Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 12

Anyone up for it?
This article needs so much work to get its GA listing back, mainly citations and expunging some of the overly colourful tabloid language. Anyone up for it? --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would love to, but I just don't have the time. If I can set aside a couple of days just to work on this article, I may be able to do it soon, but it's going to take a lot of work. – PeeJay 22:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't asking anyone to do the work, just to help with the work. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but the funny thing is that my comment still applies; I'm just that busy :-D – PeeJay 22:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll do it myself then. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've started to do this, using Arsenal F.C and Chelsea F.C pages as references in terms of quantity and quality. I think a lot of material needs to be cut out, and we need lots of citations. Happy to carry on and will do it over the next few days. Welcome comments.Tomlock01 (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

capacity
man utds stadium capacity is 76212 not what it says on the page, change it please —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jryfjtyyk (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the stadium's capacity was reduced by about 250 seats over the summer. It is now 75,957. Read the references. – PeeJay 21:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Dwight Yorke?
This is a great article, howvere Im left wondering why theres no mention of Dwight Yorke and his contribution? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.59.142.10 (talk) 15:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Feel free to contribute to the article yourself. You just have to set up an account. – PeeJay 15:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Hi there, Man United have an official soccer schools website which i thought some readers might be interested in. The url is: http://www.manutdsoccerschools.com/

Thanks

Manchesterss (talk) 11:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this addition. Too many external links are generally frowned upon, and since the soccer schools' website would add little to the content of the article, I do not believe its addition would be positive. – PeeJay 18:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's not discussed in the article, it doesn't really need to be added.  fetch  comms  ☛ 20:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Danny Welbeck
Welbeck is not on loan to Preston anymore, hes out for the rest of the season so United cancelled his loan and brought him back, he is back in the squad now. Change please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.104.195.244 (talk) 21:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Runner Up and other cups
I think it would be useful to add all the runner up years, and also the other cups (Audi Cup, Lancashire Cup) are worth to be mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheManurules (talk • contribs) 10:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why? – PeeJay 14:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

^ Agreed, I can see no reason for this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.152.58 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Green & Gold
Should there not be a mention of the current Green & Gold campain and the reasons behind it?

"GREEN & GOLD UNTIL THE CLUB IS SOLD"

LUHG! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.152.58 (talk) 20:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Mentioning the "Green and Gold" campaign in any significant detail would be a violation of WP:RECENT. – PeeJay 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)


 * PeeJay, what about a brief mention of the Red Knights in the Ownership section? Tomlock01 (talk) 19:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, but only to say that they are formulating a bid. A lot of the details, such as Beckham picking up a green and gold scarf, would be a bit too much. – PeeJay 21:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Question
Did Newton Heath become bankrupt or nearly become bankrupt? I have no way of knowing, the article says both.--J3Mrs (talk) 08:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources are divided on this issue. Some say that the club was merely on the verge of bankruptcy, others say that a winding-up order was served but not fulfilled, while others still say that the club definitely was declared bankrupt. Personally, I believe that the winding-up order was served but that John Henry Davies and his fellow investors stepped in just in time to prevent total liquidation. – PeeJay 09:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well there can't be two versions in one article whatever any of us believes so I changed it to agree with the Early years (1878–1945).--J3Mrs (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's fair enough that you've been bold about it, but if the club wasn't actually bankrupted (and there are sources to support that) then it's not really fair to say that they were. – PeeJay 10:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My two cents is that while it is debatable whether it was actually bankrupt, either way it is correct to say the club was declared bankrupt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that because a company has to be declared bankrupt before it can be served with a winding-up order? Otherwise I don't see how it is possible for the club to be declared bankrupt without actually being bankrupt (unless the person making the declaration of bankruptcy was wrong). – PeeJay 13:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well my understanding is that a person can be declared bankrupt, for example through the presentation of a bankruptcy petition, but the bankruptcy is not final until this is upheld in court a certain time later. I think it is difficult because insolvency law has obviously evolved since 1902, so its hard to reach a firm conclusion, but I think 'declared bankrupt' is correct. After all, 'bankruptcy is a legally declared inability or impairment of ability of an individual or organization to pay its creditors', which was certainly the case until the new investment was found. Tomlock01 (talk) 13:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

History
I propose the merging of the 3 sections that cover the Alex Ferguson era into one section. I understand the argument for separating them, but this is surely against the Recentism policy. It would make more sense to break the Busby era into three sections (Pre-munich, munich disaster, post munich) but this is not the case because it was such a long time ago. In 10 years time, when Ferguson has left (or at least he should have done by then!), I'm sure everyone would agree that 3 sections is unnecessary. Thoughts? Tomlock01 (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, as there are separate articles this section should be a summary.--J3Mrs (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, I agree too. Malleus Fatuorum 16:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Count me in. – PeeJay 17:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Given that you three have been the primary contributors recently, I consider that consensus has been reached. Will change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Would welcome help on pruning this section now.Tomlock01 (talk) 18:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Colours
I further propose that we remove the paragraph in colours that describes the current seasons kit. This is surely a violation of the recentism policy, and is covered with illustrations earlier in the article. Thoughts?Tomlock01 (talk) 18:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree with this. If we remove the description of the current season's kits, I worry that people will read the "Colours" section and think, "Okay, so that's what the old kits were like, but what about the new ones?" I just don't think that removing it is a good idea. – PeeJay 18:37, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * It's very detailed, the description of badges & logos is a bit ott, that could easily go in my opinion. Might be worth mentioning whoever makes the kit after Umbro though. (only a tiny tiny tiny mention though!)--J3Mrs (talk) 18:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't realise the kits were in the infobox :-( Get rid I say. With the exception of myself most people will see the illustration.--J3Mrs (talk) 18:55, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge Crest & Colours
I think it might be a good idea to merge these two sections, Any comments? Are we going to cut the convoluted description of the present kit? It does the article no favours--J3Mrs (talk) 13:01, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weren't those two sections split only a few days ago? – PeeJay 15:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No idea!! But I still think it's a good idea.--J3Mrs (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, me too. It all comes under the banner of the club's symbology. Also, I don't think we should cut the description of the current kits entirely. Only the minutiae of the details. – PeeJay 15:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Go on then, do it--J3Mrs (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't appreciate your tone, but I've done it anyway. However, I'm not too pleased with my title for the level 2 section; "Crest and colours" doesn't really work when the subsections are called "Crest" and "Colours". – PeeJay 15:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * My tone was meant to be encouraging:-) sorry you didn't think so:-( Dont have subsections they aren't necessary--J3Mrs (talk) 15:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, I just thought it sounded a little imperative. – PeeJay 16:02, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I like the changes to the Crest and Colours section. I don't know who removed the bit about G-14, and the European Club association, but don't you think this should go in there somewhere? Tomlock01 (talk) 16:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentence
We need to discuss this article's opening sentence. It's been see-sawing between two versions:


 * "Manchester United Football Club is an English professional football club who play at Old Trafford, in Greater Manchester."


 * Manchester United Football Club is an English professional football club who play at Old Trafford, in Trafford, Greater Manchester."

