Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Manchester United task force

Alex Ferguson

Thought I'd get the ball rolling: I think the first article for big improvement should be Alex Ferguson. For such a high profile and successful manager to have such a shocking page is awful. The whole thing focuses more on Manchester United's performance season-by-season than Ferguson himself. Makes me shudder to think about it. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree, Pollo. I've been meaning to do some work on it myself, but I just found the whole thing too daunting. There is a buttload of info in there that isn't even biographically related to the man himself. Shall we make Alex Ferguson our first "Collaboration of the Month" then? – Pee Jay 10:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Participants", not "Members"

Can I remind everyone that the list you added yourselves to is entitled "Participants", rather than "Members". This implies that you really should do some work on the articles that relate to this task force. Now, I know that most people who actually read this message will already be people who do a lot of work on Man Utd articles, but the only thing I know about the rest is that you support Man Utd. In summary, I shall review people's contributions soon and remove your names from the list of participants if your contributions are not deemed to have been enough. That is all. – Pee Jay 11:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the "ManUtd" parameter to the {{football}} template last night, and a bot has added it to all of the articles in Category:Manchester United F.C. and its subcategories. The relevant articles can be viewed at Category:Manchester United F.C. task force articles. The task force has also been added to the list of projects monitored by the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Statistics regarding the quality and importance of all Manchester United-related articles can be viewed here. – Pee Jay 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will the stat box be displayed on the article page? Calebrw (talk) 15:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can be. Currently it's only displaying in Category:Manchester United F.C. articles by quality, but I can transclude it into Category:Manchester United F.C. articles by importance and Category:Manchester United F.C. task force articles if you want. – Pee Jay 15:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking exactly what's at Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Manchester United F.C. articles by quality statistics. Just to have a reference on the main article page. Calebrw (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see what you mean now. I can transclude that table into the task force's main page, certainly! – Pee Jay 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here:

Manchester United F.C. articles by quality and importance
Quality	Importance
Quality	Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
FA	1	1	4	3			9
FL			1	17			18
GA		2	22	23			47
B		16	35	16			67
C		5	108	76			189
Start			204	500		1	705
Stub			35	416			451
List			1	3		1	5
Category					28		28
Disambig					1		1
File					74		74
Project					3		3
Redirect					11		11
Template					8		8
Assessed	1	24	410	1,054	125	2	1,616
Total	1	24	410	1,054	125	2	1,616
WikiWork factors (?)		ω = 7,282			Ω = 4.96

Calebrw (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Importance

Could we do a separate parameter for ManUtd importance in the template. Because SAF might be top importance in the ManUtd group, but not so in the main soccer group. Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that, but I wouldn't be sure how to implement it. I think that if we were a separate WikiProject, it would be easier, but as a task force, it becomes much more difficult. – Pee Jay 17:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that certain work groups do this. For instance. "Wikiproject Manchester" might have a workgroup that is about "Education in Manchester," you will have the option of adding some along the lines of "edu-importance" or "edu-class." I just can't think of any examples off the top of my head that actually do so. — Calebrw (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The easiest way to do this would be to change the following code in the template -

{{#if:{{{ManUtd|{{{manutd|}}}}}}|
[[Category:Manchester United F.C. task force articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{#switch:{{{importance}}}
 |top|Top=[[Category:Top-importance Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]

To the following -

{{#if:{{{ManUtd|{{{manutd|}}}}}}|
[[Category:Manchester United F.C. task force articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]
{{#switch:{{{manutdimportance}}}
 |top|Top=[[Category:Top-importance Manchester United F.C. articles|{{PAGENAME}}]]

This would enable the field "|ManUtdimportance=" to the template. However, there may be a number of issues that could arise on the implementation of this.

You would need to consider whether you display this importance level on the template too, currently the template only displays the main "|importance=" field.
You would need to update all ManUtd article talk pages so that they use the new field.
You will need to keep an eye out for those that get confused between the old and new methods.
You should whip up a quick guide/criteria as to what the importance levels mean to this taskforce.

