Jump to content

Talk:Manchester City F.C./Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Protection

picture:Padlock-red.svg

Change protection from SEMI to FULL before someone else removes the logo! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The One & Only Fools and Horses (talk • contribs) 19:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The ONLY Top Professional Football Club in Manchester

How about instead of "Manchester City Football Club is an English professional football club based in the city of Manchester.", the opening sentence reads "Manchester City Football Club is the only top-level professional football club based in the City of Manchester." 76.110.165.21 (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Noted former players

I have reverted the addition of Peter Schmeichel to the Noted former players section. My reasoning is that the section is primarily for players who were notable as Manchester City players. Schmeichel is certainly a notable player, but he only spent one season at City at the end of his career, hence his time at City was not particularly notable. Players such as George Weah and David Seaman are excluded for similar reasons. Oldelpaso 13:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Stuart Pearce should be in notable former players - his time at City was reasonably notable, and he is one of the top English full-backs of his generation. Thoughts? --Gavinio 13:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
In the time since when I wrote that message the format has changed to only include players included in the club's hall of fame (a more objective criterion than before), and Pearce is not a member of the hall of fame. Even if the format included players not in the hall of fame, Pearce played only one season, well past his prime - the most notable achievements in his playing career happened playing for Forest and England, rather than City. Though he made a valuable contribution, he was not exceptional i.e. did not set any club records, was not player of the year etc. Oldelpaso 19:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough - well said. Just seems a bit sparse on notable players of late, it would be nice to have something there. I suppose his contribution really was missing that penalty in the last game at Maine Road. There really is no-one for 2000's then - maybe SWP if he goes on to be an England regular?--Gavinio 23:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Crest

Can anyone tell me why man city have 3 stars above their badge? 81.134.191.4 09:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

From the club's official website [1]: "The stars have no significance and are purely decorative." Oldelpaso 16:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed a couple of recent additions to the Colours and crest section, namely There is no apparent reason why this eagle design was adopted. and The shield features a ship on its upper half (not representing the Ship Canal as is popular belief, the ship has been part of the Manchester City crest since before the Ship Canal was built). With regards to the eagle, the club press release at the release of the new crest stated (albeit tenuously) "It retains the original shield set against an eagle taken from the Badge of the City of Manchester, dating from 1957" [2]. While City/Ardwick predate the completion of Ship Canal (construction started the same year Gorton AFC became Ardwick, and finished two years after the Manchester City name was adopted)), the badge featuring the ship was not introduced until the 1960s. An in-depth description of the evolution of City crests is given in Gary James' Manchester: The Greatest City. Oldelpaso 17:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Of course, if the editor who made the additions has a source which contradicts this, I'd be interested in hearing about it. Oldelpaso 18:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


Does anybody have a better copy of the crest? This one still has the "Maine Road" banner. --Chancemichaels 21:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Where can we get one from? We can't just get them off the official sites or anything can we? I'm not that familiar with Wikipedia rules... --Gavinio 13:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You can copy it from the official site as per Wikipedia's fair use rule. Just be sure to put the proper tag in the description (in this case {{sports-logo|football logos}} ) so that this disclaimer shows up on the image page. Otherwise it will be deleted. - Pal 13:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the right one, but the quality is terrible. I'll see if I can find another one that qualifies for fair use. --Chancemichaels17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC) Chancemichaels

Can people please stop referring to football club badges as crests! They are no such thing. A crest in heraldry is the device that appears on the helmet above the shield on a "coat-of-arms". Please think about what the word actually means...crest of a wave, crest on a birds head etc.

Stadium

"though by 1995 its capacity was restricted to 32,000, prompting the move to the City of Manchester Stadium.". This was changed to 35,000. I've changed it back again because while Maine Road's capacity was 35,000 when it closed, this was due to the addition of temporary stands after the decision to move had been made. The capacity when negotiations about a new stadium started was 32,000 odd. Probably ought to expand upon that (using sources) in Maine Road... Oldelpaso 17:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

A brief paragraph on the new wind turbine would be good Pomtarr 14:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The stadium section is a brief summary of the articles City of Manchester Stadium and Maine Road. The wind turbine gets half a paragraph in City of Manchester Stadium, but I think replicating that here would be excessive detail for the main club article. Oldelpaso 18:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

We're not really here

I've been asked by many friends this year about the origins of the "We're not really here" song. I had a vague idea about the relationship to its emegence in the 98/99 Division 2 year but did a bit more digging and put my findings in a brief paragraph under "Supporters". I'm no wikipedia expert but thought it was worth a mention. Also, I'm unsure if my refencing/citations were of the required standard. If anyone has any more information or feels the need to update/improve my attempt I wont be offended.Kinkladze28 13:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've since removed the paragraph - my references/citations were not of the required standard! If anyone does have something official about the song, I still think its worth a mention?? Kinkladze28 09:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Youth players

I've removed a list of youth players from the article, as the usual convention for squadlists is to only include players issued with a squad number. Oldelpaso 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Use of the singular/plural

This article, being about a British football club, is written in British English (following the recommendation by the Manual of Style on the relevant variety of English to use in an article). As a result, it uses the discretionary plural, namely that collective nouns such as club and team can be used in either the singular or the plural. Generally, in British English media, sporting teams are referred to in the plural. Consequently, this article refers to the club in the plural throughout, for consistency's sake.

This is notably different from American English, where sporting teams are always referred to in the singular. However, in British English it is perfectly grammatically correct to use the plural and this should be borne in mind before jumping to conclusions about inappropriate subject/verb agreement. Oldelpaso 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC) (via User:Qwghlm on Talk:Arsenal F.C.)

discretionary plural is used badly in first line, so i've changed it.--Mongreilf 09:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
changed it back. couldn't be arsed to change them all. as it is it's a mess though--Mongreilf 09:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, I reverted my copyedit. But using singular and plural in the same sentence seems a bit much: "...the club has fallen on harder times, and have not won a major honour...". --Shyland 11:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


Following up, may I quote something from the "different from American English" article: 'Use of the singular verb is not wrong in such instances in BrE. At least one authority (E. Gowers, The Complete Plain Words, 1986) indicates that either is acceptable (provided that usage is not mixed or inconsistent within the same document), and that (as implied above) the choice of verb form may be chosen according to whether the emphasis is on the body as a whole or on the individual members (e.g. "A committee was appointed ...; but "the committee were unable to agree ...").' So I'd say it needs fixing up, but being American I am ill-qualified to do it. --Shyland 11:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The confused use of singulars & plurals might be acceptable by some, but only really to those who do not know that there is a differnce. Also, note that somthing being acceptable to some people does mean it is correct. Most people accept that there are religions other than their own, but they do not generally accept them as correct.

