Talk:Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (1989)

Guardian article

Here is an image of the Guardian article covering the match and published on the 27th. Nanonic (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Article title

This is a very odd title for a WIkipedia article, since the score is never part of the title, and the teams rarely are. Can I suggest "1988-1989 English Football League final match" instead?--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's not appropriate to have the score in the title. TheCoffee (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at other such articles the score is often used as part of the title if there is no simple description or nickname for the match - e.g. Arbroath 36–0 Bon Accord, Australia 31–0 American Samoa, Germany 1–5 England (2001). Some articles just use 'versus', e.g. England v Scotland (1872). I'm happy either way with either the scoreline or a "v" in the title, but the suggestion "1988-1989 English Football League final match" looks awkward and does not mention the two teams contesting it. Qwghlm (talk) 08:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Also, the suggested title implies that it's a regular, scheduled final, rather than something that became significant because of the way the fixtures worked out. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 12:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the current title is better than the suggested one. However, a change from scoreline to "v" may be preferable as the number of goals scored was not really important to the game as a whole. I think the current title is fine however, any changes seem a little nit-picky. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 18:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Au contraire - as the article states, Arsenal need to win by two or more goals, so if Thomas had not scored that second goal, the title would have been Liverpool's. So the scoreline is an important aspect. Qwghlm (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Though it's an important aspect, the score doesn't belong in the title, and someone needs to get some discussion going on some project page to come up with a new naming convention. TheCoffee (talk) 09:12, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

There's now a discussion over at WT:FOOTY. Qwghlm (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I failed to read the article! If the scoreline is crucial to notability then include it. This idea that the score doesn't belong in a title because of "naming conventions" is a little silly. Without an official name/nickname, this match is best known by its date and scoreline. The difference between a "v" and "0–2" isn't going to vastly improve or worsen the content for a reader. That, after all, is the only thing that matters. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 13:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"History of Liverpool" category

I added this page to the "history of Liverpool" category but it has now been removed twice. The match was played at Anfield, which is most certainly within the city of Liverpool, and it's clearly the most notable match Liverpool city has ever hosted. The grounds for removal seem to be that the category is not football related, but football doesn't exist in isolation from the location where it is played, and anyway in this case the match itself also had a significant impact beyond the football field and culturally. It not only represented the starting point in the transformation of English football but also inspired a famous book and two films. In conclusion, the topic is quite clearly an important part of the history of Liverpool and I can see absolutely no reason why we shouldn't categorise it as such. Other historic events are found in that category, and this is just another one of them .--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

It's football related man. In the "History of Liverpool" is football Everton FC & Liverpool FC. There is no specific reason to include this individual match. Before long you would have every major match because you can't single this game out! Not just Liverpool either.

Please leave this out of the history of the city as it is football related and therefore lies in the individual history of the clubBabydoll9799 (talk) 22:16, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, you quite clearly can single this match out, it's one of the most famous to ever take place in England, ahead of almost anything other than the World Cup. Secondly, there simply aren't many major matches that took place in Liverpool that even have their own articles - I count two in total, of which this is by far the most notable, so your concerns there aren't anything to worry about. Your "football related" augment is completely meaningless too, the Toxteth riots are "crime related", and the schools listed in the history category are "education related" - so what? The importance of the match goes far beyond Liverpool F.C. and Arsenal F.C. for that matter, it is an important event in the city's history, just as notable as a railway accident or a school, in fact more so. Its historical and cultural importance is best illustrated by its place in a best selling and highly regarded novel, not to mention a major movie.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Think you lost the plot buddy. As a football fan I disagree with you singling this game out I remember watching it lots of excitement but it's just a title decider in another season may happen this year even. It's just part and parcel of football nothing to do with the city, other than Liverpool FC. Babydoll9799 (talk) 08:48, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

That first sentence is not very constructive. If it wasn't possible to single the game out then the article wouldn't even exist.Try reading the article, the points I made are in there and are found in reliable sources.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I (personally) just don't think it warrants inclusion in the city history, it is just a big very big game in the history of LFC. This is worth recording in events of that year or decade but surely it's no more than that? Babydoll9799 (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liverpool F.C. 0–2 Arsenal F.C. (26 May 1989)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I may as well take a look at this one too while I am at it.....

It was a match between the top two teams in the First Division, and the clubs were close enough on points for the match to act as a decider for the championship. - would append "the top two teams in the First Division" onto the previous sentence and reword the second so it was just " the clubs were close enough on points for the match to act as a decider for the championship" ...too many "match" es around the beginning.

''In unprecedented circumstances - a bit fluffy and doesn't add anything. One could argue that any match is "unprecedented circumstances"...just maybe not that interesting...

link "stoppage time" in the lead.

The rest of it reads well, a ripping yarn! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Casliber: thanks for taking a look at this, have made adjustments. Lemonade51 (talk) 10:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

• Earwig's copyvio tool is clear

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: -overall a nifty little article and engaging read, with a nice legacy that really highlights its place in history. well done! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Assistant Referees

The two linesmen for the game are here called 'Assistant Referees' (see https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Assistant_referee_(association_football)) - a convention not in use at the time of the game being played. Surely the terminology of the day should be used when referring to the game?Michaelfromtheuk (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Aston Villa 1–7 Arsenal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)