Talk:2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season

Obertan squad status

The question is, should we have Obertan in the full squad list?

1. He joined Newcastle on 9 August BUT he was there since 6 August, with United playing its first game on 7 August against City.
2. The number he had was from previous season and it was never confirmed it will be this season.
3. He played in the pre-season games and even scored, but only in those.

• For 1. and 2. as an exemple, Both Cleverly and Evans played thier old number but it was changed on August 12.

• So should we remove him?, or keep him in the list with his old number 26?.

  – HonorTheKing (talk) 08:04, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I would say he should stay. We kept Ole Solskjaer in the list for the 2007-08 season even though he retired without playing a game that season. Obertan left after the competitive matches began, therefore I think he should stay. – PeeJay 10:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Appearance

Why don't you use footballbox collapsible template for the matches? Also extended stats like Results by round, Results summary, Starting 11 etc. used in many other seasons club articles (for instance, 2011–12 Arsenal F.C. season)? --Corwin of Amber (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Because we believe that the collapsible footballbox is inappropriate for this page. What's wrong with a wikitable? Furthermore, results by round tables are unnecessary for this page due to our use of the wikitable for the results. Finally, starting XI info is Original Research and should not be included on any page. – PeeJay 13:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Footballbox shows more information – referee, goals and cards for the opponent etc. Wikitable is ok but I thought there is a special template for matches results. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, quite a lot of people at WP:FOOTY dislike the collapsible box. Also, this is an article about Manchester United's season. Why would we want opponents' info in there? – PeeJay 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

"Squad information" section

Added by Keuja, removed by HonorTheKing with this edit. Is there any reason not to have it? I quite like it, gives useful information at-a-glace. doomgaze (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It is simply a dupe of the Squad statistics bellow, and not to mention all prices are Undisclosed when it comes to ManUtd. The overall apps including start date and end date can be found at the three Players articles which alredy exists. You have to remember its season article, ie 1 year. (which means he can start at the age of XY and end the season in XZ, so will we use 20-21?)

The EU part is not realy needed, as EPL uses diff system for players, like Home Grown and few more.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not a dupe of the Squad statistics section. Even if the start and end dates can be found elsewhere, it's useful fo have all these informations on the season page. See for example the pages of Chelsea or Barcelona. Moreover, concerning the ages of the players, since we provide their birth dates, the ages are always up to date. If the EU part is not needed, let's replace is with a homegrown part and a "need subscription" part, since that's what the EPL uses!

We can take Chelsea 2011/2012 page as example... It's a pity that Manchester 2011/2012 page is so poor compared to those of Chelsea or Barcelona! Keuja (talk) 18:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Lets use Chelsea season as an exemple.

---

• Key date - United uses game description (article way) every week in the selected competition. unlike Chelsea List style which is wrong in WP season articles.
• Team kits - whats the encyclopedic point of it.
• Squad - no point of having so many squads for the same players, nothing on the article will mention the Reserves and Youth, so why it needs it?
• First team squad -
  • Signed for - shows like they signed this season from those teams.
  • Birthdate - wrong way to use it when it comes to season articles, see past seasons in chelsea articles, no one changed thier dates to include end date. so it confuses the reader like in that season he was actually that age.
  • The rest is same as "Appearances and Goals", which includes Nat., Pos., and Number
• Top scorers - its dupe to "Appearances and Goals", and only diff is that its sorted by total goals.
• Disciplinary record - United have it in "Squad statistics", but overall.
• Starting XI & Starting Formations - Can't be used as its original research
• Overall section - some part can be used like it have, but some include in the United Infobox.
• Club - we can always import it from the main United article if we vote yes for it.
• Results summary - can be used, I find it nice aswell. the diff between Home and Away.
• Results by round - United use it after every game in the wiki table.

---

The rest is the same pretty much.

