Comment: The references to Liverpool and Man Utd in the lead section ((only Liverpool and Manchester United have won more), and 10 FA Cups (second only to Manchester United)) sounds a bit like
fancruft when included in the lead. Perhaps it would be better to include this information later on.
TreveXtalk13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
As a further thought, how about including something on any Arsenal fanzines? I don't know what it's like for Premiership teams, but in Scotland the fanzines play a large part in unifying supporters as well as being hugely entertaining. This could also tie in with the requests below for more on supporter culture.
Leithp09:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
That is not relevant to Kevin's proposal. Take a look at
IFK Göteborg and you'll see what he means, which is a section about the supporter culture around the club, not a list of famous supporters. -- Elisson•Talk16:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Unlike IFK Goteborg, Arsenal's fanbase is pretty heterogeneous, it crosses both class and racial divides. It would be quite hard to do an article that could sum them all up like the IFK article does.
Qwghlm17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't insist that you create a section like that, but your "objection" does really not mean much. The IFK Göteborg section has one paragraph about the fanbase structure, and four paragraphs about the supporter culture, supporter organizations, rivalries, attendance numbers, and so on, of the club. I do believe that Arsenal is such a big club that you could write a whole book about the Arsenal supporters. :) I will read the article later on and vote, but missing a supporter section won't make me object. -- Elisson•Talk19:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
A subpage about Arsenal's supporters' clubs would be nice, but I think even a section would suffice. Just name any major fan clubs and discuss how Arsenal has attracted fans in the London area, in the UK, and across the world. It has quite a broad fanbase and I think that needs to be better reflected in the article.
Kevin M Marshall22:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Object 1) subheading =Players out on loan= is unnecessary. Either merge with parent or promote to a higher level. 2) Do not fragment ==External links==. Use the semicolon (;) to create a bold heading. =Arsenal Ladies= needs to be expanded to at least twice its current size of not more.
=Nichalp«Talk»=15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Have done (2) and (3). I disagree with (1) - the players are registered to the club, so they should be in that section, but they are not in the playing squad (and hence have no number), so they should be kept separate from the main group. I could if you like prefix that header with ; instead of === so that it does not appear in the table of contents.
Qwghlm17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Use ; for that section. No, you'd need another paragraph on Arsenal ladies, before I withdraw my objection. ==Achievements== should be converted into prose. Also unbold the text.
=Nichalp«Talk»=17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Right:
Have converted the === to ;
The main article on
Arsenal Ladies itself is little more than two paragraphs long at the moment, to further expand would basically mean duplicating the entire thing. I could just add {{main}} to the top of that section instead, to emphasise that it is only a summary.
The History section, and the
History of Arsenal F.C. article both double as prose versions of the Achievements section. It is meant to be a quick at-a-glance list of honours - to turn it into prose would add clutter IMHO. I'm not keen on unbolding either - it's the standard format across all football club pages, and demarcates the name of the trophy clearly.
Qwghlm18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Have expanded Arsenal Ladies section a little further, but it really is hard to make a decent-sized section given how women's football is dwarfed by the men's game in the UK. Also do note that the two clubs are technically separate entities; the content on
Arsenal F.C. should only be a brief summary of
Arsenal L.F.C.Qwghlm20:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Question for Nichalp: are you objecting to the article having a short section in it (which I've seen you object to before) or to there not being enough info on the ladies' team in the article? If it's just the section length, which looks like a reasonable enough objection to me, it should be easy to merge it into another section. I don't think it would be fair to say that the article needs more on the ladies' team than it has now: they aren't even remotely as notable as the men's team (wouldn't be surprised if average attendances for the men's team were 100 times higher, for example) and they've got their own article which is linked to in the text. One sentence mentioning them would be satisfactory imo.
CTOAGN00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment. I admit the following comment nit-picking, but I have no problems otherwise with this article. (I'd be more likely to vote "support" if I knew more about soccer to know what I should learn from this article; Arsenal is one of a very few professional teams I have heard of.) The thing is this: in the section "Arsenal in popular culture", we read that "the film is centred on a friendly between Arsenal and an amateur side, one of whose players is poisoned whilst playing." While I assume that this is proper British English idion, without the noun, I am not entirely sure what "friendly" refers to; I presume "game". Unless it is unidiomatic, could the appropriate noun be added? --
llywrch17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Have turned it into "friendly match", as that is what it means. In footballing vernacular the word "friendly" alone suffices as a description, but obviously the article should cater for all.
Qwghlm17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Would "non-competitive match" be acceptable as a replacement? It's not a phrase that's often used when talking about football, but should be understandable by everyone.
CTOAGN00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
'Comment: I'll get round to having a proper look at this tomorrow, but I don't like the way that there are a few sections of prose, then some lists, then some more prose. I'd prefer to have all of the prose together and the lists at the end. Also, don't external links normally go after references and footnotes?
