Jump to content

Talk:2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Transfers Out

[edit]

Good job keeping up with the recent outgoings. Just one player is missing - James Campbell (2nd Year Scholar), a young English midfielder was also released on the 1st July. Here's the source = http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/six-young-gunners-sign-professional-terms

Also in 'Loans Out', its been reported in many articles/websites and on Sky Sports News that Denilson has rejoined Sao Paolo on a second season long loan spell. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.138.210 (talk) 00:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"From"

[edit]

How about adding a column to the "Squad Information" section outlining where each player came from?? A little added information is never a bad thing right!? 202.9.88.250 (talk) 22:38, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Layout and style

[edit]

Given that I am making an attempt to cleanup the Arsenal season reviews (help would be appreciated!), it would be nice if this article can mirror its counterparts (1997–98 Arsenal F.C. season, 1998–99 Arsenal F.C. season, 2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season), by which I mean prose and match summaries being just as important as statistics and tables. For instance, the appearances and goals table do not meet MOS:DTT requirements. Why is a disciplinary record table needed? I don't see the point of a squad information table or top goalscorers. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How can I be of help here with the reviews. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 07:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ensuring each article is consistent would be a start. It's become too table focused, looks nice on the eye but nothing encyclopedic on show. Might consider bringing this up at WT:FOOTY – how not to do a season article page. Lemonade51 (talk) 16:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Will work on that once I get time. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kit

[edit]

As on previous articles, there has been a Kit section (eg: here). Isn't it correct to keep with prior articles and also include it on the 2012–13 article. I have done so currently so that the article has the correct information for other users, but feel free to delete it if a justifiable reason is given. --Ricky Sen (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what the alternates are. I have not seen them. Also the goalkeeper jerseys could be both, I have seen matches when the supposed away goalkeeper kit is used at home and when the home one is used away. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alternate home kit was used in Pre-season games this season (eg: v Southampton (Markus Liebherr Cup) - see here), and the alternate third kit was used last season for colour clashes (eg: v Sunderland (Premier League) - see here). This would therefore be the case with the alternate away kit, as lighter coloured shorts helps distinguish the team on the pitch. Furthermore, in regards to the goalkeeper kits, 'what kit is used when' is not what is portrayed. The Kit section is for the kits that are officially assigned to certain position --Ricky Sen (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What previous articles? I don't see a kit section at 1997–98 Arsenal F.C. season or 2001–02 Arsenal F.C. season. They offer nothing to the article and should be removed. Looks nice but this is an encyclopedia. Prose should be the main concern, not tables. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There has been a Kit section from the 2006−07 article onwards (see here:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6) and should therefore follow the trend and be included. Also the kit plays a part in the season of the football club, and is information that is regarded as important and should be included. Lastly it is also included in other club's articles - why shouldn't it be on the 2012–13 article?. Ricky Sen (talk) 18:04, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How is it useful? I'm having a go cleaning up every single Arsenal season article and I haven't got to the ones you have listed yet. When I get to it, they will be removed, in addition to the 'Squad information' table. If you look at 2002–03 Arsenal F.C. season, that should be the ideal layout – more prose, less tables. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I mean all I see is table after table. The 2002-03 article looks amazing and for informational which is what this article should be. As for kits, I dont see the need for them when the kits are already at the top. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't much care where the kit section is, so long as it exists. Knowing what kits were worn for each season is a very important fact to include in the article. However including it at the top would make for a very wide infobox when all the alternatives are listed. And I would ask that Lemonade51 definitely not remove kit sections from season articles. Prose is great, but for kits, the images are important, and stats in general are important. -Jermdeeks (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the source for the diagonally-halved blue shirt being a third kit this year? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.47.210 (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None. You are welcomed to remove it if you want. Just add a reason in the edit summary. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jermdeeks, I'm not suggesting removing the kits, I am saying there is no use of displaying them without any encyclopedic-worthy information. Like "This was Arsenal's first purple coloured kit since [insert when]" or "The design was inspired by...", cited where appropriate of course. It's no good on its own and while it looks nice, there isn't any substance. As for excessive tables, analysis paralysis much? Why do you need a extra yellow/red card table when one merged under the squad stats would suffice? The season articles in general are a shambles because no consensus has been made. The worry I have is once this season is over, users will just move onto the next one, without bothering to cleanup the previous one(s) and then frankly it becomes a mess. Effort should be made to get them consistent and readable. Lemonade51 (talk) 02:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemonade51, I understand what you are saying, as it is important to have encyclopaedic information on an encyclopaedia, and therefore, I have done so on the article. Feel free to edit it to improve it, but I think the kit section does no longer have to be removed as there is prose detailing the patterns on the kits. Cheers --Ricky Sen (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 3rd kit has now been confirmed - the old yellow kit with redcurrant pinstripes and shorts is being re-used for a third successive season. Source - 2012/13 Permier League Handbook http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2012-2013.pdf 86.163.47.210 (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert my changes! I know I'm only an IP and don't have a proper account, the the 3rd kit is definitely yellow this year and I included a citation from the Premier League themselves! (see above) User ArsenalWiki changed it back to the blue one! Why?!! Citation please for the blue kit? 86.163.45.143 (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Arsenal Ladies football team, have the same kit as the men's team, as both are part of the Arsenal Holdings plc . Therefore, as the Ladies wore the yellow kit when the clash of colours saw it appropriate (See here: 1, 2 and 3) on 25 August, it is definitely the case, on top of the Premier League handbook reference given earlier, that the Arsenal third kit is yellow. If other users fail to comment soon, I will change the kits appropriately, as this would be the consensus amongst users. --2.103.35.94 (talk) 08:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure anyone did reach a consensus to remove the Kits section entirely. Personally, I don't see the point of repeating the images: the main kits only duplicate what's in the infobox, and I don't think the readers need an extra set of images just to show an alternative colour of shorts. If the words are staying, they do need to include a plain-language description of the kits, the away shirt has purple and black hoops, the shorts are black... ; if needed, purple shorts are available sort of thing, as well as the history-related info. We can't all see coloured pictures, whether for technological or for non-standard eyesight reasons. And the source for the yellow third kit needs including in the article. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transfers 'Out' Reference Changes

