Talk:Manchester United F.C.

Reserves vs. First Team

The Carling Cup game last night seemed to throw up a few points of contention about the squad. There needs to be some sort of clarification about who qualifies as a member of the first team and who doesn't. - --Des2501 (talk) 09:18, 21 September 2011 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 December 2011

Please change Park Ji-Sung to Ji-Sung Park. In Korea, people are usually called by their family name first and then their first name. But to maintain continuity with the rest of the Man U current roster on this Wiki page, the name should be re-configured. Thanks.

Joeyyoon (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The British media calls him Park Ji-Sung, and we generally go by the way he's commonly known. Plus, with the Brazilians in the squad, it's not like all the other names are following the <given name><family name> format, so I don't think this is an issue. --Mosmof (talk) 21:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Loan Players

Can someone please check if some of the loan deals have expired? Or have the loan deals been extended further than stated in the article? IJA (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Loans

Brady and Norwood are still shown as out on loan, even though the listed "end date" has passed? 109.145.251.31 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

No news about Brady or Norwood loans time, although both are in their loan teams' squads yesterday. we still waiting for confirmation if their loan will be extended or not.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

We may have to go back through the Hull City and Scunthorpe United websites' news archives for news of the loan extension, but if the news is there, we'll make the appropriate changes. – PeeJay 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

For the moment I removed both players from the loan section, Unless both play in those teams after thier source loan expired date (2 Jan 2012) we will search for something.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Squad table format

A discussion is being held here on the possibility of rolling out a new squad template. The new template, named {{football squad player2}}, differs from the standard squad layout in several ways:

• It features a sort function
• Comes in a single column format that can be understood by screen readers.
  • Single column format ensures that low resolution browsers, including mobile devices, do not get part or all of the second column cut off.
  • Single column format ensures less clutter, particularly at lower resolutions, for wide sections such as the Arsenal loan section.
• It gives nationality its own column; at present flags are featured in a blank, untitled column
• It complies with Wikipedia's guidance on flag usage.
• It leaves enough space to add images of current players, an example of which can be seen at Watford F.C#Current squad.

It is proposed that the new template be added to some of Wikipedia's most high-profile club articles, which might include Manchester United F.C.. To give your thoughts, please read and contribute to the discussion at WikiProject Football.

Regards, —WFC— 00:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Corinthian FC, 1904

Hello!
I am writing here to get some opinions on the matter of a certain statistic in Man Utd's history - namely the team's greatest ever defeat, which came in a friendly in 1904. Please go to the Man Utd stats page to add your opinions to the discussion, as well as to read the arguments for including this, albeit unfortunate, result. Thanks! BigSteve (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football (to be removed on WP:NPOV grounds)

In the opening paragraph, it reads:

"Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football". There is no confirmation as to how this has been calculated, what constitutes "winning" a trophy (e.g. a "shared" Charity Shield/Community Shield) or indeed, what actually constitutes a trophy (e.g. minor trophies, Super Cups (see the definition, most particularly "Super Cups are not considered as important, more as prestige matches")).

By calculating the list of honours "won" on both the Liverpool FC and Manchester United entries, the totals are as follows:

Liverpool 64 (18+4+1+7+8+15+5+3+3) Manchester Utd 62 (19+2+11+4+19+3+1+1+1+1)

Even accounting for "shared" trophies, if a "shared" trophy is not defined as a "win", Liverpool's total would be reduced by 5 (FA Charity Shield/FA Community Shield: 15 (10 outright, 5 shared)), while Manchester Utd's total would be reduced by 4 (FA Charity/Community Shield: 19 (15 outright, 4 shared)), making the totals:

Liverpool 59 Manchester United 58

I oppose this sentence on WP:NPOV grounds. Otherwise there could be an entry on the Manchester United page stating that "Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football", while the Liverpool FC entry could accurately state that "As a club Liverpool has a record for most trophies held". Better for this to removed rather than potentially misleading (and POV) statements appear on both entries. --Thecheesehead (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

First of all ManUtd has won the most competetive trophies in English history (60), while you don't like it, Super Cups/FA Comm. Shields are recognised as such and therefor ManUtd is recognised as winning the most trophies in English football (with and without counting the shared). second of all, Your counting is wrong as Lancashire League is not recognised as competetive trophy. and the table, per English competetive torphies count is as follow. (You can see that in the ManUtd-LFC rivalry article).

Team	League	FA Cup	League Cup	European Cup	UEFA Cup	Cup Winners' Cup	Community Shield	UEFA Super Cup	Intercontinental Cup	Club World Cup	Total
Liverpool	18	7	8	5	3	0	15	3	0	0	59
Manchester United	19	11	4	3	0	1	19	1	1	1	60

I disagree. You've underlined the fact that it's WP:NPOV if you describe the Lancashire league as "not competitive", when the basis of something being "competitive" is defined as "characterised by competition". By their very nature, any league championship is a competition. What you are instead saying is that a Lancashire League title is not worthy of inclusion in the list of honours based on its merit or value. If you describe a competition as not being of merit or value, then we get into a discussion as to the list of what other competitions have merit or value - which can only be, I'm afraid, subject to POV.

