Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Semi-protection

Have re-semiprotected this page - the last time it was taken off semi-protection (2007-03-24) the page was heavily vandalised for the week following before semi-protection was restored - see history. As a high-profile football club, it's a similar situation for Arsenal as exists in Manchester United and Liverpool - it is naturally going to be a target "subject to heavy and continued vandalism" and should be permanently semi-protected as per policy in WP:PROTECT. Qwghlm (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

This line keeps getting deleted

"The fact that Arsenal have held onto their top flight status ever since makes them the only team in the top division not to have been promoted on playing merit." - It refers to the way they were voted into the top division in 1919 after being placed 6th in division 2 when play was suspended for WWI. This is an important and interesting fact about Arsenal Football Club and it is an important part of football history. (--BigTurnip (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC))

I would argue that the club's position IS based on footballing merit. Had the team played poorly, they would have been relegated (and possibly subsequently promoted, as per the Chelsea example you give on you Talk Page). Arsenal's sustained position in the top-flight is based on their sustained footballing merit. The 1919 promotion issue is already covered in the article. PlayCollective (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - in any case, had finished 3rd and 5th in their two seasons in the Second Division before 1919 - had they finished bottom both times, there is no way they could have argued they should be elected back to the First, so merit had played some part. The wording of BigTurnip's contribution is far too ambiguous compared to the precision of their reasoning - Arsenal have had a spell in the top flight due purely due to merit (the first spell 1904-1913), and other teams have also been elected to the top flight (Chelsea in 1919, Darwen in 1890-91 and Sheffield Wednesday in 1891-92, and you could even argue the same for the league's founder members in 1888) for reasons that were not purely merit. I've amended the sentence to take these into account. Qwghlm (talk) 11:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Also agree, and see the line remains as originally posted in discussion. The "History" page clearly states that no wrongdoing was ever proven -- it is only alleged. So this line is POV, highly speculative, and does not deserve to remain. Discussion is "an important and interesting part of football history", but listing this as fact isn't. --Mgreen09 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor verifiability issue

"Arsenal's tally of thirteen League Championships is the third highest in English football, after Liverpool and Manchester United, while the total of ten FA Cups is the second highest, after Manchester United." -- would be good to have this sourced? Chensiyuan (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, with a few more thrown in for good measure. Qwghlm (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Sponsorship

As far as I can tell, the sponsorship section is simply a table of past and present sponsors. The way I see it, if quite a bit of detail goes into ownership and finances, would having a little more detail in the sponsorship section be useful? I know it's rather unconventional for football articles to talk about sponsors but if the deals are in the tens or hundreds of millions, isn't that noteworthy? Just a thought. Chensiyuan (talk) 01:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually I think the table should go - it's ugly and adds little. While changes in ownership etc. can have a big influence on how a club is run and progresses, a shirt sponsorship deal is just a deal, and little more can be said about it than who or what. I'd rather get rid of the whole thing. Any objections? Qwghlm (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No idea who put it in though. But I've no objections. Chensiyuan (talk) 02:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Now removed, since nobody here objected. Qwghlm (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect References

In this article the following "references" ^[55],^[56], ^[57] and ^[59] are given. These are not in fact references and are notes and I feel should be changed accordingly, with the addition of a notes section before the references one. - Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:58, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

The section is named Footnotes rather than References, and besides I don't think it is possible to separate out footnotes from references, nor does the manual of style say that they have to be separated (as far as I know). That said, the "caretaker manager" note should really be at the foot of the table, not the article, as it's a denotation not an annotation. Qwghlm (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

DIARRA IS GONE

remove Diarra, he is no longer in the squad.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.108.88 (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Carling Cup result

Come on lads, hardly a devastating defeat ... it's the Carling Cup, FFS! I'd fix, but it's semi-p. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.61.149 (talk) 22:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Not sure if it was vandalism or accidental, but someone has removed a chunk of sections from the Arsenal F.C. page. I have no clue how to fix the problem, can anyone do something?

--Babychimp16 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's now been fixed. [1] Thanks for the heads-up. haz (talk) 19:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit Problem

Where is the edit button for the page?? I cant find it. Any Help??

