Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Koscielny 4th Captain

Laurent Koscielny has been captain on several occasions this season, when Mikel Arteta, Per Mertesacker & Santi Cazorla don't feature. It's safe to assume he's probably the 4th captain, as many clubs have these. 108.180.241.236 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source please and not just an assumption. Sport and politics (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Friendly Cups

I do not think friendly cups should be listed in the honours. Some tournaments eg Markus Liebherr Cup, Kapfenburg tri-team tournament etc were not even 90 minute matches, they were 45 minute matches all played on the same day. Why should these friendly cups which don't even follow normal football rules be included among cups like Premier League and FA Cup. I can understand having cups like London Senior Cup etc because they were the only tournaments around back then, but not pre-season friendlies. They need to be removed. There is a reason why no other teams have them on their wiki pages. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, they aren't major honours, so 100% should be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

They are sourced and could be kept. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football/Archive_102#Arsenal_FC has been taken over by two editors. Qed237 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Who cares if they are sourced. I could go and create a whole new section on this article about something completely unnecessary but as long as I source it it can't be removed? Makes no sense. These friendly cups are not 'honours'. They are non-competitive games some of which don't even follow the rules of football e.g. 45 min matches etc. Also, Arsenal have won countless pre-season cups which have not been included in this list. If they were all included and sourced, the list would go on and on full of random friendly cups and it would look ridiculous. The Arsenal wiki page is being ruined by stubborn editors who will not remove these pre-season cups. Why do you think no other clubs' pages have them, let alone pages of big clubs like Arsenal. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This information is well sourced, the club participated in these tournaments and they have received notable third party coverage. I don't like, is not a reason to exclude. This is notable information relating to the club, as it gives a breadth of knowledge of the club. It shows the club as more than just an August to May club, and shows that the club actually functions as an active football club between May and August. Individual competitions such as the Saitama City Cup and Emirates Cup are notable enough to have individual Wikipedia articles, not including that a club has won would be inconsistent, and a removal of information which is notable for the club. There is a case here for separating out the section on competition successes in to a separate article, this way the information can be expanded on, and the main article does not become unwieldy. creating a separate article is not an uncommon this to do, see the article Arsenal F.C. in European football. Stating "too much information, remove it all' is a farce as it removes notable information and reliably sourced information. No other stuff is also not a reason to not have something, by that logic nothing new would ever be added to any article anywhere on Wikipedia. There has to be an article which is the first article to do something, and if this article happens to be it then so be it. The fact it may be the first article is though not a legitimate reason for removal.

An example is on the England national football team page where friendly tournaments are included such as the Rous Cup and the Tournament of France, by the logic above the England page should be purged on this notable and reliably sourced information.

I would also like to draw users attention to this discussion on the main wikiproject talk page, this discussion establishes and sets the foundation of the current consensus for inclusion of the trophies on this page, this being consensus on the side of inclusion and not exclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sport and politics and Qed237: Separating out part of the section into a new article sounds an interesting suggestion. It means Wikipedia continues to provide a valuable historical reference for otherwise overlooked tournaments, while preventing bloat on the core Arsenal FC page. We would have to form a consensus on which trophies would remain on this page. The FA, UEFA, FIFA combination that stands here sounds a good start. This would also be mostly consistent with the other Premier League Featured Articles: Man U; Liverpool; Chelsea; Villa; Man City; and Sunderland. The exceptions, like Second Division wins, would have be discussed. I would be interested to hear other editors' views on this topic. Madshurtie (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Per comments on the project page there is no discussion. All sourced, all may remain, and diluting the main article defeats the object. The obvious answer here is to reformat using columns, either by entire section, or by the most lengthy subsection (the friendlies competitions). Koncorde (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as its been agreed that all the trophies should be kept on this page, I've added every trophy that Arsenal have won and have sourced them all. Hashim-afc (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I've reverted changes made by @Madshurtie:, no consensus was reached when this happened the last time. More to the point:

• "Arsenal were founded in 1886 in Woolwich...", was, surely?
• "Arsenal entered the first division in 1904..*, First Division?
• How is Myfootballfacts.com a reliable source?
• " Arsène Wenger's teams set several current top flight records: the longest win streak;[4] the longest unbeaten run;[4]...," does that need mentioning here?

To avoid edit warring, best to state your case here when it comes to making intro changes. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51:, please don't rewrite the intro using bloaty and not NPOV sentences from various ancient versions of the lead. Here's a list of problems removed over time by various editors, including me, Haldraper, and others.

• 'One of the most successful clubs...' vague, adds no info, and is certainly not NPOV
• 'Founded in 1886, Arsenal became the first club from the south of England to join the Football League seven years after.' Terrible grammar.
• 'After a lean period in the post-war years...' bloaty, and inaccurate considering they won several trophies shortly after the war.
• 'the second club of the 20th century to win the ...' bloat, not notable, the rest of that sentence is also far too long: '... League and FA Cup Double, in the 1970–71 season, and in the 1990s and 2000s recorded a series of successes – during this time Arsenal won a Cup Double, two further League and FA Cup Doubles, went through a league season undefeated and became the first London club to reach the UEFA Champions League Final.'
• ' recorded a series of successes – during this time Arsenal won a Cup Double, two further League and FA Cup Doubles' bloat, vague, less info in more words than 'they saw five League titles and five FA Cups, including two more Doubles'.
• 'colours ... have evolved over time' verbiage
• 'Similarly, the club has moved location' bloat, and terrible writing.
• 'Arsenal's time in North London has seen a fierce rivalry with Tottenham Hotspur, the North London derby.' Verbiage, and less info in more words than 'They became Tottenham Hotspur's nearest club, beginning the North London Derby.'
• 'Arsenal has one of the highest incomes and largest fanbases in the world.' Vague, adds no info, certainly not NPOV
• 'The club was named the fifth most valuable association football club in the world, valued at $1.3 billion in 2015.' Vague use of passive voice, and adds more authority than Forbes's terrible guessed numbers deserve. Less info in more words than 'Forbes estimates the club was worth $1.3 billion in 2015.'

The version you just composed is so bloaty it squeezes considerably less info into exactly the same number of lines.

Madshurtie (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: As for your points, I am indifferent on the was/were case, so long as there's consistency down the article. Capitalizing first division is fine. If you can find a better source, that would be great, though there's nothing wrong with the number. The records set by Wenger are part of what makes him a historically important Arsenal manager. The Arsenal museum itself makes a fuss about them. The unbeaten one in particular is connected with the Invincibles season. Madshurtie (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: You talk about a last time, I cannot find any version preceding one of my edits that looks like yours. The only one I find that looks like yours is this 2015 rewrite by you. It is not up to you to write a lead and declare it the default. If you want changes, please discuss first.

• Thanks for replying. I don't watch this article, and only noticed the changes through WT:FOOTY. I know it's not up to me to write a lead, but Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS. I modelled the lead on the 2010 FAR version, because first and foremost it's a FA and secondly, it concisely deals with the subject. Your version isn't bad, but I've remodelled it, and omitted some sentences (for instance 'They broke the FA Cup record in 2015' → when they broke the record isn't important, that they have the record is, which is explained in the first paragraph), and stylised it according to Wikipedia guidelines. Lemme know what you think. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Out of interest, where is the 2010 FAR version? Is that just a version from around 2010 (it seems to change back and forth a lot in that year), or is there a definitive version archived? Sorry if this just shows my ignorance. As far as I can tell, this intro has swung all over the place as various editors have rewritten it (including me), so there is no consensus version.

Those are quite a lot of new changes, though some of them might be improvements. Did you change the FA/UEFA line to make it more specific? I'll go find a better reference for the years in the top division. Sorry for knocking out the Champions League bit, not actually winning it made it seem not notable. Why have we lost the unbeaten record bit and the 20th C bit? I guess it reduces the size of the footballing history section, though it seems a shame to lose the info. My suggestion, actually, would be to create a separate, 3-4 line section about Arsenal managers (Chapman, Wenger), similar to Man U, to keep down the size of the footballing history section. If we merged the non-football history section into the finance/support section to create a details-about-the-club section, it would keep the number of paragraphs at four. A structure of Lead lines / Footballing History / Influential Managers / Details about club. I might change it to show you what I mean, and you can change it back if you think necessary. Madshurtie (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not read in to all details of the lead, but keep in mind that the lead is a short summary of the article. Please try and keep it short (not too long) and dont include much content that does not exist elsewhere inside the article. Qed237 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe everything in the lead is in the rest of the article, though it looks like the ownership and finances section could do with updating. The lead is currently exactly the same number of lines as Man U FC, which hasn't changed for a while. If you have any specific changes, please suggest them. :-) Madshurtie (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to update it. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Updated Madshurtie (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry about the WP:FOOTY bit. :-/ Madshurtie (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237:Do you have an ideal length for the intro? It's now two lines shorter than Man U, one more than Liverpool (only because Liverpool doesn't have the professional club sentence), and the same number of lines as it was around the 2010 FA Review. The football stuff currently includes all the trophies, basically all of the unique long term accomplishments, a brief history of every league title, and some famous achievements under famous managers. The non-football stuff includes a bit more than the 2010 FAR, minus what is out of date or moved to other articles. Given that we've done all that in the same amount of space, I'd say we're doing quite well? MOS:Lead states that four paragraphs is the limit, and given this is one of the historically biggest football clubs, that seems appropriate here. Madshurtie (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I dont have a special number for the length but WP:LEADLENGTH is a good standard. It should be short and make reader want to read more (i.e. dont have all info), but four paragraphs are acceptable. Qed237 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

