Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

History errors and oversights

I have researched the early history of MUFC because my family lived on Park Street in 1878 and 2 generations of my family worked at the Newton Heath rail depot where the club was formed. Park Street was next to Monsall Road (which still exists today) and North Road (where United played their very first game). North Road does not exist anymore and the area has been radically redeveloped - especially in recent years. Northampton Road, however, is very close to the original site and I believe there was a blue plaque at some point. The origins of the club are sadly given scant attention and I often come across many errors on this subject. Piccadilly railway is 2.3 miles from North Road and so I have removed it from the article. The Manchester Daily Express building is a much closer landmark, but even this is a good 10 minute walk from the original pitch. It is also well documented that the St Bernard dog was lost and found by the clubs eventual owner. This fascinating part of the club's history was included in this article and has been removed (why?). Even the meticulous 'Motty' mentioned this in his 2007 FA Cup commentary - surely this 'early' history section deserves more respect and accuracy. Also there is not mention of the club's first nickname, the 'Heathens'. I would change these oversights but this being such a major article I will leave it open to discussion . . . Robdav69 11:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the brief-ish paragraph on this page, or the main article at Manchester_United_1878-1945? That one mentions the dog, though my cursory glance didn't see any mention of the Heathens. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

There are several conflicting stories regarding Major, the Saint Bernard, but the one that is generally accepted as fact is that Major was being shown off at a club fund-raising bazaar in 1901 when he ran away. He was recovered by John Henry Davies, whose daughter became so attached to the dog that when Major's owner and Newton Heath's captain, Harry Stafford, came looking for him, Davies asked to buy the dog. Stafford agreed on the condition that Davies invested in the club, and the rest is history. As for the stuff about North Road's proximity to Piccadilly Stadion, I simply took that information from the Official Illustrated History of Manchester United, and assumed it was the truth. If it is not the case, then that should be removed. - PeeJay 17:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Heaton

Wait a moment, doesn't the article on Tom Heaton say he is currently playing for Manchester United? One of these two articles is wrong, because the Manchester United article doesn't put him in the First-Team Squad section while his article claims he debuted for United in March. - Mjmclemore 25:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Tom Heaton has not played any competitive senior games for Man Utd. The match his article says he played in was a friendly, organised by UEFA. Heaton was in the United first team for a time last season, while Edwin van der Sar was out injured and we only had Tomasz Kuszczak for cover, but he has since been demoted back to the Reservess. I expect to see him back in the first team before too long though. Either way, both articles are factually correct. - PeeJay 10:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

British English

This seems a little silly. Should I say "Manchester United is Premier Champion"? I think not. American and British English differences

In AmE, collective nouns are usually singular in construction: the committee was unable to agree ... AmE however may use plural pronouns in agreement with collective nouns: the team take their seats, rather than the team takes its seat(s). The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural.[8] However, such a sentence would most likely be recast as the team members take their seats.

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

BrE: The Clash are a well-known band; AmE: The Clash is a well known band. BrE: Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion.

It might be slightly acceptable to say "Manchester United is a football team" but in doing so, you must also say "Champion not Champions" oh and if this is all going to be consistant, you should also call the beautiful game that they play soccer not football.

They won the league, should I change that to "it won the league"?

It seems quite clear, if this article is going to be in British English, then make it all in British English. even some American based articles refer to Manchester United using "are" rather than "is"

[1] [2] [3] [4]

Manchester United are top with 54 points from 22 games, while second-placed Chelsea have 47 points from 21 before their game at Aston Villa on Tuesday.

Manchester United, worth about $800 million (£550 million), are already the richest soccer club in the world with revenue that dwarfs the rest of the English Premiership and major continental European rivals like Barcelona, Real Madrid and Juventus.

this seems pretty black and white to me, wikipedia makes it obvious how to refer to a team using British English and even the American sites that refer to them as a soccer team, use are and have, rather than is and has. Sennen goroshi 14:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

There are different instances of referring to the club though. You can either be referring to the club, Manchester United Football Club, which is a singular entity, or you can refer to the team, Manchester United, which is a group of players. It's not as black-and-white as you would like to think. - PeeJay 18:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a silly edit. In British English and American English, Manchester United is singular, surely? — jacĸrм (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not as silly an edit as you might think. Sennen goroshi does have almost the right idea, but he is implementing it in the wrong way. See earlier discussions for info. - PeeJay 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While I might agree that Manchester United the club can be treated as a single entity in certain circumstances, in other circumstances, it is not a natural way to use British English, to be honest it's not that natural while using American English either.

