Talk:Manchester United F.C./Archive 10

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Kit Manufacturers

No offence PeeJay, but once again you display why a 20 Welshman should not be having the final say over a article about a 120 year-old Manchester football club. Don't get me wrong - I think you do a good job on here in general - but you sometimes need to concede that there are others out there who (try to) contribute and who know more about certain things than you do.

While there is no good online resource to use as a citation, it is obvious from photographs in books and not least from the shirts themselves - on display to anyone who visits the museum at Old Trafford (as well as some in my own possession) - that United's shirts were made by Umbro from at least 1958 (possibly even pre-war) until Admiral took over the contract in 1975. Unfortunately, the Umbro website is all style over content and only mentions Manchester City shirts.

Will the following photographs do anything to change your mind so that the edits may be reverted?:

Alex Stepney in 1973 - Umbro logo on shirt: http://www.jamd.com/search?assettype=g&assetid=3429909&text=alex+stepney

Noel Cantwell's 1963 FA Cup final shirt (screengrab from Official History of Manchester United DVD) - Umbro label visible inside collar: http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p118/decorativeedison/PDVD_001.jpg

The 1958 FA Cup final shirt: http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p118/decorativeedison/My1958Shirt.jpg http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p118/decorativeedison/label.jpg http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p118/decorativeedison/Umbroprint.jpg

I realise that these links aren't good enough to use as citations on the article, but as it stands, what is written there is incorrect. Either the edits I made should be reverted or the section should be rewritten by someone else so that it is factually accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decorativeedison (talk • contribs) 22:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

You could have at least provided a link to some of those images in your original edit summary. All I had to go on was the link to historicalkits.co.uk, which showed that United's first kit manufacturer was Admiral. Obviously someone had to have made the kits prior to the 70s, and your photos prove that Umbro made some of them, but all reliable print sources refer to Admiral being the first. – Pee Jay 22:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Oops, apologies I forgot to sign my previous comment!

Thanks PeeJay, I realise that published info is scant and I intend to correct that - I have emailed Dave at historicalkits.co.uk and asked him to update the site with the info so that it may be used as a ref. I thought the links would be of more use here than on the edit summary.Decorativeedison (talk) 00:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it probably was best to put the links to the images on this page rather than in the edit summary, but it certainly would have been better to make them available before making the edit, or even at the same time, but by not linking to the images until after I'd reverted the edit, you can't really blame me for the course of action that I took. Nevertheless, I look forward to the update of historicalkits.co.uk so that we can update the article text. – Pee Jay 06:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I probably should have done it that way, I was just surprised to see the incorrect information on the page as I hadn't noticed it before and I thought it was common knowledge that Umbro made the kits in the 50s, 60s and 70s. As for waiting before we update it - there are no refs or citations on the page to prove what is currently claimed - that Admiral were the first kit manufacturers - so wouldn't it be just as encyclopedic (not to mention nearer to the truth) to revert the edit anyway? Decorativeedison (talk) 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

You know, it's the strangest thing. I just took your last comment on board and went to look for some references to use in the article, and came across this page. As you can see, the site acknowledges that Umbro did indeed make United's kits prior to Admiral, so we now have an acceptable published source! I'll add that in now, and reword the paragraph to indicate that Admiral were the first to put their logo on players' shirts. – Pee Jay 12:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I use that website often, but as it didn't specify any years, I didn't think it was good enough. It's better than the nothing we had before though I suppose, so thanks for your input PeeJay. Decorativeedison (talk) 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Is there anything about the modification I've made that you think should be changed? I wasn't too happy with the wording, myself, but I'd like to hear your input. – Pee Jay 15:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's alright except that Umbro's logos were used on the goalkeepers shirts only for some reason before Admiral took over, so it's slightly wrong and could perhaps be reworded to something like "Admiral were the first company to apply their branding the players kits". That's just nitpicking though to be fair. Unless you want to put the seasons in when the manufacturers started to outfit the team then it's probably okay as it is otherwise. Decorativeedison (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability, Friendlies and the Commnity Shield

Ok, so players shouldn't have articles before they're notable - i.e. played a competative game. now, the Charity/Community Shield is "offically" a pre-season friendly, but if it's a friendly, why is it counted towards appearence stats, here and elsewhere? If it's not a friendly, then it must be a competative match, meaning that (for example) Rafael can now have an article. Or am I missing something here? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

And yes, perhaps this should be on WP:FOOTY, but there you go!

