User talk:Koncorde/sandbox

Bare References
So during the last edit the following references were added, but they are what are known as "bare" references. This means that there is no obvious meta-data associated with them. Now I am going to add some comments about what has been linked to.


 * This reference is just to the club page and doesn't contain any information.
 * This reference is just to the club page and doesn't contain any information.


 * This is fine, but we prefer the non-mobile version http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19653230
 * This is fine, but we prefer the non-mobile version http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19653230


 * This is fine
 * This is fine


 * This is fine
 * This is fine


 * This is fine
 * This is fine


 * This is fine
 * This is fine


 * Thgis is fine
 * Thgis is fine


 * This is fine
 * This is fine


 * This is a duplicate, and so we can do something special with this.
 * This is a duplicate, and so we can do something special with this.

What we want to do is create them so that they display like

So starting with example one we fill in the above missing details.



What this does is changes the way the reference looks from:

Version 1: Bare Reference Version 2: Full Reference


 * Hey, I've got some issues with the sourcing as you can see on the sandbox talk page (I've been trying to get it right for ages!). Firstly, I addressed the issue with the United site and added the relevant page. More importantly though, some of the time when I make the change as you showed me to fill out the source, it completely removes the source from the article so I am forced to revert my change. But when I click to revert it and it shows the prior version that I will switch back too, it shows that the edit was successful in the "current version" side. But when I exit out thinking I just missed it upon glancing over the edit, it's not there in the actual text! It gets me very confused. Again, this has happened for both club websites but not for the online articles so maybe I'm just doing it wrong? Also, for the sites where I filled out the source successfully, it says that there's an issue with the access date at the bottom of the article. Again, have I done something wrong? Can you please let me know before I proceed to finish filling the sources because I don't want to do it all poorly! Davefelmer (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah that was my error on the access date, I typed it once in numerals but the template wants it as "28 November 2015" format, if you update your references then you will see it. Looking at your other changes, the only thing you seemed to have done wrong is that you missed the ">" at the end of " ". You need to make sure brackets are closed otherwise it will insert it as text into the article rather than as a reference.
 * Once the references are updated, we can look at the actual content / wording. Koncorde (talk) 05:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Got all the references in order. Thanks for the advice on how to do them properly as it really helped. Davefelmer (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Re-Writing sections:
This is the current section in including your new citations / references. So lets take a look at what the article is actually saying so we can deal with the problems that exist:


 * Both clubs have enjoyed periods of dominance over English football. Liverpool dominated English football from 1975 to 1990, winning 11 league championships and four European Cups. Likewise, Manchester United dominated English football from 1993 to 2013, winning 13 league championships and two European Cups. During their respective periods of dominance, both clubs enjoyed several seasons in which they won multiple trophies in both domestic and European competitions.


 * When making a comparison between the historical success of the two clubs, a controversy arises regarding which trophies should be counted. This leads to different scenarios in which each club can claim the title of the 'most successful English football club'.  By some measures only season-long large-scale tournaments are included while others include single-match Super Cups.


 * The divide is evident through the club's respective websites, which demonstrate both sides of the argument. The Manchester United website includes both super cups and season-long tournaments in a count of total honours, thus giving them a 62-59 trophy lead over liverpool. This view is corroborated by multiple mainstream media sources such as the BBC. The liverpool website, however, excludes super cups from the equation and only counts long-term tournaments as major honours , this giving them a 41-39 advantage to United. This perspective is once again backed by many media sources including the Daily Mail.   Thus, both clubs claim to be the most successful team in England, and have legitimate means to say so.  


 * "Both clubs have enjoyed periods of dominance over English football." - this is an incomplete sentence. Although it is factually true, there is no reference provided. Maybe we can utilise one that already exists.
 * "Liverpool dominated English football from 1975 to 1990, winning 11 league championships and four European Cups." - the use of the word "dominated" would be better coming from a specific source as the language is otherwise not WP:NEUTRAL
 * "Likewise" - says who? This is also poor English and unencyclopedic.
 * "Manchester United dominated English football from 1993 to 2013, winning 13 league championships and two European Cups." - okay, but what does this have to do with Football rivalry as a section name?
 * "During their respective periods of dominance, both clubs enjoyed several seasons in which they won multiple trophies in both domestic and European competitions." - that's nice, and again it is a fact - and we could even mention the instances of double / triple winning seasons but we need to reference it.
 * "When making a comparison" - who makes the comparison?
 * "a controversy arises regarding which trophies should be counted" - says who?
 * "This leads to different scenarios in which each club can claim the title of the 'most successful English football club'" - do we actually have any sources that support either of the clubs making that claim?
 * "By some measures" - whose measures?
 * "The divide is evident through the club's respective websites, which demonstrate both sides of the argument" - neither club side is making an argument, they just produce lists. This is outright WP:SYNTHESIS as wikipedia is creating the argument without referencing who first is making the claim.
 * "This view is corroborated by multiple mainstream media sources such as the BBC" - this is not really a "view" being corroborated, this is an assertion by an editor for which they have found a series of references. Are all the sources equal in quality and relevance?
 * "Thus, both clubs claim to be the most successful team in England, and have legitimate means to say so." - do they? are they both legitimate if only one can be right? Says who? The wikipedia editor presumably.

