Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Successes in Lead

@PeeJay2K3: Take a look at previous discussions here and here. Also take a look at trophies won lists and matches won lists to see why this statement would be controversial. Man U may be most successful on a lot of metrics, but not every metric.

As for the clean sweep of trophies, this is imprecisely worded at best, and false at worst. "Top" is not defined, and will be controversial to many editors, considering there's no clear distinction between major and minor honours. Other wiki honours pages include some of the trophies Man U haven't won, after long arguments involving multiple editors. If a sentence like this is to be included, it needs to be accurate and precise, and really wants a better source than talksport. Madshurtie (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I see your point, I just happen to disagree. Also, those discussions you linked to are 6-7 years old. Since they were started, United have only widened the gap between themselves and any other clubs in England, in all competitions except the FA Cup. Liverpool may have won more European Cups, but there's no denying Manchester United are the most successful English club by sheer trophy count alone, not to mention their league and FA Cup totals by themselves. – PeeJay 13:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: True they're old, but WP:PEACOCK is still an official part of the Manual of Style. I'm not saying Man U aren't the first team most people would think of when considering most successful English teams, but there's no universal definition of what constitutes success. On the trophy count example, yes they've probably won the most trophies organized by a national or international football association (although I'm sure there are more defunct trophies than on that list), but trophies aren't all equal. Some people might consider the Champions League worth several FA Cups. Is it worth more or less than a league title? Is the UEFA Super Cup worth several Community Shields? Is the League Cup? If people start trying to rank trophy hauls based on the importance of the trophies, the rankings shift, and there's unlikely to be agreement. What's more Liverpool, Arsenal, and Everton have won more league matches and points than Man U, so while Man U might have won matches at the right times in the right places to get the titles, their league record is arguably worse overall.

Tl;dr. "Most succesful" isn't obviously true, and will be controversial. WP:PEACOCK states we should spell out the things that make the club successful, rather than using loaded language. Madshurtie (talk) 13:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I completely disagree. I've never met anyone that uses simply the number of wins a team has recorded as a metric for success. The only thing that anyone counts is trophies, and the only team that even comes close to comparing to Manchester United (please, don't call the team Man U) is Liverpool, which is only by virtue of them having won more European Cups. By every other standard, MUFC is the more successful team, and this is backed up by sources in the "Honours" section. We shouldn't really be using sources in the lead as that section should merely be a summary of the entire article and hence be sourced further down. – PeeJay 14:08, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Nobody? How about when this was first discussed on the Liverpool page? I don't think using records and statistics as a supplementary measure of success is unusual. By every other standard, MUFC is the more successful team. Liverpool have also won more League Cups, Europa Leagues, and UEFA Super Cups. And just to prove a weighted trophy haul could make Liverpool most successful, let's say, based on your subjective valuation, you weighted each trophy with this number of points: League 12; Champions League 12; FA Cup 9; Europa League 9; League Cup 8; FIFA Club World Cup 6; UEFA Super Cup 6; Community Shield 2; Defunct trophies 2. Then, based on this list and my calculations, both MUFC and Liverpool end up with 490, and they would both be joint most successful. If nothing else, surely this shows opinions could vary over which club has the most impressive haul. Madshurtie (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, that is the first time I've ever seen 'matches won' used to classify a team as successful. And that's a very convenient weighting system you've used, how did you come up with it? – PeeJay 16:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I assigned each cup a fraction of 12 based on their rough importance, added it up and adjusted three or four of the numbers until Liverpool's total equaled MUFC's, haha. My point wasn't that Liverpool's total is obviously as good as MUFC's, it was just that it's possible to come up with a somewhat reasonable weighting where it is. If you weighted the Champions League higher than the League title (I wouldn't personally do this, but I'm sure some people think this), it wouldn't be too hard to make Liverpool's total higher than MUFC's. Again my point isn't that Liverpool are more successful, it's just that people could make a coherent argument it is. Madshurtie (talk) 16:56, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with stating United's status as the most decorated team in England or "most successful in terms of trophies", which can be backed up with many sources . These are statements of fact whichever way you look at it. i'm also unsure about the phrasing "all ongoing honours" as that seemingly excludes the Cup Winners Cup and Intercontinental Cup, which were two very prestigious European trophies that are no longer running. I think something like "all honours historically available to them" would work better. Davefelmer (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately that wording doesn't take into account Madshurtie's point that United never won the Football League Centenary Trophy or the Football League Super Cup. – PeeJay 14:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Well I thought all we can do is use the sources, and the best ones all say a similar thing, as shown : Man United "completed the set of major honours". Since we dont typically use the term 'major'on here, substituting it for the word 'top' or 'significant' or something would carry the same weight. Davefelmer (talk) 15:20, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

What's a "top" or "significant" honour? Wars have been fought on Wikipedia over this question. Madshurtie (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want a compromise that doesn't violate WP:PEACOCK, you could add a sentence like "Many commentators and journalists consider Manchester United the most successful club in English football" or "Many commentators and journalists consider Manchester United's trophy haul the most successful in English football", followed by a collection of citations. This is the approach taken on Roger Federer's page. I'm not a massive fan, because it doesn't give the reader any quantitative information on whether the commentators are right, but it at least doesn't violate WP:PEACOCK. Madshurtie (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it doesnt matter as much here what a "top" honour is, the point is that is what the sources say and sources are the only thing we can go by here and not personal opinion right? As for "most successful", I understand the problem with that phrasing for the reasons you outlined. But there surely is no debate on "most decorated" or "most successful in terms of trophies" being used. There is no count and no source that can dispute that numerically speaking, United have the biggest trophy haul in English football. I listed some sources above and can bring in countless others to support this statement. Thus, there is no need to say "many journalists consider" on that front since it is factual. Davefelmer (talk) 02:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Well it doesnt matter as much here what a "top" honour is, the point is that is what the sources say and sources are the only thing we can go by here and not personal opinion right? Did you notice that the sources you provide don't agree on what a top honour is? For example, some of them include the Community Shield, ECWC, or IC, and some don't.

There is no count and no source that can dispute that numerically speaking, United have the biggest trophy haul in English football. I have not met a count or source that documents every historical, regional, etc. trophy English clubs have won. Without that information, how do we know whether it can be disputed?

since it is factual The only claim I am confident is factual is the narrower and more precise, "Among professional English clubs, Manchester United's first team have won the most ongoing trophies organized by a national or international football association". If you want a less precise, probably WP:PEACOCK term like "most successful", you'd have to attribute it. Madshurtie (talk) 09:46, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

1) Yeah, of course I noticed, but that is my point. There are two ways that sources cover these honours, the standard way shown typically across European articles highlighted by the BBC and SKY and the more British one as shown in the Independant. United lead in both those counts. But there are no other ways that any sources count these honours. So with a multitude of reliable and available evidence in favour of United, the info can stand.