Hope that helps. 86.21.74.40 (talk) 19:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work, pal. However, at least in my opinion, Manchester United is such a big club that the importance of a Manchester United article is likely to be the same as its importance on a global scale. Other task forces manage without a specific importance parameter, so I don't see why we need one. – Pee Jay 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a general rule that's true, but for example Ole Gunnar Solskjaer would be at least a high in MUFC terms (with valid arguments for top although on balance probably not), but he's correctly listed as mid in relation to football as a whole. BeL1EveR (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. Well, I'm convinced. My only problem with this proposal now is that I've just spent days assessing all of the unassessed Man Utd articles, which will all go to waste once this is implemented. Because of this, can I suggest that the ManUtdimportance parameter be made optional, whereby articles will still be categorised into (for example) Category:Mid-importance Manchester United F.C. articles even if only the "importance" parameter is filled in. – Pee Jay 22:53, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand correctly, that would mean they take a default value (i.e. what they are at the moment), unless we fill in the optional parameter? If so that's definately a good way to go. BeL1EveR (talk) 23:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, after a year of us sitting on our hands, this function has now been added to Template:Football. We can now assign an intra-task force importance to our articles by adding "ManUtd=Top", "ManUtd=High", "ManUtd=Mid" or "ManUtd=Low" instead of simply "ManUtd=yes" to {{Football}}. I've already re-assigned importances to a few articles, but the rest could do with re-assessment. Some won't need changing, but the chances are that a lot of players will need bumping up and others will need dropping down. Have fun guys! – Pee Jay 20:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Importance Criteria

How should importance be judged, by status within the organization? Should SAF and Gary Neville be top along with the Main article, some of the main sub articles, history, and then the current season? Thoughts? Calebrw (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reserves importance?

Reserves & Academy article is currently at low-importance, but should it be bumped up to mid-class for the task force? – 'Latics ^(talk) 17:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that a task force specific importance rating is available yet. Calebrw (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Since the quality and importance parameters are currently common to both the Man Utd task force and WP:FOOTY, we have to assess articles on a global football scale. That said, I think Man Utd's reserve team might be deserving of a Mid-Importance rating, but it might be best to ask for a third party to comment on that. – Pee Jay 17:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Player articles

A number of players that have played for the club over the last 20 years or so have no sources or references. Wondering if anyone knew of a good site to give Man Utd player articles a sense of greater credibility. CorleoneSerpicoMontana (talk) 21:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://allfootballers.com is a common one and is quite comprehensive. Much preferred over Soccerbase, I'll tell you that. The only drawback is that you have to subscribe. http://www.mufcinfo.com/ is another good one for focusing on United players' careers. – Pee Jay 22:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also suprisingly a number of united players that I know of without an infobox. Not volunteering myself, it's just an article looks much more rounded with an infobox. CorleoneSerpicoMontana 14:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE I'm on it. Thanks, H2H (talk) 02:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. records and statistics

Well, I'm sure you'll all be pleased to know that Manchester United F.C. records and statistics has been promoted to Featured List status. As well as our current collaboration of the month, obviously, I will now be focusing on the History of Manchester United F.C. articles with a view to getting them to at least GA status. Once that is completed, we will be able to submit the following articles as a Featured Topic:

As I'm sure you've all guessed, the images next to the article names indicate their current status, whether Good Article or Featured Content. If possible, we should try to include Manchester United F.C. Reserves and Academy in this featured topic, and perhaps even Sir Matt Busby Player of the Year (akin to the List of York City F.C. Clubmen of the Year in the York City Featured Topic or the List of Ipswich Town F.C. Players of the Year in the Ipswich Town Featured Topic). I know I can count on you all to help me with this effort; I mean, you wouldn't be members of this task force if you weren't! Anyway, if anyone has any comments on this topic, such as adding or removing articles from the list for submission, I'm all ears. – Pee Jay 17:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a pretty tight list, my only addition would be the Munich air disaster.BeL1EveR (talk) 23:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are now one step closer to getting the above articles to Featured Topic status; Old Trafford has been promoted to Featured Article status! I think I will now focus on the History of Manchester United F.C. articles, starting with the 1878–1945 one. – Pee Jay 20:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Tévez

I created a section on Tévez's talk page. I'm really curious as to whether it's technically a loan or a complete transfer. See discussion: Talk:Carlos Tévez#Transfer or loan?. Latics 23:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. – Pee Jay 23:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Month (September 2008)