• We some day will want to get all those season articles in GA and FA, and none of Chelsea and Barca seasons who are similar to those format are, while United does have, exemple, 1997–98 season.
• In addition, I want you to view Chelsea past season article Vs. United. and tell us whats better, whats more encyclopedic; 2010–11 Chelsea VS 2010–11 ManUtd
• Lets first just see what its necessary to include and then will vote on it, exemple, the age.
    – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

 Note:

• Chelsea season is like a list, Man United is more like an article. But it's a question whether season article should consist of so much text information or just facts like matches results, tables etc. I think the subject (=the season) assumes that it's a list of matches, not the description of history like in history articles. Many readers, especially those who are not Man United fans, may find massive text blocks in 2010–11 ManUtd visually harder to read in comparison with 2010–11 Chelsea article.
• What about yellow and red cards for Man United players? This information can be added in footballbox collapsible template, but since it's not used it's impossible to find out from the article who was booked in certain game etc.
• Results by round template is visually better (different colours for 1st, 2nd and 3rd place, also in a single row).
• Results summary is useful, for instance in 2010–11 season it may show obviously the big difference between home & away results. — Corwin of Amber (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

My point of view -

• Chelsea list article is unuseful, Key Events/Dates are simply dupe of #Matches. it simply tell you if they lost or won and against who, thats what #Matches do, exept of 6 lines which tell you who they sold or bought.
• Many dupes, a person will not care to read 10 times the same squad, do you agree?.
• I don't agree that people will assume that season article means simply boring list of W-D-L system, they will assume that they will read something about the article which they won't find in the Premier League article.
• Yellow cards - In Europe and England, Man Utd receive the least cards for season in per game avg., with second being Barca. Now that Scholes retired it will cut down in half. so we need overall booking, like we have.
  • You will not find World Cup, Champions League, etc.. articles which tell you who received cards, they won't even tell you if they missed a pen. kick.
• Next person will tell you, "why we need to open every collapsible table to see who scored", or "why don't we use CL scoreline." -- so on that we will vote.
• We need to remember sometimes less is more, we need to keep only stuff that in 5 years people will care to read, how many times you looked in past season articles to search for matches players received yellow cards?, but you do search for games they scored or even read alittle about particular game report. thats why we have long article to describe every match details.
• The only thing in my eyes we can take from Chelsea article is "Results summary" table and "Results by round" table, the rest is simply not appealing.

It is simple, we will simply open a vote on "collapsible", "Results summary", and "Results by round", and if it gets the amount of votes, we will change it, the rest in my eyes are unneeded.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, where will be this vote? Right here? — Corwin of Amber (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you can now vote bellow.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Squad information

I think we should add a Squad information section. With the age of the players, the year they joined United, the end of their contracts, if they're homegrown or not and whether the need registration or not. What do you think? Keuja (talk) 08:59, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. The age of the players can be seen on their own articles, and the year they joined United and the end of their contracts are not relevant to this page. I can see the merit for noting players' homegrown status, but it's a matter of how to do it. I suggest adding ^HG to the squad stats table. – PeeJay 12:37, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I think having the age of each player on this page is a plus. It allows the reader to have information about the average age of the squad. The same holds for the year they joined United, it's not the same to have a squad with a majority of players here for 2 years or 10 years and it's the only page where this information makes sense. Same goes again for the end of the contract, it's interesting to know who the club has to negotiate with or who's likely to leave. Homegrown is interesting, but the registration is even more important. Keuja (talk) 13:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with what PeeJay2K3 said.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Starting XI

I think we should add a starting XI section, as well. Probably in the same way it's been done on the 16th of August at 17:11 by 88.114.103.124. Keuja (talk) 13:16, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's Original Research and should not be included on any page.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:27, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not. Why not use the Squad statistics data? Or the data from whoscored.com? Keuja (talk) 14:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It definitely is original research. Who would define what formation this "Starting XI" would use? Manchester United ostensibly uses a variety of formations, ranging from 4-4-2 to 4-2-3-1 to 4-4-1-1 to 4-3-3. The "starting XI" starts to become irrelevant up to a point. After all, what if two players in the same position are used equally? How would we decide who gets in? Why can't people just look at the squad stats list? The club stats website doesn't add a starting XI, so why should we? – PeeJay 19:44, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not. If you want a trustworthy link, here you are: http://www.whoscored.com/Teams/32 (bottom of the page). Their data come from OPTA. Of course, people can look at the squad list. But we have to make the page as good as possible and a starting XI section goes in that direction. Keuja (talk) 07:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Pre-season match summaries

There is far too much detail on the US tour games. I'm going to try cutting it down. – PeeJay 13:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Wow, where did that appear from? I think if we had that level of detail for every match we'd need to write a whole book. doomgaze (talk) 14:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, we need to cut it down abit, leave some useful detail but not entire match report.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Voting for changes

The following is an archived discussion of a voting. Please do not modify it.. No further edits should be made to this section.

