Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Arsenal F.C.. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Images

I have some images I have taken of the Arsenal F.C. parade in Islington 2004 if you would like to use them I will gladly email/upload them - (dineshcooper@hotmail.com)

That would have been great! It would definitely spruce up the article a lot. Too many pictures of this event would probably be considered redundant, but it would have been really cool if you could put up one or two of the better shots you have. Mortene 09:04, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I removed the Arsenal crest due to copyright concerns, although if someone knows that it is permissible to display it, then please put it back. - Madw 16:00, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)

Squad Numbers

I've just noticed that someone has previously removed the squad numbers of various minor players whose numbers I added earlier. I got these numbers from the BBC, they match those that were previously taken from [1] by User:Bobo192. I'm not sure why the Arsenal website doesn't have these numbers listed, the players definitely have them as they have all played first team football this season, or at least been on the bench. Players have to have the same unique number for a whole season. Rje 00:11, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

Wenger's Arsenal

I've trimmed this section, it seemed to me there was too much trivia (especially about other clubs) andit made the section over-long compared to the rest of the club's history. Feel free to comment. Qwghlm 11:56, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Image copyrights

The copyrights on the images recently added are probably not GFDL-compatible. I've flagged Image:Emirates stadium gallery.jpg as a copyvio (it's from the Arsenal.com website) and the Ian wright picture Image:179.jpg as possibly unfree (can't track the source). The club logos are probably covered under fair use, though. Qwghlm 21:42, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Why did You remove the latest update of Arsenal F.C won The FA Cup?

Why? Why? Are you Manchester United Fan? I demand that info about the latest glory development in history of Arsenal be put back and restored.

I'm not sure if this was aimed at me- I removed the paragraph from the introduction to the article as it was unnecessary. The introduction is saved for basic information, not recent achievements. I hope you would notice that it was ME that added the achievement to the later sections of the article, AND when a bitter Utd fan removed it and claimed that Arsenal lost, I not only reverted it but I put a warning on his/her talk page. To answer your question, I find your suggestion that I am a Utd fan an insult, I support Liverpool- but this is irrelevant.

Your demand that the latest glory be put back into the introduction will be unmet, I am afraid. If you have any further questions please contact me on my talk page. - sars 17:49, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I would like to apologise to you if my comment about Man U Fan offend you. But I do believe that my comment was not directed at you, the section I mentioned is as follows: "Arsenal were crowned 2005 F.A. Cup Winners after beating Manchester United 5-4 on penalties when goalkeeper Jens Lehmann sprang to his right to push away Scholes' effort and Vieira's nerve of steel under pressure to put the ball in the top corner of the goal. Manchester United dominated the whole game and the Arsenal victory seemed to have robbed Manchester United of glory." Before somebody removed it. the section does provide very objective observation about the match though ("Manchester United dominated the whole game" part.) Regards,

Fixed-width fonts in squad list

Using fixed-width fonts in the squad list is, IMHO, ugly, especially with the different-coloured background and dotted border it is given, which marks it out against the rest of the text. The bullets aren't perfect, but still somewhat better. Compare:

 1 GK  Jens Lehmann
 3 D   Ashley Cole
 4 M   Patrick Vieira

with:

The anoymous user who insists on changing it so hasn't given any reason for doing so, although it might be because of the addition of abbreviations of the player's position (which IMHO, clutter the list whether in a fixed- or variable-width font). Qwghlm July 5, 2005 17:16 (UTC)

Agreed, it looks horrible. I notice 195.92.168.164 and 195.92.168.163 have both been doing these - same person I presume. I propose a systematic rollback of all these edits. -- Arwel 5 July 2005 17:58 (UTC)

Crest in infobox

There is a dispute between myself and Ed_g2s (talk · contribs) about whether to place the new Arsenal crest in the infobox or not. This is simply to move the relevant exchanges in the talk pages to this page for convenience when seeking a third opinion.

All the other pages have crests in the infoboxes because we don't have many better images that represent the club. Having written the football club infoboxes, I can tell you that the image parameter was added as an optional very recently. Images should be used to illustrate the article and to aid the text. The crest best illustrates the section which discusses its design. Images should not be included twice on a page, especially non-free ones. In general club crests have little encylopædic value (not to mention the fact that they are heavily protected by copyright, HQFL was asked by the Premier League to remove all its English club logos), and it is alarming that they have been used as the infobox image for all of these clubs. ed g2s • talk 9 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

The difficulty I have is that it singles out the Arsenal pages - if your main concern is an image appearing twice, then remove the second bigger one from the crest section below. If your concern is that it's a copyrighted logo, then remove all the logos from the infoboxes from other clubs. Be consistent. --khaosworks July 9, 2005 18:13 (UTC)