I think the "Old Trafford, in Trafford" is just plain ugly, and contrary what we would say about any other football club. We wouldn't be saying what borough the stadium was in, we'd be saying what town the stadium was in. Old Trafford is in Stretford, so the only sensible choice, to my mind anyway, is "at Old Trafford in Stretford, Greater Manchester". Malleus Fatuorum 16:59, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I was just about to ask this very question. Both Stretford and Old Trafford, Greater Manchester claim that Old Trafford is in their area, so that was a little confusing. I would prefer "at Old Trafford in Stretford, Greater Manchester" too. – PeeJay 17:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, "at Old Trafford in Stretford, Greater Manchester" is better. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:15, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I preferred it as "Manchester United F.C. is an English professional football club based in Trafford, Greater Manchester". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not keen on saying its in Stretford, the clubs address is afterall:

Sir Matt Busby Way Old Trafford Manchester M16 0RA Tomlock01 (talk) 17:31, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Would you equally say that Arsenal F.C. were based in Islington, Greater London? Malleus Fatuorum 17:33, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I would. Tomlock01 (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also say that Arsenal are based in Islington, Greater London, but only because Holloway is in Islington. I would therefore prefer to say that Arsenal are based in Holloway, Greater London. – PeeJay 20:29, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Support
What do we think needs adding to the support section. Malleus, I know you said you thought this section was underdeveloped, what do you think? Tomlock01 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Certainly I think an explanation of the world-wide phenomenon that is Manchester United would be necessary. It's all well and good to say that the club is one of the best-supported clubs in the world, but why is that? Is it to do with Munich; the marketing machine; the success of the club; TV deals? If we can find sources for this, it should definitely be added. – PeeJay 20:28, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks PeeJay.Tomlock01 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Grounds
Should I add a subsection to the "Grounds" section describing the club's training grounds? I have some historical information about The Cliff, and info about the Trafford Training Centre shouldn't be too hard to come by. – PeeJay 20:30, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm for this. Tomlock01 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Grounds already repeats some early history!!--J3Mrs (talk) 21:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As it should. Repetition is not always a bad thing. – PeeJay 21:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Use of the singular person
I have a big problem with the exclusive use of the singular person when referring to a football club. According to grammatical conventions in British English, sports teams may use the discretionary plural, which means that 'they are "treated as singular or plural at discretion"'. I believe that if "the club" refers to the team of players, then the plural should be used. – PeeJay 21:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Captions
Are we punctuating captions or not? Tomlock01 (talk) 22:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Everything in the article should be punctuated appropriately. If the caption of an image is a sentence fragment, then there is no need for it to be finished with a full stop. – PeeJay 22:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * So it is correct that the caption for the chart of progress through English football has a full stop, whereas the caption for the plaque does not? Or should both have full stops? Tomlock01 (talk) 23:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Neither should, and I have changed it to reflect that. – PeeJay 23:46, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

"demoted" or "demoted back"?
I find myself rather embarrassed to be raising a discussion over this one small point, but is it not the case that Wilf McGuinness was the reserve team coach before he took over as manager of the first team? Therefore, when he was sacked as the manager of the first team and resumed the reserve team coach position, would it not be fair to say that he was "demoted back to reserve team coach"? – PeeJay 22:57, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think it would be fair, people are demoted to their previous position. --J3Mrs (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreeing with J3Mrs. Demotion is the opposite of promotion, so it's implicit that he had already held that position. Malleus Fatuorum 23:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with PeeJay, demotion is to 'reduce in grade, rank, or status', not necessarily to a previous position.Tomlock01 (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Having just read the article, strike the above. I think 'demoted' is sufficient, since it is mentioned earlier that he was previously reserve team coach. Tomlock01 (talk) 23:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed, it is possible to be demoted to a position that one has not held before. McGuinness may have been demoted to assistant manager, youth team coach or even physio, but he was demoted back to his previous position. Out of interest, J3Mrs and Malleus, what term would you have used if McGuinness had taken up a different position after he was relieved of the managerial role? – PeeJay 23:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "Demoted back" makes no more sense than "demoted forwards". The word "demoted" is clearly not the best choice in this case. I've reworded to "Busby was persuaded to temporarily resume managerial duties and McGuinness returned to his position as reserve team coach." Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Obviously, demotion always indicates that the new position is of a lower rank than the previous one; "demoted back" merely refers to someone being demoted to a position they previously held. Unless you've discovered a novel form of time-travel, it is not possible for anyone to be "demoted forwards", but it is definitely possible to be "demoted back". – PeeJay 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation, but it isn't mine. The point I was making is that "back" is redundant. You have interpreted "back" in a particular way, but I think the better solution is the rewording I have suggested. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Good choice.Tomlock01 (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Original research/synthesis
In the section on the Early years, I've again cut the conversion of Newton Heath's £2,670 debts when they declared bankruptcy into current rates using a website to recalculate it with inflation. Wikipedia is based on verifiable, reliable sources: we haven't got one that says that the first figure (from Tyrell and Meek's book) is equivalent to the second, hence it is a synthesis of the two sources to claim it is and thus original research. Haldraper (talk) 08:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree. Is the £2,670 figure is sourced? Yes; is the method for conversion to modern money sourced? Yes. So why is it a problem that we don't have a source that explicitly states that £2,670 in 1902 is equal to £210,000 in 2010? – PeeJay 10:58, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are talking nonsense Haldraper; whether you like it or not that conversion is staying. FYI, the conversion is perform by the inflation template, not by a web site, and that template is used is this exact same way in many other articles, including many FAs, Malleus Fatuorum 13:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Progress...
What are everyone's thoughts on the article as it stands? It's made some great progress over the past few days but what needs work etc.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The prose is still dodgey in places, and needs to be tidied up once we're happy all of the content is in place. For instance:
 * "... their form collapsed and they finished in fourth-place."
 * "... but did not regain the league until 2003."


 * I think we're still missing something about the phenomenon that is Manchester United. Why are they the best supported club in the world? I also think we should leave the article at peer review for a reasonable length of time, at least a week, and then go through on a final tidy-up before taking it back to FAC. Malleus Fatuorum 21:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the only problem with 'the phenomenon' is that football support is very subjective. I think we would find it hard to add material in this area whilst maintaing NPOV. Agreed regards PR. Tomlock01 (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree; Here's one fairly recent study. Without something on this aspect of the club I'm absolutely convinced this article would fail the comprehensiveness FA criterion. Malleus Fatuorum 22:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. Is that the only significant thing you think is missing? And would you say it should go in 'support', or warrants its own section? Tomlock01 (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it warrants its own section. We need to explain how a railway works football team became the world's premier sports club brand. Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I actually think it would be quite appropriate to place it in the "Support" section. I mean, we are looking at why the club is so well-supported. – PeeJay 11:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that wouldn't be my preference. It isn't just about support, it's also about the global value of the brand. Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * But isn't the "global value of the brand" based on people's support for the club? If you buy a match ticket, join the supporters club, buy a piece of merchandise or pay to watch them on TV, are you not supporting the club? – PeeJay 18:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I hardly know where to begin in answering your question, so I'll just say no, it isn't anything like the same. The issue is why and when did MUFC become a global phenomenon. Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't know where to start, then it obviously doesn't matter where you start, so just start somewhere. This is definitely an issue relating to the support of the club. – PeeJay 20:08, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Look, it's quite clear that you don't have even the faintest idea what you're talking about. Malleus Fatuorum 20:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. So why don't you explain it to me? You obviously think you're the authority on the subject, so why not fill me in? I must be missing something, after all! – PeeJay 20:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Try reading a book for once in your life. I pointed out a relevant one above. You're thinking of Manchester United as just a football club; you need to think about it as a global marketing organisation as well. Malleus Fatuorum 20:42, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * A global marketing organisation geared towards generating revenue through support for the club. Yes, it really is that simple. By the way, stay civil ;-) – PeeJay 20:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Civility
For anyone who has forgotten about this site's policy, I suggest that everyone reads WP:CIVIL. We are all working towards the same goal here, and it doesn't serve any constructive purpose to fly off the handle just because someone has a contrasting viewpoint to you. I shouldn't have to say this, as I thought we were all experienced editors, but it would be far more helpful to set up a discussion thread on this page rather than jumping to expletive-ridden edit summaries. I hope this helps you, and just remember that we all want the same thing for this article – for it to be as good as it can possibly be – and I don't see how we can do that if we're all too busy biting each other's heads off! – PeeJay 20:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Totally agree and I have left a message on a users talk page with the same point. Bjmullan (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "We are all working towards the same goal here" I wonder, PeeJay, if this is true. I have just noticed you have reverted Malleus three times today, and my edits in a similar vein earlier in the week. You have hidden reverts with edit summaries such as "clean up". Civility takes many forms, hiding behind oblique, misleading edit summaries is as uncivil as anything you might suggest. Malleus is right, "club" and "team" are singular nouns and it is astonishing you won't take advice from an excellent copyeditor. I think you have probably made more reverts than positve contributions to this article over the last week or so. --J3Mrs (talk) 21:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course we are all working towards the same goal. It just so happens that my definition of improvement differs slightly from yours or Malleus's. It is not possible for a group of people to agree with each other on all issues all the time. If you would care to list the reverts I have performed with the summary "cleanup", I would be quite happy to give you a full explanation for them. Secondly, "club" and "team" are not always singular nouns. If you would both care to read Discretionary plural, you will see a pretty good assessment of this very situation. I'm sure Malleus is a very good copyeditor, but that does not mean that he is infallible, and it won't be possible for you to see that if you're always singing his praises. Finally, I hope you're not comparing your perception of me committing unintentional subterfuge to Malleus's flagrant use of profanity and insult towards me, because in terms of civility they are not comparable at all. – PeeJay 21:32, 11 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I think I was:-)--J3Mrs (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you condone Malleus's use of such abhorrent language towards another editor who was only acting in good faith (as you are supposed to assume)? – PeeJay 22:25, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

