Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 4

Squad alignment

Do people see Kuszczak and Larsson's names appear on two lines therefore making one column longer than another and therefore uneven. I feel this is nothing to do with screen resolution and just that some people see the article in a 'printable version' appearance. Therefore I open a discussion on this issue to see what people think about this and how a common agreement can be reached.

Ok, I've done some investigation on this issue and it seems that on resolutions less than or equivalent to 1024x768, the Kuszczak and Larsson entries do go onto two lines. If this issue affects enough people, then perhaps the columns should be reorganised, but at the moment I see no reason why they should be. At any rate, Larsson is leaving the club in two days. PeeJay 14:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

May I ask whether or not you live in the UK in case that has something to do with it.

Yes, I am a UK resident. Out of interest, what does that have to do with it? PeeJay 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I propose it's changed to fit the 1024x768 resolution; practically every PC I use - library, university, home - (albeit relatively budget) has such a resolution. Whilding87 14:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it something to do with the text size you select to display the Internet because when I select 'smallest' the names are restricted to one line. Please reply and select 'medium'.

My text size is on Medium already. I am pretty sure this is to do with your screen resolution. PeeJay 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The Swamp.

As part of the stadium information the nickname is stated as ‘The Theatre of Dreams.’ Whilst no one would dispute that this is one of the nicknames of the stadium, another nickname is ‘The Swamp.’

Whilst ‘The swamp’ may be considered derogatory by supporters of Manchester United, I believe there is more than enough evidence (Readers replies to articles on the Manchester Evening News website and numerous references on other web pages) to justify the inclusion on the nickname ‘The swamp’ as part of the stadium information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lebenji (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 September 2006.

You're having a laugh, right? Next you'll be wanting to add "Manure" as a club nickname as well. "The Swamp" isn't, and will never be, anything other than an abusive term used by ABU's. Fd2006 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't be surprised about anything which bad mouths United on here, one of the 'editors' is a City fan. James Ryddel.

If you are referring to me, other than repairing obvious vandalism, I purposefully avoid making edits to this article in order to avoid any such conflict of interest. I'll respond to queries on the talk page, but that's all. Nothing in the article was written by me. (my last few edits to the article) Seeing as I'm writing a message here, a request: Manchester derby is a lot shorter than it ought to be, input from Reds would be welcome. If anyone has a copy of the book The Pride of Manchester, some citations from it would be invaluable. Oldelpaso 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

In that case, can you then answer my question above about why some City fans are allowed to edit copy on here without leaving their signature or IP number, which is what you or someone else does when others who are not among the inner circle of editors does to other unsigned contributions. Is this double standards or not? If it isn't please explain the policy and can you add the IP number of the other City fan? IF you cannot do that then why not remove his posts entirely. At least show some consistency.

Could I also ask you to answer my question which you raised last night about the question of me being accused of spamming, as I pointed out quite clearly below the link I posted was entirely relevant within the travel search category. James Ryddel.

Links to fan weblogs..

Why can't Wiki include links to the best United blogs? After all you include links to fanzine sites? There is no difference. When a fanzine editor writes his/her once monthly editorial, it stays within the fanzine and doesn't appear on the internet. More often than not, this is the best page within the Fanzine.

I'm not blowing my own trumpet but I update every day with original content and I do dont include news from Sky sports etc.

James

Giuliano Maiorana

Does anyone remember much about him? I know he only played for United briefly, however I've put up an entry for him which is a stub. If anyone can add anything to it (including his date of birth!) then it would be useful. Thanks. EH74DK 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Add fan weblog section

I agree add fan weblog section to football pages! They are an important part of supporting a football club as they aloow fans to read news about their club without the newspaper style of writing. There are some good blogs out there about Manchester United with regular comment by fans. Ones that I would reccommend are:
http://www.unitedrant.co.uk
http://www.man-utd-news.blogspot.com
http://www.manchesterunited-blog.com
All are updated regularly and have moderated comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markhirst2020 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 25 October 2006.

Please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. Blogs and forums should not generally be linked to. Oldelpaso 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC).

Is this your definition of a discussion Oldelpaso? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.191.242 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 1 November 2006.

http://a-kick-in-the-grass.blogspot.com
I update this Manchester United site(a-kick-in-the-grass.blogspot.com) every day, sometimes more than once a day. Patrick Barclay who is one of the most respected sports journalists in the UK reads my blog. Yet someone at Wiki is telling me basically it's not good enough for Wiki (what qualifications have you got to judge the merit of my blog content? )I've also noticed that the wiki Birmingham City page is allowed to contain links to blogs. So what is going on here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:James Ryddel (talk • contribs) 15:55, 29 October 2006.

