Jump to content

Talk:Arsenal W.F.C.

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

The wording on this is vague, at time of wring (June 2014) it says the Arsensal LFC are affiliated to the Arsenal. The exact nature of the relationship is not explained. Is it in fact one Club as Arsenal, and Aresenal LFC is simply the Ladies team?

The kit seems identical, using the same logos and sponsors- which suggests either a strong legal relationship, or that it's simply part of the same club, (a bit like Cardiff RFC, which is not really a separate club, but simply the Rugby Section of of Cardiff Athletic Club- which also has other sports teams, e.g. bowls, cricket etc).

The fact that the article explains there's an overlap of directorships between the Men's and Ladies Clubs suggests that the Ladies Club is subsidiary company? (Is part of the job of the men's Arsenal team Cheif Exeutive to be the Chairman of the Ladies Club?) Or is the "affiliation" relationship more akin to the relationships you see between firms using the same brand in Japan say?

Clearly the casual observer would assume given the logo is the same etc that the Aresenal LFC is simply the Ladies team of the same club. (Akin to say most golf clubs almost all of whom have Gentlemen's and Ladies teams, but there is no question of them being separate clubs- generally speaking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.39 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In 2014 and 9 years later in 2023, this comment is absolutely incorrect and undeserving of a place in "active discussions". The men's and women's teams of Arsenal Football Club have been a part of Arsenal FC since the inception of the women's team. The women's team is not a separate entity from either a legal perspective or a practical one. From a legal, financial, and practical perspective these are two teams in the same club.

If this poster were correct, then it would similarly be appropriate to label the men's U-23, U-21, U-19, U-17, etc. teams as not being a part of Arsenal FC.

This "discussion" topic is clearly the result of a misogynist who feels the need to isolate the women as "something else" despite the pride of players who grew up playing in Arsenal FC's academy as members of the club since childhood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.9.85.41 (talk) 21:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arsenal L.F.C.. 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}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arsenal W.F.C.. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Club Crest

[edit]

The Rationale of the logo specifically states the following

The image is placed in the infobox at the top of the article discussing Arsenal F.C., a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. There is commentary in the article about the logo itself as follows: "Logo of Arsenal Football Club and Arsenal Ladies Football Club, used to illustrate the teams in articles about them and the teams that they field."

This therefore covers the use of the logo in this article. 31.127.133.203 (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look on some of the other articles of the teams who participates in the WSL and they have the logos used on there. The Arsenal website includes the team on their website so it should be fine in guideline with the other articles.
The following rule on the logos is - club logos are copyright so we can't use them anywhere apart from the club articles. This is certainly a club article so that should be used here. Iggy (Swan) 16:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my post at WT:FOOTY#File:Arsenal FC.svg for more specifics, but basically each use of a non-free file has to comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. The non-free use was previously discussed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 February 8#File:Arsenal FC.svg and the consensus established was that the file's non-free use in this article doesn't comply with that policy. So, if you'd like clarification or feel that should be re-considered, then you can discuss your concerns with the administrator who closed the discussion and removed the file. Continuing to re-add the file without doing discussing this with the closing administrator and following their instructions, however, is going to be seen as edit warring and may lead to an administrator getting involved for another reason. A consensus can change, but it needs to be changed the right way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had not been aware of this issue when changing the logo today (via IP, not logged in). Problem however is that this is the official logo of the women's team as well. The one including "Ladies" has been out of use since the club changed from being Arsenal Ladies to Arsenal (Women), where women is only used to differentiate from the men's team when needed (which is not the case here). Source: https://www.arsenal.com/news/important-update-our-womens-team TheM NL (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentence in the article like "In July 2017, the club rebranded as Arsenal Women Football Club." even supported by sources would probably not be in and of itself enough to justify the non-free use of the (men's) logo; however, more sourced content about the branding change, in particular things having to do with WFC and the differences in badge/logo might. The best thing to do would probably be to ask Explicit (the administrator who removed the file based upon the above-mentioned FFD discussion) for his take on things. Perhaps a new consensus can be established based upon the changes the team made in favor of allowing the file's use in this article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Largest fanbase in the world in 2018-19

[edit]

The sentence "Based on social media activity from the 2018–19 season, Arsenal's fanbase is the largest in the world." recently added to the lede seems to be quite an exceptional claim to make and surely something that requires something more than a citation to the team's Twitter account (i.e. a primary source). Are there any secondary and independent sources which support such a claim? If there are they perhaps the content can be moved to the body of article and expanded upon, and even attributed as needed; for example, "According to FIFA, ...", "According to ABC soccer magazine", "According to ABC newspaper", "According to Twitter statistics, ...", etc. The team's Twitter page is not really published by "Twitter" so to speak in that nobody at Twitter verifies the what the team tweets; so, basically all editorial control over the account rests with the team itself. If the team tweeted out something that some other reliable source stated, then it would be better to actually cite that source than a tweet per WP:SPS and WP:UGC; if the team is making a claim that cannot be verified by a secondary source, then the claim should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed this sentence as the linked first-party source doesn't say anything about having the largest fanbase. It doesn't link to particular tweet, just the Arsenal WFC Twitter account. I'm not sure where that claim ever came from. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 November 2021