The Community Shield isn't a friendly. It's a legitimate competition organised by the FA. The reason why Rafael does not have an article is not because the Community Shield is not a competitive match, but because he DID NOT PLAY. He was named on the bench but did not make an appearance. Currently, Rafael's appearance record stands at 0 starts, 0 substitute appearances. Therefore, he is not notable. Same goes for Rodrigo Possebon. – Pee Jay 10:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Communityshield isnt a FIFA recognised competative game, therefor its considerd to be a friendly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.123.57.94 (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How can you possibly know that the Community Shield isn't recognised by FIFA? Regardless, several countries have a "Super Cup" style competition organised by their own FAs, so why should the Community Shield be any different? – Pee Jay 00:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

FIFA is a waste of space. I have to agree with PeeJay. If I had it my way, FIFA would not control English football. But the Community Sheild is a friendly, but it's an official game as well. If you've noticed, they sing "God Save The Queen" at the beginning, on;y special events do this. The CS is notable. Conay (talk) 12:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Dong

I see the mighty Dong has finally had his squad number removed by the club, who have clearly realised that he has no footballing ability whatsoever and isn't even managing to shift too many shirts in China!

In one and a half seasons he has managed two starts - one in a meaningless end of season match at Chelsea and one in the Mickey Mouse Cup - and one substitute appearance - in a meaningless Champions League match in Rome.

Should he retain his place in the first team squad list in this article or should he be moved to the Reserves article? He no longer appears on either list on Uniteds website. Fd2006 (talk) 13:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say, really. For a time, he was only on the Reserves page, but it seems that he's not on either any more, like you say. Maybe we should just leave him where he is. – Pee Jay 13:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Well currently he's in China, so I for one would be more than happy to see him stay there!!! On a serious note, if the match programme tomorrow also doesn't mention him on the squad list I'd be inclined to move him just to the reserves article. I can't see him playing for the first team again, especially now the likes of Welbeck, Campbell and Macheda appear to be ahead of him. Fd2006 (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Bit harsh, that. Especially since Heaton, Brandy, Simpson, Martin and Cathcart aren't listed either. Strangely, Cathcart is the only one of those on-loan players who has been given a squad number for this season. – Pee Jay 13:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Mascot section

Is the new section about the club mascot really necessary? It's not been written in a very encyclopaedic way for a start. – Pee Jay 21:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cristiano Ronaldo

Cristiano Ronaldo is missing from the roster... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.164.9.65 (talk) 09:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Rivalries

Manchester United and Chelsea have also been involved in a growing rivalry over the last few years because of the two now becoming the two most dominant sides in English Football. An example of this was in the 2008 UEFA Champions League Final when the two sides were involved in a scuffle and Chelsea's Didier Drogba was subsequently sent off for slapping United's Nemanja Vidic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewfergus07 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Club Captain section

E. Thomas is down as first known captain, but without a nationality, whilst Jack Powell is down later as the first non-English captain. Either that makes E. Thomas English, or if his nationality is truly unknown, means the note needs removing from Powell. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 01:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

EPL Managers

Mark Hughes (Manchester City), Steve Bruce (Wigan), Roy Keane (Sunderland) Paul Ince (Blackburn) - four of the EPL managers played in the first 11 for Manchester United in a FA Cup Final.

Your point? – Pee Jay 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

"North Road in Newton Heath, near to where Manchester Piccadilly Station"

This is quite misleading, it is actually quite a distance, about 2 miles! From the Oldham Road heading towards Oldham you can see a newish construction which is planned to be part of the metrolink extension, North Road (now Northampton Road) is just about there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.95.67 (talk) 03:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I quite agree. I will change it now. – Pee Jay 11:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

doubles etc

the article reads "Single match competitions such as the Charity/Community Shield, Intercontinental Cup/World Club Championship or Super Cup are not generally considered to contribute towards a Double or Treble". While I don't believe it counts towards a double treble etc, the world club championshiop is not a single match competition, and the article should reflect this, and change the wording where appropriate.218.103.254.60 (talk) 07:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Bravo Award

Can somebody put up the winner of the Bravo award for Manchester United Player?

1993 Ryan Giggs 2003 Wayne Rooney 2004 Cristiano Ronaldo

How about adding the manager who won an award while coaching at Manchester United?

