Talk:Manchester United F.C.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive. |
 |
The article on Manchester United 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. |
|---|---|
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
|
| 1 2 3 |
[edit] A note on British English
British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. Therefore, should I change the opening statement to are a world famous...? Any comments would be appreciated here. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have started making the changes here but currently, it is unfinished. The whole article needs to be corrected to British English standards. If anyone has the time, please feel free to edit accordingly per British English grammar. I too will carry on this edit if I have the time. If anyone objects to this, please discuss it here. All constructive comments about this is welcomed and encouraged! --Siva1979Talk to me 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I left a comment with regards to this issue in PeeJay2K3's talk page. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:09, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
- I have started making the changes here but currently, it is unfinished. The whole article needs to be corrected to British English standards. If anyone has the time, please feel free to edit accordingly per British English grammar. I too will carry on this edit if I have the time. If anyone objects to this, please discuss it here. All constructive comments about this is welcomed and encouraged! --Siva1979Talk to me 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I think we can all agree that, as a proper noun, "Manchester United" is a singular noun, as opposed to a plural. Therefore, the appropriate verb form of "to be" to go with this singular noun would be "is", not "are". Hence, the sentence should read "Manchester United is a world-famous English football club". PeeJay 20:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Whoa, whoa whoa! I don't agree with that! Under British English conventions, a noun that refers to a multiple entity is a plural word. For example, Arctic Monkeys are a band from Sheffield. "Manchester United" refers to the players and manager of Manchester United F.C., and thus Manchester United are a world-famous football club. To illustrate my point, just think about news reports. The following examples: Manchester United are keen to... (BBC), Manchester United are top... (Reuters), Manchester United are out in front... (The PFA). It is a plural word when used to refer to the football club. DJR (T) 21:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- I agree with "are" rather than "is". Fd2006 21:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- The fact is that in this sentence it just doesn't sound right! When you're talking about the Arctic Monkeys, the word "Monkeys" is a plural, so it makes sense that the following word is "are". Manchester United, on the other hand, is just one club. It may refer to a group of people, but there is still only one group, so it should be "is". Anyway, the sentence is focusing on the club, not the people that comprise the club. PeeJay 22:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
-
It should be "are", it sounds fine to me and is the British way of saying it, the article is Americanised enough already without this in the 1st sentence. --Vulk 20:10, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- All right, I can see no end to this argument. Thus allow me to offer a compromise here. According to MOS, it is stated that If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be use and If all else fails, consider following the spelling style (or in this case, grammar style) preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. As this article is using the American standard all this while (even though the subject content is British), it is best in the interest of all users to follow the style of the first major contributor in this case. One must remember that these guidelines are not set in stone and a certain amount of flexibility should be allowed here. One must also take note that both these styles of grammar are correct and it is best not to change it to prevent edit warrings from arising. This should apply to all the other major articles as well, although we could correct the style of grammar to British English for the stub articles in English football. The attempt to change the style of grammar to British English for this article on my part is a learning experience here. I shall therefore restrain from doing this for the other major articles involving British content. But I shall change the style of grammar for the other affected British stub articles. But please bear in mind that this guideline is not fixed here and there is no strict rule in enforcing it on this project. It would create major unnecessary conflicts here. So, let us leave the style of grammar for this article in the American format. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Or if no one objects to it, we could change the whole article to British English grammar style. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- Argh! No - using the style of the first major contributor is a last-resort option in choosing which sort of English to use in an article. The overriding criterion is Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the usage and spelling of that country, and this rule would have applied ever since I've been on Wikipedia (Jan. '03). -- Arwel (talk) 17:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- All right, I can see no end to this argument. Thus allow me to offer a compromise here. According to MOS, it is stated that If no such words can be agreed upon, and there is no strong tie to a specific dialect, the dialect of the first significant contributor (not a stub) should be use and If all else fails, consider following the spelling style (or in this case, grammar style) preferred by the first major contributor (that is, not a stub) to the article. As this article is using the American standard all this while (even though the subject content is British), it is best in the interest of all users to follow the style of the first major contributor in this case. One must remember that these guidelines are not set in stone and a certain amount of flexibility should be allowed here. One must also take note that both these styles of grammar are correct and it is best not to change it to prevent edit warrings from arising. This should apply to all the other major articles as well, although we could correct the style of grammar to British English for the stub articles in English football. The attempt to change the style of grammar to British English for this article on my part is a learning experience here. I shall therefore restrain from doing this for the other major articles involving British content. But I shall change the style of grammar for the other affected British stub articles. But please bear in mind that this guideline is not fixed here and there is no strict rule in enforcing it on this project. It would create major unnecessary conflicts here. So, let us leave the style of grammar for this article in the American format. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with Arwel - the guideline details that articles should conform to their topic-specific grammar conventions - it is only when these are ambiguous (for example, an article about a subject where English isn't the spoken language) where the "first major contributor" takes precedence. This has always been the case, and is a fundemental rule that avoids thousands of edit conflicts across Wikipedia. This article has to be written in British English - there is absolutely no justification in using American English in an article that is about a British entity. DJR (T) 20:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] The Swamp.