2) And we dont need one. That is being deliberately obtuse. It isnt about editor's opinions on what constitutes success anyways. It is about the sources, and all the available and reliable ones show United ahead. There is no source out there that I have seen that contradicts United being the most decorated club in England in terms of trophies won. If there is, please list it for me. Beyond the point, small regional competitions were often not official and played by reserve teams. They arent recognised by the relevant associations nor by the clubs themselves on their official websites. So who are we to decide what matters and should be counted when the governing bodies and the clubs themselves have already decided?

3) There is no need to be so wordy and convoluted with the statement. "Manchester United are the most successful team in England in terms of trophies won" or "Manchester United are the most decorated team in England" are fine. No source contradicts this statement. Davefelmer (talk) 19:23, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

There are two ways that sources cover these honours But there are no other ways that any sources count these honours. Also, that Independent source (and a few other sources elsewhere) uses the term 'major trophies', which is not the same as your wording, and is considered too vague by multiple other editors on at least two other pages. Madshurtie (talk) 17:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

There's no definition of "major" honours, nor what makes a club "most successful". If the honours are listed (noting any instances where the club is a record-holder) that is accurate and neutral. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 20:37, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, what about "most trophies in England" then? I cannot find a single source that disputes that, and with that phrasing it seems fair. Juventus F.C., FC Bayern Munich and S.L. Benfica all state they have the most trophies in their country, while Bayern's page uses the term 'most successful'. So it appears there are double standards being applied here. Davefelmer (talk) 17:08, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, those articles should be changed. Bayern and Juventus violate WP:PEACOCK, and Juventus's and Benfica's title counts are potentially controversial. Looking at the talk pages, none of them have really discussed it either. I'd also note none of those articles have passed WP:FAR, unlike this one. If we're pointing at other pages, I still don't see what's wrong with the Roger Federer approach. It's simple and not controversial. Madshurtie (talk) 17:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

So what that they aren't featured articles? A general article consensus should still be applied. And if those articles violate wiki rules, then why don't you go and enforce the changes as passionately as you are doing here?

In fact, upon further research, your argument doesnt seem to apply at all across articles on wiki. Rosenborg BK of Norway and F.C. Copenhagen of Denmark are two more examples of clubs declared the most successful in terms of trophies won or simply most successful, while leaving Europe and going into other continents, Boca Juniors of Argentina and Club Olimpia of Paraguay also have similar statuses attributed to them. I could go on and on. So it appears that this is the only article where such a debate is happening and these ideas being enforced. I would think that one of two solutions can be applied, either this article is maintained as you changed it and you go and change all the other articles to establish the correct, in your view, consensus, or this one should have United attributed the same status as all the other most decorated clubs of a country. Davefelmer (talk) 02:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the other articles. Working through making those also more neutral. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Basically I hadn't looked for other articles until you mentioned it, and then couldn't be bothered to start the same argument among several other groups of people. I was just about to suggest doing it as one discussion on WT:FOOTY to get a project-wide consensus, but then I noticed the discussion has already happened and almost everyone opposed 'most successful' type language. Looks like Ilikeeatingwaffles has the rest under control. Madshurtie (talk) 16:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

The phrase "most successful" related to Manchester United is repeat in this article 6 times, including in rivalry and honours section.

In FC Bayern Munich article that phrase repeats 7 times, including 2 in lead.--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:20, 26 August 2017 (UTC) P.S.

The discussion is about the use of the term to describe a club generally, not in terms of their success in a competition, which can undisputably be measured. Davefelmer (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 15 September 2017

Dooode123 (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 14:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2017

I would like to edit the page. Itzztheman (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Manchester United F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160101074719/http://www.flicksfromthepast.com/article/manchester-united-and-adidas-announce-record---75m-per-year-deal-after-nike-pull-out to http://www.flicksfromthepast.com/article/manchester-united-and-adidas-announce-record---75m-per-year-deal-after-nike-pull-out

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

History title edits

I have provided edits that help provide a more cohesive reading of the article, and allow for newer readers to gain insight into the club through the titles. The bland and somewhat unclear nature of the current setup, prior to my edits, leave too much up to interpretation rather than to showcase the club's transitions and history.

The titles have barely changed, but what you have done is given one section a name it didn't need (Post-Ferguson and Mourinho) and one that is actually a little bit POV (Instability and stagnation). – PeeJay 14:12, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 February 2018

Angel Gomes, who is on the bench for the FA Cup game vs Huddersfield today (17th Feb) appears neither here on the First Team list or on the Reserves page. I'm not entirely sure which page (or pages) he should be added to, but he should be on at least one.

So, please add Angel Gomes (#47) to the First Team squad.

81.153.25.120 (talk) 17:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/43012781 (scroll to bottom of page, the "What's next?" section and click on line-ups) 81.153.25.120 (talk) 23:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Gomes is currently listed on the page for Man U.'s Reserves and Academy players, which matches the team's own website. He has made occasional first team appearances previously but the team's own site is probably a better source of his current status. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Manchester United (video game series)

Do you think the video games article should have a link in the template at the bottom of the page? Govvy (talk) 17:02, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018

Add two players, Angel Gomes/ MF/ English/ 47 and Ethan Hamilton/ MF/ Scottish/ 48 2A02:C7D:D66F:BC00:A1B3:25BE:B7F:39D7 (talk) 19:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 21:19, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Doubles and Trebles

I am not sure the article should be repeating the same honours over again, it seems a bit bizarre. Govvy (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Winning a double is an impressive feat, though, and there should be some way of indicating it in the article. Perhaps the way chosen isn't the best, but there must be some way that suits all parties. However, what I will say is that I don't think the "double" United won last season (League Cup and Europa League) should be included. Doubles typically include at least the league and one other trophy. Anything else isn't a proper double. – PeeJay 18:45, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

It should be indicated with a (D) next to the year, not in a separate section repeating information already above. And I agree league cup and Europa league is not a double, hiristocically a double is winning the League and FA Cup. Govvy (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, that was the Double for a long time, but that was when the league and FA Cup were the two biggest competitions available to clubs. Would you not include Manchester United's league and Champions League double of 2008? – PeeJay 08:11, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

A league win with a major trophy by todays standards yes, I just don't think this current double and trebles need to repeat the information above it and the europa league and cup win should be removed. Govvy (talk) 09:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

recent changes

@PeeJay2K3: What discussion did you have in mind?? I didn't mind some of those changes, like the changes to the grounds section which looked better. But some of the formatting on other bits effected mobile view. Govvy (talk) 09:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The reordering of the sections didn't seem necessary to me, and I couldn't see where the link to the reserve team page went. This article is a Featured Article, so any wholesale changes like this really should be discussed first, regardless of WP:BOLD. – PeeJay 09:20, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I saw where the reserve team link went now. And I disagree with moving that and the women's team link to a "see also" section at the bottom of the page - they're too important to be relegated to a simple link at the bottom. – PeeJay 09:22, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was thinking of reverting the whole lot earlier myself, but I thought I'd give it a chance. The only thing I liked was how the stadium history seemed a bit nicer with separate headings for each era for the venue changes. Govvy (talk) 10:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

New player

Lee Grant joined Manchester United on the 3 July 2018 MoYaseenp09 (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

New coaching staff

The first team coaching staff section needs to be updated to include Michael Carrick, Kieran McKenna and Stefano Rapetti as First Team Coaches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AE20:2900:5DB8:915D:6872:9FBD (talk) 11:17, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Not done Please provide reliable source. Matthew_hk tc 11:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11667/11384519/jose-mourinhos-coaching-reshuffle-at-man-utd-kieran-mckenna-stefano-rapetti-michael-carrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AE20:2900:5DB8:915D:6872:9FBD (talk) 11:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

New coaches confirmed

Jose Mourinho has confirmed three new first team coaches - Michael Carrick, Stefano Rapetti and Kieran McKenna.