[edit]

Just to say; I have changed some of the references of the players that have left the club this summer to more reliable sources from Arsenal.com. It saves the need for translation and what not. They include the transfers of Almunia, Monakana, Murphy, Bunjaku & Glasgow, which were all reported on Arsenal.com

For whatever reason, the transfer of Carlos Vela has not been confirmed by Arsenal.com, however he has been removed from the players page, so I've used the reference in which Arsenal.com published an article saying he was in Spain having 'talks'.

Finally, has Ozyakup left the club yet or not. He's still a player on the reserve team page and other sources give little about the transfer itself and also, James Campbell (Second Year Scholar) who was released also this summer, was last reported to have only gone on trial with Dundee United, and not completed an actual transfer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.19.138.210 (talk) 11:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oyakup has now left the squad according to Arsenal.com

Oguzhan Ozyakup

[edit]

Given that he has played for the Netherlands at U17 and U19 level, should his flagicon be changed to the Dutch flag? Thingymajig1 (talk) 00:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Until he plays for Turkey. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 02:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ozyakup's nationality has now changed as he played and scored for the Turkish U21 side against Ireland U21 in a 2013 U21 Euro qualification match. --2.101.197.235 (talk) 20:30, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Captains Section

[edit]

I noticed on the Heart of Midlothian F.C. season page, they track captains for the season (who has when the captain's armband at the start of matches, and how many times they have in competitive matches): 2012-13 Hearts Captains tracker. I think this would be a very interesting thing to track for the upcoming season. Arsenal season pages have always tracked some somewhat unique stats (such as the Starting 11, something I rarely see on other clubs' season pages), and I think this would be an additional one for the page to track. On a related note, speaking of the Starting 11, I notice that the page lists a very hypothetical starting 11 that does not seem to be based on any observable facts. Not much of an issue once the season starts, but until then, it's a bit odd. -Jermdeeks (talk) 06:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps when the season begins. It could be interesting, especially sense we dont even know who the captain will be. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt, this would definitely be "going forward" project (that really couldn't start until the beginning of the season anyway). -Jermdeeks (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer fees

[edit]

Overall it seems as though the fees represented are correct, but with Santi Cazorla the estimates are all over the place.