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)
Don't be surprised about anything which bad mouths United on here, one of the 'editors' is a City fan. James Ryddel.
- 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)
In that case, can you then answer my question above about why some City fans are allowed to edit copy on here without leaving their signature or IP number, which is what you or someone else does when others who are not among the inner circle of editors does to other unsigned contributions. Is this double standards or not? If it isn't please explain the policy and can you add the IP number of the other City fan? IF you cannot do that then why not remove his posts entirely. At least show some consistency.
Could I also ask you to answer my question which you raised last night about the question of me being accused of spamming, as I pointed out quite clearly below the link I posted was entirely relevant within the travel search category. James Ryddel.
[edit] Links to fan weblogs..
Why can't Wiki include links to the best United blogs? After all you include links to fanzine sites? There is no difference. When a fanzine editor writes his/her once monthly editorial, it stays within the fanzine and doesn't appear on the internet. More often than not, this is the best page within the Fanzine.
I'm not blowing my own trumpet but I update every day with original content and I do dont include news from Sky sports etc.
James
[edit] Giuliano Maiorana
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)
[edit] Add fan weblog section
I agree add fan weblog section to football pages! They are an important part of supporting a football club as they aloow fans to read news about their club without the newspaper style of writing. There are some good blogs out there about Manchester United with regular comment by fans. Ones that I would reccommend are:
http://www.unitedrant.co.uk
http://www.man-utd-news.blogspot.com
http://www.manchesterunited-blog.com
All are updated regularly and have moderated comments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Markhirst2020 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 25 October 2006.
- Please refer to Wikipedia's guidelines on external links. Blogs and forums should not generally be linked to. Oldelpaso 20:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
http://a-kick-in-the-grass.blogspot.com
I update this Manchester United site(a-kick-in-the-grass.blogspot.com) every day, sometimes more than once a day. Patrick Barclay who is one of the most respected sports journalists in the UK reads my blog. Yet someone at Wiki is telling me basically it's not good enough for Wiki (what qualifications have you got to judge the merit of my blog content? )I've also noticed that the wiki Birmingham City page is allowed to contain links to blogs. So what is going on here? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:James Ryddel (talk • contribs) 15:55, 29 October 2006.
- I am not making any judgement about the merits of your blog content, or its readers. Again, I recommend you read Wikipedia:External links, the Wikipedia guideline about what sort of links are suitable for articles. The conventions for external links are not the decision of one editor, but are the consensus of many editors. This is an encyclopedia, not a directory of external links. If links to blogs are on the pages of another club, then they need to go too. That no-one has got around to removing it yet does not mean we have an obligation to include your site. Oldelpaso 17:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Your policy is flawed in my opinion, because Wiki is happy to link to other fan sites, but not all of them - and I think Wiki should seriously consider reviewing this policy. All it needs is for someone to take the time to review these blogs and then to agree on a review process so that only good blogs are included on the site. As I have pointed out my blog gets updated daily, many of the fan sites that you are happy to link to do not. Because I have questioned this policy, another editor has threatened to ban me... James Ryddel
- I'm not sure what you mean by "is this your idea of a discussion", but to respond to your other points in turn: Links to fan sites are frowned upon, but with nearly 1.5 million articles and tens of thousands about football, some slip through (that said, articles on major football teams are overdue a spring clean in that respect). Wikipedia is primarily an effort to build a reference work, and external links do not add to the encyclopedic content (wherever possible, we encourage the addition of content rather than links). Your review idea is in essence a suggestion for each article to have a web directory section. A web directory is one of the things which Wikipedia explicitly is not, that being the remit of projects such as the Open Directory Project. Having every article having links selected for it via a review system would use up a large amount of time that would be better spent improving the article content.
- In terms of the relative merits or otherwise of links to blogs, a policy change such as that which you advocate cannot be decided on the talk page of one article (imagine the chaos if the rules were different for every article). The only place where such a change could be brought to bear is Wikipedia talk:External links, as Guinnog pointed out on your talk page. Finally, looking at the contributions for your IP address, the warning appears to be for [1] this link addition, to an article unrelated to this one. I seriously doubt that you would be threatened with a block or ban for raising questions in the manner you have done on this page, it would be most inappropriate for someone to do so. Oldelpaso 19:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
First off, I am asking for a policy change because the wiki policy allows links to some fan sites and not others. As I have pointed out wiki is happy to link to fanzines - no matter how good or bad the content is, or how often they get updated. There is some very good blogs out there that get updated daily and contain good content.
Secondly regarding your colleagues trumped up charges about 'spamming'. I actually own and run the travel site you mentioned. The site provides UK consumers with links for budget airlines and routes from all UK airports, when I posted that link there was a paragraph about sites which just provide information as opposed to flight booking sites, my travel site comes into this category, so it was entirely appropriate. Here again your fellow editors have taken it upon themselves to delete links to sites that provide useful information for UK consumers.
