Talk:North London derby

message: Although soccerbase says Spurs have won 4 League Cup ties against Arsenal, in actual fact they have only won two - on 04/11/80 and 08/02/87 - both of them 1-0; these can be checked by using the form here. I've corrected the figures in the table and restored the total number of Spurs wins to 49. Qwghlm 23:08, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
:Soccerbase have now corrected the error, so the two sets of statistics match now. I've deleted my above comments as they no longer apply. Qwghlm 14:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Soccerbase stats

message: The suggestion that the article on St. Totteringham's Day should be merged into the North London Derby article is interesting. The two are undeniably linked but I think the concept of St. Totteringham's Day is strong enough for it to have an article of its own. Jack White —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jackwhite (talk • contribs) 14:16, July 31, 2006 (UTC).
:Once you remove duplicated material, it's only a couple of paragraphs at best, and shares the same categories as this page; I think it is better incorporated as a subsection here. Qwghlm 14:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is known by the players and the club. Jack Wilshire has mentioned it this season (frex) and the club programme has mentioned it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.13.197.229 (talk) 09:45, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: The Crossing the divide section reports on players who have played for both clubs, but not on players who have played for both sides in the derby.  That more specific infomation should be added if anyone has the details. jnestorius(talk) 22:30, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure how easy this would be - I have a book with Arsenal teamlists for every match back to 1970-71, but no further; I don't know of anywhere online which does Spurs lineups, though. In any case, delving through results archives like this is borderline original research, so I am not mad keen to do it. Qwghlm 09:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the problem is with the article name.  It's not specifically about the North London derby; it's about the rivalry in general.  Compare Old Firm, which is not called Old Firm derby (that's just a redirect).  jnestorius(talk) 23:02, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about the match itself and the rivalry in general, together - the two are intertwined, you can't separate them. Also, what else would you call it? The Old Firm title is the exception, not the rule - all the other British derbies in :Category:Football (soccer) rivalries use the word "derby" in them. Qwghlm 23:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you can separate them conceptually.  The Birmingham derby does not take place in those years when Villa and City are playing in different divisions; but the rivalry still lives on.  I'm not suggesting this theoretical distinction means there should be separate articles.  But at the moment, the article is just about derby matches until the "Crossing the divide" section. Which is another reason to support merging in St. Totteringham's Day.  I agree there is no obvious alternative name; Arsenal-Tottenham Hotspur rivalry sounds half-baked, and fans will dispute which team should be named first.  But in any case, it's worth modifying the intro para of this (and the other Foo Derby articles) just to make explicit what you've said: the article is about the rivalry in general, not specifically the derby. jnestorius(talk) 00:02, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Feel free to modify it if you don't think it's up to scratch. Qwghlm 08:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added the details using Bob Goodwin's "The Pride Of North London" and Soccerbase (for Sol Campbell).If there are any other statistics that you think my be of use, let me know.--Goonerak (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crossing the divide 

message: Why is this page about two English teams using US dates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by IrishCheeseMaker (talk • contribs).
:Could you clarify exactly what you mean? If it's a problem with how the dates are shown in this article, then you can change that with the "Date and Time" tab in Special:Preferences so that all dates are shown the way you prefer them. Qwghlm 23:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates 

message: I've removed Kevin Stead from the list of players that have played for both clubs. It appears that www.arsenal.com has mixed up Kevin & Michael (Mickey) Stead. Kevin was a Tottenham player but never appeared in the first team. He did, however, play for Arsenal's first team. Mickey played 14 games for Tottenham's first team and was never an Arsenal player at any point in his career. Reference books such as Barry Hugman's Football League Players' Records and Rothmans Football Yearbook confirm this.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonerak (talk • contribs) 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Stead 

message: I can't fix the capitalization because the page is protected. Admins, please! Chris the speller (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Made consistent. Rich Farmbrough, 18:07, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization - s/b North London Derby 

message: Added to 'Crossing The Divide: Arsenal, then Tottenham' db1987db (talk) 13:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: According to our tables, Gallas had 101 caps for Arsenal and only played for them in one derby. That can't be right, can it? --BDD (talk) 20:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He was there from 2006 so there must be more. Did they count any Carling Cup games as I'm sure he may have played in at least 1 of the 2007 or 2008 semi's? The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: He played for Arsenal against Tottenham on 21 April 2007, 22 December 2007, 22 January 2008 (League Cup), 29 October 2008, 8 February 2009 & 31 October 2009 - a total of 6 derbies.Goonerak (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Gallas 

message: I added a section on fans since it seems to me that fierce, local sporting rivalry is even more about the fans than it is about the teams / clubs. Shelfsider (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Fans

