the squad list, it's confirmed: http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Football-News/2011/May/Club-confirm-Hargreaves-will-leave.aspx

93.172.243.161 (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. I might be wrong, but as I undertand it Hargreaves is a United player till his current deal runs out, which according to that article is 'this summer'. Till then it look like he should stay in the squad list. doomgaze (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

His contract officially ends on the 30th of June. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Des2501 (talk • contribs) 11:30, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Parade

Ahoy there. I was filming the parade today for telly, and got a quick snap on my mobile. The quality is pretty shocking but you might find it good enough to use, it's up to you. Image is here. Parrot of Doom 21:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty good pic! Could you upload it to Commons for us? I recommend the CC-BY-SA licence. – PeeJay 22:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

You can do it yourself if you like, the licence is fine. Parrot of Doom 08:52, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

American English

Why this British subject is using American English? FAC is not a rule nor a guideline, it is a process. ۞ Tbhotch^™ & (ↄ), Problems with my English? 18:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, we've been over this umpteen times. The issue at hand is consistency. In instances where the noun refers to the club itself (notice the use of the the singular "it"), the singular should be used; in instances where the noun refers to the club as a collective of individuals, the plural should be used. Since "Manchester United Football Club is an English football club" refers to the club as a singular entity, the singular person is used. – PeeJay 02:43, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 93.172.237.205, 13 June 2011

Phil Jones has officially signed http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Football-News/2011/Jun/manchester-united-seal-jones-deal.aspx

93.172.237.205 (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

 Done
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Joshua King...

has gone on loan to borussia moenchengladbach... he is still listed in the man utd squad and not under the players on loan section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.243.234.74 (talk) 05:59, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no offical statement about the subject, I have seen roumers about the move few weeks ago but not on those teams offical websites.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 81.132.87.239, 24 June 2011

ashley young plays for man utd

81.132.87.239 (talk) 08:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Already done He is already listed under the First-team squad Jnorton7558 (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Squad Numbers

1. 1 David De Gea
2. 4 Phil Jones
3. 18 Ashley Young — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.43.45.189 (talk) 12:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Those numbers are not official. It is highly likely that those will be the numbers those players are registered with for the Premier League and the Champions League, but they are not official yet. As things stand, they are only the numbers they will wear on tour. Check this page for proof. – PeeJay 12:39, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Rhamank, 24 July 2011

To put the number 18 on the squad list for Ashley young. I saw him at a friendly wearing the jersey number 18.

Rhamank (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: See above comment, unless the official site has changed Jnorton7558 (talk) 07:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

MUFC being originally called Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company Newton Heath Football Club

I got the information from a book called Foul Football by Michael Coleman (author). If the Information is wrong then i am sorry. It stated other facts which i found were true such as; West Ham United was originally called 'Thames Ironworks F.C.', Arsenal were first called 'Dial Square F.C.' and were formed by workers from the Royal Arsenal Munitions Factory in Woolwich, which is where they got their nickname 'the gunners'. It also stated that Stoke City was originally 'Staffordshire Railway F.C.', and 'Mortons Jam Factory F.C.' is now called Millwall. Ryantheking (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)RyanthekingRyantheking (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

We appreciate the contribution, Ryan, but the important thing is that you verify your facts in the future. No other sources refer to Manchester United by this name, so I think we can safely assume that Michael Coleman got his information wrong on this occasion. – PeeJay 17:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, sorry for the Inconvenience. Ryantheking (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)RyanthekingRyantheking (talk) 20:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 78.147.148.129, 8 August 2011

Phil Jones has the squad number 4, and Ashley Young has 18.

