Talk:Arsenal

Armory (military) was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 12 June 2014 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Arsenal. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Architecture High‑importance

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Technology / Weaponry Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

Firearms High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

aresnal fc

i'm getting rid of most of the bit about arsenal football clubJoevsimp 11:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas about the sentence "Arsenal FC are also based in the city"? The placement makes it look like they're saying that Arsenal are from Venice, which is probably not true. I am removing it for the moment. Inhumandecency (talk) 02:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

This page says "The word is of Arabic origin, being a corruption of daras-sina'ah, house of trade or manufacture...", but the Venetian Arsenal page says "The name probably comes from Arabic Dar al Sina’a ('Dockyard')...". I understand the etymology may be in dispute, but can we possibly get a correct translation of the Arabic? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elmo iscariot (talk • contribs) 15:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

Shouldn't Arsenal F.C be the page that comes up when 'Arsenal' is searched for? I'm sure that is what most people typing that in are looking for, no offence to fans of military arsenals. It would seem to make more practical sense. If not then the initial page should at least be to the disambiguation. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 02:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly, it would be safe to assume that the majority of people searching the query "arsenal" are surprised to get this, not the football club. I'm new to this, how to we determine if we can change that? (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2009 (ET)

Arsenal FC certainly has an international following, but given the worldwide reach of Wikipedia the military establishment, rather than the club, should be the first page found. There's an empirical test given in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: the number of pages in SPECIAL:WHATLINKSHERE for each article: the military arsenal has much the greater number. Arsenal F.C. is in the hatnote: just one more click! --Old Moonraker (talk)

Could I see the link for that? (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2009 (ET)

That is a very good question: I've just checked again and it seems that my comparison between Arsenal F. C. and arsenals contained an error that isn't immediately obvious. Apologies. Notwithstanding, I believe the original, historical topic should be the main page. If you feel strongly that the change should be made, the procedure is set out at here. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you search only article namespace and compare "Arsenal" to "Arsenal FC" (rather than "Arsenal fc") you get about the same number of hits. If you google "Arsenal", there's no mention of anything but the football club on the first page (I didn't bother checking how far you have to go before munitions are mentioned). If you check the traffic statistics, more people visit Arsenal FC than Arsenal (and how many of those people were really trying to get to the FC?) One of the articles talks about carriage factories and saddleries and carries the {{Unreferenced}} tag. The other is a Featured Article rated as Highly Important and Important in two seperate projects; it's been recorded as a spoken article, it has over 90 references, 10 highly notable external pages, and it's own navigation template. I don't think there's really any contest as to which page should have the higher priority. Endomorphic (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Check out Arsenal F.C. (no space) and Arsenal FC (no dots or spaces). Together these have a *lot* more linkage than arsenal, so now the empirical tests support pointing this article towards the football club. Endomorphic (talk) 10:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that was my error! --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:37, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Can we move it then? --Raudys 12:59, 28 January 2009 (ET)

I'm an Arsenal fan but I think it's best left the way it is. The word Arsenal is first and foremost a military installation (look at the club badge!). Anyway, there's a direct link to the Arsenal FC page from here. Zarcadia (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Might also help international fans understand where the FC got its name from in the first place. 62.196.17.197 (talk) 14:13, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

The section "Arsenal Types" looks like a quote from somewhere (the style is certainly very different from the rest of the page) ... could someone please attribute it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.74.62.195 (talk) 09:16, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like its from Americanized Encyclopedia britannica, 1890, OCLC 26735491. It needs to be put into its proper historical context as well, if it's to be kept at all. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:05, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I notice that there has been a great deal of vandalism on this page by people who don't particularly like the soccer team by the same name. It may not be a bad idea to make this article semi-protected, at the very least. Unfortunately, I do not know how to go about requesting that status.Bardbom (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]