# Talk:Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Wizardman (talk · contribs) 11:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll review this sometime in the next couple days. Wizardman 11:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"The match is often said to have instigated the rivalry between Arsenal and Manchester United, which carried on through the 1990s and 2000s." Having this and the following note in the background section feels odd. It's written well, but shouldn't the post-rivalry boom be in the aftermath section, and the background part be rewritten accordingly?
I'll leave this one for the original author to deal with. – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Have changed order. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
"Arsenal arrived at Old Trafford on the back of an 22-match unbeaten run" either 'a 22-match..' or 'an unbeaten..'
Changed to "a 22-match unbeaten run". – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
"Brian McClair blasted the penalty over the crossbar " blasted might be on the journaly side rather than the encyclopedic.
Changed to "hit the penalty". – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
"Neil Webb deputised for club captain Bryan Robson" can this be clarified? I imagine if i understood football more I'd have no problem with this, but as is I only partially get what I think it's saying.
Done a comprehensive rewording. – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
"Michael Thomas was declared fit to start in midfield and David O'Leary travelled as part of the squad.[15]" in a vacuum this doesn't sound important, but i imagine it is due to its inclusion; can this (and possibly the previous sentence) be added on a bit?
I don't have access to the original source, so I can't add to this. Imagine the author was struggling for content about the Arsenal team selection and this was the best he could do. – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
PeeJay is correct, there was little team news to find on Arsenal. Removed the O'Leary bit because he never featured in the match -- just an unused sub. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
" proceeded to kick out at Winterburn and Limpar" a bit jargony. The summary I could follow at least despite it being a bit heavy in that regard, but this phrase i'm not quite getting.
I don't really understand this phrase either as I don't remember the brawl in detail, but I've changed "kicked out" to "retaliated". – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
"Ferguson ordered his players to the training ground, where they watched the match." did they watch film of the match, or watch something after the fact? A bit confusing as worded.
I imagine they watched a recorded broadcast of the match. Not sure what else they could possibly have watched. – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
A more general question that may be showing ignorance, but I'm curious: how was Arsenal so far behind Liverpool in points if they only lost one game all season? Was it just the way schedules were designed, or was it a part of the points structure i'm not understanding?
In the Football League (and practically all other football leagues across the world), teams are awarded three points for a win and one for a draw (or a tie, in North American vernacular). Liverpool won more and drew fewer games than Arsenal, so they benefited by an extra two points for every extra win. – PeeJay 23:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll put the article on hold and will pass it when the issues are fixed. Wizardman 23:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The changes so far look good. All I need, aside from the couple things deferred to the author, is a copyedit and de-jargoning of the game summary, just to make sure it's more fully readable for someone who stumbles across it. Wizardman 00:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review. I've combed through parts of the match summary where I think suffers from jargon and removed irrelevant bits. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Not a problem; reads much better now. Only hiccup I saw was the Winterburn being tended to issue that you guys had already hatnoted; i just removed it until it can be noted better if it's importance. The article now passes as a GA. Wizardman 22:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


### Compliance with Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation etc.
Re the insistence of User:PeeJay2K3 in adding back flag icons I removed on several occasions, those  flag icons are not relevant and are distracting. The international composition of the teams has zip to do with a bust-up in what is a purely local match. MOS:FLAG#Use of flags for sportspersons says:
Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality (and it is not an exception to #Avoid flag icons in infoboxes). 
Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. (bolding is mine)
You are expected to abide by guidelines and not ignore them merely because you disagree; reverting correctly applied guidelines is considered disruptive behaviour. -- Ohc ¡digame! 13:34, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand how that guideline forbids the use of flags in this article. Yes, it says that flags should not indicate players' nationality in a non-sporting sense, but that's not what they're doing; they're showing what national teams those players are/were eligible for. That is not forbidden. – PeeJay 18:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, have no idea what countries those splotches of bright colours refer to. Could someone explain why readers are denied this information in favour of a garish array that actually looks quite slipshod? Tony (talk)  10:17, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions. Given that they are personal to you and mine are starkly different, I will take them with a pinch of salt. It is clear that you are opposed to the use of flags, though for what reason I cannot discern. Through the use of {{flagicon}}, the flags now automatically provide a link to the article of the country to which they refer, meaning that any reader who hovers his/her mouse over the flag will find out what the country is immediately. Furthermore, they are not "splotches of bright colours", they are flags, and I do not appreciate your facetiousness in the making of your point. Finally, "garish" and "slipshod" are rather extreme terms for what I myself deem to be a well-organised and efficient presentation of information. – PeeJay 19:19, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
They're not "personal" in any particular way, which is how you're trying to frame them: they're fact. You seem to believe that withholding the country-name from a table is a good thing. Why? Tony (talk)  03:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the flags don't withhold the information. It is a matter of presenting the information graphically instead of using narrative. As PeeJay says, you can read the name of the country simply by hovering over the flag with your mouse. I think there are articles in which use of flags is overdone, but not in this one. As I have pointed out at WT:FOOTY, I believe this article should be renamed to reflect the match, result and date per similar one-match articles. GnGn (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Tony, when you use words like "garish" and "slipshod", that indicates to me that this is a matter of opinion. Just because other people may share that opinion doesn't mean it's not personal to you. Furthermore, just because a plurality of people share the same opinion doesn't make it correct. I'd like to flip the scenario on you, if I may, by asking why you think removing the flags altogether is preferable to keeping them in just because they don't spell out the name of the country to which they refer right next to them. – PeeJay 08:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
What information do the flags add? Or are they decorative? --John (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Not merely decorative. As stated aove, they are a graphic means of presenting information, in this case the nationality of each player in the lists. I'm still a relatively new member but I believe I've read somewhere that editors should strive to use images, graphics, etc. where practicable as otherwise the reader sees only a wall of boring old text. I feel sure that most readers would prefer to see the St George's Cross umpteen times in a list rather than repetitive use of the word England. Besides which, the flag saves space as it enables a narrower column in the table. GnGn (talk) 11:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Precisely. They are not exclusively for decoration, they are simply a more efficient and aesthetically pleasing way of indicating the nationalities of the players, hence indicating the international nature of the sport. – PeeJay 11:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Are the nationalities of the players an important factor in the article? Are we talking their "sporting" nationalities or their official ones? --John (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
In football articles (I can't speak for other sports), we always refer to a player's "sporting" nationality, i.e. the national team for which the player is qualified to play. I don't think the players' nationalities were relevant to the specific incident that made this match notable, but for the sake of consistency among other club football match articles, it makes sense to indicate players' nationalities in all articles. – PeeJay 13:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
It's a very contrived argument you have concocted there. The purpose of the flags is purely to render some colourful graphics, and because people use it in other articles. This match is not an international match, so nationalities are not sporting nationality for the purposes of MOS:FLAG and thus are totally irrelevant. -- Ohc ¡digame! 17:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
How, then, do readers know they must hover over each flag to learn what it means? Why doesn't the key to the column explain whether it's the player's nationality or the team? Tony (talk)  13:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would it be the team's nationality? The team's nationality is indicated by the fact that no flags are assigned to them (what with it being a domestic game) and the country the game was played in is indicated by the lead paragraph (or at least it should be). As for your other comment, perhaps we need a better way of presenting football line-ups so that people know that "GK/DF/MF/FW" are the players' positions, the numbers are their jersey numbers and the flags indicate their nationalities. But that's not a discussion for here, that's for WT:FOOTY. – PeeJay 13:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd just like to answer the points three posts above by User:Ohconfucius as I presume he is not a football fan. The use of flags is, for the third time, a graphic means of presenting information instead of saying England, England, England, England, England, England, oh! Wales, England, England, etc., ad nauseum. It is NOT "purely to render some colourful graphics". The use of graphics to convey information is widespread in all spheres of communication, not just the internet. As for folk using it in other articles, well, if they do then that presents a consensus, doesn't it? No, the match was not an international but the nationalities of the players are relevant in football because for the last thirty-odd years since the arrivals of Ardiles and Villa, nationality has been and still is a burning issue in English football. There are people now who will reluctantly admit that Liverpool have more top-class English players than anyone else at present but still criticise the club for employing South Americans. It is very important to specify players' nationalities.