78.147.148.129 (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. See http://www.manutd.com/en/Players-And-Staff/First-Team.aspx, their squad numbers are not official for now. doomgaze (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

de gea is listed on the offical site as number 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.199.86 (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

This is true, and he is represented as such in the article. Is there anything you want to see changed? doomgaze (talk) 02:08, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Kit/Sponsors

Worth adding a list of kit manufactures/sponsors as per the list at Peterborough_United_F.C.#Kit_sponsors_and_manufacturers?109.155.249.27 (talk) 13:29, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

It's already exists, in Sponsorship tab, under Global brand.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:50, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

D'oh! Wonder how I missed that! 109.155.249.27 (talk) 20:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 26xbing, 6 September 2011

26xbing (talk) 04:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Third kit

The 2011/12 Premier League handbook confirms this year's third kit is last season's away kit. Link (check page 33). I have no idea how to do the illustrations, so is there any chance someone could add it? Decorativeedison (talk) 22:46, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done, thank you.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Reserves vs. First Team

The Carling Cup game last night seemed to throw up a few points of contention about the squad. There needs to be some sort of clarification about who qualifies as a member of the first team and who doesn't. - --Des2501 (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Faisalyaqob, 25 September 2011

Hi

I am Faisal and recently joined your portal but have been using wikipedia from a long time. Keeping in mind the online popularity of Manchester United Shirts, i want to add my website link in this article's part independent sites as i could not find any site link's in this article fully devoted to Manchester United shirts to serve the viewers looking for MU Shirts source on wikipedia.

Faisalyaqob (talk) 11:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Dynamic|cimanyD contact me ⁞ my edits 17:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Most Successful Club?

I think there should be further debate about what constitutes success in terms of trophies. At the moment the club which is considered the most successful according to wikipedia is Manchester United because they have won a few more trophies than liverpool; according to the article 'Football records in England' they have won 60 trophies compared to Liverpool's 58. Yes they have won more trophies than Liverpool - However not all trophies are of equal value and the fact that Liverpool has won two more champions leagues than Man U (easily the most prestigious trophy in club football) should be recognised when talking about the clubs in terms of success. Every football fan knows that one champions league is worth ten FA cups or a few league titles, so shouldn't this factor be taken into account when deciding which club is the most successful. Under the current system a club could win the league cup 61 times and be the most successful club in England according to the current system and that is frankly indicative of a flawed system.

I will be posting this on the Liverpool fc disscussion page as well so that some discourse on this subject can finally happen. 86.6.106.166 (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that certain trophies are more prestigious than others, but it would be very dificult to quantify them. How do you know if one Champions League equals ten FA cups, why not nine, or eight. And the fact the trophies have been won over such a long period of time, the competition formats have changed considerably a la Champions League/European Cup and First Division/Premier League. Eddie6705 (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I've edited this and the Liverpool F.C. articles to remove the "most successful" claim, and these edits reflect the change in wording in Football records in England. There's no singular accepted metric for "most successful", even if there's general agreement on the most successful English club, and simply listing the number of titles seems enough to convey this information without resorting to WP:OR or WP:PEACOCK. --Mosmof (talk) 19:12, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is or are?

Normally in British English groups like football clubs and bands are referred to as plurals. Why is this one singular? --John (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's complicated: "Manchester United are" vs. "the club is". Malleus Fatuorum 01:24, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It is not complicated. WP:PLURALS is clear. I tried this but somebody told me that it was a FAC stuff. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

You simply display your ignorance. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm an ignorant and I'm glad to not be Mr. Know it all. Anyway, can I start to WP:POINT coldplay, The Beatles, Burnley F.C. or Crystal Palace F.C.? Those ignorant people need to know how ignorants they are and that you are a knowledge God. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:52, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Please carry on, so everyone can see what an ignorant arse you are. Malleus Fatuorum 01:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• WP:PLURALS seems to suggest that "Manchester United are" would be the proper form, unless I am misreading it. Am I? --John (talk) 01:56, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• No, you're not. At least that's my interpretation as well: "Manchester United" plural, "the club", or "the team" singular. Malleus Fatuorum 02:02, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

• The article does say "Manchester United is..." mostly all the way through. Which I think is correct: the article is msotly referring to the single legal personality of the club rather than the players that comprise it (hence the article uses the plural when it talks about the team's on-field performance). --Mkativerata (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit of a nightmare. If it's any help to anyone, when I took the various Norwich City F.C.-related articles to FAC and FLC, I ensured that the club (ie the whole business) was always referred to singular and the team (ie the playing side of the operation) in the plural. Here's a diff of the main article on promotion. Maybe that was a fudge, but it seemed to work. --Dweller (talk) 13:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm fairly new round here, but I'm sure that referring to a fellow editing chap as an "ignorant arse" isn't really cricket. Perhaps we can avoid abusing the language and each other chaps? Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 20:26, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Green Credentials