On a slightly different topic, why do so many football clubs start with something like '... is a professional football club ... that plays in the Premier League, the top flight of English football'. The 'professional' bit seems slightly unnecessary alongside the Premier League bit, and it doesn't seem like a very concise way of writing. I always felt we could chop half a line out if we did it more like Liverpool: '... is a Premier League football club'. Madshurtie (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I've made some changes again,

• Shortened it to three paragraphs. I think it's better to state when the club was founded in the second paragraph, and where in the third because that deals with locality.
• Incorporated the the manager bits with achievements. That doesn't mean to say what Chapman did for the club wasn't innovative, but there is another article which deals with WM formations and floodlighting. Removed the bit about Wenger being the club's longest-serving manager, but you could add it back.
• Removed some references because certain information is already cited in the body of the article. Lead is meant to summarise, not add new info. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: Thanks for your comment,

• I see what you're saying about the where/when, but I was actually structuring it to separate the footballing events (joining the league, promotion, winning trophies, etc.) from the non-footballing events (founded in Woolwich, moving, moving again). Your change still has dates in the 'where' section ('in 1913 they moved north...', 'in 2006 they moved...'), so I feel my layout made a fair bit of sense?
• The main reasons I separated the manager bit was because a) there's a fair bit of football content (justified, I think, considering this is a full-sized featured article) and one paragraph seemed a bit crowded b) it provided a good home to the kit colour bit. Your new layout has a pretty bulky football paragraph (six lines) and loses the kit colour info, which has dated since mid-2010, around the FAR. Whether some Chapman innovations deserve to be in the AFC intro is a good question. I think it's acceptable, considering it's only half a line and they're an important contribution by Arsenal to the world of football?
• There's a bit more wordiness (WP:ATE):

• 'The appointment of Herbert Chapman brought about Arsenal's first period of major success as in the 1930s' vs 'Herbert Chapman won Arsenal's first trophies'
• 'Under the management of ...'
• 'The club have moved location ...'

• The 'they moved north across the city ...' sentence seems kind of confusing to the casual reader: Arsenal did move to the north of the city, but the actual direction they moved was closer to west. It's also a bit more wordy.
• I noticed you took out the Champions League Final line. I personally think that's a good edit: it was notable around the 2010 FAR, but Chelsea have since won the competition. It would be interesting to hear other editors' views on this.
• I'm not sure it was necessary to remove the 'Between 1988 and 2005, they won five League titles and five FA Cups' bit. That bit meant the intro covered all 13 titles in three sentences. Each sentence even roughly aligned with the three periods when the titles fell, which seems quite neat.
• The fact that the unbeaten season was much longer than for Preston North End is partially why Arsenal were given so much attention. Shouldn't that info be in the intro? 'the longest whole season unbeaten' seems a very concise way of expressing that.

I'll edit back in some of these points. Feel free to make further changes. Madshurtie (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical club names

@Lemonade51: If we put past names in the intro (bear in mind Dial Square is already in the infobox), how many? To my knowledge, the club goes through Dial Square, Royal Arsenal, Woolwich Arsenal, The Arsenal, and Arsenal. Including all of those might be a bit unwieldy. Madshurtie (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie:, I see. Have no further issues with the lead at this point. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: Glad we got to work on this. If you wanted to add when the club adopted its current name, I think it might slot nicely into the Herbert Chapman bit. Is it worth getting any other reviewers in to look at the intro? It would be nice to have a more recent consensus version than the dated 2010 FAR era ones. Madshurtie (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I guess it wouldn't hurt asking at WT:FOOTY for someone to have a look. Maybe having a look at other football club leads and discussing ways to improve. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

Please change Alexis Sachez number to 7 and remove rosicky Jasonzwsa (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No reliable source cited for the shirt number, whilst Rosicky remains an Arsenal player until "the expiration of his contract in July 2016" - Arjayay (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Honours Categorization

