Talk:Arsenal F.C.

Koscielny 4th Captain

Laurent Koscielny has been captain on several occasions this season, when Mikel Arteta, Per Mertesacker & Santi Cazorla don't feature. It's safe to assume he's probably the 4th captain, as many clubs have these. 108.180.241.236 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source please and not just an assumption. Sport and politics (talk) 18:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Friendly Cups

I do not think friendly cups should be listed in the honours. Some tournaments eg Markus Liebherr Cup, Kapfenburg tri-team tournament etc were not even 90 minute matches, they were 45 minute matches all played on the same day. Why should these friendly cups which don't even follow normal football rules be included among cups like Premier League and FA Cup. I can understand having cups like London Senior Cup etc because they were the only tournaments around back then, but not pre-season friendlies. They need to be removed. There is a reason why no other teams have them on their wiki pages. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree, they aren't major honours, so 100% should be removed. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

They are sourced and could be kept. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Football/Archive_102#Arsenal_FC has been taken over by two editors. Qed237 (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Who cares if they are sourced. I could go and create a whole new section on this article about something completely unnecessary but as long as I source it it can't be removed? Makes no sense. These friendly cups are not 'honours'. They are non-competitive games some of which don't even follow the rules of football e.g. 45 min matches etc. Also, Arsenal have won countless pre-season cups which have not been included in this list. If they were all included and sourced, the list would go on and on full of random friendly cups and it would look ridiculous. The Arsenal wiki page is being ruined by stubborn editors who will not remove these pre-season cups. Why do you think no other clubs' pages have them, let alone pages of big clubs like Arsenal. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This information is well sourced, the club participated in these tournaments and they have received notable third party coverage. I don't like, is not a reason to exclude. This is notable information relating to the club, as it gives a breadth of knowledge of the club. It shows the club as more than just an August to May club, and shows that the club actually functions as an active football club between May and August. Individual competitions such as the Saitama City Cup and Emirates Cup are notable enough to have individual Wikipedia articles, not including that a club has won would be inconsistent, and a removal of information which is notable for the club. There is a case here for separating out the section on competition successes in to a separate article, this way the information can be expanded on, and the main article does not become unwieldy. creating a separate article is not an uncommon this to do, see the article Arsenal F.C. in European football. Stating "too much information, remove it all' is a farce as it removes notable information and reliably sourced information. No other stuff is also not a reason to not have something, by that logic nothing new would ever be added to any article anywhere on Wikipedia. There has to be an article which is the first article to do something, and if this article happens to be it then so be it. The fact it may be the first article is though not a legitimate reason for removal.

An example is on the England national football team page where friendly tournaments are included such as the Rous Cup and the Tournament of France, by the logic above the England page should be purged on this notable and reliably sourced information.

I would also like to draw users attention to this discussion on the main wikiproject talk page, this discussion establishes and sets the foundation of the current consensus for inclusion of the trophies on this page, this being consensus on the side of inclusion and not exclusion. Sport and politics (talk) 10:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

@Sport and politics and Qed237: Separating out part of the section into a new article sounds an interesting suggestion. It means Wikipedia continues to provide a valuable historical reference for otherwise overlooked tournaments, while preventing bloat on the core Arsenal FC page. We would have to form a consensus on which trophies would remain on this page. The FA, UEFA, FIFA combination that stands here sounds a good start. This would also be mostly consistent with the other Premier League Featured Articles: Man U; Liverpool; Chelsea; Villa; Man City; and Sunderland. The exceptions, like Second Division wins, would have be discussed. I would be interested to hear other editors' views on this topic. Madshurtie (talk) 12:33, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Per comments on the project page there is no discussion. All sourced, all may remain, and diluting the main article defeats the object. The obvious answer here is to reformat using columns, either by entire section, or by the most lengthy subsection (the friendlies competitions). Koncorde (talk) 02:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as its been agreed that all the trophies should be kept on this page, I've added every trophy that Arsenal have won and have sourced them all. Hashim-afc (talk) 09:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Lead

I've reverted changes made by @Madshurtie:, no consensus was reached when this happened the last time. More to the point:

• "Arsenal were founded in 1886 in Woolwich...", was, surely?
• "Arsenal entered the first division in 1904..*, First Division?
• How is Myfootballfacts.com a reliable source?
• " Arsène Wenger's teams set several current top flight records: the longest win streak;[4] the longest unbeaten run;[4]...," does that need mentioning here?

To avoid edit warring, best to state your case here when it comes to making intro changes. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51:, please don't rewrite the intro using bloaty and not NPOV sentences from various ancient versions of the lead. Here's a list of problems removed over time by various editors, including me, Haldraper, and others.

• 'One of the most successful clubs...' vague, adds no info, and is certainly not NPOV
• 'Founded in 1886, Arsenal became the first club from the south of England to join the Football League seven years after.' Terrible grammar.
• 'After a lean period in the post-war years...' bloaty, and inaccurate considering they won several trophies shortly after the war.
• 'the second club of the 20th century to win the ...' bloat, not notable, the rest of that sentence is also far too long: '... League and FA Cup Double, in the 1970–71 season, and in the 1990s and 2000s recorded a series of successes – during this time Arsenal won a Cup Double, two further League and FA Cup Doubles, went through a league season undefeated and became the first London club to reach the UEFA Champions League Final.'
• ' recorded a series of successes – during this time Arsenal won a Cup Double, two further League and FA Cup Doubles' bloat, vague, less info in more words than 'they saw five League titles and five FA Cups, including two more Doubles'.
• 'colours ... have evolved over time' verbiage
• 'Similarly, the club has moved location' bloat, and terrible writing.
• 'Arsenal's time in North London has seen a fierce rivalry with Tottenham Hotspur, the North London derby.' Verbiage, and less info in more words than 'They became Tottenham Hotspur's nearest club, beginning the North London Derby.'
• 'Arsenal has one of the highest incomes and largest fanbases in the world.' Vague, adds no info, certainly not NPOV
• 'The club was named the fifth most valuable association football club in the world, valued at $1.3 billion in 2015.' Vague use of passive voice, and adds more authority than Forbes's terrible guessed numbers deserve. Less info in more words than 'Forbes estimates the club was worth $1.3 billion in 2015.'