The voting was 1–Option 1; 2–Option "NO"; 3–Option "NO" by HonorTheKing (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

---

As in past week we had few people wanting few changes to the article, I have started a voting, if something will get nice amount of yes votes we will apply it here, if not, we will keep the old format which is used in all united season articles in here aswell.

Simply add your self under each Vote and write which one you prefer.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Footballbox collapsible VS regular table

Option 1 - Old format (Chosen)

Date	Opponents	H / A	Result F – A	Scorers	Attendance	League position
14 August 2011	West Bromwich Albion	A	2 – 1	Rooney 13', Reid 81' (o.g.)	25,360	3rd

Option 2 - New format

West Bromwich Albion v Manchester United

14 August 2011 1	West Bromwich Albion	1 – 2	Manchester United	West Bromwich
16:00 BST	Long 37' Reid  39' Scharner  87' Cox  90+2'	Report	Rooney 13' Young  56' Anderson  80' Reid 81' (o.g.)	Stadium: The Hawthorns Attendance: 25,360 Referee: Mike Jones

Votes

Option 1 has been chosen, not enough consensus

- Option 1 - I prefer option 1.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Option 1 - Definitely the preferred option for me. – PeeJay 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Option 1 - I normally don't like this option in truth but given that all previous articles use this it should stay the same for consistency. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Option 1 - Looking at few season articles, option 1 is my fav. David (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Option 2 - I changed opinion. I like the info provided in Option 2.   – Birdy (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Option 2 — This. I don't think that previous articles should be changed, but for new seasons it provides more significant information (cards, referees, stadium). —Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Option 2 - Same as Corwin.   – Keuja (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Option 2 - I've worked on Fulham seasons where I have used option 1 but will probably change these to collapsible boxes - they simply give more detailed information, and knowing from this page the timings of the goals for both sides is useful. 03md 14:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Option 2 - No need to change pages with the other system, but Option 2 carries more information, and looks more professional. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Comment - Can people please explain why they think Option 2 is better, using a reason that is more than "it contains more information"? Why do we need details of the opposition's goalscorers in the table when this article is about Manchester United's season? Details of the opposition's goals can be included in the prose (which the article should have in order to prevent it from violating WP:NOTSTATS) and bookings are not relevant to the outcome of matches. Furthermore, what does it matter who the referee is? People like to think referees have some bearing on the outcome of games, but for the most part, they don't, and when they do, it's usually a different referee every time. So again, what's so good about the {{footballbox collapsible}} template? – PeeJay 20:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Maybe the names of the opposition's goalscorers aren't vital to MU's season, but I'd say obviously the times of the opposition's goals are important in enabling the reader to understand how the match progressed. If they're 4-0 up and draw 4-4, Option 1 makes no mention of it. Option 2 does. Sure, this stuff should be in prose as well, not instead of, but at the same time, drab prose tediously describing who scored when in each game is not going to excite any readers. I agree that bookings aren't particularly relevant, but I don't see the problem in having the referee's name there. By that token, why is the attendance important? Or the kick-off time? They have no bearing on the outcome of any match either, but we still include it for reference. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2011 (UTC) Red cards are definitely important, both for Manchester United and the opposing team. Also I agree that goals scored by opposition are important because minutes are shown. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC) If anyone doesn't think that a red card as any effect on the outcome of the game then you have no clue whats going on in the game. Just my opinion. If someone is sent off and the other team (MU or the opponent) score goals to change the outcome, it is pretty important to show that a red card was given. 10 vs 11 is a total different game. Birdy (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Perhaps I haven't made myself clear. When you look at the score of a football match (e.g. 1–0) there is no mention of the number of red cards, yellow cards, corners or possession. The only thing that matters is the goals and who scored them. There is, therefore, an argument for adding the opposition's scorers, but not red and yellow cards. Even the opposition's scorers could be added in the text. Look at Man Utd's official stats site or the leading Liverpool stats site; neither of those lists the opposition's goalscorers. The results table is supposed to be an at-a-glance way of finding out what the result of each match was. If you want extra details, read the prose. We are an encyclopaedia, not a stats almanac! – PeeJay 22:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Okay then why in Option 1 do we show the attendance and place after round? When you look at the score of a football match you don't see how many people attended the game or what place the team is in? That is all part of the box score and that stuff is all statistics too. Birdy (talk) 22:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Exactly, why are some