Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Squad templates

User:Jimmmmmmmmm recently replaced the simple squad representation with a much larger table. I have reverted this edit, and believe it should stay the way it is, for the following reasons:

• The table takes up more than twice the space on the screen and adds unnecessary visual clutter, with table borders and backgrounds etc.
• The simple squad representation uses the Template:Football squad player template, which several Wikipedians have put a lot of effort into propagating. It has been well discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football and achieves a means a standardising squad representation across all pages. This change of format departs from this standard, was entirely arbitrary and done without warning.
• The extra information (date joined, previous club) in the new format is not necessary. This is a page about Arsenal, after all. Individual players have their own pages - if a user wants to find out the previous club(s) e.g. Dennis Bergkamp has played for, they will go to the Dennis Bergkamp page, not this one.
• The format did not cater for players out on loan.
• The date given for "joining the club" was inconistent - players who had joined the club as a youth were given the date of their debut, while players who had signed from elsewhere were given the date of their contract signing.
• In the recent peer review and featured article candidate votes for this page, no demand to change to the alternative format was made.
• Neither the BBC, UEFA, the Premier League nor Arsenal FC clutter their squad lists with this extra information, so why should Wikipedia? Qwghlm 10:02, 1 November 2005 (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 (as a comparison, see how the BBC website usually uses the phrase "Arsenal are" rather than "Arsenal is" when directly referring to the club). 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. Qwghlm 02:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If you can choose between using singular or plural in British English, and you only can use singular in American English, why don't use singular so it would be correct in both American and British English? Besides, to me, who is not British but have learnt British English in school, it looks very strange and wrong when the article says "Arsenal F.C. ARE a (not two) football club". If the article used the singular form it would cause less confusion, and it would be correct in both forms of English. Anyone agree? Arnemann 23:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Because in British English football teams use the plural far more than the singular. Read any British newspaper, or the BBC website, or clubs' own websites and you'll see it is nearly always preferred for sporting teams. Therefore for consistency with common usage, the plural is preferred here as well. Qwghlm 23:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous seasonal reference

"In the summer of 2006, the club will move to the new 60,000-seater Emirates Stadium in nearby Ashburton Grove."

This sentence is ambiguous. Are they moving in January, February, June, July, August or December? This sentence cannot stand on its own as an encyclopedia article, because one must do extra research to discover that (1) Arsenal is a club in Britain, (2) Britain is in the Northern Hemisphere, and (3) the Northern Hemisphere has summer in the middle of the year. It would be better to rephrase this to remove the ambiguity.

Possible rewordings:

• "Beginning in the 2006/7 season, Arsenal will play their home games at the new 60,000-seater Emirates Stadium in nearby Ashburton Grove."
• "In (month) 2006, the club ... "

B.d.mills 05:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I've made it August 2006, which is when the club's official site has said the move will take place [1]. Qwghlm 08:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Pictures

This article is well done, and there are several good pictures . . . but NO action shots. Why aren't there any photos of an Arsenal match in progress? - Jersyko talk 14:26, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Because obtaining pictures like that with acceptable copyrights is easier said than done. →Raul654 22:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Generally, pictures taken by spectators from the stands at any sporting event are of a much lesser quality than professionally taken ones, thanks to the inferiority of equipment and the lesser view afforded to ordinary spectators. I used to take a camera to Arsenal matches but no longer do for this reason. I did scour Flickr for any photos of the right quality and licensing conditions when preparing this article for FA status, but did not find any. Qwghlm 00:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

It's not real football

Don't you think it's misleading and irresponsible not to mention the fact that this organization does not involve real football, but instead soccer? I know what you foreigners are going to say, but Wikipedia is an American site, hosted in America, and viewed mostly by Americans, and it's unfair of you not to consider this.

Don't you think it's irresponsible to live with such a narrow view of the world, without trying to find out what is beyond the horizon? This is the English wikipedia. --Scott Davis ^Talk 22:00, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Scott here that the first comment in this thread is implicitly xenophobic ("you foreigners" is not the sort of language appropriate for this space) and that the writer's sense of what is "real" is emblematic of American exceptionalism.

But there is a more pertinent question to be addressed that the original author rightly raises: There's no reason why articles that pertain to Britons should be written just for them at the expense of clarity for an American audience. What matters is that the article is accessible. Perhaps this means, to steal from the utilitarians, the most accessibility for the most people?

