Talk:Goodison Park/Archive 1

Archive 1

Goodison Park Outline by df2k2

I can add this to the article if there is a shown interest. File:Everton outline df2k2.png I think I have to remove the image in the center, can anyone confirm? I show interest. Oh ya and Goodison should have four stars from uefa. It classifies under four stars in theUefa Stadia Listings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Go everton (talk • contribs) 23:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Getting a bit out of control

This article is getting increasingly POV (phrases such as "first big rich club", "best club ground", "...steal the identity") with no citations to back up. Other, less contentious stuff, is also sorely lacking in sources. Dancarney (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

remove or tag them, and after tag if nothing provided the remove. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 17:04, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I see nothing out of control. The page has been greatly enhanced over the past few days. It is far more professional. Point out what you consider contentious? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.56.141 (talk) 22:54, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I never stated that anything was contentious. However there have been a lot of additions of uncited material - see WP:CITATION. Many of these additions use language that does not adhere to Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. "Made Anfield an international standard ground..." what does international standard mean, particularly in the context of the 1890s? Goodison Park is described as "superior " with no citation. The Top Balc is decribed as having "enhanced" the Main Stand, with no citation. This is just a small selection. Dancarney (talk) 08:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

If the ground hosts Internationals then it is international standard - obvious. England played Ireland at Anfield. So, that is sorted. No cite needed

GP was superior, the best in the world at the time, being purpose built. It hosted the FA cup final two years later and was covered on three sides (unheard of in those days). So, that is sorted too.

Everton were and are one of England's biggest and most successful clubs - no cite needed it is obvious, as the opening section gives the achievements.

Removed some POV tags as not POVs.

Inserted about the only map ever with Everton marked at Anfield and the terraces and stands (Pavilions) are shown too. It is just outside the city boundary with the boundary running at the back of the now Kop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterspaces (talk • contribs) 11:46, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

So International Standard means that an International has been played there by your reckoning. It has nothing to do with the standard of pitch, facilities, etc, and is therefore meaningless. It is important to note that GP has hosted Internationals but to call this some kind of standard , unless you can provide a citation, has no basis. You cannot call GP superior to anything without a third-party citation. Just saying something is "obvious" does not remove the need for a cited source. As for the "size" and "successfulness" of Everton, it isn't mentioned in this article's opening paragraph - maybe you are thinking of Everton F.C.? Dancarney (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

You wrote: So International Standard means that an International has been played there by your reckoning.

Well if international are played there then the ground must be international standard by anyones reckoning. The clue is:.....England v Ireland played at Anfield.

You wrote: You cannot call GP superior to anything without a third-party citation

You can call it superior when it was clearly superior to Anfield holding an FA cup final. Do we need a citation to say Liverpool city is in England? How do we know? We could have citations from all all over for each sentence and the passages unreadable. Many of these citations are to press reports which are highly inaccurate written by a young hack.

How old are you? What is your education level? Should we take serious someone who thinks the church is part of GP, when it is a separate entity and nothing to so with EFC? There are tall walls between the two sites. We could be ridiculous and put a link to the Land Registry.

Bring up points of concern, and they may be valid, however, it is best to let me deal with much of the format and writing, being previously involved professionally with document writing.

Firstly, please read Wikipedia policy on civility. Secondly, you do not own the article, so a statement such as "it is best to let me deal with much of the format and writing, being previously involved professionally with document writing." is not very helpful, particularly when your text above includes elementary grammatical mistakes. Dancarney (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Number one, my English vastly superior to yours, that is clear. Any simple grammatical mistakes will be rectified on subsequent edits.

Read: The Elements of Style by Strunk & White. That will put you right in simple English, as long as you apply it.

I suggest I do most of the work. Question and suggest by all means. Work with me, but do not undo productive work. The page has been transformed by me in the past week or so. Before with was a total amateurish effort all around. Still a way to go though.

