Talk:Arsenal F.C.

---

Archives

June 2004 – October 2005 Squad list format, displaying crest in infobox, famous fans, first all-foreign team, inclusion of reserves November 2005 – April 2006 Squad templates, singular/plural, use of the word 'summer', photographs, Carlos Vela, Armand Traore, list of captains, squirrel May 2006 – September 2006 "Parade cancelled" photo, external links policy, famous fans, Beveren controversy, external links (again), Baptista/Reyes transfer status

External link

I wasn't sure where to put this but this seemed like the most appropriate place. Would http://www.thegoonerforum.moonfruit.com be considered a linkspam? If so what would we need to do to make sure it wouldn't be considered link spam. Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.88 (talk • contribs) 15:11, October 10, 2006 (UTC).

Your site is little more than a forum, with squad photos taken from the official site, so it does not pass the requirements under WP:EL. The sites that are included are there because they provide history, statistics or useful background information to the club. Indeed, some of them are actually used as references in Arsenal-related articles. If your site contained material like that it would be a more useful resource for readers of this article. Qwghlm 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we've just added a history of the club. If we have news can it be considered. And how can I approve the squad photos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.86 (talk • contribs) 19:51, October 25, 2006 (UTC).

Well, the history you have added (via the "Club" link on your page) is basically a copy & paste of the "History" section of this very article, so it is not providing readers with any extra information that they couldn't find here. Also, as it is not GFDL-licenced, it is also a breach of Wikipedia's mirroring and copyright policy. As it stands it doesn't make your site any more linkworthy. Qwghlm 16:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Graffiti

The introduction includes the text "the most blatantly sh@! team in the world" which doesn't appear in edit mode. Have never attempted to edit a page before but seems odd that that this text, which is clearly an undesirable defacing of the article, cannot be edited out. Anyone out there have the means to do this, Dougal.

That's because it had been fixed by the time you tried to fix it :) Normally it would have shown up as you might expect, cheers for trying though. Try refreshing your browser and/or cleaning your cache. aLii 10:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please edit out the graffiti "SARAH IS MAD CUTE" That has replaced some of the flags? --trescolacion 15:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the templates rather than this article itself, by the looks of things, and it looks like it has already been fixed. Qwghlm 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammatical point -- singular vs. plural verb forms

I notice that in the article it reads "Arsenal have", "Arsenal were", etc, using the plural forms of the verbs. Now, as the club constitutes a single entity, shouldn't it read "has", "was", etc., instead, using singular? Even as a football club, it's still only one club, and the only way to have plurals would be talking about Arsenal as its players, which the article rarely does. Am I missing something? MSJapan 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just the standard British English way of talking about teams. Read some articles in the British media for examples - one sees it in almost every article. Examples from today:

• The Guardian "England were"
• The BBC "West Ham have"

aLii 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See the archive of this page and an explanation of the discretionary plural for further information. Using the plural for collective entities is common practice in British English, and it is often used even when not directly referring to the eleven players on the pitch (e.g.). Qwghlm 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also pretty common in US English in my experience. --ukexpat 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Original team colours

Deleted this sentence from the "Colours" section:

the socks varied in colour but were most often black or dark grey.

The site referenced only has one color photo (and a re-colored one at that), in which the socks are clearly dark blue (compare with the black shoes they're wearing). [1] The remainder of the photos are black and white, which might appear "black or dark grey" but is hardly evidence. In addition, the club's website in another place references blue and white hooped socks, so there is a precedent for the blue color. [2] I'm changing the reference to reflect this. --Chancemichaels 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I would call the colour in the recolorised photo more grey or indigo than blue. It's definitely not the colour code #000066 that you've assigned them, which is quite a vivid blue, quite different from the subdued colour given in the 1913 photo (#242B31, or thereabouts). In addition, this alternative pictorial history of Arsenal kits gives them as black up until the Chapman era.

The link you give saying Arsenal played in blue & white hoops from the beginning is contradicted by another page on the official site, which states that Herbert Chapman introduced the blue and white hooped socks in the 1930s, an assertion borne out by the photos in [3], which show predominantly solid socks until 1933 or so, as well as the text in [4]

As there is probably no one definitive answer how about we go with just saying the socks were "dark" in the text, and the socks in the illustration coloured a similar shade to the recolourised 1913 photo, which I'm assuming must have been based on some other authoritative source. Qwghlm 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Rotherham are anotehr club to share the shirt colours of red torso with white sleeves? I'd be fascinated to know whether our shirts or those of the Millers came first. Incidentally, we played them in the League Cup in 2003 and that was the first ever penalty shootout witnessed at Highbury, remarkably, as well (Score was something crazy like 13-12...check..., Wiltord took two, but missed his first one and both keepers scored against each other). Safety06 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Rotherham somehow took inspiration from Arsenal's kit, or it was the result of the club lending kit, then it would be worthy of inclusion. If not then don't bother - there are plenty of teams with red and white sleeves and to list every one would be too trivial. Qwghlm 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Splitting of history article