The question asked by User:Tony1 – "how do readers know they must hover over each flag" – is about twenty years out of time. People of all ages nowadays know how to use their mice. Okay? They are not stupid. Graphics and images and links are abundant in the internet and people hovering their mice to get a connection or a bit of info is second nature. And anyway, as PeeJay says, this should all be discussed at WP:FOOTY as the arguments raised are generic. GnGn (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note that I have reverted the latest edit by User:Ohconfucius, again removing the flags, because no consensus has been reached in this discussion and I think he should wait until this has been achieved before trying to impose his view on the article. I note that he has performed what amount to four edit reverts yesterday and today. I think this is out of order given that the matter is currently subject to discussion and I believe he should be patient. GnGn (talk) 19:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
PeeJay2K3, @Gnorman Gnome: what you peeps is doing has little to do with BRD. It's all about WP:WRONGVERSION. -- Ohc ¡digame! 00:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
You have an extremely tenuous grasp on Wiki-policy if you think WP:WRONGVERSION applies here. That essay relates to pages that have been locked as a result of a content dispute; this page has not been locked. Since you did not entirely understand the purpose of the flags (as has been proven by this discussion), WP:BRD applies totally – you were BOLD, I (and Gnorman Gnome) reverted you, and now we're having a discussion that has revealed no firm rationale for deleting the flags. – PeeJay 10:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
I must be very stupid, then. I know very well that mouse-hovering exists. But I need some indication it is active in any partiucular place—I don't go around hovering my mouse all over the place just in hope of getting more information.The article is not for editors, but for readers; and it's not just for football fans: it's for the public.The first thing I find confusing is the red and yellow jackets ... do they have anything to do with the splashes of red and yellow in the "flags", I asked myself? Tony (talk)  02:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not say you are stupid. MOS:FLAG#Appropriate use 2 states: "In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when the nationality of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself". In a top-level sporting competition, not just football, where the teams are multi-national, the nationality of different subjects IS pertinent. The flags are simply a graphic means of providing pertinent information about the players' nationalities. It is also necessary to provide the country name and this is achieved using mouseover. GnGn (talk) 04:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

�May be relevant. Hmmm. Was that a concession to gain consensus, to bring onboard the majority who find flagcruft damaging to most articles? I don't see the relevance here. Tony (talk)  05:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Well, the problem is the word "may" which is non-committal and effectively leaves the matter to editors' discretion so that a consensus has to be reached. I'm sorry, I don't understand the term "flagcruft". The relevance is that the teams were multi-national and, in most team sports where international matches take place (e.g., football, cricket, rugby, etc.) the nationality of an individual player is deemed noteworthy. For example, why do Liverpool fans nowadays display the Uruguay flag at matches? Nationality is relevant and flagicons are simply a graphic means of conveying the information. GnGn (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Why on earth would nationality be relevant in an article on a brawl during a match between two clubs? Why not include sexual orientation, weight, date of birth, or favorite color? Is it to let the reader decide which nationality is more likely to score a goal or throw a punch? Or is it just the pretty colors? Drmies (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for ignoring the majority of the above discussion in order to hyperbolise over a re-hashed argument that so many others have misguidedly made before you. We're not idiots, we know that sexual orientations, favourite colours and the rest are irrelevant to the way the game is played, but nationality is one of the most important defining features of a player as it indicates which national team he is qualified to play for; I've never heard of a Gay XI, a People who like blue XI or even a Featherweight F.C., have you? – PeeJay 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You're welcome, PeeJay. You know, this might surprise you, but I got twenty years on you--twenty years of watching football. I actually remember the Bosman arrest; you were eight at the time. One could possibly argue that before the arrest nationalities mattered, but (read the article) that really mattered only inasmuch as there were quota on the number of foreign players a team could field. So in that sense the only thing mattered for a team from country X was that some players were not from country X. They could have been from anywhere; it didn't matter. And if you think that it matters for a reader of a Wikipedia article which player could play for which national team in an article about something completely unrelated, then you're simply showing that you don't know your ass from your elbow. Besides, color does matter: go and do something useful, and translate nl:Kleurrijk Elftal for the en-wiki. That's one. Two, don't patronize other editors. Three, there is no "we" in this "we're not idiots", since what "we" is is entirely unclear. Plus, if this "we" includes you, then I beg to differ. Drmies (talk) 23:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
You're right, colour does matter in football.  That's why I made illustrations of the kits for both teams.  Why not take a look at your condescending self before having a go at others for being patronising.  VEOonefive 18:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Rename article as Manchester United 0–1 Arsenal (20 October 1990) and keep flags in teamsheets. The article is about the match and the current title sensationalises one incident, though that incident has made the match notable.