stats OK and others not? Realistically, is each game going to be described in detail in the prose, with all the opposition's scorers and cards etc? The point of the prose is to provide a narrative overview of the club's season, not a tedious "then Player X scored, then Rooney scored, then Giggs was booked... and the referee was Mr X" etc. How desperately dull. I don't think any of the details we're discussing fall into the realms of a stats almanac, unlike things like the starting 11 tables we see in some articles. These are fairly basic match facts, and they really don't take up much room. They're even hidden so the reader doesn't have to look at them if he/she doesn't want to. Personally, I think that the opposition's scoring times (and by default inevitably, the scorers' names) are essential for a basic understanding of how the match progressed. I don't think anyone's advocating adding stuff like corners or possession. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC) Who ever said the prose would be as plain as "X scored, then Y was booked, then Z scored too"? If you look back at some of the previous United season articles, you'll see that they are a little more interesting to read than that; I am doing a degree in journalism after all! Besides, it's just as much the use of {{footballbox collapsible}} that I'm objecting to as it is anything else. I do not believe that template should be used for this purpose at all, nor do I believe that templates should be used just because they are available. One particular issue with that template is that it employs far too much whitespace, meaning that the match summaries would dominate the article, putting it at severe risk of violating WP:NOTSTATS. These are articles, not lists, and they should be treated as such. – PeeJay 22:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) I'm sure you will be great at creating a prose worth reading and I will do that throughout the season, but it does state when needed use a table to put your information into. It doesn't say forget about putting the important information(stats) into the article. When I read the WP:NOTSTATS it seemed they didn't want someone rambling on in a paragraph stating stats that the everyday reader wouldn't understand. They suggest that you put the information in table or possibly template format.Birdy (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC) (e/c) Fair point, the prose is decent, but that amount of detail does render the articles incredibly long. This seems to be about striking a balance between providing all the information we see as necessary, without being long-winded. You're right that these are articles and not lists, but at the same time I don't believe there's much point in saving space by using a wikitable, when acres of space are taken up with prose describing each and every game. I'd have thought that the prose section could be more of an overview with just the salient on-field action being described, with off-field developments included as well, rather than an unsectioned blow-by-blow account of every single game. I don't think there's any danger of the templates (or anything else) dominating the article when the prose is that long. This season's pre-season warm-up games already have a very long section, especially given that these games were essentially meaningless. Are there any guidelines dictating the usage of the template? If not, it's hard to argue that they shouldn't be used for this purpose. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC) You will note above that I have objected to the length of the match summaries for the pre-season games, I just haven't had a chance to re-write them yet. May I also direct your attention to the shorter summary of Paul Scholes' testimonial, which I wrote. That is the sort of length I would be aiming towards for the pre-season games. Also, the aim would definitely be to divide the prose account of the league season into sub-sections; I'm not completely ignorant of the obvious potential length of the section. And you're right, there aren't any guidelines dictating the usage of the template; it is just a personal opinion of mine that we shouldn't use it for this purpose. To be honest, I can't even remember why it was created in the first place. – PeeJay 00:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC) I'm definitely not criticising you or anyone personally - I'm not familiar with MU articles specifically and I don't know who has written what, or what state of progress they're in. They're miles better than a lot of equivalent lower league articles, that's for sure. I'm speaking generally, knowing that any decisions made will no doubt be rolled out across the season articles for other clubs. It sounds like you have a good handle on the issues facing this article, and the previous seasons' articles. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC) One thing I'm pretty concerned about is that any change in the format of this article towards something like 2011–12 FC Barcelona season or 2011–12 Chelsea F.C. season will put us on a slippery slope towards articles that contain vast amounts of statistical data and not much in the way of encyclopaedic content. I'm sure there's a compromise here somewhere, I'm just not seeing it in any of the options on offer. – PeeJay 08:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC) Certainly those two have gone over the edge into overkill, and are lacking in prose. I'm not keen on a group of tables showing transfer activity - that's something that would work very well in prose; and I also don't see the point in showing part of the league table, just three or five clubs. A wikilink to the full table would be better. Things like starting XIs and long lists of technical staff aren't necessary. I'm sure people here would object to those being used, if asked. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Results summary