Looks like the vote on the next collaboration of the month is heading towards a stalemate. Can we get some more votes in please, guys? In the event that the votes remain the same at the end of the month, I think it should be up to User:Latics to decide, seeing as he's (technically) cast two votes this month; one as nominator of Paul Scholes and one in support of Bobby Charlton. – Pee Jay 19:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it remains at a draw, I'll withdraw Scholes—it'll likely need cleanup throughout the 08–09 season. So we could possibly focus on it at a later time. Latics 04:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article assessment

OK, I've finished assessing all of the articles in Category:Manchester United F.C. task force articles so that every article now has a Class and Importance rating. However, it was just a quick job to get everything assessed, so I've probably made a few mistakes with the assessments. Therefore, if you notice any assessments that need modifying, please do so. – Pee Jay 20:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Title-winning seasons

Should we add the "ManUtd" parameter to season articles for competitions we won? For example, this would entail including Premier League 2007-08, UEFA Champions League 1998-99, FA Cup 1989-90 and European Cup 1967-68 to the task force's remit. – Pee Jay 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. Calebrw (talk) 00:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a member of the task force, just dropping by. I don't agree though. The scope of competitions (particularly the FA Cup) is much larger than just United. Furthermore, United would receive significant coverage in many competition articles where they finished as runners-up or worse, not just those that they won, so where do you draw the line. I agree that matches involving United (e.g. 2007 FA Cup Final) should be tagged, but I think competitions are too general. Hope you don't mind my 2p worth. --Jameboy (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right there. Good thing I hadn't tagged the articles in question yet :D Cheers for the input. – Pee Jay 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Wallwork now GA

Just to let you know that Ronnie Wallwork is now a good article. I'm planning to resume work on Bryan Robson at some point, not sure if you'd consider it for a future collaboration? Please let me know if anyone wants to pool efforts on any other United/WBA articles. I think Jonathan Greening and Kieran Richardson could be pushed up to GA with some work. Regards. --Jameboy (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TBF, we're struggling even to get work going on the collaborations we've already had! Nevertheless, if Bryan Robson becomes one of our collaborations of the month, we'll be sure to inform you. – Pee Jay 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United TV

There is currently a requested move in place for this article to be moved to MUTV. Please leave your comments at the RM discussion. – Pee Jay 20:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Manchester United F.C.

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Welbeck

Looks like the Danny Welbeck article can be re-created now that he has appeared in a senior level match after tonight's start in the Carling Cup match against Boro. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been done. ;) Calebrw (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Manchester United F.C.