I think it would be significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aznluvchrist (talk • contribs)

What is the Bravo Award? It clearly doesn't get much coverage in the UK. – Pee Jay 10:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

its an italian award for the best young player in Europe. I might be wrong but I think Anderson was this years winner. He was definitely presented with some award or other before a league match during the season just gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.108.210 (talk) 09:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Dennis Law relegated Manchester United?

There's a bit in the 1970s section that says : 'dennis law scored the goal which many people believed relegated manchester united' (or something like that). This isn't correct because Man Utd were relegated that day by other results and so the outcome of this match was meaningless. Just because 'many people' believed it to be the case does not make it worthy of inclusion in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.193.121.36 (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Club captains, year incorrect

{{editsemiprotected}} 1893–1984 Unknown

This should read: 1893–1894 Unknown

Done. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:22, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Debt

you should probably mention the clubs debt as it is the largest amount in europe, also you could mention platini's comments on how a club with so much debt should not be in the champions league, if have refrences if you need them.

Do you come from manchester?

the link to this article (relating to the amount of city/utd season tickets sold within manchester post codes) does not work, surely that makes it void.

Nope, i've fixed it and it now works. Eddie6705 (talk) 20:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

New Section for New Era

I think that we could breakdown the section of "After the Treble (1999-Present)" and create a new era for example, "After the Treble (1999-2006)" and "(Someone think of a good title) (2006-Present)". Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aznluvchrist (talk • contribs) 04:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Unnecessary imo to divide it into to few years.

Early years (1878–1945) – 67 years
The Busby years (1945–1969) – 24 years
1969–1986 – 17 years
Alex Ferguson era, pre-Treble (1986–1998) – 12 years
The Treble (1998–99)
After the Treble (1999–present)

Now the last three are sort of the same, within the Alex Ferguson era... I'd almost rather see (at least when he retires) a let's say "The Furguson years (1986–2011)" let's say, to go with the Busby years. So I'd rather see longer spans than 3 year per 3 year.— CHAN DLER #10 — 05:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There are too many sections as it is, IMO. Any further subdivision of "eras" should be done on the individual history pages. – Pee Jay 10:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

In general you're right, but the treble makes it a special case. It's not a usual every-day event. Just like I would expect to find a special reference to a Tennis player's Grand Slam achievement Kvsh5 (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

"unprecedented Treble in 1999" - NOT

See here - http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/The_Treble#The_European_Treble_-_.27The_Treble.27
Scottich and dutch teams. Or does it mean - only "English trebles"? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 10:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

It's probably not that clear in the text of the article, but it refers only to trebles that include the Premier League (or The Football League pre-1993), the FA Cup and the UEFA Champions League (or European Cup pre-1993). – Pee Jay 12:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, so it should really be qualified by "...in English football". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

5% of the world support man utd????

can you put a credible link to prove this or remove it please as the current one looks like its a blog "Creating sports brands is about right mix, patience Nirmal John/ DNA MONEY", thanx.

I see four references pointing at the number of fans. c h ¹⁰ · 14:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, if you don't believe the 5% reference, then check the other two pointing out the number of fans worldwide. Then, it's just simple math. 330 million of 6.76 billion people, comes out to 4.88% (unless my math is wrong). – LATICS talk 19:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Man United's Chief Executive David Gill stated United had "333 million supporters", which is approximated at 5% of the World's Population. http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/15/manchester-united-worker-sacked-protest

I think this should be re-added to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.26.228.142 (talk) 12:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

World Cup Winners (while at Man utd)

I think they should add a World Cup Winners section is the article... This means the players that won world cups while at Man ud.. they have it for alot of teams ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.151.224.29 (talk) 20:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Without thinking about it, are there any others than the 3 of 66? Because if it's only those three it might not really have to be a list (and perhaps is already mentioned in the article somewhere). chan dler · 20:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think, it is irrelevant, and if you think about it; none of (other than those 3), United player ever won anything internationally. A sad fact, but true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.42.145 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

That though isnt true, Fabien Barthez (or did he join after?) won the European Championship 2000, there might be some Asian, African, South American, North American etc who've won confederation competitions as well. chan dler · 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

This would be a completely irrelevant section. Winning an international tournament has nothing to do with the club a player plays for. – Pee Jay 00:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, else where do you stop? Sure we include all the club honours won by player of the respective WC squad pages? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 12:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

help

i'm trying to help here so don't complain. i think someone should write that man united are avery big club and there are to many glory hunters supporting them.

