Talk:Football Manager

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Video games (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Sega task force.
WikiProject Apple Inc. (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Apple Inc., a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Apple, Macintosh, iOS and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

FMH Article[edit]

I believe as there are many features and extra informatin about Football Manager Handheld series it should have its own article, like the individual PC games, it could have information on each of the individual FMH games, perhaps it could be called "Football Manager Handheld" article and have extra information, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 07ed01 (talkcontribs) 08:46, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


Think this section should stay. If you know the game you will agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:08, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Find sources and feel free to re-add it. Especially with comments such as "In most cases the bugs made the game unenjoyable to most users." - you not only need a source to prove the bugs but you need to attribute comments to a number of sources. Please read WP:RS and WP:WEASEL. As well as lines such as "poor quality bug testing" being a bit too harshly written. There's no doubt a section could be added, but it cannot exist under policy without sources. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 02:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Just updating information regarding the games relationship to BGS' Championship Manager 5. The old page said that FM will compete with CM5, wheras they already do. I don't feel that it's appropriate, however, to point out CM5's many flaws in this page, instead I have merely said that it was severely delayed (the truth).--Dan 11:20, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed --DanGravell


I think this article needs to be split into sections, one for each version of the game, like in the article about Championship Manager. Or maybe have one page called Football Manager series linking to a seperate article for each version of the game (e.g. the Star Fox series page). Anyone with me?

Well, as soon as the second comes out...  Grue  15:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
The second one came out about 15 years ago if you include the original Football Manager series (which is included in this article). FM2005 is actually the 5th version of the game. So how about it? --Ukdan999 16:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm all for it if you wish to write it!--Dan 19:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


Removal of linkage to external sites which are basically blogs which are not related to the game, save for an ocassional mention:

For a start, saying a site is 'new' is just bad practice. What if someone comes along in a year and reads this. Is it 'new' then as well? Is it buggery.

This still keeps happening with users adding 'community resource links' at random places in the page. Removed and the new link has been added to the external resources section. --Dan 13:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


Here's a copy of my talk page: Regarding your edits the the Football Manager article. It seems that you added a community resource section to it when there was already one at the bottom. Not only that but it was placed in a seemingly random place when external resources are usually placed at the bottom. These have now been removed and the logo resource has been placed at the bottom of the external links section as SortItOutSI already had a link. And finally, where did you get your 'millions of files' from? If you refer to the title of Susie, then that means the number of times files have been downloaded; not the number of files available.

Reply: I am perfectly aware of the bottom section. Yet I think the patching thing should be pointed out separately. Merely giving some link doesn't give a reader full info that FM can be patched etc. I am sorry for maybe not doing it properly but I still think a separate Patching section should be added.

Please discuss.

Links shouldn't be put seperately (but perhaps a section on the community itself) instead of adding two sites. My other problem was that you didn't look at the facts properly. Millions of different files???
Also, placing the section there, upset the fluidity of the article. Feel free to write something unbiased (without links, only referring to the bottom) on the community by all means though!--Dan 13:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I've now extended the external resources section, pulled it off the bottom of the page (on which the reference section now sits (needs expanding)) From there, it should be ok to add information on a few of the sites and their basic services.--Dan 13:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, solved.

Football Manager history and boxart for FM and FM2006[edit]

FYI: I have sent an email to Kevin Toms asking if we can use the pictures of the Football Manager screenshots on his website.

I think it'd be great if we can add some more history to the game instead of a brief paragraph. I think that the game that started it all deserves much more than that!

I've also sent an email to Marc Duffy at SI asking for permission to use the FM 2006 boxart as the picture for the infobox, as most detailed articles on videogames have this instead of a screenie.

Until I get approval, the image lies here waiting to be used. The licencing may need altering as it's set as DVD cover art (there wasn't anything for videogames (except screenshots)).--Dan (Talk) 10:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to add the boxart for FM2006 (sorry, I didn't see this discussion). I'm pretty sure there was a licensing option for videogame covers, which I selected for this image.--Ukdan999 20:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No worries. The correct licence is there and mine will be deleted in the next few days anyhow! Cheers.--Dan (Talk)|@ 22:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I have received an email confirming that he has no problems with the use of Football Manager screenshots on the site. He is, however, unsure of the copyright situation:

Sure, Dan, I have no problems with you using pictures. Not sure what the 
copyright situation is, if that is what you are asking.

If you have questions, or things you want to find out from me for your 
article, please ask.