The version you just composed is so bloaty it squeezes considerably less info into exactly the same number of lines.

Madshurtie (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: As for your points, I am indifferent on the was/were case, so long as there's consistency down the article. Capitalizing first division is fine. If you can find a better source, that would be great, though there's nothing wrong with the number. The records set by Wenger are part of what makes him a historically important Arsenal manager. The Arsenal museum itself makes a fuss about them. The unbeaten one in particular is connected with the Invincibles season. Madshurtie (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: You talk about a last time, I cannot find any version preceding one of my edits that looks like yours. The only one I find that looks like yours is this 2015 rewrite by you. It is not up to you to write a lead and declare it the default. If you want changes, please discuss first.

• Thanks for replying. I don't watch this article, and only noticed the changes through WT:FOOTY. I know it's not up to me to write a lead, but Wikipedia is based on WP:CONSENSUS. I modelled the lead on the 2010 FAR version, because first and foremost it's a FA and secondly, it concisely deals with the subject. Your version isn't bad, but I've remodelled it, and omitted some sentences (for instance 'They broke the FA Cup record in 2015' → when they broke the record isn't important, that they have the record is, which is explained in the first paragraph), and stylised it according to Wikipedia guidelines. Lemme know what you think. Lemonade51 (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Out of interest, where is the 2010 FAR version? Is that just a version from around 2010 (it seems to change back and forth a lot in that year), or is there a definitive version archived? Sorry if this just shows my ignorance. As far as I can tell, this intro has swung all over the place as various editors have rewritten it (including me), so there is no consensus version.

Those are quite a lot of new changes, though some of them might be improvements. Did you change the FA/UEFA line to make it more specific? I'll go find a better reference for the years in the top division. Sorry for knocking out the Champions League bit, not actually winning it made it seem not notable. Why have we lost the unbeaten record bit and the 20th C bit? I guess it reduces the size of the footballing history section, though it seems a shame to lose the info. My suggestion, actually, would be to create a separate, 3-4 line section about Arsenal managers (Chapman, Wenger), similar to Man U, to keep down the size of the footballing history section. If we merged the non-football history section into the finance/support section to create a details-about-the-club section, it would keep the number of paragraphs at four. A structure of Lead lines / Footballing History / Influential Managers / Details about club. I might change it to show you what I mean, and you can change it back if you think necessary. Madshurtie (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not read in to all details of the lead, but keep in mind that the lead is a short summary of the article. Please try and keep it short (not too long) and dont include much content that does not exist elsewhere inside the article. Qed237 (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe everything in the lead is in the rest of the article, though it looks like the ownership and finances section could do with updating. The lead is currently exactly the same number of lines as Man U FC, which hasn't changed for a while. If you have any specific changes, please suggest them. :-) Madshurtie (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to update it. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Updated Madshurtie (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and sorry about the WP:FOOTY bit. :-/ Madshurtie (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237:Do you have an ideal length for the intro? It's now two lines shorter than Man U, one more than Liverpool (only because Liverpool doesn't have the professional club sentence), and the same number of lines as it was around the 2010 FA Review. The football stuff currently includes all the trophies, basically all of the unique long term accomplishments, a brief history of every league title, and some famous achievements under famous managers. The non-football stuff includes a bit more than the 2010 FAR, minus what is out of date or moved to other articles. Given that we've done all that in the same amount of space, I'd say we're doing quite well? MOS:Lead states that four paragraphs is the limit, and given this is one of the historically biggest football clubs, that seems appropriate here. Madshurtie (talk) 21:14, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I dont have a special number for the length but WP:LEADLENGTH is a good standard. It should be short and make reader want to read more (i.e. dont have all info), but four paragraphs are acceptable. Qed237 (talk) 21:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

On a slightly different topic, why do so many football clubs start with something like '... is a professional football club ... that plays in the Premier League, the top flight of English football'. The 'professional' bit seems slightly unnecessary alongside the Premier League bit, and it doesn't seem like a very concise way of writing. I always felt we could chop half a line out if we did it more like Liverpool: '... is a Premier League football club'. Madshurtie (talk) 16:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I've made some changes again,

• Shortened it to three paragraphs. I think it's better to state when the club was founded in the second paragraph, and where in the third because that deals with locality.
• Incorporated the the manager bits with achievements. That doesn't mean to say what Chapman did for the club wasn't innovative, but there is another article which deals with WM formations and floodlighting. Removed the bit about Wenger being the club's longest-serving manager, but you could add it back.
• Removed some references because certain information is already cited in the body of the article. Lead is meant to summarise, not add new info. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: Thanks for your comment,

• I see what you're saying about the where/when, but I was actually structuring it to separate the footballing events (joining the league, promotion, winning trophies, etc.) from the non-footballing events (founded in Woolwich, moving, moving again). Your change still has dates in the 'where' section ('in 1913 they moved north...', 'in 2006 they moved...'), so I feel my layout made a fair bit of sense?
• The main reasons I separated the manager bit was because a) there's a fair bit of football content (justified, I think, considering this is a full-sized featured article) and one paragraph seemed a bit crowded b) it provided a good home to the kit colour bit. Your new layout has a pretty bulky football paragraph (six lines) and loses the kit colour info, which has dated since mid-2010, around the FAR. Whether some Chapman innovations deserve to be in the AFC intro is a good question. I think it's acceptable, considering it's only half a line and they're an important contribution by Arsenal to the world of football?
• There's a bit more wordiness (WP:ATE):

• 'The appointment of Herbert Chapman brought about Arsenal's first period of major success as in the 1930s' vs 'Herbert Chapman won Arsenal's first trophies'
• 'Under the management of ...'
• 'The club have moved location ...'