Man Utd came top of the UK's Energy efficiency table. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/08/manchester-united-energy-efficiency — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.240 (talk) 00:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

not the first english club to float on the london stock exchange

that was spurs in 1983, it says on the club website. don't know why people keep saying it was united? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.63.114 (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes you are correct, I fixed that.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The Red Devils

Originally the Red Devils nickname was given to Salford City RLFC after they played a match in france and the played like 'les diables rouge' according to the french journalists.

In the 60's Manchester Utd adopted the title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lukicj (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Company infobox

I don't like quoting Forbas and other "source" that how "rich" is a club. The financial report is the true story of financial position of the clubs, just like the infobox introduced in Serie A club.

People now concern the real financial info after the introduction of UEFA Financial Fair Play. The Infobox show Manchester United Limited ("United" Group) had a high turnover (many English clubs just had 1XXM turnover) and an average net profit of 2X million something. After introducing the infobox to all major Premier League clubs reader can compare the clubs in financial way, not the rubbish Forbas list. Matthew_hk tc 20:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Source isn't a problem as there is a new site called levelbusiness.com. However i don't know they likes introducing hotlink to them or not. Matthew_hk tc 20:21, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Here is many word in WP:Footy, copy here:

After the introduction of UEFA financial fair play, i think reader were going to know more about the clubs financially. Please comment on Talk:Manchester United F.C. after the infobox was removed.

As i said in summary and talk page. It is stupid to say Manchester United is rich, its successful global brand but without actual figure.

And for the debt, it is also stupid to write Manchester United had a heavy debt (actually is his holding company had a heavy debt) but without actual figure. Negative equity is a solid prove that the holding company had a heavy debt. Matthew_hk tc 20:28, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

Please change Park Ji-Sung to Ji-Sung Park. In Korea, people are usually called by their family name first and then their first name. But to maintain continuity with the rest of the Man U current roster on this Wiki page, the name should be re-configured. Thanks.

Joeyyoon (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The British media calls him Park Ji-Sung, and we generally go by the way he's commonly known. Plus, with the Brazilians in the squad, it's not like all the other names are following the <given name><family name> format, so I don't think this is an issue. --Mosmof (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Loan Players

Can someone please check if some of the loan deals have expired? Or have the loan deals been extended further than stated in the article? IJA (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Loans

Brady and Norwood are still shown as out on loan, even though the listed "end date" has passed? 109.145.251.31 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No news about Brady or Norwood loans time, although both are in their loan teams' squads yesterday. we still waiting for confirmation if their loan will be extended or not.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We may have to go back through the Hull City and Scunthorpe United websites' news archives for news of the loan extension, but if the news is there, we'll make the appropriate changes. – PeeJay 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

For the moment I removed both players from the loan section, Unless both play in those teams after thier source loan expired date (2 Jan 2012) we will search for something.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

• It features a sort function
• Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
  • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
  • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
• It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
• It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
• It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Manchester United F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, —WFC— 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Corinthian FC, 1904

Hello!
I am writing here to get some opinions on the matter of a certain statistic in Man Utd's history - namely the team's greatest ever defeat, which came in a friendly in 1904. Please go to the Man Utd stats page to add your opinions to the discussion, as well as to read the arguments for including this, albeit unfortunate, result. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football (to be removed on WP:NPOV grounds)

In the opening paragraph, it reads:

"Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football". There is no confirmation as to how this has been calculated, what constitutes "winning" a trophy (e.g. a "shared" Charity Shield/Community Shield) or indeed, what actually constitutes a trophy (e.g. minor trophies, Super Cups (see the definition, most particularly "Super Cups are not considered as important, more as prestige matches")).