A proposal to split History of Arsenal F.C. into two articles has been made, contributions to the discussion at Talk:History of Arsenal F.C.#Split are welcome. Qwghlm 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Merida & G. Hoyte

I've unwikified Fran Merida and Gavin Hoyte as they were previously nominated for deletion and successfully deleted - if they are recreated they will only get {{db-repost}} added to them and will be speedily deleted. I may take them to deletion review but only if there is consensus here to restore their articles - comments are welcome. In the meantime, until they are restored please do not wikify them. Thank you. Qwghlm 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Can they be created when they appear in a match day squad? BobbyAFC 08:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not just a matter of simply creating an article - the problem is that Fran Merida has been protected from recreation and so must go through deletion review if it is to be unlocked. Until there has been a proper review then the article can be justifiably deleted by an admin under the criteria for speedy deletion. Qwghlm 11:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm an admin, so if Merida ever gets a first-team appearance and thus earns the right to have an article about him, I'll unprotect it for you. CSD G4 only applies when the re-creation is essentially the same as the deleted version. howcheng {chat} 07:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Merida has now become a professional player, is he allowed a page? GiantSnowman 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal Squad Numbers

For a full list of squad names and numbers please see:http://www.arsenal.com/squad.asp?thisNav=Reserves+and+Youth&lid=Reserves+Coaching+Staff&clid=4436

Can these be included on the Arsenal FC page?

Bo (Glasnevin, Dublin) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eoinfleming (talk • contribs) 17:38, November 20, 2006 (UTC).

I have put the reserves players names & squad numbers in Arsenal F.C. Reserves as I thought that was the best place for them. Qwghlm 17:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

PS Please sign your comments by adding ~~~~ after your message. Thanks!

Just so you know, an English player called Henri Lansbury has become Arsenal's number 40. http://www.arsenal.com/player.asp?thisNav=first+team&plid=67405&clid=4421&cpid=703 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.106.46.225 (talk • contribs) 14:10, January 9, 2007.

I've added him in for now, although if he doesn't play and gets dropped from the first-team squad later on, I will delete his article in due course. Qwghlm 15:14, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you can updated the squad numbers on this page again and on the current squad template. I'd do it but last time I tried I messed up the whole thing. Yonatanh 00:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Stand Name

This is only minor, but the piture of the North Stand is mis-identified as the "North Bank." To be 100% accurate, the North Bank was the terrace that had stood in the same spot before the Taylor Report. The recently vacated stand is in fact, the North Stand. A similar, but not identical situation is ManU fans calling Old Trafford's west Stand the Stretford End. USArsnl 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The stand's full name was in fact the North Bank Stand [5] [6]. You are right we should differentiate between the two, so I capitalised the word "Stand" so as to make it part of its name. Qwghlm 09:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Gooner News

Any reason Gooner News is missing from the external links?

Yes - unfortunately not a good one--British210 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Fan of Arsenal Userbox

I've created a user box if anyone wants to use it to say they are an Arsenal fan {{Template:Arsenal}} . Template:Arsenal Asics^Talk 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

There is already an Arsenal fans' userbox at {{User:BlueSquadronRaven/Userboxes/Arsenal}}. Your version is an unnecessary duplicate and breaks the Userbox Policy on using fair use images, so unfortunately I have had to nominate it for deletion. Sorry. Qwghlm 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent news (clues?) on Baptista for Reyes swap

Just because the whole thing still seems a bit mysterious, (yeah, we're seeing it called a loan everywhere, but it seems to be accompanied by a wink, and the Arsenal club site never listed it as a loan) I thought you might find this interesting (if you haven't read/heard it already) I found it while surfing around the web this evening... it's a few weeks old, but it's Fabio Capello's press conference on 17 January, taken from the Real Madrid official site:

• Q: Are you contemplating bringing Baptista back?
• Capello: We are happy with Reyes and Arsenal are happy with Baptista.