Maybe the regional titles should be grouped all together just below the national ones? would make it all a bit neater as it still reads a little messy. just an idea. what does everyone think?Davefelmer (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: If we group based on european-national-regional, we'd have to mix in a lot of the friendlies into the european and national categories, and it would be trickier for the reader to navigate. Categorizing based on competition format means we can take all of the pre-season and one-round cups out of the other categories.Madshurtie (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The best alternative structure I have thought of is grouping based on organizing body, something like, 'The Football League & Premier League'/'The FA'/'UEFA'/'Other'. It would separate the 13 league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, Community Shields, and UEFA Cup Winners' Cup from everything else, which would be helpful for the reader, but we'd be burying the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, which wasn't run by a major organization. That seems a shame considering its historical importance. The other thing is that the regional leagues and mid-season knock-out tournaments have historical importance to Arsenal, since there were long periods (early history and the war) when it wasn't able to play in any other tournaments. Keeping them separate from all the short cups may be useful to the reader. Madshurtie (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps we should format it as: Domestic (National) including FA Cup, League Cup, title, Community Shield / European (National) including all European honours / Regional / Friendlies. What do you think about that? Davefelmer (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: See discussion below with Hashim. Loads of the trophies are national (teams from around the country), and many of those could be called friendlies. The Mercantile Credit Centenary was a national trophy commemorating a centenary that was organized by The Football League with 16 participating clubs, whereas the Herbert Chapman memorial trophy was also a national trophy commemorating a centenary organized by the clubs and with two participants. How are we classifying which is a friendly? If you want to dig through all of the historical matchday programmes and see if they label the match as a friendly, be my guest, but I suspect even those won't consistently label them. Madshurtie (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a featured article so what is wrong with the current order? I see no compelling reason to change. Qed237 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: The problem is that there are very few club pages that list all named cups like this, so there isn't much of a consensus structure to follow. Also, the friendlies and stuff were only added relatively recently, mostly over the last year, well after the last featured article review and without much discussion of how they should be laid out. If we're going to lead the way like this, we need to make sure we're doing it properly. Madshurtie (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc:For a second time, I have checked the pre-season matches, and all of those ones were played between seasons. What makes life complicated is having no clear definition of what is a friendly and what is not. The Mercantile Credit Centenary, London Challenge Cup, and Southern Professional Floodlit Cup are examples of multi-stage competitions that we aren't listing among the friendlies, whereas the Emirates and the Amsterdam Tournament are examples of multi-stage competitions that we are listing as friendlies. What's more, there's no evidence among the sources for which competitions are actually friendly matches since they often aren't named as such. Calling them pre-season/one-match means the categories are verifiable through the listed sources, and means we can separate out as much clutter as possible from the league and knockout sections. Madshurtie (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This system is flawed in my opinion. Firstly the Community Shield is a one-round cup, so technically it fits into both the super cup and the one-round cup sections, i.e. these two sections overlap. Also the one-round cup section overlaps with the pre-season cup section too - for example the 1989 Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy was a one-round cup but was also in pre-season, and the exact same applies to Indonesia Cup and Malaysia Cup - so where do these go? They technically should go in both sections, and they currently aren't in both. So the current system is clearly flawed. In my opinion we should just keep it nice and simple. A section for major domestic honours (Prem, FA Cup, League Cup, Community Shield, possibly Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy but there would probably have to be a discussion about that), a section for European honours (Cup Winners Cup and (probably) Inter Cities Fairs Cup), and a section for 'Other honours' where all the other trophies (ranging from London Challenge Cup to the likes of Emirates Cup and Malaysia Cup) are listed. And if you really want to separate cups like London Challenge Cup from cups like Malaysia Cup, then you can separate the 'Other honours' section into knockout and one-match. There is my opinion. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I agree the system is flawed, and I've thought about redrawing it a few times, but every alternative seems flawed. My way of thinking was that the Super Cup category takes precedence over everything to separate out the Community Shield, and then the pre-season category takes precedence over everything else so that it keeps overlapping trophies out of more important sections. The one-match section mops up the rest. As a result, the top, main categories only contain the leagues, the FA trophies, the UEFA trophies, and the historically interesting wartime and early history trophies. I think using precedence like this at least keeps it consistent. Madshurtie (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is bad if the logic isn't obvious to the reader or other editors. I could either leave a note for other editors in the wikitext, or we could just come up with a new system. Do you think a system like this would be an improvement? Madshurtie (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie:I understand your thinking but I don't think we should keep this system. I mean for example, the reader will see that the Malaysia Cup and Indonesia Cup aren't in the one match cup sections, and then he/she will think that means they weren't one match cups when they actually were. The reader isn't going to know that the reason why they are in that section is because that section takes precedence over the one match cup section. They will be led to believing false information and this is something we shouldn't allow to happen. What do you think are the flaws of the system I proposed earlier? ("A section for major domestic honours (Prem, FA Cup, League Cup, Community Shield, possibly Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy but there would probably have to be a discussion about that), a section for European honours (Cup Winners Cup and (probably) Inter Cities Fairs Cup), and a section for 'Other honours' where all the other trophies (ranging from London Challenge Cup to the likes of Emirates Cup and Malaysia Cup) are listed. And if you really want to separate cups like London Challenge Cup from cups like Malaysia Cup, then you can separate the 'Other honours' section into knockout and one-match.") This system separates the major from the minor, and separates the minor into knockout and one match, so the reader knows which are the 'more important' minor trophies, if you will. (e.g. the London Challenge Cup was certainly seen as more important in its day as something like the Malaysia Cup and my proposed system would separate them out). So what do you think about this? Hashim-afc (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that system would be an improvement to the current one, but I think we can make it a lot simpler if we used the system I described above. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I think I agree with you about confusing the reader, so we'll probably have to change it. My problem with your system is the definition is a bit vague. People will start arguing over what's major or not (indeed, they already have), some people will try to put the early years cups, wartime stuff, London Charity Shield, etc in with the domestic trophies because they were arguably major in their time, and then it would become even less clear what's major and what's not. I have no problem with an 'Other Honours' bucket for chucking in everything else, I just think it's clearer for other editors and the reader if the first categories are nice and precise. That's why I drew up the organizing bodies alternative, because its harder to argue whether the tournament was organized by The FA or not. Madshurtie (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I understand your point, but I think it would be very hard to argue that cups like the London Challenge Cup are major honours. I think the clear consensus is that all tournaments organised by the FA themselves (except for pre-season tournaments) are major honours, like you said. With that in mind, I have changed the honours section on the Arsenal F.C. page into what I think it should be. Could you take a look at it please? I think it is good because it's nice and simple (only 3 main subheadings), and the 'Others' section is split up so that the more important minor trophies are separated from the pre-season ones. I don't think people will be able to argue against this. What do you think? If people start moving trophies like Southern Professional Cup into the major section then maybe we should think of another revamp, but I doubt this will happen. I think the system I have just implemented works really well. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I feel if the clear consensus is that the major tournaments are the ones organized by those bodies then we should just say that in the headings to avoid confusion. Labelling them with the organizing body also gives a bit more information to the reader. I think I like your sub-split of wartime/mid-season/pre-season, but I think I'll split The Football/Premier League stuff from the FA stuff to keep it solid and easier for the reader to navigate. Madshurtie (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Alright, I'm glad we got it sorted. By the way, I added another trophy into the Wartime section as I just found out about it - Football League Southern War Cup. We won it in 1943 by beating Charlton at Wembley. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Actually, the only problem with this system as opposed to the one I implemented is that the Inter Cities Fairs Cup, considered a major trophy by almost all sources (including FIFA), gets grouped together with trophies like Will Mather Trophy and Bath Coronation Cup which are of much lower importance. Also, weren't the wartime leagues organised by the Football League? Hashim-afc (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I do feel bad burying the Inter Cities Fairs Cup, but making a special case for one tournament sounds like opening a can of worms. The fact that FIFA calls it 'major' isn't exactly concrete. We could possibly put it under UEFA but with a note underneath that the tournament was only taken over by UEFA in 1971. Alternatively, we could sort the 'other' section by european/national/regional so that the ICFC is right at the top. As for the wartime leagues, I'm not sure who organized them, but I'd be more than happy if we had to elevate them to the Football League section, because of their historical importance. Madshurtie (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: "We could possibly put it under UEFA but with a note underneath that the tournament was only taken over by UEFA in 1971." I like this idea and I think it's a very good solution to the problem, as it keeps the trophy near the top but still tells the reader the necessary information. As for the wartime leagues, I assume they were organised by the Football League, considering the war cup was called "Football League War Cup", and also I can't think of anyone else who would've organised it. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: The English titles page does something similar for the ICFC. I was wondering if some of the clubs had set up temporary leagues so that they could keep playing during the war. You're probably right, but it might be worth finding a source on it first. Madshurtie (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I've found this source: http://web.archive.org/web/20071016052020/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfootball.htm. It says "the Football League divided all the clubs into seven regional areas where games could take place. London clubs arranged for their regional competition to begin on the last Saturday in October." So it seems like the clubs actually organised the running of the leagues, but the Football League were involved in deciding where the games would take place, presumably for safety. I guess this means they weren't really Football League competitions. Hashim-afc (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Yeah, wiki and the source it cites seems to say the same thing. Very indirectly I suppose you could call them Football League competitions, but looks like its better to think of The FL as suspended. Madshurtie (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs), Lemonade51 (talk · contribs), The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Hashim-afc (talk · contribs) Instead of separating the "The Football League & Premier League" and "The Football Association" trophies I think it will be better to put it under one title "Domestic" What do you think about that ? I would like to make that edit is that ok with everyone? Also I am strongly against The London and Kent minor trophies I believe only major honours that are recognized by Governing bodies should be on the honours section no other big club in the Premier League displays regional trophies in there honours sections. Footieedit (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Footieedit: I think the biggest reason for scrapping 'Domestic' is it's potentially confusing to the reader. The reader could be led to think these are the only domestic trophies, when that isn't true by a long shot. It's also unclear why there are domestic trophies in the link in the 'Other' section, which would be confusing and might encourage editors to edit them back in to 'Domestic'. When the Domestic/European categorization started on Wikipedia, people clearly hadn't considered county cups and other smaller trophies, so the categorization is basically out of date.

I'd also add that the current system adds information, because it lets readers know the architecture of competitions in England, and shows why there's two national cups (because the League Cup is run by the Football League) Madshurtie (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Ramsey

Aaron Ramsey's number has changed from 16 to 8, as per the official Arsenal Twitter and the official Arsenal store. Just letting you guys know I have made this change. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We have an official source for the first team which should be followed (http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/players). When this message is written, Arteta has number 8 and Ramsey has number 16 in that source and it is clear that shall be followed. Ramsey will most likely get number 8 when Artetas contract expires, so he will have number 8 next season but not yet. Qed237 (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see the newer, more accurate sources above. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you stay on topic please? THe source for that section, the official webpage has Ramsey as 16 which is fact. As I saud next season jersey he will have 8 which has been annonuced but currently he is 16. Qed237 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see the newer, more accurate sources above. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: You were at the ANI, what do you say? Qed237 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see advantages and problems with both sides of this argument:

1. If we switch Ramsey's number, but leave all the rest intact, then that's sort of inconsistent. There will likely be a whole load of other changes to numbers before August, so it's like you're putting a "new" 8 in amongst a load of "old" other numbers;
2. On the other hand, however, I'm not sure what significance the June/July dates for Arteta have. The season is over, and Arsenal have no more games until the pre-season, do they? In which case Arteta having shirt number 8 is a bit irrelevant, and Ramsey is going to be seen as its rightful owner from now on.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I can try and answer your second part. Basically when contracts are written they expire 30 June, and a new season begins in 1 July. That is the standard braking point between season (new half of the year starts). For that reason, Arteta and Rosicky will officially be considered Arsenal players until their contract expires in end of June. And as you said number 8 belongs to Arteta (team captain). Transfers however is a different chapter as they may already happen (they can happen the day after last league match has been played), which is why Granit Xhaka has been signed. Qed237 (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The end of contract dates are irrelevant. That's not the problem here. The problem is that Arsenal simply updated their Twitter, Instagram, and store before they updated Arsenal.com. Why? I don't know. Maybe their CMS is outdated. It doesn't matter why. But this is exactly what happened with Sanchez: Twitter/Instagram/store were updated on Monday, Arsenal.com was updated on Tuesday. As I've said above, and as I've said one thousand times, Twitter/Instagram/Arsenal Direct are newer and more accurate sources than Arsenal.com. Why would you ignore these sources? I'd like an answer to that question, Qed237. You mention Sanchez, for example. Arsenal.com shows him with his new, correct #7. So again, the contract dates are utterly meaningless, they are just slow to update ONE of their MANY official news sources. Why are we picking and choosing that one over EVERY OTHER SOURCE? Please explain your reasoning to me. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, Arsenal.com has now been updated with Ramsey's correct number, just several hours behind Arsenal's other equally official sources, and exactly as I told you they would. So all your points about contract end dates are, again, irrelevant. There are expected to be many other number changes this year. Are we going to do this every single time? Or can you just accept that some OFFICIAL sources are simply updated faster than others? Wicka wicka (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It does rather suggest that the "official shirt number" being valid until the end of Arteta's contract in June or July is not correct. [1] now lists Arteta, Xhaka, and Rosicky with no shirt numbers at all, and has given the number 8 to Ramsey.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