• The 'they moved north across the city ...' sentence seems kind of confusing to the casual reader: Arsenal did move to the north of the city, but the actual direction they moved was closer to west. It's also a bit more wordy.
• I noticed you took out the Champions League Final line. I personally think that's a good edit: it was notable around the 2010 FAR, but Chelsea have since won the competition. It would be interesting to hear other editors' views on this.
• I'm not sure it was necessary to remove the 'Between 1988 and 2005, they won five League titles and five FA Cups' bit. That bit meant the intro covered all 13 titles in three sentences. Each sentence even roughly aligned with the three periods when the titles fell, which seems quite neat.
• The fact that the unbeaten season was much longer than for Preston North End is partially why Arsenal were given so much attention. Shouldn't that info be in the intro? 'the longest whole season unbeaten' seems a very concise way of expressing that.

I'll edit back in some of these points. Feel free to make further changes. Madshurtie (talk) 14:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Historical club names

@Lemonade51: If we put past names in the intro (bear in mind Dial Square is already in the infobox), how many? To my knowledge, the club goes through Dial Square, Royal Arsenal, Woolwich Arsenal, The Arsenal, and Arsenal. Including all of those might be a bit unwieldy. Madshurtie (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie:, I see. Have no further issues with the lead at this point. Lemonade51 (talk) 17:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Lemonade51: Glad we got to work on this. If you wanted to add when the club adopted its current name, I think it might slot nicely into the Herbert Chapman bit. Is it worth getting any other reviewers in to look at the intro? It would be nice to have a more recent consensus version than the dated 2010 FAR era ones. Madshurtie (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I guess it wouldn't hurt asking at WT:FOOTY for someone to have a look. Maybe having a look at other football club leads and discussing ways to improve. Lemonade51 (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2016

Please change Alexis Sachez number to 7 and remove rosicky Jasonzwsa (talk) 08:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done No reliable source cited for the shirt number, whilst Rosicky remains an Arsenal player until "the expiration of his contract in July 2016" - Arjayay (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Honours Categorization

Maybe the regional titles should be grouped all together just below the national ones? would make it all a bit neater as it still reads a little messy. just an idea. what does everyone think?Davefelmer (talk) 05:09, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: If we group based on european-national-regional, we'd have to mix in a lot of the friendlies into the european and national categories, and it would be trickier for the reader to navigate. Categorizing based on competition format means we can take all of the pre-season and one-round cups out of the other categories.Madshurtie (talk) 12:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The best alternative structure I have thought of is grouping based on organizing body, something like, 'The Football League & Premier League'/'The FA'/'UEFA'/'Other'. It would separate the 13 league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, Community Shields, and UEFA Cup Winners' Cup from everything else, which would be helpful for the reader, but we'd be burying the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, which wasn't run by a major organization. That seems a shame considering its historical importance. The other thing is that the regional leagues and mid-season knock-out tournaments have historical importance to Arsenal, since there were long periods (early history and the war) when it wasn't able to play in any other tournaments. Keeping them separate from all the short cups may be useful to the reader. Madshurtie (talk) 12:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

So perhaps we should format it as: Domestic (National) including FA Cup, League Cup, title, Community Shield / European (National) including all European honours / Regional / Friendlies. What do you think about that? Davefelmer (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: See discussion below with Hashim. Loads of the trophies are national (teams from around the country), and many of those could be called friendlies. The Mercantile Credit Centenary was a national trophy commemorating a centenary that was organized by The Football League with 16 participating clubs, whereas the Herbert Chapman memorial trophy was also a national trophy commemorating a centenary organized by the clubs and with two participants. How are we classifying which is a friendly? If you want to dig through all of the historical matchday programmes and see if they label the match as a friendly, be my guest, but I suspect even those won't consistently label them. Madshurtie (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a featured article so what is wrong with the current order? I see no compelling reason to change. Qed237 (talk) 21:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: The problem is that there are very few club pages that list all named cups like this, so there isn't much of a consensus structure to follow. Also, the friendlies and stuff were only added relatively recently, mostly over the last year, well after the last featured article review and without much discussion of how they should be laid out. If we're going to lead the way like this, we need to make sure we're doing it properly. Madshurtie (talk) 09:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc:For a second time, I have checked the pre-season matches, and all of those ones were played between seasons. What makes life complicated is having no clear definition of what is a friendly and what is not. The Mercantile Credit Centenary, London Challenge Cup, and Southern Professional Floodlit Cup are examples of multi-stage competitions that we aren't listing among the friendlies, whereas the Emirates and the Amsterdam Tournament are examples of multi-stage competitions that we are listing as friendlies. What's more, there's no evidence among the sources for which competitions are actually friendly matches since they often aren't named as such. Calling them pre-season/one-match means the categories are verifiable through the listed sources, and means we can separate out as much clutter as possible from the league and knockout sections. Madshurtie (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