Furthermore, and to be clear, you have written above that the sentence "Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football" is subject to a qualification (i.e. some trophies won by one of, or both clubs are to be discounted based on their merit/value, and only "competitive" trophies won are to be counted). Ignoring for a moment the definition of "competitive" (as above), in providing a qualification you have actually admitted that the sentence as it currently stands in the article is not accurate, not factual, and moreover, not neutral. It is clear, then, that the sentence should be removed on the basis of not meeting Wikipedia's standards.

Finally, in underlining the worth (or redundancy) of the phrase "competitive", the respected and award-winning journalist Nick Harris, editor of the website Sporting Intelligence, produced an alternative table for the most successful English football clubs in history, in which he excluded both the Charity/Community shield and UEFA Super Cup from the rankings. This would also correspond to Wikipedia's own entry on Super Cups in which they "are not considered as important, more as prestige matches". It is clear from Harris's table that what is defined as "competitive" is highly debatable (i.e. POV), and thus any potential proposed alternative sentence which reads "Manchester United has won the most competitive trophies in English football" (or similar) should also be struck from Wikipedia on WP:NPOV grounds.

--Thecheesehead (talk) 19:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Cutting through all this to the quick. What matters in Wikipedia is what Wikipedia deems notable. (i.e. not what experts, pundits, journalists, administrators etc contend) This has been well established for Association Football for each football playing nation. Of course it may be open to challenge or ammendment but that is for debate in another place not here. So can I just point you towards Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Fully professional leagues#Men's Leagues which sets out for that the notable leagues are the fully ptofessional leagues i.e. Premier League, Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two. The Lancashire County Football Association does not appear there givien its status. Carry on discussion...... Tmol42 (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Do we really count the Community shield as a competitive trophy? Does Wikipedia think it a notable trophy?

"While still an honour in the English game, the Community Shield has markedly lower status than the Premier League, FA Cup or even the League Cup. It is widely considered to be a minor trophy and Community Shield games may not be as hotly contested as other trophy finals. The Community Shield has been described by some media sources, including Mark Lawrenson, as a "glorified friendly". Prior to the 2008 FA Community Shield, Manchester United manager Sir Alex Ferguson summarised his opinion of the competition: "It's always a game we never quite use as a do or die thing; we use it as a barometer for fitness""

Of course, if we think it is notable we could always change the article on it...Ytic nam (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

This whole discussion is ridiculous. This isn't about what we think of the Community Shield or any other competition; it's about what the clubs' official records say on the matter. If Manchester United's records total 60 trophies, that's how many we should say United have won. Likewise, if Liverpool's records say they've won 59, there's no two ways about it. – PeeJay 01:24, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll answer each of the responses in turn:

In this case, regarding 'what Wikipedia deems notable', and as such, including fully professional league titles but excluding the Lancashire League as an honour, the total count for Liverpool would be 63, higher than that of Manchester United which is 62. For the sake of clarity, this total includes Charity/Community Shields.

If we were to remove 'shared' (not won outright) Charity/Community Shields, the totals would be Liverpool 58 (63-5), Manchester United 58 (62-4), and if we were to discount Charity/Community Shields entirely the totals would be Liverpool 48 (63-15), Manchester United 43 (62-19).

On the basis of the respective clubs' official records, and turning to the total honours, Liverpool's total of 64 (which for clarity includes the Lancashire League) is higher than that of Manchester United's 61. These figures are also the total number of honours listed on the respective Liverpool FC and Manchester United FC Wikipedia entries in their 'honours' sections. To be clear, the total used in the 60/59 chart provided above is not an accurate reflection of the clubs' positions/honours, because it excludes Second Division (i.e. The Championship) titles and the Lancashire League. While I am not suggesting a position of bias in the production of the table, it certainly should not be used as verifiable to support the challenged statement given the wealth of evidence to the contrary here.

So, however you choose to cut it, whether the criteria is Wikipedia's own as 'what Wikipedia deems notable', or what the clubs' official records say on the matter, it is still abundantly clear that on factual grounds the sentence 'Manchester United has won the most trophies in English football' is not accurate, is not neutral, is misleading, and is written on a POV basis. It should be removed. --Thecheesehead (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

By the way, to me, "the most trophies in English football" means "the most English football trophies won", and only refers to the domestic competitions (i.e. league, FA Cup, League Cup and Community Shield). On that basis, Manchester United is definitely in the lead. To be honest, this simply smacks of a rival fan having a little moan because Manchester United are a successful club. – PeeJay 17:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And there, above, is another statement which is clearly based on POV. You are arguing what the sentence 'really means', so evidently the context and value of the sentence is in doubt. Furthermore, stating that I am a 'rival fan having a little moan' is uncalled for - for which i hope you have the decency to apologise - and I would draw your attention to the fact any editors of this topic are required to favour neutrality over any personal bias that they may have. Please note, furthermore, that I'm not accusing you or anyone responding of bias, more that I do not like to have my own opinion called into question. On this topic I have argued in a dispassionate, reasonable, balanced manner in which I've outlined evidence which undermines the sentence in question, and that it is a value judgement based on the author's opinion, rather than being a neutral, accurate and verifiable fact - it should, as I have said several tmes, be removed.

--Thecheesehead (talk) 18:46, 2 March 2012 (UTC)