[edit]

As referred to above, the sentence "A committee was appointed ...; but "the committee were unable to agree ..." is correct as the first instance of committee is referring to the object and the second instance refers to its members. By convention, football clubs are refered to in the third person plural as "Manchester City" is not an object without its members, it means nothing without having directors, a team, etc...a "committee" exists as a recognised entity without any members (as it is still understood was 'committee' means) Djdannyp 12:08, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey guys, I just added a bit about Oasis. Feel free to keep changing back and forth between is and are, but don't revert, pleease. Scolaire 17:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The consensus from various discussions on WikiProject Football is that mention of famous supporters should not be included in club articles, and that support for a team should be mentioned in the individual's article, not that of the club. (That gig is already mentioned in Maine Road btw) Oldelpaso 17:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Far be it from me to go against WikiProject Football, but do you not sometimes think that following procedures gets in the way of something that's actually interesting? btw I'm interested in Man City but not especially in Maine Road. Scolaire 19:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You're missing the nub of the problem which is in the first sentence. The verb to be is used (either as "is" or "are" and not as an auxilary verb) to identify Manchester City (singular or plural) as being a football club (singular). It's like saying Ireland are a Country, which is silly, whereas Ireland are fighting for independance from Britain might be acceptable.--Mongreilf 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It's disappointing to see that this confusion over singular/plural still exists in the article, even in the lead: ... the club has not won a major honour since 1976. The club's decline led to relegation twice in three years in the 1990s, meaning they spent ..." Yes, I understand that in British English the discretionary plural can be used for sports teams, but if it's used then it's got to be used consistently. "Club" is either singular or plural, someone has to decide, and decide consistently. FAs are supposed to be written to a "professional" standard, setting the benchmark for the rest. --Malleus Fatuarum 18:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Midfielder / attacking midfielder

While the MCFC website makes the distinction between midfielder and attacking midfielder, the squad template is standard across all football articles, and does not make this distinction. Oldelpaso 10:10, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Beanie

I think that Beanie could be mentioned under trivia - I think a sentance would do it, total removal was a bit harsh. Some sort of mention of the little guy might be reasonable. --Gavinio 11:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

In the context of the club's 126 year history, something the tabloids write a couple of lighthearted paragraphs about is completely insignificant. It'll be forgotten in a week, never mind a year or ten years. Oldelpaso 17:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Not if it leads to a streak of 10 games without a loss! :o) Wikipedia is an evolving thing - when beanie is forgotton (ok, in about 2 weeks time) then remove the reference to him then - that's how it works, isn't it? I don't mean including news - but just what is important right now. Rather than aspiring an article to be 'finished' and then preserved as is, with no removal of material. Just a thought.--Gavinio 22:08, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Notable former players

Several players from recent years keep being added to this section. As the section itself states, only players who have been admitted to the club's Hall of Fame are included. This ensures that the section keeps a neutral point of view rather than being an arbitrary list of someone's favourites. While the likes of Shaun Goater and Shaun Wright-Phillips are highly likely to be admitted to the Hall of Fame at some point in the future, at the moment they have not been, and thus are not included. Oldelpaso 18:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

City in Fiction

(this section moved from article page) The character of Eugene on the series Cutting It was a City fan who sported a City shirt in virtually every scene in which he appeared. In the series Life on Mars, DCI Gene Hunt is a City fan who, upon hearing of the murder of a United supporter, comments that at least the killer had a good motive. In another episode he mentions Francis Lee while complaing about the lack of "supplies" in the WC. An obvious reference to Lee's later business success.

While there might be a case for creating a "City in popular culture" section like Arsenal_F.C.#Arsenal_in_popular_culture (including things like There's Only One Jimmy Grimble), the above mentions are entirely trivial IMO. Oldelpaso 11:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thaksin Shinawatra

As Thaksin Shinawatra has not made a bid for the club, and it is currently only press speculation about a possible bid, I have removed the paragraph about it from the lead. Oldelpaso 18:51, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

And, inevitably, as soon as I had written that a formal statement about due diligence and inspection of the accounts by his advisors was announced. Oldelpaso 17:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoken version added

I have added a spoken version of this article; see the link at the top. Hassocks5489 20:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Sven Goran Eriksson

Is it official that he has signed a contract with Man City? If not, why does his name already put in the article for the Man city's manager? 84.19.57.254 14:21, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No. He will be named as manager if and when the takeover goes through. Over-eager editors keep putting him in, but until he is officially unveiled as manager, his name should not be entered in the infobox. Oldelpaso 17:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Kippax.jpg

Image:Kippax.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 05:27, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Oldmanchestercitylogo.gif

Image:Oldmanchestercitylogo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:43, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Nashat Akram

Has Nashat Akram actually signed? I'm getting mixed information. I know last week he hadn't signed a contract but I don't know now. Either way I really doubt he has the number 17 but I won't edit anything unless I'm sure edit: Ok whoever added it has now removed it. In any case I'm still not sure..? 24framespersecond (talk) 11:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been no official announcement yet, I think they are still waiting on work visa approval. So currently he should not be listed in the squad list. Also based on some comments by Sven, it is not clear that even when he is signed that he will be included in the first team squad Pbradbury (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
As reported today on mcfc.co.uk Man City failed to gain a work permit for him, so he will not be joining at this time. Pbradbury (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Bianchi on his way out

Apparently already on loan to Lazio, see Rolando Bianchi MickMacNee (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The BBC says "set to clinch Lazio move", the Manchester Evening News "close to completing", so the transfer has not gone through yet. While it may only be a case of formalities, he is not yet a Lazio player, and should not be removed until the deal is complete. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I intended to imply in progress, this was just a heads up for any man city editors. MickMacNee (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
And, as always seems to be the case with such things, the deal is confirmed a mere two hours after I post a note of caution. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Dabo

I can't find a source for Dabo having left yet that is verifiable, not on the Man City or Lazio site, and no reputable newspaper report. I can find rumours but nothing confirmed Pbradbury (talk) 12:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And now it is confirmed Pbradbury (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kelvin Etuhu

What flag should be used for Kelvin? he was born in Nigeria, lived most of his life in the UK, he is eligable to play for both countries (having played for neither senior team). His brother plays for Nigeria, although I am not sure that really has much bearing. Anyway, what is the convention since I see someone has changed his flag to English. I had set it as Nigeria basing my assumption on that birth took precident until something else changed that, such as an international cap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbradbury (talk • contribs) 21:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Semi-Protect

I wanted to ask whether we could semi-protect this page for an extended period, I know it is possible to do it permanently. I have been reticent to ask for it because there are valid reason why people may want to edit as an IP user, such as living in China. However having thought about it some more and monitored the IP edits, I have a couple of points to raise.

  • It is not a politically sensative article even with current ownership as such edits should not really attract the scrutiny of sensors.
  • I have yet to see a constructive edit made by an IP user. Most are either staright vandalism or transfer speculation.

Anyway those are my thoughts, any other opinions? Pbradbury (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.151.21 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Bianchi back

Rolando Bianchi is back from loan. Can someone add his name back to the squad list? See article on goal.com for this. [1]

Doesn't say he is back just that Lazio isn't going to buy him so he will be returning at the end of his loan period. Paul  Bradbury 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


3rd kit

Is this 3rd kit sourced to anything? I know that the club have announced the kit, but haven't shown us what it looks like; and since the away kit was just changed, this might be. So; is there a source? --OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 18:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It is the 2007–08 third kit (as in Image:Rolando Bianchi.jpg), not the as yet unrevealed new one. Not that I can think of an opponent whose colours would clash with both sky blue and red and black stripes... Oldelpaso (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni

Giovanni has not had his one year contract renewed and is officially a free agent and not apart of the Manchester City squad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.201.158.250 (talk) 17:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this? because the club still lists him as a player.--OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 18:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Record Transfer

Jo broke Manchester City's record at 18 million GBP. Locked article however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.141.246 (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

3rd kit confirmed

Here. I'm useless with the Football kit template - can someone please add it?--OZOO (Whaddya think, sirs?) 14:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Please add Glauber Berti and Pablo Zabaleta

These are City's 2 new South American signings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.87.133 (talk) 11:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added Pabaleta, but can't find anything about Gláuber on the official website. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


on the official website the glauber deal is mentioned just below the zabalete one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.139.118 (talk) 13:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


Robinho

add to squad record uk transfer 32.5millinon pounds(€40mill) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.218.97 (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Owner

The Ownershpi has not changed yet. Theer has been a memo of understanding singed. basically a gentlemans agreement that subject to teh due dilligence the club will be sold. However the club has not YET been sold, hence the ownership is incorrect.--92.5.73.75 (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


It's gone through now time for a change Fry2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.215.245 (talk) 21:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

The takeover is in the middle of a period of due diligence, and will not be completed until that process is finished. it is therefore is incorrect to change the infobox. Oldelpaso (talk) 10:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Freemasonry

I've removed the phrase "One prominent rumour places the origins of the sky blue kit with a link to free masonry" from the colours section. Gary James' Manchester: A Football History does investigate this, but the evidence is very speculative, and not really fit for inclusion. Oldelpaso (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unblock / Semi protection

{{unblock}}

Manchester City's page has stuff that needs updating Therefor we need it to be unblocked!!