Link here - https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/man-utd-transfer-news-mourinho-14925337 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:AE20:2900:25B8:2140:24EC:ABB8 (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal

That kit history is simply inaccurate. Move the section to Manchester United kit history and add an accurate kit evolution with the second and third jerseys. Also add the kit suppliers in that page TNMPChannel (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Explain how it's inaccurate please. – PeeJay 08:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Look at the kits. Not enough details between the season the kits were released. TNMPChannel (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Coaching and management - wrong staff named/staff not named

Jose Mourinho is Manager, not Head Coach.

Tactical Analyst is Giovanni Cerra, not Jim Lawlor.

Chief Scout is Jim Lawlor, not Marcel Bout. Marcel Bout is Head of Global Scouting.

David Gill is a Director of Manchester United Football Club.

Phil Townsend has left his post as Director of Communications.

I've made those changes. – PeeJay 22:07, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

One other change - Fitness Coach is Carlos Lalin, not Tony Strudwick. You could also list Paulo Gaudino as a Fitness Coach.

Fitness coaches

Fitness coach is Carlos Lalin not Tony Strudwick.

Stefano Rapetti is Head of Fitness - https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/stefano-rapetti-discusses-his-new-role-as-head-of-fitness-at-manchester-united— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:ae20:2900:2d6c:fbc:9020:b77 (talk • contribs) 11:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, have updated. Govvy (talk) 11:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Staff

Carlos Lalin is also a first team fitness coach. https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/jose-mourinhos-backroom-team-meet-11317416

Stafano Rapetti should be removed from the list of Assistant Coaches - he's listed twice.

Alan Dawson MBE is Group Director of Operations, not Richard Arnold. https://www.linkedin.com/in/alan-dawson-mbe-23570a25/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:ae20:2900:2d6c:fbc:9020:b77 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Not done, can't use LinkedIn as a source and the mirror is considered unreliable, Govvy (talk) 12:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The suggested edits above are correct - can someone make them please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshreddevil (talk • contribs) 11:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2018

41.223.117.76 (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 14:15, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2018

They won the fifa club world cup in 2008. that should be listed on the treble part Aladan17 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

lead

I was curious, is that correct English to have a period in representation of Man. United. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, the full stop indicates elision of letters, c.f. "St. Louis". – PeeJay 19:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Not, it's not: I've added a couple of refs to show the common usage per WP:RS.Haldraper (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Haldraper can you and PeeJay2K3 please stop edit warring over lead, if this continues I will report you both. Govvy (talk) 13:02, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

More to the point, Haldraper needs to stop making unnecessary edits claiming to be "tidying up" the lead. More often than not, either some useful info is removed or he changes the wording such that the meaning of a sentence is lost or significantly altered. This is not acceptable, especially in Featured Articles. I realise that Featured status does not mean an article is perfect, but these always feel like changes for change's sake. – PeeJay 14:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2018

87.27.34.130 (talk) 11:25, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
NO CARETAKER...

It's not clear what you want changed. Are you suggesting that Ole Solskjaer has not been appointed on a caretaker basis? – PeeJay 11:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2019

Can you replace https://web.archive.org/web/20160216070535/http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Club-News/2016/Feb/nicky-butt-appointed-manchester-united-head-of-academy.aspx to https://www.manutd.com/en/news/detail/nicky-butt-appointed-manchester-united-head-of-academy as this was a broken link from an old site. 148.252.245.122 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done Gulumeemee (talk) 02:53, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Honours

Could someone add the achievements of the Reserve teams too. For example the FA Youth Cups and Manchester Cups. Even the classic Central League/Cup. Alicultivated (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Are those competitions usually recorded among the honours of the first team? Somehow I doubt it. – PeeJay 10:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alicultivated: The youth honours are listed on the youth academy page, as for friendly first team honours. They should all be listed on List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics however that page is incomplete. Govvy (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

Ander Herrera & Antonio Valencia have been released by the club. They shouldn't be part of the first team squad anymore. 209.137.134.50 (talk) 21:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. NiciVampireHeart 13:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Personnel section

This looks a bit excessive to me and in breach of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Do we really need to list all the scouts / masseurs / non-exec directors / ambassadors / ground staff? I found a discussion about it in the archives during a peer review, at which stage the list was a lot shorter. Spike 'em (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm assuming no-one objects to me removing parts of this then. Spike 'em (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd have gone as far as you did with deleting some of that content, but considering much of it was unsourced, I can't argue with half of it. I think the biggest problem I have is that even the club doesn't have a definitive list of who's on their coaching staff. – PeeJay 16:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I left in all the first team coaches and the managers of the 2 top age groups, removing the rest, removed all of the medical staff and operations staff. Happy to restore some if people think they are notable positions, but most did not seem to be so. I also removed all the "ambassadors" as even though they are all notable players, I'm not sure this role is itself notable. Spike 'em (talk) 16:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

I would have maybe kept all that was in the coaching and academy coaching section but I agree that listing the scouts and medical staff etc was a bit excessive. Mn1548 (talk) 06:33, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you've removed too much - please restore the first team coaching staff at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshreddevil (talk • contribs) 17:53, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Why are any of these worthy of mention under WP:NOTDIRECTORY : Head of human performance; First team lead sports scientist;Head of football medicine and science; Assistant club doctor;Head physiotherapist;Assistant head physiotherapist;Kit manager.