It would make absolutely no sense to move the crest out of the section about the crest, the "it may be stupid, but at least it's consistent" reasoning is worrying. And as much as I'd love to remove every fair use image from Wikipedia, it just isn't going to happen. ed g2s • talk 9 July 2005 18:19 (UTC)

It's hardly stupid - the original crest is still in the crest section. When people read about the later crest it's displayed in the info box. All the information is there, and the information is equally there in the info box if people are only looking there. Your way, the crest vanishes from the info box for no good reason leaving people to puzzle why it's not there when it's there on every other FC article. --khaosworks July 9, 2005 18:22 (UTC)

The majority of football league teams do not have crests, and a significant majority of pages using the template do not have crests. ed g2s • talk 22:51, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Every other Premiere League club has its crest in the infobox. Again, why single out Arsenal? --khaosworks 22:53, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

As I've already explained, because Arsenal has a body of text relating to the crest. If these logos were free and Wikipedia were to be considered a source of them, then perhaps they should all be in the same place, but they really are minor details in relation to the club, which get top billing for being pretty graphics and make the page look "nice". It'd be much better to have a nice shot of the stadium in the image box. ed g2s • talk 23:16, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I know it's a minor detail, but it just looks odd. If you're talking about a double use of the crest, my proposal is simply to get it the new crest out of the crest section, leave the old one there, and put the new crest in the infobox. The reader isn't stupid. He can see what it is. That way, it preserves information and it looks consistent. If it's such a minor detail, why insist on changing it against all the other club articles? --khaosworks 23:19, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't say it was a minor detail, it is a choice between presentation and functionality. Reading the section about the new crest design, one expects to have both crests to hand as the discussion is essentially about the differences between two images. The claim for fair use there is very strong. On arriving at the page, the crest at the top provides no use other than cosmetic. ed g2s • talk 23:32, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

And I'm saying it doesn't necessarily have to be a choice between one and the other. Fair dealing is equally as strong if it's up in the infobox or it's down there. You expect the old crest in the Crest section, but you also would expect the club symbol to be in the infobox as well, as it is presented in all the clubs. It's not merely cosmetic; you shouldn't have the reader have to scroll down all the way just to see the club crest - otherwise, what's the point of the image field in the infobox to begin with? --khaosworks 00:59, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

"what's the point of the image field in the infobox to begin with?" ... none as far as I'm concerned, which is why I opposed its addition to the infobox. ed g2s • talk 01:16, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

And yet, it's there, so obviously you're in the minority when it comes to that. It should be used. Would you like to take it to Talk:Arsenal and put it to a vote to see if there's a consensus opinion on this? --khaosworks 01:21, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The decision to include the image line was made by one person, and I agreed with the concesson that it should be optional. Judging by the quality of the crest images uploaded, I wouldn't trust the opinion of this "majority" which is in favour of having the club crest on each page. By all means this discussion should take place on the Arsenal talk page, but I should remind you that votes are one of the last resorts in dispute resolution.

I am more inclined to agree with the opinions of ed g2s • talk mainly that there is redundance in including the image of the 'modern' crest twice. I personally like the look of the page without the crest heading the info box as the kit image provides certain color to the page. I agree with Ed g2s that if people were so inclined as to include an image something like the image of the stadium, full stands, or perhaps a player during live action would be a good option. I know of other websites that the FA has come down on for using club logo images and I've actually been suprised that so far there hasn't been any appeal about the ones on wikipedia (knock on wood). -ÅfÇ++ 06:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

My proposal, just for clarification, wasn't to have the modern logo be displayed twice, but to simply shift it into the infobox. --khaosworks 07:47, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

And for those who can't be bothered to read the lengthy previous discussion, my point is that the logo is better suited in the section about the crest, half way down the page, than in the infobox at the top. ed g2s • talk 19:35, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I prefer a single inclusion in the infobox rather than in the article, for reasons of consistency with other pages. But I think it's a highly trivial thing to argue over and it's been going on for so long I think agreement is unlikely - can I suggest we have a vote or something to sort this out once and for all? Qwghlm 14:34, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

So far we have the opinions of four people, let's not jump into a vote, especially as the discussion has been active on this page for four days. (Of course, votes are evil anyway!). ed g2s • talk 20:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd put the modern crest in the infobox, since that seems standard. The crest section isn't in any case long enough to hold three images, and people don't need the images side-by-side to understand the changes, since there's an excellent verbal description. (That said, I'm no fan of Arsenal, so do what you like folks. ;) Rd232 12:22, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I believe the present crest should be put in the infobox for consistency. There are three crests under the crest section right now and the layout looks a bit strange to me. PUT CREST IN INFOBOX. --Variance 21:09, 2005 August 4 (UTC)