CUM ON CITIZENS —Preceding unsigned comment added by El-Pabloski (talk • contribs) 08:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

You can request changes to the article here on the talk page just use the {{editsemiprotected}} template. Otherwise just wait until your account is auto-confirmed, which is after 4 days of creating it, and you will be able to edit the page yourself. Keith D (talk) 17:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)

But if it's unblocked, Robinho might escape :-)
Blocking is the process of preventing users from editing; in this case I think what you intended was to request that the semi-protection was lifted? I've removed the block template; as Keith D says, you'll be able to edit once your account is autoconfirmed. Also, I'll ask an admin to review the semi-protection status, since it's been in place for just over a year. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

...and the semi-protection has now been lifted. I realise this article is a potential vandalism target, but then, so are all footie teams. I'm a firm advocate of "The Encyclopaedia anyone can edit", so, let's give it a shot. I'll keep an eye on the article. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  17:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

... and as soon as you did that the article was vandalised. Please return this to semi-protect status. Paul  Bradbury 22:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that the article was vandalized. I don't think that the edits El-Pabloski made were appropriate but there is quite a bit of ground between "improper edits" and "vandalism". Tim Pierce (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone explain why these edits were not simply wrong but vandalism and therefore worthy of indefinite semi-protection? Tim Pierce (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I have given my take on the users edits at User_talk:Chzz (and I do consider some of the edits to be vandalism). But to clarify something, it is not that these specific edits warented the semi-protection. The reason the page was semi-protected in the first place was because at the moment manchester city has a very high profile in the press with large amounts of speculation. It is very difficult if not impossible especially in transfer season to manage IP related vandalism without breaking WP:3RR. In fact in the January it became difficult to deal with edits based on rumours from users without violating WP:3RR. The indefinate was done as a last resort after attempting to protect it for increasing periods of time, with the result being the same every time the article came out of protected status. As the reasons for adding the semi-protection in the first place don't seem to have changed, removing it, especially at this point in time seems to me to not be a wise move. Also please note that the admin who unprotected it was the one who re-added the protection. Hope this helps clarify my reasoning for my request to reinstate the protection. Paul  Bradbury 15:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

International players

I have just reverted the addition of a large list of internationals who have played for the club. I have a number of reasons for doing so:

  • The list is huge, and imbalances the article.
  • A significant number of the listed players did not gain any caps while at the club
  • The Wikiproject Football manual of style does not call for such sections
  • No featured article (of which this is one) contains such a section
  • The list was unsourced
  • International caps have no correlation with a player's importance at club level. For example Ryan McGivern and Chris Killen both gained international caps while having only ever played reserve football. Oldelpaso (talk) 12:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Supporters section needs to be better edited for a more neutral perspective

{{editsemiprotected}}

Please remove these lines are these are opinion based - 1) Manchester City has a large fanbase in relation to their comparative lack of success on the pitch. 2) A common stereotype is that City fans come from Manchester proper, while United fans come from elsewhere.

Also some things can be better phrased to accurately reflect the data given in the source, currently the logic presented is convoluted. Suggested changes

1. a) A 2002 report by a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University found that a higher proportion of City season ticket holders came from Manchester postcode areas (City 40%, United 29%).

change to:

b) A 2002 report by a researcher at Manchester Metropolitan University found a greater number of Manchester United season ticket holders than Manchester City season ticket holders in the City of Manchester Area. However a larger percentage of Manchester City fans come from the City of Manchester area as the number of Manchester City season ticket holders is smaller.

2. Remove following line as it's not from the survey at all: Within the City of Manchester itself the proportions were 17% City, 7% United.[32]

3. a) United had a higher number of season ticket holders living in Manchester postcode areas, as they had more season ticket holders overall, and the report contained a caveat that the number of City season tickets had since increased (the report was compiled before City's move to the City of Manchester Stadium), and following stadium expansion United have more than doubled their number of season ticket holders

change to:

b) This survey assumes the City of Manchester to be areas with postcode beginning with M, which is only a part (albeit large) of the actual city. The number.

The other parts of 3.a) have not relevance to the Manchester City supporters section


Kasbee (talk) 10:04, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

First part: 1) Maybe. I'd possibly argue that the sentence performs the task of introducing the context of the rest of the paragraph. 2. Stating the existence of a stereotype does not proffer an opinion as to whether or not said stereotype is true.
Second part: 1a to 1b: Not done. The report does not refer to the "City of Manchester area" but the "Manchester postcode area" which also includes parts of other metropolitan boroughs like Trafford, Salford and Tameside, e.g. M43 is Droylsden, M38 is Salford.
2. Done. I dare say it would be possible to find the total by adding up the relevant postcodes, but the footnote has no explanation of how the figure is obtained.
3b. Not done. The proposed wording would conflate Manchester with Greater Manchester. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I've posted a note to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Greater Manchester to get some more opinions on this. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:05, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
As Oldelpasso points out, you're confusing the City of Manchester and the Manchester postcode area; the postcode area is actually a lot larger than the city. I agree with point 2, however not the rest. When stating that City has a large fanbase compared to its success, it should really be clarified that it is recent success; also, it needs a reference as it's an assertion that could verge on WP:OR (although I agree with the statement). As for the stereotype, there's no harm in mentioning it as an introduction for the stats about where season ticket holders live. The information you refer to in point 3 is necessary as it tells the reader that the information may no longer be correct as the situation has been changed and I wouldn't support removing it as it would give the appearance that it's still true. As for actual numbers as opposed to percentages, the current implication is that there could be more Man U season ticket holders in the Manchester postcode area than Man City, but the proportion is the important bit; I don't see the harm in specifying that actual numbers are higher for Man U though. Nev1 (talk) 11:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Why do we need to compare season tickets with another club? It sounds like a recipe for argument, just list the number of seats and season tickets and where the ticket holders live, do the same for Man Utd, and let people decide for themselves. Honestly, my eyes started to glaze over when I read this (not your post). Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

3rd kit

There is no longer a orange 3rd kit. That was made by Le coq sportif, they now use umbro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.113.229.120 (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Javan Vidal & Ryan McGivern

Are they also part of the squad for the 2009-10 season? Flags-Chaser (talk) 19:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi sorry for the late reply, the answer would be no based on the mcfc web site, which is the source listed for the first team squad, they are still part of the reserves/acadamy page but are not listed as first team by the club at this point in time. Paul  Bradbury 23:02, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Joan Gamper Trophy

Add to honours * Joan Gamper Trophy of Barcelona: 2009 http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sport/football/2597481/Barcelona-0-Manchester-City-1.htmlCJB Joga Bonito (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It is only a pre-season competition, minor competitions and friendly tournaments are not included. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Does the record attendance need to be changed or does this count as it is a friendly? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.13.162 (talk) 12:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The record refers to the highest home attendance, as is standard practice; in any case the club have played FA Cup finals with 100,000 crowds. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well I've seen other clubs that have won it include it in their article. I think it should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.118.251 (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Third Kit

I don't know how to change it, but the red and black bands on the sash for the third shirt should be switched, judging by the picture I've just seen on soccernet. The red is on top, while the black is on the bottom. The picture in the infobox has them backwards. Just thought I'd let someone know. Cheers. 69.135.191.49 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks and good spot, I'll look at fixing this tomorrow. Paul  Bradbury 23:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
fixed. Paul  Bradbury 11:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Proelio vs Proelia

{{editsemiprotected}}

According to the new site, it is proelia: http://www.mcfc.co.uk/The-Club/Club-history

This article badly needs updating, and links to the new site need adding as the old references do not work anymore.