By calculating the list of honours "won" on both the Liverpool FC and Manchester United entries, the totals are as follows:

Liverpool 64 (18+4+1+7+8+15+5+3+3) Manchester Utd 62 (19+2+11+4+19+3+1+1+1+1)

Even accounting for "shared" trophies, if a "shared" trophy is not defined as a "win", Liverpool's total would be reduced by 5 (FA Charity Shield/FA Community Shield: 15 (10 outright, 5 shared)), while Manchester Utd's total would be reduced by 4 (FA Charity/Community Shield: 19 (15 outright, 4 shared)), making the totals:

Liverpool 59 Manchester United 58

I oppose this sentence on WP:NPOV grounds. Otherwise there could be an entry on the Manchester United page stating that "Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football", while the Liverpool FC entry could accurately state that "As a club Liverpool has a record for most trophies held". Better for this to removed rather than potentially misleading (and POV) statements appear on both entries. --Thecheesehead (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all ManUtd has won the most competetive trophies in English history (60), while you don't like it, Super Cups/FA Comm. Shields are recognised as such and therefor ManUtd is recognised as winning the most trophies in English football (with and without counting the shared). second of all, Your counting is wrong as Lancashire League is not recognised as competetive trophy. and the table, per English competetive torphies count is as follow. (You can see that in the ManUtd-LFC rivalry article).

Team	League	FA Cup	League Cup	European Cup	UEFA Cup	Cup Winners' Cup	Community Shield	UEFA Super Cup	Intercontinental Cup	Club World Cup	Total
Liverpool	18	7	8	5	3	0	15	3	0	0	59
Manchester United	19	11	4	3	0	1	19	1	1	1	60

I disagree. You've underlined the fact that it's WP:NPOV if you describe the Lancashire league as "not competitive", when the basis of something being "competitive" is defined as "characterised by competition". By their very nature, any league championship is a competition. What you are instead saying is that a Lancashire League title is not worthy of inclusion in the list of honours based on its merit or value. If you describe a competition as not being of merit or value, then we get into a discussion as to the list of what other competitions have merit or value - which can only be, I'm afraid, subject to POV.

Furthermore, and to be clear, you have written above that the sentence "Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football" is subject to a qualification (i.e. some trophies won by one of, or both clubs are to be discounted based on their merit/value, and only "competitive" trophies won are to be counted). Ignoring for a moment the definition of "competitive" (as above), in providing a qualification you have actually admitted that the sentence as it currently stands in the article is not accurate, not factual, and moreover, not neutral. It is clear, then, that the sentence should be removed on the basis of not meeting Wikipedia's standards.

Finally, in underlining the worth (or redundancy) of the phrase "competitive", the respected and award-winning journalist Nick Harris, editor of the website Sporting Intelligence, produced an alternative table for the most successful English football clubs in history, in which he excluded both the Charity/Community shield and UEFA Super Cup from the rankings. This would also correspond to Wikipedia's own entry on Super Cups in which they "are not considered as important, more as prestige matches". It is clear from Harris's table that what is defined as "competitive" is highly debatable (i.e. POV), and thus any potential proposed alternative sentence which reads "Manchester United has won the most competitive trophies in English football" (or similar) should also be struck from Wikipedia on WP:NPOV grounds.

--Thecheesehead (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cutting through all this to the quick. What matters in Wikipedia is what Wikipedia deems notable. (i.e. not what experts, pundits, journalists, administrators etc contend) This has been well established for Association Football for each football playing nation. Of course it may be open to challenge or ammendment but that is for debate in another place not here. So can I just point you towards Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Men's Leagues which sets out for that the notable leagues are the fully ptofessional leagues i.e. Premier League, Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two. The Lancashire County Football Association does not appear there givien its status. Carry on discussion...... Tmol42 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we really count the Community shield as a competitive trophy? Does Wikipedia think it a notable trophy?

