This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

There's a note saying that Reyes and Van Persie shouldn't be added to this list because they are too recent. Given that this note was written last season, I feel that these players should be added now in line with the appropriate timeframe. Change made, although further comments welcome. Cyril Washbrook 06:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

24.141.180.28 ( talk • contribs) has been converting lists of famous players to be grouped by nationality rather than by when they played for the club. I think it should be left as it is - ordering by time is consistent with the List of Arsenal F.C. players article (which this section summarises) and it's a much more logical way of organising players - there is very little that, say, Cliff Bastin and Ashley Cole have in common apart from being English; it's much more informative to group them with their contemporaries. Qwghlm 09:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

THIS is the annonymous user who has been switching the llist of famous players by nationality. The Reason Why I have switched is because to match every single OTHER G-14 Soccer country out there... Ive completed almost every list the same way, and to have Arsenal by the Time they played RATHER then have people show what nationality they are is just ridiculous... you can look up in their profiles for when they played —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.141.180.28 ( talk • contribs) 19:24, July 24, 2006 (UTC).

You can also look up a player's nationality by looking at the article about them, so why does it have to be shown here? And the only reason why all the G-14 clubs' pages look that way is because you have been single-handedly making them look that way. You still haven't given any reason why grouping players by nationality is as informative as, or more informative than, classifying by the era they played in. Qwghlm 20:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

By way of example, it seems strange to me that you think it is more suitable having Cliff Bastin and Alex James, who together formed the attacking partnership that won so many trophies in the 1930s, totally apart in separate columns, just because one happened to be an Englishman and the other a Scot. Qwghlm 21:12, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fully agree with Qwghlm. It seems rather silly this way. Additionally, since the header text is "Famous former players," any reason why players still on the squad are listed? howch e ng { chat} 23:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

If we restore it to date, then we can slot in their nationality next to the players' names anyway - I would definitely advocate it being changed back. Cyril Washbrook 08:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly who is this " Miguel Sallinger"? Rdd446 keeps editing him in!-- ARSNL 00:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks a complete hoax to me. Thanks for being so alert in reverting it. Qwghlm 07:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Anytime. After all this is the Arsenal page we're talking about! :) ARSNL 16:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we not just change it to Famous FORMER players? I think this could solve the problem of current favourites being added.
 Slumgum  T.  C.   21:31, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there are plenty of current players (most notably Henry) who are as good as past greats, and I'm sure others would agree. Over at Talk:Liverpool F.C. they had so many problems with the list, that they decided to get rid of the list in its entirety and just supply a link to List of Liverpool F.C. players. The more I think about it the more it makes sense - List of Arsenal F.C. players has distinct objective criteria for inclusion of players, whether past or present, and is thus much less subject to POV. So I now reckon we should just delete the abbreviated list and supply a link to the main list. What do others reckon? Qwghlm 14:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps that's a good idea. I can't think of any strong reason against it.  Slumgum  T.  C.   15:25, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough. Doesn't have to be comprehensive, and particular favourites are therefore likely to be included more than Giles Grimandi and Pascal Cygan making it a nice halfway house. -- BadWolf42 12:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to this page people are adding linkspam to their favourite fan forum here. As the external linking policy discourages such links could people keep an eye out for it and remove it if it is re-added? Ta. Qwghlm 20:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well speaking of links, Arseblog deserves to be in the list, because for the past few years, they have been one of the top 10 individual blogs in the UK. But do they belong in the "fan sites" section, or do we need to make a new "blogs" section, or what? ugen64 00:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit suspicious of that figure, especially as Arseblog only had an Alexa.com rank in the mid-50,000s [1] and a Technorati rank in the 11,000s [2] - which make it popular but not in the top ten. If you put Arseblog in then every other Arsenal blog owner will want their link in too, and we'll end up with various edit wars of the "If xx is included then why not my blog?" kind.

Any fan's blog is still just a blog, consisting on mostly opinion rather than any original content. WP:EL is clear:

"Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself."

The article is solely about the club, not about football blogs or Arsenal's internet fanbase, so there is no such mandate for any such blog to be linked to. Qwghlm 10:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

There was no confirmation that the deal had gone through by the end of deadline day, so I've reverted the edit adding Gallas and removing Cole him from the squad. If anyone can provide a reference for the Cole/Gallas deal being done, I'll happily revert. Tpth 00:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, so there seems to be some confirmation at [3] Tpth 00:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Any ideia why they gave him the number 10 shirt, instead of number 3? WinstonRothchild 20:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing, but shouldn't it be a big decision who gets no 10 as it was last worn by the legend, Dennis Bergkamp? They shouldn't just give the no 10 away anyway and a defender of all positions. arsenalwwerulz 12:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

What about Denilson? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.20.68.36 ( talk • contribs) 08:24, September 1, 2006.