Sorry, the last sentence of the second paragraph of Club Crest needs changing from "The bottom of the badge bears the motto Superbia in Praelio, which translates as Pride in Battle in Latin. Above the eagle and shield are three stars, which are purely decorative.[31]"

to

The bottom of the badge bears the motto Superbia in Proelia, which translates as Pride in Battle in Latin. Above the eagle and shield are three stars, which are purely decorative.

And the [31] citation needs changing to http://www.mcfc.co.uk/The-Club/Club-history Paul Hollingworth (talk) 23:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done Although consensus not demonstrated, this appears to be a non-controversial request. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 03:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Rivalry

Would Manchester City and Manchester United be considered rivals?Apple1013 22:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Can Spurs be considered rivals when they spoil Citys chances of getting 4th place in the next 45mins...??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.97.13.247 (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Motto: Superbia in Proelio, not Superbia in Praelia

There's something up with the Latin motto on the badge and the text explanation. Currently given as "superbia in praelia", the latter word should read "proelio". Obviously, somewhere what should be cursive "o's" have been transformed on cursive "a's". There's no such word as "praelia" in Latin. Catiline63 (talk) 00:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the 'a' on the end of 'Superbia' it is notably different from the 'o's in 'Proelio'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.7.19.167 (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, the 'o' should really shouldn't have tails on the bottom then, should they? As an aside, a google search gives 1770 hits for "superbia in praelia manchester city", and 343 hits for "superbia in proelio manchester city". Catiline63 (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Monday 19th of Januray, Ricardo Kaka will call a press conference to explain he is staying at AC Milan despite a massive offer from City, he belives his heart is with Milan and will stay that way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pier Collonini (talk • contribs) 03:42, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

There being more results for 'Proelia' than 'Proelio' on google search is irrelevant when it comes to actually reading the crest. The 'o' at the end is clearly different to the 'a' at the end of Superbia 85.210.1.229 (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's most definitely 'proelio', as confirmed by the IPO here: http://www.ipo.gov.uk/t-find-adp?propnum=0796255001. There's nothing wrong with the logo itself, the 'a' and 'o' characters are clearly different. Mrtown (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC).

Gunnar Nielsen

Why does no Wikipedia page ever seem to mention the Faroese keeper Gunnar Nielsen? He appeared on Blackburn Rovers' page after he signed for them, but as soon as he was loaned to Motherwell, he was gone from Blackburn's roster and not even mentioned in the "Out on Loan" section. I do not know whether he was ever listed on the Man City page before being loaned to Wrexham, but he surely hasn't been listed here this year. The fact is, he returned from his loan spell at Wrexham after breaking his thumb and is currently at City. He may be from an insignificant football country, and effectively Man City's 5th keeper (after Given, Hart, Schmeichel and Stuart Taylor), but he still needs to be on the page as long as City don't sell him.Avman89 (talk) 05:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

He is listed on the reserves and academy page in the squad list there, he should not be listed in the first team squad because he is not a member of the first team squad. Paul  Bradbury 06:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I recently added Gunnar Nielsen to the first team sqaud list, but someone changed it back because they said he wasn't listed 'on the website'. He has been on the substitutes bench for the matches against Burnley and Birmingham City (3rd April 2010 and 11th April 2010), so i find it hard to believe that he isn't part of the first team squad. I'm still having trouble figuring out the references on the Manchester City page, so i haven't made any changes myself. If anyone would like to make these changes and knows how to correctly cite references, the match reports on the official Manchester City website and the official Premier League website confirm he was on the team sheet for those matches. Bobbymozza (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.201.223 (talk)

Gunnar Nielsen makes his debut for Manchester City. I see someone has already edited it. I was right, they were wrong, thank you and good night. Bobbymozza 15.05 25 April 2010 (UTC)


Edit request from Scrollz, 6 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

Scrollz (talk) 07:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. Avicennasis @ 07:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Current Squad - invented additions

Steven Gerrard and Fernando Torres have been added to the 'Current squad' section. Neither player has signed for Manchester City or even remotely come close to doing so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.143.239.179 (talk) 13:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Messi seems to have been falsely added to the current squad as well. Toure needs to be added, he just transferred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.27.219 (talk) 06:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Jerome Boateng

Jerome Boateng's football nationality should be changed to Ghanaian as he is currently playing for Ghana in the 2010 world cup. 194.246.46.15 (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

That's Kevin-Prince Boateng, Jerome's brother. Jerome Boateng is a German international. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. On 23 June 2010 at the FIFA World Cup in South Africa, Boateng played for Germany against his brother Kevin-Prince who represented Ghana. The game ended 1–0 for Germany. There are no other known records of brothers playing on opposite teams at the World Cup. Gonads3 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

David Silva

Until Spain have completed their participation in the World Cup Silva cannot complete his medical and sign the contract, which are the requirements before a transfer is completed. so whoever keeps adding him in, he is not a Manchester City player as of yet.XTomScottx (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The Manchester City website has already included him in the squad; isn't that official enough? 83.86.131.161 (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To the REGULAR EDITORS at this article

What up? I've been reviewing a lot of changes regarding the above. You guys should take this opportunity to speak with these would-be editors. Go to their talk page, welcome them here, and explain what's going on with the article. Show them how to get to the talk page here. You will end up helping yourselves, this article, and wikipedia in general. I'd do it but you know... I'm lazy. Beam 19:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Book references...

I notice that many of the references to Manchester City – The Complete Record. (ISBN 1-85983-512-0) state page numbers in excess of 500. Research suggests that the current edition has only 400 pages. For one example click here. Does anyone have an early edition to reference or should these page numbers be updated to suite the later editions? Thanks. gonads3 17:57, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Amazon is wrong. The book (which I have in front of me) has 560 pages. All references to it in this article are correct. There is only one edition of the book, it has never been reprinted. There was an earlier book with the same title written by Ray Goble and Andrew Ward in the early 1990s, a far slimmer volume which was purely statistical (The first half of James' book is prose, the second half is in effect an update of Goble and Ward's statistics). However, all references in the article are to James, not Goble and Ward, which has a different ISBN. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Whilst I have no reason to doubt such an obvious citizen, other sources also state 400 pages, such as this and this. I guess there must have been an alternative edition at some point, perhaps a little smaller in size. The publishers should really supply a different ISBN for a different edition to avoid this kind of confusion. Does your copy have an edition number? If so the references could be updated. gonads3 18:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I can only assume the 400 figure was a mistake in information sent out by the publisher. The edition I have is the first and only edition. There is no different ISBN because there is only one edition. Email the author via the contact details at manchesterfootball.org if you don't believe me! Oldelpaso (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I am not questioning your words at all. On the contrary, your contributions to this article and many other related, put me in the shade. Just wondering if these references continue to be verifiable. gonads3 20:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

David Silva

On 14 July 2010, Manchester City completed the signing of Silva.[2][3] gonads3 22:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Yaya Toure - Number 42 squad number