CahirEDIT (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC) [ cahirEDIT ] CahirEDIT (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected. Use the template {{editprotected}} on this talk page to request that your edit be made. haz (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for help. CahirEDIT (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2008 (UTC) cahirEDIT

Correct name of loan-player Pedro

Arsenal's player on loan at UD Salamanca is named here PEDRO SILVA, abbreviated from his full name Pedro Roberto Silva Botelho.

However, the official Salamanca website http://www.udsalamanca.net/cmsa/index.php uses PEDRO BOTELHO as his name; and on his shirt appears P. BOTELHO as well (see http://youngguns.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/loan-news-pedro-completes-90-minutes-for-salamanca).

So I suggest changing the name on the Arsenal page from Pedro Silva to Pedro Botelho, too.

Abehn (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Your right, it is Pedro Botelho not Pedro Silva.

You should change it!

CahirEDIT (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Now changed, thanks for informing us. Qwghlm (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Raffaelle Palladino

ARSENAL HAVE ALSO BEEN INTERESTED IN BUYING PLAYER RAFFAELLE PALLADINO FROM JUVENTUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.174.162 (talk • contribs) 15:04, February 13, 2008

Graph accuracy

Image:Arsenal Premier League Seasons.jpg seems to show the 2002 finish as 8th. Is my reading of this accurate, as I seem to remember Arsenal doing better than that.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It is also enormous - more than 5000px wide, over 1Mb, and refers to all topflight seasons, not just Premier League ones. I've commented it out, if an accurate version is uploaded (hopefully smaller and as an svg) then it can be restored. Oldelpaso (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was also quite ugly (same colour & weight on the gridlines made it difficult to read), but I didn't have the heart to remove it on those grounds alone. Qwghlm (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Players on the squad list

Having checked the Arsenal squad on their official website, I found that any players beyond Walcott are not listed there. I guess it's because reserve players are not considered to be in the first team. Perhaps we should remove those players off the list as well? Having read the articles on the other teams, I haven't seen any of them with such a big list.--Alasdair 23:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

They have been listed in first team sqaud lists, either for the Carling Cup or the Champions League (as referenced & in official sources) and given a first-team number. The squad isn't that big and seems to be about the same size as the one for e.g. Liverpool, so I think they should stay. Qwghlm (talk) 08:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

add san siro result mar 4 2008

first english team ever to beat current champions league champions ac milan at their home stadium san siro cite http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/7272514.stm

stadiums

The article says that a roof was put over the Clock End in the 1930s. Is this true? The Clock End was an open terrace in the 80s.

81.153.2.248 (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Duly corrected - the Clock End didn't have a roof until the redevelopments of the 1980s and early 1990s, as far as I can see. Qwghlm (talk) 00:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Arsenal Supporters

I'm surprised that the article doesn't have a list of well known supporters. I have a few names, but I'd welcome more, and could put something in. Millbanks (talk) 11:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't waste your time, it will just be removed. There isn't a list for a good reason - existing consensus is that lists of famous fans are needless trivia should not be included in articles. Qwghlm (talk) 12:15, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Table of attendances

This should not be in the article as it stands, I feel. Firstly, it's poorly sourced (the relevant reference does not list the relevant statistics). Secondly, it's too detailed - there is no need to list every single season's attendances and it pushes POV by saying the move is "dramatic". And I think the table is obtrusive and interrupts the flow of text. A simpler and more effective compromise, to spell out the point being proven, in a lot less space, would be a simple single sentence saying "The move to Emirates Stadium has increased Arsenal's average attendance from 38,184 in 2005-06 to 60,045 in 2006-07." Qwghlm (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Minor trophies in Honours section

Arsenal have won far too many minor pre-season and other competitions for them all to be included here - including the Caltex Cup (1990, 1991), Zenith Data Systems Cup (1989), Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy (1989), Southern Floodlight Challenge Cup (1959), not to mention wartime trophies during World Wars and cups such as the Kent Senior Cup and London Senior Cup way back in the 1890s, and many many more. To include them all would make the page impossibly long, so I think it should be kept to major trophies (FA/Football League/UEFA-controlled). Qwghlm (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Qwghlm. Minor pre-season trophies should not be included. Oldelpaso (talk) 08:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Move reversed