message: Since my restoration of the mention of St Hotspur Day was undone by C of E on the grounds of a lack of source, I have provided five separate sources. These sources might not be deemed to be recognized or reliable by some. However, the whole point of both St Hotspur Day and St Totteringham Day is that they are fan inventions. Therefore, virtually all mention of them will inevitably be restricted to fan websites and publications. The fact that a mere handful of more recognized sources have very recently mentioned St Totteringham Day in no way validates it more than St Hotspur Day. As Captmonkey has pointed out, these more recognized sources would have sourced their information from this very page. And this page only ever mentioned St Totteringham Day because some Arsenal fan decided to post it here (without citing any initial reliable sources - for the simple reason that, at the time, there weren't any). I don't doubt that these same recognized sources would have picked up on St Hotspur Day if it too had been mentioned on this page. So I repeat my earlier position on the matter. Neither St Hotspur Day nor St Totteringham Day belong on a page such as this. But if one must be mentioned, then the other must too - especially since the notion of St Hotspur Day has been in existence for considerably longer than the notion of St Totteringham Day and was, in fact, the inspiration behind St Totteringham Day*. It would be nonsensical to argue otherwise. Any further mention of one and simultaneous omission of the other would invalidate this page as not being written from a neutral point of view. *The term "St Hotspur Day" was first coined in the former fanzine, The Spur, in the first published edition after the 1991 FA Cup semi final. Shelfsider (talk) 13:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish to point out to you is have you read the source there from the Guardian? That was written in 2005, before this page even existed so that claim is incorrect. As for them sourceing from here thats a very tenious link and the proof?  As was discussed earlier we couldn't use Gooner blogs to source St Totteringhams day, so why should we be allowed to use spurs blogs to source St Hotspurs day? That doesn't work, you need 3rd party sources to source things like this like a newspaper, not a fan made blog. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As you well know, C of E, that Guardian source, like most of the sources that have been cited in favour of the inclusion of St Totteringham Day, is merely a blog too. The fact that it is a blog attached to the online version (but not the print version) of the Guardian does not validate it. Another source that has been cited for St Totteringham Day is a BBC live text commentary page. Well, since that has been deemed acceptable, I have now cited a Daily Telegraph "As it happened" page for St Hotspur Day. On a more general level, can I ask what has changed for you over the past six months? It wasn't so long ago that you accepted the mention of St Hotspur Day on this page as reasonable. But now you insist on its exclusion. I sincerely hope that we are not seeing a smallness of mind at work here? You and I know perfectly well that St Hotspur Day exists as a notion in the minds of Spurs fans every bit as much as St Totteringham Day exists in the minds of Arsenal fans. We both know that the notion of St Hotspur Day pre-dates St Totteringham Day by a good decade. And we both know that St Totteringham Day was inspired by St Hotspur Day. So I repeat, while I feel that neither is worthy of mention on a page such as this, if one must be mentioned then so must the other. I can't see an individual atom but I know that it is there. I can't provide you with reams of articles in the Times or Guardian about St Hotspur Day but we both know that, as a notion, it exists. If we must have mention of either on this page, let's not allow petty club rivalry, and recourse to pedantry to get in the way of a full and proper disclosure. As I said, if one is included and not the other, then this page cannot be deemed to have been written from a neutral point of view - which would render it utterly worthless. Is that what you want? I have enough faith in you to believe that you don't. Please don't prove my faith to be misplaced.  Shelfsider (talk) 12:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah.....I've just seen your edit, C of E. Fair enough. And well done for confirming my faith in you. ;)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shelfsider (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had no problem with St hotspurs's day being included as I only wanted sourced things to be included from the reliable 3rd party sources which I had to do tooth and nail to have St Totteringham's day included (despite it being allowed by a wikipedia policy) that the st hotspurs day got ignored as at the time when it was included there were no sources for it so it was removed. I just want to see it included with 3rd party sources and not fan blogs (I know it sounds familiar to the debate above but it's true) and if no 3rd party sources can be found, then it can't go in there and the burden is on the adder to source it satisfactory. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  St Hotspur Day 

message: The Tottenahm 5-1 Arsenal sounds awfully bias.
Why can't we include the 4-4 draw and the Arsenal 4-1 Totteham just last month?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.143.38 (talk) 22:38, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like that 5-1 thing either but as the section subheader says, it's for only if a team wins a trophy via victories over the other so for example if Arsenal won the Carling Cup this year, we could include the 4-1. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also think that the 4-4 game should be included. The League Cup games are after all not that important compared to Premier League games - and the 4-4 was a spectacular one that wont be forgotten in a long time. --Lindberg (talk) 10:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it was certainly notable, I'd agree to it's inclusion. The Carling cup one this year will probibly be included in March as the Carling Cup is very highly likely to be going to Arsenal. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable derby matches 

message: I saw that there was a revision taking out the portion of the history section which gave synopses of games from about 2010 to 2013 and then it was put back in.  Perhaps there should be a "recent history" section where little snippets regarding recent games are.  Otherwise, I don't believe that so much of the 100+ year history between the clubs should be focused on games between 2010 and 2013.  Frankly, I think the only ones that deserve any mention are the 2-0 to 3-2 at the Emirates, because it was Spurs first win there and the first in a long time over the big clubs.  And Arsenal's 5-2 win in the 2011-12 season, because they were down 2-0 and because it was the first step in erasing a 10-point lead that Spurs had in the table.  (The latter fact isn't even mentioned in the article.)  The other games weren't particularly noteworthy.  All these games are noteworthy because it's the North London Derby.  But there is nothing that makes the other games particularly noteworthy and there's no reason those games should be listed over others or take such a huge amount of the 100+ year history between these clubs.  Dawindler (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: This part of the article is looking messy and I agree with above comments. I seem to remember this happened before and it was agreed just to include notable matches such as title deciders. Can I suggest all this recent stuff to be deleted and maybe put under a different heading. Northmetpit (talk) 14:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody replied to the above comment. I will take out the offending text within the next week. Northmetpit (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: "Arsenal play their home games at the Emirates Stadium, while Tottenham Hotspur play their home games at White Hart Lane. However, the latter will play its UEFA Champions League home games at Wembley Stadium for the 2016/17 campaign."
Is there a reason why this is included? Doesn't seem very relevant to a page about a rivalry that occurs in the Prem—unless they eventually do meet in the Champions League, the point about Wembley seems rather tangential.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.73.54.58 (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extraneous info? 

message: The numbers given in the article are confusing.   Why start with 1909 for the count in the stats section? If we are talking about matches between the two teams, then it goes further back than that, and if we are talking about matches between the two team after Arsenal moved to north London (i.e. when matches between them can be properly called North London derby), then it's later. That their first Football League meeting started in 1909 is neither here nor there. Hzh (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statistics confusion