The quotes article is the Daily Mail, not reputable in matters football. The more reputable BBC News site states the transfer fee as being below £15m. Can we try to reach a consensus on what the fees actually are? If not, then a simple 'undisclosed' would be preferable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammered Pizza (talk • contribs) 11:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A concensus is being prepared at WikiProject Football. Seems like it shall be said as undisclosed. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ozyakup's transfer fee seems to be plucked out of thin air, or a citation is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hammered Pizza (talk • contribs) 10:38, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. Will get to the rest later on. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transfers

[edit]

When looking at what transfers the club have made it is difficult to distinguish on the transfers between first team players and reserve/academy players, and for users of the site, they would be more interested in the transfers of first team players. So I was wondering, whether it would be possible to make certain names bold, especially with the upcoming transfer of Robin van Persie. In this case people would like to see the information on his transfer rather than sift through the transfers of reserve team players as well. Could this be done? --2.103.34.47 (talk) 08:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done For the moment, I agree and have done so on the article, but I welcome feedback from other users to get a consensus on this change. --Ricky Sen (talk) 08:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Question: As further edits have been made to the article, I'm assuming that the bolding of the first-team transfers has been approved? --2.103.34.47 (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I rarely take part in talks anymore as the majority of constructive editors have lost motivation and no longer contribute. However, at the moment I feel a few Arsenal related pages are getting out of control. There are many issues but the three I will start with are 1) transfer fees 2) Boldening of first team players and 3) The text next to the kits. 1) Every Arsenal transfer is officially undisclosed but a common transfer fee appears over time and we should list that, including the most reliable and respected source. "This is how it has been done on every other transfer on every other page". The boldening of first team players is pointless as it already states what they are in the designated column. "Just because someone wants to see his favourite player in bold is ridiculous, it adds nothing and if it did you should do it on every other season review page". The text next to the kit swells the page and adds very little, historic facts go on the designated page and Alex Song's fashion opinions are just edits for edits sake, not done on any other page either. Again all edits should be uniform with previous seasons as close as possible and when valuable changes are made please do them on all pages. The vandalism is out of control and this pages needs to be permanently locked just as the main page is. (ArsenalWiki (talk) 14:36, 17 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Reserve team fixtures

[edit]

Constant edits, recent ones made by 90.218.0.206 (talk), have been made to remove the reserve team fixtures from the Pre-season section of the 2012–13 Arsenal season article. I have seen many users comment on the fact that season-to-season articles should be kept consistent, and therefore I think the reserves team fixtures should be kept in the article, as other articles have kept the reserve fixtures. What do other users feel? --2.101.196.85 (talk) 12:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Easy, we keep them and make another section for under-21s. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 15:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer Fees (Part 2)

[edit]

Reason I am opening up this section is to discuss the transfer fees for the players brought this season. For me I think we should keep it simple and say Undisclosed and leave it at that. Nothing stupid and unnecessary like we are doing now in which we say undisclosed and then put in parentheses the "estimated price" (mainly from the Daily Mail). The reason I say this is because, just because the Daily Mail says the fee is this, what if Sky Sports say different or the Daily Telegraph or The Sun or ESPN. For example the Daily Mail says Santi Cazorla signed for 16.5 million pounds, while others like ESPN say 15 million pounds ([1]). Which one is right? Who knows. May well be the Daily Mail but we dont know and Arsenal Football Club dont say. That is why I want to come to a resolution right here, right now.--Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Transfermarkt.de website has been a great resource for transfer fees for years, and are quite accurate when with regards to undiscolsed fees (which are later proved correct when said values turn up in the clubs' year-end accounts). They are claiming a fee of 20m Euros for Cazorla, for what it's worth.86.163.47.210 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Still. They are most of the time right. Maybe could be used for prose but not for the table. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because transfermarkt is user-generated, it isn't a reliable source. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article structure

[edit]

Hello. I know this has been talked about higher up the page, and I don't want to interfere if interference isn't wanted, but this article's getting out of control. I first looked at it because I was aware of Lemonade51's efforts in bringing other Arsenal-related articles to a high standard, so was wondering what was being done here. And was surprised to find hugely excess detail, both in terms of prose and tables, lots of Manual of Style violations, and revert warring.