I don't doubt they have done well to get to their positions, but when do they ever get mentioned in the press, such that they should get mentioned here? Spike 'em (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

They are clearly member of the first team staff, Are you going to remove similar lists from every other premier league club's page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshreddevil (talk • contribs) 13:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just removed similar positions from Man City and Chelsea, so yes. I don't believe we need any member of staff who interacts with the first-team on this page, as per WP:NOTDIRECTORY; have you read that? Spike 'em (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

And Liverpool, which had a list similar to the one here. Spike 'em (talk) 18:28, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Simple listings without context information. Examples include, but are not limited to: listings of ... employees (except CEOs, supervisory directors and similar top functionaries). Assistant physio is not a top functionary. Spike 'em (talk) 13:54, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

See also section

PeeJay2K3 There is just one element of a digital book, I was wondering if we should just remove the see also section and move that element to the external links section. At the moment there seems to be a slightly odd alignment to the bottom because of the see also. Govvy (talk) 20:09, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Done. – PeeJay 08:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Cheers, seems a lot better, Govvy (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Women and academy

Would a "department of..." table like on Paris Saint-Germain F.C. and FC Bayern Munich be more appropriate on this page to include the women's and academy team than a section of the article with one sentence in? Mn1548 (talk) 16:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

I am not sure what you're asking, if you mean there should be a paragraph or two to explain the Woman's football team, I would tend to agree to that considering current events in Woman's football. Govvy (talk) 16:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Considering there are only two other departments to Manchester United, I don't see the benefit of this. The navbox at the bottom should be sufficient. It's not like Manchester United is a multisport club like FC Barcelona. Maybe if we'd kept the basketball team going in the 1980s! – PeeJay 08:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

We could still include that on it with the world "defunct" in brackets. Mn1548 (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

The team is still going, just not run by Manchester United. I just think there's not enough entries to warrant a box like the one you're suggesting. – PeeJay 17:41, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Ahh Fair enough then. Mn1548 (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

Harry Maguire is squad number 5 194.74.159.130 (talk) 12:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Image replacement

Can we replace File:WillemIIManchesterUnited1963c.jpg with File:Sir Matt Busby.jpg as I feel this image illustrates a more important part of the club's history compared to the image I feel should be replaced. Mn1548 (talk) 18:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The latter image is a copyright violation, so no. – PeeJay 23:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2019

please change {{fs player |no=— |nat=ENG |pos=DF |name=[[Harry Maguire]] }} to {{fs player |no=5 |nat=ENG |pos=DF |name=[[Harry Maguire]] }}

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/manchester-united-transfer-news-harry-maguire-shirt-number-revealed-record-move-leicester-a9039781.html 194.74.159.130 (talk) 12:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

All I see there is the Independent claiming that he will be given shirt number 5, but they have provided no evidence for that. Manchester United have not confirmed his number yet. – PeeJay 13:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

This comes back to a bigger issue. Maguire is United's number five and plenty of sources will say this. Wan-Bissaka's 29 was allowed to remain when put on before his squad number was officially announced and since it has been announced the 29 was correct. Maguire is United's 5 and if it can be soured as it has been it should be allowed on. It is the same argument with Greenwood and Gomez who are 26 and 28 respectively. If these numbers are changes for the regular season then the page can always be edited but the fact of the matter is that as of now Maguire is United's 5 as that is the shirt he has been pictured wearing.Mn1548 (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Where are you seeing pictures of him in a number 5 shirt? All of the promo shots on ManUtd.com are of him in blank kit, so it would be nice if you could actually link to the sources you're citing instead of just asserting their veracity without grounds. Wan-Bissaka's number was left up because ManUtd.com published a news story saying that's what his number was going to be, same with Daniel James. No such articles have been published with numbers for Greenwood, Gomes or Maguire. – PeeJay 18:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

https://www.standard.co.uk/sport/football/manchesterunited/harry-maguire-shirt-number-revealed-man-utd-star-to-wear-no5-following-80m-move-a4205801.html

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/transfers/manchester-united-transfer-news-harry-maguire-shirt-number-revealed-record-move-leicester-a9039781.html%3famp

https://www.metro.co.uk/2019/08/05/harry-maguires-squad-number-manchester-united-revealed-80m-move-leicester-city-10522029/amp/

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/manchester-united-harry-maguire-number-16700327.amp

https://www.instagram.com/p/B0yEt5vg3MX/?hl=en

Plenty of reliable sources and a video posted on United's Instagram of him wearing the no. 5 training kit.Mn1548 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

The Independent link doesn't substantiate its claim, so I don't know why you would post that one. All they say is "it has been confirmed", but they don't say by whom or where they got the info from. The Instagram post by Bryan Gunn is probably the best evidence we have so far, but even then, it's not proper confirmation. Someone could have just bought a United shirt and asked for it to be printed with "Maguire 5". Even if the post is from someone who works for Maguire's agent, it's not quite good enough. As for the Man Utd instagram post, I still haven't seen him in a matchday shirt with the number 5 on the back. Training numbers and playing numbers may correspond, but at the moment it looks like you're just grasping at straws. Why can't people just wait until there's an official announcement? – PeeJay 10:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how this is "grasping at straws" - the evidence seems pretty substantial. At this point the official announcement is just going to confirm what we already know and have sources to cite such knowledge. This situation is similar to Lee Grant last season. He was seen playing and training in the number 13 shirt before an official announcement. Media reported on his new shirt number and editors used that as a source to put his new squad number on necessary pages. It was reverted as no official announcement was made, and when it was made guess what? He was number 13! Who saw that coming? Answer: Everyone! The Maguire situation is not like Dan James where previous to the announcement there was nothing to even suggest what shirt number he'd wear. For Maguire there's tonnes. Even Rio Ferdinand has wished Maguire luck in his old number five shirt (https://www.instagram.com/p/B00e0bfAbEU/?hl=en). As far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't require an official announcement just a reliable source of which there are plenty. Mn1548 (talk) 12:44, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia also doesn't have to be immediately updated every time something new happens. Koncorde (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Koncorde (talk · contribs) is right. Also, just because a player has been issued with a number for their training kit doesn't mean we have to add that number to articles. All of the club's youth team players also have numbers on their kit; are you really going to tell me you think those numbers should be mentioned here? – PeeJay 23:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Was it so difficult to wait for a source? – PeeJay 09:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Academy Player

I am questioning the need for the players listed in the reserves and academy section this season. I added it for last season as there was 8 academy players who were given senior squad number later in the season who weren't named in the first team squad at the start of the season. For this season 4 have not been alocated numbers and the other 4 have been announced as first team players for the coming season. Editors seem to be decided on this as some are moving Greenwood, Garner, Chong, and Gomez to the first team as they have been announced as such. But others are claiming that they are still in the academy which is also true but by that logic so is Rashford as he is only 21. I'm unsure of the best action for this. Any thought? Mn1548 (talk) 20:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

United's website does not list those four players under the first team. Liamwpk (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Ahh fair enough, therefore like like season we can add to this if any other academy players are granted a first team cap throughout the season, and use the website to divide first team and academy. Mn1548 (talk) 22:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 August 2019

Manchester United is no longer the most successful club in English top flight history. It is now Liverpool FC.

Please make the necessary changes. Elronjr (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

There is absolutely not reason to delete the names of famous supporters

Arsenal and City have whole articles about supporters and long lists of celebrities at the end, so stop deleting the names of celebrities appearing in "supporters" here.

Some famous United supporters include Mick Hucknall of Simply Red, tenor Russell Watson, mathematician and presenter Rachel Riley, actor/comedian Steve Coogan, actor Ian McShane, Ed O'Brien from Radiohead, Mani and Ian Brown of The Stone Roses and Richard Ashcroft from The Verve.