95-96 Double Year
It states "They were replaced by members of the club's youth team, including David Beckham, Gary Neville, Phil Neville and Paul Scholes, who helped the team win the League in 1996, and another double in 1997."

Man Utd won the double in the 95-96 season not in 1997. Please correct this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobb1985 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

-- HonorTheKing (talk) 16:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC).
 * Nice catch, Iv'e fixed it.

Ron-Robert Zieler
Says on his page that he signed for Hannover in April so someone need sto remove him from the squad list on here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.30.121 (talk) 08:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No, because the transfer doesn't go through until 1 July. – PeeJay 08:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit current squad
Add Javier "El Chicharito" Hernandez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.101.48 (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, the transfer does not go through until 1 July. – PeeJay 10:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Sub Pages
What are everyone's thoughts on merging the three most recent sub pages (that is the three that span Sir A's reign)?

This has now been done on the main article, and I see no reason why the Trebel season should be a sub-page given it will be listed in the season pages anyway.

Tomlock01 (talk) 21:03, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
 * There is only one article about the Treble season. I do agree that the articles about 1986-1998 and 1999-present should be merged, with a short summary of the 1998-99 season sandwiched in the middle. – PeeJay 23:43, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yea sorry I mean't that there is no need for it to be listed as a subpage. I'll merge and copy edit as necessary. Tomlock01 (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

A.H Albut
PeeJay do you have a source that we can use to cite this guy as manager? I understand the committee point etc, but he listed as a manager on stretfordend.co.uk (although James West is) and I can't find anything mentioning him as having managerial responsibilities in any of my books. Tomlock01 (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Player Loans
Another thing, on the united website Welbeck, Cleverly, Gray, Cathcart and James are the players listed as being on loan. Is this just because the club don't update it properly, because these are different to the ones we have in the article. Tomlock01 (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, those players are supposed to be on loan until 30 June, but other users have assumed that the loans ended at the end of the season in early May. I just wish that clubs would be a little more transparent about contract end dates! – PeeJay 21:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, well the united website lists Welbeck as still on loan, despite the fact he returned to the club for treatment so it would help if the club kept their website up to date. Tomlock01 (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Should Tosic be removed from the player loans section? I thought he had now been sold. Is it possible to add a future signings section for Hernandez and Smalling? Valencia's page has this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.108.210 (talk) 08:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Tosic transfer does not go through until 1 July, the same for Hernandez and Smalling, as this is when the transfer window opens. I've go not problems with a future signings section - go ahead and add it if you want. Tomlock01 (talk) 12:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, adding a future transfers section is a bad idea. Transfers should only be added to the club's individual season articles. – PeeJay 20:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Club staff
What are people's views on cutting down the list of staff a bit? Tomlock01 (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The list was already cut down a lot, as you may notice from the number of entries that have been commented out. Which positions were you thinking of removing? – PeeJay 21:57, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm personally happy with the list as it is, and given that I spent a long time finding references for all the positions, I'd wouldn't particularly want to see any removed. It's just that it came up in the peer review that is might a breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and to be honest I can see why people may feel positions like assistant club doctor are unnecessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomlock01 (talk • contribs) 11:59, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You know, I hadn't even realised there was a new peer review. I've now added it to my watchlist. – PeeJay 15:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * OK great. I've already tackled most of the minor things that were raised. I still need to get round to the 'global phenomenon' bit, but that aside, how far off FAC do you think we are? Tomlock01 (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No mention of Cristiano Ronaldo?
It's rather strange that the article doesn't mention Cristiano Ronaldo. Is there a reason for that? Mecanismo | Talk 19:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because he's a git? (I'm quoting from a BBC radio presentation, not necessarily saying that's my opinion.) Malleus Fatuorum 20:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does mention Cristiano Ronaldo, but he is a git.21:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a separate article for Newton Heath?
On 13 January 1902, the Manchester Guardian reported:

"Attention was directed to the Second League by the unusual experience of Newton Heath. The club is financially in a bad way. A winding up order to meet a debt of £242 precipitated matters last week and no arrangements could be made for playing the game fixed for Saturday. One hears that a new club will be formed out of the ashes of the old one, but this has not been decided definitely."

A separate article for the earlier club would be consistent with other more recently reformed clubs, such as FC Halifax Town.

At the very least, the article should be revised to reflect that the club was reformed, and not merely renamed.

219.74.243.60 (talk) 12:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Opinions are divided on this issue. Some sources state that Newton Heath was merely on the brink of bankruptcy and the formation of Manchester United was simply a name change, while other sources state that the club did actually go bankrupt and Manchester United was an entirely new organisation. Personally, I think the current wording is a decent compromise. – PeeJay 13:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * The contemporaneous Guardian article refers to a "winding up order", which is the equivalent for a company as bankruptcy is for an individual.

219.74.243.60 (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it not possible for a company to be subject to a winding up order without actually being wound up? – PeeJay 14:16, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * A winding up order could be set aside in certain circumstances I suppose, for example, where the debts are settled (I'm not sure CVAs existed back then), but interestingly, the Guardian article goes on to state that "One hears that a new club will be formed out of the ashes of the old one, but this has not been decided definitely."


 * Newton Heath fulfilled their fixture on 4 Jan, failed to fulfil their fixture on 11 Jan, but fulfilled their fixture on 18 Jan. A lot happened between 11 and 18 Jan to revive the club!


 * At present, the article reads "In January 1902, with debts of £2,670 – equivalent to about £210,000 as of 2010 – the club was declared bankrupt."  If nothing else, the wording after the hyphen should be changed to "a winding up order was made against the club".