I don't know a lot about Arsenal, though I did help with getting the main page back up to featured standard a couple of years ago. But if the regular Arsenal editors would be interested in any help with getting this into a similar format to the good articles mentioned above at #Layout and style, I've got time and a reasonably thick skin. If there's a stable structure in place that people have agreed on, and are willing to protect, then it's easier for those of you who know what's important and what isn't to add the content. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well right now (In my personal opinion) I think this page should be temporarily protected just so the regular Arsenal editors can sorta revamp the page (getting rid of a few tables, add more encyclopedic detail) without IP interference. Dont get me wrong, most IP users are actually useful and very helpful but then you have the ones that complain if you dont do this, get rid of this and then revert. I also think this is what Arsenalwiki said above when he said that many regular Arsenal users dont edit here anymore and it is true, even I stopped editing here for a few days after the van Persie selling because of all the havoc. If your willing to help than that would be great. Of course before any major work is done we should get opinions from the rest. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure where to start with this. The article has considerable WP:WEIGHT problems, and I don't see the justification for certain tables. I thought Wikipedia wasn't a live scores service, yet come every Saturday, results are updated here real time. So edit conflicting may occur, especially with unregistered users. My main concern is not with this; it's the scope: I've listed each season in my sandbox, and was surprised to see so many stubs and starts, let alone red links. The ones with articles displayed results and tables, yet nothing about what actually happened in the season, in reasonable detail. Good for the statistician, bad for the fan or average reader who may want to relive/observe the highs and lows. Had a go improving three to meet the GA criteria and 2005–06 is more or less ready for a GA nomination. What's evident is the scope lacks direction or input, or has done the last few years—just because there was a 'yellow and red card' table in the previous season, doesn't mean the next must have it. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I dont see this as a problem with the Arsenal F.C. articles (BTW I am willing to help with the Arsenal seasons once my projects are done next month) but after looking through the other teams in the Premier League it seems like there is no consistency in any of the articles and I think when constructed the IP users add whatever to the page instead of following the Club Season template provided by WikiProject Football. Now if I had my way I would redo the entire page while following past good article versions of the Arsenal FC seasons and the club season template. And if you want add anything like the total spending and whatever you need to ask on the talk page and it needs a majority agreement. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That template is in need of an update. Transfers would make more sense at the beginning of the article, along with a background section to give context, but that is my preference. Is a kit section really necessary without information about the design/inspiration etc? Lemonade51 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is why I said I want to base it on the template and the past seasons. So initially base it off the template and then modify it to represent past versions. I mean I am willing to through the work right now. Of course though before I do anything I want a clear consensus of how we are actually formatting the page. For example, you say you dont like a few tables, can you name a few more (you already said the yellow/red card table which I agree with). For me, my biggest issue is the transfers and how factual the values are and how the total spending and total sold can actually be calculated. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There wouldn't be a problem with the transfer fees if there was exactly one transfers table, containing either an official fee according to one of the clubs or else undisclosed, and a maximum of one bit of prose immediately before it mentioning the transfer, where the media-speculated fee could be mentioned. As WFC suggested here. It becomes a problem because there are 4 different places where the transfer fee appears. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the thing is though that the media never agrees on 1 set fee and I am not about to go for an agreement where we format the box to say "between 12 million and 13 million". Its not as if every club says undisclosed for every deal, there are tons of clubs that release financial records and in articles as well how much they spent/received in a transfer. For example, the selling of Alex Song had arsenal.com say undisclosed while FC Barcelona said on there website 19 million euros which can be translated to pounds. Its simple. Check on arsenal.com, okay, check on other teams website, okay. Done. I dont see the problem. As for the other places where we place the fees, unless you can provide a good source then it should remain undisclosed. I mean I just looked through the 2012-13 page again and for prices it just seems like there is a lot of Daily Mail bias going on. There are other tabloids that post there own numbers different to Daily Mail. Its easier just to compromise and go with what the actual club says. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing for using media speculation. In a table, we should only put facts, not media guesswork or approximations. If that means a column full of undiscloseds and one €19m (£15m), so be it. In prose, it's fine, but not obligatory, to say something like "for an undisclosed fee, widely reported as £xxx"<couple of independent sources> or "for an undisclosed fee, reported to be between £xxx and £xxx"<2 or 3 independent sources>. On the basis you can't add up a column of undiscloseds, you can't calculate transfer spending or income.

