Talk:2007–08 Manchester United F.C. season

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Football: England / Manchester United Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Manchester United task force (assessed as Low-importance).

2007–08 Manchester United F.C. season received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Hi, I hope the Fb templates are been helpful. Improvements are welcome and will be useful for all other articles that are using them. If anyone finds a possible improvement, please use the template's talk page to discuss it. Thanks. --ClaudioMB 18:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be quite honest, no they're not helpful. All the transcluded data makes the page take ages to load, and there is an awful lot of useless information on the page at the minute. Please see articles such as Manchester United F.C. season 2005-06 and Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07 for what a club's season article should really be like. - PeeJay 22:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll discuss here just about the templates. Yes, using this templates makes the page loading a bit longer, in my experience, 1 second, what I believe is acceptable for readers. About been helpful, I'd like to ask if there is any changing in the templates that could make them helpful for you. Also, if you or anyone else feels a new column should be added to any table (like attendance in Manchester United F.C. season 2006-07), that could be done. Originally, match tables didn't have scorers, but after someone suggested, it was added as an optional column. I personally don't like a scorers column, because already exist a link to the match report, but if someone wants to keep the column updated, it's ok. Regards. --ClaudioMB 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since all information in the infobox is in the article, is there a real need for that infobox?--ClaudioMB 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs re-writing to align it with previous seasons - at the moment it is a complete mess JPMJPMJPM 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is grouped here with other similar articles. Please, participate. Regards. --ClaudioMB 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about Manual of Style for club season articles that could after this article, you could participate here.--ClaudioMB 16:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need to sort out the headings, there needs to be an extra column added for Community Shield, as it adds to the total, but I d onot know how to add it. It could be in the form of an "other competitions" heading? Andre666 19:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance we could use a table like the one here? I think it would make the article a lot better overall, and much easier to read. Andre666 19:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a table like the one used in all the other Manchester United season articles would be much better. In fact, I think this whole article needs a re-vamp to standardise it with the other Manchester United season articles. - PeeJay 19:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I volunteer myself, I can do it very soon, tomorrow after I finish college. Andre666 20:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, I;ve updated it now, is it up to scratch? I kept the current sports event banner at the top of the article so that visitors know that this will be updated regularly. I think it is a lot better now. Andre666 22:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the templates to accept a 5th competition.--ClaudioMB 22:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I didn't enter the appearances and goals, someone have entered before and I don't know if they are right. --ClaudioMB 23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A complete change of the page's layout should be discuss first for few days. So, I've reverted the change and copied the "new layout" for Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08/New layout temporary page, so editors could compare both and discuss it.

I prefer much better the current one. I could explain why later. --ClaudioMB 22:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may prefer the one you came up with, but all the previous Manchester United season articles use a different model, and I see no reason why this one should be any different. Your model is full of unnecessary guff and a mass of unnecessary templates. As the person who initiated the majority of the Manchester United season articles, I take it upon myself to overrule you on this one. - PeeJay 23:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sincerely, I respect your great contribution to all the Manchester United season articles and other football articles. Also, if there are sections that aren't good, please open a discussion to remove them. And the reason for so many templates is to make edition easier (editors should focus on information, not on code).

But, I really believe the original layout used for this article is better, for 2 main reasons: tables are clearer to read and it's much easy to edit. Furthermore, if we stick with something is already in place we'll never improve anything, so changing this article just to keep as former season articles is not a good way to go, we should use what consider better. Now, I'll revert this article one more time to the original one and lets other contributers have a say. I didn't start this article, I'm just helping other editors with the templates, and I have no problem at all if there is a consensus to change everything. Regards. --ClaudioMB 00:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've copied your latest version to Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08/New layout.--ClaudioMB 00:29, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay, once more you've changed the whole page before wait for other contributers have a say. I believe that is not right and disrespectful to all editors that have contributed to the original page. Please, I ask you again to keep the original page until other editors have the opportunity to give their opinion. If no one mind the change, I'll not oppose it. I'll revert it again and ask an administrator to take a look on this.