However, having said that, @Wicka wicka: I can still see the value in using one single source for shirt numbers, as long as it's always roughly up to date, and making sure all entries in the list match the source cited. The Twitter and Arsenal store links are OK, but they only mention Ramsey, they don't give us a complete list, so I can actually see value in holding off on updating the number until Arsenal.com falls into line with the Twitter announcement. WP:Wikipedia is not news, it's not absolutely vital that we stay on top of everything, and if Arsenal.com still gives the list in one form, we're only mirroring them if we wait that extra 24 hours to update our source.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

What value are you providing by being wrong for 24 hours? The thing happened, it is proven, it is done, why would we ignore it? What is gained? "They don't give us a complete list." What does that even mean? ONE player's number changed, why would they announce 30 other numbers not changing? Step away from your Wikipedia mentality for a second and think about this logically. There is no reason to ignore this change for any amount of time, once it is proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Another user posted this link on Qed's talk page. Do you understand what it does to potential editors when they see a situation like this happen? Why would ANYONE want to contribute on Wikipedia when the inclusion of a basic, proven fact like this extends into a two day argument? Wicka wicka (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Kits

The away kits haven't been officially launched, so they shouldn't be displayed until then. Only the home kit was announced. The away and third kit from last season should still be displayed. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Should probably either include just the new home kit or all three kits from last year. Seems a bit odd to have the 2016-17 home kit alongside the 2015-16 away/third. Wicka wicka (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I get your point, but the other two aren't official so they might not be the new kits. From what I've seen of the third kit, that's not the right one. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Arsenal plays right now and they have a black shirt with neon green stripes, neon green shorts and black socks with neon green stripes. That kit isn't one of the three which are displayed on Wikipedia. Is it a Champions League only kit?Jonteemil (talk) 20:44, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Runners-up

@Hashim-afc: The honours section doesn't have to be just about whether the club won the honour, it can also be about the club's achievements under that honour. The project template encourages listing second places. Bayern and Barcelona are examples of big clubs with them listed. In Arsenal's case, there are a lot of small trophies with less notability than some of the second place finishes. Since we have favoured inclusion with those, we should favour inclusion with these. Madshurtie (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: It also says on that page "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." Also, if we do add in second place finishes, does that mean we have to add in all the friendly trophies that we finished runners-up in but never won? (For example just from the top of my head, trophies such as 2012 China Cup or 2012 Eusebio Cup or 2014 New York Cup etc etc)? Hashim-afc (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I'd emphasize the may there. When that template was written, I don't think such a pro-inclusion attitude had been taken with a club's minor trophies. Since this community seems to be especially pro-inclusion, we should be consistent. Bayern and Barcelona are examples of big clubs who don't omit second places. The extra lines don't use up much space, and can add useful info, such as the 2006 Champions League final. That one was so notable it was in Arsenal's intro for a long time when Arsenal was still the only London club to get that far in the competition. As for runners-up in friendlies, we could do that (the Bayern community have), but I can't be bothered to do it myself, and we could decide not to bother for the whole 'other honours' section on non-notability grounds. Madshurtie (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Interestingly, the runners-up were listed on the club page during the 2010 FA Review and up to 2012, but someone deleted them without discussion. Madshurtie (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Thanks for adding in those other ones. I'd actually forgotten about the UEFA Cup and UEFA Super Cup finals, so listing them was valuable information to me if no one else. I didn't add the Community Shield runners up because it seemed obvious that if you didn't win it you lost it, but I suppose listing runners-up shows that the club qualified that year. Madshurtie (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A club with the stature of Arsenal should not be listing runners-up. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Following Footieedit's recent edits, I think we should discuss the inclusion of runners-up on this page again. In my opinion, runners up should not be included because they are included in the 'records and statistics' page. On this page there should just be winners and the records and statistics page should be where it goes into more detail. Thoughts? Hashim-afc (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I'd been thinking about this, and I think I agree with you. Now that they're on the 'list of records' page, it changes things. Might be worth getting some more opinions though. Madshurtie (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well seeing as me, you, Number 57 (talk · contribs), Lemonade51 (talk · contribs), The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Footieedit (talk · contribs) and others all agree with their removal, I think we have enough opinions to make a change. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Fair enough. Madshurtie (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Cup names

@Hashim-afc: Shouldn't we be listing the cups with their name at the time? I think that's standard across club pages, and this one has used the names First Division and European Cup Winner's Cup for years. Madshurtie (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I'm not sure, but if we did that then technically we would have to change the Premier League to say Premiership, as Arsenal have never won the league while it was called 'Premier League'. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Apparently it used to be known as the Premiership and the English Premier League, depending on the market.[2] With the Community Shield, there's a note that the wins before 2002 were under the Charity Shield, I guess we could do something like that when the trophy has changed name between one listed win and another. I don't really know what the best approach is, should probably ask the project. Madshurtie (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What is an honour (again)

I think we need to control what we call an honour and what we don't call an honour. There seems to be no distinction between stuff like the league title and FA Cup with the Bath Coronation Cup, because it's listed as an "other honour". This is getting ridiculous, we can't spam the page with this stuff listed as trophies, the club's honours list doesnt mention them nor does anyone else. Just because they are mentioned in arsenal articles somewhere doesn't mean they should all be thrown into the list. Our job is to make things succinct and informative to the reader. Who will read page after page after page of friendly lists and "honours" nobody has heard of? as another editor mentioned above, a ton of these titles aren't clearly defined as official honours or not. The articles never mention if they were friendlies or not so the mentality, I think, should be that if something isn't confirmed as official by a relevant governing body or reliable source, we can't state it's an honour. not "oh well, if there's no proof it ISNT a trophy, let's throw it in there!" No other club on Wikipedia has anything like this, the list is beyond too big and needs to be trimmed down. Davefelmer (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The consensus seems to be that if it's a cup that had a name, then it should be recorded by the encyclopedia. That is different from 'oh well, if there's no proof it ISNT a trophy, let's throw it in there!'. I think, given the scope of wikipedia, it is appropriate to record all competitions clubs have participated in. It provides historical reference and educates the reader about cups that were important at the time, abortive, or just gives an idea of the club's activities outside the league season. The pre-1893 cups and wartime leagues are valuable examples. At the moment, the section doesn't use up much more screen space than the other sections, and the less widely recognized competitions are all buried in an 'other' section that the reader doesn't have to read through. A better case would be to move the 'other honours' section exclusively to the list of records page to prevent duplication, somewhat like Bayern Munich's set up, but I have raised this idea on the project talk page and at least one editor opposes it. Madshurtie (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of the honours being claimed here look ridiculous. For a club like Arsenal, with an incredible record of winning proper trophies (hey, I'm a Norwich fan).

For example, I notice you've included 2 wins in the magnificent Norfolk and Norwich Hospital Cup. Norwich have won that trophy on rather a lot of occasions, unsurprisingly, as the competition usually involved one match and one of the competing sides was inevitably Norwich City. Yet it's not in the relatively-empty-but-still-proud section at Norwich_City_F.C.#Honours (and I think that the FA Cup semi finals should be removed - they're not "honours").There weren't any

I have to say this looks really odd, as if you're trying to prove a point that doesn't need proving, stuffing your honours section with things that really aren't "honours". I notice your official website has a rather more conservative approach and ironically it is far more impressive. Your club, do as you think best, but thought you might appreciate an outside view. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact if a trophy doesn't even have an article, it shouldn't really be listed as Wikipedia's community considers it non-notable, so at the very least get rid of those ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Tagged as {{fancruft}}. It's way over the top. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: @The Rambling Man: If you look back over the talk pages, you'll see this has been discussed extensively. When I raised this on WT:FOOTY recently, Koncorde and others provided links to discussions around other clubs that mostly (not always) fell in favour of inclusion. We've tried our best to create an objective categorization so that the less widely recognized trophies are almost entirely separated into their own section that the reader doesn't have to wade through. Feel free to add stuff to the Norwich page. Madshurtie (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Tagging it as fancruft might be a bit inappropriate, considering at least one other admin is resolute they belong here. That said, my personal opinion is that the records and statistics page should be the home of the comprehensive records list (like with Bayern Munich) and that we should avoid duplication by making this one a summary list. Madshurtie (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I won't be adding the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital Cup, Marchioness of Pigglesbury Invitational Trophy or the Bootiful Bernard Matthews Boneless Turkeys Championship (might have made some of them up) any time soon. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus may change. At the very least the non-notable trophies should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: That's what I said to Number 57. When we have one admin thinking that removing them is the biggest waste of time ever and that 'the idea that only honours listed by the FA or international organisations [should be listed] is, quite frankly, bonkers', and another admin slapping a fancruft tag on a featured article, it might be worth those two admins talking it over first. I'll raise it on WT:FOOTY again. Madshurtie (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Good. Please note our roles as admins has no bearing at all in this purely content-driven discussion, so please drop that stick. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Sorry. To me, your status as admins indicates your much greater experience and understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia, so I felt it made your opinions more credible (certainly more than mine!). I was also trying to indicate this wasn't just a few more inexperienced editors rehashing an old discussion. Wasn't trying to be annoying. :-( Madshurtie (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no need to bring that up at all. Arguments should prevail over tools, in every single situation. Most admins and 'crats are clueless anyway, I should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