In the squad information table, many of the transfer fees cite secondary sources, and have done since the article began: is it OK to have media speculation/approximation in that table? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well first off I do want to get rid of the "Total Spent" and "Total Income" parts because all we are adding up are varying prices. As for what your saying about the prose, I will go with it. So for example we could do...
"Then on 7 August 2012 Arsenal announced the signing of Santi Cazorla for a multi-year contract at an undisclosed fee reported to be between £15 million and £16.5 million pounds [Insert 2-3 References here]."
If so I would be perfectly happy in doing so. So, just to get this straight, in tables, we leave it as 1 column in which it is either undisclosed or a price based on what only the two teams involved in said transfer say. Then for say the Pre-Season section we could say "Player A was brought for an undisclosed fee reported to be between $100,000,000 and $200,000,000". If so I would be 100% fine with that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 10:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine by me, but what do others think? Given there's been a bit of a revert-war on this, I think it'd be wise to attempt to get other people's opinions on this particular issue. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As Arsenalkid700 suggests, remove the net transfer spend nonsense. The club website should be the first port of call for fees; if it states the deal was 'undisclosed', use it. Arsenal are notorious for disclosing their business, so no one really knows the exact price of a transfer. Do not cite multiple sources when summarising transfers; for consistency, try to use one media outlet. Be sure to state that in the notes section or somewhere else to notify the reader. For instance, the Daily Mail say Giroud cost £13m, where as the Beeb say it was a £12m deal. So clearly one may have rounded it to significant figures, the other decimal points. Therefore it cannot be between 'so-and-so price', just how one website interprets price to another. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So what media outlet do we use then? Do we stick to the Daily Mail or maybe BBC or Mirror or Telegraph? I honestly dont care what we choose. I am just happy we agree about getting rid of the net transfer spend and the format of the box. But we should choose though. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 14:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BBC Sport I guess. Daily Mail should be avoided. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I am fine with that. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Next issue I am guessing now which would be kits. As you can see on the main page the kits are not looking so good. Yellow or Blue? --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow. See my reasons (including a citation - a link to the Premier League's official online handbook for the current season) in the Kit discussion section above.86.163.45.143 (talk) 08:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my input on the subject on the request of Struway2. First the page needs to be locked ASAP to stop relentless poor edits. Transfer fees should be simple in terms of sources, Arsenal>other team>stock exchange>governing bodies such as the FA> select high standard media such as the BBC, not The Sun, Daily Mail etc. David Ornstein at the BBC has excellent and accurate articles relating to Arsenal transfer dealings including fees. All fees should be the total payment including add-ons and bonuses. It may never reach the total fee but keeps accuracy and matches every other transfer on previous pages. Net transfer boxes can go but if so they should be also be removed on previous seasons.

The page is heavy but not as bad as what it's made out to be. Previous seasons are smaller because as each season improves in general(my opinion), the task to back date is too large. Lets not deconstruct recent evolved pages to match old basic pages. A general consensus on a page content sequence would help though. I have seen previous mention of removing the squad information, which I would have a strong problem with. I think the kit section should go as it's a duplicate of the info box, the captain section could go and be replaced with simple notes in the squad info or starting eleven section. I also really like how the disciplinary section has been incorporated into the apps and goals section on some pages. The major problem though is that it doesn't differentiate between competitions. (ArsenalWiki (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC))[reply]


Thanks people for your inputs.

