Talk:Arsenal W.F.C.

message: The wording on this is vague, at time of wring (June 2014) it says the Arsensal LFC are affiliated to the Arsenal. The exact nature of the relationship is not explained. Is it in fact one Club as Arsenal, and Aresenal LFC is simply the Ladies team?
The kit seems identical, using the same logos and sponsors- which suggests either a strong legal relationship, or that it's simply part of the same club, (a bit like Cardiff RFC, which is not really a separate club, but simply the Rugby Section of of Cardiff Athletic Club- which also has other sports teams, e.g. bowls, cricket etc).
The fact that the article explains there's an overlap of directorships between the Men's and Ladies Clubs suggests that the Ladies Club is subsidiary company? (Is part of the job of the men's Arsenal team Cheif Exeutive to be the Chairman of the Ladies Club?) Or is the "affiliation" relationship more akin to the relationships you see between firms using the same brand in Japan say?
Clearly the casual observer would assume given the logo is the same etc that the Aresenal LFC is simply the Ladies team of the same club. (Akin to say most golf clubs almost all of whom have Gentlemen's and Ladies teams, but there is no question of them being separate clubs- generally speaking).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.218.39 (talk) 22:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature of the Link with Arsenal (Men's team)?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Arsenal L.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.sportsjournalists.co.uk/awards_sports.php
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.btinternet.com/~a.drake/women/Historical/wt99.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130315004551/http://rsssf.com/tablese/eng-wom01.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/eng-wom01.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Arsenal W.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/20071205163928/http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/awards_sports.php to http://www.sportsjournalists.co.uk/awards_sports.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131020034207/http://www.futaa.com/football/article/-arsenal-miss-champions-league-next-season to http://www.futaa.com/football/article/-arsenal-miss-champions-league-next-season
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The sentence "Based on social media activity from the 2018–19 season, Arsenal's fanbase is the largest in the world." recently added to the lede seems to be quite an exceptional claim to make and surely something that requires something more than a citation to the team's Twitter account (i.e. a primary source). Are there any secondary and independent sources which support such a claim? If there are they perhaps the content can be moved to the body of article and expanded upon, and even attributed as needed; for example, "According to FIFA, ...", "According to ABC soccer magazine", "According to ABC newspaper", "According to Twitter statistics, ...", etc. The team's Twitter page is not really published by "Twitter" so to speak in that nobody at Twitter verifies the what the team tweets; so, basically all editorial control over the account rests with the team itself. If the team tweeted out something that some other reliable source stated, then it would be better to actually cite that source than a tweet per :WP:SPS and :WP:UGC; if the team is making a claim that cannot be verified by a secondary source, then the claim should be removed. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just removed this sentence as the linked first-party source doesn't say anything about having the largest fanbase. It doesn't link to particular tweet, just the Arsenal WFC Twitter account. I'm not sure where that claim ever came from. Lazer-kitty (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest fanbase in the world in 2018-19 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. Clear consensus against a mass move per WP:TRAINWRECK. This close does not preclude individual renomination. (closed by non-admin page mover) Elli (talk | contribs) 14:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you able to show on which discussion page this assertion has been made? It's a bit hard to respond to when you don't know the arguments which have been made. Falastur2 Talk 18:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There are indeed multiple "football discussion" pages on Wikipedia, however, as I edited Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football recently, I know the discussion is located on that page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 21:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

text: *That could work in that aspect with the naming of this article. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

text: *Agree re above, having part support, part oppose to a list of 11 entries where some may stay as it is (e.g. Reading F.C. Women) does not fully bode well for the eventual page mover to decide which ones to move and which ones to stay. I didn't think too much about any problems when giving out my view late last evening. Once this discussion is closed, we can take Seany91's advice and do these RMs on the individual articles, not all on one talk page. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:22, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

text: per my change at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football, you agree with changing article title(s) there but here you are asking them to stay put or do them separately. And the "Manchester United F.C. (men)" title makes no sense either. 46.149.249.106 (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Do them separately instead of those bunched up together where different outcomes appear likely per other comments. Looking at them very carefully, it's not all disagreement with what the nominator described and three of those pages have their full names with "women" in a different order compared to the others. And we definitely don't have many club articles with brackets after the team names either (only a small percentage). Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 18:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 15 November 2021