I've been looking at the History of Manchester United F.C. articles, and I'm not particularly pleased with the divisions in the time periods covered by each article. The first article (History of Manchester United F.C. (1878–1945)) covers a period of 67 years, while the subsequent articles cover periods of 24 years (1945–1969), 17 years (1969–1986), 12 years (1986–1998), ONE YEAR!!! (1998–1999) and nine years (1999–present), with the most recent one ever expanding. I suggest that, at the very least, we divide the first article into two parts, one covering the Newton Heath period (1878–1902) and the other covering the pre-Busby Manchester United years (1902–1945). At least then the two articles would cover periods of 24 years and 43 years respectively. Perhaps the second one could even be divided into 1902–1931 (the John Henry Davies years) and 1931–1945 (the start of James Gibson's tenure as chairman to Busby's appointment) periods. Comments please. – Pee Jay 20:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone care to make a comment? – Pee Jay 02:57, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PJ, I agree with you 100 percent. This time distribution used in the History of Manchester United F.C. articles does not make sense. Why is the first half (actually a bit more than half) of MUFC's history lumped in one article. While this article is not in violation of WP:SIZE or anything like that, it could use expansion and if expanded should be split. I can't comment further as I have to go now, but in general, I think the history could be expanded in certain areas as mentioned above before it should be split. Calebrw (talk) 23:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently in the process of expanding the article on the early history of the club, and the release of a book called Red Dawn next month should help with that. By the time I'm done with it, there will certainly be no argument that any article on the History of Manchester United F.C. (1878–1902) should be merged with any other. However, I am wondering whether or not I should change the name of the article to History of Newton Heath F.C. It would certainly make sense, as that was the name of the club during the specified time period (except for the period from 1878 to 1892, when they were Newton Heath L&YR F.C., but that's immaterial). – Pee Jay 00:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. As far as History of Newton Heath F.C., that makes little or no sense to me. It would be like saying History of Saint Paul, Minnesota equates to that of History of Pig's Eye Landing. Sure Saint Paul was know as Pig's Eye Landing at one point, but people aren't going to search as that, they're going to look for history of Saint Paul. Same with History of MUFC. The fact that it was called Newton Heath is unknown to most people and it would cause a disconnect with enough people that it wouldn't be worth it. Now you could make a redirect. That would make sense to me. Calebrw (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1878-1945 era brought very few high profile events for the club. In that time, the only notable events were election to the Football League First Division 1892, demotion to the Second Division in 1894, the financial rescue of Newton Heath and the renaming to Manchester United in 1902, promotion to the First Division in 1906, league championship in 1908, FA Cup in 1909, league championship in 1911, as well as the succession of promotions and relegations that took place during the 1920s and 1930s. The notable events in this era are rare enough to merit one article covering a period of 67 years. However, subsequent eras have featured many more notable events. The 1950s, for instance, should be enough to merit a single article for that decade: the league title of 1952, the emergence of the Busby Babes in the 1952-55 era, the league title and entry to the European Cup in 1956, the league title and FA Cup final appearance in 1957, the Munich Air Disaster of 1958 as well as the FA Cup final appearance and creation of a new-look team shortly afterwards. The 1960s brought even more events - the arrival of new stars like Denis Law and George Best, the FA Cup triumph of 1963, the European Cup Winners Cup adventure of 1964, the league titles of 1965 and 1967, the European Cup glory of 1968 and retirement of Matt Busby in 1969. Fast forward to the 1990s and each year brought something high profile - 1990; FA Cup glory, 1991; Cup winners cup glory, 1992; League Cup glory, nearly winning the league, becoming members of the new Premier League, the arrival of Eric Cantona, 1993; Premier League title glory, 1994; the death of Matt Busby and the double triumph, 1995; the Eric Cantona incident, the arrival of Andy Cole, the near miss in the league and cup, the reshaping of the team with younger players, 1996; the double glory and the comeback of Eric Cantona, 1997; another league title and Eric Cantona's retirement, 1998; the disappointment in the league title race and the arrival of Jaap Stam and Dwight Yorke, 1999; the treble glory. To cut a very long story short, the most significant eras of the club's history will require the most detail and therefore each section will cover a shorter period of time. Buzby Boy 23:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to reignite this discussion by addressing this point – I believe that this attitude is rather short-sighted. It is abominable to to view the signings of players like Andy Cole, Jaap Stam and Dwight Yorke as major events in the history of the club but not to consider the 1915 betting scandal, the club's first international footballers in 1887, the moves from North Road to Bank Street in 1893 and Bank Street to Old Trafford in 1910, the split from the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway Company and becoming a limited company in its own right in 1892, the club's players helping to found the PFA in 1907, the forced removal of John Chapman as manager (something that has never been explained by the FA) in 1926, the rescuing of the club by James Gibson in 1931, almost being relegated in 1934 and the bombing of Old Trafford in 1941. Manchester United is full of history all the way through its existence – the history of a football club is more than just its results and transfers, and to condense 67 years of club history into an article only 23KB in size is inappropriate. – Pee Jay 12:21, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion about the content of History of Manchester United F.C. (1999–present) at that article's talk page. Click here to see the discussion so far and to add your contributions. – Pee Jay 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bank Street (football ground)

This article has now been promoted to Good Article status! Hurrah! – Pee Jay 10:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration of the Month

Due to a perceived lack of interest, I propose that the Collaboration of the Month project be discontinued until further notice. Besides which, people seem to be getting along fine just working on their own little projects. Hope no one minds. – Pee Jay 11:26, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Players need creating