219.74.243.60 (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * There is an article from the Manchester Evening News dated January 9th 1902 reproduced in Back Page United by Stephen F. Kelly (ISBN: 1-85291-553-6) that might settle the argument. I've copied it out verbatim and in full: Decorativeedison (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the articles are better as one FWIW - Newton Heath is widely known as the name of the club in its earliest incarnation. Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:24, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reference style
There has been a bit of debate as to whether references should include the parent organisation of publications such as The Times, and in the case of BBC sources whether it is necessary, or correct, to include the words 'British Broadcasting Corporation' in brackets in addition to either 'BBC Sport' or 'BBC News'. Having thought about it, my view is that BBC Sport or BBC News should suffice, or in the case of a print publication, 'The Times' would suffice and there would be no need to add the parent organisation. Please add your views so we can reach consensus. Tom (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Return to Harpurhey
As per this discussion, I'm reverting a recent edit that again wrongly states that the United vs Blackpool game in 1902 was played in Harpurhey. Decorativeedison (talk) 14:44, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

James W. Gibson's wife
I have found numerous sources all giving different first names for James W. Gibson's name. Some refer to her as Lilian, some as Anne, and plenty with variations of those two names. However, I have a copy of "The Gibson Guarantee" (a sort of biography of James W. Gibson, paying specific attention to his time in charge of Manchester United), which gives her name as Annie Lillian Gibson (née Ward); it also mentions that she was commonly known by her middle name. Since this book was written with the help of Alan Gibson (James and Lillian's son, later United chairman) and Alan Embling (one of Alan Gibson's cousins), I think we should use the name Lillian Gibson when referring to James W. Gibson's wife. – PeeJay 23:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Do any of these sources mention a) Alan Gibson being promoted to the board in 1948 and b) Lillian retaining ownership? Tom (talk) 00:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Page 92 of "Manchester United: The Biography" (2008) by Jim White reads:
 * "James Gibson, the manager's supporter in the boardroom, [...] died in 1951. His shares were kept in a draw [sic] by Violet [presumably yet another wrong name for Lillian Gibson], his widow, until she – seemingly unaware that they held much in the way of value beyond sentiment – sold them to Louis Edwards in 1971. Violet never had any interest in taking charge of her husband's train set. So, even as Gibson's son Alan was voted in as a director, control of the board passed to Harold Hardman."
 * Page 59 of "Manchester United: Betrayal of a Legend" (1990) by Michael Crick and David Smith reads:
 * "Of the 142 shareholders at the time of the company's annual return in 1962, none had a majority of the 4,132 ordinary shares in the company. The highest stake was held by the Gibson family. Anne Gibson, wife of the late chairman, James Gibson, held 894, and their son, the United director Alan Gibson, owned 832. So between them Alan Gibson and his mother could command 1,726 shares, 41.8 per cent of the equity."
 * Page 181 of the same book reads:
 * "In June 1984 Edwards persuaded vice-chairman Alan Gibson, who had served on the board since 1948, and Bill Young, a director since 1960, to resign."
 * That's about all I can find on the topics you've asked for. If you need anything else, please ask. – PeeJay 10:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for these by the way, I've added them in. Tom (talk) 13:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * For comparative purposes, according to Crick & Smith (1990), the next biggest shareholder after the Gibsons was Mabel Whittaker (widow of George Whittaker, who was on the United board until he died just before Munich); she held 468 shares. Only five other people held more than 100 shares. – PeeJay 14:20, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Crest and colours
Firstly, use of the phrase "chest of the kit"; surely that should say "chest of the shirt"?

Secondly, why have the references to early colours recently been changed from an online source to simply "Manchester United Museum, Old Trafford", which does not actually include any information or displays on the kits mentioned anyway?

There is also a problem with the nomenclature used. The phrase "gold-and-green" is currently used to describe the kits registered with the Football League as "green and gold". Should we not also use that phrase verbatim (and why do people keep arbitrarily changing it)? The other is the use of the words "halved" and "quartered" to describe shirts of different colours but the same basic design. From Historical Football Kits:

I propose simply using the word "halved" in both cases. The article incorrectly states that the 1894–1896 home kits were halved, when in fact (as the removed references showed) were solid green with gold trim. I also suggest using the more accurate "navy" rather than "blue" to describe the shorts and socks of the Newton Heath era.

Also, the reference to the resurrected 1909 FA Cup final design does not make it clear that it was used as the first choice "home" kit. Also, if you are mentioning something as trivial as the change of sock colour for a single season in the "exceptions", maybe it's worth including the cherry and white hooped shirts United adopted as their "luck" home shirts in the later part of the 1933/34 season when they avoided relegation to the third division.

I see the point in the need for a rewrite and to keep the article concise, but surely butchering a previously correct part of the article and replacing parts of it with inaccurate and incorrect "facts" does not improve it at all. Decorativeedison (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Regards the first point, I suppose both are correct but yes "chest of the shirt" is more accurate; my bad.


 * Regards sources, because the online sources have been deemed (not by me) insufficiently reliable. Actually I went down to the museum, and all the information cited to it is covered.


 * I'm not sure I agree regards the "halved" vs "quartered" issue, I think its pretty clear what "halved" and "quartered" mean.


 * No, the reference does not make clear it was used at the first choice "home" kit, but then that isn't mentioned in the article. The reference does say that it was used in the cup final, and that it was resurrected between 1922 and 1927.


 * What else is inaccurate or incorrect?


 * I agree that this section could do with some improvement, why not have a stab at it? I'll help. Tom (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * "Not sure you agree with" the findings of a website soley dedicated to researching football kits? With the greatest respect, I'd suggest that it does not really matter whether you agree with it or not. It's reputable, reliable and is backed up with photographic evidence. In fact (all of) the famous photos of Newton Heath teams in their halved jerseys actually show them in the red and white rather than green and gold. To the modern reader the term "quartered" generally refers to harlequin style shirts, which the Newton Heath era jerseys were not.


 * I live a mile or so from Old Trafford and have visited the museum several times. Aside from a glass cabinet with some old shirts (and a few pairs of shorts), there's no real resource or documentation about the kits the club has used. Certainly nothing there that I have seen tells you when United switched to red socks for example. In any case, how is replacing a website that has been meticulously researched and with each article backed up with photographic evidence as a citation with "I went to the museum" in any way preferable? How is it even within the spirit of best practice? It's the very definition of " insufficiently reliable". You state that someone other than yourself deemed the old references as such, but looking at the discussion pages and the edit history, I see no such concensus was reached and that the user who replaced all the old references was Tomlock01. Bizarre.


 * The reference to the white shirt with a red sash that was worn in the 20s comes after a sentence about "notable exceptions" to the traditional home kits of red shirts, white socks and black shorts. I'd say that switching to these colours for five years is a notable exception and as your source does not mention that they were the first choice kits during that period it is a poor choice of reference. The other sources (historicalkits.co.uk and unitedkits.com) do, however. At best that section of the article is confusing and ambiguous.


 * The date given for when United started to wear shirts with the club crests on them is incorrect too, it was a year earlier, at the start of the 1972/73 season. I don't really understand the need to remove the line about the words "football club" being removed from the crest, either.


