Talk:2018–19 Liverpool F.C. season

Academy Releases (Revisited)

This first part is a direct copy/paste from last season's season page, the second paragraph is more geared towards justification. As far as I know, any time academy players have been listed under the 'Transfers Out' section they have always been removed. It happened last year even with players who were loaned out and played first-team football for their loanee club, i.e., Ryan McLaughlin last season and would be Jack Dunn in this case for this year. And as you can see looking through previous years for Liverpool on Wikipedia and unretained players lists in general in those corresponding years, there are many players unlisted on Wikipedia because they haven't played first team football for Liverpool. You can also dig through revision histories of previous years and see examples of released academy players listed under the transfer out section being removed. If I am wrong about this feel free to keep it as is currently but as far as I can remember that is the way it goes.

Teams organize their seasonal pages differently. Many of them, for example, do not list transfer fees. Liverpool's pages do and generally have done despite no actual club confirmation, but rather relying on reliable club sources. Some clubs also do not do month-by-month summaries of the season as Liverpool's seasonal pages do. This is an article about the Liverpool first team for the (as of now, upcoming) 2018-19 season. Players who have not played first team football for Liverpool or are brought in and not listed as first-team members of the side, the VAST majority of whom would also not fall under the notability criteria, I would claim, do not make sense on this sort of page. There is precedent for this on previous Liverpool pages which is more important than gauging other teams' pages. If this sort of change is to be made to the page, it should be discussed among the contributors to the Liverpool wiki-pages before coming to consensus. If one is agreed, there should then also be a process in going back and attempting to revise as many previous years' lists as possible. Until that happens, please refrain from updating this page's transfers in/out with academy players or those who left and were never involved with Liverpool's first team. NotAdamKovic (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

A template for transfers

I'd really appreciate any input on a proposed standard going forward for how transfers are listed on club season articles. There is a discussion ongoing here at the moment. Given the implications for this page, I thought it would be best to give a heads up.Domeditrix (talk) 10:40, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

U23 Players on the First Team section

in the 'First Team' section, should we signify whether or not players are actually listed in the U23 squad as opposed to full-time First Team? ItChEE40 (talk) 01:10, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

Hi REDMAN 2019, I saw you just nominated this article for GA status. While I don't think it would pass, I wanted to point out that the 2008–09 Liverpool F.C. season article did pass its GA review earlier this year, and would serve as a good guide for this article. There are a few things that article does better than this one: First, each paragraph should discuss a series of matches, not just one. A typical match doesn't need to be described in too much detail. Only the more important matches should get their own paragraphs. Because nearly every paragraph describes just one day at the moment, the prose is too choppy at times, most notably in the pre-season and February sections where most paragraphs are just one or two sentences. Also, while not required, it probably makes more sense to split the competitions (PL, CL, Cup matches) into different sections instead of having a single calendar section. Sportsfan77777 (talk) 18:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

As the user that got the 2008–09 article to GA status, I agree with the above. As much work as you have done, this article won't pass. There are too many issues with the article as it stands. You have no background section, which is a prerequisite for most season articles (Have a look at some of the Arsenal season articles, particularly this one. Like Sportsfan says, the prose should be split into sections on the various cup competitions, rather than one large block of text. Also, the prose is prone to be POV instead of MOS:NPOV. Words like 'spectacular' shouldn't be used as they aren't encyclopaedic. The tabes don't comply with MOS:DTT and WP:ACCESS, which needs to be rectified. Again, look at the 2008–09 to see the difference. Then, you have issues with the references, where normal dashes are used instead of an en dash. I don't want to bash the work you've done, because a lot of it is laudable, but you'll have a better chance of getting these articles passed if you pay closer attention to the criteria and prior articles that have made the grade. NapHit (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Sportsfan77777 and NapHit: Ok thanks, I will withdraw the nomination and work on the article as suggested. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)