This system is flawed in my opinion. Firstly the Community Shield is a one-round cup, so technically it fits into both the super cup and the one-round cup sections, i.e. these two sections overlap. Also the one-round cup section overlaps with the pre-season cup section too - for example the 1989 Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy was a one-round cup but was also in pre-season, and the exact same applies to Indonesia Cup and Malaysia Cup - so where do these go? They technically should go in both sections, and they currently aren't in both. So the current system is clearly flawed. In my opinion we should just keep it nice and simple. A section for major domestic honours (Prem, FA Cup, League Cup, Community Shield, possibly Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy but there would probably have to be a discussion about that), a section for European honours (Cup Winners Cup and (probably) Inter Cities Fairs Cup), and a section for 'Other honours' where all the other trophies (ranging from London Challenge Cup to the likes of Emirates Cup and Malaysia Cup) are listed. And if you really want to separate cups like London Challenge Cup from cups like Malaysia Cup, then you can separate the 'Other honours' section into knockout and one-match. There is my opinion. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:37, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I agree the system is flawed, and I've thought about redrawing it a few times, but every alternative seems flawed. My way of thinking was that the Super Cup category takes precedence over everything to separate out the Community Shield, and then the pre-season category takes precedence over everything else so that it keeps overlapping trophies out of more important sections. The one-match section mops up the rest. As a result, the top, main categories only contain the leagues, the FA trophies, the UEFA trophies, and the historically interesting wartime and early history trophies. I think using precedence like this at least keeps it consistent. Madshurtie (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I guess this is bad if the logic isn't obvious to the reader or other editors. I could either leave a note for other editors in the wikitext, or we could just come up with a new system. Do you think a system like this would be an improvement? Madshurtie (talk) 16:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie:I understand your thinking but I don't think we should keep this system. I mean for example, the reader will see that the Malaysia Cup and Indonesia Cup aren't in the one match cup sections, and then he/she will think that means they weren't one match cups when they actually were. The reader isn't going to know that the reason why they are in that section is because that section takes precedence over the one match cup section. They will be led to believing false information and this is something we shouldn't allow to happen. What do you think are the flaws of the system I proposed earlier? ("A section for major domestic honours (Prem, FA Cup, League Cup, Community Shield, possibly Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy but there would probably have to be a discussion about that), a section for European honours (Cup Winners Cup and (probably) Inter Cities Fairs Cup), and a section for 'Other honours' where all the other trophies (ranging from London Challenge Cup to the likes of Emirates Cup and Malaysia Cup) are listed. And if you really want to separate cups like London Challenge Cup from cups like Malaysia Cup, then you can separate the 'Other honours' section into knockout and one-match.") This system separates the major from the minor, and separates the minor into knockout and one match, so the reader knows which are the 'more important' minor trophies, if you will. (e.g. the London Challenge Cup was certainly seen as more important in its day as something like the Malaysia Cup and my proposed system would separate them out). So what do you think about this? Hashim-afc (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I think that system would be an improvement to the current one, but I think we can make it a lot simpler if we used the system I described above. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I think I agree with you about confusing the reader, so we'll probably have to change it. My problem with your system is the definition is a bit vague. People will start arguing over what's major or not (indeed, they already have), some people will try to put the early years cups, wartime stuff, London Charity Shield, etc in with the domestic trophies because they were arguably major in their time, and then it would become even less clear what's major and what's not. I have no problem with an 'Other Honours' bucket for chucking in everything else, I just think it's clearer for other editors and the reader if the first categories are nice and precise. That's why I drew up the organizing bodies alternative, because its harder to argue whether the tournament was organized by The FA or not. Madshurtie (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I understand your point, but I think it would be very hard to argue that cups like the London Challenge Cup are major honours. I think the clear consensus is that all tournaments organised by the FA themselves (except for pre-season tournaments) are major honours, like you said. With that in mind, I have changed the honours section on the Arsenal F.C. page into what I think it should be. Could you take a look at it please? I think it is good because it's nice and simple (only 3 main subheadings), and the 'Others' section is split up so that the more important minor trophies are separated from the pre-season ones. I don't think people will be able to argue against this. What do you think? If people start moving trophies like Southern Professional Cup into the major section then maybe we should think of another revamp, but I doubt this will happen. I think the system I have just implemented works really well. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I feel if the clear consensus is that the major tournaments are the ones organized by those bodies then we should just say that in the headings to avoid confusion. Labelling them with the organizing body also gives a bit more information to the reader. I think I like your sub-split of wartime/mid-season/pre-season, but I think I'll split The Football/Premier League stuff from the FA stuff to keep it solid and easier for the reader to navigate. Madshurtie (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Alright, I'm glad we got it sorted. By the way, I added another trophy into the Wartime section as I just found out about it - Football League Southern War Cup. We won it in 1943 by beating Charlton at Wembley. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Actually, the only problem with this system as opposed to the one I implemented is that the Inter Cities Fairs Cup, considered a major trophy by almost all sources (including FIFA), gets grouped together with trophies like Will Mather Trophy and Bath Coronation Cup which are of much lower importance. Also, weren't the wartime leagues organised by the Football League? Hashim-afc (talk) 18:07, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I do feel bad burying the Inter Cities Fairs Cup, but making a special case for one tournament sounds like opening a can of worms. The fact that FIFA calls it 'major' isn't exactly concrete. We could possibly put it under UEFA but with a note underneath that the tournament was only taken over by UEFA in 1971. Alternatively, we could sort the 'other' section by european/national/regional so that the ICFC is right at the top. As for the wartime leagues, I'm not sure who organized them, but I'd be more than happy if we had to elevate them to the Football League section, because of their historical importance. Madshurtie (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: "We could possibly put it under UEFA but with a note underneath that the tournament was only taken over by UEFA in 1971." I like this idea and I think it's a very good solution to the problem, as it keeps the trophy near the top but still tells the reader the necessary information. As for the wartime leagues, I assume they were organised by the Football League, considering the war cup was called "Football League War Cup", and also I can't think of anyone else who would've organised it. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: The English titles page does something similar for the ICFC. I was wondering if some of the clubs had set up temporary leagues so that they could keep playing during the war. You're probably right, but it might be worth finding a source on it first. Madshurtie (talk) 18:35, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I've found this source: http://web.archive.org/web/20071016052020/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWfootball.htm. It says "the Football League divided all the clubs into seven regional areas where games could take place. London clubs arranged for their regional competition to begin on the last Saturday in October." So it seems like the clubs actually organised the running of the leagues, but the Football League were involved in deciding where the games would take place, presumably for safety. I guess this means they weren't really Football League competitions. Hashim-afc (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Yeah, wiki and the source it cites seems to say the same thing. Very indirectly I suppose you could call them Football League competitions, but looks like its better to think of The FL as suspended. Madshurtie (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Number 57 (talk · contribs), Lemonade51 (talk · contribs), The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Hashim-afc (talk · contribs) Instead of separating the "The Football League & Premier League" and "The Football Association" trophies I think it will be better to put it under one title "Domestic" What do you think about that ? I would like to make that edit is that ok with everyone? Also I am strongly against The London and Kent minor trophies I believe only major honours that are recognized by Governing bodies should be on the honours section no other big club in the Premier League displays regional trophies in there honours sections. Footieedit (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