One way of cutting it down quite easily would be to remove all the runner-up positions, which IMO is not an honour. Another would be to remove the headings, which spaces it out too much (and "Union of European Football Associations" as a heading – wtf?). Number 57 22:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I don't think it's the runners-up people are objecting to, and the 'other honours' section uses up far more space anyway. See the discussion above. In particular, runners-up are encouraged by the project template (the honours section can be about the achievements under that honour, rather than whether it was won), and they passed Arsenal FC's FA review until someone removed them a few years later without discussion. Madshurtie (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There is disagreement about whether runners-up should be listed (their inclusion in the template is from a long, long time ago). Personally I would say the whole point of the section is to list honours, not achievements (that falls more readily under records). Number 57 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'm not 100% in favour of keeping runners-up, though I do think some of them are more notable than some of the 'other honours'. The Champions League Final in particular. Whether they belong in another section is a fair question, though it is a separate discussion from whether the other honours belong elsewhere. Madshurtie (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

County Cups

@Footieedit: Might as well make a separate section for this topic. See here for the state of the discussion so far. Madshurtie (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Founding Fathers

@Footieedit: Although Soar and Tyler mention Jack Humble, they have several details wrong about the very early days, and post-2013 research means we know better. I can't see any evidence from primary sources that Humble joined the club before 1887. See some of the newspaper clippings here and here, where his name isn't mentioned until the Royal Arsenal years. Andy Kelly has also not seen fit to include his name in the 1886–87 season here. David Danskin does appear to be a founder, though really this was a football club, so it was founded by enough men to make a team (plus at least Elijah Watkins, the secretary). We can't practically list them all on the club page. Possibly the History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) page could be updated. Madshurtie (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ok , I just included David Danskin in the main article and removed Jack Humble. I hope no one removes my edit. Footieedit (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Footieedit (talk · contribs), I'm not trying to be annoying, but it appears to be false that Danskin alone was the founder. This primary source from a month after the club was founded shows at least eight existing members. Bernard Joy writes on page two of his book the names of eight of the founding members, which indicates there were even more. According to Andy Kelly, by the time of the club's first match, there were at least eleven members, who were presumably all founders. The fact is it was founded as a football team, which means it was founded by enough people to play a complete football team. If we list all of the founders, we would have to list at least eight names, probably eleven, which is a bit unwieldy for this summary history. We would also have to say something like 'by workers at the Royal Arsenal, including David Danskin, Elijah Watkins, George Whitehead, Thomas Gregory [etc.]', since there may have been other founders we don't know about. Listing the names is valuable information, but it should be in the more comprehensive History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) page instead. Madshurtie (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Footieedit: Mentioning Danskin as the first captain would be perfectly valid, especially since there was no manager at the time. I might edit that back in for you. Really the whole early years section is inadequate. How is Plumstead, the club's home for almost thirty years not even mentioned? I'll update it. Madshurtie (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

History Section

The History Section has had very few updates since Qwghlm (talk · contribs) wrote the bulk of it. There has been a considerable amount of research since then that is not reflected in the article, which means some parts are inaccurate or misleading, and other parts could have better sources. Here's a list of some of the specific problems I've spotted so far.

• No mention of Plumstead. The club played there for almost three decades, far longer than it has resided at the Emirates Stadium, but the word is completely absent from this section and didn't even appear in the rest of the article until I added it to the Stadiums section a few months ago.
• The club was renamed Woolwich Arsenal Football and Athletic Company when it became a limited company. The first use of 'Woolwich Arsenal FC' was when it joined the football league later that year.
• The club's isolation was only apparent when more accessible clubs arrived, and the downturn of the Woolwich factories also contributed. This section was misleading.
• There is more thorough research on the 1915 promotion than in Qwghlm's time.
• Champan's "revolutionary tactics and training" is just WP:PEACOCK terms, especially since it's increasingly clear from modern research that a lot of his changes had been tried at clubs slightly before him. We should spell them out to avoid peacock claims. He may have been impressive in the number of the changes he made and their success, but may have been more of a brilliant magpie than a brilliant inventor. Claims about Chapman would be more balanced with context about off the pitch progress, such as new Highbury attendances and budget.
• Why do we mention one off the pitch change (the tube) and no others? We should mention the big few, or none at all
• The Bank of England club statement is in the wrong place. This term was applied to Arsenal earlier than this.
• The 'as key players retired, Arsenal had started to fade by the decade's end' statement is just wrong. Arsenal won the league, played one more season, then the league was disbanded. The league returned, and Arsenal won it in the second post war season. They had two seasons without a league title, and only one of these was during the 'decade's end' period. What's more, the source, 'Champions All!', is making the original statement about the two seasons in the middle of the decade, before the '38 title. This editor clearly had a failure of reading comprehension.
• 'surprise appointment' of Bertie Mee is not cited. How many contemporaries considered it a surprise? Also, he was only acting manager, he wasn't actually permanent manager until 1967.
• 'Graham [...] brought a third period of glory'. The current version says Whittaker and the post-war trophies were the second period, and it's implied Mee was the third, so why is Graham third? The trophy periods could be loosely split so that Graham is part of the third run, fourth run, or fifth run. Better not to make vague period claims.
• 'owed a great deal to the 1996 appointment of Arsène Wenger'. Peacock term (see above), and we don't really have a way of measuring how much of a club's success was due to the manager. On a widely viewed featured article like this, we should be saying concrete stuff about how the club over-performed by some standard, and saying that the manager presided over it, rather than necessarily caused it.
• 'finished in either first or second place in the league in eight of Wenger's first eleven seasons'. This bit was presumably being updated each season around 2005 and 2006, but someone stopped doing it. Now it looks silly, because the club never finished in the top two after Wenger's first nine seasons (until 2016). Some of the newer material looks like it has been haphazardly added.
• There's a generally inconsistent approach to the notability of players. Several Terry Neill players are mentioned, as much to fill space as anything, and a couple of Chapman players. Key players from other eras are ignored. We should either mention a few elsewhere, or mention none at all.

The referencing could also do with tightening up, since there's a few surprising, interesting, or controversial claims that are not cited. The best sources are the ones that provide primary source evidence, either through quotation or (even better) direct presentation of the original document. There are many instances where these should be the ones cited. There's some new images available too, so the section could do with more thorough illustration.

I will do some work on the section, just thought I'd post this here so that people are clear on what I'm doing. Madshurtie (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing Players

There's a few players missing from the first team squad and some kit numbers are wrong.

First Team: Gedion Zelalem (40), Takuma Asano (was added then removed for unknown reasons), Jeff-Reine Adelaide (made professional debut last season, changed kit no. from 54 to 31).

Kit Numbers: Chris Willock (58 not 59), Matt Macey (changed from 49 to 54). I would change it myself but can't. The changed kit numbers were revealed in Arsenal's game against Lens. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

As can be seen on his own wikipedia page, Mathieu Debuchy's out on loan at Bordeaux now for the 2016-17 season. would update it myself but I'm not cleared for semi-protected pages. Cindella204 (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

On loan: Dan Crowley is on loan at Oxford United but is not mentioned in the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ganesh1997141 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Crowley, is not in the first team squad. He is a reserve player on loan according to Arsenal website. Qed237 (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

No source to the Captaincy?

http://www.arsenal.com/news/news-archive/20160811/-our-new-captain-was-the-natural-choice-#sFktYdXqLlkVTpOI.99 Alexis Ivanov (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Location

The location is given as 'Holloway, London'.

This is incorrect.

- The streets to the west of the ground are within N7 (Holloway). But the postcode boundary is on the eastern side of the street, and thus the stadium, offices, forecourt, shops, bridges and surrounding walkways are entirely within the N5 - Highbury - postcode boundary.

- The stadium address is given on the club website as: Emirates Stadium London N5 1BU.

- The club's address is: Arsenal Football Club Highbury House 75 Drayton Park London N5 1BU.

The location is therefore 'Highbury, London' under any reasonable assessment of the meaning of 'location'.