If so, in my opinion, the term association football meets this priority. It neither confuses the Americans (as football would), nor permits American dominance of an international language (as soccer would).

See Cultural imperialism.

--Omphaloscope 05:35, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Please don't feed the trolls. - Jersyko talk 05:42, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

"[Users] are only trolling when they are motivated by a program of malice rather than ignorance or bias." - from Wikipedia:What is a troll#Bad faith. More to the point, I don't believe in ignoring xenophobes. Barriers to understanding are equally damaging when erected by the people who live within them as without, no? --Omphaloscope 06:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Omphaloscope's second comment (about trolls). Rereading my own first comment it was more terse than it should have been, and I should have at least wikilinked English language to distingush from English people. However as someone for whom "Football" usually means Australian Rules, Association football is even more strange. I know what League and Union are, but what's Association? I clicked on the link to discover it linked to Football (soccer). In the context where it would be confused, the word here is "Soccer" (although the word football is gradually gaining a foothold with the A-League), but the fact I am reading Wikipedia provides enough context to know that Football means Soccer. --Scott Davis ^Talk 06:39, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed; association football is too technical a term. I'm reverting my change, but I'm still wondering if the target of the wikilink is enough to define the word (i.e. "football"). Shouldn't a word be able to stand on its own, particularly when the word is so important to the meaning of the whole article? Too much reliance on wikilinks will no doubt confuse people who read the article in hard copy, to give one reason. It also makes the reader click more. This is again a question of accessibility, which I'm proposing is more important than authenticity.

Why not a footnote? (¹"Football" here refers to the sport also known as soccer or association football. See Football (soccer) names. ) --Omphaloscope 08:06, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The footnote idea looks fine, most people reading online won't follow them, but it works best for print. Also, using football gives a tooltip of "Football (soccer)" which your first suggestion did not. Football is a different article. --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:25, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

These arguments have all been made (and settled) a long time before, as a trawl through the archives of Talk:Football (soccer) will show. The current form of football ([[football (soccer)|football]]) is correct according to the Manual of Style (which recommends articles primarily to do with Britain to use British English), consistent with other football club pages in WP and provides the correct wikilink. It should be left at that. Qwghlm 12:04, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why was there a picture of a penis on the Arsenal webpage?? & just this moment it changed back to normaL?? (preceding unsigned comment by 194.201.133.195 (talk • contribs) 11:04, November 8, 2005)

Sometimes certain immature so-and-soes delight in trying to disrupt Wikipedia by adding nonsense, irrelevant content, or, increasingly, penises. It's a side-effect of anyone being able to edit. There are a number of people constantly watching Wikipedia for any attempts to harm articles (we call it "vandalism"), which is why it was so quickly reverted to the normal version. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 11:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Is there anyway that this can be changed? I know imdb.com is a huge movie database website which requires people to register in order to write articles. I think Wikipedia should adopt an ebay style registration process by entering credit card details for authenthicity so if their registered users misuse the system they are banned. Using this process can block unregistered users from writing anything. (preceding unsigned comment by 194.201.133.195 (talk • contribs) 12:04, November 8, 2005)

Debates over vandalism and anonymous contributions are not exactly new - the Village pump contains many other ideas and discussions - it would be better to take discussion of such matters over there. Qwghlm 13:24, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The business of Wenger resigning and Henry moving to Spurs was not Vandalism but based on faulty infrmation, I shalln't say from where but I removed it instantly. Celtmist 27-11-05

I'm getting really annoyed when I go on the Arsenal page I see something like "Man U rule" or "Arsenal are sh*t", can something be done to stop so much vandalism? arsenalwwerulz 12:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Revert it yourself. The article doesn't experience enough vandalism to warrant semi-protection. howcheng {chat} 23:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Biggest

Who removed the word biggest from the sentence "one of the most successful clubs in England"?

Most would say the size of the fanbase denotes a big club. Arsenal traditionally are one of the best supported teams in England. That notion is distinct from how many trophies a team has won. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lapafrax (talk • contribs) 18:39, December 30, 2005.

