This article 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
This article 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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Latest comment: 17 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
The article is already over the recommended length and is set to grow with the increased tendency to want more detailed season reviews. It is starting to be cumbersome to navigate. I should like to split it into 1886-1945 and a Post-war article. Views, please. BlueValour 16:15, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
A split might be a good idea, but I think 1966 would be a better year to pivot it around - Arsenal were a successful side in both decades either side of the war and it doesn't seem right to split the article in two at that point. 1966 saw the appointment of Bertie Mee in place of Billy Wright, and with it a turn-around from a mediocre side from falling attendances into a side that won the Double and went to reoccupy the upper heights of the league table. Qwghlm 16:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
I am happy with 1966 as the pivot point. BlueValour 18:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cool. One thing I'm not certain about - I'm not sure where the timeline should go, or if it should be kept at all (I created it on a whim and am not particularly attached to it). It could always stay on this page, I suppose. Qwghlm 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps simply split it between the two articles with 1966 on both? BlueValour 19:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Reply
Maybe. Alternatively I might simplify it and slim it down so it acts as a simple summary of both halves of the page, maybe even put it in the sidebar? I think maybe what is best is just to split the pages first, worry about the timeline after? It can always be dropped and reintroduced later. Qwghlm 00:43, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
How do these sound? The timeline is your baby, so I will go along with your views but a sidebar sounds a cool idea with the whole, simplified timeline, with a break at 1966, on each article. BlueValour 00:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Cool, though I think it's usual WP practice to use brackets around the dates (e.g. History of the United States). I'm working on it in my sandbox at the moment, I'll finish off the split sometime later today. Qwghlm 08:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Great point on date format. BlueValour 17:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've done the split, but the updated timelines will have to wait a few days. Qwghlm 23:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
Neat job, thanks! BlueValour 23:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