For example if you were talking about a company, it would be acceptable to use singular, but as soon as you talk about any sporting activity it should be treated as plural, if there is a single entity that is comprised of individuals who have different tasks, then it is treated as if it was plural.

Manchester United is/are worth a billion Pounds but Manchester United are the Champions. Is it really correct to mix the both? You could use either when talking about something financial, but to use singular when talking about sporting achievements is wrong - to most people MUFC = the team. To avoid confusion I think if/when people want to use the singular, they should use the full corporate title - Manchester United PLc(is that their current business name?) - when people use Manchester United/MUFC/anything similar, then use the plural form. It seems incorrect to use both singular and plural in the same article, when refering to the same team. oh and the game today.

There does need to be some consensus, it's not something I'm going to bitch about, however I do feel strongly that what I have stated above is the most logical,natural and correct way to refer to MUFC/Manchester United PLc. Sennen goroshi 19:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the club's "business name" is Manchester United Ltd as it is no longer a public limited company, but a private limited one. Nevertheless, the article has nothing to do with the business side of the club, but the footballing side. Anyway, to refer to a club (n.b. the singular form of the word "club") as a plural entity would be incorrect, hence why we say "Manchester United Football Club is an English football club..." rather than "Manchester United Football Club are a football club...". However, when referring to the group of players that plays under the banner of "Manchester United", then it would be correct to refer to them in the plural, i.e. "Manchester United are in second place in the Barclays Premier League table...". Suffice it to say, we shouldn't second guess vernacular grammar usage except when it is clearly in the wrong, and in this case, it is hardly clear. - PeeJay 20:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I still don't agree - asporting team is referred to in British English using the singular form (please tell me if we agree or disagree on that - if we don't agree at least we know what we are disagreeing about.

Wikipedia consensus seems to point (slightly) towards using plural, as the only Premier clubs that are refered to using singular are Villa, Everton, Man City, Sunderland, Spurs, West Ham and Wigan - 7 = singular, 13 = plural.

Not only does general usage point towards plural, but also wikipedia's article on the differences between British and American English, that (by lucky coincedence) deals with sporting teams/clubs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences

The rule of thumb is that a group acting as a unit is considered singular and a group of "individuals acting separately" is considered plural.

The difference occurs for all nouns of multitude, both general terms such as team and company and proper nouns (for example, where a place name is used to refer to a sports team). For instance,

BrE: Indianapolis are the champions; AmE: Indianapolis is the champion.

also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_plural#Discretionary_plurals

I think there are arguements for either singular or plural in some cases, but what sways my opinion is the amount of times each form is used, in the press - plural, on wikipedia 65% plural 35% singular, the American press tend to treat it as if it were plural, and in spoken English it just sounds right, even when it is in the face of normal grammatical conventions - "The Arsenal are shit" is grammatically horrible, but that doesn't stop it from being the normal way to refer to that particular team.

