Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Kits on Wikipedia

Recently a member of this website made some kits to go on the Manchester United page that look very much like the actual United kits. However, I have noticed that someone removed them because (in their words), "Kit template is for colours, not design details."

The same happened with the Arsenal kits.

I can't see how there is nothing wrong with providing better detail to kits. How is this a bad thing? Surely the more realistic the shown kit template is to the actual kit, the more accurate Wikipedia is.

What are other members' views on this - should this anti-design member be allowed to keep reversing the detail added to kits?

Alexcavell 09:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, plus the new away kit is all black so that should be changed. ThePAW 08:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

How could you possibly know what the new away kit looks like? It hasn't even been released yet. There will be no changes to the page until an official announcement about the new away kit is made. - PeeJay 11:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

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. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 05:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. DJR (T) 01:59, 8 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! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment with regards to this issue in PeeJay2K3's talk page. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 02:09, 11 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)

Arctic Monkeys may be a bad example, but take Keane instead. IMHO, it has to be "are" - the entity represents a plural. I can cite more examples of this fact if you want! DJR (T) 22:44, 23 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. --S iva1979^{Talk 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. --S iva1979^{Talk 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)

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)

I think that as it says Manchester United Football Club, "is" should be used rather than "are". If the words "Football Club" were not included then I think "are" should be used instead. Liamelliott05 23:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. PeeJay 23:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

MUFC is, Man Utd are. Im english btw--Slogankid 12:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slogan kid and PeeJay. 'Manchester United is...' would sound immediately strange to any British English speaker. But if you are specifying the noun 'club' then 'manchester united football club are' does not make sense. However, there are *still* other sentences in the article where the form 'Manchester United is' continues to be used, like the second sentence in the article. Formal/notional agreement has always differed between American and British English. Neither is more correct than the other, so I don't see why British English conventions shouldn't be used in this article. 217.42.231.114 14:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with 'are'. This is a British article written mostly by British, I don't see any reason why an American should change this into an American-English article, since most of the article is written in British English already. Therefore, I support using British English. (Papongza 13:48, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

This isn't a British English vs American English argument. This is about subject-verb agreement. The club is a singular entity, therefore, to say "Manchester United Football Club are..." is a grammatical inaccuracy. PeeJay 13:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Shouldn't that be "English English"? There is no English language common to all Britons.

2. What is the language of Wikipedia? English English or American English? The Gnome 18:38, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Britsh English is the term used throughout Wiki, and the language of the English Wiki is English - it doesn't have a set "British or American", but it is based on a) which version the article is started in, and b) which is approiate for the subject (so this article should be in British English, even if it was originally started by an American). Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 19:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

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) --S iva1979^{Talk 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)

Time periods for the history of Man United

Re: the articles that span the history of MUFC, there is no consistent formula for how the time periods are decided. The pre-1945 article, for example, covers a whopping 67 years, but the succeeding articles cover the following periods of time 17, 12, 2, and 7 years respectively. Could I suggest at least the inclusion of an article to cover 1878 to 1910? This would include the club's history prior to Old Trafford and least be based on 2 significant milestones (from formation to stadium). Thoughts welcome Cheers Robdav69 10:25, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I think a better idea would be to make it 1878 to 1902, which is when the club changed from being Newton Heath to Manchester United, then 1902 to 1945. I think perhaps also the 1969-1986 period should be given a title as per The Busby Years (1945-1969) and Alex Ferguson era (1986-1998). I would perhaps suggest "United in the doldrums" as the title for 1969-1986, but obviously I'm open to suggestions. PeeJay 19:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Citing Sources

The History of Manchester United MUST be cited. This is extremely high priority if the article is to reach FA Class standards. The citing is extremely important in the Glazer takeover and The Treble and After The Treble eras. --|K.Z|Z.K| Do not vandalize... 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Firm

Maybe something about United's Firm ICJ... and past firms... Red Army and Men in Black...