Also, I hope you don't mind, but I'll copy your prose to the original article. That's a good prose that should be in the article regardless of the layout. Regards. --ClaudioMB 23:50, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe we should have the same layout as the old season articles, it is a lot tidier, loads quicker and isn't much harder at all to edit, it's basically only me that edits it anyway, and I have no problem with it. I think my say counts as I am the one updating the matches and squad stats most often, but everyone's say counts before we make a decision. Andre666 17:21, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would edit it too, if there wasn't so much to edit every time a game is played, and you weren't so quick to get there ;-) Anyway, it seems we have a third opinion here, and the general consensus seems to be in favour of the layout of the old season articles. I am going to revert to that layout now, and I would appreciate this edit not being reverted. - PeeJay 17:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's actually better to have the new layout for the season, as it progresses, as it details current events, injuries and so on. The layour used for the other season articles can be used when the season is finished. I have the old code to revert it back, if you agree with my points here. Andre666 18:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually disagree, but if you can point out the specific "current events" that you think need including, that would be useful. Myself, I don't think injuries or the referee at a particular match are that relevant to an article that is supposed to be an overview of the team's season. - PeeJay 19:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, just to clarify, I will start call one layout Original 2007-08 layout and the other Previous seasons layout.

I consider very much Andre666 position, but I don't consider his as a third opinion since was him who actually started this issue as you can see in the #Squad Stats needs sorting out discussion section. I believe, a third opinion is from someone that haven't contribute to this article. So, lets wait a third opinion comes to say if an article could be completely changed without given time to contributers to that article to provide their point of view. So, I'll revert it again.

Also, I'll start a new discussion section to receive everyones position and I will place a template on the top of the article alerting about that. Then, lets say 10 days from now, most of the contributers to this article would have the change to give their opinion and a consensus could be found. I believe, just because other editors are not currently updating this page so often, it doesn't mean they wouldn't, they would update if someone else didn't have updated first. I understand you are anxious to change to something you prefer, but an article doesn't belong to anyone and we should respect other editors opinion. Please, just be a bit patient. Regards. --ClaudioMB 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a sub-section for everybody enter their choice of each layout is better for this article: Original 2007-08 layout or Previous seasons layout.

• Original 2007-08 layout - The tables are clearer, have letter size normal and have the same layout. Also, there are more information and it's much easy to edit (check the code).--ClaudioMB 22:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous seasons layout - The results are set out much clearer, it loads a lot quicker, and is still easy to edit. Could do with a change on the squad part though, the subs appearances looks a bit wrong. Andre666 17:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous seasons layout - It does not contain a plethora of superfluous information, and is just as easy to edit. It is also more conducive to prose. I just feel that everything is organised in this version. However, I do agree that the subs appearances could do with a revamp in the squad stats section. - PeeJay 17:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous seasons layout - Follows the WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidelines more than its alternative, is much simpler to be read and edited, and gives explicitly space to prose rather than needless lists and tables. --Angelo 21:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Previous seasons layout - New layout has text overlay problems in firefox. Too many tables, templates and fancy graphics in the new one for my liking, in my opinion its best to keep it simple. The final decision should ideally be some kind of compromise between the people who are prepared to update the stats on a regular basis though. King of the North East (T/C) 22:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what do you mean by "text overlay problems in firefox"? I use Firefox and I couldn't see any problem. If I missing something, please help me to fix it. Also, how about the blend option?--ClaudioMB 22:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always have time to update the stats, and have always been the one doing it, so I think we should revert it to the previous season stylee. 4-1 looks a decent number to me, but if it changes I shall change it. Andre666 09:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For those who think there are too many tables in the Original 2007-08 layout, I created a blend option with exactly the same structure of the Previous seasons layout but with the table from the Original 2007-08 layout (will need few adjustments). I still believe these tables are way better than those used on the Previous seasons layout.--ClaudioMB 22:33, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The Previous seasons layout doesn't indicate one single source, doesn't say when was last updated (since it is a current sport event) and doesn't have keys for the header of the tables. Those are very serious problems. --ClaudioMB 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Removed discussing tag - As the 10 days warning any other contributer to this page about this discussion have pasted, as I asked, I've removed the discussion tag. It doesn't mean anyone couldn't enter his/her opinion any time in the future.--ClaudioMB 00:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with your opinion of which style of table is better, for the following reasons.

