A fact from 1985 Luton riot appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 June 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bedfordshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bedfordshire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BedfordshireWikipedia:WikiProject BedfordshireTemplate:WikiProject BedfordshireBedfordshire articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject British crime, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.British crimeWikipedia:WikiProject British crimeTemplate:WikiProject British crimeBritish crime articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion
This is a really interesting article, but I wonder if it's focused incorrectly. It might be better with the title "1985 Luton Town football riot", with the article's lead focusing more on the riot than the match. Thoughts?--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I'd say it's probably best as it is; the riot completely surrounded the match (it started before kick-off, continued during the game and carried on following it). If it was only before the match, or only after, I would agree with you; however in my eyes the match and the incident are very linked. Most alternative titles you could think of already redirect here—I chose this particular title because it seemed the most encyclopaedic. I'm open to debate on the matter, but personally I feel this is the best title for it. Oh, and thank you for saying it's interesting. :) Cliftonian • talk 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
I would also favour a move to a different title. If you'd rather have the article focus on the match itself, then the title should probably be something like "Luton Town v. Millwall (1985 football game)"—either way, I don't think it's necessary to have the score in the title. If it's better to focus on the riot, then Mike Selinker's suggestion is a good one. TheFeds 17:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
The precedent was set by Liverpool 0–2 Arsenal (26 May 1989), another football match article. I agree that it's better to focus on the riot, but I can't think of any alternative title that would be both encyclopaedic and completely free of POV (Mike's suggestion falls at both hurdles—"football riot" sounds horribly informal and "Luton Town football riot" could be taken to lay the blame at the feet of Luton Town.) Cliftonian • talk 18:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
In the case of the 'Pool-Arsenal game it was the actual match/result that was notable. In the case of this game, the actual match was completely inconsequential, the only notable aspect was the riot, so that's what the title should focus on. If you want to avoid the problems you highlighted, then how about 1985 Kenilworth Road riot? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)Reply