I'm afraid I don't understand any of that PeeJay 09:26, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

he/she is refering to the hooligan firms--Numberwang 23:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked elsewhere to see if the other clubs mention their firms. The best place to put it would be in a reference to the time period I would think. Were you to call it out in a separate section I can't see how you'd get around POV. Jddphd 00:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Supporters home and abroad

I'm surprised that there's no list of supporters, though it would be a long one. Also, how about support and supporters' clubs abroad? I'd do these myself but I'm not expert enough. Here in Ireland there are lots of Man U fans ("mankies") and supporters include(d) our Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, and the late Veronica Guerin.Bill Tegner 18:48, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Famous supporters don't seem to be refernced in other club articles. Jddphd 00:23, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

It says that during the 2006-07 season there were several passionate and raucous occasions, possibly unsurpassed anywhere in European football.

Come on, there may have been an improvement, but unsurpassed in europe. Don't be ridiculous. That is a truly embaressing statement to make.

World-famous?

As you may have noticed, Murgh has changed the lead paragraph to remove the "world-famous" comment, saying that "world-famous" is a weasel word. I would like to know how "world-famous" could possibly be considered POV, since Man Utd actually is a world-famous club. I mean, if you asked anyone in any country if they knew who Manchester United were, I believe the vast majority would say yes. Therefore, I think the "world-famous" statement should be kept in the article. PeeJay 17:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do agree with you, however WP:VERIFY and WP:NOR are quite explicit with regards to verifiability - unless something is states by a reliable source, it should not, technically, be allowed to stay. However, I don't think it will be that hard to find such a source - I shall have a look for something suitable presently. DJR (T) 17:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Done - DJR (T) 18:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Noone is denying ManU's world fame here, but the appropriateness of stating it twice in the intro sentence. Please read beyond a comma before bringing the blood to a boil. MURGH ^disc. 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my reply to you on my talk page, there is a difference between being world-famous and being well-supported. To say Manchester United is a world-famous club is to say that they are known of throughout the globe, whereas saying they are well-supported means that there are many people who wish the club to do well. Therefore, it seems perfectly logical that both statements should be allowed a place in the article. PeeJay 20:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

World Famous and well supported should be kept. I have lived in many countries and at least 1 native i have met has been a united supporter, proving both statements. Not entering this would be retarded--Slogankid 12:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I saw that. While Chelsea FC are quite annoying, I see no reason to link them with retards. It's insulting to retards. Only joking.Life is great...if you support Manchester United 19:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

fred the red

any information on fred the red?--Numberwang 20:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can shoehorn into the article. All I know is that he's a big anthropomorphic devil who likes to wear Man Utd kit and that his number is 55. PeeJay 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

when the players were going up to collect their medals after the west ham game, i would have loved to see fred step up to collect a medal.--Numberwang 14:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Why's that mate? PeeJay 14:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

What's more relevant... United's firm or Fred the Red? I would argue that if Fred the Red is mentioned in this article then the Red Army deserves a shout too. Like it or not there still is a sub-culture for the hardcore supporters and it is much more significant to the average person than some blown up doll. - Tocino 19:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, I don't think either deserves a space in the article. Arsenal's article makes no mention of their hardcore fans (do they have any? :D ) or their mascot, Gunnersaurus, and that article has FA status. - PeeJay 22:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

manchester citys moonchester has his own article and there is a category http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Football_%28soccer%29_mascots--Numberwang 12:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hargreaves

Should Owen Hargreaves be in the First-team squad or in future arrivals? Reds agree Hargreaves deal. Killer 13:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From the link "he will complete his move at the start of July.". I'd say till pen is put to paper, he's a future arrival. Once the ink is dry, we should change it here! Paulbrock 13:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

He's already agreed terms and passed his medical, so I've put him in the first team list. Having a Future Arrivals section is bloody stupid anyway, IMO. As I've said a few times over the last week or so, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. PeeJay 17:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Future Arrivals isn't appropriate but to me the situation with Hargreaves,Anderson and Nani is clear. When they sign a contract for United they should be listed here. Until then it's still speculation. It's very likely they'll join, but they can still back out. Basically, I think we shouldn't add people once they've passed their medical,or agreed in principle, we should add them once they are confirmed as Man U players. Paulbrock 21:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with Paulbrock. Hargreaves isn't a Man Utd player until his contract comes into effect on 1st July (see all the discussion on wheter LA Galaxy should be included on David Beckham's page. For example (and this is not wishing ill-will on him), say he suffered a bad injury between now and the 1st July, and had to retire - he would never have been a Man utd player.

