England Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Football: England / Arsenal Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the English football task force. This template is supported by the Arsenal task force.

http://www.arsenal.com/squad.asp?thisNav=First+Team

I did originally consider an numerically-ordered list, but felt that names might be easier to find when alphabetised, perhaps a bit more egalitarian, and sometimes loaned-out players' squad numbers get given to other players... I do think that including squad numbers makes it look better though. Anyway, here are three different versions to consider:

• Alphabetical order version The original.
• Numerical order (in columns)
• Numberical order (wrapped) Current version and my personal favourite.

The template can be added to player's pages by use of this: ((Arsenal F.C. Squad)).
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I switched the look to the column view. I think it's much easier to read especially for someone who doesn't already know the squad. I also added Arsene Wenger at the bottom under "Manager:". Behindcurtain3 17:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The other version (non-column) is often imitated, but never bettered. The idea of the template is to create a concise method of navigating between players, for people who know the squad - otherwise why would they be navigating via this route?

1. Columns aren't necessarily easier to read than block text.
2. The wrapped-text version is more concise.
3. Four columns work best with multiples of four.
4. There is already a column-based squad list at Arsenal F.C. which the template links to (or should, see #5) that people who are unused to the squad can use.
5. Reverting to the April 6 column version loses valuable changes since then, and also adds a player who has left Arsenal since then. Therefore it is discreditable.
6. The addition of the manager is okay. ;oD

For these reasons, I prefer the wrapped-text version and will be reverting to the May 17 version.
Slumgum | yap | stalk | 20:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After adding the edit button, this template suffered seven instances of vandalism in one month. I removed it, and we've since had 0 in three weeks. For this reason I am removing it again, after one was readded today.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  20:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have them included? I don't see the need for this... Also, why not have -- next to Tomas Rosicky instead of new as is done in the main arsenal article? Yonatanh 02:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Arsenal template isn't even on Carlos Vela's page and if there was a template for Celta Vigo, which one would be on his page? I think it should be the Celta Vigo one and then why should there be a need for him to be in the Arsenal one? Yonatanh 02:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You do ask a lot of questions. Here are some (if not 'the') answers: The tp includes loaned players because they're still part of the club. It says "new" because the template allows "new" and implies that he'll get a squad number soon. It is now on Vela's article, and both could be used, if a Vigo one is made. I think both Vigo and AFC tps should be used, since he's part of both clubs.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  03:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for bothering you with so many questions. :P Yonatanh 14:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind about the loaned-out players. Vela is not really part of the current squad, and the note isn't really then necessary.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and changed it from gold to dark red (rgb#651725) to reflect the change in the trim of the home kit. I'm willing to go with consensus if a revert of this is popular.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 14:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The squad template should only include those listed in the first team by the club themselves (hence the link to the first team page of the club website appearing at the top of this talk page). "First team" is an arbitrary distinction, and if the club has made a citable list of those who are officially included in the first team, then any inclusion criteria created by a Wikipedian will always (at least in most cases – an exception being when the club's first team listing is clearly out of date, or has not yet been updated with a confirmed new signing) be inferior to that of the club. This is in almost all cases (for professional teams) the criteria for inclusion for the "first team players" section of the club article (see Arsenal F.C.#First-team squad), and surely there is no reason why these templates should hold a different listing to those first team sections of the club article.

Many are arguing that players who have made recent appearances for the senior team should be automatically included, however if so, then shouldn't every player at the club who has made a first team appearances be included? The template would therefore have to include: Martínez, Bellerín, Boateng, Hayden, Yennaris, Olsson, Eisfeld, Akpom, Aneke and Miquel – all reserve team members who have made one or two appearances for the first team, and it would surely be unnecessary to include all of them in this template.

The distinction for who is a member of a first team is arbitrary, and if the official club website is providing an easily citable and up-to-date list of who they define to be in the first team, then there is no reason why we should be making up our own rules as to who should be included. This argument applies for all professional teams, and I think you'll find that this rule is consistent across Wikipedia (a few examples: Barcelona squad template, official website; West Ham squad template, official website; Manchester United squad template, official website – all examples in which Wikipedia's listing matches the website's listing. In addition, all of these teams have players currently at the club who have made first team appearances, but are not listed in the first team on the club website, and are therefore not included in the first team on Wikipedia). — Limabeans (talk) 02:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the wikiproject football guide and will now exand upon; The issue with using "official" websites is twofold, 1. We don't know who updates them, or if the source is reputable and reliable (did Arsene Wenger himself put the lists together? Is this an official Arsenal FC list mentioned in their contractual terms? What is the origin of the descriptions) - there is no reason to believe it is accurate, it is self reporting. It's not uncommon for club sites to be wrong, and as self published sources we would typically not leave it up to them to dictate how a wikipedia article works. 2. We should always try to use neutral sources for as much information as possible so that we can be consistent across a large volume of wiki articles. The logic here would seem to dictate that if Arsenal only listed the first XI on their site certain people would be trying to enforce that? I don't believe we would. So why would we rely on their arbitrary "First Team" designation any more.

Necessary is the wrong word - what is the problem with them being included if it is accurate and can be cited by multiple third party sources (BBC, Sky, The Premier League) etc whereas here, on wikipedia, an arbitrary first party source of unknown accuracy and relevance is utilised?

I would also say if other teams are not including all the players, then this is a faulty process of the editors on those wiki articles also. Koncorde (talk) 17:37, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am struggling to acknowledge this idea that the official website is somehow an unreliable source. You question the inclusion criteria for Arsenal including these players on their first team webpage, however there are no inclusion criteria. It is an arbitrary distinction. You also say "we don't know who updates them", but when you're talking about the official website for one of the largest clubs in the world, then we can also apply the same "we don't know who updates them" argument to other sources (BBC, Sky, The Premier League).

Your latest revert says "You cannot act as gatekeeper to suit no rationale." You are doing just this to a greater extent than ArsenalFan700. You are adding an extra 3 or 4 more players to the template. Why? Why these three or four? They are not the only extra players listed on the new source you added. The way it was before, including just the players listed on the official website, is more of a rationale than you provide. — Limabeans (talk) 23:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Official websites would not be used for many instances across wikipedia because they are rarely fair, accurate or balanced. They are, by nature, for the benefit of the subject. In terms of football the issue is more prominent around statistics (where clubs often count elements not considered "official"), may use unique terminology, and are not guaranteed to be up to date or reviewed regularly.

In comparison, the Sky, ESPN, BBC and Premier League websites post their updates, provide timestamps and are independently researched. They are fundamentally neutral. There is no conflict of interest in their reporting. They report each team consistently, provide a structure across leagues and teams that is largely identical from one to the next ensuring consistency, accuracy, and ease of understanding. The BBC in particular publishes its standards [1] [2].

In contrast, what does Arsenal.com provide as evidence of the "First Team"? What research was completed? Or is their own synthesis?

And yes, I only added those 3 or 4. I see no reason why the other players should not be added. My rationale is quite simple - the template says "squad" it does not say "First Team" only. Using the "First Team" concept omits players who have squad numbers for no reason other than they have not made an appearance. Appearing or not appearing for a team does not change your availability to be selected as part of a squad. The "filter" in this case is verifiability. Where I can verify each and every player is a member of the squad, and therefore should be part of the squad template. :::Now if there was a "First Team" template, you could have your sub-filtered list. Koncorde (talk) 22:47, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]