Pre-season fixtures table:

• Match number, competition/tour and GD columns are unnecessary.
  • Matches are not generally assigned numbers in real life, so why assign a number to them in this table?
  • Competition/tour can be indicated by a row that spans the table, as in Manchester United F.C. season 2004-05.
  • Goal difference is irrelevant in pre-season, and can be easily worked out by any child over the age of four by looking at the difference between the number of goals in the result column.
• Flagicons in the Ground column are unnecessary, especially when the same flag is appended to the opposition's name.
• Sortability is also unnecessary.

Premier League, Carling Cup and Champions League fixtures table:

• Match number and Round columns are irrelevant for the same reasons as mentioned above.
• Competition column is unnecessary due to the table being in the Premier League section.
• Much of the info in the Report column is unnecessary detail for a season overview. Kickoff time and referee are much less important than the goals scored. However, I agree with the inclusion of cards and attendance, and possibly the club's match report.
• Again the GD column is unnecessary as a chimpanzee can work out the difference between two numbers.

Squad statistics table:

This is perhaps the only table I can tolerate out of the whole lot, but it still needs some major work.

• The nationality column could be done away with, and the player's primary nationality should be indicated by a single flagicon in the same cell as their name.
• If the table could be modified to take on the same shape as the stats table used in previous seasons' articles, that would be smashing. I'm not a fan of the big gap between the column headers and the main body of the table, but at least it helps with the sortability. What we really need is four columns per competition (Apps, Starts, Subs, Goals) each of which would be sortable.
• I don't like the way the name column only displays the "Name on jersey". It should show the player's full name.

Transfers tables:

• EU, Number, Age, Transfer Window and Source columns are, I believe, unnecessary.
  • EU column is irrelevant to an English team as the Premier League has no rules about the number of non-EU players a team can field in a match.
  • Squad number is unnecessary as it can be seen in the squad stats table.
  • Age is not necessary, and can be viewed in the player's own article.
  • Transfer Window can be replaced by the date of the transfer, which would itself indicate which transfer window the transfer occurred in.
  • Source can be indicated by a reference attached to the fee, per List of English football transfers Summer 2007.
• I also believe the Status column to be unnecessary, as you can split the table into two groups - one of transfers, and the other of loans. On a related note, what is the point of the tick images in the Status column?

So basically, the only table that is worth keeping, albeit with a lot of modification, is the Squad statistics table. Hope that helped. - PeeJay 23:35, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, the tables need some adjustments. What you've written above is a good sample of some necessary adjustments with some differences that I'll cite below. But, the Original 2007-08 layout and the Blend option have source, shows when was last updated and has keys for all abbreviations. Those are much more important things in an article that Previous seasons layout doesn't have at all. --ClaudioMB 05:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-season table:

• Match number and GD columns will be gone.
• Competition/tour will stay. Not much difference if it's shown as a column or as a line.

Premier League, Football League Cup and UEFA Champions League tables:

• Match number, competition and GD columns will be gone.
• Round or Week will stay as is very common mention in sport media.
• Any information in Report column is optional. So, just include what you find important.
• Flags are important to show the ground or the opponent is not from the same country as the team.
• Sortable could go as the competition and GD columns are not there anymore.
• The idea behind GD column is to allow readers to sort it and see the biggest wins and defeats (even a chimpanzee couldn't do that  :-) ).