Kind regards,


--Dan (Talk)|@ 17:51, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I thought all game screenshots could be used without copyright permission anyway. Part of the fair use agreement/GFDL, something like that. --Ukdan999 13:52, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I got an email out of the blue this morning from Kevin Toms (creator of the original FM series). It was this advert which features his picture at the side (not sure if his face was put there to boost sales or ward off would-be-thieves! :P). The full size is huge, but it's such a great addition to the article quality that it has to go in. That's made my week! Thanks Kevin, if you're reading--Dan (Talk)|@ 10:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)!

External links - Unofficial[edit]

What exactly is allowed in here? If we were to include all links to every single FM site it would not exactly make the article look nice, nor help with its encyclopedic content, and I think it should be limited to the more "well-known" ones (MC and perhaps Susie)? NSLE (T+C) 00:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The unofficial links are set up for community based websites. There isn't really a criteria as such but I think that the site should be established, popular to some degree on the scene.
The last three links in that list don't really cover it:
  1. Sudden Death
  2. First Eleven
  3. The Gazette and Twaddle Talk
I've looked at these and they're basically blog sites from people who love FM. I'm against that sort of site personally as I can just stick my own webpage up there, tell people I love FM and mention it once in a blue moon.
As for Mind Compression being up there, I'd be happy to take it down. I think it's a crap site anyway (I should know, I did it!) and really needs a good clean up.
If someone would like to set out some criteria for inclusion on the list (such as affiliate status) then we could reach some kind of consensus on what should/shouldn't be there.--Dan (Talk)|@ 01:24, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah-hah! So my suspicions were right! *presses for Dan to push for a quicker release of the next MCFM version* ;) SI Affiliate status would be a good marker, yes. NSLE (T+C) 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Affiliate status might be the only criterion that could be used. Either that or just have no unofficial links at all! What's the point anyway? All of the good unofficial sites are linked to through the official SI Games site.--Ukdan999 10:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
They're just so well hidden. To the common user, nobody knows what an affiliate is. I've argued this with Sports Interactive on a number of ocassions to highlight the affiliates scheme (of which, as part of Mind Compression, I'm a member) and it's a little slow to get off the ground in terms of publicising the scheme. In total, there are about 30 FM affiliates, of which at least 10 will no doubt be under consideration for affilation status (either having shut down or not qualifying anymore). I really think that the affiliates scheme mentioned should be expanded further here however as it is one of the games strongest qualities.--Dan (Talk)|@ 10:39, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Personally I don't think *any* unoffical sites should be listed. I don't care whether random unoffical sites are hard to find in SI's website - that's SI's responsibility. We are not running their web ring for them, and we're certainly not an advertising service. DanGravell
That defeats the point of external links and kinda wipes out the point of SI's biggest asset (its fans). WP is not an advertising space, you're right, but I believe that sites should be allowed to be there (but under a strict criteria). At least, if they're affiliates, they're not fair-weather sites and the blogs which are on there right now. So I'd like to put it to a vote.
Affiliation is not a strict criteria (at the point of affiliation status being granted). The point of the FM article is to inform about FM. External links are meant for readers to continue their research. I know of no so-called 'affiliate site' which is worthy enough to inform people about FM and its history. The only site that does that is the official site. Furthermore, affiliate status is still too arbitrary. It means nothing to most users of FM or, more importantly, non users of FM who are trying to learn what it is. There are so many afffiliate sites (sixty-eight at the moment!!!) the external links list will soon get too long, and that's while people continue to post non-affiliates because they don't understand what affiliation means. You have to look at this from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about FM or SI. See my vote for another idea... DanGravell
Feel free to vote for choice 1 or 2. I think that by the end of the month (31st January, 2006) the votes should be counted and a decision made then.--Dan (Talk)|@ 14:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The main two arguments are:
  1. The total removal of the external links section to other sites (including affiliates)
  2. The removal of any site which is not an affiliate (and subsequent removal of any site which is added afterwards which is not an affiliate).

Option 2 for me. It's the only easy way to weed out (some of) the crappy sites. At least if a site is affiliated, you know it's not just going to be some random blog, that just mentioned the game once.
Option one for me, but allow a deep link into SI's FM product page. Another idea to support the promotion of affiliates is to (in the same way as other software product pages) provide a deep link to the affiliate list for FM on SI's pages. DanGravell