References

It's referenced and adds to the understanding of the character of the fanbase and club.

What does it add to the understanding and character? Like Elton John and Watford, or Delia Smith and Norwich somewhat make sense. However the mere existence of a person and their relationship to a club based on tribal upbringing isn't exactly conveying much nuance is it?

At best fan lists are cruft unless they are somehow significant such as Delia or Elton, or are particularly known for their support and / prominence of that support (for instance Steve Harris has had the West Ham badge on his bass since day 1. That might be almost passably significant). Koncorde (talk) 23:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

But football is tribal to begin with. Chelsea, Tottenham, and Arsenal fans shouting chants against each other, or any other famous rivalry.

If you have a section about fans, why not add famous ones?

Also, City and Arsenal have whole articles about fans where there are whole lists given of celebrities, so I'm not suggesting anything new, just doing what is already done.

It's like saying, why is there a list of famous Jews, or Italians? You might argue that's tribalism and doesn't add to the understanding of their character, and maybe it is tribalism, but it's still mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Just because something exists for other clubs elsewhere on Wikipedia does not mean it should necessarily exist for this one. I agree with Koncorde that this is essentially just cruft. – PeeJay 15:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Fan culture is notable. I could even see some individuals (or groups of fans) who lead such fan culture, or are significant to the club's history, as being significant enough to warrant mention, but merely being a "Manchester Utd fan" (or any other club) is barely notable for the person in question, nevermind the club.

This argument is akin to going to the BMW 3 Series page and adding "famous owners". While famous races it featured in, or famous racing drivers of the car may be notable - merely owning a car is not inherently notable (unless the act of owning a specific vehicle is special in some fashion).

In stark contrast a "list of Manchester United fans" is at best a form of self described cruft. The lists related to nationalities are designed to categorise similar people. What we don't then do is go to the page in Italy and link to every single famous person from Italy. Koncorde (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I really don't like this list craft either, if I could I would remove it in multiple places, I don't know why so many editors like to add it. This is an encyclopaedia not a tabloid magazine. Govvy (talk) 20:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I think because it's a popularity contest. The more famous fans adds some additional level of kudos, and / or a kind of vague sense of internalised approval that more than just the hoi polloi follows the sport. The whole their game reflects upon our fame, as if somehow being a fan of the club has contributed somehow. Now, if your name is Cass Pennant you might have a case, as he elevated one aspect of West Ham above all others - but he would be spoken of with the context of hooliganism. In contrast Mick Hucknall really hasn't contributed to the team much. However, depending on the story you read, the Simply Red name was inspired by the club so could have some contextual reference, along with his memorabilia collection. But in reality that is only significant to Hucknall. Koncorde (talk) 20:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You might as well add PeeJay to the list, for I don't know who Cass Pennant is and PeeJay is a more famous fan than most of these celebs I've never heard of. Govvy (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cass is a quite important figure around the Inter City Firm of West Ham hooligans in the 70's and 80's. Effectively West Ham's notoriety for violence at that time owes a lot to Cass and co. As such, unlike most on the list he might have some significance in a very small way within the main West Ham article for instance. But it's not just an indiscriminate list of people who happen to have decided to "support" a given club. Koncorde (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Here's a fact, in the article Manchester City F.C. supporters and Arsenal F.C. supporters there's whole lists of celebrity fans. Unless you actually pass a law to ban naming celebrity fans, you have no reason to delete it from here either. Fact is, knowing who supports whom is just interesting, it mixes with the identity of clubs. Have you ever wondered why United always made sure to release photos of celebrities meeting Ferguson, etc? Because it helps build identity and following.

Just because Peejay thinks he's a united fan, doesn't mean he owns the article and decides what goes and what doesn't - he's currently on his third revert, and the way I see it, clearly on an ego trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Then they should also be removed from those articles. If you argument boils down to "bu.. bu... But Man City have got faaaans!?!" then your argument is flawed.

Also, as I am not a Man Utd fan, am I on a power trip too? How about Govvy?

Something being "just interesting" isn't really much of a reason for the inclusion on any article, as I have presented above in a few different ways. Koncorde (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I am a Tottenham fan, however I feel the your edits are WP:trivial and pretty much list craft, I've even tried to get the Arsenal supporters page deleted once! Govvy (talk) 21:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

For everyone's benefit, I have started a conversation over on the main football talk board to try and resolve this in a wider sense as we all know football is an emotive subject. Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, for clarity, it seems Maxim also added a similar list for City. No such list existed there prior to his contribution. Same goes for quite a few other clubs by the looks of things. Koncorde (talk) 21:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Per first response to the talk page at WP:FOOTBALL "I think this is the last time it came up". Pretty much sums up all of the above. They should not be included without a clear rationale for why they are significant. Koncorde (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

For the clarity, check your facts. I've never edited the Manchester City F.C. supporters page, and the huge list there was not made by me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

My facts are your edit history. I never said it was to the supporters page. I also see Sunderland etc etc before I even got to the bottom of the first page of contributions. Koncorde (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You were making out I invented the thing. Again, there are whole articles on club supporters, with lists of celebrity fans, articles I never touched.

No, I was making out that your arguments about the additions you have made to this article are hollow when you are the one that has also been adding them to other articles. I didn't raise or discuss the "Supporters" main article. Pointing at Man City etc when you have added the cruft over there doesn't support the cruft, it just highlights how cruft spreads. Koncorde (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't care less who has famous fans :-D I'm not a United fan. Very nice you tried getting the Arsenal supporters article removed, did you manage? No, so clearly your logic wasn't accepted by most. Wikipedia is about consistency, you can't be removing things here when you know it's perfectly acceptable in similar articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxim.il89 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I am not aware that an AFD or similar discussion was started to remove the lists, so if anyone contributed it was done so at such a low level few contributers took part as the overwhelming consensus is that this is cruft. Koncorde (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

To confirm, discussion was regarding the article as a whole which passed as a weak keep. However the sections in question were highlighted at that time as "Trivia" which has a relevant Wikipedia policy WP:TRIVIA that should have been adhered to subsequently. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A week keep?! Twice the Arsenal fans article was nominated for removal, and twice the consensus was "keep" - not "no consensus," but Keep, which is a big deal!

This only illustrates that your personal opinion about it being trivia has been twice voted down, and yet here you are supporting the removal of information there is no reason, for now, to remove.

Read the arguments. The keep was for the article, not all the lists which were flagged at that time as cruft. That 7 years ago before it became inflated by even more cruft is not an argument to support adding even more cruft to more articles. It's exactly because of additions such as yours that these ended up being shoved to sub-articles were the trivia could effectively Respawn with no oversight.