There are reports floating round this morning about Denílson Pereira Neves [4] but nothing confirmed by an official source. Qwghlm 08:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The official squad page has been updated with Gallas and Baptista, but not Denilson, so he probably has not joined Arsenal. Qwghlm 14:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

...I stand corrected, the Premier League website says the deal has gone through pending international clearance. Once that is sorted he can be added to the squad. Qwghlm 16:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Is Baptista a loan or a permanent move because according to Arsenal.com, he has signed on an undisclosed fee. [5] arsenalwwerulz 11:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's another Arsenal.com article, saying "season-long loan" - [6] Poulsen 11:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

That's what I thought, thanks for confirming. arsenalwwerulz 11:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that article doesn't even mention the word "loan". The website repeatedly mentions "signing" and Baptista having "signed", but never tells us that he's on loan. It is possible that Arsenal immediately activated an agreed purchase clause, but the matter is still up in the air. Cyril Washbrook 05:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it now, it has been updated. Where it now says Undisclosed was the term "season-long loan" when I posted the link. Well, that source is useless now, then. Poulsen 08:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

As is the linked to in the actual Wikipedia Arsenal F.C. page (i.e. [7]) - it's obsolete because it came before either of them actually moved officially. We should be using the most current sources available if they are reliable. Given that both Arsenal.com and RealMadrid.com clearly state the words "signed" and "transfer" and does not ever use the word "loan", I think we should remove the loan references. Cyril Washbrook 02:02, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Nowhere does it say officially that there is a loan ( [8] [9] [10] and none of the newspaper reports this weekend say so [11] [12]. I'm fairly sure we can remove Reyes from the list of loaned-out players. Qwghlm 11:32, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

In the end, if we find clear evidence that Baptista is on loan, then we can add it on. As far as I can see, it's only brief grabs and passing mentions that suggest the nature of the deal, and these conflict - the BBC gossip pages for example suggest a loan to be followed by a four-year loan deal, but other sources clearly mark it out as a signing. Those gossip pages come from the tabloids mostly anyway, so it's not completely reliable. As it stands, I think we're working fine on the evidence that we have. Cyril Washbrook 11:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's some substance to back up the alleged loan: According to this article from the Premiership official website it states Reyes is on a season long loan... here's the link: [13]

...and here is another I found on the Yahoo! UK sport page, this one is talking about Baptista's desire to stay longer... [14]

...here is one that talks about Reyes being on loan, or his 'dream Madrid move'... [15]

I haven't seen a single article on the Arsenal Official Club site that really even mentions Reyes... Odd. Ryecatcher773

And here's the case against: As mentioned above, the club originally claimed a one-season loan but then altered their account. The news article from Arsenal.com announcing the swap deal says [16]:

"Brazilian international Julio Baptista has joined Arsenal from La Liga side Real Madrid for an undisclosed fee, with Gunners forward Jose Antonio Reyes joining the Spanish side in a reverse move."

Generally, loan deals do not involve fees, and there is no mention of the word "loan" or similar in the entire article.

Also, in the First Team Squad section [17], there is no mention of Reyes, while other players out on loan such as Larsson, Bendtner, Gilbert, Muamba and Stokes are all listed as still being Arsenal players. Qwghlm 07:47, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, having read the articles I do see your point and I actually had already thought it was odd for there to be fees involved. However, in light of all that we've been hearing from the club for a while now with -- most of which was in regards to Reyes not moving -- I am unsure of what to believe the actual case is, mainly for two reasons: first, there is the ongoing saga of Reyes wanting to go back to Spain, which has gone on for a long time now. There have been a lot of quotes from this media source and that media source over the past year confirming that a transfer is forthcoming, and then all these so-called facts seem to end up being denied by both Wenger and Reyes when the Englis media asks for confirmation. The second reason is that I am not sure why there hasn't been a definite statement made about it on the Arsenal website. The report on the Premiership site says it, as are other reputable news sources, yet Arsenal's own press room hasn't come out to either confirm that these reports are accurate or to set the record straight if they aren't. That leads me to wonder if the club is trying to keep the details low key for some particular reason -- perhaps they aren't sure what will happen just yet. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Whatever actually has happened, I think we all look forward to seeing the move fruitful and a good start would be a positive result on the pitch tomorrow. Ryecatcher773

Ah - there's a new interview on the official Real Madrid site, which says:

You are one of the few players who has been loaned to Real Madrid.

"I spoke to the President and he told me there wasn't enough time for me to come as a signed transfer. But, I'm here, and that's what matters. I am going to work hard this year so that all Madridistas believe in me. On the pitch, I'll prove why this team needs me. That is all I am thinking about. We have to take each day at a time. We'll see what happens in one year's time when the loan period is over, but the final decision isn't in my hands."

