Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Manchester United F.C. records and statistics


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by User:The Rambling Man 16:33, 13 August 2008.

Manchester United F.C. records and statistics
I believe this list is deserving of promotion to FL status as it meets the seven Featured List criteria. The prose exhibits a professional standard of writing. The lead is engaging and introduces the subject adequately, while also defining the scope and inclusion criteria for the list. The list then covers its entire scope comprehensively and is easy to navigate via the table of contents and its bullet pointed layout. There are also several images appropriate to the subject with captions tying the image in to the text. Finally, the list is fairly stable, being accurate as of the end of the last match played by Manchester United, and is subject to no more vandalism than can be expected of an article relating to such a high-profile football club. Finally, the list conforms to the style used in other lists of football clubs' records and statistics. – PeeJay 15:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * The lead should not start with "this is a list of...". Instead it needs to introduce the list in a more interesting and imaginative way. Although some existing FLs start in this way, the bar has seemingly now been raised (I discovered this at the West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons FLC). I'm not sure if this is explicitly written as a policy or guideline, but I guess (FLC director) The Rambling Man could provide more detail on this.
 * ✅ I have removed the "this is a list of..." statement.
 * ...based in Manchester. Really? According to the main club article they are based in Trafford, Greater Manchester. I think for FL it needs to be precise.
 * ✅ Changed to "Trafford, Greater Manchester".
 * "They are also involved in European football on a regular basis" - a historical slant may be better eg. Since their first entry in the European Cup in 19xx they have regularly competed in European football.
 * ✅ Reworded.
 * "The majority of Manchester United's success came in the 1990s" - I'm not sure this is accurate. How are you defining success - by number of trophies won? They won 19 trophies in the 1990s according to the prose, but they have won more than 38 trophies in their history. It is probably true that the 1990s was the club's most successful decade, but I think you need to be careful with PoV here. Probably easiest to remove the sentence entirely - by simply presenting the list of honours, the reader can decide when the club's most successful era(s) was/were.
 * ✅ Reworded.
 * "Record transfer fees paid" is possibly a bit ambiguous as some of them (e.g. Rooney) weren't club records. "Highest transfer fees paid" may be better. You could maybe footnote or bold the ones that were club records.
 * ✅ I have changed the section title as you suggest, but I think that bolding the club record transfers would be unnecessary if I can find a progression of the record fee paid.
 * Could you add "Progression of record fee paid"? (as per "Progression of record fee received")
 * ✅ I have commented out the progression of the record fee received until I can find a progression of the record fee paid.
 * I have compiled both progressions now.
 * I would separate out footnotes from specific references (e.g. see West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons again)
 * ✅ Done.
 * I have responded to all of your concerns above. – PeeJay 17:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Just one more issue before I can support the record transferes in and progression of transfers in has a bit of writing before the table I feel the record transfers out needs more than one sentence, and that the progression of transfers out needs at least a paragraph or you could do away with the writing. Just as long as your consistent on all four tables. Cheers NapHit (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Why are there colons in front of all the footnotes? I think they should be removed.— Chris!  c t 21:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. I was simply copying the style from West Bromwich Albion F.C. seasons and hardly noticed they were there. – PeeJay 21:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Support — Chris!  c t 22:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You may want to change "They have also been involved in European football ever since they became the first English club to do so in 1956." to something like "They have also been involved in European football ever since they became the first English club to enter the European Cup in 1956." cheers, Struway2 (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Done. – PeeJay 22:29, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

-- Crzycheetah 00:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments why are these sources reliable?
 * manutdzone.com is maintained by one person only, most likely just a fan
 * mufcinfo.com - same as above
 * Football Club History Database looks like another personal website.