I think the links to fan sites are useful, because SI official site is quite crappy. So, I'm for option 2, even though I have no idea what an "affiliate" site is.  Grue  09:21, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Option 2 (reasons are above.--Dan (Talk)|@ 21:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like the vote's over then - unless there's a last minute rush of votes for option one.Ukdan999 19:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Aye. I'll go through the list of non-affiliated sites and remove non-affiliated sites when I get a moment (unless someone wishes to beat me to the punch?!).--Dan (Talk)|@ 23:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
What on earth are some of you on. I can't beleive that you've even looked at those sites. I run the gazette and every single article on there is Football Manager or Football Manager Scene related. Sudden Death and First Eleven is 99% Football Manager or Football Manager related with the odd Footballing article from a very rare time to time. As for saying that the best sites are ones linked to Sports Interactive that's a blatant lie. FM-Britain and FCUKFM are two of the most popular sites on the Football Manager scene and they're not affiliates. First Eleven which has been mentioned in this topic is considered by many including myself to be THE BEST Football Manager site on the internet. Seriously take a closer look at those sites before passing comment, saying they're just blogs from people who like Football Manager is a complete lie and anyone who had spent 5 minutes their would have realised that. --Rob 12.16, 28 March 2006
After spending 5 minutes reading (and then re-reading it to make sure you're serious), I've come to the conclusion that you're crazy. I may not be a psychiatrist, but I'm pretty sure that a person with an ounce of medical knowledge could back me up. FM-Britain is not a very popular site, and statistics-wise, SUSIE IS the most popular site on the scene today. FCUKFM doesn't even come close. I'm not sure where you're dreaming these statistics up from, but the cold, hard facts are, that the general consensus of this community is that, to maintain a level of quality in the article, only affiliated sites should be allowed. It's not like you didn't have a chance to argue your case when we made the decision!

P.S. I stand by what I say about some sites looking like nothing more than glorified blogs.--Dan (Talk)|@ 22:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Please can you link to one non Football Manager or non Football Manager Scene related article on either the gazette or sudden death (I know F11 has some footy stuff but it is mainly an FM blog) as I still have no idea where you're coming from on the glorified blogs idea. Secondly if you look at Alexa which many consider to be the most accurate rankings system on the internet you'll find that from that FCUKFM has a 3 month ranking of 245,437 even though it's only been up for about a month which shows just how popular it is. FM-Britain has a ranking of 52,369 which is not exactly far behind susies 37,616 or SIGames ranking of 13,711. Goal Kick another non affiliate has a ranking of 276,618 which is again mighty good for a site dedicated to such a small section of the internet. FCUKFM and FM-Britain even beat the official website which has a ranking of 126,997, so to say they aren't popular websites is insane. --Rob 17.00, 30 March 2006
If you really want to discuss Alexa, a website I have built tops FM-Britain and it's only been up for 6 weeks. The difference is that I spent a good while doing SEO on it. In other words, statistics mean nothing because they can easily be manipulated. For example, put two pages up. Both with the same content, except one of them has a dozen or so random words. Let Google index the site and then see the results. The page with the random words in will almost certainly get more hits because more search results are returned with the words that are contained within. Anyway, at the end of the day, this is a good site and I cannot (and will not) pretend that it is anything else. If you wish to put your site into the list of scene sites, then perhaps we should open it up to another vote.
My own personal feeling has already been expressed before however, but if there's a strong enough argument to show otherwise, then I'm all ears. --Dan (Talk)|@ 00:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Also... If it's your site you're trying to promote, why don't you simply apply to become an official affiliate?--Dan (Talk)|@ 09:59, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
Ahem, did someone say "democracy". Wikipedia is not a democracy --Ukdan999 20:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
1) I'm not just trying to promote my site although I would of course like it to be included in the list, I am simply an avid supporter of the Football Manager Scene/Community and am constantly trying to help it improve and create a better bonding between sites. 2) I can't apply for a affiliation as you have to have been around for 6 months to be an affiliate my sites only been around for 4 months. On top of that I know of alot of webmasters that applied to the affiliate scheme months ago and nothing has happened safe to say Marc Duffy (the man in charge of the SI affiliate scheme) isn't ontop of things at the moment and the SI Affiliation scheme is running anything but smoothly, as such basing the links of the SI Affiliation scheme would give far from a fair representation of the actual Football Manager Scene/Community --Rob 15:47, 5 April 2006
As an active member of the affiliates scheme, I've never had a problem with it. SI are currently going an overhaul after being bought by SEGA and the site is having a revamp. These things take time. In the meantime, adding sites like fm-britain (clearly a ripoff of the SUSIE CMX) doesn't help and, as per the general consensus, will be removed if they are not affiliate sites.
About the time thing... If you want to promote the community, you don't do it by showcasing a bunch of sites that have only been around for a couple of weeks/month. If you want a link there that bad, then play the waiting game. The affiliates on that list have been around for a very long time. Mind Compression for example, started out in 1993.
Democracy?! Bah! Of course, Wikipedia is hosted in Iran! :)--Dan (Talk)|@ 15:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
But why should people have to play the waiting game, there are sites on that affiliates list who never update there site and another site could be updating daily with top quality content for 5 months and get no recognition, the only reason a site would be added is if it was popular and someone had come here and added it. Also on the point of FM-Britain they didn't "rip off" sortitoutsi's CMS as such Caleyjag (the owner of built the site for them, hence why it looks like sortitoutsi, or the old sortitoutsi as it where. But I see no relevance why a design should have anything to do with whether or not a site gets listed surely it's down to the content, not age or design. One of the great things about wikipedia is the ease at which is can be updated so why bother waiting when sites can be added and taken away so easily?