I am not making any judgement about the merits of your blog content, or its readers. Again, I recommend you read Wikipedia:External links, the Wikipedia guideline about what sort of links are suitable for articles. The conventions for external links are not the decision of one editor, but are the consensus of many editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of external links. If links to blogs are on the pages of another club, then they need to go too. That no-one has got around to removing it yet does not mean we have an obligation to include your site. Oldelpaso 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your policy is flawed in my opinion, because Wiki is happy to link to other fan sites, but not all of them - and I think Wiki should seriously consider reviewing this policy. All it needs is for someone to take the time to review these blogs and then to agree on a review process so that only good blogs are included on the site. As I have pointed out my blog gets updated daily, many of the fan sites that you are happy to link to do not. Because I have questioned this policy, another editor has threatened to ban me... James Ryddel

I'm not sure what you mean by "is this your idea of a discussion", but to respond to your other points in turn: Links to fan sites are frowned upon, but with nearly 1.5 million articles and tens of thousands about football, some slip through (that said, articles on major football teams are overdue a spring clean in that respect). Wikipedia is primarily an effort to build a reference work, and external links do not add to the encyclopedic content (wherever possible, we encourage the addition of content rather than links). Your review idea is in essence a suggestion for each article to have a web directory section. A web directory is one of the things which Wikipedia explicitly is not, that being the remit of projects such as the Open Directory Project. Having every article having links selected for it via a review system would use up a large amount of time that would be better spent improving the article content.

In terms of the relative merits or otherwise of links to blogs, a policy change such as that which you advocate cannot be decided on the talk page of one article (imagine the chaos if the rules were different for every article). The only place where such a change could be brought to bear is Wikipedia talk:External links, as Guinnog pointed out on your talk page. Finally, looking at the contributions for your IP address, the warning appears to be for [1] this link addition, to an article unrelated to this one. I seriously doubt that you would be threatened with a block or ban for raising questions in the manner you have done on this page, it would be most inappropriate for someone to do so. Oldelpaso 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

First off, I am asking for a policy change because the wiki policy allows links to some fan sites and not others. As I have pointed out wiki is happy to link to fanzines - no matter how good or bad the content is, or how often they get updated. There is some very good blogs out there that get updated daily and contain good content.

Secondly regarding your colleagues trumped up charges about 'spamming'. I actually own and run the travel site you mentioned. The site provides UK consumers with links for budget airlines and routes from all UK airports, when I posted that link there was a paragraph about sites which just provide information as opposed to flight booking sites, my travel site comes into this category, so it was entirely appropriate. Here again your fellow editors have taken it upon themselves to delete links to sites that provide useful information for UK consumers.

Also, regarding 'travel search', I see Wiki is quite happy to link to budget airlines, yet the very term 'travel search' would seem to be entirely appropriate regarding selected links to sites that do just that. But no, Wiki editors have taken it upon themselves to delete links which provide good examples of travel search. Here again your policies seem to be inconsistent. James Ryddel.

Thomas Lee

A younger goalkeeper was included in Champions League squad 2005/06. But where is he now? [2] Matt86hk talk 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Danny Rose links to the wrong man!

Right - I haven't worked out much about how to edit and add pages yet, so I'll just bring this up in here! Danny Rose links to the Leeds player of the same name. I think our version deserves his own page!

Oh, and the little ginger fella legging it up & down the line last night - Barnes - he's listed twice in the squad list.

--Aidangrant 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Forlan as an important past player

Hi, im Lucas, from Uruguay (sory for my english) and y would like to ad Diego Forlan as an important Manchester United player. He had been a short time at Man U, but y think he was very loved at that time, by the fans and also the team. Specialy for that amazing goal against Chelsea that was very important for the tournament, and also for playing without the shirt after that goal against Southampton, the fans loved that attitude from Diego.

He wasnt a manchester united great, although neither was veron but still I dont think he was loved by united fans, he was a character but was unpopular with the fans due to poor performances and a lack of goals. 81.156.67.125 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not a list of United greats. It's a list of notable former players, that's why Blomqvist, Sivebaek and Neil Webb are there. I think Diego deserves to be listed. To the contrary he was always popular with fans, despite his difficulties at United, mainly for his ability to score against Liverpool. He's an established international for Uruguay, has been successful at one of the big South American clubs in Independiente and has been top scorer in La Liga with Villareal since leaving United. He also scored an one of the best goals at a World Cup Finals, in 2002. It's almost ridiculous he's not already mentioned. Phil, 10th November 2006

Have to agree with Phil on this one. Forlan may not have had the best record in the world, but he was hugely popular with the fans. I don't know where the anonymous user above got the idea he wasn't popular from but he was clearly never at Old Trafford when he played. He is also probably the best known Uruguayan player in England and his career since has certainly improved, thus making him notable. Tx17777 19:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed then. I've listed Diego. What are people's thoughts on including Bosnich? Phil, 11th December 2006

Forget Bosnich.