The argument about trivia for for plain lists, and for inconsequential "X , Y and Z are supporters". At no point has there been a supportive discussion of that matter. All discussions on the main football talk page, as I suspected, have come down firmly on the side of needless trivia. Fortunately the discussion on there is going to finally construct a binding outcome and we can purge universally this pointless rubbish. Koncorde (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

@Maxim.il89: Can you please sign your posts, it's rather hard trying to work out if it's your posts or not. Govvy (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Text hindering clarity

He's now a full-time manager. The text in that table box makes it look like he's still a caretaker manager, which he is not. I think being full-time triumphs caretaker, hence the text is not needed or at least implying untruth. Also, look, we can compromise by adding additional text below saying he is now a full-time manager. Thoughts? 9XY (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean? The text says he was caretaker manager until March 2019. It is now October 2019. Anyone who reads that as though he is still caretaker manager might need to take some remedial English classes. – PeeJay 17:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I mean since it doesn't say he's a full-time manager in that box, people might assume he's a caretaker for the entire period. Although the 'until March 2019' is there, the text about him being caretaker takes the "limelight" away from his being full-time. In some way, it's a bit of WP:WEIGHT. 9XY (talk) 18:32, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, we have to mention the fact that he was briefly the caretaker manager somehow. I would suggest that since his dates in the left-hand column are left open, the current text is enough to indicate that only the initial few months of his tenure were as caretaker and now he has the job permanently. Of course there is scope for reading it differently, but I think that's only a marginal view and there shouldn't be any issues with leaving it as it is. – PeeJay 07:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Yes but if you look at the three other occupied boxes of the Notes column, they're all not full-time managers. Ole is the first one to be a full-time manager and have a prior different managerial role. Just showing 'caretaker' with the date doesn't really emphasize the fact he had become a full-time manager after his caretakership. It's subtle but I believe since this is the first case of that, the text doesn't help provide clarity to the fact. 9XY (talk) 09:21, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, but how does it help clarity to remove from the table all mention of his caretaker spell? Even if I were to concede your point, it doesn't help anyone to obscure the detail that he was originally appointed in an interim capacity. – PeeJay 18:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I think full-time > interim, so it should be prioritized ahead of the latter, which includes obscuring the detail. Personally I'd prefer to make that table only for full-timers, with some prose below the table mentioning the others. But if we're to include the others in the table, adding a tick-box column (or something similar like 'yes/no') next to Notes indicating if the manager was a full-timer or not, would be the next best thing, IMO. 9XY (talk) 19:25, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: are you okay with adding another column using the tick-box design? That way full-time roles are shown clearly. 9XY (talk) 11:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Not even slightly. Tick boxes are not particularly aesthetically pleasing. I don't see any reason to add a new column. It should be taken as read that all managers listed are full-time unless otherwise stated, which is the case at the moment. – PeeJay 11:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: then how do you suggest we make the fact Ole became a full-time manager after his caretaker stint become more visible? Because at the moment the occupancy of the box noting his caretakership is making it his newer role less obvious. 9XY (talk) 11:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It is obvious from the fact that he is currently in the role and the Notes column says he was only caretaker until March. Thanks. – PeeJay 11:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: How would you differentiate it from, for example, Ryan Giggs? Giggs' box shows he had been a player-manager but people can't tell if he'd also been a full-time manager because there's nothing clarifying it. The emptiness of boxes is the only indicator of full-time roles. If we're going to keep a full-time manager (Ole)'s box occupied, normal people cannot tell if he had been only a caretaker or both. The date does very little to help. Sometimes people may think the lack of a date is caused by the unavailability of information. 9XY (talk) 11:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Then perhaps what we need to do is add the word "caretaker" to Giggs' notes and the word "present" to Solskjaer's years (which is recommended per WP:PRESENT). – PeeJay 12:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I made a draft, check it out and let me know which one you think is best. 9XY (talk) 12:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

First one or maybe third, except you don't need to say "not full-time" if it says "interim". But really the first one. Anyway, don't ask me, raise it on the article talk page. You're literally the first person ever to have an issue with this, so I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill, but you need to get others' opinions, not just mine. – PeeJay 15:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: What about #2? Move the non-full-time managers to a separate row. I think that is a great compromise. You're the one having an objection to my edit and others may not, so I am discussing it with you to find a solution. 9XY (talk) 06:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Just because we're discussing it doesn't mean I have to agree, and since I don't agree with you that #2 is better, you might be better off canvassing other opinions. #1 or #3 are best. – PeeJay 06:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Other people watching this page are invited to comment on the above matter. 9XY (talk) 07:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I think this is a good compromise. Thoughts? 9XY (talk) 17:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. You are making a mountain out of a molehill, creating an issue where none exists. Please stop. – PeeJay 04:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

• If there's going to be a table for not only full-time managers, they must all be labelled for clarity. @PeeJay2K3: 9XY (talk) 06:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: Stop being obstinate and rigid. This is a clear improvement. I brought up the issue here to discuss and I've clearly explained my position waiting a few weeks but no one other than you appears to have a problem with it. You haven't justified your position or explained why my edit shouldn't stand. Calling it a 'mountain out of a molehill' is not justification. Wikipedia:Silence and consensus states "if you disagree, the onus is on you to say so," but you have not provided a reasonable explanation to why my edit shouldn't remain. Instead you're just citing the status quo. Things can change, they do not necessarily need to stay the same for a long time. 9XY (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's not an improvement to add something that isn't necessary. The old axiom goes, "Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." It should be assumed that all of the managers in the list are full-time, except in cases where otherwise stated. Adding extra words may make the table more clear in a way, but if all you're doing is telling people things they could have worked out for themselves, you're not being constructive, you're just making busy work. – PeeJay 07:43, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: okay let's drop that. What do you think about moving the non-full-time managers to a separate table? 9XY (talk) 10:45, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

What purpose would that serve? – PeeJay 11:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's arguable that caretakers, interim player-managers, etc, don't deserve recognition as a manager for the club because their role doesn't qualify for a particular standard, which in this case is full-time. These roles are like the unofficial version in management, comparable to friendly matches against competitive matches. Therefore, for a proper listing of managers, the non-full-timers must be omitted from the main table. Frankly speaking, no one could say Ryan Giggs was a manager for Man Utd. No one would recognize his interim position as something huge. For that reason, omitting is best. Not only does that standardize the table, it provides clarity and simpleness. Check out my draft. 9XY (talk) 11:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea what is going on here, but the table was fine as it was. You might add some more text to each of the 'notes' boxes giving more summary information, but there really isn't any need to do so. Meanwhile removing content definitely isn't improving the table. Koncorde (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I have no idea what's going on either, but I get the distinct impression we're being played with. This surely can't be a serious suggestion? – PeeJay 12:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If you read and understand all of the above, you could get a pinch of clue about what is going on here. It looks like I'm going to get ganged up against and bullied away by a clique so we might as well drop it now. I think you're playing with me. This charade is making you feel less appreciated and causing you to find fault with every trivial thing in my proposed changes. I doubt you'd act the same way if an admin made these changes. Cheers. 9XY (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Are you seriously playing the "I'm getting bullied" card? You're not getting bullied. Your bad suggestion has been turned down and now you're playing the victim. Not cool, dude. – PeeJay 21:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, my expression 'I don't get what is going on' relates entirely to your responses and attitude 9XY. You are expressing yourself in convoluted ways about what is an incredibly minor edit request that first starts with adding clarifications, and finishes with blanking information... something isn't right there. Arguments that nobody really thinks Ryan Giggs was a manager (paraphrasing) isn't particularly convincing. It was the first management opportunity of the now manager of Wales, a lifetime servant of Manchester Utd through his entire career... That's kind of a big deal.