CTOAGN00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I've moved the links to the bottom, and the prose about Arsenal Ladies to join the rest. I am not sure what to do with the records/statistics section, as it is a few very short paragraphs of prose that summarise an article that is a series of lists. I would rather have it stay where it is as I feel it's more natural belonging there, following on from the list of honours.
Qwghlm10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
The club explicitly mentioned copyright in the press release announcing the new crest
[1]. In 2002, the club lost a court case against a street trader who reproduced the old logo after suing him under trademark law
[2], as the defendant successfully claimed he was using it as a "badge of allegiance", not a guarantee about the origin of the product. So I can understand why the club might have turned to copyright, not trademark, law to protect its crest instead.
Qwghlm10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: From the first paragraph: "Arsenal Football Club are a football club . . ." and "the team has yet to achieve . . ." And in the third paragraph "The club was then known . . ." I'm not a BrE speaker, but the subject verb agreement seems askew.
—Wayward11:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
but after hostilities ended, Arsenal won another two titles and an FA Cup. - in which years?
Crest - a link to a news article about the changes would be good, but not essential.
Kit - in which year did Forest make this donation?
Kit - last sentence - minus sign should be replaced by ndash or mdash, but can't remember which :-)
There are a lot of long sentences separated by with commas, especially at the start of the article, e.g. By then, Arsenal had been relegated to the Second Division, but despite only finishing fifth, Arsenal were elected to rejoin the First Division in 1919 at the expense of local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, by reportedly dubious means. I'd really prefer it if these were edited - they make the article come across as kind of choppy.
CTOAGN21:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Added those years in.
Added in a link in.
Unknown, it was very early in the club's history, soon after the club's first match in 1886 (but probably 1887). Thus I have put in "soon after" into the article...
I've used ndashes (the unicode version, not HTML entities) throughout, including that section. The
Manual of Style doesn't care as long as it's consistent.
I have shortened some longer sentences, I could really do with a neutral party to do a few tweaks, though - it's hard copyediting your own prose.
Qwghlm22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't think anyone would call me a neutral party <grin>, but I've done a copyedit. Unfortunately, I've done it at 3am for some reason so I hope it hasn't introduced a load of mistakes - would be a little counterproductive. All my reservations have been dealt with now, so I'm changing my vote.
CTOAGN02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: The references to Liverpool and Man Utd in the lead section ((only Liverpool and Manchester United have won more), and 10 FA Cups (second only to Manchester United)) sounds a bit like
fancruft when included in the lead. Perhaps it would be better to include this information later on.
TreveXtalk13:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
As a further thought, how about including something on any Arsenal fanzines? I don't know what it's like for Premiership teams, but in Scotland the fanzines play a large part in unifying supporters as well as being hugely entertaining. This could also tie in with the requests below for more on supporter culture.
Leithp09:09, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
That is not relevant to Kevin's proposal. Take a look at
IFK Göteborg and you'll see what he means, which is a section about the supporter culture around the club, not a list of famous supporters. -- Elisson•Talk16:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Unlike IFK Goteborg, Arsenal's fanbase is pretty heterogeneous, it crosses both class and racial divides. It would be quite hard to do an article that could sum them all up like the IFK article does.
Qwghlm17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't insist that you create a section like that, but your "objection" does really not mean much. The IFK Göteborg section has one paragraph about the fanbase structure, and four paragraphs about the supporter culture, supporter organizations, rivalries, attendance numbers, and so on, of the club. I do believe that Arsenal is such a big club that you could write a whole book about the Arsenal supporters. :) I will read the article later on and vote, but missing a supporter section won't make me object. -- Elisson•Talk19:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
A subpage about Arsenal's supporters' clubs would be nice, but I think even a section would suffice. Just name any major fan clubs and discuss how Arsenal has attracted fans in the London area, in the UK, and across the world. It has quite a broad fanbase and I think that needs to be better reflected in the article.
Kevin M Marshall22:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Object 1) subheading =Players out on loan= is unnecessary. Either merge with parent or promote to a higher level. 2) Do not fragment ==External links==. Use the semicolon (;) to create a bold heading. =Arsenal Ladies= needs to be expanded to at least twice its current size of not more.
=Nichalp«Talk»=15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Have done (2) and (3). I disagree with (1) - the players are registered to the club, so they should be in that section, but they are not in the playing squad (and hence have no number), so they should be kept separate from the main group. I could if you like prefix that header with ; instead of === so that it does not appear in the table of contents.
Qwghlm17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Yeah, Use ; for that section. No, you'd need another paragraph on Arsenal ladies, before I withdraw my objection. ==Achievements== should be converted into prose. Also unbold the text.
=Nichalp«Talk»=17:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Right:
Have converted the === to ;
The main article on
Arsenal Ladies itself is little more than two paragraphs long at the moment, to further expand would basically mean duplicating the entire thing. I could just add {{main}} to the top of that section instead, to emphasise that it is only a summary.
