Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 4

message: Do people see Kuszczak and Larsson's names appear on two lines therefore making one column longer than another and therefore uneven. I feel this is nothing to do with screen resolution and just that some people see the article in a 'printable version' appearance. Therefore I open a discussion on this issue to see what people think about this and how a common agreement can be reached.
:Ok, I've done some investigation on this issue and it seems that on resolutions less than or equivalent to 1024x768, the Kuszczak and Larsson entries do go onto two lines. If this issue affects enough people, then perhaps the columns should be reorganised, but at the moment I see no reason why they should be. At any rate, Larsson is leaving the club in two days. PeeJay 14:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am a UK resident. Out of interest, what does that have to do with it? PeeJay 14:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My text size is on Medium already. I am pretty sure this is to do with your screen resolution. PeeJay 20:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Squad alignment

message: As part of the stadium information the nickname is stated as ‘The Theatre of Dreams.’ Whilst no one would dispute that this is one of the nicknames of the stadium, another nickname is ‘The Swamp.’
Whilst ‘The swamp’ may be considered derogatory by supporters of Manchester United, I believe there is more than enough evidence (Readers replies to articles on the Manchester Evening News website and numerous references on other web pages) to justify the inclusion on the nickname ‘The swamp’ as part of the stadium information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lebenji (talk • contribs) 06:29, 20 September 2006.
::You're having a laugh, right? Next you'll be wanting to add "Manure" as a club nickname as well. "The Swamp" isn't, and will never be, anything other than an abusive term used by ABU's. Fd2006 21:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are referring to me, other than repairing obvious vandalism, I purposefully avoid making edits to this article in order to avoid any such conflict of interest. I'll respond to queries on the talk page, but that's all. Nothing in the article was written by me. (my last few edits to the article) Seeing as I'm writing a message here, a request: Manchester derby is a lot shorter than it ought to be, input from Reds would be welcome. If anyone has a copy of the book The Pride of Manchester, some citations from it would be invaluable. Oldelpaso 18:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Swamp. 

message: Does anyone remember much about him? I know he only played for United briefly, however I've put up an entry for him which is a stub. If anyone can add anything to it (including his date of birth!) then it would be useful. Thanks. EH74DK 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Giuliano Maiorana 

message: A younger goalkeeper was included in Champions League squad 2005/06. But where is he now?  Matt86hk talk 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Thomas Lee

message: Right - I haven't worked out much about how to edit and add pages yet, so I'll just bring this up in here!  Danny Rose links to the Leeds player of the same name.  I think our version deserves his own page!
Oh, and the little ginger fella legging it up & down the line last night - Barnes - he's listed twice in the squad list.
--Aidangrant 19:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danny Rose links to the wrong man! 

message: Hi, im Lucas, from Uruguay (sory for my english) and y would like to ad Diego Forlan as an important Manchester United player. He had been a short time at Man U, but y think he was very loved at that time, by the fans and also the team. Specialy for that amazing goal against Chelsea that was very important for the tournament, and also for playing without the shirt after that goal against Southampton, the fans loved that attitude from Diego.
He wasnt a manchester united great, although neither was veron but still I dont think he was loved by united fans, he was a character but was unpopular with the fans due to poor performances and a lack of goals. 81.156.67.125 22:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forlan as an important past player 

message: I have changed this articles format. The introduction has been shorted, with the details of its beginning and pre-1945 history placed under its relevant section. Also, i ave changed the stadium section of the article. I am going to archive half of this discussion page, it is too long.Ken20008 03:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Modified article

message: The home shorts should be white.  Unfortunately I don't know how to change this.Nick Collier 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed them to white. Thanks for raising this! Thaurisil 06:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

text: They play some matches in black shorts, like yesterday vs. Everton. Don't know if it's always black shorts on away games, even if they have their home jerseys. --chandler 23:08, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The home kit is red shirts, white shorts and black socks. The black shorts are change shorts for when the home team is wearing white shorts too, as no part of the players' kit can clash. Therefore, this also happens with socks, so if United are playing a team who usually wear black socks at home, we change to our white change socks. PeeJay 01:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Home colours 

message: just a question to the writer, (from a manu fan)
Will man.u beat the blue boys this weekend?
Why are the sleeves white on the home shirt?
United's achievements are mentioned throughout the article, and recapped with the honours section near the bottom of the page. The end of the sleeves are white because they are on the shirt! Eastlygod 15:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  why aren't manu's achievements mentions more on this page? 

