Talk:2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season

New squad list layout
I saw the squad list layout for Chelsea & Liverpool for the upcoming season, and I liked the way they added the specific positions they play. Is there anyone who can switch the team list into that layout?Nbagigafreak (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. It's hard to define exactly what position some players play. In Chelsea's case, is Branislav Ivanovic a right-back or a centre-back? He can play both, so surely it's better to define him simply as a defender. We have a hard enough time when players like Phil Jones come along and are able to play in either defence or midfield, but I think this is sufficient. – PeeJay 20:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I already suggested to improve the page of last season following some of the things that are done in Chelsea's page. Already then, PeeJay refused, like if he was the boss... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keuja (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not just me who disapproves of the style of season article used by many other clubs (including Chelsea), that style is also frowned upon by many people at WP:FOOTY. The trouble is, there are too many n00bs insisting on the worse format to fight it on a Project-wide basis, so it's better to fight it on a case-by-case basis. I am merely enforcing community consensus in the Manchester United articles. – PeeJay 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You cite WP:FOOTY, very well. Can you give precise references? Keuja (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%9308_Arsenal_F.C._season has been listed in the Good article nominees. Should we use it as a model? Keuja (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Every article can be nominated as a good article, he wasn't promoted as one as of yet (and yes there are articles in both style that are good articles and maybe futured ones aswell). We should use the 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season basis in my opinion (which is good article). Large summary in every given month, and "open" tables that give alot of information. In my opionion an endless collapsible table is not needed, the only thing it give that the current one doesn't is Ref, Time of the match and opponet scorer, something that is given in the refs which also include more detailed information about every given game.
 * I personally think that the Match results section of the 07-08 Arsenal page is much more readable than the corresponding section of the 98-99 Manchester United page. On the United page, too much info is concentrated in a small table and lightening it would be a great enhancement! Concerning the squad info, It's a pity not to give more comprehensive information (see the 13-14 Chelsea page, for example). Keuja (talk) 11:39, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

League table
Hi.

I would like to get everyones opinion on the league table.

Currently this article uses an own table for the teams nearest manU that has to be manually updated all the time. My idea is to use the template (shown below) that many of the other teams use. Then it is enough someone on all pages change it and it will change here to. Also it will make all the articles look more alike. What does everyone think?

I think it would be good to use this table. QED 237  (talk)  09:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan. It doesn't look great and takes up a lot of space unnecessarily. Of what relevance is it to Man Utd's season where the teams at the other end of the league finish? As long as someone's willing to keep it updated, we should stick with the table we've already got and work with WP:FOOTY to develop a consistent style for league tables across the project. – PeeJay 10:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I can understsnd that you dont think it looks great. I totally agree. But I think it would be good if every team uses the same. We could always improve the template. Who says there will be teams "on the other end"? Wikipedia is not prediciting the future and ManU could theoretically still end up in the middle. QED 237   (talk)  10:19, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And if they do, what difference does it make how the teams at the top or bottom do? The only teams that (usually) matter are those within one or two places either side. That is the advantage of not using a template; we can customise the table to fit our specific needs. I'm all for consistency, but we don't necessarily need a template for that. Now, if the template you suggest could whittle down the table to within a couple of places either side of the specified club, I'd be more in favour, but at the minute, it's just unnecessary clutter. – PeeJay 10:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Why would the teams within one or two places either side matter most? City and Liverpool will still matter, regardless of their rank... Keuja (talk) 16:03, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If they're not ranked near United at the end of the season, then they don't matter. There's no reason to highlight teams that aren't of a similar calibre in any given season. The article is about United, not their relationship with their rivals. If you want to know what position City or Liverpool ended up in, you can look at their own season articles. – PeeJay 18:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with PeeJay, I also don't see a reason to have the entire table.

Just wanted to let you know that we had a recent discussion at The Village Pump where the editors modified the sandbox of 2013–14 Premier League table/sandbox to have a truncated transclusion of the table for use on the pages for the current season of all the teams. This has also been informed at WT:FOOTY to get people to join the discussion at village pump. This template is then supposed to be used on all of the season articles. QED 237  (talk)  11:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Pre-season and friendlies Table
I will try and discuss this here civilly instead of just undoing anything that I don't personally agree with as if I own the page - PeeJay2K3 I'm looking at you.

