Talk:F.C. United of Manchester

message: Surely this is FC United
*Yeah, that's the only name I've heard for it as well.  I've heard the name might change so I'm going to wait until Monday's meeting before moving the page, but I've changed it to FC United in the text and set up a redirect.  I sent the original author a message asking where they'd heard it was United FC but haven't had a reply.  Cantthinkofagoodname 12:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Name

message: The club colours haven't been announced yet, but the infobox looks horrible if I don't put some in so I made a (probably reasonable) guess. If anyone knows how to have an infobox without club colours please remove them.  Thanks, CTOAGN 15:00, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No probs, but...red socks?  I've heard the home kit will be red, white and black, so I'll change the socks back.  If you've heard differently revert it but please let me know where from (so I can go round and argue with whoever's responsible :-D ) Cheers, CTOAGN 09:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: Just found this on the FCUM site: .  Looks like it's red, white and black (see last sentence).  CTOAGN 10:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Club colours 

message: Can someone check this user's edits today and yesterday?  There were a couple of nonsense sentences mixed in with his edits, so I reverted. -- Curps 10:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: By all means put them in, but in a more plainly explanatory way (this is an encyclopedia after all).  Not everyone who reads the article is "in the know" about club folklore, and references that will make some readers smile knowingly will simply puzzle others.  Particulary with vandalism targetting some of our articles (including Manchester recently), it's easy to misunderstand the point of adding those particular sentences. -- Curps 02:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 217.33.107.82 

message: Anyone noticed any more?
* Castleton Gabriels' programme for their match against FC (no attribution)
* French football website (attribution given for a map they used)
 CTOAGN (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Places this article has been used 

message: The use of the word "exorbitant" is POV, in my opinion, so I changed it to "high". --71.225.229.151 01:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fine to me, but do you have some very strong child-protection software on the computer you're using?  One of your edits changed "before playing" to "be ing" in someone else's comment above. It looks like it was trying to censor the word "foreplay" from your edit.  CTOAGN (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: I put the phrase "hostile takeover" back into the article.  A hostile takeover is one in which the takeover occurs against the wishes of a company's management - see .  As the United board advised shareholders not to sell to the Glazers up until the time when he took control of the club, I think its use here is justified.  CTOAGN (talk) 04:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hostile takeover 

message: This is not a good idea for the following reasons:
*Recent AFDs for articles on non-league players have seen them deleted or merged back into the article, so it's likely to be a waste of time.
*All of the player sections are short, so it's better to keep them together.  Someone who looks up one of these players is likely to be interested in others, so they might as well be near each other.
*The article is not too long as it is.
Also, the user who has been making these changes (User:Kingjeff) has been annoying everyone at WikiProject Football for the last week or two, so I suspect the changes are not being made in good faith.  If you notice any of the players' articles being split out, please change the new articles to redirect back here.  If any part of this article is blanked, please revert it and issue vandalism warnings as appropriate.  Thanks, CTOAGN (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giving players their own articles 

message: : The players list badly needs to be brought up to the Wikipedia standards. SteelyDave 02:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It could do with being more encyclopaedic, as a lot of it was written by people who don't contribute often.  Anything else in particular that you think should be done? CTOAGN (talk) 18:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we may have more detail on the current players list than is warranted at this stage. What do you think? StripeyBadger 18:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I really think we need to revisit the idea of former players now - too many have now left to make continuing this viable in the long-run - I suggest we edit this out. Additionally, the recent addition of appereances is in violation of what wikipedia is mean to be - not fan cruft Steve-Ho 20:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Player lists of any description at this level (Level 9 remember) is way over the top. Remember this isn't a FCUM fansite, it is a general encyclopedia. - fchd 20:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Now edited the player profiles - shortened somewhat and wikified Steve-Ho 09:21, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have removed the player profiles - as has been pointed out above the player profiles for these players - level 9 of the league structure is way over the top. Profiles like this are available at fansites and on the official webiste, or could be if people wanted them to be - I have tidied this up into a table of current players as with most league and non-league club entries. There didn't seem to be too much argument from people on this talk page when it has been discussed before so hopefully this won't be too contentious. The content can always be used if a player gets famous in the future. Steve-Ho 14:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Player list

message: I've added a importance query to this section - it's my view that this section does not meet wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I'd welcome a debate and I propose we delete this section in it's entirity. Steve-Ho 12:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this section should go and perhaps only be revived if a former FC player goes on to top flight football or becomes notable in some other field. StripeyBadger 10:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  now removed given the defining silence. I've kept a copy archived in case anyone becomes noteworthy in the future. Steve-Ho 16:53, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Former Players 

message: There is far too much detail on matches on this page - you can create a separate article on the 2006/7 season if you like, but it shouldn't be on the main article.  I know FCUM are a new club, but this must conform to the same standards of other clubs.  Why not expand more on the culture and impact that FCUM have had on the game in the area, rather than results?  Have a look here for more details, and see if you can help out with this or other articles.  I've created a FC United of Manchester Season 2005-06 article, someone could do the same for the 2006-7 season? - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Non-league football --Gavinio 14:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a news page. 