 * As for the last line of your reply; I have had a stab at it. I added reliable, checkable, on-line (rather than metaphysical), references. I added sections explaining edits and asking for input in the discussion pages. The section was then rewritten, inaccuracies were added and the references were deleted. You may appreciate why the idea of correcting/reverting the section isn't particularly appealing. If you would like to correct these mistakes, that would be appreciated, however. Thank you. Decorativeedison (talk) 21:59, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't understand why you feel the need to be so rude. Regards the sources issue, it was raised at FAC, and at Peer Review. Yes I did replace the references, on the basis of advice received there. I'll have a go at re-writing the section, and let you know when I've finished. Tom (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I think you must have read it in a tone which I did not intend, maybe it was more "strongly worded" than was ideal, but my intention was not to be rude. Apologies if you felt it was. To be honest, I was a bit miffed about the state of the article since the edits were made but that's the extent of it. I'm not getting into a rage or anything like that, but when feel you do a good job of something it's a bit baffling to see arbitrary changes made to your work. I really can't understand how a solid reference can be replaced by something whereby you just have to take a user's word for it that they have been to a museum. Seems very anti the verifiability criteria, mainly "Whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." I suppose that readers could check by going to the Old Trafford museum, but they could far more easily check with reference to a website could they not? Again, apologies if you feel I have overstepped a mark, I was just frankly incredulous that such a reference could be suggested as an improvement to the article. Decorativeedison (talk) 23:34, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No harm done. When you say you were a "bit miffed about the state of the article", did you mean the entire article or just the 'crest and colours' section? Quite a lot of work has been done on this article over the past few months, which resulted in it regaining GA status not so long ago. I admit that I have cut a lot of stuff out of the article, but I feel that the changes have been, on the whole, positive and I'd welcome you're thoughts on the article as a whole if you did not feel this was the case.
 * Regards the sources, as I say, I changed them only on the basis of advice received at Peer Review and FAC. I'm fairly new serious editing at Wikipedia, so I take guidance on most things whenever it is offered. The online sources have had their reliability questioned, as I said, most certainly not by me; I understand that you wrote United Kits (very impressive, I might add) but I was told that print sources should be used wherever possible. My only concern regards your site, absolutely no offence intended, is that if the photos have been sent in, how do you know they actually refer to the year that it says they do? For example, I have a print source that cites the 1892 team photograph as the "earliest known photograph of the Newton Heath team", whereas I know you have earlier team photos on your site.
 * I've changed the section a bit, but I am by no means finished. Basically, I've gotten all the information I can out of the only two books I have with me here, which are the Official Illustrated Encyclopaedia, and 'True Colours' by John Devlin. Unfortunately, all of my other books are in my loft at my other house but when I get back there I'll get them all out. Everything that is in this section as of now is covered in these two books, including the dates (whether these are correct or not). I certainly would not have removed the references to the online sources unless it was recommended that I do so. I think I will raise this issue at the reliable sources noticeboard and see what the feedback is. Like I said, I'll keep working on the section and drop you a message when I think I've done, and I'll have a look at previous versions in the process. I didn't mean to offend you by changing it, and I certainly understand how frustrating it is when people change things you've worked on!
 * Best wishes, Tom (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I have just found the FAC discussion to which you were referring. I noticed you essentially were arguing the same points as I have been doing, so apologies for assuming you took the opposite view. You apparently felt just as I did re the museum reference. I have not seen such on any other article here and am surprised that it was suggested in a peer review. Perhaps it is in the best interest of the article to forget about FAC as it seems in my opinion to significantly devalue the informative content of it. The stance they take on certain things is bizarre. Sorry, mate. Decorativeedison (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No need to apologise! I know what you mean regards FAC, there are so many hoops to jump through its ridiculous. I really can't stand the fact that Manchester City F.C. is featured, and Manchester United F.C. isn't though! Tom (talk) 00:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, it's easy for the City article to be featured as there's not that much for them to write about and get good references for, is there? The only part of the article I was unimpressed with was the crest and colours section - the rest is fine.
 * The question about unitedkits is a fair one. We do allow people to send photos to us, but we sourced the vast majority of them ourselves before it went live. Every photo was referenced by identifying all known players and corroborating dates with the photographs on the computer database at the museum. We double checked that every photo was correctly dated by looking at the player records. If a player had left the club at a certain point, we'd know that the photo would have to have been taken prior to that. We also had help from the author of "The Story of Green & Gold Newton Heath 1878-1902" in identifying previously unrecognised players. As for fallacies in other books - that's why we started our research which led to the website. There is an awful lot of stuff about Newton Heath that is repeated in all the books without the authors ever checking whether it is true or not.
 * John Devlin's work is fantastic but as it only covers the 1980s onwards, it is pretty limited in its usefulness here. There is a book called Man United Miscellany which contains a print version of all the United kits from historicalkits.co.uk. Unfortunately, since its publication the website has made a good few corrections - the "quartered" jersey confusion had not been solved before it went to print, for example. The FAC did not actually say that historicalkits or unitedkits were not reliable sources - they asked "why are they reliable sources?". Why are they not is an equally valid question. They even had problems with stretfordend too. They want the moon on a stick by the sound of it. Also, one of the panel incorrectly said the Munich Air Disaster was in 1956 and that George Best beat Benefica (sic) single handed in the final. In fact it was two years earlier when United beat them 5-1 that he was hailed "El Beatle", Aston won the man of the match award in 1968.Decorativeedison (talk) 00:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha good point! Regards your website, does it say that anywhere on the website? I know you've got a list of contributors, but the bit about the museum? I only ask because if the website listed the manchester united museum as a source, then I can't see how anyone could question its reliability. When I ordered Devlin's book, I thought it said 1880-present day; wasn't till it arrived that I realised the mistake, but I suppose it acts as a good source for more recent kits. I'm fairly sure I've got the Miscellany book, certainly rings a bell so I'll get that out too. The funny thing is that there would be no doubt about the reliability of that book, even though it was written from information on historicalkits.co.uk, which isn't good enough, madness! Tom (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Tom, Just checked the revisions to the article and it now contains even more mistakes. I think in terms of clarity (on what is a subject of little importance and niche interest if we are honest) and ease of reading it should be stripped down to the essentials.


 * As it stands, the following is incorrect:


 * 1: "...the crest was not included on the chest of the shirt until 1973 (unless the team was playing in a Cup Final)." The crest was actually first featured on the shirts in 1972. You could use The Man United Miscellany by Andy Mitten (ISBN: 1905326270) as a reference for this. I do not have a page number as I do not have it with me currently.


 * 2: "The earliest known photograph of the Newton Heath team, taken in 1892, shows the players wearing a green and gold strip with laced collars." It does not, it shows the team in red and white. The Definitive Newton Heath by Alan Shury & Brian Landamore confirms the club's registered colours at the time as red and white quartered ("halved" in modern parlance) shirts. Also, the earliest known photo of the team is from 1890 (it shows them in front of the Manchester Cup which they had won in May of that year and it features players such as Ramsay and Mitchell who had left the club by 1891).


 * 3: "Between 1892–94, the players wore red-and-white quartered jerseys and blue shorts..." The dates are incorrect - The Definitive Newton Heath confirms that the club were wearing red and white as far back as 1889. Green and gold shirts in a variety of styles were worn from 1893-96 (Mitten's book above could be used as a ref if needed). Again, I think the words "halved" and "navy" should be used in place of "quartered" and "blue".


 * 4: "In 1934, players wore maroon shirts with white hoops..." Books such as the 2001 edition of The Official Manchester United Illustrated History (ISBN: 0233999655) refer to the colours as "cherry and white hoops".