As some of you may know, I have a sub-page in my userspace that lists every single player who has ever played for United, including those both with and without Wikipedia articles (you can find the page here). Obviously, the goal is to have a Wikipedia article for every United player, but article creation is going at a snail's pace. Any chance some of you guys could create some articles from the redlinks? Even if the articles you create are just stubs, any help would be gratefully received. – Pee Jay 02:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to do about five a day. Every player who has played at least 25 games is completed, so we just have those that are left to do. If a few more people can do five a day, we could have this done pretty quickly. Patken4 (talk) 00:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work mate. P.S. this thread was not meant to be a critique of your efforts, but I thought a few more contributors would help get the job done quicker. – Pee Jay 00:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, no problems mate! I would certainly like all the help anyone can give! Patken4 (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Home stadia

Good news! With the promotion of North Road (football ground) to Good Article status, each of the articles on Manchester United's home stadia are now at Good Article status or higher. The next landmark should be the creation of articles for every player in the club's history. Every player with 10 or more appearances for the club now has an article, but that still leaves 173 players who don't even have a Stub to their names. Please help!!! – Pee Jay 11:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do with the players who we don't have a given/first name for? There are about 20 of them. Patken4 (talk) 15:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. Personally, I'd leave them, as we can't verify their identities, and some of their names are really quite generic. – Pee Jay 02:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Harrison

Created a stub for Eric Harrison at Eric Harrison (football), but I don't know much about him and it needs a lot of work! Grunners (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had an article in progress for Harrison, due to be placed at Eric Harrison (football coach), so I'll see if I can improve the stub you've created at some point. I have the man's autobiography, so that should be helpful. – Pee Jay 23:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Martin's appearances

his article says 83 total, 73 in the league, but the Fergie's fledglings article claims he made over 100 Grunners (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:22, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3/Ownership of Manchester United F.C.

Hmm, not been much activity here recently, but at least people are keeping an eye on the Man Utd articles. I'm slowly adding all of the Man Utd articles to my watchlist, so that should help. Anyway, I've been working on an article on the ownership of the club, but I'm starting to worry that it's turning into a history of the club under each chairman, rather than each owner. Sometimes the chairman and the owner are the same person, but that was not the case while Harold Hardman was chairman (the club was owned by James W. Gibson's widow, Lilian Gibson). So what I'm wondering is, do people think I should change the title of the article, change the content or leave both as they are? – Pee Jay 10:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Manchester United F.C. players

I opened a discussion topic at Talk:List of Manchester United F.C. players a couple of weeks ago about whether we should include Carlos Tévez in the list if he ends up leaving the club a couple of appearances short of the magic 100. Replies would be appreciated. – Pee Jay 23:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a similar discussion about the inclusion criteria for this list here. – Pee Jay 22:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? waits for echo

Out of interest, does anyone actually use this page any more? I've tried to get several discussions going, but no one seems to actually give a crap any more. As one of the top clubs in the world, surely we have enough supporters on Wikipedia to get some decent discussions going! – Pee Jay 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of something similar a few days ago. I myself have become a lot less active on Wiki in recent months, however, surely there are more editors that we could get involved with the task force. – Latics ^Talk! 23:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certain that we could pull out at least 100 Wikipedians willing to help our cause, but I don't think numbers of volunteers is actually our problem. I've noticed that there are several users listed as participants in this task force who I've never actually seen contribute to any Man Utd articles. What we need to do is get people instructed in how to contribute constructively to articles within our scope, and we also need to get them to add this page to their watchlists so that they know when discussions are happening. I don't want to see this TF end up like the Persepolis F.C. sub-project. – Pee Jay 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Lawlor

From the article:

"Jim Lawlor is a football scout, currently employed as the Chief Scout at Manchester United. Before joining the Red Devils, Lawlor previously worked in South African football,[1] and has also held the position of Senior Lecturer in Sports Science at Liverpool John Moores University, where he worked on a tracking system for use in football matches."

This article is now up for deletion. You are welcome to comment.Ikip 07:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs in danger of being deleted

There are currently several discussions on deleting Unreferenced BLPs. There is a list of such article related to Manchester United at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Unreferenced BLPs/Sorted by club/Manchester United. Rettetast (talk) 12:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United F.C. articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Manchester United F.C. articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:34, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester United website changes!