So in my opinion, we either don't list them until the contract takes effect, or we have a "future arrivials" section (and I perfer the 1st option). Darkson - BANG! 11:05, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

as soon as theres a picture of them at OT with fergie wearing a red black and white scarf with their name and number on the back of a shirt then you can put them on-Numberwang 19:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's official with Hargreaves. It might be worth adding him now. Not sure about Nani and Anderson, though. It's probably best to err on the side of caution with those two.

Nani and Anderson

I've added references, but should Nani and Anderson really be in the "Future arrivals" section? The deals are still only agreed "in principle", and they haven't had their medicals yet (and hence the deals could fall through). Darkson - BANG! 14:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course Nani and Anderson (and Hargreaves) should be in a "Future arrivals" section. They have all agreed deals to sign for MUFC once the transfer window opens. Yes each deal is subject to certain conditions, which need mentioning, but just because that makes things more awkward doesn't mean these deals should be ignored. I completely disagree with the "Future arrivals" section being removed, you can't pretend those players currently have no link no MUFC just because they don't fit in any of the existing sections. Russelluk 14:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Matt Busby

Correction: "Matt Busby was read his last rights" should read "Matt Busby was given last rites" Source: wikipedia article "Anointing the Sick (Catholic Church) Conal Kennedy 22:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Players In

Jonny Evansis missing from the on loan section - unsigned by User:194.128.29.93

He's not mentioned because he's not part of the first-team squad, and therefore not in the main article. Manchester United F.C. Reserves & Academy Squad mentions him as being on loan. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

New players for sure coming to Manchester United are:

Owen Hargreaves(17million)

Anderson(undisclosed fee)

Nani (undisclosed fee)

Nothing is "for sure" until the contracts are signed and they have been paraded in front of the press at Old Trafford, tbh PeeJay 21:57, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hargreaves has signed his contract and been shown with David Gill in a United shirt 1 Killer 22:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)2. Shouldn't we add to the squad list? (my local time is 00:40 July 1 2007) Killer 22:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The signing hasn't been announced on ManUtd.com yet, so we should leave it for now. - PeeJay 22:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Then I guess we shouldn't do that with Nani either? 1 Killer 22:55, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. We should wait until the transfer is officially announced on the club website. Those are just photos, after all, and the Nani ones were submitted to Getty Images on the 6th of June! - PeeJay 23:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we just have to wait and see. Killer 23:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Laureus World Sports Awards: Team of the Year - 2000

Spoken version

I am more than willing to do the spoken word version of this article myself (I have been told that I have a very good speaking voice :-P ), but I believe that the article should be more-or-less "finished" before we start anything like a spoken word version. PeeJay 00:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I think a dignified Welshman would be an excellent choice. Marky-Son 23:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Cheers for the support, my friend. Just so you know, my voice has very little Welsh in it ;-) - PeeJay 23:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Stats and figures

I've only just noticed, from PeeJay's recent revert, that the stats aren't taken from ManUtd.com, but from http://www.stretfordend.co.uk, which is the "official Man Utd stat webssite". But apart from having in on the websites entry page, I can find nothing there to say it's endored by the club, nor the official stat website, and anyone can plaster the word "official" onto a webpage.

That said, can anyone verify that the webpage above is official and endorsed? If not, shouldn't we take the stats from ManUtd.com? Darkson - I have a dream 13:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There are several adverts for StretfordEnd.co.uk on the official website, and there is even a link. If you click on Fixtures & Results in the menubar on the left hand side of the official site, there should be a link underneath it titled Club Statistics, which takes you to StretfordEnd.co.uk - PeeJay 13:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks very much. Darkson - I have a dream 13:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Couple of Things

You should recognise that 'Most International Capped Player' doesn't make for great English; consider 'Most Caps as an International', although I agree there must be something better than that! Also, it would seem that both Owen Hargreaves and Nani have been registered by the Premer League as United players, as they are listed here: http://www.premierleague.com/manchester-united.html 86.146.158.108 09:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Most Capped International Player" surely? 81.157.125.245 15:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Club records