Matthewn5 (talk) 09:35, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

@Matthewn5: The Ashburton Grove site apparently was in Holloway and the N7/N5 boundary ran along the eastern rail line, as you can see on the third map in this blog. It seems like the Post Office let the club use the N5 postcode for the new stadium buildings, effectively shifting the boundary westwards. My guess is the area was still referred to as Holloway during construction, and the wiki editors used the name accordingly. Presumably it is now Highbury by postcode definitions, so wiki might need an update. If we continue to work by historical definitions it would still be Holloway. Madshurtie (talk) 12:59, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Matthewn5: One other piece of evidence: it's part of the Highbury West ward, as you can see in a 2012 map published here by Islington Council. Madshurtie (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Exactly, it used to be N7 but today all the evidence suggests that the location should be 'Highbury' not 'Holloway'. Somebody needs to edit the main page.Matthewn5 (talk) 16:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Matthewn5: I've changed it, hopefully we get to hear some other editors' viewpoints. Madshurtie (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Arsenal 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thearsenalhistory.com/?p=12035
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://transferpriceindex.com/2012/07/the-201112-update-to-the-all-time-best-managers-versus-the-mxir-model
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070824031335/http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=109924.html to http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=109924.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081024121826/http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engcuphist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engcuphist.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305035734/http://rsssf.com/tablese/engsupcuphist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engsupcuphist.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 16:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Acquisition of StatDNA

Hi Guys,

So going through this article, I noticed that the acquisition of the StatDna in December of 2012 had not received as much coverage as I thought. Given the significant investment in the company and how it has changed Arsenal's transfer strategy, I was thinking about adding a brief section about it to kind of complement the existing article.

If you guys have any issues, questions or suggestions, please let me know.

Thanks :) PhilA10 (talk) 02:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes Made "4"

Club name, nicknames, capacity and manager has been changed. Unable to edit it. Ironically the page is protected to prevent vandalism... Hauterosie (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I have reverted one act of vandalism. Qed237 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

Add in some Arsenal legends such as Thierry Henry Apeltiez13 (talk) 13:03, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —Skyllfully ^(talk | _contribs) 05:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Bramall

Cohen Bramall is listed in the first team, but the official Arsenal website confirmed he'd play in the academy. His name should be moved to the youth squad section. 2001:569:BDA8:D300:C8B2:1EA2:7475:B190 (talk) 06:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2017

In the Arsenal Ladies section please change "...and are managed by Clare Wheatley." to "...and are managed by Pedro Martinez Losa." Clare Wheatley is currently the General Manager. Lemuel74 (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qed237 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

<ref>http://www.arsenal.com/ladies/coaching-staff/pedro-martinez-losa</ref>Lemuel74 (talk) 10:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Local Regional Honours

I think the local stuff listed as honours on the main page (London and Kent trophies) should be moved to the 'List of all Arsenal Records' page linked below them that shows all arsenal honours encompassing national, local, regional and friendlies. It currently does not correlate with the presentation of club honours across wiki for other English clubs as well as international ones. Davefelmer (talk) 19:48, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

This has previously been discussed, and it was decided that for this page, that inclusion was more than warranted. As who are we to exclude titles from this page simply because of an arbitrary distinction. The fact other pages are laid out differently is irrelevant, as a local consensus has been established for this page. I see no reason to make the proposed changes, as it is arbitrary and has no good reason, other than other pages do this so lets follow them. As stated a local consensus has been reached for this page lets stick to it. Sport and politics (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

sorry for not getting back to this sooner, but I dont think that this is very arbitrary at all. the fact of the matter is that clubs like Man United and Liverpool amongst the rest dont list regional titles with the national ones. On wikipedia, there must be a consensus established across articles and a fixed standard, which by all accounts there is except for here. Or are you proposing we have a free for all on every article based on what local editors see fit and have no general policy and standard across wiki? Davefelmer (talk) 02:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

A local consensus has been achieved for this page, which is inline with community policies and guidelines. Comparisons to other teams are not relevant here. Local consensus for this page is what is followed. Uniformity is not the goal of Wikipedia. The goal of wikipedia is to provide an encyclopedia, based on verifiable, reliable, and notable information. The local and regional honours have been determined by consensus for this page to fulfil that criteria. This has also previously been discussed and/or raised here, here, and here. Please do not try and bring up the same discussions over multiple times when there is a settled consensus on the page, established over multiple discussions. Sport and politics (talk) 10:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: @Sport and politics: This was most thoroughly and recently discussed on WT:FOOTY here. It's a bit of a stretch to talk about local consensus, since experienced editors continued to disagree even in that discussion. However, the majority opinion seemed to be that we should consign smaller trophies, decided by some criteria (currently the organizing bodies), to the records and statistics page rather than the main page. This was actually a reversal of the previous consensus, such that it existed. After the new consensus was implemented, I asked the talk participants if restoring the County FAs to the main page would be a good compromise. Hashim-afc then did it immediately, but it was never really discussed, so who knows what the consensus would be on that. Madshurtie (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Realistically, the county FA stuff should be in the records and statistics page. we are talking small regional trophies that have no status as professional honours, neither by the FA nor the club themselves. plus it does not correlate with the honours listed for all other clubs on wiki. Perhaps we should look for consenus on the London and Kent stuff? Davefelmer (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

In short who are we to decided what is an honour. The competitions were won, and the information is suitably sources, verified, and notable. Simply invoking nothing more than I don't like it, is frankly arbitrary and absurd. It's an all or nothing inclusion. either include them all or what constitutes notable is individual point of view and original research. This clearly needs to be discussed more widely, and I have made myself clear. Either include all of them on this page, or keep all of them off of this page and on a separate page. --Sport and politics (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

@Sport and politics: The majority opinion (7-2 in that discussion, by my count) was that inclusion should not be all or nothing. As with other club pages and other sport pages like Roger Federer, we can consign smaller tournaments to a comprehensive list page, while keeping only the tournaments considered most prestigious on the main page. The Arsenal main page trophy list had become unusually long compared with other Premier League clubs, due to the hard work and research of a few editors, so one concern raised was that the section had become too large compared with the rest of the article, as per WP:DETAIL and WP:SPINOFF. Another concern was the duplication of one long list on the main page with the long list on the records & stats page, as per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Clearly it's possible to categorize trophies, so there's no arbitrariness problem with the current consensus.

TL;DR: The strong majority opinion was that the club list should be smaller than the records list, with reasons including WP:DETAIL, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:REDUNDANTFORK. It's possible to create non-arbitrary categories like the ones currently used.

If you want to reopen the discussion, you can, but there were plenty of participants in that one, so another discussion may be tedious and a bit futile.

@Davefelmer: If you want to initiate a proper discussion on the County FA trophies, you're welcome to start one on WT:FOOTY. Make sure to mention different opinions and ping people from both sides, including Number 57 who was in favour of keeping them on the main page. One thing I would say is the County FA trophies included Arsenal's first ever trophies, so they may have special notability for this club. They also draw attention to what trophies were available for Arsenal before the club joined the football league. I don't have a strong opinion however. Madshurtie (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Every club had county trophies which they competed in and won before they entered the football league in their earliest years. Man United had the Manchester Senior and Lancashire Cup and Liverpool had the Liverpool Senior Cup for instance, so the notability extends to a lot of top clubs, but the fact is the consensus established across wikipedia is that these were small regional titles not notable by football governing bodies nor the clubs themselves (its not on any official honours pages for arsenal or other teams). I don't think it needs to be raised on the football page since this is really the only club that has county awards listed on the main page. I think we should keep the debate here, keeping in mind the general consensus and also the questionability of club fan and club historian sources to bolster honours counts in the absence of their recognition by football clubs and governing bodies themselves. Davefelmer (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: As far as I know, there's no explicit consensus on what honours should be listed. It's not specified on the club manual of style and I haven't yet found anything in the WT:FOOTY archives (let me know if you see anything). This club is not the only one that has county awards listed on the main page. Tottenham, Everton, and Birmingham City are other examples (Birmingham City even explains why the tournament is included). My guess is that trophy categorization wasn't thought about in that much detail when WP:FOOTY started growing, so honours lists have grown fairly ad hoc since then. Madshurtie (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 April 2017

Under honourable mentions or a title similar, I would kindly request that it is added that Umar Khasanov participated in a trial game at the Arsenal training ground, scoring 3 goals and later signed to the U16 team. However, due to personal reasons was not able to join the team. Umar10 (talk) 00:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That would also be questionable against WP:NOTE — IVORK _Discuss 00:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Arsenal 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thearsenalhistory.com/?p=12035
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081019003758/http://www.arsenal.com/history/kit-design to http://www.arsenal.com/history/kit-design
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?thisNav=The%20Club&article=344883&Title=Highbury
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/page/Magazinedettail/0%2C%2C12306~1195275%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid%3D109924.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910061502/http://www.footballfanscensus.com/issueresults/Club_Rivalries_Uncovered_Results.pdf to http://www.footballfanscensus.com/issueresults/Club_Rivalries_Uncovered_Results.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111107021729/http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/records to http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/records
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season%3D2005/intro.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arsenal 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080812085724/http://www.arsenal.com/history/the-crest to http://www.arsenal.com/history/the-crest
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?thisNav=The%20Club&article=344883&Title=Highbury

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 22:51, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Record FA Cup holders

I think it's pretty notable Arsenal are now the most decorated side in FA Cup history. Instead of merely mentioning they have won a record 13 cups in the intro amongst all their other trophies, should it maybe be mentioned separately in a different sentence? Just a thought. Davefelmer (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2017

Larry Pee (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Alexandre Lacazette 9

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —MRD2014 00:48, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Arsenal 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?thisNav=The%20Club&article=344883&Title=Highbury
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160408143449/http://brandfinance.com/images/upload/bf_football_50_for_website.pdf to http://brandfinance.com/images/upload/bf_football_50_for_website.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304082911/http://www.statto.com/football/teams/arsenal/history/cup-finals to http://www.statto.com/football/teams/arsenal/history/cup-finals

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 15:47, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2017

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format.