And so on, and so forth. In short this entire section is entirely unsupported WP:SYNTHESIS. I would suggest you read that guidance section to understand what is taking place and why this is problematic. While there are references for each claim, the way that the section has been ordered, and the way the references are presented are there to create a cohesive argument when, really, it's just some peoples opinions on the internet / media.

What should be done is to start from a position that is first WP:NEUTRAL and secondly meets the standards of WP:VERIFY.

To start with why don't you start a completely new section from scratch writing what you think would represent the "football rivalry". Bearing in mind that this article is about the entire of Liverpool vs Manchester Utds rivalry - not just the last decade where Utd have caught up and overtaken Liverpool. So there should be some discussion of the historical aspect of the rivalry as much as the raw numbers of titles, or results (this same issue exists in the "Significant Games" section which only starts in 1977).

If you want to start below the header here then I can feed back / and provide support some more. Don't worry about citing any of the info you include - just get the paragraphs out from fresh using your own words. Koncorde (talk) 04:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You make great points and Im doing some research as we speak to re-write this section as I agree it is a farce. I only ever edited the second paragraph though; the first one was introduced by another editor in August and I just don't get how it was allowed to stand until now! I'll have a new version up shortly. Also, Ive also noticed the recentism of a lot of the section information on the rivalry but from what I've found, it appears the rivalry wasn't as heated and competitve until the 70s/80s so perhaps that would explain it.


 * I didnt worry about sourcing as you said although I have gotten the information from several credible sources (BBC, Guardian, Liverpool site, etc) which I can add in. I feel this edit really explains the football side of the rivalry, how it came to be and the debate about certain elements of it rather than the biased dick-waving contest this section was prior.Davefelmer (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I have added some content filler to try and prompt wider development of the article. Koncorde (talk) 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think that to list important games and results of the clubs would stray away from the 'rivalry' section. Likewise with the Busby/Shankly comparison, as by all accounts they werent heated rivals. Likewise Busby and Bob Paisley after Shankly, who actually paraded Busby to the Wembley crowd ahead of the 1983 Charity Shield between the two sides (which could again show the lack of fire between the clubs until recent modern history). While all the content is good in itself, I feel it should be added to other/new sections of the article to avoid cramming the 'rivalry' part with mere documentations of the clubs' existences in comparison with each other. What I liked about the two statements we've saved for later is that they explain the origins of the two clubs really beginning to hate each other, which we could then transition from into direct competition throughout history between the two sides and eventually historical success. I definitely agree that there is a need for Busby/Shankly comparisons somewhere but I feel the early histories of the clubs can be seen through the graphs charting club progress for the two sides that you already inserted. I just dont want to put too much info into the section to stray from the actual 'rivalry' aspect. What do you think?


