Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 1

message: Having a 'successful managers' section seems a bit POV and also a bit wasteful when there is another managers' list below it. Might it be more sensible to merge these? Perhaps some factual information about the achievements of each could be added to enable the reader to decide. Andrewferrier 19:47, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
----
Slightly confused as to why the article mentions Steua and Reims as other clubs to have appeared in just two European Cup Finals. Was there any particular reason for selecting these clubs over others with the same record (FC Porto and Olympique Marseilles for example)? It seems to me these particular clubs are being used to portray Manchester United in a slightly derogatory light, and that no comparisons are in fact neccessary. --Alilaw 12:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successful managers? 

message: Who's that guy, when did he get the No. 21 shirt?
:Probably got the number 21 last night when User:Gavincmbll added it to the article! -- Arwel 12:26, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gavin Campbell

message: would whoever wrote up the club's extended history in this article be so kind (and one-tenth as enthusiastic) and do the internal linking bit as well for what you wrote? -Mayumashu 05:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: writing up articles tidily

message: This section just repeats a lot of what's in the History of Manchester United article.  Wouldn't it be better to merge the two one way or the other?  It seems a waste of time to have people editing both articles. Cantthinkofagoodname 11:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: The very last part : 
"but there is still a good chance of success in the shape of an F.A Cup victory over Arsenal in the final on 21st May. During the close-season, at least two major signings would be useful if United are to perform to the best of their ability in 2005-06. A title challenge should be their minimum target, as they have been realistic challengers in the league for the last 14 seasons. The European Cup should also be a priority, as they have yet to equal the success of 1968 and 1999."
Seems terribly to violate NPOV or original research.  It is defintiely commentary that I do not htink is appropriate.  I am sure a similar sentiment can be expressed in a much more neutral way.--Gangster Octopus 16:49, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The ALex Ferguson Era 

message: Why is van der Sar in the noted players section? He hasn't even played a single game for United yet! kelvinhole
: Dunno.  Don't think anyone will mind if you remove him. CTOAGN 21:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: As the Premiership has started, Van der Sar has been hailed by Sir alex himself as well as others as the man to at last replace Schmeichel, and 4 games in, 4 clean sheets, he has already proved popular with fans and pundits alike. I think it's fair to include Edwin Van der Sar in the notable players, he has a Worldwide reputation and wether succesful or not, is already Manchester United's most notable signing and improvement this season. Thats my opinion, but if he's not to be included it's no problem. --MrShuke 13:15, August 26, 2005 (UTC)
Van der sar is a fantastic goalkeeper, mabye its something you can only tell by watching him instead of soaking up statistics, the reasons hes conceeded so many are probably
# He played for Fulham, not best defence in the world, no offence to any fulham fans
# He was good, so he played all the games for fulham, therefore he has more matches to play, and more likely to conceed goals.
Also you cannot blaim conceeded goals on the keeper, don't know bout you guys but over our side of the pond football is a team sport.
Philc T+C 23:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding van der Sar 

message: I've reverted this: 
 (ironically many fans campaigned for privatising several years ago),
as I'm not sure what was being referred to.  Anyone know which campaign is being referred to?  There were a significant number of fans who opposed the flotation in the first place, but as Martin Edwards had been trying to sell the club to some, at best, unsuitable people it was seen as the lesser of two evils.  CTOAGN 23:10, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reversion 

message: Do we really need this for the United article?  I can see the point of having one for smaller clubs which have about three famous fans, but with a club the size of United I don't think it improves the article.  It'll have about 50 names in a couple of months, and I don't really see why it's notable.  CTOAGN 16:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It could have it's own page, I suppose ... is there a List of famous Manchester United fans? Proto t c 12:52, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous fans section 

message: I've removed the following from the article:
:On 1st August 2005, club chief executive David Gill had given Red's manager the green light to chase England international striker Michael Owen, but Glazer had blocked the attempt due to his expensive £80,000 per week contract.
Because:
a) the club denies they wanted Owen (for what that's worth; it's not as if y'all really need him, anyway!)
b) there was no cite
c) is it really appropriate for a general encyclopædic entry on the club?
c) it sounds very much like a ManU fan whingeing about Glazer, which is Not Good for NPOV
--MarkGallagher 11:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Glazer vs big money transfers 