G-14

I'd have added this myself, but the page is protected. I just noticed that the Manchester United F.C. page isn't in Category:G-14 clubs, but for some reason it has its own subcategory in the G-14 clubs category when no others do. Does anyone have any idea why all of this is?

Modified article

I have changed this articles format. The introduction has been shorted, with the details of its beginning and pre-1945 history placed under its relevant section. Also, i ave changed the stadium section of the article. I am going to archive half of this discussion page, it is too long.Ken20008 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Home colours

The home shorts should be white. Unfortunately I don't know how to change this.Nick Collier 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed them to white. Thanks for raising this! Thaurisil 06:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

They play some matches in black shorts, like yesterday vs. Everton. Don't know if it's always black shorts on away games, even if they have their home jerseys. --chandler 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

The home kit is red shirts, white shorts and black socks. The black shorts are change shorts for when the home team is wearing white shorts too, as no part of the players' kit can clash. Therefore, this also happens with socks, so if United are playing a team who usually wear black socks at home, we change to our white change socks. PeeJay 01:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

why aren't manu's achievements mentions more on this page?

just a question to the writer, (from a manu fan)

Will man.u beat the blue boys this weekend?

Why are the sleeves white on the home shirt?

United's achievements are mentioned throughout the article, and recapped with the honours section near the bottom of the page. The end of the sleeves are white because they are on the shirt! Eastlygod 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Rivalries

I don't think rivalries should be mentioned in the United entry. This entry is about United not about other clubs. The Leeds entry has a whole section about rivalries which seems to suggest Leeds are more concerned about their rivals, more especially United, doing badly than their own club playing football. Phil, 11th December 2006

There is no rivalries section in the Leeds United entry. --Spanker LUFC 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Sponsorship deal

Looking at the external links provided, I believe there has been a mistake.

Man U's deal with AIG is the world's 2nd biggest sponsorship behind Juventus' deal with Tamoil.

Not amy more, the Tamoil deal was canceled before its completion.

Football Wise

Manchester United have grown rivals in premiership. The rivals include englands 3 best clubs (without including manchester utd), Chelsea, Liverpool, and Arsenal. the 2005-2006 season was a tight rivalry between Chelsea and Manchester Utd for they won second in premiership. Some of Europes best players are included in Chelsea, for it is the most expensive club ever created. Some of the great players include Frank Lampard, Diger Drogba, Andriy Schevenko, Micheal Ballack, John Terry, and Peter Cech, making it a tough opponent

What the fuck? PeeJay 11:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Stadium

I filled out the stadium section as required, though my writing isn't brilliant so it'd be good if someone could check it. Ta. Whilding87 14:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Rivals and Favoured Personnel

Bit of a copy from FM, but i think it wud be nice to have this in the info bar on the right side of the page, jus to add to the brief facts about the club.

Favoured personnel = Billy Meredith, Sir Matt Busby, George Best, Sir Bobby Charlton, Denis Law, Bryan Robson, Sir Alex Ferguson, Eric Cantona, Peter Schmeichel, Roy Keane, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Gary Neville, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo

Rivals = Liverpool, Leeds, Arsenal, Man City, Chelsea Other rivals = Bolton, Newcastle, West Ham European rivals = Juventus, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Benfica

I doubt Juventus is much of a rival to them now, ever since they'd been degraded to series B. AC Milan would be more suitable. But i also have to question the suitability of the favorite personnels. it seems to be a bit awkward and is only based on a some people's opinions. I think the rivalries would probably help although there seems to be a dozen articles dedicated to it already. --Kzrulzuall 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not Football Manager!

Loanees to Antwerp

Can someone double-check the loanees at Antwerp, as there seems to be some confusion over which player(s) are still there (which isn't helped by the two clubs official websites not being very up-to-date). Darkson 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Fraizer Campbell, David Gray, Darren Gibson and Ryan Shawcross are at Antwerp according to http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid=%7BB4CEE8FA%2D9A47%2D47BC%2DB069%2D3F7A2F35DB70%7D&newsid=392333.

Also Jonny Evans is at Sunderland and Danny Rose is at Oxford. Fd2006 13:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Any particular reason why the protection has been removed? Darkson - BANG! 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

FA Class?