Check here: http://shop.mcfc.co.uk/stores/mancity/products/kit_selector.aspx?pid=79779 Go down to 'shirt printing' and click on the drop down list, in that there is 'Toure Yaya 42' Stevo1000 (talk) 16:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Squad Names

I'm involved in a discussion here about whether or not a players full correct name should be used in an articles Squad Name section. I would appreciate views on this from the wider community as Mancini's_Lasagne_invite_to_Harry and myself differ in our opinions. I raise this because of differences between the section in this main article and this one. Consistency, accuracy and concensus are my only intentions, whilst avoiding an edit war of course. Thanks. gonads3 01:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I've amost always found a player's name in club articles reflecting what the player's article is titled. So, I believe consistently just using "Robinho", "Jô" etc would be correct. Cheers, Mattythewhite (talk) 15:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. gonads3 16:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
I've also raised this issue here as it relates to a lot of articles. Thanks. gonads3 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Squad Numbers 12 and 43

Anyone know of a verifible source to show a difference between this article and the official club website? Thanks. gonads3 22:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Does this constitute a reliable source? I'm yet to be convinced, as it's pre-season. gonads3 16:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Specifically:

I also noticed...

Thanks. gonads3 23:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I see this is the official source (for now). I note Alex's and Dedryck's were correct, whilst Joe's was not. Reliable source, almost. Discussion ends. gonads3 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lost articles

Where have articles and templates like these gone:

Stevo1000 (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It would seem that these links are case sensitive. Note the lack a capital 'C' in City. This:

Should be:

Etc... Make sense? I'm not sure why WIKI needs to be this sensitive. gonads3 17:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Kompany defender

I feel Kompany should be listed as a defender instead of as a midfielder. He always played in defence coming through the youth ranks at Anderlecht, came into the first team as a central defender and transferred to Hamburg as a central defender. It is only there he started playing in midfield on occasion, firstly because of injury problems in midfield and later on because he performed well in that role. In the national team however, he always played in defence, barring an experiment. At Manchester City, he also started out as midfielder, but has since moved back into defence, forming a partnership with Kolo Touré since the end of last season and keeping Joleon Lescott on the bench. During preseason, and now in the first game of the season, he has played in defence as well. Furthermore, it's highly unlikely he'll move back into midfield because City only have Lescott as experienced central defender, with the young but talented Boyata as fourth choice. Micah Richards could move into the central position in case of injuries or suspensions as well of course. In central midfield on the other hand, there are plenty of options with Barry, Yaya Touré, Vieira, De Jong, Michael Johnson, Ireland and even Zabaleta. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beivel (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He's still listed as a midfielder here, but we know he's quite versatile. I'd wait a few games before making any change, just to see it's Mancini's favoured position for him. gonads3 17:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Its fine that he's listed as a centre back and defensive midfielder I think, its not really an issue. He has been immense in the last couple of matches in central defence with Kolo Toure, but then he is just as good a defensive midfielder too as he is a centre back in my view. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
I'm now inclined to agree. :) gonads3 20:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Players on Loan

Given the number of players on loan, wouldn't better idea to create a subsection for them under "Current Players" for organisation's sake? Just an idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.251.99.54 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's probably just me being dense here, but...is that not already the case? Falastur2 Talk 23:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

MCFC signed 18 year old ghanian international Mohammed Abu from Sporting Club Accra on August 31, 2010 and immediately went on loan to Norwegian Club Stromsgodset

AFC or FC

if sunderland is AFC why MC isn't AFC?

Because it's full name is Manchester City Football Club, not Association Football Club. PS. (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Premier League 2009-2010 Position

Manchester City finished 5th in the League not 4th. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.84.132 (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Jeff G.  ツ 01:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Jansherkhan, 22 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} 2009-2010 League Position 5th

Jansherkhan (talk) 16:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  — Jeff G.  ツ 01:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris Chantler (footballer)

Should Chris Chantler (footballer) who came on against Juventus be on this page somewhere? (Msrasnw (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

Have added a little note hope is OK (Msrasnw (talk) 01:42, 17 December 2010 (UTC))
Technically no he shouldn't - he's a reserve team player who was given a first team start, which isn't enough to upgrade him. However I doubt anyone would be particularly fussed either way if anyone added him. Falastur2 Talk 01:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah well my little note has been removed. It just seemed to me nice to have note on the page about him here as this page would seem to me the normal place to look to find out about someone playing in the first team. If it is not allowed by some policy perhaps common sense might help! I would guess tomorrow some people will look here to see who that was that came on - and there will be nothing. Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 02:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

Current Squad

This page http://www.mcfc.co.uk/news/team-news/2010/july/adebayor-snaps-up-no9-shirt lists the SQUAD LIST – 2010/2011. What is the status of this list and how does it compare with the Current Squad on our page. Is the SQUAD LIST – 2010/2011 all the players elgible to play for the first team - are these those officially registered in some way?. I think there is something about having 25 registered and then the U21s.... My worry is that we have had players (Javan Vidal and Chris Chantler) making appearances for the first team in competitive games and they are not on this page. I think one might expect our encylopedia to provide information on these on this page. So is there someway these players can be added to the page ... and should the section Current Squad be relabelled in some way? (Msrasnw (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

‘’Msrasnw’’, the main MCFC article (this one) does not exist in complete isolation of all the other MCFC-related articles that display the MCFC crest. They all work together as an integrated whole. Information about the reserves and academy is handled here while information about City's current season is handled here. There is even a Wikipedia article dedicated to the MCFC Ladies Team. Chris Chantler's brief appearance in yesterday's Juventus game, if correctly handled, affects the first two of those articles (because he is a reserve player that made an appearance for the first team in the current season) but not the main article. Just because Mancini gave him a couple of minutes on the pitch as a birthday treat does not mean that he is now a fully-blown member of the first team squad, and your adding him there was wrong - so I removed him. Your subsequent note in that section was also inappropriate (since he is not a listed member of the first team), so I removed that too.
If you look at those other two articles you will see that his situation WRT yesterday's game was more than adequately handled. He was graduated from the MCFC academy (see last line of the table here) and his appearance in the first team was appropriately documented (here). What more did you expect to see for a 30 second appearance?
The MCFC OWS "squad numbers" article that you quoted is just that ... a listing of all the shirt (squad) numbers that were assigned at the beginning of this season to all of the City players that might possibly have a chance of appearing for the first team during the course of the current season. It includes all 38 of the official first team players, but it goes way beyond that, also listing all of the EDS players too. However, that article does NOT define the MCFC first team squad which is listed here (and that page is the main source of the information listed in the table in the main MCFC article that you were trying to modify). The note currently at the base of that table clearly directs (links) you to the "Reserves and Academy" article for EDS players such as Chris Chantler, so why would you even try to insert him there? Appearances of non-first team players (such as Javan Vidal, Chris Chantler and John Guidetti) for the first team in any particular season are recorded in the Playing Statistics Table (PST) in the "current season" article for that season.
BTW, do not be surprised if you see Chris Chantler's article (the one you created and Falastur2 fleshed out) be deleted with an AfD because technically he requires to have played for the City first team in a league game in order to merit his own article, and the UEFA Champions League and Europa League are considered to only be cup competitions (but don't get Falastur2 or me going on that piece of Wikipedia stupidity!). I hope that answers your questions. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 22:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks for this - I foolishly missed this page 2010–11_Manchester_City_F.C._season!!! How I don't know. Perhaps lack of obvious links on this page - but more likely my stupidity. Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC))

Razak

Is Razak from Ghana or Ivory Coast? (Msrasnw (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)) Have changed the cat on his page to Ivorian which seems to be what MCFC says. (Msrasnw (talk) 10:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC))