Squad statistics table:

• The nationality column is important when readers want to see players order by nationality. It doesn't hurt anyone who doesn't care about it, but helps a lot who cares.
• Show two flags when the birth country is not as same the international country is a good respect for those players. Maybe you don't have dual citizenship, but for those who have it, it's important. No one wants see his/her country of birth omitted. I've seen your personal page, and if you care about be ⅛ English and be consider 100% Celtic, you probably wouldn't like a bit if someone only mention you are German because you have German citizenship.
• About the 4 columns, could be done. I guarantee you, you like it, I have nothing against it, but some people you hate it. Like this one and this other one. I didn't after an editor request it and because maybe it's a good idea.
• I use the jersey's name because it's the name they are mostly known. Also, makes the column less crowded and it's easy to see the "full name" placing the mouse's pointer over it. But, the column could have adjustable width, so it will be up to the editor, I believe other editors also prefer that.

Transfers tables:

• EU column could be optional.
• Squad number could be good for those are going out. Also, argue that could be seen in the squad stats table is not a good argument since position and nationality also could be seen there and you use in your own transfer table.
• I believe the players' age is important, sign a 17 years old player is different from a 34 one. Also, argue the information could be seen in his article could be used for his nationality as well.
• I don't thing the exactly day of the sign is relevant. Tell me, what the difference if a player was sign in 3 July or 3 August. So, that will crowd the table.
• Other source column was one way to make editors realize they must enter a source. Believe me, that was very effective last summer transfer. It just remind me that I should have change the name to Source only to make it not optional (I've just changed).
• I have to prefer one transfer table rather then two. With one table, readers could see all ins or outs at a glance.
• The status is important while the current season is not over. Because, during the transfer windows, is the only way to see what is in progress and what is signed.