Hello everyone, Please read the follow, Manchester United website changes!, Thanks,
– HonorTheKing (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio and Rafael transfers

Does anyone know the exact date Fabio and Rafael actually joined United? I can find sources going back to 2006 claiming that a deal was in the pipeline, and even a story in The Sun from February 2007 claiming that a deal had been done then, but that one was negated by a story in The Times in January 2008, claiming that United were now back to being "close" to signing the twins. Someone added them to the list of transfers in the 2006-07 article earlier today, but since it was unsourced, I had to revert; however, they are not currently listed in any of the season articles. All I know is that they moved to Manchester in January 2008 but they weren't able to play until they turned 18 in July 2008. Does that mean I should add them to the 2008-09 season article as having signed on 9 July 2008? – Pee Jay 19:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acodring to the offical website, they both "joined" United on 1 July 2008, in the Summer of 2008, so we should add them in the 2008-09 article. Even tho they were signed prior to that but were ineligible to play. (something we should only mention in thier personal article)
– HonorTheKing (talk) 08:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fair enough, and now we even have a reliable source to back it up. Cheers HTK! – Pee Jay 10:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FLC List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances)

Hi everyone, There is a Featured list candidates of List of Manchester United F.C. players (25–99 appearances). People with experience in WP, please have a look and apply your concerns, Support, or Oppose. Thank you. Please note: have you say before it closes with Stale nomination again.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. United of Manchester

We should not include the things about the splinter club in this task force. The team is only a group of supporters who do not support the Glazer ownership of Manchester United. Just a amateur village team, I think. What do you all think? SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 05:45, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're a little more than an amateur village team, in all honesty. And I think we should cover them, just because of their association with Manchester United. – Pee Jay 23:58, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they are little 'more' than an amateur village team, because their association with United, should we consider to include their rivals in this projects? Like Arsenal and Liverpool? They associated with United as rival! SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 07:43, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say they were more than an amateur village team because of their association with United; have you even looked at their progress since they were founded? Anyway, it's clear that you don't want to cover them so you're coming up with facetious reasons now. – Pee Jay 12:50, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, their progress was amazing; started their history from North West Counties Football League Division Two and got promoted into Northern Premier League and reaching the Second Round Proper of 2010-11 FA Cup, after just five years founded. But, I still think it was not enough to enter the task forces of a continental-level club like United. ( If you still based for their progress since founded, I totally disagree ). Too big task force for a 'little' club like FC United, which share their grounds with Bury. SpartacksCompatriot (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review request for F.C. United of Manchester

Hi! I requested a peer review for the article F.C. United of Manchester as myself and @Delusion23 have been working on improving Wikipedia's coverage around F.C. United during the past few months. So far, we got the article Broadhurst Park (about our new ground in north-east Manchester) promoted to GA status and the article List of F.C. United of Manchester seasons promoted to FL status (about a week ago). We're focusing on the main article now in preparation to nominate it for FA status, however the two of us have read, re-read and then re-read again the article too many times to be able to spot any errors and issues that have not yet been covered.

Would having a look at the article be something that members of this task force are interested in given the direct association between MUFC and FCUM? I'm pinging @PeeJay2K3 and @Lemonade51 who I know have been active recently, but help from anyone else would also be highly appreciated. Thanks a lot, guys. odder (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FA nomination for F.C. United of Manchester

As a follow-up to the above and after a great and very constructive peer review by @Lemonade51 (many thanks!), I've now opened a FA nomination for the article on F.C. United. The article has been substantially improved and enhanced over the last six weeks and I believe it meets all FA criteria, but all comments on how to improve it even more are warmly welcome. I look forward to seeing your comments at the nomination page; thanks! odder (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stretfordend.co.uk

Slightly off-topic question but when Google Chrome removes flash and the end of the year, what will happen to stretfordend.co.uk? Will it keep being our main statistic source? WDM10 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mural of Marcus Rashford

New stub! Mural of Marcus Rashford ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:24, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Jones (footballer, born 1937)

I am considering AFDing this article but I wanted to reach out to you ManU expert to see if a. this guy is notable, and b. if you guys have any good sources for this guy. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:55, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]