Overall								Home						Away
Pld	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	Pts	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD	W	D	L	GF	GA	GD
1	1	0	0	2	1	+1	3	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0	0	2	1	+1

Last updated: 15 August 2011.
Source: Premier League

Votes

Option "NO" has been chosen

- No - After few thoughts I changed my decision.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC) No - Perhaps something similar, but I object to the use of templates in this fashion. – PeeJay 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC) No -Fail to see why this is needed. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC) No - feels unneeded table, even tho it give home and away info, I don't see a point for it. David (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Yes - Agreed, home vs away records is nice to see.   – Birdy (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC) Yes — it shows the difference between home & away results. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC) Yes - Same as Corvin, again.   – Keuja (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Results by round

Round	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38
Ground	A	H
Result	W
Position	3

Updated to match(es) played on 16 August 2011. Source: Premier League
A = Away; H = Home; W = Win; D = Draw; L = Loss

Votes

Option "NO" has been chosen

- No - I think it already exists in option 1, but if we choose option 2 in above, we should add this.   – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC) No - If option 1 stays the same, Yes if there is a change.   – Birdy (talk) 18:54, 17 August 2011 (UTC) No - "Results by round" is pointless regardless of which option we choose for the results tables. – PeeJay 19:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC) No - Info already exists in article if option 1 is used would be duplication. Warburton1368 (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC) No — If regular wikitable results remain the same. Yes if we use footballbox. —Corwin of Amber (talk) 04:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC) No — Same as Corwin of Amber - only yes if option 2 is chosen. 03md 14:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC) No - feels unneeded table, as option 1 from two above use it. David (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2011 (UTC) Yes - Unless the wikitable results system is retained. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this section.

Neutrality and copyright

Lots of the preseason section is in way too much detail, are copied directly from the Manchester United website and are clearly in breach of POV by being very United-centric. Delusion23 (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed all POV and cleaned it, I guess the user who added it at the first place wasn't into writing but copypasting, shame.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Good woork :) Though I've just tagged the current season bit too as it goes into lots of detail and by the end of the season if each game has its own description it will get a bit ridiculous. The exceptional games should definately have descriptions though, like the 8–2 win last weekend. Delusion23 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh and the neutrality is debatable with phrases like "scoring with a clinical goal" and "United were in full control" etc. Plus it's all written like a jounalistic piece rather than an encyclopaedic entry. Delusion23 (talk) 18:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Please do not remove the tags unless improvements have been made to the section. If the section continues to describe every last goal of every game it will be way too long by even halfway through the season. This needs to be cut down as it is too detailed. The tone is still very journalistic and written as if it's from the view of a Manchester United supporter. Here are a few examples that need clearing up:

• "The best effort of the half"
• "United opened the scoring with a clinical goal"
• "an error from the Spanish goalie"
• "the points were sealed"
• "City only leading due to having slightly better goal difference"
• "United were in full control"
• "United were to make them pay for their mistake"
• "earn him a second yellow card and an early bath"
• "Ashley Young completed the rout"

These are just a few examples of how this section is entirely un-encyclopedic. Delusion23 (talk) 14:26, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed it all. Added note to the top of the section. Delusion23 (talk) 14:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay someone put it all back in without sorting any neutrality, POV, adding references or improving the tone. The section has been tagged again. Delusion23 (talk) 16:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The match summaries are also quite biased. They should either be changed to summarize what independent match reports there are, or be removed altogether. A quick look shows that none of the other top team has that kind of summaries, although Liverpool's season has a month by month summary that is also woefully short of references. --OpenFuture (talk) 13:13, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Score removing

In the pre-season text, the scores were removed. Why? It's silly not having proper match reports, but not even saying what the score was is ridiculous. One might argue that you can see the scores in the table, but what if the table was removed? Velociraptor888 15:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Poorly written match reports

Some of the match reports are awfully written and contain American words. This about an English football team, and England is in the UK, so we should write in British English, not American English. Velociraptor888 15:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you do it? I would, but I just don't have the time any more. – PeeJay 19:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really bothered. The Spurs game (3–1) has still not been written, and I'll try and fix the match reports. Velociraptor888 11:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Biggest loss - Biggest win