@Footieedit: I think the biggest reason for scrapping 'Domestic' is it's potentially confusing to the reader. The reader could be led to think these are the only domestic trophies, when that isn't true by a long shot. It's also unclear why there are domestic trophies in the link in the 'Other' section, which would be confusing and might encourage editors to edit them back in to 'Domestic'. When the Domestic/European categorization started on Wikipedia, people clearly hadn't considered county cups and other smaller trophies, so the categorization is basically out of date.

I'd also add that the current system adds information, because it lets readers know the architecture of competitions in England, and shows why there's two national cups (because the League Cup is run by the Football League) Madshurtie (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Aaron Ramsey

Aaron Ramsey's number has changed from 16 to 8, as per the official Arsenal Twitter and the official Arsenal store. Just letting you guys know I have made this change. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

We have an official source for the first team which should be followed (http://www.arsenal.com/first-team/players). When this message is written, Arteta has number 8 and Ramsey has number 16 in that source and it is clear that shall be followed. Ramsey will most likely get number 8 when Artetas contract expires, so he will have number 8 next season but not yet. Qed237 (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see the newer, more accurate sources above. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you stay on topic please? THe source for that section, the official webpage has Ramsey as 16 which is fact. As I saud next season jersey he will have 8 which has been annonuced but currently he is 16. Qed237 (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Please see the newer, more accurate sources above. Wicka wicka (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: You were at the ANI, what do you say? Qed237 (talk) 22:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I can see advantages and problems with both sides of this argument:

1. If we switch Ramsey's number, but leave all the rest intact, then that's sort of inconsistent. There will likely be a whole load of other changes to numbers before August, so it's like you're putting a "new" 8 in amongst a load of "old" other numbers;
2. On the other hand, however, I'm not sure what significance the June/July dates for Arteta have. The season is over, and Arsenal have no more games until the pre-season, do they? In which case Arteta having shirt number 8 is a bit irrelevant, and Ramsey is going to be seen as its rightful owner from now on.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I can try and answer your second part. Basically when contracts are written they expire 30 June, and a new season begins in 1 July. That is the standard braking point between season (new half of the year starts). For that reason, Arteta and Rosicky will officially be considered Arsenal players until their contract expires in end of June. And as you said number 8 belongs to Arteta (team captain). Transfers however is a different chapter as they may already happen (they can happen the day after last league match has been played), which is why Granit Xhaka has been signed. Qed237 (talk) 22:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

The end of contract dates are irrelevant. That's not the problem here. The problem is that Arsenal simply updated their Twitter, Instagram, and store before they updated Arsenal.com. Why? I don't know. Maybe their CMS is outdated. It doesn't matter why. But this is exactly what happened with Sanchez: Twitter/Instagram/store were updated on Monday, Arsenal.com was updated on Tuesday. As I've said above, and as I've said one thousand times, Twitter/Instagram/Arsenal Direct are newer and more accurate sources than Arsenal.com. Why would you ignore these sources? I'd like an answer to that question, Qed237. You mention Sanchez, for example. Arsenal.com shows him with his new, correct #7. So again, the contract dates are utterly meaningless, they are just slow to update ONE of their MANY official news sources. Why are we picking and choosing that one over EVERY OTHER SOURCE? Please explain your reasoning to me. Wicka wicka (talk) 23:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As you can see, Arsenal.com has now been updated with Ramsey's correct number, just several hours behind Arsenal's other equally official sources, and exactly as I told you they would. So all your points about contract end dates are, again, irrelevant. There are expected to be many other number changes this year. Are we going to do this every single time? Or can you just accept that some OFFICIAL sources are simply updated faster than others? Wicka wicka (talk) 11:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