message: I don't think rivalries should be mentioned in the United entry. This entry is about United not about other clubs. The Leeds entry has a whole section about rivalries which seems to suggest Leeds are more concerned about their rivals, more especially United, doing badly than their own club playing football. Phil, 11th December 2006
There is no rivalries section in the Leeds United entry. --Spanker LUFC 20:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivalries 

message: Manchester United have grown rivals in premiership. The rivals include englands 3 best clubs (without including manchester utd), Chelsea, Liverpool, and Arsenal. the 2005-2006 season was a tight rivalry between Chelsea and Manchester Utd for they won second in premiership. Some of Europes best players are included in Chelsea, for it is the most expensive club ever created. Some of the great players include Frank Lampard, Diger Drogba, Andriy Schevenko, Micheal Ballack, John Terry, and Peter Cech, making it a tough opponent
:What the fuck? PeeJay 11:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Football Wise 

message: I filled out the stadium section as required, though my writing isn't brilliant so it'd be good if someone could check it. Ta. Whilding87 14:16, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stadium 

message: Bit of a copy from FM, but i think it wud be nice to have this in the info bar on the right side of the page, jus to add to the brief facts about the club.
Favoured personnel = Billy Meredith, Sir Matt Busby, George Best, Sir Bobby Charlton, Denis Law, Bryan Robson, Sir Alex Ferguson, Eric Cantona, Peter Schmeichel, Roy Keane, Ryan Giggs, Paul Scholes, Gary Neville, Ole Gunnar Solskjaer, Wayne Rooney and Cristiano Ronaldo
Rivals = Liverpool, Leeds, Arsenal, Man City, Chelsea
Other rivals = Bolton, Newcastle, West Ham
European rivals = Juventus, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, Benfica
I doubt Juventus is much of a rival to them now, ever since they'd been degraded to series B. AC Milan would be more suitable. 
But i also have to question the suitability of the favorite personnels. it seems to be a bit awkward and is only based on a some people's opinions. I think the rivalries would probably help although there seems to be a dozen articles dedicated to it already. --Kzrulzuall 04:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rivals and Favoured Personnel 

message: Can someone double-check the loanees at Antwerp, as there seems to be some confusion over which player(s) are still there (which isn't helped by the two clubs official websites not being very up-to-date). Darkson 00:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loanees to Antwerp 

message: Any particular reason why the protection has been removed? Darkson - BANG! 00:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I think we just need to cite around 20 more sources and do a major cleanup job of some of the sentences before we request FA. We definitely have enough info, so we needn't be worried about that. Should take no longer than a month. Anyone disagrees?   --|K.Z|Z.K|  Do not vandalize... 05:24, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to take the article to peer review first. Proto::► 11:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: FA Class?

message: I have restored semi protection, and will ensure it remains permanently semi-protected. Proto::► 11:15, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi protection 

message: Yet again the loan dates have been added, deleted and added again, so I had a look at some other club sites, and found there doesn't seem to be a common consensus on dates for loanees.  Some pages have all the dates, some have none and some seem to have some but not all.
Perhaps this should be (or already is) something that should be discussed on the Football Wiki project, and then a common "template" put onto all teams sites. Darkson - BANG! 21:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of reverting/changing is shameless. Just keep them until it's been properly discussed. Please. Whilding87 18:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Loan dates 