@Nhattan.vn: Please do not simply copy-and-paste an entire article onto the talk page when making an edit request. Not only is doing such a thing not in accordance with various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it also makes it near impossible for any to figure out what things you want changed. Please follow the instructions listed in Wikipedia:Edit requests so that others can better help you and decide how to answer your request. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 August 2017

Arsenal FC no longer in Highbury, now based in Holloway London SirHarryHotspur (talk) 07:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 September 2017

Joshainsworth911 (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 17:32, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arsenal 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719063529/http://transferpriceindex.com/2012/07/the-201112-update-to-the-all-time-best-managers-versus-the-mxir-model to http://transferpriceindex.com/2012/07/the-201112-update-to-the-all-time-best-managers-versus-the-mxir-model/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008060533/http://www.arsenal-world.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=283908 to http://www.arsenal-world.co.uk/news/loadnews.asp?cid=TMNW&id=283908

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 21:25, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arsenal 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090104063057/http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11670_3335042,00.html to http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11670_3335042,00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thearsenalhistory.com/?p=14309

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 18:48, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2017

1949 saw Arsenal implement a design that would stay in place into the 21st Century; a traditionally-inspired crest featuring the cannon alongside the Latin motto 'Victoria Concordia Crescit' – Victory through Harmony. This beauty ended with the inability to copyright the motto alongside Arsenal's impending switch to the Emirates Stadium. The club, working with Nike at the time brought in a fresh, modern design in 2002, flipping the cannon back to its original direction whilst creating a simplified production method for kit manufacturing which remains in place to this day.

A modified version of the clubs current crest, paying homage to their foundation was introduced for the clubs 125th anniversary during the 2011-12 season. Fifteen oak leaves to the right of the crest acknowledged the club's founding members who met in the Royal Oak pub in Woolwich, whilst 15 opposing laurel leaves represented the design detail on the six pence pieces paid by the founding fathers to establish the club.

From: https://thefootballcrestindex.com/blogs/premier-league-clubs/arsenal-fc TheFCIndex (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 22:52, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Alan Chitty as Arsenal Manager — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.59.221.4 (talk) 14:09, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Gold trophy in honours

@Lemonade51: I think 2003/04 should be italicised. Arsenal got a separate trophy for it that no other team in any other season has, should definitely be noted in this section about honours. Why should cup doubles be in bold but gold trophy get no recognition? Hashim-afc (talk) 13:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Liverpool won a fifth CL in 2005, and are entitled to wear a badge of honour in European football. Does that need to be italised? They are the only English club with that achievement. A trophy is a trophy it doesn't need to be emphasised in the honours. Let the achivements speak for themselves. Lemonade51 (talk) 13:30, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: A trophy is a trophy, but Arsenal got given two trophies. (the silver one and the gold one). In a section about honours I would think getting two trophies for one honour is something that should be noted. If honours speak for themselves why are the double-winning seasons in bold? Hashim-afc (talk) 14:08, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Looking at other club articles that are FA, doubles shouldn't be bold, that needs to be removed. On second thoughts, by all means include a sentence that Arsenal received a gold trophy for the Invincibles season (it's an honour), but it doesn't need to be italicised. Lemonade51 (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: Most top-flight club articles list doubles, but they often stick them in a separate "Doubles" subsection. I personally think that looks messy and forces the reader to look in two separate places for the same trophy, so I prefer just marking the seasons under the trophy itself. The unbeaten season is arguably more notable than the double seasons, so marking it too (using italics instead of bolding) seemed a nice idea. But then maybe I'm biased, since I think I introduced the bolding and italicizing! Madshurtie (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Madshurtie:, think this would be worth taking to WT:FOOTY for consensus. Lemonade51 (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: I suspect we're allowed to vary this sort of formatting article-by-article, but feel free to ask the project. Taking a quick search through WT:FOOTY's archives, I don't think it has been directly addressed before, and the club article template doesn't say. Can I restore the formatting pending the outcome of the discussion, just so the doubles info isn't lost from the honours section? Madshurtie (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I guess there's three issues to discuss really: whether doubles should be listed among honours; whether doubles should be marked inline or have their own subsection; whether the unbeaten season deserves similar recognition. Madshurtie (talk) 19:37, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 June 2018

Add Leno to current squad on the 1st July (when he's transfer goes through) Markkcooper (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:51, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

A template for transfers

I'd really appreciate any input on a proposed standard going forward for how transfers are listed on club season articles. There is a discussion ongoing here at the moment. Given the implications for this page, I thought it would be best to give a heads up.Domeditrix (talk) 10:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Captains

“After Laurent, our other captains are Petr Cech, Aaron Ramsey, Mesut Ozil and Granit Xhaka." Do we take this to mean in that order, e.g. Cech is vice-captain, Ramsey 3rd captain, etc? Or rather that all four are equal co-vice-captains? I would lean toward the former, since there has to be some hierarchy, but it's not explicit at all. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:35, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

References

Kit suppliers and shirt sponsors

@Ilikeeatingwaffles: I saw that you reverted another user's addition of a table summarizing shirt suppliers and sponsors, saying "rm pointless table that just repeats info from above." Do you not understand how much faster and easier it is to parse that information out of a table than by reading an entire paragraph? Both can exist. One is detailed information and the other is an at-a-glance summary. I don't get your reasoning at all. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

What is so important about the kit sponsor that one needs to read the info at a glance? Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:54, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Who are you to decide what information is and isn't important? Wicka wicka (talk) 17:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess I'm someone of equal importance to any other editor - how about you? I note that when the article passed the Featured Article review, this information was in prose form only. The review process did not bring up that such a table is necessary. Please see similar articles that have achieved FA status: Aston Villa F.C., Chelsea F.C., Liverpool F.C., Manchester City F.C., etc. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

At no point did I suggest or imply that such a table was "necessary" or required by FA guidelines, and I would appreciate a swift apology for this blatant lie and childish, bad faith attempt at a strawman argument. All I would like to discuss is why you felt this article was better without the table than with it. If your behavior continues to be so abhorrent I will simply refer this to the admins. Are you able to engage in this discussion like an adult? Wicka wicka (talk) 15:58, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake, I'm clearly being perfectly reasonable and not concocting a strawman argument nor behaving abhorrently. The table is, it seems to me, additional clutter that repeats information in the prose and over-emphasises what is fairly trivial information in the overall history and profile of a significant football club. I suspect that it has a negative impact on readability in non-browser views too.Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 08:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

"The review process did not bring up that such a table is necessary." I did not suggest that a table was required, so for you to respond in this fashion is a blatant lie and a childish attempt at shifting the goalposts. Now you can cop to this lie, and you can apologize for it, and we can continue this discussion politely. Or you can keep up your abhorrent behavior and I can go ahead a re-add the table, and presumably deal with the admins once you start reverting stuff. No clue why you acted this way. Wicka wicka (talk) 14:14, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement that this table is not necessary? Your aggressive tone is not helping this discussion, you started it off with "do you not understand" (which isn't very civil), and I think we are going to have to disagree about what constitutes abhorrent behaviour. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 07:26, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2018

I want to give Arsne Wenger his own sub section in the history section. It is pretty disgusting how it is combined with George Graham. Both men should rightfully so have their own subsection. On Man united's page you don't see Ferguson era combined with the pervious mangers. this is very disrespectful. Give the man more credit. His era was vastly important and should be portrayed as such. All I would change is just to put a Wenger years subsection I wouldn't change any of the content or add anything. Just give him the credit that he rightfully deserves. thanks Jeddread (talk) 04:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details.​ — Newslinger talk 10:33, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2019

Take out arsenal head of recruitment Sven MISLINTAT, he left the Club as head of recruitment https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/46944391 See link 62.252.147.82 (talk) 12:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

 Doing... RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:19, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done RhinosF1^(chat)_{(status)(contribs)} 15:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Ownership and Finances

In August 2018, Kroenke's offer of £550 million for Usmanov's share was accepted, and Kroenke bought out the remainder of the shares to become the club's sole shareholder. Timmylandex (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 April 2019

Arsenal and Tottenham Hotspurs have a local rivalry but have equal respect for each other too. ShivankShekhar1996 (talk) 17:55, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Þjarkur (talk) 18:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2019

Vinai Venkatesham and Raul Sanllehi have their own articles, hence "[[]]" should be added for both. 58.76.178.176 (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

 Done –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 21:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Squad numbers

What is the source for Willock and Martinelli wearing numbers 28 and 96, respectively? I don't see this on Arsenal.com. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Location

I updated the location from "Islington" to "Holloway". Yes, Holloway is located in the London Borough of Islington - but it's more accurate, as there are a large number of areas in the borough. Additionally, it removes any confusion that might arise from the use of "Islington" as Islington is a distinct area of the borough which bears its name. I assume that, prior to the move to Emirates Stadium, the article stated the clib was located in Highbury, not Islington. Makes sense to list Holloway as the location, since that's where the stadium is located.