We have the "fastest 4 goals" listed, but shouldn't we (also?) have the fastest hat-trick, seeing as a hat-trick is a much more widely known phenomena? (That said, I reckon it would be Ole again...) Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

History articles

I proposed this on the talk page for one of the history articles, but here it is where more people are likely to see it:

I propose that we rename the History articles to something like "History of Manchester United (<time period>)", just like they have done for the History of Arsenal F.C. articles. What do you think? - PeeJay 00:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why not, but I don't think it's especially important 81.155.115.41 21:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Intercontinental Cup

The Intercontinental Cup is knowned by FIFA as the "World Cup for clubs" (European clubs v South American clubs mainly). Respect a the European Super Cup or C. Shield (without a sense) IS NOT a "minor trophy". --Dantetheperuvian 19:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

To be quite honest, it is a minor trophy. As I said in my edit summary, the Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, Champions League and UEFA Cup are far more important to English clubs. - PeeJay 19:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

So what? I'm not english. Said "is a minor thophy for English clubs", to be quite honest is obviously POV. In Spain, Italy and the other side of Europe, and South-America this trophy is very, very important because also is organizated by FIFA. FIFA also knowns as "double-world champions" at the players ICCC a World Cup winners (see RSSSF). English stile? --Dantetheperuvian 20:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this article is about an English club, so it is written from an English perspective. Therefore, for the purposes of this article, the Inter-continental Cup is regarded as a minor trophy. - PeeJay 21:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Charlton's stats

I find it a little confusing that Sir Bobby Charlton's stats are given as 759/249 in parts 3.5.1 & 3.5.2 and as 754/247 in part 9. I have seen both figures through the years, but I think one ought to use the same stats (especially as only league games are stated in the Sir Bobby article, or alternatively, explain why the figures differ.

I agree. I've just looked into it and it turns out that the stats in Section 9 didn't include Charlton's appearances/goals in Charity Shield games and the Inter-continental Cup games against Estudiantes in 1968. I've updated the stats now. - PeeJay 13:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

New Kit

I see someone has changed the colours of United's kits for next season, I was unaware of them unvieling the new kit yet, does anyone know if these are in fact the correct colours? - Adzer 23:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No new kit has been officially released. Check the website if you have any doubts like this. - PeeJay 22:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The new home kit was announced at midnight on 1 July 2007. I haven't seen anything official for a new away kit yet. Fd2006 10:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea if someone gets an image ready for the new Black away kit. Images of players wearing it can be found on the Man Utd website (I remember seeing an image of Anderson wearing it during a recent game). Obviously don't put it up until it's been officially announced Roryliam 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nani

Nani appears to be in the Man Utd squad according to manutd.com's squad list; surely he should be added to the wiki...86.143.241.52 21:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Not until there's a news announcement from the club confirming him as a United player. - PeeJay 22:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

His inclusion on the official team website isn't proof enough that he's a United player? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for waiting for official word on things, but if ManUtd.com lists him as a member of the first team, then he's a member of the first team, press release or not. --Billdorr 23:32, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure he is a United player, but until the press release is out, there's any number of things that could happen to stop the transfer going through. The First team squad list page has been known to make mistakes now and again. - PeeJay 23:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd have thought if the transfer had been completed, there'd be a mention of it on their own news page as wll. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 10:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

All moot points now, and ManUtd.com have confirmed the signings of Nani and Anderson, and the full signing of Kushack. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 12:33, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Added fanzines

Red News and United We Stand were added to the Fan Sites. They are equal in status to Red Issue as all three are longstanding published Manchester United fanzines with active websites. --Jddphd 06:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Nicknames