Here's the link: http://www.realmadrid.com//articulo/rma36342.htm

Looking more and more like Reyes is not coming back. Ryecatcher773 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal.com itself has actually stated that Julio Baptista is currently on a loan, as evidenced by the following recent Arsenal.com news items: Van Persie's injury gives Baptista his chance as well as Almunia leads the plaudits for Baptista (both of which I've currently added to the foonotes), where it is stated quite clearly in the former: "It is important to remember Baptista is only on loan to Arsenal for the season. Wenger admitted the decision over whether to take him permanently could rest on how he replaces his Dutch colleague, who will be sidelined for at least six weeks." and "Baptista, like most foreign imports, needed time to adapt to his new surroundings following a summer loan switch from Real Madrid." in the latter, so I think it is quite certain that it is indeed a loan deal. ···巌流^{? · Talk to Ganryuu} 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Good spot. Since the official site has mentioned it twice I dropped the BBC reference as it was redundant. Qwghlm 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

The mirror ran a story the other day about Reyes not getting into the team recently and Real warned there was no certainty he would be bought; its definately a loan. TheMongoose 15:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

ah... so the media was actually correct afterall! I remember a certain archived argument we had about this... aLii 22:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Those pictures of Gilberto and Lehmann have ruined the article. I think they should be removed, but don't want to mess with thing without checking, so if some has a good reason for them staying please discuss here. 82.163.157.251 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Lehmann one is fine, the Gilberto one less so. I don't think they ruin the article at all, but am willing to defer to consensus here. Qwghlm 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

My question is, in what way are you deeming them to be "ruining" the article? Perhaps different images of the two could be used, but I wouldn't say that the actual presence of players images in the article "ruins" anything. That is, however, just my opinion of course...Ryecatcher773 18:07, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well for starters on smaller screens they squash the squad list and make it almost unreadable. Plus I have come across many occasions on here where people have stated somethings don't have a place on the team article and people will find them on the relevent article eg you'll find a picture of Gilberto on his page no need for one on the main Arsenal page.Jimmmmmmmmm 19:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jim here. If we had a free-license team photo (if someone was lucky enough to get the starting XI before a game, for example) that would be good here. Photos of individuals are better used on their respective articles. howcheng {chat} 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

As more people here seem to want to get rid of the pictures, I've removed them. But I've added in a pic of Wenger as that is (I think) appropriate, is of reasonable quality and doesn't impinge on the list of managers as much as the player photos did on the squad list. Qwghlm 10:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Style of play

I wonder if someone could add a small bit about Arsenal's play style, possibly contrasting it with that of other FCs? Markp93 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably better to put it in the article about Arsène Wenger, since it seems to be his style of play rather than the club's as a whole - to cover the club's would be to cover it over history, and it has changed many times over the years. Qwghlm 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Good deal,Markp93 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Section heading "Stadiums"

Surely that should read "Stadia" for an article in British English? --Dweller 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally I prefer "stadiums" as English plurals should be used wherever possible over Latin (we don't talk about insurance premia or child genii, for instance). And some British English style manuals (e.g. the Guardian's) recommend following English rules. But I don't really care, to be totally honest. Qwghlm 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Emirates first defeat

Shouldn't last Saturdays defeat at the hands of West Ham be included somehow? as the team that finally ended Arsenal's home undefeated streak at the new stadium, just seems like something worth adding Adzer 08:40, 08 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a point of trivia more than it is historically important. Having said that, it would be nice to have it noted somewhere on Wikipedia. aLii 10:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's noted both in Emirates Stadium and Arsenal F.C. records right now so no point in having it here too. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news service. Qwghlm 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Arsenal LFC

Is there a reason we have two paragraphs about Arsenal LFC in this page? I have no objection to women's football, but it seems a bit gratuitous considering that another page exists for them. Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to condense it into one - it came up during the FAC and I expanded it then, but I have no objection if the two paragraphs are merged & trimmed. Qwghlm 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

David Dein

David Dein has just left Arsenal so I'm sure some stuff would have to be changed now.80.43.115.244 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

French Team

In the opening paragraph It states that Arsenal is a french football team, NO its a British football team, with a french manager and some french players this needs to be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Si-steel (talk • contribs) 13:06, April 22, 2007.

sorry to say but .... Arsenal has 4 English players in their main squad which consists of about 22 players, 4 out of 22 think about that. Also, none of these players regularly make it to the starting XI AND the team has 7-8 French players and a French manager, which I would consider a majority in the team. Therefore, Arsenal is a French football club, based in England. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Papongza (talk • contribs) 16:45, April 22, 2007.

Chairman (at the moment)is English, stadium in England, fans in England, founded in England, whole England teams have been made up of Arsenal players and also 9 is not a majority in the squad, it may possibly be the largest group but that a majority does not make —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.174.225 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 24 April 2007.

Should we still consider Arsenal an "English club ?