I think we just need to cite around 20 more sources and do a major cleanup job of some of the sentences before we request FA. We definitely have enough info, so we needn't be worried about that. Should take no longer than a month. Anyone disagrees? --|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 05:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

You need to take the article to peer review first. Proto::► 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi protection

I have restored semi protection, and will ensure it remains permanently semi-protected. Proto::► 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Loan dates

Yet again the loan dates have been added, deleted and added again, so I had a look at some other club sites, and found there doesn't seem to be a common consensus on dates for loanees. Some pages have all the dates, some have none and some seem to have some but not all. Perhaps this should be (or already is) something that should be discussed on the Football Wiki project, and then a common "template" put onto all teams sites. Darkson - BANG! 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

The amount of reverting/changing is shameless. Just keep them until it's been properly discussed. Please. Whilding87 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

List of notable players

I have edited this down, as it was getting ridiculous. If there's too much dissension about who and who should not be in it, the solution is not to add everyone into it, the solution is to get rid of the list and just point people towards the category of Manchester United players. Proto::► 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Question is, who are you, or me for that matter, to decide who is notable and who isn't? In my opinion, for example, Dwight Yorke has as much right on a list of former notable players as Jaap Stam, and Steve Coppell more right than David Dunne. Perhaps the list is to big, but why is you editted list any more "valid" than the large one there is now? Darkson - BANG! 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. It is unfair to decide which players are notable, and which are not. The only way this list can adhere to NPOV is to remove it. I'll do so. Proto::► 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been watching the distressing edit war and thought I would point you to Talk:Celtic F.C. where there was a similar problem recently. Can I suggest you adopt a similar method to resolve this disagreement; that is, decide here on rough criteria for inclusion, then edit the list? Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan - some of the Bubsy Babes, the Holy Trinity, Cantona - all seem notable.Darkson - BANG! 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call it a 'distressing edit war', that's a little dramatic. I'm all for including a list if a non-subjective way of deciding who does and does not go on the list can be created. This means not including them because "I think they're notable" - how is that encyclopaedic? Every captain, the top ten goalscorers, any player who was at the club more than 3 / 5 / 10 years, any player who scored more than 100 goals, any player who also captained their country, players who won 'player of the year' for the club, those who scored in an FA Cup / European Cup / UEFA cup / whatever final, what? Pick some criteria for the list. I really don't mind what criteria are used as long as there are some criteria in place. The article will never make FA with an arbitrary and massive list of 'notable players' - how are they notable? Why is player X notable and not player Y? Please, suggest a set of criteria. Proto::► 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, the Celtic solution was

• Around 100+ first team appearances gets you in.
• Ex-players only, but no limit on when they last played (If When the mighty Paul Telfer scores a hat-trick in the Champions League Final this season, he should be included after leaving this coming summer ;)
• Irrespective of number of games, if they were a significant "first" for Celtic they could be included (e.g., Gil Heron)
• However, trivial firsts should be discounted (e.g. Shaun Maloney - as the first Malaysian born Scot under 4 feet tall to don the Hoops)
• Irrespective of number of games, if they were unique, unusual, or newsworthy (beyond the norm) in relation to Celtic they could be included (e.g., Mo Johnston and Alfie Conn, Jr. for obvious reasons)

(Thanks User:Rockpocket!)

