Jump to content

Talk:2020–21 Liverpool F.C. season

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merger Discussion

[edit]

Merger Discussion

[edit]
NO CONSENSUS TO MERGE
TL;DR - No merge with Liverpool season article, and no consensus to merge with the Manchester United Season article Just found this and it is clear that there is no consensus here for a merger, there is strong consensus this has nothing to do with Liverpool F.C. There is though no consensus to merge this with the Manchester united Season article. The last comment on this was over 6 weeks ago as of the time of writing and it is clear the steam has gone from this discussion. As such I am doing a non-admin closure as no consensus to merge with the Machester United Season article and Consensus against merging with the Liverpool season article. 2A00:23C6:4D14:7C01:E0EF:3AD0:3E94:D9CE (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request received to merge articles: Manchester United F.C. v. Liverpool F.C. (2021) into 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season and 2020–21 Liverpool F.C. season; dated: May 2021. Proposer's Rationale: No need for a whole article; a sentence, or a paragraph at a push would suffice on each of the two pages. Discuss here. SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 18:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This is going to be a lot bigger than just one or two sentences. This will have ongoing and long-running implications for protesting at football matches. This is also the first football match to be abandoned in the Premier League before it began because of the actions of protestors. It is also a massive security breach in a time of heightened. security. There will be investigations and changes as a result. there will also be police action. This will be a big moment. it is not everyday fans can break into a sealed stadium, and invade the pitch before the match starts and stop the match from going ahead. This is clearly notable in and of its own right to warrant an article and clearly will flesh out to justify an article. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of whether it will "be a lot bigger", it isn't at this moment in time, and Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ)
      • The sources in the article and the unprecedented nature of a match being stopped by protestors is clearly documented in multiple sources and that is not crystal ball. That is clearly notable in and of itself and is just as notable as the matches which have lots of goals scored in them as a comparison. Sparkle1 (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and salt the land. There are more appropriate venues for this coverage, and it does not need to be to this level of detail for a match that didn't take place. Protests are either fundamentally related to ESL or Glazer ownership. Koncorde (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait: This event only just happened and it is likely the page will get larger to warrant its own page. Mn1548 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if/when it does get larger then it warrants its own page; Wikipedia isn't a WP:CRYSTALBALL and can't judge whether or not it needs an article, until it ultimately does. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 19:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • By this logic no new article on a developing event such as a plane crash or terrorist attack for example could be created until days later. This is not crystal balling. The game being postponed is in and of itself a very notable event and has already generated wider news coverage and general notability is established. This is not a crystal ball article on something which may or may not occur. the event has occurred and the event itself is notable. This is clearly demonstrated in the article. Sparkle1 (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, that is how wikipedia is supposed to work. Congratulations on equating a terrorist attack or plane crash with a delayed match as being of equivalent notability though. Koncorde (talk) 21:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stay calm. There is no need to attack the contributor here and please retain the assumption of good faith. I am now going to disengage interactions with you on this subject but will continue to engage on this thread. Thank you and please remain calm and civil. Sparkle1 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody attacked anybody? – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 21:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Err, I am calm and civil. Your argument is based upon WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but your choice of examples of "other stuff" is breaking news about people dying. I mean I can comfortably AGF that you were "calm and civil" when you went for that example, but apparently you cannot AGF that I was "calm and civil" when pointing out the fallacy of your point? Now...
  1. WP:EVENT particularly WP:LASTING, WP:INDEPTH, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE all speak to the requirement of an "event" having prolonged significance. The event in this case is a postponed game. Its significance therefore stops when the game takes place.
  2. The protest is also not about the football match in question, it is about the club. It should therefore really be titled "Manchester United fan protest at Old Trafford" or similar and has barely any relevance to Liverpool other than as being the team the game is against.
  3. Per the item above, that this is a protest about the Glazer ownership of Manchester United for which there is already an article, and is related to the proposals for a European Super League, and per WP:DELAY this clearly should have been a new subsection of one or both of those articles. It could be accurately summed up in about two sentences - rather than bloated as it is here. Koncorde (talk) 22:04, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete: first in the premier league sure, but its happened in the EFL before such as on the final day one time with blackpool. this can just be covered as a standard "postponed because rioting" on the season articles, and a brief mention on the super league pages if its considered relevant for that.Muur (talk) 23:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. It's already gotten significant coverage and seems likely to have a lasting impact on the proposed European Super League. If that proves not to happen, we can discuss down the road, but saying to delete because it hasn't had a lasting impact, when it's been less than 24 hours so it can't possibly have had one, would suggest we should delete every single article about recent events, which is not what WP:NOTNEWS says or in any way logical. Agree it should probably be renamed but that's not an issue for this discussion. Smartyllama (talk) 00:18, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • That’s not how Wikipedia works, you don’t keep an article and see if it becomes worthy enough; you write the article only after the fact, way too much WP:RECENTISM happens on this website nowadays. ― SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 01:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Pretty much this. We create an article to cover proposals for the ESL. We create an article for an actual failed ESL proposal because RECENTISM drives our need to have every single persons opinion represented. That article has a subsection dedicated to responses to the ESL including protests at various clubs - but we create this one because we again need to have every single persons opinion represented? Stupidly this event actually almost makes the argument for the WP:LASTING nature of the ESL event - but we've siphoned it off over here because nobody is thinking encyclopedically. What could be summarised in a single article (like the entire history of a football club) we are instead forcing splits into dozens of related topics forcing the reader to click-through multiple pages. This has to stop. It is nuts. Koncorde (talk) 09:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • By that