I reversed the recent undiscussed move of this article to Arsenal FC. It seems better at Arsenal F.C. to comply with other teams, such as Manchester United F.C. and Leek Town F.C.. I hope I did right. The deliberate mistake(!) in my move summary was that I described this article as a featured article - I know it is not: what I meant to say was that other soccer club articles that are featured, including Man U and Leek Town, must have had the "F.C." form accepted during their FACs. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

What am I talking about?! Of course, this is a featured article. (Exit pursued by a bear.) --RobertG ♬ talk 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Shakespeare's finest stage direction, in my opinion... and yes, it does seem only logical. Other international football team articles such as FC Barcelona don't contain the full stops, but English sides such as Leeds United A.F.C. and Reading F.C. do, as a quick look at Category:English football clubs will confirm. The move wasn't researched thoroughly enough and it really ought to have been discussed first in any case. haz (talk) 13:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Abbreviations: FC versus F.C.

Hi, It was me, Sir! Sorry, spur of the moment thing, but have a look at the Manual of Style and see what you think.

"Acronyms and initialisms are generally not separated by full stops (periods) or blank spaces (GNP, NORAD, OBE, GmbH); many periods and spaces that were traditionally required have now dropped out of usage (PhD is preferred over Ph.D. and Ph. D.)."

It'll take some time, but not a huge amount of effort to re-direct all the 92 English League clubs. I've seen FA Cup within many of these these articles without full stops. In addition, UEFA, and FIFA are also consistently in there without full stops. Surely an article is still "Featured" if moved? Content over style and all that? I'm no expert, I've only contributed a Featured List here and not any articles! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be over 1,200 articles, not just 92. I think the contents of that category demonstrate a de facto consensus, even if there has been no formal discussion (there may have been). Is this suggestion a solution looking for a problem? --RobertG ♬ talk 16:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how multiple redirects would be a problem, given that content would be almost unaffected. Granted, it would take time to go through the whole lot! But if FA can be written FA, why cant F.C. be written FC within the same article? Consensus doesn't necessarily mean a policy is right :) best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the Club template at WikiProject_Football. Clearly somebody didn't look at this! And I did not edit it just now LOL! best, Sunil060902 (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Its something which has been discussed at WP:FOOTBALL before on a few occasions (Two such examples here andhere). There has been no clear consensus either way. Currently, English and Italian clubs are all F.C., there are other countries' clubs which have FC. As usage currently varies by country, the WP:FOOTBALL template is not intended as a mandate on this point. However, the amount of work involved in changing them is enormous, for little benefit. If a clear consensus were to develop, it would need bots to implement it. It should certainly not be done as an impulse decision on one article. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes sorry for the spur of the moment thing yesterday, but for consistency, all countries should be FC, and periods/stops (see WP:MOS above) are not used in other publications (eg. BBC), and seem to be more common in American rather than British English (remember these are English clubs!). Would one write FA Cup or F.A. Cup? Just my observations! Yes, it's a huge number of articles, which is why I suggest re-directing only the 92 English League team articles (the most read?) in the first instance as a bare minimum. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 13:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

FA website lists the club with the following information:

Arsenal FC

Emirates Stadium

Highbury House

75 Drayton Park

LONDON

N5 1BU

All the others seem to be FC as well. best, Sunil060902 (talk) 14:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Results Of Penalty Shoot-Outs

I've been trawling through my stats and correcting all sorts of mistakes. Something that I've just stumbled upon is how the results of penalty shoot-outs are recorded. Terry Neill's managerial record on Wikipedia indicates that penalty shoot-outs are recorded as a draw. Surely the final result of the game is the one that counts. After all, Valencia won the 1980 Cup-Winners' Cup final outright. Anyone else have a view on this? --Goonerak (talk) 07:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Penalty shoot-outs should definitely not be recorded as "wins" or "losses". Penalties are a tiebreaker in the event of a draw, the result after 90/120 minutes of play should be what's recorded.Or would you record wins on the away goals rule as wins as well regardless of result? Qwghlm (talk) 10:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A penalty shoot-out is used to decide the outcome of a game. I seem to recall on Wednesday night that Manchester United were presented with the Champions League trophy and winners' medals. I certainly didn't see Chelsea celebrating the "draw". Away goals are used to decide a tie (i.e. more than one game). A 2-1 win and 0-1 defeat in two separate games are exactly that. --Goonerak (talk) 11:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