thanks for listening to my constructive comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bushey001 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Undoubtedly, United are a very big club indeed with a global support of 5% of the world's population. However, glory hunters or not, we do not know how many percent of them are the 'fake' fans that you are claiming. Do cite your sources or research if you find them. Lpjz290 (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

"Talking Reds" (United's forum) is your source. Since 90% of them have never watched an entire United game, it is a fairly fair comment. CipherPixel (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC) (I do not seriously think this should be added btw)

It is time for this article to be featured

I believe that this article is now good enough to be a featured article. Any views on this would be appreciated. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 04:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. The History section still needs a lot of referencing, and also a fair bit of re-writing. Apart from the History section, the article is of Featured standard, but unfortunately the History section is one of the most important. Therefore, I would advise against an FAC for this article at this time. – Pee Jay 08:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Gotta agree with PeeJay. There's still too much unreferenced material in the article, and still needs some general cleanup and rewriting. It's on the way, but still has a bit to go. – LATICS talk 08:13, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Major fan sites

I'm a member of the admin team on ManUtd Talk and would like our site added to the fan sites section.

We've been established for three years now, have almost 7,000 members that have made over a quarter of a million posts and our blog articles are regularly featured on the major newsfeed NewsNow.

I think we're qualified to be considered a 'major fan site' and I'd be very grateful if someone could add our link onto the page.

Thanks.

http://www.manutdtalk.com/ Manutdtalk (talk) 11:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

How does your membership compare to the other major Man Utd fansites? Has your site been featured on any major sites? What basis do you have for the claim that NewsNow is a "major" newsfeed? – Pee Jay 21:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.forums.redissue.co.uk/ is considered 'major' enough to feature on this page and they currently have 5,057 members, we have 1,888 more than that at 6,942 members, meaning we are just over 27% bigger. This alone should be enough to have our site featured on the page.

Newsnow is a major newsfeed that is currently ranked as the 3,207th most popular website in the world [1] and has 2,495 sites linking in to it, meaning they pick up an rss feed from each of those sites and feature their pages on their site. They have an estimated 1,000,000 users around the world. Every blog article we publish is featured on there and they usually attract around 10,000 visits.

I think we easily meet the criteria for our link to be published and I hope you'll agree.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manutdtalk (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I never got a reply back from this. I think I've shown why we should be considered a major fan site and would appreciate a reply. Thanks.

I'd not include any "fan sites" as external links on this or any other article. - fchd (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with fchd. Remember: we are an education tool, not a service to provide United fans with a good place to chat. Fansites are easily found for those who want them. I'd suggest wholesale removal of all fansites unless they are official fansites of Manchester United. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 16:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.stretfordend.co.uk/menu.html - Very good site for stats etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.152.58 (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Harpurhey

In the Stadium section, it says that Newton Heath played Blackpool at a ground in Harpurhey. The citation is the book "The Official Illustrated History of Manchester United", which does indeed state this as fact. However, in other books such as Stephen F. Kelly's "Back Page United", it is said that it was actually the reserves fixture that was played at Harpurhey.

Do any other books back up the claim that it was a first team fixture that was moved away from Bank Street? Decorativeedison (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't got my books with me at the minute, but I'll be back in Cardiff on Friday, so I'll have a check then. – Pee Jay 16:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've had a look at "The Definitive Newton Heath F.C." by Alan Shury and Brian Landamore, and it confirms that it was indeed a reserve team fixture against Padiham that was played in Harpurhey. There were doubts about whether the Blackpool game would be played at Bank Street, but it appears that it was indeed played there after all. – Pee Jay 00:06, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, PeeJay.Decorativeedison (talk) 16:27, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't thank me, thank Messrs Shury and Landamore :) – Pee Jay 18:04, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Number of fans

I'm opening a can of worms here but I'm convinced that the 333 million fans claim is a bit of an exaggeration. The basis for this deduction is a collection of interviews with a mere 1,000 people, which was then multiplied exponentially on a world population scale. Anyone with a bit of sense can see that that is some bad statistical application there.