I did, since there is no universal agreement on what it means to be big - Money? Supporters? Trophies? History? Especially since what constitutes a fanbase is subjective - should it be attending fans or casual supporters? What about the problem of Highbury's capacity being quite limited? WP articles should avoid using peacock terms and stick to more objective wording, which is why "successful" is a more suitable adjective - it's more specific, and can be demonstrably measured in terms of trophies. "Bigness" is woolly and subjective in comparison. Qwghlm 19:54, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, yes only objective terms should be used in an encyclopedia. But even by the criteria you cite Arsenal are one of England's biggest clubs. Lapafrax 21:18, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, of course they are one of the biggest clubs. But that's just my opinion. Using subjective and ambiguous terms like that is the kind of thing people from peer review/featured article candidate discussions get annoyed with, which is why concrete factual terms are preferred (especially given this is a featured article). Avoiding words like "biggest" and "greatest" is strongly recommended in the Manual of Style - the New York Yankees example in Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms is a useful guideline for what language to use.

Besides, the club's history, fans and financial prowess are all discussed in the main article itself, and the facts pretty much speak for themselves, without the need for additional subjective embellishment on top. Well, I hope. :-) Qwghlm 23:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

ADD SOME PICTURES TO PLAYER PROFILES

• why aren't there any pictures of Arsenal players in their player pages (articles)
• any one pls add some nice pics there!
• even thierry henry didn't had a pic of him in his page, that's not nice coz he's one of the greatest players around

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by WikipedianDog (talk • contribs) 10:37, January 18, 2006.

Pictures would be nice in articles about players, but we would have to find ones that conform to Wikipedia's copyright policy, rather than ones taken from other websites; these are generally thin on the ground. Qwghlm 13:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

other aliases??

is it reasonable to say that they are also widely refered to as 'The Gooners' and 'The Arse'? I hear this in and around Highbury every week.

As a Spurs fan I would say yes but as a Wikipedia editor the correct answer would have to be no (NPOV). CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of alluded to in the "Supporters" section (The Gooners and Up the Arse! fanzines). As an Arsenal supporter, I would still say yes but I also thought the "Chelski" reference I added to Chelsea F.C. was valid but it looks like it got wiped. howcheng {chat} 00:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

"Gooner" more often refers to a supporter of the club rather than the club or players themselves, I would say. As for "the Arse" - well, it's often pejorative when used by a rival supporter but a badge of pride when used by an Arsenal supporter - that said, some Arsenal supporters don't like it while others revel in it. Qwghlm 00:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vela

Should he be listed as a player? He has never been announcedby the club as an Arsenal player, or as a player out on loan, although refenences on FIFA's site claim he is an Arsenal player? Mexican club Guadalajara have confirmed that he is an Arsenal player. Some rumours claim he has gone straight to Celta Vigo.Gooner14 22:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Plenty of different news sources seem to corroborate he is registered with Arsenal, even if he is being farmed out to Celta at the moment. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. It is strange the club haven't mentioned him, though. If you want to remove him from the squad list for lack of evidence then go ahead, but I think FIFA, Sky Sports and the BBC are all authoritative enough sources. Qwghlm 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Certainly the majority of evidence points to him being at the club, but most of it does seem to stem from his former club reporting he had left. It's odd that Arsenal haven't announced it, but as we have seen recently with Traroe he was briefly announced in the summer, removed from the offical site after being on for a few days, yet he only played last night. I'll leave it on if your happy.Gooner14 12:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks like he is at Celta, no sign of a loan.[7]Gooner14 16:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a loan. See [8]. I'll restore him to the list. howcheng {chat} 20:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

He's a Celta player [[9]] He has a 5 year contract with Celta, with Arsenal having the option to buy him in 2008. In my opinion that makes him a Celta player, not an Arsenal player. Gooner14 10:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Remember that the criteria is "verifiability, not truth." If the general opinion is that Arseweb can be considered a reliable source, then we should consider him a Celta player. Otherwise, we need to go with what Reuters says. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Arseweb is one of the longest-running and well-maintained Arsenal fan sites. Given that (1) Celta do not mention Arsenal in their page about them signing Vela and (2) There is no mention anywhere on Arsenal.com that Vela is registered with the club, I'm happy to believe Arseweb's explanation. Qwghlm 17:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Fine by me. I'll take him back out. howcheng {chat} 17:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just added Carlos Vela back into players out on loan and have included a reference to it from Fifa.com Toge1988 09:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Armand Traore