I originally raised this proposal on WT:FOOTY but according to WP:BRD I should raise it here as I am seeking consensus, although I do apparently have the right per WP:BOLD to go ahead and complete the move immediately. The objections to flags seem to centre on a view that the article is, as the title would suggest, about a brawl. But, as I've pointed out above, the article is about the match and I think it should be retitled to comply with other similar match reports in the First Division Matches category. I'll abide by BRD here and leave this a week. If no objections then, I'll go ahead and move the article. Thanks. 
By the way, as brawls go, this one was "handbags at six paces".  GnGn (talk) 03:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Note. User:Ohconfucius has expressed support for rename at WT:FOOTY. GnGn (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I support the move. It is only one small facet of the dispute that surrounds the categorisation. Whether the article is about the brawl or the match is irrelevant to whether the flags there are compliant with MOS:FLAG or not. Either way, it's not something that took place in the international arena and/or where nationalities are pertinent or directly relevant. However the proposed name does have a bearing on the more reduced/restrained categorisation that I see is necessary as a function of the scope of the article, that is to say: Category:Manchester United F.C. matches, Category:Arsenal F.C. matches and Category:Football League First Division matches are to me clearly inappropriate at the current title, for the simple reason that the brawl is not a match by any stretch.  -- Ohc ¡digame! 05:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose - The article may be about the match as a whole rather than the brawl itself, but the match was characterised by the brawl, and is the entire reason why the match has retained notability over the last 20 years or so. I feel that the current title may not fully describe the contents of the article as it stands, but it does describe the reason why any editor would visit the article. – PeeJay 10:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Weak oppose - As per PeeJay, it was the brawl that made the match notable, not the scoreline as it is with most other match articles with the score in the title.  As the article creator, I did contemplate naming it Battle of Old Trafford (1990) but sources only used that term in relation to the 2003 match (hence the hatnote on that article).  VEOonefive 01:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Saying that, I did initially name the article Old Trafford brawl (1990), renamed it as it seemed too vague.  VEOonefive 17:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is "(1990)" in the title?  This to be utter unnecessary disambiguation, unless, of course, there's another Utd v Arsenal brawl article.  Will move this article shortly assuming there is no need for this disambiguation.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

And to remain encyclopaedic, it should also be correctly titled, i.e. "Manchester United F.C.–Arsenal F.C. brawl", even though "brawl" is hardly a common term in British English, so even that's crap.  Perhaps it should just stick to "Manchester United F.C. 0–1 Arsenal F.C. (October 1990)" and allow the reader to determine why a 20-second "brawl" is so noteworthy.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
No, no, no.  Many British sources use the term 'brawl' to describe what happened and other similar incidents in English football, unless it should be renamed 'bust-up' or 'melee'?  Perhaps that it's a rare occurrence in UK sport means that the term is seldom used over here.  For the record, a brawl broke out between players of both teams in 2003 and there was another hot-tempered match a year later.  VEOonefive 10:29, 15 June 2014 (UTC)