I've changed my mind, since that settles it as far as I'm concerned, he is definitely a loaned-out player. Qwghlm 11:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The mysterious fee must be what they paid for keeping Baptista... I reckon that would explain it. Ryecatcher773

We can probably for the moment put Reyes on loan and Baptista on transfer, because we haven't really found solid evidence for the latter. Cyril Washbrook 23:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - the fact the club have stated there is a fee involved, albeit undisclosed, if proof enough that Baptista's is a permanent deal. Qwghlm 07:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Just because Football Manager doesn't allow fees to be attached to loans doesn't mean it can't happen. Does the Arsenal site actually state that it is a permanent transfer? If not I call original research as all media outlets say that it's a one year loan. WP:V and all that... Just reading over the Arsenal.com coverage of the transfer and it would appear to describe a permanent move, but when I read "Arsenal and Spain forward Jose Antonio Reyes ... to date has won championship and FA Cup honours with Arsenal." It screams "loan" to me. I think the move should be described as a season-long loan, with a footnote to describe the oddities of the transfer - that is unless someone can actually find some good sources that say it's a permanent transfer. aLii 08:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Most press reports were hurriedly made in the aftermath of an evening's deals, while not all the facts of the deal were known. Don't beat me with the OR stick - name a single occurrence of a loan deal where a fee has been paid; as it's a natural inference to make that as fee has been pad, it is not a loan. Also, explain why the Arsenal website originally described it as a loan deal before changing it to an 'undisclosed fee'. Qwghlm 09:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets collect the various sources:

Them that say loan:

• BBC 4th Sep
• Guardian 5th Sep
• Telegraph 4th Sep
• The Sun 4th Sep
• The Times 3rd Sep
• ESPN 5th Sep
• Sports Illustrated/CNN 1st Sep
• Reuters 1st Sep

Those that say permanent transfer:

• Arsenal official website: "Brazilian international Julio Baptista has joined Arsenal from La Liga side Real Madrid for an undisclosed fee." No mention of any loan. As it's from the horse's mouth, it's far more authoritative than any reports in the newspapers. Qwghlm 09:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Three problems: a) the article is dated 31st August. b) no-where have Arsenal attempted to correct the media's [in your opinion] incorrect reporting of the event. c) it doesn't give any mention of the word permanent. aLii 09:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
    • a) Well he did sign August 31 so you'd expect it to be dated then. None of the other articles on the Arsenal website published since contradict it [18] [19] [20] [21] b) Irrelevant - it's hardly libellous to state the move is a loan, so Arsenal are not obliged to issue a denial, c) The permanency is implicit - transfers are generally considered to be permanent unless stated otherwise. Qwghlm 09:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
      • I completely disagree. You cannot provide any good evidence to refute that it is a loan. The generally accepted view is that it is a loan. Arsenal.com doesn't say that it isn't a loan. It should be reported as it has been reported in the media. Wikipedia is not a place for coming to our own conclusions on these matters. aLii 09:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
        • You have it totally backwards: I don't have to refute anything. You have to prove it is a loan. Read the above discussion and you'll see that consensus amongst myself and other editors here was that it was a permanent move (and the article's current state reflects this), until you came along. The burden of proof is on you: find me a direct quote from the player or his club that it's a loan, and I'll believe you. Otherwise, it stays as it is. Qwghlm 10:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • OK, your recent edit to the article seems a reasonable compromise to make in the circumstances. I separated the Reyes and Baptista citations out though - Reyes has personally confirmed he is on a year's loan so there is no dispute over the nature of his transfer. Qwghlm 11:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. Your edit is a bit tidier, but I think it was fair to tie the two transfers together due to the nature of the situation. Reyes being on-loan implies, along with all the media evidence, that Baptista is also on loan. It's not super-important though. My personal view is this: both players are on-loan because of the last-ditch nature of the swap. A fee may well have now been settled, but it was probably after the deadline day. I have also heard reports that Baptista staying a Madrid player until January will qualify him for a Spanish passport, whether or not he's actually playing in Spain. aLii 11:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
            • To make the link between the two more clear I've added a mention of Reyes' transfer in the Baptista footnote. Qwghlm 11:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

aLii 09:11, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal offical website first team squad numbers

Just wanted to repost the fact that Gallas has been given the number 10 shirt as there have been a lot of people editing the page to award him number 3. Xobxela 08:52, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I've created an article for Terry Anderson (footballer). If anyone has any information regarding the time he spent with Arsenal in the sixties, please feel free to add it. Thanks! User:Demonicanglian 17:32, September 20, 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't sure where to put this but this seemed like the most appropriate place. Would http://www.thegoonerforum.moonfruit.com be considered a linkspam? If so what would we need to do to make sure it wouldn't be considered link spam. Cheers —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.88 ( talk • contribs) 15:11, October 10, 2006 (UTC).