regarding the term club refering to a single entity, yes of course it does, but I also see that as irrelevant - it is a single entity, made up of many individuals, each performing individual tasks - it's not a military unit all marching and turning in unision. Another single entity, would be a musical band, overwhelming consensus (feel free to check it out) points to refering to them using a plural form, in British English.Sennen goroshi 04:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I neither agree nor disagree with your assertion that "a sporting team is referred to in British English using the singular form" as it is my belief that sporting teams should be referred to using the discretionary plural. This means that either the singular or the plural can be used depending on what sounds right. I realise my rationale for choosing which to use may be a little sketchy, but it seems to work for me. As for your musical bands comment, again I would say it depends on the band. I would say "Blur is an English band...", while also saying "The Red Hot Chili Peppers are an American band...". See? - PeeJay 10:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Did I say singular or plural for a sporting team? I certainly can't be bothered to read all of the above to find out, but if I did say that, I didn't mean to. I think you are not using British English correctly, which nowadays is very easy, considering the amount of American English that is finding its way into British media. The way you are refering to bands, is the American way, they use singular unless the name is a plural - such as RHCP that will always be a plural in both British and American English. The discretionary plural is there so you can decide if the noun in question is acting as one, or is comprised of many people acting individualy...bah, I'm too lazy, drunk and tired after work to get into detail or give sources... at some time I will try to get a 3rd opinion or a definitive answer to this. It sucks, here I am with a BA in English and 6 years experience as an English teacher, but I'm having issues with shitty grammar. I guess after teaching English all day, I should find something better to do with my evening, than getting into grammar discussions online. anyway - watch this space, I shall either come back with something mindblowing, or concede the fact that you opinion is the better..Sennen goroshi 14:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, on here, whether or not you have a BA in English and six years of teaching experience is irrelevant. Sometimes, grammar "rules" have to be overlooked in lieu of what sounds right, and to me "Manchester United Football Club are an English football club..." couldn't sound more wrong. - PeeJay 14:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That is strange, because "Manchester United Football Club are an English football club..." sounds fine to me, my initial edits were based purely on what sounds right not based on grammar. Don't read too much into what I said about my education or teaching experience, I was just frustrated that I was having issues based on grammar after spending all day having fuckwits look up to me, based on my grammatical knowledge. If you want to go on what sounds right, then shouldn't it be based on what sounds right for the majority of people? and if that is the case, then look at the rest of the Premier team wikipedia pages - 65% of them refer to their team using "are" - so the majority of editors don't seem to share your opinion on what does and does not sound/feel correct.Sennen goroshi 17:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It is also quite possible that 65% of Premier League team articles use "are" because they've been told to. The majority of people I've asked about this have agreed with me, but I suppose that counts as Original Research :-D - PeeJay 17:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

captaincy

it states in the intro paragraph that gary neville is the captain. i've got to point out that neville hasn't played this season yet! ryan giggs was captain today (against chelsea) and i can't remember anyone else apart from giggs, being captain this season so far (unless giggsy didn't play - i'm not fortunate enough to get to every game).

can you still say neville is captain, even though he clearly isn't at the moment? for all we know (and god forbid) neville might never play again.

just wondering if it's worth mentioning giggs in there somewhere. 77.101.18.129 22:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not he has played this season, Gary Neville is the club captain, and has been since November 2005. Giggs' position as vice-captain is informal at best, and so this is not worth mentioning in the lead section. - PeeJay 23:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

well the squad list has been played with by somebody. It has lan gao(whoever he is !) as captain in the list.Someone , please change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeahbeesee (talk • contribs) 11:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Grey kit anecdote

The anecdote about the ill-fated grey kit is all well and good, other than the fact that the final score is wrong. We lost that game 6-3, changing kits because we were 3-1 down at half time. A relatively minor point, but one that needs making all the same! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.63.62 (talk) 18:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

A common mistake, but you are wrong. The 6-3 loss came the season after the grey kit was abandoned. The match in which we played in the grey kit was lost 3-1. - PeeJay 19:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay is correct - the grey kit game was in the 95/96 season and United were down 3-0 at half time when they changed kits. The 6-3 game was in the 96/97 season —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.20.222 (talk) 02:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

User:Boingsaclapper has just vandalised the page, but it is protected so I cannot revert it 195.171.82.195 11:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are concerned about combating vandalism, you should register an account on Wikipedia. An extra hand is always welcome. - PeeJay 12:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll just stop then :-) Cheers, 195.171.82.195 16:55, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? Creating an account is simple and takes all of about 2 minutes. - PeeJay 17:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Stadium

Should be "Theatre of Dreams" NOT "Theatre of Silence" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Macca3218 (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. By the way, next time you see something that obviously needs fixing like that, please don't hesitate to edit it yourself. - PeeJay 14:34, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I think the heading stadium should precede history. This I think would provide proper background for the club and ground to jump to the history and achievements.

The stadium is just where the club plays. The club may have played there for almost 100 years now, but they have had other grounds, and to be quite honest, the history of the club as a whole is a bit more important than a history of where they have played. - PeeJay 12:15, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Name

Just a thought: Manchester United removed the 'football club' from the club badge a few years ago, and it just says MANCHESTER UNITED on the outside of Old Trafford. The legal entity is MANCHESTER UNITED Ltd. The article should just be called 'Manchester United', not 'Manchester United F.C.'. Mjefm 13:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In some ways I'm tempted to agree. I mean, everyone knows Manchester United is a football club anyway, and we haven't been known as MUFC for years. - PeeJay 12:27, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

That depends - is this an article about the loathsome American corporate empire that is owned by the Glazers or is it an article about the current English league football champions? If the latter then Football Club should remain in the title.