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against a mass move per WP:TRAINWRECK. This close does not preclude individual renomination. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– It appears on a football discussion page that the abbreviation “W.F.C.” needs to be expanded a bit, either with or without brackets. 46.149.249.106 (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC) 46.149.249.106 (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to show on which discussion page this assertion has been made? It's a bit hard to respond to when you don't know the arguments which have been made. Falastur2 Talk 18:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are indeed multiple "football discussion" pages on Wikipedia, however, as I edited Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football recently, I know the discussion is located on that page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football, either with or without brackets. W.F.C. could stand for other things such as some entries listed on WFC. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • In regard to Arsenal, Women always appears before FC. Either abbreviated as Arsenal WFC or alternatively as Arsenal Women FC. Both Arsenal and UEFA refers to the team as Arsenal WFC[1][2]. Mastercard, the official partner of Arsenal Women, refers to the team as Arsenal Women FC[3]. This is also correct as I've seen it being referred to on Arsenal's website[4]. Arsenal Women FC is fine with me if the current article name is confusing. CaptainBondi (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: These different clubs have different names, so a standard abbreviation (or naming) is not appropriate. At the very least these RMs should be individually assessed and not bundled together. Seany91 (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass rename. Despite the comments on WT:FOOTY, these are not WP:COMMONNAME. Why does the "W.F.C." need expanding? That is common abbreviation in context, just as "F.C." is. Could W.F.C. refer to something else? Sure, but so can F.C. We shouldn't standardising something that isn't standardised in reality. Some of these clubs refers to themselves as "XYZ Women Football Club" (changed from the days when they called themselves "XYZ Ladies Football Club". Some of them calls themselves "XYZ F.C. Women". If any particular club operates a true one club policy where they simply refers to themselves as "XYZ" and only adding women when context requires, then sure, propose to rename that specific article. Mass standardised renaming is a no for me. -- KTC (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the assumption the aim of wikipedia is to accurately reflect real life (official entry list for this year's FA Cup aligns with the current names). The mass name change only makes sense if convenience and symmetry at the expense of accuracy takes priority. Hjk1106 (talk) 13:07, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mass change sort these all out individually according to their proper names on the link in Hjk1106's comment above. Some teams are listed as Women F.C (in which case "Women" should be in the article title with a capital W) and some as F.C. Women (in which case "(women)" as a disambiguator with the male club seems correct). We shouldn't be trying to push everything to one standard, when 2 different cases exist for this teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree re above, having part support, part oppose to a list of 11 entries where some may stay as it is (e.g. Reading F.C. Women) does not fully bode well for the eventual page mover to decide which ones to move and which ones to stay. I didn't think too much about any problems when giving out my view late last evening. Once this discussion is closed, we can take Seany91's advice and do these RMs on the individual articles, not all on one talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
per my change at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football, you agree with changing article title(s) there but here you are asking them to stay put or do them separately. And the "Manchester United F.C. (men)" title makes no sense either. 46.149.249.106 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do them separately instead of those bunched up together where different outcomes appear likely per other comments. Looking at them very carefully, it's not all disagreement with what the nominator described and three of those pages have their full names with "women" in a different order compared to the others. And we definitely don't have many club articles with brackets after the team names either (only a small percentage). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: this is a completely misguided proposal that does not benefit anyone or the articles. It creates confusion and creates unnecessary difficulties in accessing the articles where none currently exists. None of these pages should be moved as the names they currently have are accurate, well understood, not confusing, and easy to comprehend. It also smacks of treating Womens football as an add on subservient to men's football 2A00:23C6:4D00:3D01:4D41:A845:A89E:AC2 (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The official name of all these teams is the same as the men's team, as is the common name, but as the men's team is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC these articles should be disambiguated per WP:ATDAB to X F.C. (women). What each club chooses to call the women's team is a purely stylistic choice and is their own prerogative. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 10:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You win not one but two {{cn}} for your first sentence, congratulations. The closest thing to an authoritative source in this discussion is the Women's FA Cup entries list linked to above, which disagree with your first assertion. That they are X Football Club (and only disambiguated by gender when needed) is simply factually wrong. We don't have to go back that many years to news articles of various clubs being renamed from X Ladies to X Women. We can play the "official name" game by me pointing out for example that West Ham United Women is registered at Companies House,[5] and they're certainly not registered under the name of "West Ham United Football Club". -- KTC (talk) 18:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arsenal_W.F.C.&oldid=1205368494"