 * 5: "An all-grey away kit worn during the 1995–96 season was dropped after just two games..." It was actually worn in five games (Villa, Arsenal, Liverpool, Forest and Southampton), during which United won just one point. The only source for this other than unitedkits is the season review video, as the yearbook (atypically) does not include match by match photos. Perhaps avoiding this detail altogether is the only way to do it. Decorativeedison (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that these details may be incorrect, but they are verified, (that is, the current facts are supported by sources), except the point about the earliest photo, which is my bad, I mis-read it. See WP:Truth, it may sound silly but the criteria for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. As I said, everything in the section at the moment is as it appears in the two books I have with me, including the use of the term "halved". I appreciate it is frustrating that the information is wrong, but I have completed the section to the best of my ability with the sources I have at the moment, but will tackle all of your points, using the sources you have suggested, when I get home, is that OK? Until then could you help me out with the following points:

1. How do you know which colours are represented in black and white photographs? (I'm not being facetious, I'm genuinely curious). 2. Can you explain the "halved" vs "quartered" issue to me like I'm an idiot, because I just don't get it. I would assume the term 'halved' applied to shirts like the 08-09 Barca shirt (see here 2008–09 FC Barcelona season), thats correct yes? Are you saying that a 'quartered' shirt would look the same, it would just be made from more pieces of material?

Thanks, Tom (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, one more thing. Which colours did the club first wear, when it was formed? Was it green and gold, then red and white, before becoming green and gold again? Tom (talk) 13:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Tom, I see what you are saying about verifiability, but that is why I provided alternate sources. These ones are correct as per my (and others) own research and are as reliable for use purely as a reference source as the incorrect ones.


 * To address your points:


 * 1. With reference to both newspaper articles (as reprinted in The Definitive Newton Heath for example) and a set of books published during the period called The Association of Football Statistics Annuals. Nothing is assumed, unless we state such. Look at the "kit notes" tab on each season on unitedkits and we list our evidence sources.


 * 2. Your books correctly use the word halved to describe shirts which we would in modern English term as such - like the traditional Blackburn Rovers shirt for example, but not exactly like that Barcelona shirt though... The term "quatered" - as in the quote above - refers to a shirt where the body is made of four panels of material. The body of the shirt consists of both the front and the back. I suspect you are just picturing the front of the shirt. Look at a Blackburn shirt for example - the front right hand side is white, the front left hand side is blue, while the reverse is true of the back of the shirt as it is made of four panels of material. The 2008-09 Barca shirt is red on the same side of the front and back of the shirt and that is quite unusual for such kits. It would not have been described as "quartered" in the 1890s, if you follow me. Blackburn's would have. I've made an image to explain it visually here.


 * As for the original colours - for the first year, the club had no official colours, players provided the kits themselves and wore whatever they had available. In 1879 they raised money for a set of cashmere green and gold jerseys. This information was sourced from manutd.com in 2002 but has since been deleted when the website was updated. As such it is unfortunately unverifiable, I suppose. There is to my knowledge only one photo of a player (Sam Black) wearing the famous green and gold halves. It's here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/35779154@N02/3556013077/in/set-72157621113339593/ I suspect it is okay to use this given the fact it was taken in the 1880s. I doubt that the photographer survived past the 1940s so you can site the 70 year rule. Decorativeedison (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep I get your point regards the other sources, both of which I believe I have somewhere, I was just saying that although the facts may be incorrect, they are still valid because they are sourced. When I get home I will use the sources you mentioned, and change the dates accordingly. I suppose it might be worth adding in a footnote (as I've done with the date of the name change, to explain that sources differ on a lot of these issues)?
 * Thanks for explaining the kit thing, I get what you mean know; yes I was just picturing the front of the shirt! I did see that picture of Sam Black, and we could certainly include it, but how can we be sure it was taken in 1884? When did Sam Black leave the club, and do you know of any sources we can use to verify when he did so? Tom (talk) 15:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as Sam Black goes, he played for the club before records were kept and had left by the time they began to do so in 1887. The photo must predate 1887 on that evidence, but I can see that it is not as clear cut as we would like it to be. There is very little information to be had about him. the 2001 Illustrated History book I mentioned above simply mentions him leaving to join Burton Wanderers and no date is given. The Story of Green & Gold Newton Heath 1878-1902 by Charbel Boujaoude has a lot of info but I do not currently have a copy with me. No rush though, I'll give you a ref from it when I get it back. Alternatively, it's less than £8 on Amazon at the moment.


 * I've had a crack at rewriting the section and (although far from perfect and with no references currently) it is more accurate. If you want to use some of it go ahead. I'f you don't, I'll understand:

Thoughts? Decorativeedison (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep looks good. I'll look for references for all of it before moving it to the article. Tom (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Just changed the description of the new kit as it was slightly unnecessarily detailed. Also, (once again) the club website got it wrong. There are four options for the home kit, just as there have been since the days of Admiral kits: red shirt, white shorts, black socks (as worn for all home matches), or; red shirt, white shorts, white socks (as worn in home European matches for example or against a team in white shirts with dark shorts and socks such as Spurs), or; red shirt, black shorts, white socks, (as worn against Portsmouth - may not get any use this season!) or; red shirts, black shorts, black socks (as worn when playing Everton). Decorativeedison (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 80.2.150.165, 23 July 2010
change to

80.2.150.165 (talk) 11:38, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * See above. Tom (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Dabomb87 (talk) 13:52, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Home-grown players
Should the article acknowledge which players are registered (or, rather, at this stage, eligible to be registered) with reference to the new league rules on the registration of "home-grown players"? Omgosh30 (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say no, not until the rules come into force, if they ever do. Tom (talk)
 * They have, which is why I brought it up. http://www.premierleague.com/page/AcademicsPL/0,,12306~1804959,00.html Omgosh30 (talk) 22:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we should just wait until the club announces its 25-man squad. – PeeJay 22:17, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah right sorry I was thinking of that FIFA rule they were talking about. Surely we should wait, in that case, until the 25 man squad, including the eight players, has been announced? Tom (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, yes. I brought it up given what looks like a previous reticence to include information on Champions League squads. The league squad is probably of more importance though. A reason to add the information now is that, although this is not so important for United who will not need to sell any of their over-21s (cf. Liverpool and Man City), it might be useful for someone who wishes to know whether the squad conforms to the regulations as of now. Omgosh30 (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But all clubs have until the end of the transfer window, which is when they need to declare their squads, to conform to the regulations, so surely its irrelevant whether they do as of this moment? Tom (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy for the article to stay as it is. I think it should be a consideration for addition as an educated football fan would be interested in that aspect of the squad's make-up, which should after all be an element in the decision-making as to what changes are made to the article. Demotion of the suggestion to "irrelevant" is silly. Omgosh30 (talk) 22:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the suggestion was irrelevant, I said whether or not the squad currently meets the regulations is irrelevant, because the squad is subject to change at the moment. The squad could currently meet the regulations, but several "home-grown" players could be sold in the meantime, meaning the squad would no longer meet the requirements.
 * You said "it might be useful for someone who wishes to know whether the squad conforms to the regulations as of now", I'm saying knowing whether or not the squad conforms as of now would be of limited use. I'm all for adding this information in, I'm just saying I think it should wait until the squad is announced, but thats just my opinion. Tom (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, whether or not the squad's playing staff conforms to the regulations at this point is not irrelevant. As you are doubtless aware, just 17 over-21s not defined as home-grown may be registered by a team. If a team has 23 over-21s that are not home-grown, this is of at least some interest, as that team would surely have to rid themselves of six players in the next month. This is why I suggested that we consider adding this information. Perhaps it's more at home on the 2010-11 season page. At any rate, I'm quite sure it will be a fixture on the page in future summers, once the media and general public have a better grasp of the rules! Omgosh30 (talk) 22:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't have to get rid of six players, they just wouldn't be allowed to register six of their non-homegrown players. Once the 25-man league squad is announced, I would suggest that we simply create a splinter squad list for the first-team players not included in that squad. Either that or we don't list them at all and stick them in the reserves article. – PeeJay 00:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Javier Hernandes t-shirt number On the subject of the numbers of shirts, javier hernandez jersey in the official store of Manchester United is number 14 I am providing the link here to change the information Hernandez

http://store.manutd.com/stores/manutd/products/product_browse.aspx?free_text=chicharito

thanks--Savage45 (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United is not based in Stretford, Greater Manchester
First line of this article is mistaken.