And there is no clique here. I know PeeJay from his many thousands of edits across WP:FOOTBALL project over the last 13 or so years. He likely knows me for the same thing. However we very rarely ever actually edit on the same subjects, and barring contributions at the WP:FOOTBALL talk page we have rarely interacted. However I would trust PeeJay to make almost any edit I can think of, and have no question that he is doing it for the right reasons - and would see and appreciate a strong argument if he saw it. There is no evil cabal going on here. Just two experienced editors disagreeing with you. Koncorde (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Aeroflot banner infront of ManUtd stadium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:36, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Adnan Januzaj's Borussia Dortmund loan cancelled. Back at first-team squad.

http://www.manutd.com/en/News-And-Features/Football-News/2016/Jan/adnan-januzaj-returns-to-manchester-united-from-loan-spell-at-borussia-dortmund.aspx

Kieran McKenna

Kieran McKenna was born in County Fermanagh, so I don't see any reason why we can't use the flag of Northern Ireland to indicate his nationality. – PeeJay 19:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2020

Ole is the permanent manager now not the caretaker so the manager table is wrong. Itswill865 (talk) 10:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jack Frost (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@Itswill865: Did you not think to read the section above that goes over this exact topic? The table clearly says that he was caretaker until 28 March 2019. At no point does it suggest he is still the caretaker manager. If you or anyone else cannot fathom that, that is a failing of your comprehension, and not a failing of the way the article is written. Thanks. – PeeJay 19:42, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of three UEFA trophies in separate years as a 'treble'

While it is clearly a noteworthy fact that Manchester United are the only team to win all three UEFA competitions, certainly worthy of mention in the relevant section of the article, there is no justification for its inclusion as a 'treble' in the Doubles and Trebles section of the article; it is not a treble. I removed the 'treble' from the section with an explanation in this edit, before it was re-added by another editor.

A treble is clearly defined as "when a club team wins three trophies in a single season" excluding exceedingly short competitions such as Community Shields, Super Cups etc. To redefine winning three UEFA competitions across different years as a treble is clearly puffery, and, given the already extraordinary list of achievements of the club (more trophies than any other), I really don't understand the need to overstate achievements by warping clear definitions to claim some 'extra' level of achievement that simply isn't recognised as a treble. —Formulaonewiki 18:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not "puffery" though. UEFA has referred to the accomplishment as a treble (see here). If you want to find somewhere else to put it in the Honours section, be my guest, but I object to it being removed outright. – PeeJay 18:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The only reference in that article to the achievement of winning all three competitions as being a treble is as follows "By that time, [Bayern] had already completed their European 'treble' with a two-legged defeat of FC Girondins de Bordeaux in the UEFA Cup showpiece". The inverted commas around 'treble', and the fact that is the only explicit reference in that article to the feat being defined as such, clearly indicates it was described as such in a tongue-in-cheek manner, and this is no basis to override the widely-accepted definition of a treble as being three trophies in the same year. —Formulaonewiki 18:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It is already mentioned in the prose in the Honours section of the article, where I absolutely agree it should be mentioned as an accomplishment. I only object to it being listed as a technical treble alongside true trebles such as the remarkable European treble of 1998–99. It is worth noting this is also what has been done on the Chelsea article. —Formulaonewiki 18:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

The use of the inverted commas does not suggest it was tongue in cheek, unless you are also suggesting "Ajax's brand of 'total football' overwhelmed opponents at the start of the 1970s" is also being tongue in cheek. Instead it is more likely to attribute emphasis to the naming of the convention of having won the three unique trophies across multiple seasons. Koncorde (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

I remain unconvinced that a single passing mention provides any basis to overhaul an age-old definition of a treble as being three trophies in the same year. Context is important to the use of the inverted commas, and I disagree that the use of them around 'total football' is the same. Either way, as I just said, I fail to see how a passing mention of the word 'treble' in an article defies conventional definitions. For example, articles such as this popularly claim that Liverpool achieved an 'international treble'; this clearly doesn't provide a basis to start redefining the term treble as including Super cups etc. —Formulaonewiki 19:57, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

You can disagree all you like, but without you inserting your opinion on what the writer intended with the inverted commas it doesn't stand as an argument. There is also no formal definition of "treble" either. There is a colloquial one, but as per any such list it is full of personal bias, club bias, national bias, league and trophy bias. Which ones count, which ones don't, is it in one calendar year, or is it in one annual year, or "season" (which is problematic with the Nordic leagues for instance) bla bla bla. In effect, if someone says "this was a treble" in a reliable source that can be attributed to then it really doesn't matter because you'll struggle to find any single authoritative source on what is a formal definition. Our own article on the matter lacks any single source attributing the meaning Treble (association football) and is a massive case of WP:SYNTH and Original Research. Koncorde (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Squad numbers- Academy players

I do not see why we have u23s/u18s on this page as they have their own dedicated page. All U23/U18 players have squad numbers so in theory all players need to be added to this page. Which would over load the system, surely it is better to keep 1st team players only on here and use the reserves/academy page for these players 5.198.42.106 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

They don't all have squad numbers. They have numbers they wear on their training kit that happen to match with their squad numbers (for those who have been registered for competitions), but they don't all have squad numbers. Having this list here is useful to indicate players who aren't considered part of the first team but who have played the odd senior game. – PeeJay 18:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned only the players that have been included in the first-team games, like it was in the last season. There were players who played in EFL Trophy, but only players that played for the first team were included in that list. BORNinOHRIDmacedonia (talk) 21:28, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

These are the players registered to play for the season at premierleague.com and they are the players that should be on the main article, the Reserves and academy and the loans from there shouldn't be on this page. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe it has to be named "List of under-23s and academy players to have featured in a first-team matchday squad" instead of "List of under-23s and academy players with senior squad numbers". It sounds much better. BORNinOHRIDmacedonia (talk) 13:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2020

For the 'Short name' in the info box, should there not be a slash (/) between "Utd" and "United"? Looking at the source it looks like someone has put a line break there instead. 194.28.127.53 (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

"United" in itself seems to be another nickname. I've added bullet points to make that clear. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Criticism section

I was expecting a criticism section here because of their reputation amongst non-fans. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Criticism sections are generally not approved. They usually fail to add notable information in a neutral war, and end up sections where just any negative news article congregates. Koncorde (talk) 23:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Lead lacks a uniform scheme for numbers.