I propose that the Pre-season and friendlies table should include the flags for the countries these clubs/teams are from (with left justification for neatness) as per below:

The reason that PeeJay2K3 gave for undoing the change I made was that "no need for flags since no countries are being represented". I'm interested to know how this is different to putting flags next to Champions League opponents or putting flags next to clubs United have transferred players to/from or even putting flags next to the members of the squad seeing as how in all of those circumstances "no countries are being represented" any more or less so than the teams we play in friendlies.

If anything, it is more relevant to put flags next to the teams played in friendlies for a number of reasons:
 * In some cases, the team does represent a country - ie. All Star teams
 * For some All Star teams it is not readily apparent what nation they represent just looking at the name if you aren't familiar with the league, ie. A-League All Stars
 * For the casual observer who does not know where the hell more obscure teams are from (eg. Kitchee), it provides a point of reference
 * It also shows visually very quickly where United actually toured on their preseason

For such a small change, I really don't see what the issue with it is. I understand it hasn't been done in previous seasons, but I believe it should for the same reasons highlighted above. So unless this change is breaking some obscure WP rule, changes should not be undone by any user because they personally don't like them or because it wasn't their idea.

/rant. Happy to hear (rational) feedback. Ck786 (talk) 21:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 07:02, 27 August 2013 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I totally agree with you. In this case when the meet teams from other countries the flags would be very useful, and I liked seing them. It feels like PeeJay2K3 want to have the article in his own way and as it has been before without listening to arguments. The same with table above were so far not a single user has agreed with him. QED 237   (talk)  08:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Well it has been almost a week and there has been no objection to the above, so I will make the changes as per tabled and will commence work on modifying previous seasons. I assume if anyone has any issues with this, that they will discuss it here prior to just reverting edits. Ck786 (talk) 07:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * You can ignore my objections all you want, but that doesn't make them any less valid. MOS:FLAG says that flag icons shouldn't be used to emphasise nationality unnecessarily. Since none of these teams are officially representing any nations, even the all-star teams, it really doesn't matter where they're from. The tour itinerary can be written in prose above the table if absolutely necessary, but we shouldn't use flags for this purpose. Furthermore, I really wish you hadn't left-aligned the entire column. – PeeJay 13:20, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry but i dont understand. I found "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." on MOS:FLAG and to me it seems okay to use the flag. And why not left-adjust? It looks a whole lot better. Text are written from the left, and numbers should be centered. QED 237   (talk)  16:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * But the nationality of the different subjects isn't pertinent to the purpose of the table. No countries were being represented in any official capacity, that's the whole point of friendly matches. – PeeJay 16:11, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay maybe my english was not so good to interpret that sentence correctly. But I still feel like the flags is useful, when meeting all kinds of international teams (as in Chaampions league). Especially since one team is an "Thailand XI". QED 237   (talk)  16:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of "ignoring your objections", it's more so that you didn't actually make any objections to start with. You purged a valid edit I made without discussion. Anyway, as QED237 said, the MOS:FLAG it not limited to lists or tables of National significance. Similarly for the player stat table, it is therefore not relevant to have player flags next to each player as the nationality is not pertinent to the purpose of the table as per WP:WORDPRECEDENT. Similarly for opponents in European competition/s. Flags in the friendlies are no more or less relevant than in those two examples, yet it is standard practice to have them there. Left justification was used for neatness. Ck786 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Want to say my 2 cent. I am personally think that the flags should not be used in the article table near the team names. What next, we put Wales flag next to Cardiff and Swansea in the PL or other English cups. Yes, I see that it may look nicer to have flags next to the teams so people will know faster which country the team is based at, but they do not represent the country in the friendly match. Even in the UEFA competitions, which they store the matches results in thier yearly UEFA Country Ranking which comes from the overall teams Coefficients there is no foolproof to the flags, as even in that you will end up giving Cardiff, Swansea, and Monaco flags of countries they are not realy based at, but more like played in.
 * It doesn't have to go that far at all. For the EPL/Domestic Cups, all comps fall under the juristiction of the English FA so it is irrelevant what country the club is from. Flags should be added for opposition from different FA's, such as European competitions and friendlies. Thanks for the feedback. Ck786 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * If you read what you are saying you will see you are agree with my comment. why is that? Cardiff City, Swansea City, FC Andorra, FC Vaduz, San Marino Calcio, and many more. all are play under the juristiction of thier based country FA's but they play under leagues system of another FA juristiction. So what will you do then in Friendly games?, Swansea City in friendly will have Wales flag, but in UEFA competitions they will have English flag because they give that country the ranking points. We should not have flags in Friendly section as they are not offical by the FA's or continental competitions. Now even another thing, FC Vaduz play in Swiss league, but they give thier points ranking to Liechtenstein. Why is that? because they qualified by winning the Liechtenstein Football Cup, but if they would have reached UEFA competitions in the Swiss league, they could if given, play "for" the swiss ranking,. so ie, have Swiss flag. In FA leagues and UEFA, you must register a player to play while in friendly you can play with who ever you want.
 * Exactly. I would not be opposed to adding flags to the teams United play in European competitions (as has already been done to the group table), since in that context, it actually makes a difference what countries the opposition come from. In friendlies, however, the difference made by the country the opposition comes from amounts to exactly fuck all. – PeeJay 10:01, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I did not allow for these anomaly teams in my initial explanation. Ultimately, it would be the same set of rules applied to when these teams play in UEFA competition. I still cannot see how countries that teams come from matter more in competition than they do in friendlies. Ck786 (talk) 00:26, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Answer me this. What set of flags will you give Swansea in Friendly and what set you will give in UEFA?, in the 2013-14 UEFA they have English flag but they are Wales based. Now, let say Monaco will play next season twice against United, once in Friendly and once in UEFA. What will you do? They are based in Monaco but the principality of Monaco is not a member of UEFA, what then? Monaco flag in pre-season and in UEFA have france flag. It is matter bcuz friendly games can be played with any club including such who play in one FA but claim they belong to another.