It does rather suggest that the "official shirt number" being valid until the end of Arteta's contract in June or July is not correct. [1] now lists Arteta, Xhaka, and Rosicky with no shirt numbers at all, and has given the number 8 to Ramsey.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

However, having said that, @Wicka wicka: I can still see the value in using one single source for shirt numbers, as long as it's always roughly up to date, and making sure all entries in the list match the source cited. The Twitter and Arsenal store links are OK, but they only mention Ramsey, they don't give us a complete list, so I can actually see value in holding off on updating the number until Arsenal.com falls into line with the Twitter announcement. WP:Wikipedia is not news, it's not absolutely vital that we stay on top of everything, and if Arsenal.com still gives the list in one form, we're only mirroring them if we wait that extra 24 hours to update our source.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

What value are you providing by being wrong for 24 hours? The thing happened, it is proven, it is done, why would we ignore it? What is gained? "They don't give us a complete list." What does that even mean? ONE player's number changed, why would they announce 30 other numbers not changing? Step away from your Wikipedia mentality for a second and think about this logically. There is no reason to ignore this change for any amount of time, once it is proven to be true beyond a shadow of a doubt. Wicka wicka (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Another user posted this link on Qed's talk page. Do you understand what it does to potential editors when they see a situation like this happen? Why would ANYONE want to contribute on Wikipedia when the inclusion of a basic, proven fact like this extends into a two day argument? Wicka wicka (talk) 11:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Kits

The away kits haven't been officially launched, so they shouldn't be displayed until then. Only the home kit was announced. The away and third kit from last season should still be displayed. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Should probably either include just the new home kit or all three kits from last year. Seems a bit odd to have the 2016-17 home kit alongside the 2015-16 away/third. Wicka wicka (talk) 02:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I get your point, but the other two aren't official so they might not be the new kits. From what I've seen of the third kit, that's not the right one. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 01:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Runners-up

@Hashim-afc: The honours section doesn't have to be just about whether the club won the honour, it can also be about the club's achievements under that honour. The project template encourages listing second places. Bayern and Barcelona are examples of big clubs with them listed. In Arsenal's case, there are a lot of small trophies with less notability than some of the second place finishes. Since we have favoured inclusion with those, we should favour inclusion with these. Madshurtie (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: It also says on that page "For clubs with a large number of major trophies, it may be appropriate to omit second places." Also, if we do add in second place finishes, does that mean we have to add in all the friendly trophies that we finished runners-up in but never won? (For example just from the top of my head, trophies such as 2012 China Cup or 2012 Eusebio Cup or 2014 New York Cup etc etc)? Hashim-afc (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I'd emphasize the may there. When that template was written, I don't think such a pro-inclusion attitude had been taken with a club's minor trophies. Since this community seems to be especially pro-inclusion, we should be consistent. Bayern and Barcelona are examples of big clubs who don't omit second places. The extra lines don't use up much space, and can add useful info, such as the 2006 Champions League final. That one was so notable it was in Arsenal's intro for a long time when Arsenal was still the only London club to get that far in the competition. As for runners-up in friendlies, we could do that (the Bayern community have), but I can't be bothered to do it myself, and we could decide not to bother for the whole 'other honours' section on non-notability grounds. Madshurtie (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Interestingly, the runners-up were listed on the club page during the 2010 FA Review and up to 2012, but someone deleted them without discussion. Madshurtie (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Thanks for adding in those other ones. I'd actually forgotten about the UEFA Cup and UEFA Super Cup finals, so listing them was valuable information to me if no one else. I didn't add the Community Shield runners up because it seemed obvious that if you didn't win it you lost it, but I suppose listing runners-up shows that the club qualified that year. Madshurtie (talk) 10:29, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

A club with the stature of Arsenal should not be listing runners-up. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: Following Footieedit's recent edits, I think we should discuss the inclusion of runners-up on this page again. In my opinion, runners up should not be included because they are included in the 'records and statistics' page. On this page there should just be winners and the records and statistics page should be where it goes into more detail. Thoughts? Hashim-afc (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I'd been thinking about this, and I think I agree with you. Now that they're on the 'list of records' page, it changes things. Might be worth getting some more opinions though. Madshurtie (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Well seeing as me, you, Number 57 (talk · contribs), Lemonade51 (talk · contribs), The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Footieedit (talk · contribs) and others all agree with their removal, I think we have enough opinions to make a change. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Fair enough. Madshurtie (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Cup names

@Hashim-afc: Shouldn't we be listing the cups with their name at the time? I think that's standard across club pages, and this one has used the names First Division and European Cup Winner's Cup for years. Madshurtie (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I'm not sure, but if we did that then technically we would have to change the Premier League to say Premiership, as Arsenal have never won the league while it was called 'Premier League'. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:53, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Apparently it used to be known as the Premiership and the English Premier League, depending on the market.[2] With the Community Shield, there's a note that the wins before 2002 were under the Charity Shield, I guess we could do something like that when the trophy has changed name between one listed win and another. I don't really know what the best approach is, should probably ask the project. Madshurtie (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

What is an honour (again)

