Talk:Arsenal F.C./Archive 3

message: Shouldn't the fact that Arsenal FC reached a European Champions Club Cup/Champions League final be included in their honours?. I appreciate they haven't yet "Conquered Europe" but being runners up should in my opinion be considered an honour. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.151.182.222 (talk • contribs).
:It's not an "Honour" in the footballing sense of the term: an Honour is something you win. The Champions League run is already mentioned at least twice in this article, and in History of Arsenal F.C. and Arsenal F.C. seasons as well, it doesn't need a further gratuitous mention in a section it doesn't really belong to. Qwghlm 11:00, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a case for runners-up medals being "honours", at least, there is on Newcastle United's website. --JamesTheNumberless 20:00, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honours 

message: Despite being a Spurs fan I'm surprised and pleased at the generally good quality of this article. Much better than the Tottenham one. However, all too frequently the grammatically incorrect or ambiguous clichés of sports journalism continue to crop up, as they do in most football articles, especially towards the end. I wonder if anyone else feels that this will be a never-ending problem as long as the sort of people who are enthusiastic about writing on football are typically the sort of people whose exposure to academic writing rarely goes deeper than the back page of The Sun or who regard Ian Wright as an eloquent public speaker. And the writer of that section about the Harry Enfield sketch needs a bit of severe thumping on the head with a manual of style or two. --JamesTheNumberless 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the latter stages of the article tend to wander. I've trimmed the "popular culture" section down and fixed some style issues (active voice rather than passive). Simple pop-culture references to the team should be kept down, in favour of ones where the team proved integral to the work (e.g. Fever Pitch) or it helps shed light on popular opinion of the club (e.g. Eric Morecambe/Full Monty). And I got rid of the John Lydon para in its entirety - the article doesn't need a whole paragraph that says little more than Lydon is an Arsenal fan (so what? Plenty of other people are too). Qwghlm 23:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  One-nil to the Arsenal I feel, however... 

message: They've made the deal permanent: 4 million euros. Cyril Washbrook 00:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alexandre Song 

message: Would it be possible to add a paragraph on famous Arsenal fans? arsenalwwerulz 09:52, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it probably would more be a list than a paragraph. I don't think it's a good idea - it is listcruft and becomes a honeypot for vandalism or vanity entries. General consensus on the matter has been a no - see previous discussions here and here, and a separate article listing Arsenal fans was voted for deletion. So I would say no; if a person is an Arsenal supporter then it should be mentioned in their own article. Qwghlm 08:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you desperately need a list, there's a celeb list over at arseweb. Kynen 00:19, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone's been trying to add in the fact that Osama Bin Laden has been banned from the ground. I disagree that it's insulting (He's hiding near Kabul/He Loves the Arsenal/Osama! Oh-oh-oh-oh was from the North Bank, after all), but it is, at the end of the day, just another famous fan, and no reason to give him special treatment in the main article, IMO. --BadWolf42 14:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed not because it was insulting, but as it was unverifiable (it's never been confirmed he's been to London, let alone Highbury) and as you say, irrelevant "famous fan" trivia. Qwghlm 15:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Fans 

message: I looked all over Arsenal.com (and did a Google News search as well) but could not find anything where the club officially nominated ten "legends". I´ve removed it - if it is added back in again can it please have a proper reference given? Qwghlm 10:48, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Legends" 

message: As per WP:NOT, "is not an indiscriminate collection of information." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Yonatanh (talk • contribs) 02:31, June 13, 2006.
:Well, it's quite relevant to the club and this article, though I would perhaps put it in the "Ownership" section rather than "History", something I have been meaning to do once the news had cooled off. Qwghlm 08:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since Arsenal have admitted making the payment, it's hardly bullshit (although its legality is still not a settled matter). While I agree the article should not be a running news commentary on the team, I would rather have a short paragraph - in the appropriate section - mentioning it, stating the established facts neutrally, with verifiable references. If there was nothing at all on it, various anonymous editors will only add in their own version with their own POV instead. Qwghlm 08:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine, if you feel that strongly about it then remove it; I won't revert it (I don't care that much, to be honest), unless others start adding their own POV/unreferenced comments in its place. Qwghlm 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

text: even though it has been cleared, it still is quite an accusation, and it should be noted in a small paragraph atleast, detailing the case. Behind the veil 12:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely warrants mention, and I have done so on the History of Arsenal F.C. page. Given that the club was cleared, I don't think it is needed on the main page. - Pal 14:21, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say a fair standard for inclusion would be anytime FIFA demands an investigation, as they did in this case. - Pal 01:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess the reason why it has to stay is not whether the accusation is true or not (after all, we are not here to hold inquisition on every fact in the world) but whether it has made an impact to the club's reputation and history.  As of this moment this case still does, despite the recent clearance, so it's here to stay.  As and when time proves that this is but an insignificant event over the course of the club's long history, this can be safely removed at that time.  --Pkchan 01:54, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Not case closed at all. The FA have ruled Arsenal haven't broken any of their rules and have passed their findings back to FIFA for their consideration. As far as I can see FIFA have not cleared Arsenal yet. I think the current two-line summary of the incident is both necessary and fair, especially given the likely link between this and the subsequent loss of Dein's position on the FA board to that lad from Man U.--BadWolf42 12:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Au contraire, I actually think it's notable whether cleared or otherwise. Giving another club a secret one million pound loan, repeatedly denying it, having it unearthed by the police and then being investigated for it is clearly relevent to the club's relationship with Beveren.--BadWolf42 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Beveren "case" 

message: Three youngsters have been released, although only one is on the squad list, can someone edit the squad template?  arsenalwwerulz 17:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to be bold and do this yourself at Arsenal F.C.#Current squad and Template:Arsenal F.C. Squad!  --Pkchan 17:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Players released

message: it's toge here, can't remember my pass for the login! anyways i read from somewhere quite official that cesc is #4 and rosicky is #7? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.151.222.182 (talk • contribs) 22:21, July 3, 2006.
:Arsenal-Mania claim that the store accidentally revealed them (though I can't find them anywhere) - but that is not the same as official confirmation. It's still just the close season, no need to be hasty in updating the squad numbers until the team actually starts playing again. Qwghlm 22:46, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah -  has supplied the relevant URL in the edit history. The numbers are probably still provisional but I'll go with them for now. Qwghlm 09:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squad numbers change