message: I removed the trivia entry stating that the badge is notable for looking more like Man City that Man Utd's badge, as apparently unreferenced original research. For what it is worth, it actually looks like the old Man Utd badge  but, of course, that is just my own original research! Ghost Yacht 10:20, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Badge

message: Just wondering, why does Matt Higgins re-direct to this page? Could someone fill me in, or I'll change the re-direct to the bio article on Matt Higgins (ice hockey). –  Nurmsook! 19:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Matt Higgins

message: The citation for Sir Alex Ferguson calling FC United 'traitors', says nothing of the sort;
'On the formation of FC United, Ferguson in `The Official Manchester United Diary of the Season,' said: "I'm sorry about that. It is a bit sad that part, but I wonder just how big a United supporter they are.
"They seem to me to be promoting or projecting themselves a wee bit rather than saying `at the end of the day the club have made a decision, we'll stick by them.' It's more about them than us."'  That can just about stretch to the 'self-publicists' remark, but nothing more.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashcroft The Great (talk • contribs) 20:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Traitors

message: Some wishful thinking has crept in here.
Take this section, "(The goal of three successive promotions was completed, however due to league restructuring, F.C. United have to be promoted one more time to reach Conference North)" - nothing of the sort. If the AGM was in Nov 2006, then it was midway through their second season having already achieved one promotion. In other words they won promotion once and wanted another three. I'm rewriting this section to reflect the correct results. Seedybob2 (talk) 18:17, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Results of "Aspirations"

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :F.C. United of Manchester's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "facilities":
From DW Stadium: 
From Broadhurst Park: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Del♉sion23 (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:F.C. United of Manchester]] 

message: Updated the article to reflect that Football League side Portsmouth are the largest majority fan owned team in the UK, not FC United, since late 2014.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PompeyTheGreat (talk • contribs) 09:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: F.C. United had 5,000 members in May 2016 which, according to the source I gave in the article, made them the largest fan-owned football club in the UK. The source in the article about Portsmouth F.C. (an article on the BBC website) is from 2013 and likely out of date. odder (talk) 10:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

text: No, it doesnt meet Wikipedia guidelines, as you provided no source for that information. Under well-established Wikipedia guidelines, you need to be able to provide a source that claims F.C. United are the 3rd largest fan-owned football club in the UK, and unless you do that, this information will continue to be removed from the article. odder (talk) 12:29, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You also need to provide a reference to say F.C. are the largest. Have editted the sentence to "one of the largest" and added a {citation needed} mark. Darkson (I survived the 525!) 18:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  And I have reverted your edit because there is already a source for that claim. odder (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Where is the reference (honest question)? If it's later in the article it should be in the lead, seeing as that is where the claim is. Darkson (I survived the 525!) 18:09, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  The claim is in the #Supporters section and comes from an article in the acclaimed Non-League Paper (here). odder (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not the largest fan owned team 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on F.C. United of Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160401065121/http://nwcfl.com/league-history.php to http://www.nwcfl.com/league-information/league-history.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.how-do.co.uk/north-west-media-news/north-west-marketing-services/new-fc-united-sponsor-won%E2%80%99t-appear-on-shirts-20110719100951612
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/friendlies/season%3D2016/matches/round%3D2000582/match%3D2018564/postmatch/commentary/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on F.C. United of Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084920/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/fc-united-of-manchester/2014-2015/results to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/fc-united-of-manchester/2014-2015/results
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: An IP user (they keep changing actual address) keeps removing the bold formatting from the honours list on this article. The bold formatting t is consistent with featured articles on football clubs including:
*Manchester United F.C.
*Liverpool F.C.
*Manchester City F.C.
*FC Barcelona
*Blackburn Olympic F.C.
*Dover Athletic F.C.
I see no specific rule in the WP:MOS for these changes and so have reverted them. I suggest we get consensus at either here or at WP:Football before any further changes are made. Cheers, Del♉sion23 (talk) 13:37, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked some other articles and from what I see there is no clear format but most don't bold the name but may bold the season if the club got a double (e.g. Arsenal F.C.#Honours) 1.02 editor (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay so it appears to be an aesthetic choice. (For comparison bolded and unbolded). Maybe we could compromise with the format used on Arsenal F.C.#Honours? It is quite clear and easy to read and groups the honours well. Del♉sion23 (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bold formatting in the honours list 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on F.C. United of Manchester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304084920/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/fc-united-of-manchester/2014-2015/results to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/fc-united-of-manchester/2014-2015/results
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: 896599595598568 2409:4043:2E1B:BF20:0:0:148A:630A (talk) 18:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  9826493)87498@404@ajx