IIRC the corporate structure is actually Red Football Ltd who own Manchester United Ltd who own Manchester United Football Club Ltd anyway. Fd2006 16:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep the article as Manchester United F.C.... if anything, change the F.C. to Football Club. Andre666 16:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think changing the "F.C." to "Football Club" would be a step in the wrong direction, tbh. If anything, we should push for a consensus to remove the full stops from "F.C.", as they cause loads of punctuation issues. - PeeJay 17:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I think doing that unilaterally would be a mistake. Every other football club article uses the "F.C." style. The concensus would have to be to agree to make that change across the board. As it happens I don't like the full stops either, but I dislike ignoring the established naming convention even more. --Malleus Fatuarum 17:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I didn't make myself too clear just now. I wasn't proposing that we only remove the full stops from "Manchester United F.C.", but that we should push for a consensus to remove them from every football article name. - PeeJay 17:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

That would make formatting and coding a lot easier, but general grammatical errors then arise. The full stops/periods, in my opinion, should stay between the F and the C, as it is basic English grammar. Andre666 01:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Basic English grammar seems to go to the dogs anyway though in most sports articles. Singular subjects referred to inconsistently as either they or it, sometimes even in the same sentence ... OK, I'll get off my hobby horse now. --Malleus Fatuarum 01:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Sports teams take the discretional plural, so it's perfectly alright to refer to a club as "they" and "it", depending on the context. - PeeJay 07:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

It would look daft having a full stop between the F and the C, but not after the C. Anyway, UEFA.com doesn't include the full stops at all in team names, but that could just be them. - PeeJay 07:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

SONGS

How about adding some of the songs sung by the fans at the matches? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.75.137 (talk) 13:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not encyclopaedic information. - PeeJay 15:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Supporters clubs

• Manchester United Supporters Club of America

Is this website anymore deserving of being added than say (example - no idea if they exist or have websites) Supporters club of Norway or Supports Club of Thailand? No other national supporters club is listed in the external links. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 11:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

My argument isn't the inclusion of it, it's the deletion that PeeJay made and his reason for. He said "not a links repository" and then chose some random link to delete...leaving all manner of fansites which serve no purpose. My point is, there are about 8 fansites listed, each substantially the same as the other, and there's no purpose for ANY Of them, let alone 8 of them. ONE would suffice, and would fit wikipedia standards of listing one fansite. There's no reason for the Supporters Club of America to be listed any more or less than one of the random fansites. The simple fact that PeeJay only deleted one, was my reason for putting it back it. Why only delete one worthless site, when you're staring at so many others? Batman2005 (talk) 14:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's go through each of the links and judge them on their individual merits. Obviously, the official links are untouchable as they link to the club's official site. Now, the independent media sites could do with a prune. I would say to remove the Manchester Evening News, SportNetwork.net, Football365, 4thegame and Carling links, and leave the BBC and PremierLeague.com links, as the BBC and PremierLeague.com are about as reliable as you can get, while the others are only good for the odd rumour, aside from the stuff you can find on the other two sites. I might also suggest that we add the club's page from SkySports.com to the list.

Now, here's the crux of the argument, the major fan sites. The MUST and IMUSA links should be left alone as they are the two biggest Man Utd supporters organisations in the country, nay the world! Then we get links to Red Issue, Red News and United We Stand, all of which are extremely popular fanzines that many people buy before matches. You can even buy United We Stand in certain WH Smith outlets! So, that's them left alone. Finally, we've got the Red Cafe link, which is for the biggest unofficial Manchester United forum on the net, so I'd say that one should be allowed to stay too.

So, what do you guys have to say about that? – PeeJay 18:04, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I say we need ONE fansite, the others are substantially the same as the first. Link to the Official Supporters Site and be done with it. Batman2005 (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

But there is no official supporters club website, other than that which is contained within the official website. As I said, MUST and IMUSA are the biggest independent supporters organisations, and the others are massively popular fanzines. I say they stay, for the reasons detailed above. – PeeJay 11:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There are literally HUNDREDS of fansites for the large clubs (United, Arsenal, Chelsea, Barca, Real Madrid, Bayern, etc). One or two are appropriate, listing 5-10 is overkill. There's literally NOTHING different about one than the other. Batman2005 (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think there's a difference between the MUST/IMUSA and fansites, so I'd argue they shoulds stay, even if only one fansite link is used. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)