According to the MCFC OWS his nationality is Côte d'Ivoire (CIV). Is that correct? I have absolutely no idea. This player was completely off my radar until I saw him play on Saturday. However, be very careful if you Google his name on the web to try and determine his nationality for yourself. You have to understand that in the Muslim world the name "Abdul Razak" might be somewhat comparable to "John Smith" in the Western world WRT to commonality of use. There are over half-a-dozen "Abdul Razaks" defined in Wikipedia that are footballers - type that name into the "Search" field in the top righthand corner of your screen and read the long list of disambiguated names for yourself.
If you check his Wikipedia personal article you will see that I have now added disambiguation notices for the 3 footballers he is most likely to be confused with ... I could well have added a few more! I have also removed "Ghana" as his place of birth from the Infobox and lead-in text in that article since I cannot be certain that that is correct, and given the number of other footballing Ghanaian "Abdul Razaks" we need to be absolutely sure of his place of birth before stating it those places since it is one of the few pieces of information known about him that will be used to distinguish him from all the other footballing "Abdul Razaks". If someone readIng this post knows FOR CERTAIN that the young City midfielder was born in Ghana then please explain to us here why his nationality is now CIV. As the disclaimer at the top of that squad table listing states, a footballer can have a number of nationalities WRT to which country he represents at international level (e.g., place of birth, country in which he was raised, mother's nationality, father's nationality, etc.) so he could still have been born in Ghana yet now have Côte d'Ivoire nationality. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 10:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I think this defender - Razak Nuhu (with a picture here:http://www.ghanadiscuss.com/showthread.php/2484-Ghanaian-teen-Abdul-Razak-Nuhu-set-for-Man-City-deal) may be helping our confusion! (Msrasnw (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC))

It also doesn't help that the OS has been changed since I made that article yesterday. When I made the article, he was a Ghanaian player born 1st May 1991 with no place of birth. Now all that has been changed. Given the newfound attention to him caused by his debut, I'd be tempted to say that what the OS says now is correct and is the updated version of a load of details that simple negligence and error had caused to be written wrongly in the first place. Falastur2 Talk 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
It would appear the folk that edit that area of the MCFC OWS were as confused as we were about which Abdul Razak he really is! The web site was still displaying what Falastur2 states it was displaying above when I edited Razak's profile about an hour before he did his edits, which is why I removed all references to his place of birth as being Ghana since the OWS showed no place of birth. Additionally, Razak has had the Côte d'Ivoire flag next to his name in the EDS listing in the MCFC R&A article since about last September (although I do seem to remember that he had a Ghana flag next to his name when he was originally listed in the Academy squad back in August) so I was somewhat curious as to where exactly that place of birth information came from.
Up until his Saturday debut I knew little more about Abdul Razak than that there was a player of that name in the EDS, but I was completely unaware of the existence of Razak Nuhu until he was mentioned above. I still don't see Nuhu listed in any MCFC R&A squad so I'm not yet entirely convinced that City has two young Razaks on its books. It is quite possible (in fact, highly probable) that Andy Welsh never signed Nuhu (or is still yet to sign him) after that article featuring his photo with Kolo was published a couple of weeks ago. The few details mentioned in that article for Nuhu - such as his nationality, age and May birthday - all match the details Falastur2 originally put in Abdul's Wikipedia article (as well as what little information was contained in the MCFC OWS player profile for Abdul, as Falastur2 stated above) ... and then those details were changed to the current ones that were newly added to the OWS player profile sometime between 10 a.m. and 11 a.m. GMT on Monday whilst we were all doing out various edits.
However, the entry for Razak on the MCFC OWS page that lists the first team squad members was "Abdul Razak (CIV)" when I first noticed it, although it may well have shown Ghana as his nationality before I personally saw that version. Additionally, he is described as being Ivorian during his substitution in the "extended highlights" of the WBA game that were posted up on the OWS on Monday morning (but the match commentator may have simply used the first team squad entry posted on the OWS as the source of that information, so that really does not count for too much at the end of the day).
IMO the $64,000 question (that would be about a £39,826 question for you, Falastur2!) now is, how many youth players called Abdul Razak does Man. City currently have? Is it just the one (for whom all the prior information sources WRT place and date of birth are confusingly contradictory), or are there two separate players - the 18 year old Ivorian who made his debut at the weekend and who has been on City's books since at least last July when this season's squad numbers were first announced, and a 19 year old Ghanaian called Abdul Razak Nuhu which some Ghanaian web site was speculating (please note that word well) only a couple of weeks ago that Andy Welsh "is likely to offer him a deal at Eastlands"? Even granted that Welsh has indeed signed Nuhu up during the last couple of weeks I still don't see how that would account for Nuhu's personal details getting totally confused with those of a player of some standing within MCFC who has been trsining with the EDS at for the last six months, and performing sufficiently well in someone's eyes to earn himself a first team debut.
That's quite a bizarre mixup to my way of thinking. Furthermore, if Nuhu is for real then where the hell is he? IMO we urgently need to bring the same investigative talents to identifying the real Nuhu that have already successfully tracked down and located Alan and Mavis (alias Grandma) this season! Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 02:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Given the degree of uncertainty about even the most basic biographical details, it is perhaps unwise for us to have an article on him, at least until things become clearer. There's a distinct danger of us creating some Wikiality. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Based on your above reasoning we probably should also go ahead and delete 90% of all the Wikipedia articles out there because very few of the extant articles are ever 100% correct. The uncertainty and confusion regarding the Abdul Razak that debuted for City at the weekend is probably behind us now as a result of the due diligence of our combined efforts (meaning those of Msrasnw, Falastur2 and myself). If what little information that is currently contained in his stub of an article proves to be incorrect in other ways then some editor somewhere will doubtless correct it and/or add to it again and further enhance his article ... because that's exactly the process by which the quantity and quality of information contained in Wikipedia articles continually improves. If we all took your nihilistic approach and never created an article until we could create one that was totally complete and perfect in every way there would be virtually no Wikipedia articles ever created.
As for your fear of our creating our own "Wikiality" I'm afraid you are singing to the choir on that issue. My very first edit in the MCFC article space of Wikipedia - which changed Alex Nimely's squad number from 52 to 43 - was reverted multiple times by someone who told me I was blatantly wrong because this page on the MCFC OWS clearly proved that his number was 52 - and I guess it still does! :) When I suggested to him that he needed to apply a little common sense WRT this issue and make allowances for the fact that sometimes the OWS might be displaying "old news" and he should go with the evidence of his own eyes in this instance (since I had also referred him to multiple sources of video evidence supporting my change) he effectively took the stance that when it comes to a choice between uncitable truth and citable nonsense then Wikipedia must always opt for the citable nonsense. IMO a clear case of someone choosing "Wikiality" over reality if ever there was one.
So you should have no fear of my ever jumping on the "truthiness" bandwagon and supporting "Wikiality" versus reality. However, the initial confusion over Razak does not fall into that category, although once again the "lack of reliability" of the information that was posted on the MCFC OWS is at the heart of the matter. The problem that must be continually grappled with is that as long as all three of the main MCFC Wikipedia articles - namely, the main one about the club (for which this is the Talk Page), the "current season" article, and the "Reserves and Academy" article - attempt to define the current makeup of various MCFC squads (viz. first team, EDS, and Academy), for which the ONLY source of definitive information are MCFC OWS web pages that are clearly maintained by incompetents, those articles will always be, to some extent, castles built on sand. No matter how well we write, reference and format the articles, if the ultimate source of the information they are trying to capture and present to the reader WRT the various squads is flawed then the articles will also be equally flawed in that area.
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 12:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Less hyperbole please. Wanting to be sure of someone's date of birth and nationality before including it in a biography isn't exactly nihilism. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Less snide insults please. It is perfectly fine that you are personally unsure about Razak's birth date and nationality and you are quite entitled to hold your own skeptical opinions in that regard. What you are NOT entitled to do is to publicly cast doubt on the integrity of any of the people that have edited Razak's article to date and, by assuming that they are as clueless about his true nationality and birth date as you are, insinuate that they are either knowingly, or even innocently (due to their own naivety or ineptness), creating a "Wikiality" by their actions. It was my own awareness of the dangers of creating such a "Wikiality" that caused me to remove his place of birth as being Ghana for the reasons I stated in my first post on this topic here. For you to come along later and point out the "distinct danger" of this happening in a manner that implied that only you were smart enough to see what we three were obviously too dumb to recognize, I found to be an arrogant and condescending comment, however I try and read it.
For you to suggest that, because of your own uncertainty WRT some of Razak's bio, that we should therefore delete the creative effort of Falustur2 (and subsequent editors including myself) - which is the only way I can interpret your comment, "it is perhaps unwise for us to have an article on him" - is a perfect example of someone attempting to impose their own "truthiness" on others. In your own gut you obviously feel unsure about the veracity of the few facts we know about this player so your immediate reaction is to attempt to impose your own sense of the truth (or in this case, lack of the truth) on others by suggesting that we need to remove what offends your own sensibilities without your having any regard for how others feel about it (such as those who have contributed to the article). I read things on Wikipedia all the time where I think, "I don't think that's quite right" - or even, "I know darn well that's not true" - but my first reaction is not to jump right on the article's Talk Page and suggest to others that the article be immediately deleted. My reaction - if I don't simply bite my tongue and move right along - is to roll up my sleeves and try to fix the offending text in a constructive manner.
To suggest, as the first act of recourse, that an article be immediately removed (or that it should not have been created in the first place - same difference) because you personally don't approve of something contained within it is indeed a nihilistic and totally negative approach to participation in Wikipedia. That is NOT hyperbole, that is FACT. The first act of recourse should be to help fix or improve what is there, not delete or revert it, nor to cast aspersions on those who have freely given of their own time to contribute to it. If I have completely misinterpreted your words and intent in the foregoing then I might suggest to you that in the future you need to take a lot more care to express yourself more clearly. But this is not the first time that you have posted insidiously derogative comments directly against my postings, nor is it the second nor the third ... it is more like the fifth or sixth.
May I suggest to you that your Wikipedia time will be more usefully (and possibly more joyfully) spent in thinking of ways to constructively improve the articles you read rather than spending it all writing snide comments to or about other editors on the Talk Pages. For instance, I personally would like to see the various MCFC season articles turned into more well-rounded articles by the addition of more text and some pertinent photos (so that the articles are not perceived as being just a miscellaneous collection of match reports and various tables of awards and statistics). Do you have any more photos that might possibly be meaningfully added to the other season articles (meaning that they show match action or City scenes pertinent to that specific season) in the same manner that you added the photo currently in the UEFA section of this season's article? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 08:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Replied on user talk. Oldelpaso (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Hall of Fame