So are you going to do this anywhere then? For example at 2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season, 2013–14 Chelsea F.C. season, 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season, 2013–14 Newcastle United F.C. season and so on? All of the PL clubs have these flags. QED 237  (talk)  14:21, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * According to WP:WAX, it is none of my concern what the situation is with other pages. There is, however, a move afoot to adopt a consistent MOS for all football club season articles across the whole of Wikipedia. It's just too much work for me to bother changing other clubs' pages. – PeeJay 18:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Loan players debut
Charni Ekangamene and Sam Byrne both made their professional debuts in Carlisle's away loss to Bristol City on 1 February. Can someone create articles for them please? Brudder Andrusha (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Squad Section
I've added this enhanced sortable table to the squad section, but my edit has been reverted twice by for the reasons "no thanks" and "for consistency's sake". This don't seem to be real explanations, please clarify. Kanoch (talk) 03:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * First of all, the templates you've used to make that table are gradually being phased out, so that's a problem to start with. Second, it's far too much information for this article. What difference does it make whether those players are EU or non-EU, or how much it cost Manchester United to sign them? This article should include information relevant to this season in Manchester United's history, not vague, general info about the players. – PeeJay 10:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Using a "gradually being phased out" template is irrelevant, Wikipedia is about content and not wiki markup, can you suggest a better template? Your assertion that it's "far too much information" is completely subjective and is at odds with WP:EDITING. The information is not "vague", it is a table of facts. This table is the only table which shows the list of players available for selection right now. Kanoch (talk) 20:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the "Squad statistics" table not do that? And would you please answer my question about the relevance of each player's transfer fee and their EU/non-EU status? – PeeJay 23:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The statistics table does not show the age of players, the time with the club, their total appearances and goals, and their current loan status - all relevant information. Transfer fee is relevant because it can be used by the reader to deduce how much value a player provided to the club compared to their fee. You are right about EU/Non-EU status. I have removed this from the table as it's not applicable to FA teams. Kanoch (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Players' ages are not relevant and can be ascertained from the players' individual articles. When they joined the club is not relevant; if they joined this season, that can be mentioned in the prose and in the "Transfers" section. Their total appearances and goals are not relevant; only the appearances and goals they scored this season are, and those are recorded in the "Squad statistics" section. Transfer fee is not relevant to this article unless the player joined this season, in which case, it will be recorded in the "Transfers" section. Players' loan status is also recorded in the "Transfers" section, and since our readers are not idiots, they can work out from the "end date" of each loan whether that player is still on loan or not. So again, thanks but no thanks. – PeeJay 11:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Players' ages, joining date, total appearances and goals, and transfer fee are highly relevant and are used to compare and contrast the player's performance this season against previous seasons. For example, it's relevant that Nani, despite being only 27, and having had 228 appearances and 48 goals for the club, has only had 8(4) appearances this season. It is important for the "season" articles, which are historical archives of information, to contain this since the information becomes "frozen" at the end of the season. This contrasts with the club's main article, which will show only the "current" squad and various other anecdotal information and therefore as of 2014-15 season will not be the same as this article. Other seasonal articles, Manchester City, Liverpool, 2013–14_Chelsea_F.C._season, Arsenal all contain this information. Kanoch (talk) 21:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree with peejay on this one. I dont see the reason for this table, no matter what other articles have. If you want to compare a player thi season with other seasons why dont you do that in the "career stats"-section almost every player has. That is better place to read about the transfercost, goals and appearance and so