Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 5

message: I've unwikified Fran Merida and Gavin Hoyte as they were previously nominated for deletion and successfully deleted - if they are recreated they will only get  added to them and will be speedily deleted. I may take them to deletion review but only if there is consensus here to restore their articles - comments are welcome. In the meantime, until they are restored please do not wikify them. Thank you. Qwghlm 20:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not just a matter of simply creating an article - the problem is that Fran Merida has been protected from recreation and so must go through deletion review if it is to be unlocked. Until there has been a proper review then the article can be justifiably deleted by an admin under the criteria for speedy deletion. Qwghlm 11:50, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm an admin, so if Merida ever gets a first-team appearance and thus earns the right to have an article about him, I'll unprotect it for you. CSD G4 only applies when the re-creation is essentially the same as the deleted version. howcheng  {chat} 07:03, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Merida has now become a professional player, is he allowed a page? GiantSnowman 21:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merida & G. Hoyte 

message: This is only minor, but the piture of the North Stand is mis-identified as the "North Bank." To be 100% accurate, the North Bank was the terrace that had stood in the same spot before the Taylor Report. The recently vacated stand is in fact, the North Stand. A similar, but not identical situation is ManU fans calling Old Trafford's west Stand the Stretford End. USArsnl 03:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The stand's full name was in fact the North Bank Stand  . You are right we should differentiate between the two, so I capitalised the word "Stand" so as to make it part of its name. Qwghlm 09:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stand Name 

message: Any reason Gooner News is missing from the external links?
Yes - unfortunately not a good one--British210 19:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gooner News 

message: I've created a user box if anyone wants to use it to say they are an Arsenal fan    .  AsicsTalk 18:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is already an Arsenal fans' userbox at . Your version is an unnecessary duplicate and breaks the Userbox Policy on using fair use images, so unfortunately I have had to nominate it for deletion. Sorry. Qwghlm 19:13, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan of Arsenal Userbox 

message: Just because the whole thing still seems a bit mysterious, (yeah, we're seeing it called a loan everywhere, but it seems to be accompanied by a wink, and the Arsenal club site never listed it as a loan) I thought you might find this interesting (if you haven't read/heard it already) I found it while surfing around the web this evening... it's a few weeks old, but it's Fabio Capello's press conference on 17 January, taken from the Real Madrid official  site:
 
*Q: Are you contemplating bringing Baptista back?
*Capello: We are happy with Reyes and Arsenal are happy with Baptista.
Here's the link: http://www.realmadrid.com//articulo/rma36342.htm
Looking more and more like Reyes is not coming back. Ryecatcher773 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arsenal.com itself has actually stated that Julio Baptista is currently on a loan, as evidenced by the following recent Arsenal.com news items: Van Persie's injury gives Baptista his chance as well as Almunia leads the plaudits for Baptista (both of which I've currently added to the foonotes), where it is stated quite clearly in the former: "It is important to remember Baptista is only on loan to Arsenal for the season. Wenger admitted the decision over whether to take him permanently could rest on how he replaces his Dutch colleague, who will be sidelined for at least six weeks." and "Baptista, like most foreign imports, needed time to adapt to his new surroundings following a summer loan switch from Real Madrid." in the latter, so I think it is quite certain that it is indeed a loan deal. ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 04:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good spot. Since the official site has mentioned it twice I dropped the BBC reference as it was redundant. Qwghlm 13:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: ah... so the media was actually correct afterall! I remember a certain archived argument we had about this... aLii 22:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Recent news (clues?) on Baptista for Reyes swap 

message: Those pictures of Gilberto and Lehmann have ruined the article. I think they should be removed, but don't want to mess with thing without checking, so if some has a good reason for them staying please discuss here. 82.163.157.251 17:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lehmann one is fine, the Gilberto one less so. I don't think they ruin the article at all, but am willing to defer to consensus here. Qwghlm 17:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Jim here. If we had a free-license team photo (if someone was lucky enough to get the starting XI before a game, for example) that would be good here. Photos of individuals are better used on their respective articles. howcheng  {chat} 19:36, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As more people here seem to want to get rid of the pictures, I've removed them. But I've added in a pic of Wenger as that is (I think) appropriate, is of reasonable quality and doesn't impinge on the list of managers as much as the player photos did on the squad list. Qwghlm 10:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Pictures

message: I wonder if someone could add a small bit about Arsenal's play style, possibly contrasting it with that of other FCs? Markp93 19:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably better to put it in the article about Arsène Wenger, since it seems to be his style of play rather than the club's as a whole - to cover the club's would be to cover it over history, and it has changed many times over the years. Qwghlm 19:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good deal,Markp93 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of play 