The Hall of Fame needs to be updated with players such as Paul Dickov, Stuart Pearce and Carlos Tevez —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.80.55 (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe any of the players you listed have been inducted into the MCFC Hall of Fame. Paul Dickov has the distinction of having had his Play-off final goal chosen by the City fans as the club's "greatest ever goal" (or some such pretentious title) but that is NOT the same as being inducted into the HoF. It is way too soon for Tévez to be inducted into the HoF no matter how good and popular with the fans he may be. Looking at the current list of HoF inductees there does appear to be a remarkable omission of players from the seventies era - e.g., Rodney Marsh, Dennis Tueart, Asa Hartford and Peter Barnes immediately spring to mind (and all players I would personally have expected to see inducted long before Niall Quinn and Uwe Rösler, with no disrespect intended towards either of those two fine players) - but the MCFC HoF was only established in 2004 (if my understanding is correct) and only one or two new players are added every year. Also, if players from as recently as the nineties are going to be inducted, I personally would have chosen Shaun Goater and Kinky Kinkladze before either Quinn or Rösler. No doubt all those players I've mentioned will be added to the MCFC HoF at some point in the future.
OTOH, there probably should be some mention in the article of the fact that City's trophy winning side from the late sixties and early seventies (along with Joe Mercer, Malcolm Allison and Frank Swift) were inducted in the National Football Museum's Hall of Fame in the fall of 2009. Surely that broader recognition within national English/Welsh football is more noteworthy and warranted of some mention in the article than just the recognition of players by the local fans. The same also goes for Bobby Johnstone's recent induction into the SFA HoF, or even the fact that Denis Law was an inaugural inductee of the SFA HoF (which also does not get a mention). Ditto there is no mention in the article of the fact that Denis Law, Billy Meredith, Peter Doherty, Bert Trautmann, Peter Schmeichel, Frank Swift, Ryan Giggs, Colin Bell, Francis Lee, Alan Ball, Kevin Keegan and Mark Hughes are all player inductees of the National Football Museum's Hall of Fame (although admittedly the latter three were only managers at City rather than players). But that is over 15% of the currently 79 inducted players.
When it comes to football managers that have been inducted into the NFM's HoF who have served distinguished time at City the number is even more impressive - Malcolm Allison, Joe Mercer, Howard Kendall, Don Revie and Matt Busby represent five (or 25%) of the current list of 20 manager inductees (although the latter two were players at City rather than managers). But none of this is currently mentioned in the MCFC article. So I would definitely agree that the "Hall of Fame" section of this article needs quite a bit of work done to it, but not for the reasons that were originally suggested. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 17:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I went ahead and expanded the current "Hall of Fame" section by updating the list of MCFC HoF inductees and adding a new table that addresses the number of ex-MCFC players and managers that have been inducted into the NFM HoF. Hopefully, I haven't overlooked anyone. I would also like to present the current list of MCFC HoF inductees in the same format as the NFM ones but I do not know the years of induction for many of the players. If someone reading this who knows this information could post it here - or better still, could post a link to it if that info. already exists elsewhere on the web - I would be much obliged. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 23:20, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
As you touch upon, some of those in the list managed City but were inducted for their playing achievements or vice versa. If their role at City had nothing to do their place in the Hall of Fame, my opinion would tend towards not listing them. To me it comes across as claiming undue credit. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I quite agree. I wasn't intentionally trying to gild the lily by listing Giggs. I felt that playing for two years at City, albeit as a very young youth player, made him as much a City player as, say, Robinho (who was also only with the club for two seasons, if you count being on loan at Santos as being with City!) and more so than those players that haven't even lasted that long. Although he never signed with City as a senior player, I believe he was signed up to the MCFC School of Excellence for the duration of his spell with the Blues. Nevertheless, I agree that we really should not include anyone in those tables that has never played for the MCFC first team. Good call. BTW, now that we're displaying the tables in uncollapsed mode it becomes even more imperative IMO that we display the MCFC HoF inductees in like style. Do you know the various years of induction for them as requested above? Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 03:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
This is a flying visit, I'll endeavour to give a fuller answer later. Per the dust jacket of James, Gary (2005). The Official Manchester City Hall of Fame. Hamlyn. ISBN 0-600-61282-1. the initial 15 from 2004 are Corrigan, Johnson, Book, Brook, Lee, Lake, Swift, Bell, Meredith, Doherty, Quinn, Paul, Summerbee, Trautmann and Clarke. Oakes, Barnes and Cowan were added in 2005. The search function on the MEN website should yield citable dates for the others. I'll do it later if you don't get there first, and add a couple of explanatory sentences. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Doyle & Toseland 2006 [3], Tilson, Young, Williams 2008 [4], Rosler 2009 [5]. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
I've now replaced the MCFC HoF section with a table that matches the NFM and SFM HoF tables. I've made all these tables collapsed by default again because I'm concerned that this HoF section might otherwise overwhelm the rest of the article. If you still don't like this approach let's discuss possible alternative solutions here first. When it was just the NFM and SFM tables I was pretty ambivalent about which way they appeared because those two taken together were still not that imposing. I hadn't realized, until it was pretty much finished, that this last table was going to turn out quite so large. Also take a look at what I did here WRT this topic. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 04:31, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
WOW, I didn'r realize that my suggestion here for tweaking the inclusion criteria in this article would initiate such a discussion. Which is why I made it here in passing, as it were, rather than over on the Talk page of the article concerned where the ensuing conversation really belongs. We now have two somewhat intertwined conversations going here ... (1) one on where to best to locate / present my three new tables (the discussion for which belongs here) and (2) one on the ramifications of changing that inclusion criteria (the discussion for which more correctly belongs on that other page). The two topics are clearly related but let's try and address each one where it properly belongs. Consequently, this is what I've now done ...
I've moved my initial request for tweaking the inclusion criteria and Falastur2's intial response to it over to here where conversation (2) really belongs. I have also moved the parts of Oldelpaso's subsequent response here that addressed conversation (2) over there as well, leaving only his response on how to best handle the topic of representing HoF information - conversation (1) - here. My responses to all points made in those posts will follow - either here or over there, as appropriate - as and when I can get them written. I felt that I needed to first do this re-structuring of the discussion before these two issues got any further intertwined and became inextricable from each other. (Note: I've also modified the indenting of each of these posts, as appropriate. Note also that the addition of the moved text over to that other article's Talk page was done using the "New section" feature so there is not an adequate "edit summary" on the "Revision history" page for why it was added, but I could not avoid that.)
Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 16:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