"While still an honour in the English game, the Community Shield has markedly lower status than the Premier League, FA Cup or even the League Cup. It is widely considered to be a minor trophy and Community Shield games may not be as hotly contested as other trophy finals. The Community Shield has been described by some media sources, including Mark Lawrenson, as a "glorified friendly". Prior to the 2008 FA Community Shield, Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson summarised his opinion of the competition: "It's always a game we never quite use as a do or die thing; we use it as a barometer for fitness""

Of course, if we think it is notable we could always change the article on it...Ytic nam (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion is ridiculous. This isn't about what we think of the Community Shield or any other competition; it's about what the clubs' official records say on the matter. If Manchester United's records total 60 trophies, that's how many we should say United have won. Likewise, if Liverpool's records say they've won 59, there's no two ways about it. – PeeJay 01:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer each of the responses in turn:

In this case, regarding 'what Wikipedia deems notable', and as such, including fully professional league titles but excluding the Lancashire League as an honour, the total count for Liverpool would be 63, higher than that of Manchester United which is 62. For the sake of clarity, this total includes Charity/Community Shields.

If we were to remove 'shared' (not won outright) Charity/Community Shields, the totals would be Liverpool 58 (63-5), Manchester United 58 (62-4), and if we were to discount Charity/Community Shields entirely the totals would be Liverpool 48 (63-15), Manchester United 43 (62-19).

On the basis of the respective clubs' official records, and turning to the total honours, Liverpool's total of 64 (which for clarity includes the Lancashire League) is higher than that of Manchester United's 61. These figures are also the total number of honours listed on the respective Liverpool FC and Manchester United FC Wikipedia entries in their 'honours' sections. To be clear, the total used in the 60/59 chart provided above is not an accurate reflection of the clubs' positions/honours, because it excludes Second Division (i.e. The Championship) titles and the Lancashire League. While I am not suggesting a position of bias in the production of the table, it certainly should not be used as verifiable to support the challenged statement given the wealth of evidence to the contrary here.

So, however you choose to cut it, whether the criteria is Wikipedia's own as 'what Wikipedia deems notable', or what the clubs' official records say on the matter, it is still abundantly clear that on factual grounds the sentence 'Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football' is not accurate, is not neutral, is misleading, and is written on a POV basis. It should be removed. --Thecheesehead (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, to me, "the most trophies in English football" means "the most English football trophies won", and only refers to the domestic competitions (i.e. league, FA Cup, League Cup and Community Shield). On that basis, Manchester United is definitely in the lead. To be honest, this simply smacks of a rival fan having a little moan because Manchester United are a successful club. – PeeJay 17:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And there, above, is another statement which is clearly based on POV. You are arguing what the sentence 'really means', so evidently the context and value of the sentence is in doubt. Furthermore, stating that I am a 'rival fan having a little moan' is uncalled for - for which i hope you have the decency to apologise - and I would draw your attention to the fact any editors of this topic are required to favour neutrality over any personal bias that they may have. Please note, furthermore, that I'm not accusing you or anyone responding of bias, more that I do not like to have my own opinion called into question. On this topic I have argued in a dispassionate, reasonable, balanced manner in which I've outlined evidence which undermines the sentence in question, and that it is a value judgement based on the author's opinion, rather than being a neutral, accurate and verifiable fact - it should, as I have said several times, be removed.

--Thecheesehead (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence could perhaps be reworded, but it shouldn't be removed. Manchester United have won more trophies in English football than any other club, end of. – PeeJay 19:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

In that case, it should be reworded to 'Manchester United has won the most domestic trophies of any English club' (or similar). That sentence is perfectly clear and would resolve the issue at hand. That also ensures any Liverpool FC entry could include the sentence 'Liverpool FC has won the most European trophies of any British club' (or similar), while any potential dispute as to which club has won the 'most' trophies (and what should count accordingly) is avoided. --Thecheesehead (talk) 19:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 March 2012

Man United are not the most Successful english team.. They have won only 62 trophies to Liverpools 64

Plus you cannot count the trophies awarded to Thatto Heath, so that would lose Man United 4 or 5 more trophies from the final tally.

While I assume it is a Man Utd fan who is editing this page, please amend you statement that they are the most succsessful english team, because it in not correct.

Please check both the official Liverpool and Man utd websites for clarification.

While Man Utd may be the current champions, Liverpool are Factually the most decorated.