message: Surely that should read "Stadia" for an article in British English? --Dweller 16:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I prefer "stadiums" as English plurals should be used wherever possible over Latin (we don't talk about insurance premia or child genii, for instance). And some British English style manuals (e.g. the Guardian's) recommend following English rules. But I don't really care, to be totally honest. Qwghlm 17:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section heading "Stadiums" 

message: Shouldn't last Saturdays defeat at the hands of West Ham be included somehow? as the team that finally ended Arsenal's home undefeated streak at the new stadium, just seems like something worth adding Adzer 08:40, 08 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's a point of trivia more than it is historically important. Having said that, it would be nice to have it noted somewhere on Wikipedia. aLii 10:07, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's noted both in Emirates Stadium and Arsenal F.C. records right now so no point in having it here too. Remember that Wikipedia is not a news service. Qwghlm 11:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Emirates first defeat

message: Is there a reason we have two paragraphs about Arsenal LFC in this page?  I have no objection to women's football, but it seems a bit gratuitous considering that another page exists for them.  Zimbardo Cookie Experiment 17:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to condense it into one - it came up during the FAC and I expanded it then, but I have no objection if the two paragraphs are merged & trimmed. Qwghlm 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arsenal LFC 

message: David Dein has just left Arsenal so I'm sure some stuff would have to be changed now.80.43.115.244 18:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: David Dein

message: Given the fact that the team consists mainly of French players, and with only 4 British players I strongly oppose that they should still be consider an English football club. Their starting XI, as always seen, rarely sees an English player on that list. For what reason, should The Gunners still be considered an English team ? English fans ? English Boards ? a Stadium located in England ? these are minor aspects of what makes a club, I admit supporters take huge influence too but they're not playing, and the players who are actually playing are not English, they are foreigners just trying to make a living in England. So no, I would not consider Arsenal an '"English" club, hope to see some reasonable comments soon :) (Papongza 17:29, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For one thing, they play in the English league and represent the English FA in European competition - usually regarded as the criteria for a club's nationality. By the above logic, very few of the world's major teams would be of the nationality they are generally conceived to be. If it ain't broke... WATP 
I agree. Look at Hearts and Liverpool. A vast majority of their staring eleven/first team are/were Lithuanian and Spanish respectively. Are they classed as either of those nationalities? No, so Arsenal should stay as English until such times as they are relocated to a different country and/or playing in a different league. Killswitch2k7 17:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia is not a soapbox nor a repository for original thought. A club located in England's capital playing in the domestic English league is clearly English, regardless of who plays for or manages them. Please stop vandalising this article just to push your POV. Qwghlm 18:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you ask this question about Blackburn Rovers or Bolton Wanderers. No didn't think you would. Look at their squads you'll see what I mean. Totally agree with the above message, don't edit articles no matter how strongly you think something should be a certain way when in reality it clearly isn't! Jimmmmmmmmm 15:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should we still consider Arsenal an "English club ? 

message: I would like to suggest an extension to the main article which incorporates the unique contribution of Arsenal during the Wenger reign.  In effect Wenger introduced several new dimensions to UK football, which have been further developed by other teams.  This is interesting because a previous manager (Chapman)likewise revolutionised English football, introducing numbering for players, the white ball, and a new approach to defence.
Wenger's (and thus Arsenal's) contribution has been
a) a new approach to training, incorporating such things as a changed focus on the food intake of players, on training methodologies, and a review of player's lifestyles.
b) the introduction of world-wide scouting, which has resulted in the arrival at Arsenal of a range of unknown, sometimes very young, players from around the world.  This has proven contraversial as players such as Anelka and Fabregas have left their clubs aged around 15 or 16, amidst much protest from their clubs.
c) Imaculate football - Wenger has produced a new style of playing, extremely quick one touch football which reached its height during the unbeaten season, and which is now to be seen in several clubs.
d) A new style of stadium - the Emirates is not just a new stadium, but represents a new model of stadium, in which supporters are encouraged to arrival early, eat and drink in the ground, and stay afterwards.  The seating arrangements in the upper tiers are considered by many to be superior to that of any other football ground in Europe.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by InsiderInformation (talk • contribs).
:The first three points are already fully addressed in the article Arsène Wenger. The fourth was arguable more to do with David Dein and Ken Friar than Wenger, and would be better covered in the Emirates Stadium article. Qwghlm 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: THE UNIQUE CONTRIBUTION OF ARSENAL