On hiding the table, I'm pretty sure that hiding part of the body text by default is discouraged somewhere in the manual of style. Accessibility is one reason. It wouldn't appear if the page were printed out. People like my uncle (who uses a screen reader) are unable to read it. If we think its inclusion makes things unwieldy, then putting it in a daughter article is the way to go. List of Manchester City F.C. players, most likely, unless a compelling case could be made for List of Manchester City F.C. records and statistics. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Your speculation about something you once read somewhere, whether in the manual of style or not, is NOT a valid reason to modify another editor's contribution (mine or anyone else's). Even if the style manual does give guidance on the use of collapsible tables it is just that ... guidance. Someone writing a guidance manual CANNOT envisage all possible future scenarios. Each situation has to be handled by all the editors concerned using common sense on how best to handle that situation at the time. Guidance from Wikipedia manuals is just one input into that process. The situation is similar to how a referee applies the Laws of Association Football. The laws give the referee guidance what to do in any situation, but it is ultimately left to the discretion of the referee to decide how best to apply those laws in each situation that occurs in a match. Unfortunately, your vague recollections about what guidance you may or may not have once read in a manual of style is irrelevant rhetoric with respect to the issue being discussed here.
Your point about accessibility and inability to print out are just plain wrong. The new HoF tables in the article print just fine for me. Perhaps you should have tried printing the article before loading this conversation up with that falsity? You appear to be confusing the collapsible function with hidden text. I also take your comments re what your uncle (or anyone else who chooses to use a screen reader) experiences with the same large grain of salt. If collapsible tables were a problem in the manner that you are SPECULATING they are, Wikipedia would not support them. They are a standard Wikipedia web display and navigation tool just like .jpg files or HTML links. I'm not exactly sure how a screen reader handles the conversion into speech of an URL or an embedded photo image but that is no reason for me to request other editors to not use any URLs or photo images in their articles. So that is another totally irrelevant argument (and false too WRT to the unprintable issue) that you just made.
I don't feel the three HoF tables make the article unwieldy ... as long as they are left collapsed so that only readers interested in that particular topic open them up, while those readers not interested in the topic only have a few collapsed tags to navigate over. If the tables are made permanent (i.e., with no collapsible capability) or are displayed fully expanded by default (despite being collapsible) then I do feel that we might be entering a situation where the amount of article space given over to that one topic as a percentage of the whole article is somewhat disproportionate to its overall significance. Consequently, I did consider making the topic of "Former Manchester City players inducted into Halls of Fame" an article in its own right ... but quickly dismissed that idea for obvious reasons.
Moving those tables to a daughter article is IMO the only way to go here should it be determined that the tables in their current collapsed format are unacceptable. But so far I have not seen any rational argument presented here for why they are unacceptable in their current format. The List of Manchester City F.C. players article would be the obvious choice as the new location for these tables as they enhance (i.e., present more clearly and in greater depth) information that is already touched on in the main table in that article. If we were to do that, then another table I would like to see moved into that article at the same time (for exactly the same reasons) is the Player of the year awards table that is buried in the List of Manchester City F.C. records and statistics article where no one can find it (see second comment on the Talk:List of Manchester City F.C. players page).
However, before we get any further into a discussion about moving these tables elsewhere (to which I'm completely receptive) I would first like to see a cogent argument presented here for why they are unacceptable in their current collapsed format and thus need to be moved, rather than the presentation of a lot of emotional, misinformed and completely irrelevant rhetoric. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 18:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I stand corrected on hard copies. I was searching the various subarticles of the Manual of Style when it turns out the passage I was looking for was right there on WP:MOS itself. From Wikipedia:MOS#Scrolling_lists_and_collapsible_content:
Scrolling lists and boxes that toggle text display between hide and show should not be used to hide article content. This includes reference lists, image galleries, and image captions; they especially should not be used to conceal 'spoiler' information (see Wikipedia:Spoiler). Collapsible sections may be used in navboxes or infoboxes, or in tables which consolidate information covered in the prose. When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, care should be taken to ensure that the content will still be accessible on devices which do not support JavaScript and/or CSS. Oldelpaso (talk) 09:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Take a look at my latest edit here. Does this work for the both of you? I have not yet deleted or replaced anything in the "main MCFC article" or the "records and statistics" article from where the additional tables originate because I first want to obtain a concensus *rolls eyes* that this is the direction we should be headed in. These three sets of tables - the main list, the HoF tables, and the PotY tables - all naturally belong together IMO (since much of the information in the latter two was always summarized via the fonts of the players' names in the former one) and thus they can comfortably coexist in the same article. The topic of "Player of the Year" awards is not currently mentioned in the main MCFC article and that is an omission IMO. A new section addressing it probably should be added under the "Players" section at the same level as "Halls of Fame". These two sections would only contain a couple of sentences each (along the lines of the brief summarizing text that Oldelpaso put up in his sandbox) that essentially point (and link) the reader to the appropriate sections (just added by me) over in the List of Manchester City F.C. players article for more detailed information on each of those topics. Thoughts please. Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry Talk 21:34, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Fine by me. A couple of minor queries like whether we need the bold/italics/extra column if the same information is listed below, and whether Hall of Fame references to managers belong in a player list, but those are just small details we can sort out down the line. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Suits me fine. Falastur2 Talk 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://goal.com/en/Articolo.aspx?ContenutoId=725446
  2. ^ http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story?id=808743&sec=transfers&cc=5901
  3. ^ [Silva seals City switch; Sky Sports, 14 July 2010
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Manchester_City_F.C./Archive_1&oldid=1140126573"