 * Can't speak for the Man Utd sites, but Football Club History Database is probably the best sourced, most complete and most accurate database of English club histories currently in existence; check out the bibiliography and sources page. Maintained by Wikipedia editor User:Richard Rundle, a person who takes accuracy rather more seriously than do the compilers of some media-run football stats sites. It's regarded as totally reliable by WP:FOOTY. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that manutdzone.com and mufcinfo.com are two of the most comprehensive websites when it comes to Manchester United information, the latter in particular. Apart from being Man Utd sites, and therefore inherent with a slight United slant, I see no reason why these sites should not be used as reliable sources. – PeeJay 07:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I see the reason why these sites should not be used as reliable sources, though. They all violate WP:SPS. Each website is maintained by one person, who is not an established expert.-- Crzycheetah 08:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, are you referring to all three sites mentioned, or just the Man Utd ones? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All three. User:Richard Rundle basically maintains his website as we all maintain Wikipedia; that is, he researches all the info and then places them on his website. Am I wrong?-- Crzycheetah 09:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:V says that "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." FCHD is such a source and does have such a reputation; surely "research[ing] all the info" over a significant length of time is how reputations for fact-checking and accuracy are built up. What reason do you have for saying that Rundle "is not an established expert" in the field of football club history and statistics? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(→)The reason why I don't think Rundle "is not an established expert" is that I don't see any proof that he's one. Are there any third-party sources that prove that Rundle is an expert? ...because everyone's a non-expert until proven otherwise.-- Crzycheetah 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Is that even relevant? FCHD has a proven background for fact-checking, as shown by their extensive bibliography. – PeeJay 18:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my fault for introducing the red herring. Please consider these football club official sites: Cobham F.C., whose history page starts "For a full breakdown of Cobham's history in the league and FA competitions, check out the Football Club History Database." Abingdon Town F.C., which refers readers from their history page to the FCHD for major milestones and cup results. Biggleswade United F.C. says "For a breakdown of our history in Senior football go to the Football Club History Database website". There are many more. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's what I was looking for. -- Crzycheetah 19:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments from
 * Lead. Could do with citing never lower than second tier (FCHD would do for me) and first English club to enter European Cup (there's an RSSSF page, if you have nothing better).
 * ✅ Referenced.
 * Giggs' 15-second goal: not doubting the fact, but I'd be happier with a more obviously-reliable source for a club record than the trivia section of a rather eulogistic profile.
 * ✅ Changed to referencing a book.
 * Schmeichel's caps: the cited source doesn't mention 76 caps with United, and if you have a look at his Danish FA profile, it would appear to be 70, not 76 (caps nos. 43 to 112 inclusive, unless I've got his Man Utd dates horribly wrong).
 * ✅ I have changed the reference to use the link you provided, if you think that's suitable.
 * Highest transfers paid: change Rooney's "currently" to "as of" somewhen.
 * ✅ I have removed the word "currently" altogether. That is, unless you think an "as of" date would be appropriate.
 * In the top ten table, why are Anderson and Hargreaves listed as equal 5th, when the fees are different? Similarly Nani and Carrick.
 * ✅ I must have forgotten to change the ranks when I edited the fees.
 * Progression of record fee paid. The Tommy Taylor anecdote cites a page which attributes its content to another source. Perhaps you should change the citation to "original-source, reproduced at source-you-currently-cite".
 * The transfer tables don't seem to have a source.
 * ✅ I have added inline citations to the top of the fee column in each table.
 * Streaks: dates need linking (for consistency).
 * Images: MOS:IMAGES says that if an image "displays satisfactorily at the default size, it is recommended that no explicit size be specified", and images in portrait format (like Scholes and Ferdinand) should include the 'upright' parameter. On my browser/screen resolution, the Scholes image pushes the table down so there's quite a lot of white space between the youngest/oldest players bit and the Appearances table; if you moved him up to the top of the Players section the white space would be reduced significantly. Also, there's probably no need to wikilink Manchester United in the captions.
 * (My obsession...) filling in citation templates. For featured content, please be more precise about work and publisher in cite-web templates. E.g. EvertonFC.com is the domain name of a work published by Everton F.C., it's not a publisher. And be consistent about whether you have authors' surname first or last.
 * ✅ Where possible, I have replaced "dotcom" publishers with proper companies/organisations.
 * There's no need to repeat the whole detail every time you cite the same book, e.g. once you've fully cited The Definitive Newton Heath the first time it's referred to, you could have just cited Shury & Landamore, p. xx each subsequent time. I know it's too late to tell you that for this list, but for future reference...
 * I could replace the citations with "Shury & Landamore, p. xx" if you think it would harm this article's chances of reaching FL status if I didn't.
 * It won't make a blind bit of difference :-) just would have saved you some typing if you'd known... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There's no need to repeat the whole detail every time you cite the same book, e.g. once you've fully cited The Definitive Newton Heath the first time it's referred to, you could have just cited Shury & Landamore, p. xx each subsequent time. I know it's too late to tell you that for this list, but for future reference...