Furthermore, (quoting from one of the sources) "A 2003 MORI survey put the total at 75million.". The idea that Manchester United's fanbase has multiplied by four within five years seems odd. Perhaps the previous poll was conservative but almost 5% of the world's population seems a bit of a joke. The sheer number of citations isn't really a factor as they are all based upon the same press release. I'd recommend toning down the statement to simply "is one of the most popular football clubs in the world" and remove the statistics. These can be discussed in the support section along with the MORI poll. (In fact, the "Support" section makes no mention of these figures whatsoever.) The prominence of this "fact" is clearly an issue given previous studies. What does everyone else think? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably a prudent idea. – Pee Jay 10:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the humorously-named user:Hylian Pirate should be proud that this went unquestioned for 16 months! I'll wait to see what more editors think first before making changes. I seem to have entangled myself in a number thorny issues as of late, so I'll play it safe. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also, I think the lead might benefit from mentioning that Manchester United were the most successful English team in the 1990s and 2000s. Five FA Cups, two Champions League victories, and ten Premier League titles says it all really. It should be stressed that this is currently their most successful period, and it would certainly clarify why Since the late 1990s, the club has been one of the richest in the world.

It should be emphasised as part of this: has won 21 major honours since Alex Ferguson became manager in November 1986.Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam Ljajić

Shouldn't Adam Ljajić be included in the squad list as someone out on loan, Man Utd completed a deal to sign him and I believe he is only on loan to Partizan until January 2010 - Adzer Adzer 11:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adzer (talk • contribs)

As discussed at Talk:Adem Ljajić, Ljajić is not on loan at Partizan. He cannot officially join Manchester United until 1 January 2010. – Pee Jay 10:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

UEFA Super Cup 2008

No mention of this in the history section. It mentions winning the Community Shield pre 2008-09 season, but not the UEFA Super Cup, something I think is important bearing in mind the talk of them being European and World champions, and the focus on them potentially getting a "clean sweep" of ALL trophies. --86.136.20.133 (talk) 10:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This link should answer your question. As a minor, one match trophy it wasn't to be included in any clean sweeps. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 10:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Absent Records

Some absent records which would add to the detail of article.

Record League victory; Record European Cup/Champions League victory; Record FA Cup victory; Record League defeat; Record European Cup/Champions League defeat; Record FA Cup defeat; Highest attendance at OT (mentioned in the article, but not prominently); Most goals scored in a season (obviously Cristiano Ronaldo; I would say); Record transfer fee paid & Record transfer fee received.--213.94.192.200 (talk) 11:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC), --213.94.192.200 (talk) 11:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)--213.94.192.200 (talk) 11:19, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

A whole article is devoted to records: Manchester United F.C. records and statistics (which gives their record goalscorer for a season as Denis Law ;) ). For the main article the best practice would be to have a summary written in prose with a link to the records article, like the example in Arsenal_F.C.#Statistics_and_records. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That's great, thanks for that.--213.94.192.200 (talk) 13:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect address of Old Trafford Stadium on Wikipedia

The correct address for the Theatre Of Dreams is:

Manchester United Football Club, Old Trafford, Sir Matt Busby Way, Manchester M16 ORA.

I can verify that for you if you want. Moderators should change it straight away... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.42.250.79 (talk) 09:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "location" in the right box, I believe its a descriptive location giving a brief indication to where it is, rather than a postal address. CipherPixel (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removed, no need for this level of detail anyway. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 15:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

third consecutive premier league

did an edit to a user's previous edit. that user wrongly stated that united won their first hattrick of BPL titles against arsenal's 0-0 draw at OT. it should be made clear that United have previously won three consecutive titles back in 98-99, 99-00 and 00-01. revert if needed. Lpjz290 (talk) 15:28, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Flag Change?

Shouldn't the flag for Darron Gibson be the Northern Ireland flag and not the Republic of Ireland. Jonny Evans has the Northern Irish flag and since they are both Northern Irish, they should both have it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.236.20 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The flags represent a player's sporting nationality, and since Darron Gibson plays for the Republic of Ireland, that is the flag he has. – Pee Jay 13:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A-Class review

I propose that this article be promoted to A-class. It has already passed the Good Article criteria, but is certainly not quite ready for Featured Article status. I do agree that there are still certain elements of the History section that still need rewording/expanding/reducing/de-recentism-ing, but the reader's experience of the article surely fits the description "Very useful to readers. A fairly complete treatment of the subject. A non-expert in the subject matter would typically find nothing wanting." Comments are appreciated. – Pee Jay 00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd have said the main problem in the History section was with referencing. The A-class criteria specify that the article should "be well referenced by a broad array of reliable sources", only falling short of FA by "minor style issues" and the need for "minor copy-edits". The section has only one inline citation between 1902 and 1989 (sixteen paragraphs), which wouldn't get it through GA these days. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2009 (UTC)