on. Not needed here, this is article about this season. Perhaps you should take this to WT:FOOTY if you want a general consensus and have questions about the other articles. QED 237   (talk)  22:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Comparing individual players' personal statistics year-on-year should be done through the stats tables in each player's own article, not by cluttering up an article about a different subject. There may be things that this article is deficient in, but this is not one of them. – PeeJay 22:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've posted a discussion on this subject, along with the related matters of the statistics, transfers, and loans sections over at WT:FOOTY. I would appreciate if you could provide your comments on the subject, and also contact other editors who you feel would have useful input. Kanoch (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Expansion / Improvement for GA
I have started expanding this article in the hope of getting it to a Good Article status in the future. However, since I expect my editing habits to decrease soon, this is a long-term project with no deadline. Templates for the article include WikiProject Football/Club seasons, the 1997–98 Manchester United F.C. season, the 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season, the 2013–14 Norwich City F.C. season and the 1999–2000 Arsenal F.C. season. Do feel free to contribute or comment. starship .paint   ~ regal  09:00, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Third kit: did it even exist?
Tagging major contributors, and. Is there any evidence that a third kit exists for this season? I managed to get archiveurls to prove that the home and away kits existed in those colours, but found no mention of the third kit. Firstly, the season's third kit looks exactly the same as the 2012–13 Manchester United F.C. season's away kit. I used the WayBack Machine of archive.org to look at the Kits section of store.manutd.com for 13/14. There's no mention of a third kit, Heroes is for the individual players' names. I went to the archiveurl of the Nike store in 13/14. Again, the home and away kits are there, but the third kit is apparently the 2012/2013 Manchester United Replica. IMO, it would be silly to have a third kit and not sell it; why pass up the revenue? starship .paint   ~ regal  14:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 22:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * According to this website, the third shirt was used in combination with different shorts and socks on five occasions last season. You're right, it's exactly the same as the 2012–13 away kit, but that's a common thing in recent years. – PeeJay 15:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Premier League publish handbook with alot of information about teams kits (including the goalie kits), you can watch the Handbook for 2013-14, page 26-27, and see the info about the team that season at the begining of the season, including staff. Just note that its information given to the PL by ManUtd so its what ManUtd call thier third kit. Not all clubs have third kits as you can see but United do have it, both to the outfield players and the goalie. Uselly its only common to see those third kits in pre-season games or up to 5 games in regular season. Sometimes just socks and pants just change but somettimes it change it all.
 * and, thank you for your prompt replies. PeeJay you brought up a very informative resource - but I'm not sure whether it qualifies as a reliable source given that it is admittedly a fan-run page. HonorTheKing, great find by the League itself, definitely a reliable source. Sorry I'm not too familiar with all this because I'm not a very regular editor of WP:FOOTY articles. starship  .paint   ~ regal  07:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fan-run sites can be reliable sources; aren't all sites effectively fan-run when you get down to it? Either way, the site's reliability can be proven empirically, so I think we can trust it. – PeeJay 08:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say all sites are fan-run. The EPL isn't fan-run, neither is the BBC, Sky Sports and other news organizations. Nevertheless, since a better source (EPL) is available, the United Kits site is superfluous to requirements. starship  .paint   ~ regal  11:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2013–14 Manchester United F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130917015050/http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Yeovil-Town-resume-hunt-keeper-Manchester-United/story-19682986-detail/story.html to http://www.westerngazette.co.uk/Yeovil-Town-resume-hunt-keeper-Manchester-United/story-19682986-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:22, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Broken links
The links in the "result" column of the table all seem to just redirect to the manutd.com homepage. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)