So, I really hope this is a start for a settlement. I really take very much your opinion in consideration (more than mine) since you are the one who mostly keep this article updated. I've changed some tables to reach other editors expectation, some changes that I even use in the one I maintain (FC Barcelona's season), because some ideas, that I even don't like much, could be the way to go. If it's a good idea, people will copy it, if not, it will die right there. But, something I'll never change: all tables must be easy to read and edit, look alike, and have last updated date, source and key.
Best regards. --ClaudioMB 07:05, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think in many ways this is why using templates instead of a standard table is a bad idea. Why make a template with optional parameters when you can just make a customised table? Anyway, why does every season article have to follow exactly the same table structure? Surely the people who contribute most to it should be allowed to decide for themselves. I understand that you are proud of your templates, Claudio, but please don't be offended that the people who contribute to the Manchester United article don't want to use your templates. - PeeJay 07:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using templates makes edits easier than without it for those who are not good with code (you are good with code, but lost of editors are not). Also, the templates could be a first step to make all articles as much alike as possible. Anyway, I never impose my ideas to anyone here in Wikipedia and this will not be the first. I told you that if no other contributer for this article complain about the change you made, I'll not oppose it. What's upset me, it's some poor arguments that the layout and structure based on those templates or FC Barcelona 2007-08 season are not good at all and should be completely changed (mostly by one single editor, what, by the way, I think it's completely out of reason). So, I'll leave you alone (unless, some other editors complain about what you changed). Sincerely, I hope this article goes well and if you need any help, just post in my talk page, I'll try do my best. Best regards. --ClaudioMB 08:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your alternate proposals fails at least WP:FLAGS (per the excessive amount of flags in result templates) and WP:ACCESSIBILITY (per the usage of sortable tables with a lot of superflous icons, redundant information and cryptical acronyms). Friendly matches should never be included, they're as notable as a walk in the park and we absolutely don't aim to collect all the possible statistical football information here, but just the only relevant ones, and Man Utd's seasons surely won't be remembered in any case due to a non-competitive match against Shenzhen FC. This is an encyclopedia, not Footballpedia (I wonder if it already exists, btw). Keep it simple, in short. --Angelo 12:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly matches may not be notable compared with a Premier League match, but pre-season is an important part of the build-up to the season, and an account of it should be kept, IMO. - PeeJay 12:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A short pre-season paragraph is fair enough, but only with no friendly match reports, lineups, bookings, scorers and all the linked stuff. --Angelo 13:06, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly matches alone are not notable, but it is a notable part of any team's season. Mostly for big clubs like ManUnd that use them for marketing. I believe it's not just myself and Peejay that think that way, lost of season articles show them.--ClaudioMB 17:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Wikipedia is also very much Footballpedia. The first line of Wikipedia:Five pillars says that Wikipedia also incorporates "specialized encyclopedias".--ClaudioMB 17:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much difference from the number of flags in the Blend option to the Previous season layout. And I don't see any excess of them. Could you explain that better? Also, could you explain what's the problem with sortable tables? I don't see any thing about that in WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Another thing, which superfluous icons you talk about? The sun and the injured person? Why are they superfluous? Icons are extremely used in the web, I'm not creating any new trend here. For example, look the icon used in the tag for current sports used on the top of this article. Is that also superfluous? Or just the icons I used are superfluous? Also, could you cite the redundant information you talk about? Isn't there any single redundant information in the Previous season layout? If I'm using cryptical acronyms, please help to fix it by tell me which are they. But, at least, there is a key for all acronyms used. You seem to do not mind that the Previous season layout does have key for any acronym. Or, even worse, you seem don't mind there is no source for any information in the Previous season layout, that's is the number 1 fault here in Wikipedia. I'm writing here to everybody read it, you, Angelo, seem to want just get rid of my work here in Wikipedia football. If that is not true, please explain yourself, I'm getting tire of this silly game. I want spend my time here in Wikipedia improving some articles and help other editors, I don't want wast my time with this and I think is time to stop it. By the way, U.S. Città di Palermo season 2007-08's Match results and Player details sections don't have any source either. Maybe we should place a tag there asking for a good editor to include them.--ClaudioMB 17:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those lots of articles you talk about are simple forks of your first article. If I would have created my own club season article about Barcelona before you, we'd probably use different words. Then, don't use marketing purposes for establishing notability, it's a financial issue (like media rights, merchandising and season tickets; and by the way not that verifiable, unless you are part of the club management) and not a notability fact. Pre-seasons are just worth a paragraph covering the traning camp issues, the main transfer events and the major friendly matches, but all with no reports and results, as events happening during friendly match are definitely not notable. If you want to really have a meaningful approach to Wikipedia, please follow policies and guidelines. WP:ACCESSIBILITY, WP:FLAGS, WP:MOS, WP:NOT, for instance, with a really deep suggestion for the first of such guidelines. Your icons (such as the thermometer, the sun and the black guy) and acronyms (what is WI, by the way?) are definitely unnecessary, and hardly understandable by the average reader. Be simple, man, is it that hard to you? Icons are diffuse when you don't follow such suggestions, which are not my invention (see Web accessibility, lots of courses are made at universities about the issue), and I bet you'll never see such icons in squad sections from major club websites. P.S. Don't blame me for Palermo's season, by the way match results and attendances are sourced (did you see the Report column?!?). --Angelo 17:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, there are 37 articles in Category:Football (soccer) clubs 2007-08 season. 11 of them use the same structure as FC Barcelona 2007-08 season. The editors who created and maintain those articles could easily remove the friendly section, but they decide to have the trouble to search the information and edit it. Also, from those 37 articles, 28 show friendly matches. That's 75%. So, I guess other editors also find friendly matches important for a season's article. Also, others sports list them, like 2006 Chicago Bears season#Preseason Results.

Second, I don't understand why editors should copy from FC Barcelona 2007-08 season. They could have copy from another article , like Celtic F.C. season 2007-08 that was created before Barcelona's one, or have created their own style. I don't know the reason they copy from Barcelona's one. It's better you ask them.

Third, I try to make FC Barcelona 2007-08 season as perfect was possible, but I didn't go to all guidelines yet to check it. Maybe in the future. But, if someone opens a discussion in the article's talk saying that the article doesn't follow certain guideline, I'll do my best to fix it. If you know that article fails on any guideline, please, open a discussion there explaining exactly what's the problem with a link to the section in the guideline that explain it. I thank you if you do that, so I'll be able to improve that article.