If you want to request page protection (locking the page) you do it at WP:Requests for page protection. The process is outlined there: there's an example to copy, or you can copy one of the existing requests. I'd advise asking for temporary semi-protection: you won't get indefinite until/unless temporary has proved not to be enough, and semi-protection stops anonymous editors from editing while allowing registered editors. Full protection means an edit can only be made by asking an admin to do it, which would be inappropriate for a rapidly changing page like this one. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:50, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Has someone requested protection yet. I was already advised (rightly so) not to so I would expect one of you guys to do it. You all know the reason for why it should be protected temporarily. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 17:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the information discussed here has not been digested hence why I put banners up. The prose makes uncomfortable reading for one and there is plenty of overlinking. As a user said above, the tables do not comply with MOS and there is no citation for the kits being used in certain matches. Is a kit section really needed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.116.19 (talk) 22:05, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third Kit

[edit]

Hi, could we please correct the third kit - the official 3rd kit is the yellow shirt with redcurrant pinstripes which was the 11/12 season 3rd kit and the 10/11 season away kit. One of my TWO sources is the official Premier League Handbook, a pdf document located on the official Premier League Website. LINK

Another source is the excellent website "historicalfootballkits", the foremost kit database in the world. LINK

Here are two sources claiming the 3rd kit is yellow, and we have absolutely none whatsoever in favour of the blue shirt. If you just think about it for two seconds, no way is the blue kit a big enough contrast from the purple-and-black away. I changed the kits to yellow a couple of days ago, but my changes were quickly reverted.

Comments / discussion welcomed.86.163.45.143 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be honest. I dont even think we have a 3rd kit. Your point about the similarity between the 2011-12 Away kit and the current one is true but if you look at Arsenal kit store you wont get any results for a 3rd kit. Until something shows on an official Arsenal website I am convinced that it should remain blank to be honest. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenal do have third kits, as shown by the A.C. Milan away fixture last season in the UEFA Champions League. If the same fixture was to happen this season, Arsenal would have to wear their yellow kit to avoid a clash of colours during the match. The yellow kit has been all but confirmed by the Premier League themselves, and Arsenal, in the references I added earlier, based on the ladies kit used on 25 August 2012. Therefore, the third kit should be changed to yellow. Cheers --2.103.35.94 (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That was last season. This season Arsenal have yet to release one. Last season it was clear the yellow one was the 3rd kit but this time they did not post it online. Premier League source, someone else will look at that. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 11:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)-[reply]
But the blue third kit is so similar to the away kit, it is almost common sense that the third kit is yellow. Also you seem to have ignored the references given. The fact that the club themselves and the Premier League have all but confirmed it, means that the yellow kit is Arsenal's third kit. Cheers --2.103.35.94 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Arsenal have not confirmed yet. I did not ignore what you said, I straight away looked at the Women's match from yesterday and yes they wore yellow but that could be because a new third kit is yet to be released. As for the Premier League reference, I said I will let someone else take care of it. Cheers. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clubs are required to register their kit colours with the Premier League. The club directory section of the new handbook (link at the top of this thread) lists Arsenal's third kit as the yellow/redcurrant one. Some clubs have no third kit listed, and others have "to be advised". Therefore, either the PL are making it up (unlikely), or the PL have accidentally left the yellow kit in from last season (possible, but still unlikely), or Arsenal have registered the yellow kit with the PL as their third kit. As far as can find, there are indeed no sources whatsoever for the blue diagonal halved shirt being this season's third kit (there are certainly none in this article). cheers, Struway2 (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The source for the blue one was Arsenal's online store but they have since taken it down and now they dont list any 3rd kit. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Formation

[edit]

This was apparently based on the first game of the season (Sunderland), and is not accurate given that Wenger's mixing it up to try to get that one goal; e.g. he started Giroud in the second (Stoke). I would suggest that this portion be taken out, especially since he will likely continue to mix up the front until some offensive success is realized, and given the injuries to regular starters and the impending return of Wilshere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.84.57 (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section details the formation that is most used by Arsenal. Over the course of the season, he will tend to use a similar formation of players, and although the future will make this section more relevant, the section is not incorrect entirely, as the formation displayed shows the defence and midfield that has been used throughout the season so far, and a strike force that has only one change to it. For others that have started, it is clear in the table next to the formation, which players have started both games or just one. Hope this helps --2.103.35.120 (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kits, yet again