But we're talking about statistics, not trophies. Historically, before penalties were instituted, would tosses of coins count as wins or losses? Also would goals scored in shootouts counted in goalscoring totals (for players they are definitely not). UEFA certainly do not record penalty shootouts as win/loss results - in Arsenal's record in the Cup Winners Cup for example, the only losses recorded are the two in the 1994-95 campaign (3-2 to Sampdoria and 2-1 to Real Zaragoza), and not the penalty loss to Valencia in 1980. Qwghlm (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A game of football has three outcomes - Team A wins, Team B wins or the game is drawn. On 28 October 2003 Arsenal played Rotherham in the Carling Cup. Rotherham did not win as they did not progress to the next round. The game was not drawn as no replay was played. Logic, therefore, tells us that Arsenal must have won the game. i.e. Arsenal recorded a win. If a game is won on the toss of a coin then the game is a win for one team and defeat for the other. It is just another mechanism for deciding the outcome of a cup game - as is one team scoring more goals than the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonerak (talk • contribs) 12:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong: A team wins a game by scoring more goals than the other. If the number of goals is equal, then it's a draw. There may be a tiebreaker to decide progression in the tournament, but according to the laws of the game, the match played on the pitch ended in a draw. UEFA don't recognise them as wins, nor do FIFA - e.g. in their records for England v. Germany in the World Cup they recognise one victory apiece and two draws, even though Germany scored more penalties the shootout in the 1990 World Cup. That's the official way of recording them as done by the authorities and Wikipedia should follow the same rules. Case closed. Qwghlm (talk) 13:06, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to FIFA's Laws of the game:

"Competition Rules

When competition rules require there to be a winning team after a

match or home-and-away tie, only the following procedures, which

have been approved by the International F.A. Board, are permitted

• Away goals rule

• Extra time

• Kicks from the penalty mark"

That to me says that for competitions like the FA Cup, Carling Cup, European Cups (i.e. competitions that require a winning team) there is a requirement for a team to win a tie. It then lists methods in which a winning team can be determined. This then means that a team that succeeds in penalty shoot out is actually a winning team and, again, logic dictates that they must be awarded a win. --Goonerak (talk) 17:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[reindenting] That makes a clear distinction between rules for individual competitions (which vary) and the Laws (which are the same for every match) - the same Law also states: The team scoring the greater number of goals during a match is the winner. If both teams score an equal number of goals, or if no goals are scored, the match is drawn. That is why FIFA and UEFA do not allocate a "win" or "loss" for shootout results in their statistical breakdowns. Not least because it's problematic for shoot-outs, since not every match that goes to penalties is even a draw. Arsenal lost 3-2 to Sampdoria in the 1995 Cup Winers Cup second leg but it was a draw on aggregate, leading to a penalty shoot-out which Arsenal won. What do you award there - the result after 120 minutes as a loss or the shootout win as a victory? The consistent thing to do is to record the result on the field of play, not the tiebreaker, and that is what is done by the authorities' own statisticians. Wikipedia should do the same thing. Qwghlm (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Celebrities

Perhaps a list of well-known supporters as I am in New Zealand I can only name one so if someone else did it I think it would add to the quality. P.S the one person is Matt Lucas. Tshiels1 (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this has been discussed before and found that it's not the sort of thing for Wikipedia. This website has what you want though: [2] --Goonerak (talk) 10:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

They are always removed, consensus is they are trivia at best and highly discouraged. Besides I don't see how saying "Matt Lucas is an Arsenal supporter" in any way adds to the quality of the article; this is Wikipedia, not Heat magazine. Qwghlm (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2008 (UTC)