logic we should never have an article on any recent event or development because we would need to wait and see if it becomes notable. That's not how Wikipedia works either. We have to use some common sense and evaluate what is likely to be notable in the long run and what isn't. In the event we're wrong, in either direction, we can always revisit. Smartyllama (talk) 14:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • Better to err on the side of not creating articles though, and only create when we're sure the subject has lasting notability. In this case, the protest was part of a larger set of circumstances and would probably be better covered as part of articles about the European Super League and the Glazers' ownership of Manchester United, both of which we already have. – PeeJay 16:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Smartyllama: Erm, that's literally how Wikipedia works. It gets written about in another article first, and then split off once the time is appropriate. – SɱαɾƚყPαɳƚʂ22 (Ⓣⓐⓛⓚ) 21:28, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again per both of above. We write the History of Manchester Utd and then if a particularly significant thing happens we write about that outside of the History article because it needs expanding, and can be done so encyclopedically. This, in contrast, is a summary of all the news articles about a subject curated into a bloated morass of SYNTH and OR, reporting little but reaction and opinion. What we are seeing now is splintering of core subject matter into a multitude of articles. Koncorde (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete - A single protest isn't worthy of an entire article of its own. The fact that there were protests and a match had to be postponed could be summarised in a single sentence. – PeeJay 10:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that is worthy of an article please go ahead and create an article. It certainly sounds notable. A person being stabbed and so on. Please don't see the creation of this article as a prohibition on the creation of another article. Sparkle1 (talk) 08:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I rather see this conversation closed. 2021 Old Trafford protests works perfectly to hold the content in one place over the recent incidents. Govvy (talk) 11:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Except a single article to cover this one incident seems like overkill to me and there doesn't appear to be a consensus here yet about what to do. – PeeJay 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know what? I say Oppose, especially that this could be the event that starts everything that leads the Glazer family to sell Manchester United. It has gotten a lot of attention in sports media not just in the UK, but around the world. Fans are now calling for a boycott to sponsors which will do major damage to the finances of the club.Dwscomet (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1: Data limit?
  • 2: Why does historical problems as noted in the article goto one particular season page?
  • 3: Copyvio across multiple articles.
  • 4: Has no one considered this a legit content fork?
  • So far all I can see is the only person here who has made the most logic for where to merge is GiantSnowman. I am completely against merging this content into season pages, there are enough issues with those pages to deal with instead of having more on top of them. Glazer ownership of Manchester United for which a possible merge could happen, could over extend if not done right. Sometimes smaller is better!! Govvy (talk) 08:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lol, no one is saying we should just fold this article into other articles wholesale, that would be ridiculous. I can't speak for everyone, but I'm saying the information could be condensed right down. The timeline of the protest is largely irrelevant, injuries sustained by police and protesters are largely irrelevant, most of the opinions expressed by various commentators are largely irrelevant. All that stuff could go and you'd still have a reasonable summary of the event. – PeeJay 11:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure why the injuries and actions of the police are irrelevant? I think it's very relevant. It was not a peaceful protest, although it started that way and I don't believe there was any intention of causing harm. I do think it's relevant that injuries were sustained and this caused the rescheduled match to have very high security, including decoy buses and Manchester United players having to arrive at Old Trafford alone and sleep there before the match. It was a very intense fixture and the protests should be written about in detail.ScouseSocialist (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't say they were totally irrelevant, I said they were largely irrelevant. As I said, I think the topic would be reasonably covered by a couple of paragraphs in the Glazer ownership of Manchester United article, as these specific protests relate specifically to that topic. The postponement of the match was incidental. – PeeJay 19:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose, the event is newsworthy on its own and should not be merged into the respective club/season pages. It is an event that happened whilst a match was due to be played, but it was newsworthy even despite that. It is the first time a protest has forced a game to be rescheduled, for one. There are separate pages for random games where Manchester United scored 9 goals, so I don't see why you would merge a genuinely newsworthy event into another article, when it is worthy of one of its own. Also, with the large amount of information, it would overwhelm any article it was merged into. ScouseSocialist (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mn1548: It has been well over a week now. Do you have an opinion as to keep or merge the article? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 14:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Personally, I feel this event is notable enough to warrant its own article, however it only just about exceeds the 1kb size criteria for being it's own article per Wikipedia:Splitting providing other criteria are met. However Wikipedia:Splitting doesn't really state what that criteria is for articles between 1-40 kb. My trouble is being merged with the 20/21 season articles for both clubs, as in the past things such information about testimonial matchs or reunion games have been removed from these articles for both being about the current squad's football which this isn't. In addition merging it with 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season, in addition to not being about the teams football, assumes that this hasn't been an issue since the Glazers took over in 2005. A more appropriate merge I feel, if any, would be with Glazer ownership of Manchester United, however the contract / coverage that the 2nd May protest had was far greater than the two protests in the weeks either side of it or the protests in 2010 and 2005 (that's based of what I can see on Wikipedia, I can't personally remember the level of coverage they got). If it were to be merged with Glazer ownership of Manchester United, I would recommend it's own subsection and separate from the ESL, but I do think that the 2nd May protest is notable enough for an article in its own right. Mn1548 (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a Manchester United thing. It has very little to do with Liverpool, aside from the fact Liverpool were the away team in that fixture. I think the topic is more fitting in a news publication than here. It has no long long-term importance and can be considered a simple commotion on a matchday. I think this article should be merged into 2020–21 Manchester United F.C. season and just a few sentences in the corresponding Liverpool article. Ae245 (talk) 12:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Injuries

[edit]

Should we add a section for injuries because Liverpool had so many? Dtjl26103 (talk) 11:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020–21_Liverpool_F.C._season&oldid=1196872936"