[edit]

I removed the images of the "alternate" home, away and third kits as unsourced, and added explicit sources for the home, away and third first-choice kits. Those changes were reverted more than once by a regular anon editor to this article. I went to their latest talk page to explain my reasons for the changes, namely

"Firstly, as far as I can find, the alternate colours of socks or shorts haven't been referenced to anything resembling a definitive reliable source on the talk page. Secondly, sources belong in the article, so that the reader can check them. See WP:CITE. A reader shouldn't be expected to trawl screensful of "discussion" to find out where a piece of information came from."

and linked to that note in my next edit summary in case they hadn't seen it, because they appear to be on a dynamic IP. The latest reversion's edit summary stated

"Alternate kits can be included as they have been referenced in the talk page, but as the article is already overlinked, there is no need for it to be linked on the main article."

First, there's a misunderstanding about the article being overlinked. Template:Overlinked is about excessive wikilinking, putting square brackets round the same thing 4 or 5 times in a section, like was the the case with Podolski, Premier League, Arsene Wenger and more in the pre-season section before they were cut down a bit. It doesn't refer to references. That template could probably be removed now the worst of the overlinking has gone.

Second, I can't find any references on this talk page for the alternate kits. I can find links to images, and discussions of what Arsenal usually do in terms of alternates, but can't see anything in the way of an explicit source for any of those alternatives being anything more than assumptions. The home and away kits can be sourced to the Arsenal Direct pages (and many other reliable sources), and together with the yellow third kit appear in this year's Premier League handbook, but a picture of an Arsenal player wearing a particular colour of shorts in pre-season isn't IMO a reliable source for that being an official alternate kit and needing a picture.

Third, those references that do exist need to be in the article where the reader can see them, not buried in a lengthy talk page. That's basic to how Wikipedia works.

Comments please? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:25, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Struway2, I understand that you are talking about my edits, and I am pleased you have voiced your concerns. I misunderstood the overlinked template, and now understand it is okay to include the references given on this talk page. However, as for the clear cut references of kits, Arsenal do not release their alternate kit colours, but I have found a link to the alternate third kit, as Arsenal F.C. mention that they will play an all yellow kit, as they did against A.C. Milan last season. Hope this helps --2.103.35.115 (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I wish you'd register, or edit logged-in if you are registered, it'd make communication much easier :-) If as you say, and as seems likely, Arsenal don't announce alternate kit colours, then I can't really see much justification for including images of them here looking as if they are something official. If there's anything we do have a source for, perhaps it'd make more sense to have half a sentence in the prose along the lines of "Arsenal intend to use yellow shorts with the third kit if necessary (source)" But whether image or words, the source has to verify what needs verifying: the link you added to the article says they were going to wear their third kit to play Milan last February, but we can't extrapolate that into them using all-yellow this year.
Still on kits, the prose ought to include a (brief but clear) description in words of what the kits actually look like, for those readers whose technology or eyesight stops them doing images. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just out of curiosity, would you happen to know the percentage of Wikipedia readers who are incapable of viewing images? --Jermdeeks (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Formations

[edit]

Multiple users keep updating the 'Starting 11' information incorrectly, as the title and footer clearly state that this section is ONLY for players who have STARTED games, and NOT for those who have appeared in games. An example is this edit whereby a user with this IP address (188.220.233.254) has stated how many games the players have featured in. What can be done to stop this from happening? Thanks -- 2.102.204.55 (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

why has this been removed from all arsenal seasons it get feature to see most used team players in their positions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.64.112.221 (talk) 12:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Key Events"

[edit]

Statement on 11 December is incorrect. It was by no means the first time the club had been knocked out of the competition by lower league opposition - only the first time for the lowest league (i.e. 4th tier) and second time (after Burnley) by a lower league club in Arsene Wenger's reign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.238.142 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 03:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on 2012–13 Arsenal F.C. season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 02:01, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012–13_Arsenal_F.C._season&oldid=1223277362"