and I thought you might usefully adopt similar guidelines here. --Guinnog 22:52, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The list would be massive if we did it that way (100 appearances), as there are many more articles on ex-United players (especially pre-War) than ex-Celtic players. Plus that still is subjective and non-neutal - define "significant first". Define "unique, unusual or newsworthy". I would define Jesper Blomqvist as newsworthy because he was amusingly crap, but not everyone would agree. Proto::► 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely agree with ex-players only, though. I realise I'm coming across as a miserable and negative sod, but I want this to be right, I want to try and get the article featured by the end of next month. Proto::► 22:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right, you would need to raise the bar for this article. 200? 250? 300? You'll still have arguments this way but maybe far fewer of them. --Guinnog 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Trouble with a "hard and fast" 200+ rule though, is that it would exclude players like Duncan Edwards, and Eric Cantona, neither of which I feel are non-notable. Darkson - BANG! 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That's where rule 5 comes in. I'd agree that Edwards and Cantona belong here, under the "if they were unique, unusual, or newsworthy (beyond the norm) in relation to [MUFC}" clause. Like I say, you get fewer arguments, not zero arguments. --Guinnog 01:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the players who held records for Man U would be included. Also the 200+ appearances wouldn't be right. What if a player has 200+ appearances but is in the reserve team most of the time? Im fine with the rest, but people will just add the ones not chosen back on, resulting in more edit wars... --|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If they've managed 200 appearances, but where in reserves most of the time, then they've been at United a long time, which is probably noteworthy in itself. ;) Darkson - BANG! 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Guinnog directed me here after we had a similar discussion about this at Celtic F.C.. For what its worth, the suggestions I made for guidelines (above) were aimed at setting a rough standard for what "notable" actually means in this sense (in that it is a more selective notability that that at WP:N). I don't think explicit guidelines can be generated that will cover every individual, but I would urge the regular editors here to try and generate some rough guidelines of your own, then try to stick by the spirit of them. I think you will find - as Guinnog suggests - that they take some of the conflict out of deciding who is in and who is not. Good luck. Rockpocket 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we could list the Man Utd players/managers that have been inducted to the English Football Hall of Fame, like the Leeds United page? Darkson - BANG! 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Won't work. If we listed it in the english hall of fame, it'll only be English players. Many of the best players haven't played for five years in England and still could manage 200+ appearances. And anyway, that list is too small with only 6-7 players from United on it. --|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you check it? Because unless they've changed nationality, Cantona, Busby and Ferguson all appear in the list. I make it 11 players, and 2 managers. Darkson - BANG! 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Stadium Capacity

I received the email shown in this picture ([3]) after I emailed the club asking about the capacity of Old Trafford. As you can see, they told me the official capacity of OT is 76,312. However, when I emailed them back to ask why this information is not publically available on the website, they told me that they don't announce the exact capacity because it 'can vary from game to game because of crowd segregation etc.' I believe this is the most reliable source we have for the actual capacity of Old Trafford, so I think it should be updated in the article. PeeJay 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Souleymane Mamam

Is Souleymane Mamam on loan at Antwerp in order for him to earn an EU passport and thus qualify for a UK work permit that way, or are we just waiting until he has played enough games for Togo to qualify via that route? My suspicions are that it's the former, because he seems to have played so few games for Togo, but I could be wrong. Could someone confirm? In the meantime, I'm going to say he's on loan to Antwerp until he earns an EU passport. PeeJay 19:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The Souleymane Mamam wiki notes that he is waiting for a work permit (not a passport) so that he can play in england. How can he have an EU passport when Togo isn't part of the EU (as it's in Africa...). It should be left as work permit (as that is what he is waiting to receive) not passport. If we put UK Work Permit, that may be an easier way of explaining the situation. A player can have a work permit without an EU passport, so there is no need for an EU passport if you are applying for a work permit.

if we don't come to a conclusion, i'll have to edit it to work permit again-and-again... User:Craitman17 22:25, 6 February 2007

He is waiting for a work permit, but since he is unlikely to qualify for a work permit by virtue of number of international games played any time soon, he will have to earn a Belgian passport, and hence qualify for a work permit as a member of the EU. Don't try and second-guess me, matey ;) Passport it is, and passport it will stay PeeJay 19:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, Dong Fangzhou was originally going to stay at Antwerp until he qualified for a EU passport via Belgium, but he played enough games for a permit. I wouldn't be surprised if United sent players to Antwerp for both reasons, accepting whichever comes first. Perhaps edit it to read "Work Pemit/passport"? Darkson - BANG! 20:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"PeeJay" don't 'matey' me ;) put it as EU Passport/UK work permit. either way we both have what we want up there, which are both probably true. see we can come to a conclusion, even if i do say so myself... User:Craitman17 13:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That was the plan with Dong, but Dong was then reluctant to give up his Chinese citzenship so they went down the other route (China don't allow you to hold two nationalities - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_nationality_law Article 3) Fran

Image Problems

The articles Cristiano Ronaldo, Ryan Giggs and John O'Shea need images in them. Its impossible that noone has pictures of those players. Mentioned it on the talk page of the articles, but noone's payin any attention to it. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed in 1.8 Club crest and colours

I've found 2, but every time I try to add them in I end up screwing up the Sponsorship paragraph as well. http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/tennis/features/newsid_2223000/2223651.stm http://rivals.net/default.asp?sid=969&p=2&stid=8434024 Darkson - BANG! 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Done for you mate PeeJay 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Darkson - BANG! 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. Academy

The link to the Academy players is under Former Players? Should it be? Fran

Mitchell & Kenyon

Should reference be made of Mitchell & Kenyon filming Newton Heath in the early days? (Ref: Dan Cruikshank's programme)

194.73.99.107 13:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC) (P Wimsett)