 * Also, I dont think we should expand on Liverpool's success without doing likewise with United to avoid NPOV accusations. And did they win 12 (dozen) domestic cups from 1972-90? I checked and they won seven w/o Community Shields and 17 with them. I think in either case 11 titles/4 European Cups matches 13 titles/2 European Cups which shows just how close they are historically. Davefelmer (talk) 23:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Rivalry is about competing for the same objective and is a much wider concept than just who happened to win what titles in any given decade (or argument pertaining to "most successful club" which I think would be better served as a completely standalone section). The rivalry involves players (such as fans claiming one players ascendance over others), managers (teams will inevitably claim their own managers are best), specific teams or groups (the Busby Babes, and The Boot Room), specific matches etc. It doesn't necessarily need to be heated (for instance Djokovic vs Federer or Nadal has never been heated, but it is a rivalry).
 * With regards to the additional content, the challenge is to create and expand upon what previously existed; which was just a list of facts. Facts we can put in any format, anywhere, any time. In contrast (if you look at the wider article) this section is meant to be about the origins of the rivalry. It is meant to be detailed.
 * This article should stand alone and give an overview of not just Liverpool and Manchester Utd, but also how the two teams have vied for relative success. I agree Manchesters section should also be updated, I just threw in some additional content to try and give an idea of what really should be shown. Importantly, by neglecting to mention the Charity Shields you are creating a SYNTHESIS by trying to create a false equivalency because their comparative numbers are quite similar. But neglecting to mention other trophies is a lie by omission.
 * The best way to think about this is "I am writing a book about the history of the two most successful teams in British football" we are not limited by space, scope, or section titles. We can rename, remove, re-order any sections in the article to improve the flow and readability. See the sandbox page for an idea of new section titles to help it make sense. Koncorde (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I've edited up the football rivalry section below so that it reflects all of history. I've also made a change to the main article on your sandbox. Instead of listing off all the managers and players, which i feel would be a paraphrase of other wiki articles, I've made another section called 'dynasty vs great men', explaining the differences in how both clubs achieved success and managing to discuss all the managers and figures we hoped to do anyway at the same time. I think with the football rivals changes as well, this is a really strong, informative article with a far more neutral tone and not a dick waving contest like parts of the old one were. I think we should make these changes on the main page. Davefelmer (talk) 02:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Football rivalry
The first match between Liverpool and Manchester United (Newton Heath, as they were then called) was a 2-0 victory for the Football League Second Division Liverpool team on 29 April 1894 in a Football League Test match play-off saw Liverpool promoted to the first division while United were relegated.

Despite this, there was no real anomosity between the two sides in their early years, as the clubs went on runs of contrasting fortunes. Liverpool won two league championships at the turn of the 20th century before sliding into mid-table as United picked up two titles of their own along with an FA Cup and two Charity Shields from 1908-1911. United soon found themselves in steep decline however, and were relegated in 1923 just as Liverpool sealed their second pair of championships to close the gap on the honours board. Post World War II, the clubs' roles reversed once more, with Liverpool dropping into the second tier as Manchester United found stability under Matt Busby, winning the FA Cup in 1948 and then three league titles and Charity Shields apiece in the fifties.

Following Liverpool's promotion in 1962, the two clubs found themselves in direct competition with each other for the first time, sharing four league titles between 1964-1967 as well as the 1965 FA Charity Shield. Following this though, the clubs began to drift in opposite directions once more. United's title victory of 1967 would be their last for 26 years, while Liverpool would enjoy nearly 20 years of sustained success, winning 11 league titles, 18 domestic cups and seven European trophies from 1972-1990. United's main reprives during this time came through cup competitions, such as their triumphs over the Merseysiders in the 1977 FA Cup final and the 1979 FA Cup semi-final replay at Goodison Park. It was during this period, in the late 70s and early 80s, that the modern day rivalry between the two clubs truly began to get heated. According to football sociologist John Williams, United had developed a "glamour and media profile" but didnt have the success to match it and Liverpool fans felt the Red Devils were "media darlings who got far too much publicity". There was a perception in Liverpool that their hugely successful but 'professional' and 'workmanlike' teams were always somehow in the shadow of the stars at Old Trafford. This led to a derisory United nickname in Liverpool; "The Glams".

That United titleless spell mirrors what Liverpool have experienced since 1990, when the Reds clinched their last league title, as they now approach a 26th year without the honour themselves. On the other hand, United's dominance since 1990 has seen them lift 13 championships, 20 domestic cups and six European trophies. Once again, cup glories such as the 2003 Worthington Cup and 2006 FA Cup allowed Liverpool some retribution on their now superior rivals. Despite their contrasting fortunes though, only three times since 1972 have neither Liverpool nor United finished in the top two of the league table - in 1980-81, 2003-04 and 2004-05 - and even during those three campaigns another piece of silverware was still taken home by one of the two clubs. Liverpool paraded the European Cup and League Cup in 1981, whilst Manchester United lifted the FA Community Shield and FA Cup in the 2004 season and Liverpool claimed the Champions League in 2005.

Each club can now claim historical supremacy: United for their 20 league titles to Liverpool's 18 and Liverpool for being European champions five times to United's three. Manchester United hold more honours than Liverpool, yet Liverpool lead United in major trophies won. Both clubs use these differing counts to refer to each other as the most successful English football club.

Quotations:
To expand and improve each section;

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/man-united-v-liverpool-rivalry-8271434 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/competitions/premier-league/6407804/Liverpool-v-Manchester-United-what-they-say-about-the-greatest-rivalry-in-English-football.html