message: I have edited this down, as it was getting ridiculous.  If there's too much dissension about who and who should not be in it, the solution is not to add everyone into it, the solution is to get rid of the list and just point people towards the category of Manchester United players. Proto::► 19:16, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Question is, who are you, or me for that matter, to decide who is notable and who isn't?  In my opinion, for example, Dwight Yorke has as much right on a list of former notable players as Jaap Stam, and Steve Coppell more right than David Dunne.  Perhaps the list is to big, but why is you editted list any more "valid" than the large one there is now? Darkson - BANG! 21:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right.  It is unfair to decide which players are notable, and which are not.  The only way this list can adhere to NPOV is to remove it.  I'll do so. Proto::► 22:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been watching the distressing edit war and thought I would point you to Talk:Celtic F.C. where there was a similar problem recently. Can I suggest you adopt a similar method to resolve this disagreement; that is, decide here on rough criteria for inclusion, then edit the list? Best wishes, --Guinnog 22:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a plan - some of the Bubsy Babes, the Holy Trinity, Cantona - all seem notable.Darkson - BANG! 22:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if I'd call it a 'distressing edit war', that's a little dramatic.  I'm all for including a list if a non-subjective way of deciding who does and does not go on the list can be created.  This means not including them because "I think they're notable" - how is that encyclopaedic?  Every captain, the top ten goalscorers, any player who was at the club more than 3 / 5 / 10 years, any player who scored more than 100 goals, any player who also captained their country, players who won 'player of the year' for the club, those who scored in an FA Cup / European Cup / UEFA cup / whatever final, what?  Pick some criteria for the list.  I really don't mind what criteria are used as long as there are some criteria in place.  The article will never make FA with an arbitrary and massive list of 'notable players' - how are they notable?  Why is player X notable and not player Y? Please, suggest a set of criteria. Proto::► 22:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

text: The list would be massive if we did it that way (100 appearances), as there are many more articles on ex-United players (especially pre-War) than ex-Celtic players.  Plus that still is subjective and non-neutal - define "significant first".  Define "unique, unusual or newsworthy".  I would define Jesper Blomqvist as newsworthy because he was amusingly crap, but not everyone would agree. Proto::► 22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Definitely agree with ex-players only, though.  I realise I'm coming across as a miserable and negative sod, but I want this to be right, I want to try and get the article featured by the end of next month. Proto::► 22:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're right, you would need to raise the bar for this article. 200? 250? 300? You'll still have arguments this way but maybe far fewer of them. --Guinnog 23:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Trouble with a "hard and fast" 200+ rule though, is that it would exclude players like Duncan Edwards, and Eric Cantona, neither of which I feel are non-notable. Darkson - BANG! 23:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's where rule 5 comes in. I'd agree that Edwards and Cantona belong here, under the "if they were unique, unusual, or newsworthy (beyond the norm) in relation to [MUFC}" clause. Like I say, you get fewer arguments, not zero arguments. --Guinnog 01:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I would say that the players who held records for Man U would be included. Also the 200+ appearances wouldn't be right. What if a player has 200+ appearances but is in the reserve team most of the time? Im fine with the rest, but people will just add the ones not chosen back on, resulting in more edit wars... --|K.Z|Z.K|  Do not vandalize... 04:28, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they've managed 200 appearances, but where in reserves most of the time, then they've been at United a long time, which is probably noteworthy in itself. ;) Darkson - BANG! 04:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Guinnog directed me here after we had a similar discussion about this at Celtic F.C.. For what its worth, the suggestions I made for guidelines (above) were aimed at setting a rough standard for what "notable" actually means in this sense (in that it is a more selective notability that that at WP:N). I don't think explicit guidelines can be generated that will cover every individual, but I would urge the regular editors here to try and generate some rough guidelines of your own, then try to stick by the spirit of them. I think you will find - as Guinnog suggests - that they take some of the conflict out of deciding who is in and who is not. Good luck. Rockpocket 08:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps we could list the Man Utd players/managers that have been inducted to the English Football Hall of Fame, like the Leeds United page? Darkson - BANG! 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Won't work. If we listed it in the english hall of fame, it'll only be English players. Many of the best players haven't played for five years in England and still could manage 200+ appearances. And anyway, that list is too small with only 6-7 players from United on it. --|K.Z|Z.K|  Do not vandalize... 23:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you check it?  Because unless they've changed nationality, Cantona, Busby and Ferguson all appear in the list. I make it 11 players, and 2 managers. Darkson - BANG! 23:59, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of notable players 