Average Attendances

Re: United being the best supported English club except for 1987-89 due to 'stadium redevelopment' - what redevelopments? United's attendance was badly affected in 92-93 when the Stretford End was knocked down and rebuilt as all-seater, and in 95-96 when the North Stand was extended, but I'm not aware of any redevelopments during 87-89. The reality is that the attendances just dipped and there were lots of empty spaces at Old Trafford. (jf - 15 Feb 2007))

See here: http://red11.org/mufc/stats/attendances.htm . United were 2nd best supported in 87-88 and 88-89, but this had nothing to do with limited capacity. The averages were approx 39,000 and 37,000 respectively, but both seasons saw top crowds of more than 46,000 and bottom crowds of just 28,000 and 23,000, meaning the ground was half-empty at times. (jf - 20 Feb 2007)

According to the http://www.european-football-statistics.co.uk/attn/attneng.htm and the red11 link above, United have been 2nd to Liverpool in average attendance in 3 seasons (87-88, 88-89, and strangely, in their first Premiership winning season, 92-93) since 72-73. They have had the highest attendance in all other seasons (since 72-73).

Tim Howard

I haven't bothered changing it, but isn't Tim Howard still (in theory) a United player until the end of the season, in the same why that Kushack (spelling!) is listed as being on loan from WBA until the season's end? Darkson - BANG! 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not, according to the reference I had posted up before his entry was deleted. FA laws state that loans can be made permanent at any time during the season, so that seems to be what has happened with Tim Howard. I don't know what the agreement was between Everton and Manchester United with regards to Howard's wages, but whatever the situation was, his wages are now being paid in full by Everton, as shown in his contract.

OK, I found a new reference for the Howard deal, which details that he is still technically only on loan to Everton until the end of the season, and will join them permanently at the start of next season. [4] The specific reference is in the 5th paragraph of the story in that link.PeeJay 01:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

As does his page here on Wiki. Darkson - BANG! 19:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

One of the most succesful clubs in the world ?

I don't agree with this line. MUFC only top the FA Cup in number of wins. They have only 2 European Cups which is far behind a number of other teams and are still behind Liverpool in terms of league titles. Surely this should be removed. Niall123 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't say 'the' most succesful club. Neil (not Proto ►) 11:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

We dont see the 'Club XYX are one of the most successful clubs in the world' line in the page of many clubs with have achieved more success than Manchester United. The line shows bias more than anything else. They have just two champions league titles - how does that make Manchester United one of the most succesful clubs in the world? Sure, they do have the most number of gloryhunter fans but that doesnt constitute success. Hahahaha1 17:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Surely you don't rate success by how many European Cup titles a team has? United has the second most Premiership titles, the most FA Cup titles, and the most Charity Shields too. Let's face it, there's only about four clubs in the world who can boast that level of success, and they are Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus. Manchester United are one of the most successful football clubs in the world whether you like it or not. PeeJay 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, many people need to know the difference between 'world, ' England' and 'Europe'. Is Manchester United one of the most succesful clubs in English football? Yes. Is Manchester United one of the most succesful clubs in European football? No

Why? Because the number of trophies they have achieved in terms of League titles or champions league titles is less than that of Juventus, Ac milan, Inter Milan, Liverpool, Barcelona, Real Madrid, AFC Ajax, Benfica, Bayern Munich and Porto.Manchester United in terms of european pedigree is as good as Inter Milan or Porto at best. And every one of the teams above have won their local league as much as, if not more than the number of times Manchester United have won it. Then why would anybody say that Manchester United is one of the most succesful clubs in Europe when they are barely even in the top 10 clubs in Europe.

And lets not even forget clubs from South America that have illustrious histories. Of course, the next argument would be that European clubs have more quality etc etc but hey, thats probably only in the last 20 years. Before that the South american leagues had as much if not more quality than the European leagues. Look up your history and see how the Santos with Pele came to Europe and thrashed most of the European powerhouses back then.

Anyway the point is, Manchester United is barely amongst the top 10 European clubs - then why would anybody say Manchester United is one of the most succesful clubs in the world? Manchester United is one of the most succesful clubs in English football - thats about it. Please dont go about editting the front page and make your opinion as a fact. 10th best European club doesnt automatically mean one of world's best!!!!!!Hahahaha1 21:39, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Jack Rowley's goal/game ratio is wrong

Ine the collumne for "goal/Game ratio" it says Jack Rowley scored 0.451 goals per game. But if you divide number of goals scored (212) by games played (424) you get 0.5 goals/game. I think this should be edited. It's not a big thing butt small thing can do Wikipedia get better. 85.164.191.95 13:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that mate. I've fixed it now PeeJay 13:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