Fourth, I respect your point of view about the icons. You are one of, probably, some editors who doesn't like them. But, also, consider that, probably, there are others who like them. Buy the way, all icons have tool tip, so, if you've had just a little bit of good will, you could have seem by yourself that WI means "Winger". If that is not enough, anyone could just click on the WI and go to a section of an article that explain it. So, I don't think is too hard to understand. One more thing, I didn't created that, some editor start use them and I just implemented into the template, and any editor could use just GK, DF, MF and FW if they like it.

Fifth, I'm sorry about the Matches result's section in U.S. Città di Palermo season 2007-08. I didn't see the Report column. But the Player details doesn't have any source. So, should we place a tag there warning that big problem? Also, did you realize that only you have edited that article? (at least until your answer).

Finally, I don't like to impose my point of view to anyone. See here, I told Peejay that if any other editor complain about what he's changed, I would oppose it. Even, if the discussion was just between him and me, I wouldn't oppose it. I don't contribute much here, he is the one who do the most edits, so, I respect very much that. As much I don't like his layout, it doesn't go against any guideline, it just style. So, don't try impose your point of view to others. You should express it, but, remember, you are only one editor like any other in Wikipedia. Unless, you own Wikipedia. Do you?--ClaudioMB 18:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage moved to Talk:Manchester United F.C. season 2007-08/Previous seasons layout as per WP:SUBPAGE (disallowed uses #2). Severo^TC 22:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this request for comment because a Wikipedia:Third opinion request (already made) seems to be more suitable to this dispute. --ClaudioMB 01:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just thinking, should this article have a disciplinary record section, like the one on the Barcelona article? See this: FC Barcelona 2007-08 season#Disciplinary record. I thought I'd ask before I put it there, as it is only there as part of the other layout, which I think I prefer again! Andre666 18:17, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see if I can figure out a way to shoehorn in a disciplinary record section. - PeeJay 22:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put one in there but hidden it, take a look. Andre666 23:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, yeah, I saw that. I'll see if I can make one that's more in-keeping with the tables that are already in the article. - PeeJay 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that is what I was concerned about really, maybe it should look like the Squad Statistics section? I'll try and make one up for you to look at to, you don't have to use it. Andre666 07:40, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one, buddy. I may have to pinch the style of table used in one of my old Man Utd yearbooks. - PeeJay 09:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a lot of time sorting this out and formatting it so please discuss before deleting/editing. What do you think? It's just a tiny bit of code which provides that little bit more information. Also, I centered all the text except for the number, position and name, what do you think? Andre666 18:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like it. It would be nice to have a separate table so that we could see which competitions the cards were picked up in, but this is a brilliant solution to a problem that needed solving. - PeeJay 19:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that too, but it would conflict with the layout according to previous season articles, and I think this is plenty. Andre666 21:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disciplinary records weren't included in previous seasons articles merely because I forgot about them. One extra table would be fine, IMO, but like you say, this is probably plenty. - PeeJay 21:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why has the infobox logo been removed? This seems totally unnecessary! Andre666 18:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a rationale for this page (and all other Manchester United seasons articles) to Image:Manchester United FC.png, so hopefully it won't get removed this time. - PeeJay 18:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should fixtures that are yet to be played be included in the season article? Surely if this was the case then all future games should be included, for every competition. This should not be the case, fixtures should be hidden (not deleted), but nonetheless hidden. Am I wrong? Andre666 21:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Tbh, I'm not sure what the rules are for the FA Cup. I know we're not allowed to post the fixtures for the Premier League, but it may be OK for the FA Cup and the Champions League. My understanding is that it's ok to put up the next fixture, but not the whole fixture list. – PeeJay 22:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is allowed, but is it completely necessary?? Andre666 20:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andre666 (talk • contribs)