 * I could replace the citations with "Shury & Landamore, p. xx" if you think it would harm this article's chances of reaching FL status if I didn't.
 * It won't make a blind bit of difference :-) just would have saved you some typing if you'd known... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

hope some of this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It helped a lot. I didn't even know about that "upright" image parameter before today. – PeeJay 15:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Those are the two things that I saw at first - I might have another look later. matt91486 (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comments from
 * In the lead, the footnote at the end of "The club currently holds the record for the most FA Cup triumphs with 11" should be moved to the end of the sentence, regardless of it being after a comma.
 * Not necessarily. According to WP:REFPUNC, "Material may be referenced mid-sentence or at the end of a sentence or paragraph. When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the reference tag is normally placed immediately after any punctuation, except for dashes".
 * In the transfers section, it would nice to have the date column referenced as well as the fee. It looks like ref. 32 does both, so you could perhaps move that one over to the date section and leave 35 for referencing the transfer fees, assuming it does all of them. The page wouldn't load for me, so I couldn't verify that.
 * Unfortunately, ref 32 only has information from 1878 to 2004, while ref 35 has information from 1970 to the present day, so I thought it was best to use both references to cite the one column, and hence the whole table. By the way, if you're using Firefox to open ref 35, you should probably try using Internet Explorer. I have had a word with the author of the site about it, but I don't think he's done anything yet.
 * Cheers for the comments, dude. I have responded above. – PeeJay 17:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Super-pedantic comments:
 * Manchester United's first trophy was the Manchester and District Challenge Cup, which they won in 1886. - anachronistic, as they won the competition as Newton Heath. Also, the competition is almost always referred to simply as the "Manchester Cup".
 * Changed to "Manchester United's first trophy was the Manchester Cup, which they won as Newton Heath L&YR in 1886."
 * While is probably is a club record, the ref for the four Solskjaer goals does not say that it is a club record but only that it is a Premier League record. It also seems odd that this is included but fastest hat-trick is not. If these four goals also included the fastest hat-trick, this should be mentioned.
 * Funnily enough, I couldn't actually find the club record for the fastest hat-trick. I could go through the list of hat-tricks at stretfordend.co.uk to find the fastest one, but I'm worried that might count as WP:OR.
 * Do you think I should remove the Solskjaer record from the list then?
 * Jack Powell and Tom Burke for Wales vs England - avoid "vs" in prose".
 * Changed to "against".
 * It might be worth indicating which of the transfer records were also national records at the time, there are several others in addition to the two mentioned in the text.
 * I've bolded the names of players and fees involved in British record transfers.
 * There's at least one more (Pallister) and possibly two or three if memory serves me right (Keane, van Nistlerooy?) Oldelpaso (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Pallister was signed for £2.3 million in August 1989, which is less than the £4.25 million that Marseille paid for Chris Waddle in July 1989, as is the £3.75 million that United paid for Roy Keane. It is possible, however, that Pallister and Keane's transfers were records for transfers involving only British clubs. Also, Van Nistelrooy was signed for £19 million, which is less than the £22.5 million that Real Madrid paid for Nicolas Anelka in 1999. – PeeJay 19:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * They were record fees paid by a British club, which when the list is of fees paid, not received, I think would br more appropriate. Its your call though. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. I was just going by the Progression of British football transfer fee record article. Now I just need to find references for the British records. – PeeJay 08:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * It could be noted that the record attendance is also a League record. The reason for using "League" in the wording of the Old Trafford record is not immediately obvious. I know why you've put it like that - the ground record is a cup semi involving other clubs - but in a list of United records the attendances of other clubs are irrelevant.
 * I've reworded the record title, and noted that the attendance against Blackburn on 31 March 2007 is also a Premier League record.
 * Could really do with more solid refs than spartacus.schoolnet and manunitedzone. Is stretfordend.co.uk's claim to being the official club statistics site backed up anywhere else? More a matter of curiosity than disbelief. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * stretfordend.co.uk is linked to from the Manchester United website. If you click on "Fixtures & Results" in the menu on the left, and then the "Club Statistics" link (also on the left, under "Fixtures & Results"), it takes you to stretfordend.co.uk.
 * I've replaced the Spartacus ref with a print source. Oldelpaso (talk) 19:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Cheers for doing that. I've replied to the rest of your concerns above. – PeeJay 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Comments dealt with suitably, good work. Mattythewhite (talk) 19:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.