1st team Player list

In the attempt to stop the seeming revert war going on (mainly) between PeeJay and Orangina2, can we come to some sort on consensus on where the midway mark on the list should be? As it is now, with Alan Smith the last on the left hand side, and Vidic the first on the right, looks completely correct to me, and I get no players taking up more than one line. I've no idea if it's screen resolution or not, but if it helps, I'm using 1280 x 1024. Darkson - BANG! 11:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Time to call in the "Three Revert Rule", as I see both have editted it again? I have left a message for both PeeJay2k3 and Oragina2 to not change the table again, until a consensus is come to here on the talk page. If not, we might need to move down the Resolving Disputes road. Darkson - BANG! 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am using a widescreen laptop with a resolution of 1280x800, so my screen is the same width as yours, but it is true that on lower resolutions than this (e.g. 1024x768), the right-hand column does look longer. However, I would withhold editing the table until after Larsson is removed tomorrow. I would also recommend reverting the organisation of the table to the way it was before, with the positions coming before the flags. It just looks silly at the minute. PeeJay 18:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Sponsorship Deal section should be reviewed

The Tamoil deal fell through (due to Juventus being relegated, and never was completed, so it was never the biggest, giving Man Utd the title by default. Heres a link to a news site, not a citable source but it will help with the rewrite: http://www.sportbusiness.com/news/160395/oilinvest-to-renegotiate-juventus-sponsorship

Sponsorship deal information needs changing

The Tamoil deal was canceled before its completion so surely it can't count anymore. Heres a link http://www.oilmarketer.co.uk/2005/04/28/tamoil-sponsorship-deal-in-jeopardy/ Its not totaly conclusive on wether it was canceled, but someone should be able to find something better, either way it is probably best to upadte the source for the section (source 11).

Crowd trouble

The information regarding the crowd trouble during the Champions League games is too biased and anti-united. Illidan reules 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It has been deleted. PeeJay 12:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there any separate article abt the crowd trouble incident or shall we add some info abt that in the support section? Illidan reules 11:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The incident seems a bit too specific and minor to devote a section to, let alone a whole article. Not worth it, IMO, but if you want you can write a separate article on it. PeeJay 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. 2007_AS_Roma-Manchester_United_conflict Whilding87 15:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

can somebody please remove all the 7-1 remarks - talk about totally ruining the page

Seven one

Can we see something apart from inane SEVEN ONE!!! drivel currently on the page.

Kuszczak

I would just like to point out that Kuszczak isn't on loan anymore but an actual member of the squad since august of 2006

If you could cite a source for that information, then feel free to change it in the article, but the understanding of the situation that most people have is that he is on loan for the entire duration of this season, with the deal becoming permanent on 2007-07-01. PeeJay 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Indded, the Man Utd website states he's on loan until the end of the season: http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={FE60904B-C2A8-4E60-9B05-700DBBC29BBC}&bioid=92179&section=playerProfile&page=1 Darkson - BANG! 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Kuszcak is a fine keeper, not sure he can unseat van der sar though

[5]

Erm, good for you. Please remember to sign your posts in future. PeeJay 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

Can someone change the Kit colors back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doddsworth (talk • contribs)

To what, sorry? PeeJay 06:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

He possibly means back to the kit as it was prior to this[6]. The line isn't particularly close to the original, so I'm not a fan either. MURGH ^disc. 08:16, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks alright to me. I changed the lines on the shirt to gold, which made it a bit more accurate, but all the lines are in the right place. Why do you think it should be changed back? PeeJay 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I suspect it's because the home shirt is white for some reason...User:Peem86

Looks red to me. Anyone else got a problem with the kit not looking red? PeeJay 15:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The red isn't the problem for me. If the thin stripe is actually a type of yellow, this isn't close to it, nor does it follow the design [7]. I suggest the line be omitted if a satisfying interpretation can't be made. At any rate, I think it makes more sense if this representation is connected with the traditional colours rather than trying to keep up with the current season's kit. MURGH ^disc. 19:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you own the current Manchester United home shirt? I myself have one right here in front of me, and that is indeed how the lines are supposed to go. Admittedly, the gold colour isn't quite right, but it's better than the white it was before. Anyway, the pages for Arsenal, Liverpool and Chelski all have a similar level of detail on the kits in their infoboxes, so it seems only right to continue the trend, rather than bucking it. PeeJay 19:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Removed FAR listing

I removed the incorrect listing of this article at WP:FAR and corrected the errors in the ArticleHistory template. The article is not a featured article and should not be listed for Featured Article Review. It could be listed at WP:FAC, but I suggest first reading though the two failed FAC listings in the ArticleHistory, to make sure all objections have been addressed. The article still needs a lot of cleanup, which might be dealt with better at peer review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The peer review is well underway and can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester United F.C./archive2BeL1EveR 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

2006-2007 Premiership Champions

Just wondering... when's that gonna be updated? It still says in the overview that United have won the League 15 times and in the honours section that the last time we won it was 2002-2003. Since Arsenal held Chelsea to a draw today (6th May 2007), they're the champions again. 195.92.168.163 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

That's better, haha. 195.92.168.163 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The listing of premierships won still isn't updated yet I believe.