message: I received the email shown in this picture () after I emailed the club asking about the capacity of Old Trafford. As you can see, they told me the official capacity of OT is 76,312. However, when I emailed them back to ask why this information is not publically available on the website, they told me that they don't announce the exact capacity because it 'can vary from game to game because of crowd segregation etc.' I believe this is the most reliable source we have for the actual capacity of Old Trafford, so I think it should be updated in the article. PeeJay 19:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stadium Capacity

message: The articles Cristiano Ronaldo, Ryan Giggs and John O'Shea need images in them. Its impossible that noone has pictures of those players. Mentioned it on the talk page of the articles, but noone's payin any attention to it. --[|.K.Z|][|.Z.K|] 08:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image Problems

message: I've found 2, but every time I try to add them in I end up screwing up the Sponsorship paragraph as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sportacademy/hi/sa/tennis/features/newsid_2223000/2223651.stm
http://rivals.net/default.asp?sid=969&p=2&stid=8434024
Darkson - BANG! 20:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done for you mate PeeJay 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cheers Darkson - BANG! 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed in 1.8 Club crest and colours 

message: Should reference be made of Mitchell & Kenyon filming Newton Heath in the early days? (Ref: Dan Cruikshank's programme)
194.73.99.107 13:22, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mitchell & Kenyon 

message: I don't agree with this line.  MUFC only top the FA Cup in number of wins.  They have only 2 European Cups which is far behind a number of other teams and are still behind Liverpool in terms of league titles.  Surely this should be removed. Niall123 00:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't say 'the' most succesful club. Neil (not Proto ►) 11:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Surely you don't rate success by how many European Cup titles a team has? United has the second most Premiership titles, the most FA Cup titles, and the most Charity Shields too. Let's face it, there's only about four clubs in the world who can boast that level of success, and they are Liverpool, Real Madrid, Barcelona and Juventus. Manchester United are one of the most successful football clubs in the world whether you like it or not. PeeJay 19:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of the most succesful clubs in the world ? 

message: Ine the collumne for "goal/Game ratio" it says Jack Rowley scored 0.451 goals per game. But if you divide number of goals scored (212) by games played (424) you get 0.5 goals/game. I think this should be edited. It's not a big thing butt small thing can do Wikipedia get better.
85.164.191.95 13:45, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for spotting that mate. I've fixed it now PeeJay 13:53, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jack Rowley's goal/game ratio is wrong 

message: In the attempt to stop the seeming revert war going on (mainly) between PeeJay and Orangina2, can we come to some sort on consensus on where the midway mark on the list should be?  As it is now, with Alan Smith the last on the left hand side, and Vidic the first on the right, looks completely correct to me, and I get no players taking up more than one line.  I've no idea if it's screen resolution or not, but if it helps, I'm using 1280 x 1024. Darkson - BANG! 11:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Time to call in the "Three Revert Rule", as I see both have editted it again?  I have left a message for both PeeJay2k3 and Oragina2 to not change the table again, until a consensus is come to here on the talk page. If not, we might need to move down the Resolving Disputes road. Darkson - BANG! 13:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I am using a widescreen laptop with a resolution of 1280x800, so my screen is the same width as yours, but it is true that on lower resolutions than this (e.g. 1024x768), the right-hand column does look longer. However, I would withhold editing the table until after Larsson is removed tomorrow. I would also recommend reverting the organisation of the table to the way it was before, with the positions coming before the flags. It just looks silly at the minute. PeeJay 18:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st team Player list 

message: The information regarding the crowd trouble during the Champions League games is too biased and anti-united.
Illidan reules 12:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It has been deleted. PeeJay 12:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

text: The incident seems a bit too specific and minor to devote a section to, let alone a whole article. Not worth it, IMO, but if you want you can write a separate article on it. PeeJay 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

text: You'd be surprised. 2007_AS_Roma-Manchester_United_conflict Whilding87 15:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crowd trouble 