I also think the infobox should have the crest in. I don't care whether the crest appears twice or if the article has something like (see above) to refer to it, but the infobox looks odd without it. CTOAGN 21:22, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Adding player photos to the biographies

Would be a good idea to add their club photos to their biography pages? Hotingzilla 06:56, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Given that nearly all photos of football players are copyrighted, it is not a good idea to add them to Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Qwghlm 09:54, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a bit more - if there are any pictures of them that you yourself have taken (and thus own the copyright to), then they would be fine to upload. Qwghlm 10:01, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Separate history page

The history section is way too long now, and the page is getting too big as a whole. I am probably going to hive off the History section to a separate page, History of Arsenal F.C., and replace it with 3-4 paragraphs giving a brief summary and a link to a detailed page. I take it this will be alright with everyone else? Qwghlm 11:56, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Ah what the heck, why not be bold? Done it. Qwghlm 19:26, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Famous Arsenal fans

Is this section really necessary? It's not particularly informative, seems little more than a pick of people from http://www.arseweb.com/other/celebs.html and has the potential to become really, really long and useless. Qwghlm 16:35, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

I've asked the same question at Talk:Manchester United F.C. for the same reasons. I think the reason it's appearing everywhere is because it's mentioned on the football clubs wikiproject - maybe it's worth suggesting they only include it for smaller clubs and seeing what they say? CTOAGN 18:37, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Is it mentioned on the Wikiproject? I haven't seen that. It looks to me like the famous fans additions to club pages (well, the initial ones at least) are all the work of User:GL3N [2]. Qwghlm

I've edited the project page to suggest it's only done for smaller clubs. Maybe you should just be bold again and delete the section. If people want to find out who Jo Guest supports they can always look at her page. CTOAGN 20:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Feeling in a "be bold" mood, so have done so. Qwghlm 14:09, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I can see this recurring often. Whilst I'm loath to suggest it, maybe List of famous Template F.C. fans should be created for clubs these edits happen to regularly? Oldelpaso 11:08, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

All-foreign team

Arsenal were not the first side to field an all-"foreign" team in English football, or even English league football. The honour belongs to Chelsea, who on December 26, 1999 fielded the following team in a Premiership match against Southampton:

De Goey, Petrescu, Thome, Leboeuf, Babayaro, Ferrer, Deschamps, Poyet, Di Matteo, Ambrosetti, Flo.

See [3] Qwghlm 00:04, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Linkbox at bottom

As some people have probably noticed, I've created (or contributed heavily to) a series of articles associated with Arsenal (History of Arsenal F.C., Arsenal F.C. statistics etc.), and I thought it would be nice to have a template link box at the bottom of each (rather than have "See also" sections, which are a bit ugly) so that they all link to each other. I came up with the following, and I'd like feedback on it.

	Arsenal Football Club
The Club \| History \| Players \| Statistics
Highbury \| Emirates Stadium

Qwghlm 19:16, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me, although I'm not sure how it will look atop the EPL link box & so on. --fuddlemark 14:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Nice! Well done. I'm all for it. Mortene 09:15, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Stuck it in now, looks OK to me... Qwghlm 22:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Great idea. So good, in fact, that I've shamelessly stolen it. Still, sincerest form of flattery and all that. CTOAGN 12:38, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

First team squad

I have got a question. Why are some reserve/youth team players (i.e. Arturo Lupoli and those below him) listed on the first team? Should they be kept there or taken off the list? Or perhaps moved into a different section like Reserves. Arsenal 18:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Some of them figured last season in the first team (Lupoli definitely did in the Cup against Sheffield United), some have only just been signed but played in pre-season. Since they're likely to figure in the Carling Cup this autumn, and one or two maybe in the League if injuries etc. occur. I see no harm in keeping them in; they're not taking up too much space, especially as the squad is split into two columns. Qwghlm 22:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

IMHO it should split up into first team and reserves/youth then, like on the Arsenal web site. It also doesn't seem fair to include some of the reserves while leaving out others. --71.109.163.152 05:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Oops. I should have read that comment before I actually did anything. Sorry, 71. If you want to revert, feel free to do so, but I was just attempting to keep consistency with all the other Premiership teams. I won't revert personally, I'll leave it up to you. Bobo192|Edits

As Fabrice Muamba hasn't been anywhere near the first team yet (neither have Kerrea Gilbert or Patrick Cregg, who are also listed on soccerbase) I've removed him from the list for now. Incidentally, although he was born in the Congo, he's a naturalised citizen and plays for England at youth level [4]. Qwghlm 08:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)