Also worth a try is []. It is extremely popular and well run. The site contains infromation on the beloved game with players, staff and hints to give you a head start in Football Manager. Try it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues and their edits/reverts[edit]

Does anyone have a definite linkable source to 'prove' that the German, Dutch and Japanese teams don't pick real players?

I'm asking this because about 10% of all edits (and nearly 100% or all reverts) relate to people adding and/or removing countries that pick actual players.

It's getting tedious to see them pop up along with relatively fast reverts (generally done by NSLE Smiley.png) and a source would put these revert problems to rest for good (or until the next version of FM is released! Smiley.png).

Cheers -- Dan (Talk)|@ 00:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't really say whether I'm right in reverting or not because I always get rid of the lnc as soon as I get the game. I do know that Germany and Japan are right though. NSLE (T+C) at 00:30 UTC (2006-02-23)
Well my personal source is my FM2006 game. Holland does pick real players (since I deleted the lnc folder), but Germany doesnt and as for Japan, there's hardly any jap players on the entire game! Would a screenshot do as a source?--Ukdan999 00:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Since screenshots (and, indeed, the game) are editable I doubt they are. Germany definitely picks white "real" players for me whn I delete the lnc. NSLE (T+C) at 00:34 UTC (2006-02-23)
Not for the reasons above, but screenshots as proof wouldn't be great. But, as a way to show each teams non-use of real players, I don't see any reason why not!--Dan (Talk)|@ 00:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
So NSLE... You make reverts knowing full well that they may not be right?! --Dan (Talk)|@ 00:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Technically yes, but I if their edits aren't verifiable (as they aren't) we should stick to the consensus version. Changing the consensus version without meeting WP:V could be considered vandalism, so I revert. NSLE (T+C) at 00:54 UTC (2006-02-23)
NSLE, do you delete the whole lnc folder or just the fake.lnc file? maybe that where I'm going wrong.--Ukdan999 00:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I leave the lnc folder there but get rid of all the files. IE, an empty folder. NSLE (T+C) at 00:54 UTC (2006-02-23)

In my version I have all of them enabled with some lnc hacking, but I was sure that Dutch team is disabled by default.  Grue  07:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The Dutch team do pick the real players. They are a licensed side on the game, and are the only national team to have their kits and logo on the game. Adam_Scott_89

I'm pretty sure they pick real players on FM2006, but they didn't (by default) on FM2005. Maybe it's time to give each version its own article.--Ukdan999 16:08, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

FYI: Football Manager 2007 has been created.[edit]

Hey all!

After Sports Interactive's recent announcement regarding Football Manager 2007, I felt that enough information was available to start an article which could, at least, outline the announcement of the game details with quotes.--Dan (Talk)|@ 13:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Got to say, SI have me really interested in FM07 ith their teasers so far. NSLE (T+C) at 13:46 UTC (2006-06-09)
I'm surprised really. By this time, they're starting to arrange get togethers for us affiliates through the summer, but nothing so far. The only major feature change I see is the feeder system finally being implemented, after god knows how many people have moaned about it being missing for so long. SI have a list longer than my body of things that they want to do with the game, and I think that, although small steps are good, they should be taking much larger steps for the cost of the game. Still, I'll no doubt be buying it for myself, and if SI send me the game again, then I'll be giving a copy away, as I usually do. --Dan (Talk)|@ 15:09, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
DANGIT! I created the Football manager 2007. What I'll do is use the infobox (which has a bit more info), and create a redirect.--Dan (Talk)|@ 15:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Where on earth did you get the release date of October 20? Isn't the official release set on Christmas 2006? You better verify this allegation. -- 12:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Fm08boxart.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Fm08boxart.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 13:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Football Manager ad.jpg[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

Image:Football Manager ad.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 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) 06:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Football Manager Handheld and Brazil[edit]

The information in the article is incorrect. The Brazilian national leagues available in Football Manager Handheld are the Série A and the Série B. --Carioca (talk) 20:12, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Football Manager. 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:

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

As of 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 the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 12:25, 11 December 2017 (UTC)