Also your information about the clubs value and wealth is also incorrect, as it also fact that Man utd are in debt to the tune of around 1.2 billion .. There value is only based on current trends, but Man Utd have to pay back 500 million of there loans this year or face the banks taking control, if they default the share values will drop through the floor.. At this moment in time, neither the club or the Glazers have the funds to repay the loan.

So please stop beefing up Man United and tell the truth, your page is BIASED to say the least.. 82.40.170.15 (talk) 23:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Could you provide the specific edit that you like to see made? --Mosmof (talk) 00:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Partly done: I removed the NPOV statement as this needs simply more clarification (per one section above); the financial values simply need references (as already stated by Mosmof) mabdul 13:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request

I would like you to included in the honours section how man times manchester united have finished runner up in competitions and here would be the following seasons:

First Division: 1946-47* 1947-48 1948-49 1950-51 1958-59 1963-64 1967-68 1979-80 1987-88 1991-92 1994-95* 1997-98* 2005-06 2009-10* (14)

Second Division: 1896/1897+ 1905/1906 1937/1938 (3)

• finished one point behind the league champions

+ finished 4th place in the 1897 promotion/relegation test matches

F.A. Cups: 1956–57 1957–58 1975–76 1978–79 1994–95 2004–05 2006–07 (7)

League Cups: 1982–83 1990-91 1993-94 2002-03 (4)

Charity Shield: 1948 1963 1985 1998 1999 2000 2001 2004 2009 (9)

European Cup/Champions League: 2008-09 2010-11 (2)

Super Cup: 1999 2008 (2)

Intercontinental Cup: 1968 (1)

source: http://www.manchesterunited-mad.co.uk/league_history/manchester_united/index.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by Criztafer (talk • contribs) 12:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

FA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FA_Cup_winners LC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Football_League_Cup_winners CS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_FA_Community_Shield_matches EC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Champions_League SC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_UEFA_Super_Cup_winners IC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intercontinental_Cup_football

I do not think this would be a worthwhile addition. Finishing second is not an honour; you don't see any second-place trophies in the Old Trafford museum! – PeeJay 17:34, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

well i thought it might of been an helpful reference for people who might been curious about that information but suit yourself. you don't get a trophy for finishing second, you get a losers medal :P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.23.229.247 (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 April 2012

Manchester United is currently leading the title race against neighboring rival Manchester City, and only a few games away from being crowned leauge champions for the 20th time in their history.

Erikhz10 (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC) Please add this as the last sentence in the 3rd paragraph

Not done:

Wikipedia will report the 20th title when it is confirmed Ytic nam (talk) 20:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 10 April 2012

Manchester United is currently leading the title race against neighboring rival Manchester City, and only a few games away from being crowned league champions for the 20th time in their history. Erikhz10 (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

See comment from above, until the championship is mathematically ensured the info will only be in the 2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season article.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 April 2012

On second line insert (Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway) after 'LYR'. Alternatively insert sentence 'LYR stood for Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway.' at the end of the paragraph. Tekkeitserktock (talk) 19:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It was done by PeeJay2K3.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 5th May 2012

The 2011 Forbes list is referred to with MUFC at number one spot. But Forbes have published the 2012 list now - can you amend please?

 Done.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012

 Not done

The new kits are fairly different from the previous ones. Does this call for a kit image update? http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/soccer-dirty-tackle/manchester-united-unveil-tablecloth-home-kit-170400419.html JLevs106 (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd wait until the full range of kits are released - it would be haphazard to show the 2012-13 home kit while still showing the 2011-12 change kits. --Mosmof (talk) 14:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd also wait until the end of European play and an official source from the club can be found. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this one? – PeeJay 18:42, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"Full range" being the operative phrase. They've only announced the primary kits so far. --Mosmof (talk) 19:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

So we comment out the 2nd and 3rd kits until they are announced. Let's get up-to-date info on here! – PeeJay 10:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this a sales catalogue? Do we need to list a kit that the team won't play in for several months just because they announced it? Especially when it means removing or hiding other kits? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

At those resolutions, I hardly think anyone is going to be accusing us of making a sales catalogue. And anyway, the team isn't going to wear the home kit that is currently displayed ever again, nor will they wear the white kit from last season. The only one they're likely to keep is the blue away kit from this season. I see no harm in hiding the two alternate kits from this season and adding an updated graphic for the new home kit. – PeeJay 01:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Likewise, I see no harm in keeping things the way they are. FWIW, the "current season" link in the infobox still leads to 2011-12. --Mosmof (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2012

Remove kuszczak from the squad list because he is out of contract and will not sign a new one: http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Football-News/2012/Feb/sir-alex-on-tomasz-kuszczak-situation.aspx

90.13.229.136 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

His contract will expire on 1 July, until than he hes a ManUtd player but after that date he will be "relased" by the club.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2012

on 28 April 1902, Manchester United was officially born.