message: The club has, since 1997 or so, been officially known as Manchester United, NOT Manchester United F.C..  Thus, surely the page name should be changed accordingly.    Deano 18:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely not. You mean the managment organization that owns the football club, is known as Manchester United PLC. This company owns a number of companies that trade on the name Man U. The company that actually runs the football club is Manchester United Football Club Limited. See  Jooler 19:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If this is so, then they forgot to tell their own web designers. The front page of manutd.com has at the bottom: "Copyright, Manchester United FC, 2005". Apart from the huge numbers of links that would have to be edited if we moved the page, Manchester United redirects here anyway. -- Arwel 20:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They obviously didnt forget to tell ther web designers as it actuallt day "Copyright Manchester United Limited 2006" 172.203.0.198 15:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Club badges don't really mean much do they :Image:Arsenal_FC.png,:Image:Newcastle_United_crest.png, :Image:West Ham United FC Crest.gif (I just noticed the last one should be a png not a gif) Jooler 20:58, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

text:  From the official website: "This website is the only official website of Manchester United Football Club and is ©Copyright Manchester United PLC (the "Club") and Trans World International (UK) Inc ("TWI") 1998 - 2003.--GingerM 16:04, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Page Name

message: The old logo underneath the club infomation looks out off place. Should it be there? Hamedog 16:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old Logo

message: I've reverted this edit:
United fans who are not from the north-west have often been labelled as bandwagon jumpers and glory hunters who choose to follow United because of their success, instead of supporting a local team. Many people from the West Midlands started supporting United during the 1990's. This was easily because four of the five teams in this region were playing below the Premiership. In regions with relatively unsuccessful teams, such as Devon and Cornwall, many followers of Manchester United and other big clubs like Liverpool and Arsenal can be found. The inception of Sky television has made it possible for fans to watch United matches on T.V all around the world. Many United supporters have never been to a game because of the ever-increasing ticket prices.
No idea why the West Midlands and Devon were singled out, there are plenty of nineties United fans all around the country.  Also, it would have been more neutral to mention that out-of-town fans are hardly unique to United: there's no shortage of Liverpool, Arsenal and Chelsea fans who live miles from their club and have never been to a match.  I don't see why what was already there was completely blanked either - was it really that bad?  CTOAGN (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: We could do with a few more photos for the United articles.  Some useful ones would be:
*Denis Law's statue in the Stretford End
*The Munich clock
*Any photos of Old Trafford that you've taken yourself
*The Stretford End banners
*Any of the anti-Glazer protests from last season
*The scarves laid in tribute to George Best
*The procession in Manchester after United won the treble
There are people on Wikipedia who go round deleting any copyrighted images that they find, so they'll probably need to be photos you've taken yourself and don't mind releasing the copyright for.  I've hardly ever taken a camera to matches, but I've got good photo of the Nou Camp in 1999 that I'll upload.  I think that's about it though.  Older photos would be especially good - pics of the stadium in the 80s or something.  
If you need a hand with the image tagging or uploading process, leave a message on my user page and I'll help you out.  Thanks,  CTOAGN (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos 

message: I think that this article could improve by adding information about the John Obi Mikel case that has been going on for more than 9 months now. Both in this article, and in the Chelsea F.C. article. Although the dispute is far from finished, that shouldn't be any reason for us not too include information about the case. I think it is of interest. Does anyone have any comments to this? (I also posted this idea in the Chelsea talk page.) NuclearFunk 21:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's notable enough to United for this page.  The club's history is condensed pretty tightly here to fit it into a reasonable-sized page - the 1960s only get one paragraph - so it wouldn't be appropriate.  There's obviously something weird going on with his transfer, but at the moment as far as United are concerned he's just a player they've tried and failed to sign, not much more notable to the club than Michael Ballack.  IMO it's not even relevant enough to go on Manchester United 1999-present unless something drastic comes out (which wouldn't completely surprise me). Similarly, I don't think anything on this transfer would belong on Chelsea's page even if he did sign for them.  CTOAGN (talk) 20:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice piece of business in the end - £12m for a player who has never even been to Manchester!! 84.70.37.111 22:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The John Obi Mikel Saga 

message: in the table of number of times finished at a certain ranking195.8.3.165 17:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've put them back.  Cheers, CTOAGN (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is is just me or has somebody been altering the data