I think the biggest competitive loss and the biggest competitive win should be added to the info box.--137.191.241.9 (talk) 12:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Changes

I nominated this article for peer review. I'm listing a bunch of changes that have come out of the peer review. Please feel free to add comments in the relevant section(s). Kingjeff (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources

The article is not completely source. If reliable sources are added to sections that need it, then the article has met one requirement of a featured article. Does anybody know where we can get reliable sources for this article? Kingjeff (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Split-off articles

The article is too big according to WP:Article length. One section is 33 paragraphs long. It would be good to have at least 1 break off article. Kingjeff (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It might be hard to get the fellows at WP:FOOTY to agree to allowing a Manchester United F.C. in the 2011–12 Premier League article, given the untold potential for similar articles for other clubs. A better idea would be to cut down the summaries of each match. The level of detail at present is completely unnecessary. – PeeJay 23:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't mean for individual competitions. I was thinking something like "Review and events of the 2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season" where you can go into detail like the article is. The other alternative is to just find a way to cut it down. Kingjeff (talk) 03:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I think people would view an article by the title you suggest as an inappropriate way to split content from the main article. Splitting by competition would be the best way, but I still think that cutting down is the most appropriate course of action. – PeeJay 16:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Then cutting down should be done. Kingjeff (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Be my guest. – PeeJay 00:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

"Review and events" section

I think it's better to keep the match reports in their own section and move the writing up to a "Review and events" section. Kingjeff (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree to a point. I think that the stats for each competition should be supplemented by prose, but I also believe that sectioning off the prose for different competitions leaves little scope for events in one competition that – directly or otherwise – affect another. This may need some experimentation to find out what works best. – PeeJay 23:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Squad information/statistics

There are not enough statistics. I suggested in the peer review that a "starting 11" and "Minutes played" sections would be good. Does anybody have any suggestions to adding any other statistics? Kingjeff (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I absolutely oppose this suggestion. One of the main Wikipedia policies concerning sports articles is WP:NOTSTATS, and to be honest, I believe that this article has just enough stats already. A "starting 11" section is completely inappropriate as a violation of WP:OR: what formation would the "starting 11" use? What about the extremely likely scenario that, due to squad rotation, the eventual "starting 11" that we come up with never actually started a game together in real life? And "minutes played"? Where are we going to get a source for that? No, we're not doing this. – PeeJay 23:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not OR. It can be sourced whether it's one source or done by all match reports. Kingjeff (talk) 03:27, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It is OR. We would be analysing published information for the purpose of advancing a position not advanced by the sources themselves, something that is in direct contradiction of WP:OR. Furthermore, there is a general consensus at WP:FOOTY that "starting 11" sections should not be included for that very reason. – PeeJay 16:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not. Original research is when no reliable or published sources exist. In worst case senerio, match reports could provide as a reliable source. With Manchester United, you'll be able to find relaible match reports. Kingjeff (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

That's complete bull. There are no reliable sources anywhere that list Manchester United's starting XI for the entire season. We can't look at who has made the most appearances and say "OK, that's obviously the first-choice team", because it might not be. There are a great many things to consider here. For example, what about if the most common formation doesn't fit with the players who made the most appearances? If you want to push this any further, take it to WP:FOOTY. – PeeJay 00:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not bull. Match reports are credible for this. It's not done by appearances. It's done by starts. Kingjeff (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

No one is denying that match reports are credible for reporting starting line-ups for individual matches, but there are no reliable sources anywhere that collate those into an all-encompassing starting line-up for the entire season. – PeeJay 11:08, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I think they are. Kingjeff (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You think they are what? – PeeJay 17:00, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Never mind, I've started a discussion at WT:FOOTY related to this topic. – PeeJay 17:18, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Lead

WP:MOSLEAD states that leads shouldn't be more than 4 paragraphs. There's a suggestion on how to cut down the lead section in the peer review. Kingjeff (talk) 20:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with this. Any analysis of the season can be done in the prose. – PeeJay 23:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The game one new year's eve

Should the scoring be 2-3 (loss to blackburn) instead of 0-1 ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Em 88 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2011–12 Manchester United F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204103519/http://www.nottinghamforest.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10308~2595815%2C00.html to http://www.nottinghamforest.co.uk/page/NewsDetail/0%2C%2C10308~2595815%2C00.html

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)