In the intro/lead it currently says this "with a record 20 League titles, 12 FA Cups, five League Cups and a record 21 FA Community Shields" Should it not say "5 League Cups" instead of "five League Cups" it looks weird using two standards to represent numbers in the same sentence. The next sentence goes on to use "Three" and "One" instead of "3" and "1". In my opinion everything should be an integer 0-9 or everything should be written out explicitly, but the current system of using them intermixed is a mess. 80.5.174.91 (talk) 04:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Reserves and academy

Should I add link to Harvey Neville as Phil Neville#Personal life again or not? Someone reverted my edit. He may or may not pass WP:GNG; BBC Sport search result only mentions him 3 times and the others are brief mention. Please create his article and link back if anyone found info about him, as long as there are enough sources.CuteDolphin712 (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 July 2021

Tom Heaton’s squad number is 22 2A02:C7D:D66F:BC00:1EB:95CB:C739:55C2 (talk) 08:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

MANU

The story about the nickname was pretty much invented in the early 2000's, probably around the time the Bleacher Report article was written. However the club has been listed as MANU on the stock exchange since 1989[1][2] and Man U has been used as a nickname by the club, sports organisations, news organisations etc for decades (as well as an insult in songs, but then so is "We hate Leeds" and we don't censor their name).[3][4][5] For news, in addition to the BBC quoted you also have the Manchester Evening News.[6] and The Telegraph[7] among dozens of others (again for decades). Koncorde (talk) 21:47, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The stock exchange abbreviation is irrelevant since all companies are referred to by four-letter codes on the stock exchange. Regardless, I think this article explains the situation best. The name "Man U" isn't really offensive, it just marks people out as casual fans (i.e. a "real" fan would never call the club "Man U"). References to that name being used in offensive songs aren't great, but they're not the reason the name doesn't sit well with fans, just a convenient extra reason to avoid it. – PeeJay 17:13, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

But that article states it is a convenient shorthand and has been used for 60 years+. It is being used by the club themselves, and by their fans. If there was an element of it being truly offensive to the club they themselves wouldn't use it - even for their stock exchange code (which they apply for).

Which brings us to this apocryphal story about West Brom (no reliable source, at all, links it to them from what I can see and I looked years ago when this story first appeared) and a chant about Duncan Edwards (which is the only true bit). When this story first appeared back in the 2006'ish (I think in a letter page article to the MEN) I could find no corroborating articles at all. Since then I have seen a few sporadic articles (BleacherReport seemingly being one of the more formal early ones) pushing this. From what I can tell every article since then goes back to the Bleacher Report, with a 2008 Urban Dictionary article on Man U as probably the instigator. Try a search for the song lyrics, Man U, or ManUre as an argument for not using Man U for instance and you will find nothing prior to 2008 - and certainly nothing in reliable sources which are still using it to this day.

In an entirely Original Research and my opinion on the internet summary: This appears to be an entirely concocted formulation, likely as a way of gatekeeping "real fans" unaware of some ancient history, and to try and suppress the use of "ManUre" in general and by association all the disgusting Busby Babes chants too. The 2008 date is significant because it coincides with the 50th anniversay. Singling out West Brom appears to have been tacked on afterwards but given Edwards was a Midlands lad it seems a bit odd they would do it (but not beyond reason I am sure). I can find nothing linking West Brom to the chant - but maybe it is in a book or news article somewhere. Koncorde (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I know anecdotally that the name Man U has been disapproved of by United fans since well before 2006. I don't see any reason not to include the nickname in the article, but I also think it would be wrong to omit any mention of the fact that United fans don't like it. And I reiterate, the stock exchange abbreviation is irrelevant: the owners don't care whether we like the name or not, they just wanted a recognisable abbreviation for the stock exchange so investors can easily identify the company. – PeeJay 12:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I know anecdotally some disapprove also from pre-2006 - but only because they don't like it and prefer "United" - not because of a convoluted story involving it being used in a chant involving a pun and some tasteless comments. What I am saying is that the story that apparently justifies the dislike of it is probably absolute folklore bobbins for which we have no reliable sources indicating such an origin, and a whole lot of sources indicating that it has been used without any connotation for decades.

And the stock abbreviation is relevant: if it was truly offensive, with a genuinely historically based dislike of it, there would be sources indicating as much just because fans would have protested. This was 1989. Not the Glazers. With a board of Directors that included Bobby Charlton. Koncorde (talk) 13:21, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to follow up with a 'counter' blog echoing the niche'ness of the argument.[8] Koncorde (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 August 2021

Change the ‘players’ section to include Cristiano Ronaldo due to his rejoining of the club yesterday (source: www.manutd.com/en/amp/news/detail/official-statement-on-agreement-reached-for-cristiano-ronaldo) MikeGolding98 (talk) 09:56, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

.. MikeGolding98 (talk) 09:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The source says it's not finalized yet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:08, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Why is Ronaldo not on Red Devilz Squad

Preety self explanatory, why is the name of Cristiano Ronaldo not there in the Man United squad in wikipedia? RioTheGreat123 (talk) 17:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it is going to be edited later NeonDone (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Solskjaer's status as caretaker

Ole Gunnar Solskjaer was initially appointed as caretaker manager, before being given the job permanently in March 2019. This information is included in the History section, as well as at the start of Ole's article. This is surely sufficient.

However, it has also been included with the managerial history. I deleted this, as it seemed unnecessary and untidy-looking. Another user - PeeJay - undid it. I attempted to find a compromise by including as a footnote, but this was also apparently unacceptable.

After unsuccessfully attempting to handle this informally between the two of us, PeeJay asked me to make my case here.

So here it is. I look forward to hearing the opinions of others on this matter.

People don't always read full articles, and they certainly don't go looking in other articles for the information they want. The "Managerial history" table is supposed to be a summary of every manager who has taken charge of Manchester United, including those who have done so on an interim basis. In the case of Jimmy Murphy and Ryan Giggs, this is mentioned in the "Notes" column, as it should be. Sequestering information off to a footnote makes the article less transparent for readers, especially when you're not applying the same standard to other managers in the table. – PeeJay 15:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, then. Seeing as my issue with this is mainly on the grounds of aesthetics, how about this for a compromise: we keep it as is, but we write it as "Caretaker until 28/3/19". – LightingMan 01 21:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That's not acceptable either. The DD/M/YYYY date format does not comply with MOS:DATE. – PeeJay 20:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Champions League trophies under Sir Alex.

I have noticed under Sir Alex time as manager you have put only one champions league win when there are two wins which is in 1999 and 2008. Moses Stanleyy (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I guess you just didn't read the text properly then... – PeeJay 19:53, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aaronqjm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Remove greenwood from the player category.

Please remove mason greenwood from the player paragraph I guess you know what he did. I think he fits nicely on the football players in jail article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A03:2880:32FF:B:0:0:FACE:B00C (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)