While I disagree with the editor who put "Man Utd" as a nickname. I also disagree with PeeJay2K3 that the nickname section is only for the most common one. "Man Utd" is not a nickname, "Man United" however, is. "Mancs" is also a nickname. One cannot discount "Man United" as a nickname simply because it's LESS popular than The Red Devils. Last I knew, The Red Devils, wasn't the refrain from one of the clubs most popular supporters songs. "Man United" is. I see no problem with including "Man United" in the list of nicknames of the club, "Man Utd" however, is not a nickname. Batman2005 10:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference between "Man United" and "Man Utd" that makes "Man United" a nickname? I don't quite understand what you're getting at. - PeeJay 10:56, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe the editor who inserted that was referring to actually using it as written "Man U-t-d," as in www.manutd.com. "Man United" as in "Manchester United" with "Manchester" shortened to "Man," IS a nickname. The nicknames box isn't JUST for the most popular or widely used, it's for any notable ones. Ajax, Bayern Munich, Real Madrid, FC Barcelona, Rangers F.C., Celtic F.C., Chelsea, Red Bull New York, Atlético Madrid, A.C. Milan, Juventus, Inter Milan, Feyenoord, Bayer Leverkusen, Newcastle United, Everton F.C. all list more than one nickname. I think that's proof enough that the nicknames section is open to ones other than the most commonly used. "Man United" is a very common nickname for the team, and should be included. Batman2005 11:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

But "Man United" isn't a nickname. It's just a contraction of "Manchester United", like "Man Utd" is. Both "Man United" and "Man Utd" are said the same way, so there really isn't a difference between the two, and neither is a nickname. - PeeJay 11:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, yes, Man United is a nickname. It's used on television, it's used in song, it's used in print. PSV is just a contraction of "PSV Eindhoven," "Inter" is a shortened version of the official name "Bayer Leverkusen" is a shortered version of "Bayer 04 Leverkusen," etc, etc, etc. Just because it's a shortened version of the name doesn't mean it's not a nickname. Steve is a shortened version of "Steven" but it's still a nickname. Webster defines nickname as "a usually descriptive name given instead of, or in addition to, the one belonging to a person, place or thing and a familiar form of a proper name." Man United is a familiar form of a proper name used in song quite frequently and used by the players, staff, print and televised media. I fail to see how it can be argued that "Man United" is not ALSO a nickname for Manchester United. Batman2005 11:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen "Man United" used in print. However, I have seen "Man Utd" in print. I would say that "United" is one of Manchester United's nicknames, even if the other's are. - PeeJay 11:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I've seen it used in print as directly quoting another player (i.e. "the game against Man United is a crucial one"). I agree that "United" is a nickname as well. I think i've done a reasonable job of showing that the "Nickname(s)" section isn't just for the most common. Obviously if it becomes superfluous we'll have to delete some, but I see no reason with using the most common ones. The Red Devils, Man United (mostly due to the song) and United are all commonly used. Batman2005 11:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, if you look at the Usage section of the template, I'm pretty sure it's mentioned there that the nickname field is just for the most common nickname, but obviously it's not very well enforced. Could you possibly give me a link to where you've seen "Man United" used on the internet? By the way, what would you say about the name "Man U"? - PeeJay 11:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

"Man U"- I'm ok with. But i'm generally FOR inclusion of things such as this. Batman2005 11:54, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

See, most United fans regard the name "Man U" (also "ManYoo", "ManUre") as derogatory, and as such I've been against including it here, especially as it's just a contraction of "Manchester United". - PeeJay 13:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed that while the teams you indicated further up the page do have more than one nickname listed, most of them have second nicknames that aren't just contractions of the club's name. Man Utd doesn't have any nicknames other than "The Red Devils" that could be considered viable here. - PeeJay 13:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay said "Could you possibly give me a link to where you've seen "Man United" used on the internet?" - just do a google search for "Man United" (with the speech marks), and you'll find lots of hits. For example - [1] and [2] Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 15:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. That still seems like more of a contraction of "Manchester United" than a proper nickname though. - PeeJay 15:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay, by definition, a nickname CAN be a contraction of a longer name. Webster defined nickname as a familiar form of a common name. For instance, Steve is a familiar form of Steven, and is also a contraction of Steven. Chris is a familiar form of Christopher, and is also a contraction of Christopher. Steve and Chris, by definition in this instance, are also nicknames (familiar forms of the common names). Ergo, Man United is a nickname, because it's a familiar form of a common name...it's also a contraction of Manchester United. Being one doesn't necessarily mean it can't be the other, and vice versa. Batman2005 10:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So, then why isn't Man Utd a nickname as well? And Man city while we're at it... Marky-Son 21:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Man City isn't a nickname for Manchester United as it conjures up images of our rivals :P - PeeJay 21:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, contractions aren't nicknames. Nicknames (literally, names to use in the 'nick' i.e. police station) are names that don't refer directly to the actual name, i.e. 'The Artful Dodger' in Dickens. 'Red Devils' is a nickname, as is 'The Gunners' for Arsenal and 'Pompey' for Portsmouth, the others listed are not. 81.157.125.245 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Tevez