Semi-protected edit request on 2 September 2019

I wanted to add Henrikh Mkhitaryan to the loaned out players list because he has joined A.S. Roma on a season long loan FishFace323 (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

 Already done NiciVampireHeart 15:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Darren Burgess

Best as i can tell, Darren Burgess is no longer with the club and is now at Melbourne FC (https://www.linkedin.com/in/darren-burgess-phd-a1580628/). Difficult to confirm as the club website doesn't seem to have a staff page. Can anyone find a reliable enough source and make the appropriate changes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabazela (talk • contribs) 11:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2019

Arsenal owners are listed as Manchester City in the sidebar. Please change it to Kroenke Sports & Entertainment. Booo1210 (talk) 08:52, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

 Already done; please reopen this request if the vandalism is re-added. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 19:50, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Coaching staff

For whatever reason Arsenal have removed all their staff pages. This happened awhile ago but I think everyone thought it was fine to continue using the archived version and sourcing updates as necessary. However, since there's been a lot of turnover in the last few weeks/months I don't think we can continue relying upon the archived staff page. Therefore I will be making some updates to the coaching staff listing to remove anyone who can't be reliably sourced. Just a heads up. Lazer-kitty (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2020

please change the season to 2019/2021 and add in the CEO of the club. Aaronauba10 (talk) 12:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 14:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2020

In 1993, Arsenal became the first club to win the League Cup and FA Cup in the same year Saheenpiero (talk) 10:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Where should this be inserted? Danski454 (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

 Pinging Saheenpiero for response. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Nonspecific request, no response to queries. If the OP wishes, they can reinstate this request with the appropriate information regarding what text is to be inserted where. CThomas³ (talk) 02:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Updating Aresnal Honors

We have achieved a lot more than the honors list and we need to increase it to the same level as our rivals. To include all trophies won and runners up in competions to be listed. There also needs to be more made of the Invincibles season. Furthermore the Intercities cup was not a eufa compettion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:96C3:9800:C59D:63F7:5F18:2CEC (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2020

For the Under-23s part, add Matt Smith Unsuspiciousguy (talk) 17:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:16, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Mascot section incorporated into the "In The Community" section

There is reliable References available disputing that Gunnersaurus (Mascot) being removed permanently, However the person in the Mascot "Jerry Quy" is believed to be redundant. However the person in the Mascot should not be referenced as the focus of the article, this article is about the primary recent facts and history of the club.

What I will do is move the Mascot section and add it onto the "In The Community" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footieedit (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Given the man did the role since it was created, it is worthy of a mention and the high profile sacking has plenty of sources to justify itself. I feel that just lumping it in with community is WP:UNDUE given how large the mascot section is. I'm still in favour of keeping them separate. (Also please keep the discussion in one section). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with The C of E that Jerry Quy should be mentioned, but I also think the content doesn't necessarily belong in its own section. Perhaps it should be included in a section about the club's support? – PeeJay 06:18, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

This featured article was last reviewed ten years ago, and needs some work to be brought to FA standards. If it can't be cleaned up, it should be submitted for Featured article review.

• There is a considerable amount of MOS:SANDWICH and decorative images that aren't necessary and don't aid in understanding the topic, so could be deleted or re-arranged to a MOS-compliant layout.
• There is sporadic uncited text throughout: I haven't tagged any as I don't want to deface a featured article.
• There are breaches of MOS:CURRENT and a lack of context on dates throughout, sample:

• The club's current manager is Mikel Arteta. ... To avoid "current", the sentence can be rewritten to something like ... Mikel Arteta was appointed club manager in year X.
• The club's longest-serving manager, in terms of both length of tenure and number of games overseen, is Arsène Wenger, who managed the club between 1996 and 2018. ... This is cited to a 2009 source, which can't be correct, and there is no "as of" date.
• They put Arsenal's footballing revenue at £331.3m (€435.5m), ranking Arsenal seventh among world football clubs.[9] --> cited to 2016, but no "as of" date.
• Arsenal and Deloitte both list the match day revenue generated by the Emirates Stadium as £100.4m, more than any other football stadium in the world.

These are samples only; I hope the article can be brought to standard without a FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

one of the most successful teams in England. INTRODUCTION

In the Introduction please can someone write or talk about being one of the most successful teams in England. This is definitely true and should be part of thw intro — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.28.199.31 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2021

In the section Out on loan, remove Lucas Torreira's number 11 as it is currently taken by Martin Ødegaard and is not Torreira's until Ødegaard leaves and Torreira returns. 76.103.46.252 (talk) 16:46, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:44, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

'English Champions and FA Cups timeline' text box should be modified somehow

In my opinion, the 'English Champions and FA Cups timeline' text box should be modified somehow as it is affecting the alignment of the text in the article, making it look unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You typed 'in my opinion' twice in the same sentence. What modifications do you propose to make it look unprofessional? Perhaps dig into how the template is constructed and let us know. Benjamin112 (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2021

In the box at top right of the page, change fullname from "The Arsenal Football Club" to "Arsenal Football Club". Sakonfernandotorres (talk) 05:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

To editor Sakonfernandotorres:  Not done: Check out the copyright notice near the bottom of the page you linked. It reads "Copyright 2021 The Arsenal Football Club..." So it looks as though "The Arsenal Football Club" is indeed the club's "full name". P.I. Ellsworth  ed. ^put'r there 00:09, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Removal of Mascot

Removal of Mascot section on Arsenal F.C

Whole section on the club mascot is unnecessary and unsuitable. In addition, media speculation has been used as references such as click bait tabloids. No official statement from the club regards to Gunnersaurus being removed permanently or the fact that Mesut Ozil is paying his salary. No other Football club Wikpedia page has whole section dedicated to a mascot.

However I am open to idea of including a sentence on Gunnersaurus.Removal of Mascot section on Arsenal F.C will be removed, however if anyone object to it please raise your point on here.

I object. You shouldn't be removing sourced sections just because you think it shouldn't be there. And the arguments you've made in edit summaries include reference to other articles not having them. That is a WP:WAX argument and not a valid reason for deletion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

"No other Football club..." I would like to bring up that Fulham has a whole section dedicated to their mascot, and Benfica has a whole separate article about theirs! Crazy, right? At the very least, the mascot should have a second level heading under another section, like for the Derby County, Portland Timbers, and San Jose Earthquakes articles. Although these examples would probably still count as a WP:WAX argument, what say you about those? I second The C of E's comments on this matter. Benjamin112 (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I would like to start a discussion on the removing the Mascot section primarily due to the club making a statement saying that the mascot never went away. Gunnersaurus never went away but due to the virus restrictions there have been limited opportunities for him to appear in public.". I would like to listen for reasons to keep the mascot section , most of the points for people opposing is due the dismissal of a long term employee however should this news be on Arsenal Wikipedia page ? when other employee were also made redundant ? and the primary focus on the article should be on Arsenal FC. I think a sentence about Gunnersaurus on the supporter section or on popular culture section will be most appropriate , thoughts ?

Once again, you should not be unilaterally removing sourced sections just because you think it shouldn't be there. This section is well-sourced, is relevant, and has meaning. I would like you to explain the logic behind why "the club making a statement saying that the mascot never went away" is grounds for removing this section. Instead, I think that this more closely resembles a newsworthy occurrence worthy of inclusion in the existing section. You say "the primary focus [of] the article should be on Arsenal FC," but I'd like to believe that the Gunnersaurus mascot is a rather integral part of the club and its identity, given its popularity and public exposure, especially towards promoting the club to younger fans, that is generally unparalleled in soccer/football. It should also be pointed out that you should remove "Accredited media journalist and Editor" from your user page if you actually don't have the appropriate credentials. Benjamin112 (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Nothing fundamentally has changed from the last discussion. I stand by my original view that it should be retained. (also please remember to sign your contributions @Footiedit:). You have already been warned several times not to blank sections (despite you removing everything on your talk page). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)