I think we need to control what we call an honour and what we don't call an honour. There seems to be no distinction between stuff like the league title and FA Cup with the Bath Coronation Cup, because it's listed as an "other honour". This is getting ridiculous, we can't spam the page with this stuff listed as trophies, the club's honours list doesnt mention them nor does anyone else. Just because they are mentioned in arsenal articles somewhere doesn't mean they should all be thrown into the list. Our job is to make things succinct and informative to the reader. Who will read page after page after page of friendly lists and "honours" nobody has heard of? as another editor mentioned above, a ton of these titles aren't clearly defined as official honours or not. The articles never mention if they were friendlies or not so the mentality, I think, should be that if something isn't confirmed as official by a relevant governing body or reliable source, we can't state it's an honour. not "oh well, if there's no proof it ISNT a trophy, let's throw it in there!" No other club on Wikipedia has anything like this, the list is beyond too big and needs to be trimmed down. Davefelmer (talk) 22:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The consensus seems to be that if it's a cup that had a name, then it should be recorded by the encyclopedia. That is different from 'oh well, if there's no proof it ISNT a trophy, let's throw it in there!'. I think, given the scope of wikipedia, it is appropriate to record all competitions clubs have participated in. It provides historical reference and educates the reader about cups that were important at the time, abortive, or just gives an idea of the club's activities outside the league season. The pre-1893 cups and wartime leagues are valuable examples. At the moment, the section doesn't use up much more screen space than the other sections, and the less widely recognized competitions are all buried in an 'other' section that the reader doesn't have to read through. A better case would be to move the 'other honours' section exclusively to the list of records page to prevent duplication, somewhat like Bayern Munich's set up, but I have raised this idea on the project talk page and at least one editor opposes it. Madshurtie (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Some of the honours being claimed here look ridiculous. For a club like Arsenal, with an incredible record of winning proper trophies (hey, I'm a Norwich fan).

For example, I notice you've included 2 wins in the magnificent Norfolk and Norwich Hospital Cup. Norwich have won that trophy on rather a lot of occasions, unsurprisingly, as the competition usually involved one match and one of the competing sides was inevitably Norwich City. Yet it's not in the relatively-empty-but-still-proud section at Norwich_City_F.C.#Honours (and I think that the FA Cup semi finals should be removed - they're not "honours").There weren't any

I have to say this looks really odd, as if you're trying to prove a point that doesn't need proving, stuffing your honours section with things that really aren't "honours". I notice your official website has a rather more conservative approach and ironically it is far more impressive. Your club, do as you think best, but thought you might appreciate an outside view. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact if a trophy doesn't even have an article, it shouldn't really be listed as Wikipedia's community considers it non-notable, so at the very least get rid of those ones. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:32, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Tagged as {{fancruft}}. It's way over the top. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dweller: @The Rambling Man: If you look back over the talk pages, you'll see this has been discussed extensively. When I raised this on WT:FOOTY recently, Koncorde and others provided links to discussions around other clubs that mostly (not always) fell in favour of inclusion. We've tried our best to create an objective categorization so that the less widely recognized trophies are almost entirely separated into their own section that the reader doesn't have to wade through. Feel free to add stuff to the Norwich page. Madshurtie (talk) 11:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Tagging it as fancruft might be a bit inappropriate, considering at least one other admin is resolute they belong here. That said, my personal opinion is that the records and statistics page should be the home of the comprehensive records list (like with Bayern Munich) and that we should avoid duplication by making this one a summary list. Madshurtie (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, but I won't be adding the Norfolk and Norwich Hospital Cup, Marchioness of Pigglesbury Invitational Trophy or the Bootiful Bernard Matthews Boneless Turkeys Championship (might have made some of them up) any time soon. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus may change. At the very least the non-notable trophies should be removed. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: That's what I said to Number 57. When we have one admin thinking that removing them is the biggest waste of time ever and that 'the idea that only honours listed by the FA or international organisations [should be listed] is, quite frankly, bonkers', and another admin slapping a fancruft tag on a featured article, it might be worth those two admins talking it over first. I'll raise it on WT:FOOTY again. Madshurtie (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Good. Please note our roles as admins has no bearing at all in this purely content-driven discussion, so please drop that stick. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:42, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@The Rambling Man: Sorry. To me, your status as admins indicates your much greater experience and understanding of the nuances of Wikipedia, so I felt it made your opinions more credible (certainly more than mine!). I was also trying to indicate this wasn't just a few more inexperienced editors rehashing an old discussion. Wasn't trying to be annoying. :-( Madshurtie (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

No, there's no need to bring that up at all. Arguments should prevail over tools, in every single situation. Most admins and 'crats are clueless anyway, I should know. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

One way of cutting it down quite easily would be to remove all the runner-up positions, which IMO is not an honour. Another would be to remove the headings, which spaces it out too much (and "Union of European Football Associations" as a heading – wtf?). Number 57 22:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I don't think it's the runners-up people are objecting to, and the 'other honours' section uses up far more space anyway. See the discussion above. In particular, runners-up are encouraged by the project template (the honours section can be about the achievements under that honour, rather than whether it was won), and they passed Arsenal FC's FA review until someone removed them a few years later without discussion. Madshurtie (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

There is disagreement about whether runners-up should be listed (their inclusion in the template is from a long, long time ago). Personally I would say the whole point of the section is to list honours, not achievements (that falls more readily under records). Number 57 22:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

@Number 57: I'm not 100% in favour of keeping runners-up, though I do think some of them are more notable than some of the 'other honours'. The Champions League Final in particular. Whether they belong in another section is a fair question, though it is a separate discussion from whether the other honours belong elsewhere. Madshurtie (talk) 22:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

County Cups

@Footieedit: Might as well make a separate section for this topic. See here for the state of the discussion so far. Madshurtie (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Founding Fathers