I would say so. If the fixture has been given a definite date, and it's not covered by copyright laws, then it should be included as it's part of the season. – PeeJay 20:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made a calendar for my club on the french wiki (see below). I don't try risky things such as putting it on Manchester season article, but I find it so beautiful (and also, I feel a big egocentric too), that I ask you if you'd like something like that on this article:

	Juillet	Août	Septembre	Octobre	Novembre	Décembre	Janvier	Février	Mars	Avril	Mai	Juin
1	dim.	mer.	Lille	lun.	jeu.	sam.	mar.	ven.	Sochaux	mar.	jeu.	dim.
2	lun.	jeu.	dim.	mar.	ven.	Valenciennes	mer.	sam.	dim.	mer.	ven.	lun.
3	mar.	ven.	lun.	mer.	Monaco	lun.	jeu.	dim.	lun.	jeu.	Caen	mar.
4	mer.	Nancy	mar.	Loko Sofia	dim.	mar.	ven.	lun.	mar.	ven.	dim.	mer.
5	jeu.	dim.	mer.	ven.	lun.	mer.	Martigues	mar.	mer.	Bordeaux	lun.	jeu.
6	ven.	lun.	jeu.	Paris S-G	mar.	jeu.	dim.	Espagne	jeu.	dim.	mar.	ven.
7	Angers	mar.	ven.	dim.	mer.	ven.	lun.	jeu.	ven.	lun.	mer.	sam.
8	dim.	mer.	Italie	lun.	Brann	Strasbourg	mar.	ven.	Paris S-G	mar.	jeu.	dim.
9	lun.	jeu.	dim.	mar.	ven.	dim.	mer.	Auxerre	dim.	mer.	ven.	lun.
10	mar.	ven.	lun.	mer.	sam.	lun.	jeu.	dim.	lun.	jeu.	Toulouse	mar.
11	mer.	Marseille	mar.	Niort	Bordeaux	mar.	ven.	lun.	mar.	ven.	dim.	mer.
12	jeu.	dim.	Écosse	ven.	lun.	mer.	Marseille	mar.	mer.	Lyon	lun.	jeu.
13	Le Mans	lun.	jeu.	Îles Féroé	mar.	jeu.	dim.	mer.	jeu.	dim.	mar.	ven.
14	sam.	mar.	ven.	dim.	mer.	ven.	lun.	jeu.	ven.	lun.	mer.	sam.
15	dim.	Saint-Étienne	sam.	lun.	Guingamp	Caen	mar.	ven.	Le Mans	mar.	jeu.	dim.
16	lun.	jeu.	Lorient	mar.	Maroc	dim.	mer.	Lille	dim.	mer.	ven.	lun.
17	Cannes	ven.	lun.	Lituanie	sam.	lun.	jeu.	dim.	lun.	jeu.	Nancy	mar.
18	mer.	Nice	mar.	jeu.	dim.	mar.	ven.	lun.	mar.	ven.	dim.	mer.
19	Bruges	dim.	mer.	ven.	lun.	mer.	Saint-Étienne	mar.	mer.	Valenciennes	lun.	jeu.
20	ven.	lun.	Loko Sofia	Le Mans	mar.	Din Zagreb	dim.	mer.	jeu.	dim.	mar.	ven.
21	sam.	mar.	ven.	dim.	Ukraine	ven.	lun.	jeu.	ven.	lun.	mer.	sam.
22	dim.	Slovaquie	sam.	lun.	jeu.	sam.	mar.	ven.	Lens	mar.	jeu.	dim.
23	lun.	jeu.	Sochaux	mar.	ven.	Toulouse	Nice	Lorient	dim.	mer.	ven.	lun.
24	mar.	ven.	lun.	mer.	Lyon	lun.	jeu.	dim.	lun.	jeu.	sam.	mar.
25	Caen	Metz	mar.	Bâle	dim.	mar.	ven.	lun.	mar.	ven.	dim.	mer.
26	jeu.	dim.	Clermont-F	ven.	lun.	mer.	Metz	mar.	Angleterre	Strasbourg	lun.	jeu.
27	ven.	lun.	jeu.	sam.	mar.	jeu.	dim.	mer.	jeu.	dim.	mar.	ven.
28	Bordeaux	mar.	ven.	Lens	mer.	ven.	lun.	jeu.	ven.	lun.	mer.	sam.
29	dim.	Auxerre	sam.	lun.	Hambourg	sam.	mar.	ven.	sam.	mar.	jeu.	dim.
30	lun.	jeu.	dim.	mar.	ven.	dim.	mer.		Monaco	mer.	ven.	lun.
31	mar.	ven.		Valenciennes		lun.	jeu.		lun.		sam.
	Juillet	Août	Septembre	Octobre	Novembre	Décembre	Janvier	Février	Mars	Avril	Mai	Juin