At a long last The Official Arsenal Website mentions Armand Traore. Does this constitute the final proof that Arsenal has, after all, signed this kid? --Pkchan 14:40, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for getting over excited. Some googling reveals that the official website has listed him on the Reserve Squad List some time ago already. What is left missing is just his profile. --Pkchan 14:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Now placed on Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Pkchan 15:00, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

List of captains

This list has been in the page for several months while flagged as "incomplete" and no-one has been able to complete it. I've looked everywhere through my books and I've tried to find an authoritative list of Arsenal captains with relevant dates, and I've failed. In addition, I've found some conflicting accounts (one book for example says that both Terry Neill and George Eastham were captain for the same period in the 60s). It appears the role of "captain" used to be less institutionalised, less of a formal post, and more depending on whoever happened to be fit and on the pitch at the time. As I don't think this list is completable, nor is it that useful compared to other lists in the article, would anyone object if I removed it? Qwghlm 19:35, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

If it can't be traced back as far as a watershed such as the end of WW2, then it will look like a clumsy afterthought. I'm a completist - it's all or nothing for me. Perhaps a raw text version of the list should be left on this talk page for future AFC historians.
Slumgum 20:15, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

As there were no objections I've gone ahead and removed it. Anyone searching for a list of Arsenal captains and who comes across upon this page, they can find a copy of it here. Qwghlm 13:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Famous Players????

What exactly is a famous player and how do we measure this? The phrase "famous player" means well known, but too any football fan in England and alot in Europe most if not all the Arsenal first team are well known. Why is Ashley Cole Famous and not Cesc Fabregas?? Stupid section needs to be removed totally.

—This unsigned comment was added by Murphyweb (talk • contribs) 21:39, March 16, 2006.

Re-titling it "Notable" rather than "Famous" might be a better alternative, as "notable" implies achievement, rather than fame, which is more subjective, I agree. But to remove the list would be ridiculous - what kind of article about a football club doesn't mention some of its past players? Qwghlm 22:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Squad template

I've made this template (Template:Arsenal F.C. Squad). Would it be a useful inclusion on each player's page?
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 13:29, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't have any objections. Maybe it should be by number instead of alphabetical order, though? Qwghlm 16:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Glad you don't dislike it! I've added the numbers, and I think it does look better. Different design styles are mentioned at Template talk:Arsenal F.C. Squad.-- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The Arsenal?

Why does the beginning of the article claim that Arsenal are also known as "The Arsenal"... I've never ever heard of them being referred to as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NaLaochra (talk • contribs)

It happens a lot, but rarely outside London. -- Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Learn something new every day I guess! Apologies for not signing my comment, slipped my mind. NaLaochra 20:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As a footnote, the club did used to be known as "The Arsenal", after they left Woolwich in 1913, but Herbert Chapman stamped out the practice when he became manager 12 years later. Some sources say he did it so the club would always be first in alphabetical order, but I'm not sure how true that is. Qwghlm 21:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

As Qwghlm says, it was stamped out decades ago - but even after they had been renamed "Arsenal" (at least, in preference to "The Arsenal") fans would probably still refer to them casually as The Arsenal, (e.g. "Are you going to see The Arsenal tomorrow?") at least until after the Second World War. 82.39.49.236 20:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Andy Townsend says it all the time on the ITV.:Bombot 11:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"One-nil to The Arsenal".

Highbury squirrel

Hello! I've written a stubbish "article" on the Highbury squirrel incident during the game with Villarreal CF. It can be found in my userspace, more precisely here: User:TodorBozhinov/Highbury squirrel. I'd like to ask if you think this is notable enough to deserve a mainspace article or whether it should remain where it is. I myself believe it's more notable than Internet memes like Chuck Norris Facts but it's very important to hear other opinions because I believe this one could become a quick AfD candidate if I move it to mainspace. Also, don't hesitate to make any corrections and additions to the page. → Тодор Божинов / Todor Bozhinov → 11:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. The squirrel is unlikely to be remembered within a few weeks, let alone a substantial period of time as WP:BIO demands. It should not be let anywhere near the main namespace. Qwghlm 10:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Qwghlm. Is the squirrel incident a significant one? Did it influence the outcome of the match? --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 21:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe in 73 years time he'll be as famous as Billie the White Horse. I hope so. Slumgum | yap | stalk | 21:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)