message: http://www.emiratesstadium.info contains historical information on issues such as how Arsenal managed to secure a promotion to the top division despite coming only sixth in the league, and why the club moved from Woolwich to Highbury, despite there being two other clubs very close by.  These and similar articles do not appear on other sites
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by InsiderInformation (talk • contribs).
:That website is highly unsourced and speculative - for a controversial story more reliable sources such as researched & published books, with authors' names and credentiasl, are more valuable. Exceptional claims require exceptional sources and an anonymously-published website does not fulfil that criterion. Qwghlm 11:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: WP doesn't do speculation, because WP doesn't allow original research or synthesis. MSJapan 21:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OTHER WEB SITE TO REFER TO

message: I think that I have seen the new colors for the 07 08 away kits.  They are white with red sleeves and gold trims.  They look like the home kit, save that they are reversed in color, and the red thing at the bottom of the sleeve is gold.  Go to this website to see what I am talking about.
http://soccerlens.com/arsenal-07-08-away-kit/13421729.html
I would put it in myself, but I think that one of you guys should do it because you are probably better and my stuff would not sound as good.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.176.186.40 (talk • contribs).
:There has been lots of speculation on the new kit. Until it is officially confirmed by the club or Nike I think it is best to leave the article as it is. The moment it is confirmed, I assure you the article will be updated accurately. Qwghlm 20:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. The pic shouldn't be trusted, especially as there's an alternative on the same site.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  20:14, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Arsenal Football Club have officially unveiled the new away strip for the forthcoming season. Images of which can now be seen on the  official website and the news article here. I have already modified the kit information on the main page now that the kit is official. Jonzi9 09:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: 2007-08 away colours

message: Should runners-up spots be allowed in the Honours section? I don't think so as an honour is something a team wins, but it's evident other editors think differently so I'm willing to discuss. Qwghlm 09:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you completely. Runner-up spots should not be allowed nor included in the honours section, since honours, as you rightly said, are correctly defined by what a team wins, not something for which they've been defeated by another team.  ···巌流? · Talk to Ganryuu 10:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Runners up win medals, but that's just the players. If it were a player's honours section, I'd recommend the inclusion of RU details, but for a club, I'm slightly less convinced.  Sʟυмgυм • т • c  17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think discretion is the order of the day. For a club like Arsenal, which has enjoyed vast success, I don't see being a runner up as being particularly noteworthy. For a small club that has only ever reached one final, or whose best league position is third, you would consider noting a runner's up spot, but not for decorated club.BeL1EveR 11:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runners-up spots in Honours section 

message: Surely this article should refer to the well-established fact that Arsenal cheat. Their cynical approach to the game (diving, off the ball incidents, headbutts, pretending to be injured to get honest professionals sent off, elbows, stamping, Keown on Ruud) sickens neutral fans. It should be properly reflected. The culture that Wenger has let flourish at Arsenal depraves a game that, in case you forget, was once graced by the gallant likes of the Corinthians. Arsenal are a disgrace. But it seems that Wikipedia is only too willing to join the broadcasters' conspiracy of silence. What a sad indictment of our "independent"  encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by  217.42.247.163 (talk • contribs).
:Wikipedia is not a soapbox for your opinions, and judging by your other edits you clearly hold some sort of major unexplained grudge against Keown, which I recommend you keep to yourself rather than use Wikipedia as your personal soapbox. Qwghlm 09:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Approach to game

message: I've been asked to provide a citation for Greek Cypriot support for Arsenal. I'm unable to do this, but am I right in thinking that sometimes their supporters are (or were) referred to as "bubble and squeaks" (the Cockney rhyming slang for Greek)? Millbanks 09:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlikely. If it's not citable then it should not go in. Personally I do not like making claims that certain clubs have support along certain ethnic lines, particularly when reality Spurs have plenty of Greek and Cypriot fans (just as Arsenal have many Jewish fans), and other clubs such as QPR have plenty of support in London's Irish community; it paints a distorted picture of how and why people support particular clubs; football support in London is not divided along the lines of other cities and it's divisive to say so. Qwghlm 11:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Greek Support

message: In article says that kit were dark red (redcurrant) until 1933. but here http://www.kitclassics.co.uk/kits/arsenal.gif shows that then they were brighter (exept 1913/14). That would make sense, beacuse Nottingham Forsest were always brighter red.
So, how what it is true?
DlxEU 13:28, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that reliable a source if you ask me - it was definitely not the case that the kit was bright red before 1913 as Sparta Prague borrowed Arsenal's colours in 1906 and they remain dark red to this day. Qwghlm 12:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early kit colours