According to this link ManUtd.com has United signed Carlos Tevez. Killer 21:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I've been able to tell, it's still all speculation. That link you posted has nothing besides the headline, which leads me to believe that it's been put up in preparation for an announcement. I'm curious as to how you found it, since it doesn't seem to be linked from any of the news pages on manutd.com. --Billdorr 21:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I found it on MUSS's (Man Utd Swedish Supporters) boards (forum in Swedish). Really don't how the person who posted the link go it, so sorry can't help you there. But I agree with you that it's probably just a preparation. But that perhaps means that rumors are true. But we will just have to wait and see what will happen with "Carlitos". Killer 22:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't put anything up about Tevez until there's confirmation from the Premier League, West Ham, and he appears in a United shirt. The circumstances surrounding the player's ownership and transfer from Corinthians were already in dispute by Sheffield Utd. The safe thing is to wait until there is 100% certainty. Jddphd 00:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Just leads to a blank page now. Darkson (Yabba Dabba Doo!) 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And, with the Premier League's statement, I would have to say, since he's released from his WH contract, he will clearly go to OT now. [3]

Welcome Tévez. BlackbeltMage 08:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added Tevez. I know he hasn't signed but this is his destination and he will sign a two year (loan) contract as stated by his agent therefore keep him there. Piyush90 19:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. There are any number of reasons why the Premier League may block the transfer. Tevez should not be added to the squad list until the transfer is officially ratified by the Premier League. - PeeJay 19:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Schmeichel/Charlton

The recent edit war regarding most capped player has got me thinking - is it really relevant to the club's history anyway? Maybe it's better to just get rid of that althogether? What do you think? JPMJPMJPMJPM 14:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Coaching Changes

I spend a lot of time editing this page and I would like to know why every time I update the coaching section of the page someone comes along and changes it? It has taken me a great deal of time to do this and I would appreciate whoever it is that is doing this would at least consult on here before just taking it upon themselves to delete and reduce the section! User:consulrjo 17:55, 16 July 2007

The information hasn't been deleted, just commented out. When the article was taken to Peer Review, one of the comments was that the staff section was too big, and the best solution to the problem was to comment out any extraneous information so that it doesn't appear but isn't lost. A lot of the information about the youth coaches would be better placed in the Reserves & Academy article, and we really don't need to know who the assistant club masseuses are. - PeeJay 17:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Souleymane Mamam

Does anyone know what's happened to Souleymane Mamam - his wiki says he's still on loan, but I'm not convinced that's the case - thanks JPMJPMJPMJPM 17:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

According to the squad list on Royal Antwerp's official site, it would seem that Mamam's loan there has come to an end. However, this may just be because United have yet to renew his loan there for another season. There is only one mention of him on Man Utd's official site, probably because he was such a low-key signing and he's been on loan for so long. I'm quite curious about this myself, but until there is a press release or an article about the player from an official source, we can only assume his status remains the same; i.e. he is still on loan at Royal Antwerp. - PeeJay 19:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with you, we must assume he's still on loan on Wikipedia, but it does seem as though he's heading towards being released by United whatever the case - he's by no means young now and looks increasingly unlikely to make the grade. JPMJPMJPMJPM 00:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Malcolm Glazer takeover sub-sub-section

I think we should consider moving this section into the After the Treble (1999-present) section to keep the order chronological, in line with the rest of the article... JPMJPMJPMJPM 16:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)