Your site is little more than a forum, with squad photos taken from the official site, so it does not pass the requirements under WP:EL. The sites that are included are there because they provide history, statistics or useful background information to the club. Indeed, some of them are actually used as references in Arsenal-related articles. If your site contained material like that it would be a more useful resource for readers of this article. Qwghlm 19:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well we've just added a history of the club. If we have news can it be considered. And how can I approve the squad photos —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.229.242.86 ( talk • contribs) 19:51, October 25, 2006 (UTC).

Well, the history you have added (via the "Club" link on your page) is basically a copy & paste of the "History" section of this very article, so it is not providing readers with any extra information that they couldn't find here. Also, as it is not GFDL-licenced, it is also a breach of Wikipedia's mirroring and copyright policy. As it stands it doesn't make your site any more linkworthy. Qwghlm 16:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The introduction includes the text "the most blatantly sh@! team in the world" which doesn't appear in edit mode. Have never attempted to edit a page before but seems odd that that this text, which is clearly an undesirable defacing of the article, cannot be edited out. Anyone out there have the means to do this, Dougal.

That's because it had been fixed by the time you tried to fix it :) Normally it would have shown up as you might expect, cheers for trying though. Try refreshing your browser and/or cleaning your cache. aLii 10:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please edit out the graffiti "SARAH IS MAD CUTE" That has replaced some of the flags? -- trescolacion 15:43, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the templates rather than this article itself, by the looks of things, and it looks like it has already been fixed. Qwghlm 16:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I notice that in the article it reads "Arsenal have", "Arsenal were", etc, using the plural forms of the verbs. Now, as the club constitutes a single entity, shouldn't it read "has", "was", etc., instead, using singular? Even as a football club, it's still only one club, and the only way to have plurals would be talking about Arsenal as its players, which the article rarely does. Am I missing something? MSJapan 15:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just the standard British English way of talking about teams. Read some articles in the British media for examples - one sees it in almost every article. Examples from today:

• The Guardian "England were"
• The BBC "West Ham have"

aLii 15:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

See the archive of this page and an explanation of the discretionary plural for further information. Using the plural for collective entities is common practice in British English, and it is often used even when not directly referring to the eleven players on the pitch ( e.g.). Qwghlm 16:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also pretty common in US English in my experience. -- ukexpat 23:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleted this sentence from the "Colours" section:

the socks varied in colour but were most often black or dark grey.

The site referenced only has one color photo (and a re-colored one at that), in which the socks are clearly dark blue (compare with the black shoes they're wearing). [22] The remainder of the photos are black and white, which might appear "black or dark grey" but is hardly evidence. In addition, the club's website in another place references blue and white hooped socks, so there is a precedent for the blue color. [23] I'm changing the reference to reflect this. -- Chancemichaels 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)Chancemichaels

I would call the colour in the recolorised photo more grey or indigo than blue. It's definitely not the colour code #000066 that you've assigned them, which is quite a vivid blue, quite different from the subdued colour given in the 1913 photo (#242B31, or thereabouts). In addition, this alternative pictorial history of Arsenal kits gives them as black up until the Chapman era.

The link you give saying Arsenal played in blue & white hoops from the beginning is contradicted by another page on the official site, which states that Herbert Chapman introduced the blue and white hooped socks in the 1930s, an assertion borne out by the photos in [24], which show predominantly solid socks until 1933 or so, as well as the text in [25]

As there is probably no one definitive answer how about we go with just saying the socks were "dark" in the text, and the socks in the illustration coloured a similar shade to the recolourised 1913 photo, which I'm assuming must have been based on some other authoritative source. Qwghlm 20:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning that Rotherham are anotehr club to share the shirt colours of red torso with white sleeves? I'd be fascinated to know whether our shirts or those of the Millers came first. Incidentally, we played them in the League Cup in 2003 and that was the first ever penalty shootout witnessed at Highbury, remarkably, as well (Score was something crazy like 13-12...check..., Wiltord took two, but missed his first one and both keepers scored against each other). Safety06 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, if Rotherham somehow took inspiration from Arsenal's kit, or it was the result of the club lending kit, then it would be worthy of inclusion. If not then don't bother - there are plenty of teams with red and white sleeves and to list every one would be too trivial. Qwghlm 15:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

A proposal to split History of Arsenal F.C. into two articles has been made, contributions to the discussion at Talk:History of Arsenal F.C.#Split are welcome. Qwghlm 18:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)