Manchester United are based on the [Salford (Pomona Docks)/Manchester (Old Trafford)] border. The conurbation/town/suburb of Manchester which is Stretford, is roughly a mile away going west from Manchester. Hense the name of the 'Stretford End/West stand'.

A number of borough councils make up the area called Greater Manchester. One of these is the 'Borough of Trafford'. This borough stretches from Altrincham to the edge of the city centre and meets the Metropolitan Borough of Manchester pretty much where Manchester United are based. This does not mean that towns and suburbs within the borough of Trafford are historically or geographically in Greater Manchester as opposed to Manchester. Boroughs are administrative divisions.

Manchester United are without a doubt historically and officially based in Manchester and not Greater Manchester. Just as the boroughs of Brent, Barnet, Camden, Westminster & Chelsea, Hammersmith & Fulham are within London.

In fact Stretford itself is a suburb of Manchester within the borough of Trafford.

To suggest that all suburbs of MANCHESTER which exist outside the Metropolitan Borough of Manchester are not in Manchester means that Manchester is a village and not a city.

In that case the name of the second best supported football club in Manchester is incorrect. It would be Manchester Village Football Club (MVFC) and not Manchester City Football Club. The first line of this article seems to be based upon the fact that Manchester United exist within the border's edge of the borough of Trafford. If this is the case then it equates to saying that you are in Timperley when in fact you are two and a half miles away in Stretford. Like saying you are in Kensington when you are in Camden.

It could also be based upon the incorrect notion that the stadium is actually in the suburb of Stretford - which is just not true, and if it were then it would be equally 9in fact more factual)possible to say that Manchester City is based in Bradford, Greater Manchester.

01/08/10 - I see that the article's first line now reads Old Trafford, Greater Manchester and not Stretford, Greater Manchester. It still should be noted that 'Greater Manchester' is a collection of areas / borough councils - and was originally declared a county - an idea which has since been rejected and discontinued. The term now only officially exists for the administrative purposes of policing, emergency services and transport. Manchester United is indeed based within a collection of geographical areas which share a police force and a transport system stretching from Bolton to Stockport and Wigan to Oldham but so does the city centre and the Manchester Town Hall - does this mean that Manchester Town hall would be mediated as being based in 'Greater Manchester'? Manchester United are based in Manchester. To clarify, there is no actual physical place or county called 'Greater Manchester'. It is now used for administrative, law and reference purposes only and as people from Stockport give their postal address as Stockport/Cheshire and people from Bolton give theirs as Bolton/Lancashire - people from Old Trafford give theirs as Old Trafford/Manchester. Sometimes possibly Old Trafford/Manchester/Lancashire. Very few people under the age of 120 would give a postal address of Old Trafford, Stretford, Lancashire and not many would give Old Trafford, Gtr Manchester. In reference to identifying the geographical position to those unaware, the term Greater Manchester is often used to describe the location of the 'once' satellite mill towns (now firmly part of the same conurbation) surrounding Manchester - the Manchester Urban Area - e.g. Stockport, Bolton, Oldham, Ashton, Altrincham etc. However, Old Trafford is definitely or has definitely become and has been for many years a suburb of the city of Manchester, even if it does not share the same local governmental body. It is not, nor probably can be, classed as one of these old satellite mill towns. You could argue that Old Trafford (and I am forgetful of the history) existed as a stand alone village in medieval times - but so, more than likely, did Chorlton-on-Medlock, Moss side, Collyhurst, Ardwick and of course Bradford. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EARTHLINGCREATION (talk • contribs) 23:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Manchester City Council are based at the town hall in Albert Square, Greater Manchester??????? There are parts of Manchester which are not governed by the City of Manchester's authority (Old Trafford), just as there are some parts of Manchester (The City of Manchester) which are policed and served by Greater Manchester Authorities and services.

Personally I was born in Manchester and grew up in a Manchester City Council House in Cheshire. It's all very confusing and is probably why the Republic of Mancunia is an easier option for some.

The rest of this article seems to be correct, but when I return to my city I will declare that Cristiano Ronaldo is the Prince of the Scoreboard End - and that bit is missing.


 * "Manchester United are without a doubt historically and officially based in Manchester and not Greater Manchester." That is clearly nonsense. The site of Manchester United's Old Trafford ground has never been in Manchester, it was in Lancashire. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

2010-11 away kit?
I dunno if anyone's seen the BBC website this morning, but they've put this tiny image on the main football news page. I think it's probably our new away kit, but I can't be sure. Has anyone seen anything similar? – PeeJay 11:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw that too, on the article about best selling football shirt names, right? They nicked it from the leaked photographs a few months ago; I too am sure that that will be the new away kit. Googling Manchester United Away kit turns up a few results of that shirt. Tom (talk) 12:14, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that became knowledge months ago when the now official home shirt did. You obviously can't change it yet though. Omgosh30 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * click Omgosh30 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You know what, I think we probably can change it. If you go to the homepage of the website it says 'New Away Kit, available to preorder now'.Tom (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Omgosh, what do you mean by "that became knowledge months ago"? The kit was only unveiled today! Anything leaked before today was just speculation. – PeeJay 15:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It "became knowledge months ago" through the normal avenues: leaked pictures and word of mouth (particularly for me as I have a friend who works in the design process for a fair few clubs). Those rumours were then strengthened when the home kit became official as the away kit details were initially circulated at the same time. I wasn't suggesting it should have been added when the photos were leaked though. Omgosh30 (talk) 03:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Rivalries
Why the mention of three clubs (Leeds, Liverpool and City) in the first line only to go on to mention just Leeds and Liverpool? Omgosh30 (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This was discussed in the article's FAC, and I was under the impression that Tomlock was going to add a bit about City to the section. Not sure why he hasn't yet. – PeeJay 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea sorry haven't got around to it yet. Tom (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I knew there would be a good reason :) – PeeJay 16:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Haha! ;) Tom (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I have never used this function before (so I'm sorry if I fuc* something up), but one could also argue that Chelsea F.C vs. Manchester United F.C is one of the modern rivalries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.88.77.158 (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * United v Chelsea is certainly always a competitive fixture these days, but it's never really seen the fierceness that matches against Arsenal, Liverpool, Leeds or Citeh have. – PeeJay 00:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 93.173.76.107, 4 August 2010
Javier "Chicharito" Hernandez has number 14 for man utd, its been confirmed everywhere.. Smalling it's still not sure what number he will get

93.173.76.107 (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Confirmed by whom? Certainly not by any official sources. – PeeJay 21:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Smalling is 12. I saw that in the friendly games in States