I ask your age? What is it? I fear I might be conversing with 15 year old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.103.154 (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Dancarney, you really do need to read the policy on civility. Wikipedia is based on consensus, not on one person imposing his will. Disparaging the efforts of others and trying to claim ownership of an article also helps nobody. Get involved by all means, it's great to have new people helping, but don't try to lay claim to articles and bully others. srushe (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't need to read the section on civility thank you. The person not imposing a will is me. I am the one who has had productive text undone. When someone still thinks that the church is a part of Everton FC's ground I have to question whether that person is suitable to contribute. Many come across as being very young, or naive.

I do not bully, just assertive. I object to text being undone because someone doesn't like it and gives no logical reason. What was re-done is usually the one sentence paragraph half unintelligible stuff.

I have written, that if someone doesn't like something talk about it and what bothers them.

Just a heads up: Similar issues are being discussed at Talk:Anfield for those who are interested. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Can I suggest that you register a username? While all contributions are welcomed to Wikipedia, I've found that edits and opinions get more credit from other users when you edit by username, rather than just an IP address. I did find more problems like this before registering, and given your interest/knowledge of these topics I expect you will wish to contribute in future. Thanks. Bertcocaine (talk) 20:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Anfield list - Off topic

This list would be much better presented in prose. Also I would like to see some specific citations. In fact, scrap that! What is this doing on the Goodison page anyway? We should have a succinct summary of pre-Goodison Everton and the reasons for moving, then swiftly move on to the primary topic: Goodison Park itself. That information should be exported to History of Everton F.C. instead. Prose, list, pictures and all! This is getting way off topic. (A picture showing the changing of the name of Everton Football Club and Athletic Grounds Company Ltd. to Liverpool Football Club and Athletic Grounds Company Ltd? What is this doing there?) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

---

Goodison Park came about because of a dispute at Anfield - very relevant, so needs a mention. You may be right in that is should be more concise and the meat transfered over the history page. I'll do that in the next 2 or 3 days. Thanks for the positive suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.56.234 (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Trivia etc

To me, there seems to be a lot of hocus pocus, so to speak, on the GP page. Some may be useful, but some nonsense. In particular list of people who have had testimonials, that may be relevent for club info, but not GP. Would it not be better sticking to stadium issues? Babydoll9799 (talk) 10:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think testimonials should be in there. Dancarney (talk) 10:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Testimonials, while important to honour past players, aren't massively important events. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits) 17:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Removed! Dancarney (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

I've been working on this today and I'm quite pleased with how it's coming on. I'd like to help GP obtain featured article status(!) and I have a few books to research through. Is anyone interested in helping?

Work on the GP page

I have noticed that there had been extensive rewriting of the GP page in recent weeks and when i viewed some of it it was interesting to read things like "Lower Goodison Park End" for the (Stanley) Park End stand and "Lower Main Stand" for the Enclosure. It has the feel to me of a kind of text book writing of someone who had never set foot in Goodison. I have tried to revamp where i felt was not right but just like when i last edited there is always room for improvement. But please be careful! There have been a lot of errors i have corrected and i have tried to put the paragraphs into a better order. Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Lower Main Stand is me failing to remember what the Family Enclosure used to be called and including anything just to ensure correct identification of the part of the ground in question. Good work. Dancarney (talk) 08:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I have returned the first paragraph's mention of GP being an association football stadium back to just football as it is the same thing (assoc fb) in the link and who calls the sport assoc football thesedays? Secondly i have readded that the ground has undergone many changes, as it is the "intro" and clearly 'the intro summerises the contents' more with that added, and more indepth below. I hope that others agree.Babydoll9799 (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

I wonder if there is anyone out there that can add a few photos of Goodison to the page such as old photos particularly like when the old main stand was half replaced by the new main stand and the 69/70 season had both stands open. I think it would enhance the page. Babydoll9799 (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, the only photos at the time are ones owned commercially (for example [1] and unlikely to be available for wikipedia use. TheBigJagielka (talk) 12:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)