dim.	Jour sans match	dim.	Mise à disposition des internationaux
Nancy	Match à domicile	Nancy	Match à l'extérieur	Nancy	Match sur terrain neutre
Valenciennes	Match de Ligue 1 Orange	Valenciennes	Match de Coupe de la Ligue	SK Brann	Match de Coupe UEFA
Guingamp	Match de Coupe de France	Guingamp	Match amical	Cannes	Match de tournoi amical
sam.	CAN 2008	sam.	Euro 2008	Écosse	Match de l'Équipe de France A

I'm afraid we can't use anything like that for English league fixtures, as they are copyrighted as the intellectual property of the Premier League. Nice idea though. – PeeJay 21:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Football League only includes the Championship, League One and League Two, so on this article (it should be every article back to 1992-93) I have changed the phrase "the Football League" to "the Premier League" and changed the number. If you have an issue with this, please state it here, as it needs to be resolved. Andre666 (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the match details for each match should be linked to BBC reports because they are a lot more professional and the MUFC offical site reports are spread over five pages usually which means that they are less comfortable to go through. Also, the MUFC reports are usually quite biased towards their own club whearas the BBC are neutral. Anyway, I won't do anything about this because nobody really cares what I say lol. (Piyush05 19:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC))

I dunno, I think the Man Utd reports are more appropriate as this is a Man Utd article. – PeeJay 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider a football club's website to be a reliable source for match reports. Transfers, etc. yes, but an external publisher would be far more appropriate for matters of opinion. Dancarney (talk) 11:41, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the cleanup on the transfer out is unnecessary because

Oldham Athletic F.C. are not known as Oldham Athletic A.F.C. only the operating company is (see Leeds United 2007 Limited )

Citing BBC over another source should be done on merit not for the sake of personal preference or choice and if you typed "Kieran Lee" into google news the 5th entry is SkySports [1] BBC news does not even feature. secondly skysports is the only "impartial" entry in the google news output in the top 5 and the size and comprehensive size dwarfs BBC news entries and others on the google list.

PheonixRMB (talk) 19:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the title of Oldham Athletic's article would disagree with you on that first count, as it is located at Oldham Athletic A.F.C. Second, the only reason the reference was changed was because I was in the middle of an edit that included that reference, but I was called away before I could submit it. When I got back, I submitted the edit, only to be confronted with an Edit Conflict message. Since the only other difference was the Oldham Athletic link, I decided not to bother checking the Sky Sports reference for validity (as I knew it would be perfectly valid), and went ahead with submitting my edit. I hope I haven't caused offence by doing this. – PeeJay 21:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness & impartiality is key no offence taken PheonixRMB (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this the wrong way ... any particular reason why Gerard Piqué isn't listed on the transfers out? Just curious. ¢rassic! (talk) 03:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just haven't got around to it yet. Sorry. I can do it now. – PeeJay 08:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. :) ¢rassic! (talk) 09:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that all the existing match reports on this page, ie those published by Manchester United, be replaced as the links have all expired. I will most likely do it myself later, but if someone else wants to do it then ta. Imlikeaboss (talk) 22:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]