 * Just because a player wears a number on his shirt in a friendly match does not mean he will wear that number in competitive games. – PeeJay 06:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Go to manutd.com. Visit the online store. And then go for a customized Chicharito kit. He's no. 14. As for Smalling, i don't see him on the drop down list yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.6.131.177 (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The online store is not run by Manchester United. It is run by Kitbag.com. – PeeJay 01:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You go through this every year PeeJay. The only difference is that this year in the pre-season games the players actually did wear their squad numbers (and names on their shirts) as opposed to standard 1-11 numbers like they have done in all previous pre-season games. I imagine it was an effort to raise awareness of the squad numbers in order to sell more replicas while on tour. Frankly, I think you'd be better off just leaving the edits in place in these circumstances and then adding a reference when they are confirmed. Would save you and Tom an awful lot of effort writing replies and reverting changes. Incidentally, the squad numbers are now confirmed. Decorativeedison (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the squad numbers are now confirmed, and the speculation was correct all along, but I do not think we can use that as justification for adding unsourced content. To be honest, I'm surprised that the club hasn't released a press statement about squad numbers for this season. They have done for the last couple of years, so either they're planning to release it sometime before Monday or they're not going to this year. Most odd! – PeeJay 16:57, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"Manchester United is the joint most successful club in the history of English football"
Actually, it is the most successful club in the history of English football (having won the greatest number of domestic competitions). It is not the most successful English football club though. This sentence really needs clearing up as it's confusing as to what the claim actually is. Decorativeedison (talk) 00:05, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know who changed it to joint most successful, but I was a lot happier with 'one of the most successful clubs in the history of english football', as this is is no way contentious but still accurate. Tom (talk) 16:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree. It was changed simply because we won the Community Shield and hence went to the top of that table on the linked page. As if a Community Shield on anything but a simple tally of trophies equals a European Cup and puts us level with Liverpool. Ridiculous really. With the joint most league titles and outright highest number of domestic cups won, we are the most successful team in "English Football". Like I say, no matter how many Community Shields we win, that does not put us level with Liverpool over all - yet! I agree it should be changed to 'one of the most successful clubs in the history of english football' or possibly "one of the most successful English football clubs". Decorativeedison (talk) 14:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.116.25.103, 12 August 2010
Welbeck has joined Sunderland on loan till 30 june 2011 http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={F9E570E6-407E-44BC-800F-4A3110258114}&newsid=6651333 - 46.116.25.103 (talk) 18:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

lede
Came for some inspiration but found this: "but were it not for the depreciation of the pound sterling against the euro, Manchester United would have the highest revenue of any football club worldwide"

This could equally well read: "but were it not for the lower turnover, Manchester United would have the highest revenue of any football club worldwide"

I mean, of course exchange rates plays in, but when the pound depreciates, it is because it is worth less. Those two points are identical. Even if source mentions it (havn't read it), I think it should be removed from lead. Sometimes sources say silly stuff. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 18:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean, this is basically saying that were the pound vs euro exchange rate at the historical average, Manchester United would top the revenue table. Deloitte itself makes this assertion, and given that it is one of the largest accountancy firms in the world, I trust their judgement. Tom (talk) 22:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The way it is phrased make it sound like the current exchange rate is unnatural and will soon go back to it's old level. But that is not backed up by source. A more correct version would be "but if the euro-pound exchange rate had stayed at its 2007-level, Manchester United would have the highest revenue of any football club worldwide" Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 12:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 46.116.102.82, 23 August 2010
Bebe, who is a winger by the way, not a forward, has been registered as number 33 source: Twitters of official Manchester United journalists Ben Hibbs and Nick Coppack http://twitter.com/BenHibbs http://twitter.com/nickcoppack

46.116.102.82 (talk) 09:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Welcome and thanks, but twitter is not considered a relaible source. Can you provide a reliable source? Thanks, Celestra (talk) 13:39, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move
Consensus is clearly in favour of not moving (non-admin closure). Sandman888 (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Manchester United F.C. → — WP:COMMONNAME. Very few people bother to tack "F.C." on the end; it's just "Manchester United" in the vast majority of cases. Powers T 20:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for consistency with every other English club. – PeeJay 21:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per Peejay. There is already a redirect in place, so it doesn't matter whether "F.C." is tagged onto the end or not. Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - all English football clubs use "F.C." &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as above. Tom (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Unnecessary, and would be inconsistent with other English football club articles Tmol42 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per consistency. —Chrisportelli (talk) 09:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If consistency is an issue, how could this ever be changed? Should I have proposed moving every English football club at once?  Powers T 13:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * For many clubs, a similar move would be impossible. Liverpool F.C. cannot go at Liverpool and so on. Hence the use of F.C. across the board. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * And we should disambiguate when necessary. But this is artificial, not a choice among names provided by reliable sources. Support. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * A larger proposal via an RfC would be a better approach than changing clubs piecemeal. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - The most recent official Manchester United yearbook gives the club's name as "Manchester United Football Club", which is a subsidiary organisation of Manchester United Limited. I can provide a photograph of the appropriate page in the book if anyone would like. – PeeJay 21:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The club's official name isn't in dispute. Powers T 23:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like it to me. But then I have a history of mis-reading situations. Nevertheless, for consistency's sake, we should keep all English club articles exactly where they are, or expand their names so that we would end up with "Manchester United Football Club", "Bradford City Association Football Club" and "Football Club United of Manchester". No wait, that's a silly idea. – PeeJay 09:15, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * No, we all agree what the club's official name is. The question is what the article should be titled.  WP:OFFICIALNAME makes clear that we don't have to use the official name as the title if another version of the name is more common.  Powers T 11:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Comment. It is the same situation for many of the English football clubs. Of the current 20 clubs in the Premier League, 13 have redirects without the "F.C.", such as Aston Villa, Bolton Wanderers, Manchester City, Blackburn Rovers, so only 7 require disambiguation. It is similar in the other divisions. Thus the change suggested here could be used more widely. Cjc13 (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I totally understand the desire for consistency, but this article is being cited as an example for other soccer clubs to override WP:COMMONNAME even when consistency within a league isn't in question.  Powers T 14:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are problems with other clubs then let's hear about it. As far as I'm concerned, the established consensus is that we should endeavour to follow the same rules for all clubs under a given football federation; the present convention for Home Nations clubs is to use "F.C.", but that doesn't necessarily apply to teams in other countries. Nevertheless, there's strong consensus that internal consistency makes things less confusing than the use of the common name here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If the present title were absurd or uncommon then the common name would be vastly preferable. However, a tiny bit of disambiguation allows us the luxury of consistency across nearly a thousand articles on British football teams. That's a big win, and the benefit gained from using the strictly most common name doesn't seem to be worth the hassle. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 13:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose: outrageous proposal, would cause havoc. Big  Dom  14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support There does not exist any present "consistency", the club's have an FC or F.C. randomly appended in case it's ambiguous. A consistent effort would be to support the move and mass nom the remaining "Club FC" where FC is unneeded. Havoc? Sandman888 (talk) 14:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. There's presently a great deal of consistency with British clubs (of which Man United are one), with several hundred articles all named consistently. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 14:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah I see it's consistent in UK. Okay. Sandman888 (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Transaction Go (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - there is consistency at present; every club in Category: Premier League clubs has the "F.C." suffix.    Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose for consistency with the 1,184 other English club.--EchetusXe 14:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose per EchetusXe and BigDom amongst others. There is simply no need for this. пﮟოьεԻ   5  7  14:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Shameless plug it might be worth taking a look here, for an idea of how (in)consistent wikipedia club names are across Europe. --WFC-- 16:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Keep as Manchester United F.C.  Paralympiakos  (talk) 16:26, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is consistency with English clubs. Argyle 4 Life  talk  20:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. If every English club had a nicely disambiguated name this might work. But what do we do with, say, Reading F.C.? We need to keep the suffix for this reason, so we may as well have it everywhere for consistency. Alzarian16 (talk) 09:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There's no doubt that plain Manchester United is the common name. However, as Chris Cunningham says above, "a tiny bit of disambiguation allows us the luxury of consistency across nearly a thousand articles on British football teams". I think this is one of the few cases where WP:COMMONSENSE really does outweigh WP:COMMONNAME. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:55, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose - we need consistency across English football club names, and seeing as Liverpool F.C. cannot be renamed simply Liverpool (just one of many, many examples), then this move is pointless. GiantSnowman 13:47, 30 August 2010 (UTC)