This is wrong, it was actually changed on the 28th April 1902. When Man United won the Champions League in 2008, they did a boxset with the history of United and that date was written in the box, and it's actually listed as this date on other Wikipedia pages also.

You can see the note there which says the exect date is not known, Either 24, 26 or 28 April, some even says May 1902. [1] But I agree we should just change it to "late April".
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:15, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 03 July 2012

Missing players from first team squad:
8. Anderson
11. Ryan Giggs
18. Ashley Young
21. Rafael
http://www.manutd.com/en/Players-And-Staff/First-Team.aspx?pageNo=1
Redpengreenpen (talk) 07:34, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit 06 July 2012

Please remove Ji Sung Park from the Active First Team roster, he was sold to Queens Park Rangers.

Source: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1123334/park-ji-sung-set-for-L5-million-qpr-move?cc=5901 Jornii (talk) 21:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Change in wording due to new away kit color

The Manchester United away strip has more often than not been a white shirt, black shorts and white socks, but there have been several exceptions. These include the navy blue shirt with silver horizontal pinstripes worn during the 1999–2000 season,[57] and the current away kit, which has a royal blue body and sleeves with hoops made of small midnight navy blue and black stripes, with black shorts and blue socks.[58]

Should read

The Manchester United away strip has more often than not been a white shirt, black shorts and white socks, but there have been several exceptions. These include the navy blue shirt with silver horizontal pinstripes worn during the 1999–2000 season,[57] and the 2011-2012 away kit, which had a royal blue body and sleeves with hoops made of small midnight navy blue and black stripes, with black shorts and blue socks.[58]

Mjaotntes (talk) 01:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request 3rd September 2012

I believe that Federico Macheda is currently on loan at Queens Park Rangers. Could the table underneath the first team be updated to say so? Here's a reference to a BBC article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.165.213.236 (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

That loan was expired at the end of last season. He moved from 2 January 2012 till 30 June 2012. He is no longer at loan and therefor should not be marked as one.
  – HonorTheKing (talk)

Edit request concerning rivalries 25th November

I feel that, as the Liverpool FC Manchester United rivalry is THE biggest in English football, (due to geographical history and the fact that both clubs are much more successful than any others in English football) more should be made of the rivalry between LFC and Man U within the article. It should be noted that in LFC's wikipedia article due deference is shown to Man U and the passion/importance of the rivalry.Blobplop (talk) 11:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

The "size" of the rivalry is a matter of opinion. In my opinion, sufficient weight is given to each rivalry based on the sources available. – PeeJay 12:36, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Right... Look it is a matter of verisimilitude. The rivalry between LFC and Man U FC is quite simply the biggest in English football and one of the biggest and most famous rivalries in world sport. Due deference is shown to this rivalry on LFC's page however this is not shown on Man U FC's page. If you are unaware of that being a stone wall fact I would suggest that not only are you unfamiliar with MUFC, but you are unfamiliar with sport in general! Regarding the sources; there are a multitude that refer to this famous rivalry and, only the other week, I read an article about the persisting rivalry between the two clubs. I urge contributors to the page to ensure that this historic and renowned rivalry is done justice on the page.Blobplop (talk) 12:05, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

missing information on the fact that the club changed its name from newton heath LYR to newton heath in 1893.

can the article be updated to include this? Source: The Official Manchester United Almanac. page 22, 21 January. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.25.137 (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

This is already mentioned in the opening paragraph of the "Early years" section. – PeeJay 00:14, 1 April 2013 (UTC)