Talk:Manchester City F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manchester City F.C. is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

Manchester City F.C. appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 11, 2006.

	The article on Manchester City F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Manchester City F.C. has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Honours 2 Noted former players 3 Crest? 4 Stadium 5 Youth players 6 Use of the singular/plural 7 Midfielder / attacking midfielder 8 Beanie 9 Rivalry

[edit] Honours

Are you lot really that desparate that you include being runners up as an genuine honour? Runners up in the Simod Cup/ZDS Trophy! 20/9/06

[edit] Noted former players

I have reverted the addition of Peter Schmeichel to the Noted former players section. My reasoning is that the section is primarily for players who were notable as Manchester City players. Schmeichel is certainly a notable player, but he only spent one season at City at the end of his career, hence his time at City was not particularly notable. Players such as George Weah and David Seaman are excluded for similar reasons. Oldelpaso 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Stuart Pearce should be in notable former players - his time at City was reasonably notable, and he is one of the top English full-backs of his generation. Thoughts? --Gavinio 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In the time since when I wrote that message the format has changed to only include players included in the club's hall of fame (a more objective criterion than before), and Pearce is not a member of the hall of fame. Even if the format included players not in the hall of fame, Pearce played only one season, well past his prime - the most notable achievements in his playing career happened playing for Forest and England, rather than City. Though he made a valuable contribution, he was not exceptional i.e. did not set any club records, was not player of the year etc. Oldelpaso 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - well said. Just seems a bit sparse on notable players of late, it would be nice to have something there. I suppose his contribution really was missing that penalty in the last game at Maine Road. There really is no-one for 2000's then - maybe SWP if he goes on to be an England regular?--Gavinio 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crest?

Does anybody have a better copy of the crest? This one still has the "Maine Road" banner. --Chancemichaels 21:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Where can we get one from? We can't just get them off the official sites or anything can we? I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia rules... --Gavinio 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You can copy it from the official site as per Wikipedia's fair use rule. Just be sure to put the proper tag in the description (in this case {{sports-logo|football logos}} ) so that this disclaimer shows up on the image page. Otherwise it will be deleted. - Pal 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the right one, but the quality is terrible. I'll see if I can find another one that qualifies for fair use. --Chancemichaels17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Chancemichaels

Can people please stop referring to football club badges as crests! They are no such thing. A crest in heraldry is the device that appears on the helmet above the shield on a "coat-of-arms". Please think about what the word actually means...crest of a wave, crest on a birds head etc.

[edit] Stadium

"though by 1995 its capacity was restricted to 32,000, prompting the move to the City of Manchester Stadium.". This was changed to 35,000. I've changed it back again because while Maine Road's capacity was 35,000 when it closed, this was due to the addition of temporary stands after the decision to move had been made. The capacity when negotiations about a new stadium started was 32,000 odd. Probably ought to expand upon that (using sources) in Maine Road... Oldelpaso 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youth players

I've removed a list of youth players from the article, as the usual convention for squadlists is to only include players issued with a squad number. Oldelpaso 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of the singular/plural

This article, being about a British football club, is written in British English (following the recommendation by the Manual of Style on the relevant variety of English to use in an article). As a result, it uses the discretionary plural, namely that collective nouns such as club and team can be used in either the singular or the plural. Generally, in British English media, sporting teams are referred to in the plural. Consequently, this article refers to the club in the plural throughout, for consistency's sake.

This is notably different from American English, where sporting teams are always referred to in the singular. However, in British English it is perfectly grammatically correct to use the plural and this should be borne in mind before jumping to conclusions about inappropriate subject/verb agreement. Oldelpaso 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (via User:Qwghlm on Talk:Arsenal F.C.)

discretionary plural is used badly in first line, so i've changed it.--Mongreilf 09:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

changed it back. couldn't be arsed to change them all. as it is it's a mess though--Mongreilf 09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I reverted my copyedit. But using singular and plural in the same sentence seems a bit much: "...the club has fallen on harder times, and have not won a major honour...". --Shyland 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Following up, may I quote something from the "different from American English" article: 'Use of the singular verb is not wrong in such instances in BrE. At least one authority (E. Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, 1986) indicates that either is acceptable (provided that usage is not mixed or inconsistent within the same document), and that (as implied above) the choice of verb form may be chosen according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual members (e.g. "A committee was appointed ...; but "the committee were unable to agree ...").' So I'd say it needs fixing up, but being American I am ill-qualified to do it. --Shyland 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The confused use of singulars & plurals might be acceptable by some, but only really to those who do not know that there is a differnce. Also, note that somthing being acceptable to some people does mean it is correct. Most people accept that there are religions other than their own, but they do not generally accept them as correct.

[edit]

As referred to above, the sentence "A committee was appointed ...; but "the committee were unable to agree ..." is correct as the first instance of committee is referring to the object and the second instance refers to its members. By convention, football clubs are refered to in the third person plural as "Manchester City" is not an object without its members, it means nothing without having directors, a team, etc...a "committee" exists as a recognised entity without any members (as it is still understood was 'committee' means) Djdannyp 12:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys, I just added a bit about Oasis. Feel free to keep changing back and forth between is and are, but don't revert, pleease. Scolaire 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The consensus from various discussions on WikiProject Football is that mention of famous supporters should not be included in club articles, and that support for a team should be mentioned in the individual's article, not that of the club. (That gig is already mentioned in Maine Road btw) Oldelpaso 17:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Far be it from me to go against WikiProject Football, but do you not sometimes think that following procedures gets in the way of something that's actually interesting? btw I'm interested in Man City but not especially in Maine Road. Scolaire 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the nub of the problem which is in the first sentence. The verb to be is used (either as "is" or "are" and not as an auxilary verb) to identify Manchester City (singular or plural) as being a football club (singular). It's like saying Ireland are a Country, which is silly, whereas Ireland are fighting for independance from Britain might be acceptable.--Mongreilf 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Midfielder / attacking midfielder

While the MCFC website makes the distinction between midfielder and attacking midfielder, the squad template is standard across all football articles, and does not make this distinction. Oldelpaso 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beanie

I think that Beanie could be mentioned under trivia - I think a sentance would do it, total removal was a bit harsh. Some sort of mention of the little guy might be reasonable. --Gavinio 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the club's 126 year history, something the tabloids write a couple of lighthearted paragraphs about is completely insignificant. It'll be forgotten in a week, never mind a year or ten years. Oldelpaso 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Not if it leads to a streak of 10 games without a loss! :o) Wikipedia is an evolving thing - when beanie is forgotton (ok, in about 2 weeks time) then remove the reference to him then - that's how it works, isn't it? I don't mean including news - but just what is important right now. Rather than aspiring an article to be 'finished' and then preserved as is, with no removal of material. Just a thought.--Gavinio 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rivalry

Would Manchester City and Manchester United be considered rivals?Apple1013 22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

• chokes on morsel of dinner* Are you serious? In short, Yes. Intensely. You evidently haven't been to Manchester or witnessed a Manchester derby. Oldelpaso 18:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)