Also, regarding 'travel search', I see Wiki is quite happy to link to budget airlines, yet the very term 'travel search' would seem to be entirely appropriate regarding selected links to sites that do just that. But no, Wiki editors have taken it upon themselves to delete links which provide good examples of travel search. Here again your policies seem to be inconsistent. James Ryddel.
[edit] Thomas Lee
A younger goalkeeper was included in Champions League squad 2005/06. But where is he now? [2] Matt86hk talk 01:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Danny Rose links to the wrong man!
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)
[edit] Forlan as an important past player
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)
It's not a list of United greats. It's a list of notable former players, that's why Blomqvist, Sivebaek and Neil Webb are there. I think Diego deserves to be listed. To the contrary he was always popular with fans, despite his difficulties at United, mainly for his ability to score against Liverpool. He's an established international for Uruguay, has been successful at one of the big South American clubs in Independiente and has been top scorer in La Liga with Villareal since leaving United. He also scored an one of the best goals at a World Cup Finals, in 2002. It's almost ridiculous he's not already mentioned. Phil, 10th November 2006
Have to agree with Phil on this one. Forlan may not have had the best record in the world, but he was hugely popular with the fans. I don't know where the anonymous user above got the idea he wasn't popular from but he was clearly never at Old Trafford when he played. He is also probably the best known Uruguayan player in England and his career since has certainly improved, thus making him notable. Tx17777 19:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed then. I've listed Diego. What are people's thoughts on including Bosnich? Phil, 11th December 2006
[edit] G-14
I'd have added this myself, but the page is protected. I just noticed that the Manchester United F.C. page isn't in Category:G-14 clubs, but for some reason it has its own subcategory in the G-14 clubs category when no others do. Does anyone have any idea why all of this is?
[edit] Modified article
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)
[edit] Correction
British English should be used for articles on Britain related topics. Likewise, American English should be used on articles pertaining to American topics. For a clearer example, please visit this sub-section on the differences between their usage. However, is" works better than "are" with the term club as it is a singular and not a plural noun. (Compare with the word team which is a plural noun) --Siva1979Talk to me 07:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- For what it is worth, my English teacher (at a British Grammar School) taught me that the correct grammatical form is "Manchester United is". However, common British English usage is "Manchester United are". The current sentence, "Manchester United Football Club is", is absolutely perfect as it removes any dispute. Peter, 13th November 2006
-
- With all due respect, what your English teacher taught you is of no relevance to anyone or anything in Wikipedia. There is no verification or justification for you to assert that Manchester United is a singular word - indeed my English teacher taught me that it is a plural word. All that matters is what is the verifiable as the British usage, and to this degree all football clubs are plural entities. Consult the BBC ("United are top of the Premiership"); the BBC #2 ("United were", rather than "United was"); The Times (ditto); The Guardian (ditto); Eurosport ("Manchester United are taking a close look...")... etc. etc. The "current" version (which has been reverted to the correct version) is not "absolutely perfect" and does anything but remove dispute. Finally, look at the Wikipedia articles for all other British football clubs - from Chelsea F.C. and Liverpool F.C. all the way to Rushden & Diamonds F.C. - all are plural words. DJR (T) 16:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I wasn't trying to use my English teacher as justification, just to point out that this isn't really a "British English" versus "American English" dispute as some here seem to think. Having looked at the Wikipedia articles to which you point, I wouldn't hold up "Liverpool Football Club are a football club" as an example of great English! And there are contra examples within Wikipedia. Try, for example, Everton F.C., West Bromwich Albion F.C. and Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C.. Personally, I would always go for "Manchester United are" but "Manchester United Football Club is" on the grounds that I think Manchester United is a plural word despite what my English teacher said (see, we agree really!) and "United are" is common usage but Football Club is singular. However, I don't feel strongly about any of this and I'm certainly not going to start digging out my grammar textbooks :-) Peter, 16:41, 13th November 2006
-
- We could look at the articles for Arsenal, Everton, Manchester City and Sheffield Wednesday to solve this problem, since they are all featured articles and are all articles on British football clubs. For Arsenal, the article says "Arsenal Football Club are..." and "Arsenal are also...". For Everton, the article says "Everton Football Club is..." but there is no example for "Everton is/are". For Manchester City, the article says "Manchester City Football Club is..." and "Manchester City is...". For Sheffield Wednesday, the article says "Sheffield Wednesday Football Club is..." and "Sheffield Wednesday are...". I won't pretend to have a very good grasp of English but from this, I don't think it really matters whether "is" or "are" is used. I think the only important thing is that there should be consistency. --Thaurisil 13:16, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Home colours
The home shorts should be white. Unfortunately I don't know how to change this.Nick Collier 14:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- I've changed them to white. Thanks for raising this! Thaurisil 06:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] why aren't manu's achievements mentions more on this page?
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)
[edit] Rivalries
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