Given the fact that the team consists mainly of French players, and with only 4 British players I strongly oppose that they should still be consider an English football club. Their starting XI, as always seen, rarely sees an English player on that list. For what reason, should The Gunners still be considered an English team ? English fans ? English Boards ? a Stadium located in England ? these are minor aspects of what makes a club, I admit supporters take huge influence too but they're not playing, and the players who are actually playing are not English, they are foreigners just trying to make a living in England. So no, I would not consider Arsenal an '"English" club, hope to see some reasonable comments soon :) (Papongza 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC))

For one thing, they play in the English league and represent the English FA in European competition - usually regarded as the criteria for a club's nationality. By the above logic, very few of the world's major teams would be of the nationality they are generally conceived to be. If it ain't broke... WATP 

I agree. Look at Hearts and Liverpool. A vast majority of their staring eleven/first team are/were Lithuanian and Spanish respectively. Are they classed as either of those nationalities? No, so Arsenal should stay as English until such times as they are relocated to a different country and/or playing in a different league. Killswitch2k7 17:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a repository for original thought. A club located in England's capital playing in the domestic English league is clearly English, regardless of who plays for or manages them. Please stop vandalising this article just to push your POV. Qwghlm 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Have you ask this question about Blackburn Rovers or Bolton Wanderers. No didn't think you would. Look at their squads you'll see what I mean. Totally agree with the above message, don't edit articles no matter how strongly you think something should be a certain way when in reality it clearly isn't! Jimmmmmmmmm 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

THE UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION OF ARSENAL

I would like to suggest an extension to the main article which incorporates the unique contribution of Arsenal during the Wenger reign. In effect Wenger introduced several new dimensions to UK football, which have been further developed by other teams. This is interesting because a previous manager (Chapman)likewise revolutionised English football, introducing numbering for players, the white ball, and a new approach to defence.

Wenger's (and thus Arsenal's) contribution has been

a) a new approach to training, incorporating such things as a changed focus on the food intake of players, on training methodologies, and a review of player's lifestyles.

b) the introduction of world-wide scouting, which has resulted in the arrival at Arsenal of a range of unknown, sometimes very young, players from around the world. This has proven contraversial as players such as Anelka and Fabregas have left their clubs aged around 15 or 16, amidst much protest from their clubs.

c) Imaculate football - Wenger has produced a new style of playing, extremely quick one touch football which reached its height during the unbeaten season, and which is now to be seen in several clubs.

d) A new style of stadium - the Emirates is not just a new stadium, but represents a new model of stadium, in which supporters are encouraged to arrival early, eat and drink in the ground, and stay afterwards. The seating arrangements in the upper tiers are considered by many to be superior to that of any other football ground in Europe.— Preceding unsigned comment added by InsiderInformation (talk • contribs)

The first three points are already fully addressed in the article Arsène Wenger. The fourth was arguable more to do with David Dein and Ken Friar than Wenger, and would be better covered in the Emirates Stadium article. Qwghlm 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

OTHER WEB SITE TO REFER TO

http://www.emiratesstadium.info contains historical information on issues such as how Arsenal managed to secure a promotion to the top division despite coming only sixth in the league, and why the club moved from Woolwich to Highbury, despite there being two other clubs very close by. These and similar articles do not appear on other sites
— Preceding unsigned comment added by InsiderInformation (talk • contribs)

That website is highly unsourced and speculative - for a controversial story more reliable sources such as researched & published books, with authors' names and credentiasl, are more valuable. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and an anonymously-published website does not fulfil that criterion. Qwghlm 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The articles on the www.emiratesstadium.info are indeed highly speculative, I would not argue with that. But the fact is that none of the offical texts on Arsenal's history give any clear explanation for either the move to Highbury, nor for the promotion after coming just 6th in the league. Yet these are interesting topics which deserve contemplation - for otherwise one just says "no one knows why Arsenal moved to Highbury, and no one knows why the club gained promotion in the way it did." When there is no theory, then perhaps one theory is better than nothing.

I would also refer to the Wiki reference to this matter on the Tottenham Hotspur page where it says (and I copy exactly) "There were shenanigans in 1919 when Arsenal - who had finished only fifth in Division 2 the previous season - were elected to the First Division in Spurs' place. Their relocation into Tottenham's hinterland and this duplicity triggered the derision Spurs fans feel for the Gunners." Surely it is poor form for a volume as comprenehsive as this to record an event as "shenanigans" but make no attempt at all to explain matters. Tony Attwood

WP doesn't do speculation, because WP doesn't allow original research or synthesis. MSJapan 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

2007-08 away colours

I think that I have seen the new colors for the 07 08 away kits. They are white with red sleeves and gold trims. They look like the home kit, save that they are reversed in color, and the red thing at the bottom of the sleeve is gold. Go to this website to see what I am talking about. http://soccerlens.com/arsenal-07-08-away-kit/13421729.html I would put it in myself, but I think that one of you guys should do it because you are probably better and my stuff would not sound as good.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.176.186.40 (talk • contribs) 20:00, May 20, 2007 (UTC).