message: I would just like to point out that Kuszczak isn't on loan anymore but an actual member of the squad since august of 2006
:If you could cite a source for that information, then feel free to change it in the article, but the understanding of the situation that most people have is that he is on loan for the entire duration of this season, with the deal becoming permanent on 2007-07-01. PeeJay 09:57, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Indded, the Man Utd website states he's on loan until the end of the season: http://www.manutd.com/default.sps?pagegid={FE60904B-C2A8-4E60-9B05-700DBBC29BBC}&bioid=92179§ion=playerProfile&page=1 Darkson - BANG! 23:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Erm, good for you. Please remember to sign your posts in future. PeeJay 22:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuszczak 

message: I removed the incorrect listing of this article at WP:FAR and corrected the errors in the ArticleHistory template.  The article is not a featured article and should not be listed for Featured Article Review.  It could be listed at WP:FAC, but I suggest first reading though the two failed FAC listings in the ArticleHistory, to make sure all objections have been addressed.  The article still needs a lot of cleanup, which might be dealt with better at peer review.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The peer review is well underway and can be viewed here: Wikipedia:Peer review/Manchester United F.C./archive2BeL1EveR 18:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed FAR listing 

message: Just wondering... when's that gonna be updated? It still says in the overview that United have won the League 15 times and in the honours section that the last time we won it was 2002-2003. Since Arsenal held Chelsea to a draw today (6th May 2007), they're the champions again. 195.92.168.163 01:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's better, haha. 195.92.168.163 01:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I updated everything yesterday evening. If you could point out where the info is out of date, I would appreciate it. PeeJay 11:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2006-2007 Premiership Champions 

message: I think it's been a while since this article was last properly reviewed, so I reckon it might be time to take it to Peer Review again. What does everyone else think? PeeJay 21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: Anyone can start a category on Man U captains?
- Gary Neville (England)
- Roy Keane (Ireland)
- Eric Cantona (France)
- Steve Bruce (England)
- Bryan Robson (England)
- Ray Wilkins (England)
:We will need a more extensive list than that, but it's a good start. Not quite worth starting the section yet though. PeeJay 10:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See it's since been added.  Should it not be called "Club Captains", rather than just "Captains"?  For example, Giggs was captain for the FA Cup, and Ferdinand, Rooney, Ole and others have all been captain this year. I will edit it to say such, but if you disagree please explai why.  Cheers. Darkson - BANG! 10:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester United Captains 

message: In the "Picture of old badge needed" paragraph it is explained that the United badge can only be displayed on the main Manchester United F.C. article. It wasn't until it was pointed out that the other non-United Prem winners had their crests up for the certain Prem seasons that the others were taken down too. Before that was pointed out just the Manchester United crest was being deleted from each season (such as FA Premier League 1998-99). Interesting. I'm fine with the same standard being held as now no Prem season has its champions' badge on display. However United are still being singled out in the European Cup (and UEFA Cup too) entries. Guess which is the only Champions League season which doesn't have the champions crest displayed? Yep, it's 1998-1999. Even fellow Prem side Liverpool have their crest proudly displayed for the 2004-2005 entry. Now tell me, why would someone only pick out one season and delete its crest? Why not do the same to the others in the name of the "Fair Use" policy. Why? I believe that the person doing the deleting is a supporter of a rival club. He digs up an arcane rule and uses it only when it pleases him (when his hated United's badge is being displayed as a champion). I believe that if nobody said anything about the other Prem seasons with non-United champions we would still today have their champions' badges displayed. Why is Manchester United being singled out? Is it only the United badge that has some bizarre copyright rule? Or is it like I think it is and someone just doesn't like the sight of the United crest? - Tocino 24 May 2007
:I understand your frustration, but rules are rules mate. I will see about going through the Champions League articles and removing all non-Fair Use images for you :-) PeeJay 06:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Manchester United being singled out? 

message: I've edited the "after the treble" section to incorporate the glazer takeover, including a link to the main article. I was considering removing the takeover section itself, on the basis that it is now redundant, but wanted to see the consensus first because it is worthy of mention in the main article. Perhaps we should lengthen its reference in the post 99 section and then delete the sub-section, as then it would be in chronological order? BeL1EveR 00:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glazer takeover section