I updated everything yesterday evening. If you could point out where the info is out of date, I would appreciate it. PeeJay 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

I think it's been a while since this article was last properly reviewed, so I reckon it might be time to take it to Peer Review again. What does everyone else think? PeeJay 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of old badge needed

For each Premier League season there is a little box in each article which has the champions's badge. Take the FA Premier League 1992-93 article for example. Well as United supporters would know they were not wearing this new badge in the early and mid 90's. Could someone make the old badge which has "Football Club" at the bottom? Arsenal's old crest is on wikipedia and shows up on the 97/98 and 01/02 pages.

Premier League 1992-93 Winners
100px|Manchester United Manchester United 8th Title

- Tocino 9 May 2007

Will this do?

- PeeJay 22:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Cheers, but it looks like someone has removed all of the champions' crests on the Premier League seasons. "Fair use" policy or some crap like that they've claimed. I'll leave it alone. Maybe if someone who knows the policy can put the images up with an explanation. If the old badge can't be used on the 90's articles then maybe we can find some way to put it in the main Manchester United article. - Tocino 10 May 2007

I'll see what I can do about that. I've also uploaded this older club badge:

Image:Manchester United Badge 1960s-1973.png

I'll probably use this one to replace the black and white one that's already on the page. PeeJay 08:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

someone has removed all of the champions' crests on the Premier League seasons That would be me. Fair use images cannot be used in a purely decorative manner. The fair use policy only allows the use of non-free content if specific criteria are met and there is an encyclopedic need for the image. For football club logos this means that they are only used on the article about the club itself. Oldelpaso 17:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Manchester United Captains

Anyone can start a category on Man U captains?

- Gary Neville (England) - Roy Keane (Ireland) - Eric Cantona (France) - Steve Bruce (England) - Bryan Robson (England) - Ray Wilkins (England)

We will need a more extensive list than that, but it's a good start. Not quite worth starting the section yet though. PeeJay 10:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

See it's since been added. Should it not be called "Club Captains", rather than just "Captains"? For example, Giggs was captain for the FA Cup, and Ferdinand, Rooney, Ole and others have all been captain this year. I will edit it to say such, but if you disagree please explai why. Cheers. Darkson - BANG! 10:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Why is Manchester United being singled out?

In the "Picture of old badge needed" paragraph it is explained that the United badge can only be displayed on the main Manchester United F.C. article. It wasn't until it was pointed out that the other non-United Prem winners had their crests up for the certain Prem seasons that the others were taken down too. Before that was pointed out just the Manchester United crest was being deleted from each season (such as FA Premier League 1998-99). Interesting. I'm fine with the same standard being held as now no Prem season has its champions' badge on display. However United are still being singled out in the European Cup (and UEFA Cup too) entries. Guess which is the only Champions League season which doesn't have the champions crest displayed? Yep, it's 1998-1999. Even fellow Prem side Liverpool have their crest proudly displayed for the 2004-2005 entry. Now tell me, why would someone only pick out one season and delete its crest? Why not do the same to the others in the name of the "Fair Use" policy. Why? I believe that the person doing the deleting is a supporter of a rival club. He digs up an arcane rule and uses it only when it pleases him (when his hated United's badge is being displayed as a champion). I believe that if nobody said anything about the other Prem seasons with non-United champions we would still today have their champions' badges displayed. Why is Manchester United being singled out? Is it only the United badge that has some bizarre copyright rule? Or is it like I think it is and someone just doesn't like the sight of the United crest? - Tocino 24 May 2007

I understand your frustration, but rules are rules mate. I will see about going through the Champions League articles and removing all non-Fair Use images for you :-) PeeJay 06:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Glazer takeover section

I've edited the "after the treble" section to incorporate the glazer takeover, including a link to the main article. I was considering removing the takeover section itself, on the basis that it is now redundant, but wanted to see the consensus first because it is worthy of mention in the main article. Perhaps we should lengthen its reference in the post 99 section and then delete the sub-section, as then it would be in chronological order? BeL1EveR 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)