@Footieedit: Although Soar and Tyler mention Jack Humble, they have several details wrong about the very early days, and post-2013 research means we know better. I can't see any evidence from primary sources that Humble joined the club before 1887. See some of the newspaper clippings here and here, where his name isn't mentioned until the Royal Arsenal years. Andy Kelly has also not seen fit to include his name in the 1886–87 season here. David Danskin does appear to be a founder, though really this was a football club, so it was founded by enough men to make a team (plus at least Elijah Watkins, the secretary). We can't practically list them all on the club page. Possibly the History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) page could be updated. Madshurtie (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

ok , I just included David Danskin in the main article and removed Jack Humble. I hope no one removes my edit. Footieedit (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Footieedit (talk · contribs), I'm not trying to be annoying, but it appears to be false that Danskin alone was the founder. This primary source from a month after the club was founded shows at least eight existing members. Bernard Joy writes on page two of his book the names of eight of the founding members, which indicates there were even more. According to Andy Kelly, by the time of the club's first match, there were at least eleven members, who were presumably all founders. The fact is it was founded as a football team, which means it was founded by enough people to play a complete football team. If we list all of the founders, we would have to list at least eight names, probably eleven, which is a bit unwieldy for this summary history. We would also have to say something like 'by workers at the Royal Arsenal, including David Danskin, Elijah Watkins, George Whitehead, Thomas Gregory [etc.]', since there may have been other founders we don't know about. Listing the names is valuable information, but it should be in the more comprehensive History of Arsenal F.C. (1886–1966) page instead. Madshurtie (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@Footieedit: Mentioning Danskin as the first captain would be perfectly valid, especially since there was no manager at the time. I might edit that back in for you. Really the whole early years section is inadequate. How is Plumstead, the club's home for almost thirty years not even mentioned? I'll update it. Madshurtie (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

History Section

The History Section has had very few updates since Qwghlm (talk · contribs) wrote the bulk of it. There has been a considerable amount of research since then that is not reflected in the article, which means some parts are inaccurate or misleading, and other parts could have better sources. Here's a list of some of the specific problems I've spotted so far.

• No mention of Plumstead. The club played there for almost three decades, far longer than it has resided at the Emirates Stadium, but the word is completely absent from this section and didn't even appear in the rest of the article until I added it to the Stadiums section a few months ago.
• The club was renamed Woolwich Arsenal Football and Athletic Company when it became a limited company. The first use of 'Woolwich Arsenal FC' was when it joined the football league later that year.
• The club's isolation was only apparent when more accessible clubs arrived, and the downturn of the Woolwich factories also contributed. This section was misleading.
• There is more thorough research on the 1915 promotion than in Qwghlm's time.
• Champan's "revolutionary tactics and training" is just WP:PEACOCK terms, especially since it's increasingly clear from modern research that a lot of his changes had been tried at clubs slightly before him. We should spell them out to avoid peacock claims. He may have been impressive in the number of the changes he made and their success, but may have been more of a brilliant magpie than a brilliant inventor. Claims about Chapman would be more balanced with context about off the pitch progress, such as new Highbury attendances and budget.
• Why do we mention one off the pitch change (the tube) and no others? We should mention the big few, or none at all
• The Bank of England club statement is in the wrong place. This term was applied to Arsenal earlier than this.
• The 'as key players retired, Arsenal had started to fade by the decade's end' statement is just wrong. Arsenal won the league, played one more season, then the league was disbanded. The league returned, and Arsenal won it in the second post war season. They had two seasons without a league title, and only one of these was during the 'decade's end' period. What's more, the source, 'Champions All!', is making the original statement about the two seasons in the middle of the decade, before the '38 title. This editor clearly had a failure of reading comprehension.
• 'surprise appointment' of Bertie Mee is not cited. How many contemporaries considered it a surprise? Also, he was only acting manager, he wasn't actually permanent manager until 1967.
• 'Graham [...] brought a third period of glory'. The current version says Whittaker and the post-war trophies were the second period, and it's implied Mee was the third, so why is Graham third? The trophy periods could be loosely split so that Graham is part of the third run, fourth run, or fifth run. Better not to make vague period claims.
• 'owed a great deal to the 1996 appointment of Arsène Wenger'. Peacock term (see above), and we don't really have a way of measuring how much of a club's success was due to the manager. On a widely viewed featured article like this, we should be saying concrete stuff about how the club over-performed by some standard, and saying that the manager presided over it, rather than necessarily caused it.
• 'finished in either first or second place in the league in eight of Wenger's first eleven seasons'. This bit was presumably being updated each season around 2005 and 2006, but someone stopped doing it. Now it looks silly, because the club never finished in the top two after Wenger's first nine seasons (until 2016). Some of the newer material looks like it has been haphazardly added.
• There's a generally inconsistent approach to the notability of players. Several Terry Neill players are mentioned, as much to fill space as anything, and a couple of Chapman players. Key players from other eras are ignored. We should either mention a few elsewhere, or mention none at all.

The referencing could also do with tightening up, since there's a few surprising, interesting, or controversial claims that are not cited. The best sources are the ones that provide primary source evidence, either through quotation or (even better) direct presentation of the original document. There are many instances where these should be the ones cited. There's some new images available too, so the section could do with more thorough illustration.

I will do some work on the section, just thought I'd post this here so that people are clear on what I'm doing. Madshurtie (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Missing Players

There's a few players missing from the first team squad and some kit numbers are wrong.

First Team: Gedion Zelalem (40), Takuma Asano (was added then removed for unknown reasons), Jeff-Reine Adelaide (made professional debut last season, changed kit no. from 54 to 31).

Kit Numbers: Chris Willock (58 not 59), Matt Macey (changed from 49 to 54). I would change it myself but can't. The changed kit numbers were revealed in Arsenal's game against Lens. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)