The History section, and the
History of Arsenal F.C. article both double as prose versions of the Achievements section. It is meant to be a quick at-a-glance list of honours - to turn it into prose would add clutter IMHO. I'm not keen on unbolding either - it's the standard format across all football club pages, and demarcates the name of the trophy clearly.
Qwghlm18:19, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Have expanded Arsenal Ladies section a little further, but it really is hard to make a decent-sized section given how women's football is dwarfed by the men's game in the UK. Also do note that the two clubs are technically separate entities; the content on
Arsenal F.C. should only be a brief summary of
Arsenal L.F.C.Qwghlm20:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Question for Nichalp: are you objecting to the article having a short section in it (which I've seen you object to before) or to there not being enough info on the ladies' team in the article? If it's just the section length, which looks like a reasonable enough objection to me, it should be easy to merge it into another section. I don't think it would be fair to say that the article needs more on the ladies' team than it has now: they aren't even remotely as notable as the men's team (wouldn't be surprised if average attendances for the men's team were 100 times higher, for example) and they've got their own article which is linked to in the text. One sentence mentioning them would be satisfactory imo.
CTOAGN00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment. I admit the following comment nit-picking, but I have no problems otherwise with this article. (I'd be more likely to vote "support" if I knew more about soccer to know what I should learn from this article; Arsenal is one of a very few professional teams I have heard of.) The thing is this: in the section "Arsenal in popular culture", we read that "the film is centred on a friendly between Arsenal and an amateur side, one of whose players is poisoned whilst playing." While I assume that this is proper British English idion, without the noun, I am not entirely sure what "friendly" refers to; I presume "game". Unless it is unidiomatic, could the appropriate noun be added? --
llywrch17:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Have turned it into "friendly match", as that is what it means. In footballing vernacular the word "friendly" alone suffices as a description, but obviously the article should cater for all.
Qwghlm17:28, 12 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Would "non-competitive match" be acceptable as a replacement? It's not a phrase that's often used when talking about football, but should be understandable by everyone.
CTOAGN00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
'Comment: I'll get round to having a proper look at this tomorrow, but I don't like the way that there are a few sections of prose, then some lists, then some more prose. I'd prefer to have all of the prose together and the lists at the end. Also, don't external links normally go after references and footnotes?
CTOAGN00:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I've moved the links to the bottom, and the prose about Arsenal Ladies to join the rest. I am not sure what to do with the records/statistics section, as it is a few very short paragraphs of prose that summarise an article that is a series of lists. I would rather have it stay where it is as I feel it's more natural belonging there, following on from the list of honours.
Qwghlm10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
The club explicitly mentioned copyright in the press release announcing the new crest
[1]. In 2002, the club lost a court case against a street trader who reproduced the old logo after suing him under trademark law
[2], as the defendant successfully claimed he was using it as a "badge of allegiance", not a guarantee about the origin of the product. So I can understand why the club might have turned to copyright, not trademark, law to protect its crest instead.
Qwghlm10:19, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Comment: From the first paragraph: "Arsenal Football Club are a football club . . ." and "the team has yet to achieve . . ." And in the third paragraph "The club was then known . . ." I'm not a BrE speaker, but the subject verb agreement seems askew.
—Wayward11:01, 13 October 2005 (UTC)reply
but after hostilities ended, Arsenal won another two titles and an FA Cup. - in which years?
Crest - a link to a news article about the changes would be good, but not essential.
Kit - in which year did Forest make this donation?
Kit - last sentence - minus sign should be replaced by ndash or mdash, but can't remember which :-)
There are a lot of long sentences separated by with commas, especially at the start of the article, e.g. By then, Arsenal had been relegated to the Second Division, but despite only finishing fifth, Arsenal were elected to rejoin the First Division in 1919 at the expense of local rivals Tottenham Hotspur, by reportedly dubious means. I'd really prefer it if these were edited - they make the article come across as kind of choppy.
CTOAGN21:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)reply
Added those years in.
Added in a link in.
Unknown, it was very early in the club's history, soon after the club's first match in 1886 (but probably 1887). Thus I have put in "soon after" into the article...
I've used ndashes (the unicode version, not HTML entities) throughout, including that section. The
Manual of Style doesn't care as long as it's consistent.
I have shortened some longer sentences, I could really do with a neutral party to do a few tweaks, though - it's hard copyediting your own prose.
Qwghlm22:55, 14 October 2005 (UTC)reply
I don't think anyone would call me a neutral party <grin>, but I've done a copyedit. Unfortunately, I've done it at 3am for some reason so I hope it hasn't introduced a load of mistakes - would be a little counterproductive. All my reservations have been dealt with now, so I'm changing my vote.
CTOAGN02:51, 16 October 2005 (UTC)reply