Talk:Liverpool City (1906)

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Lancashire and Cumbria 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.Lancashire and CumbriaWikipedia:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaTemplate:WikiProject Lancashire and CumbriaLancashire and Cumbria articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Merseyside Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Rugby league Low‑importance

	Liverpool City (1906) is within the scope of WikiProject Rugby league, which aims to improve the quality and coverage of rugby league football related articles. Join us!Rugby leagueWikipedia:WikiProject Rugby leagueTemplate:WikiProject Rugby leaguerugby league articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Merge proposal

This should not be merged with Liverpool City (rugby league) IMO, they were different clubs despite having the same name and playing the same sport (albeit in different eras).GordyB (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also oppose as they seem to be different, unrelated, entities. Mattlore (talk) 02:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 March 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Liverpool City (1906). This discussion became very confused and convoluted, but a few things are clear. There's a unanimous consensus that the present title isn't kosher, and a nearly-as-clear consensus that the proposed title Liverpool City (rugby league) isn't workable given the fact that Liverpool Stanley was also a rugby league team known as "Liverpool City" (it will redirect to the dab page). Of the various suggested options, Liverpool City (1906) seems to be the best supported. No prejudice against opening a new RM if someone thinks of a potentially better disambiguator, but it would probably be more productive if these two titles were ruled out. Cúchullain ^t/c 13:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool City (1906) (rugby league) → Liverpool City (rugby league) – standard naming convention – Abcmaxx (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from RMTR speedy move

Object to speedy rename that is not the topic of the current "Liverpool City (rugby league)" This is a primary topic change, so should have a discussion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcmaxx and 65.94.43.89:

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Comment this team only played 1 season. I fail to see how this is the primary topic when the other Liverpool City played 17 years under that name. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:PRECISE "Liverpool City (rugby league)" should be redirected to Liverpool City disambiguation page as it is ambiguous and not the primary topic. Alternate disambiguation for this page would be Liverpool City (rugby league, 1906) or Liverpool City (1906-1907), and the other article should have a redirect at Liverpool City (rugby league, 1951) and Liverpool City (1951-1968) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - See my reply to this below. Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support. By far the most sensible disambiguation, and bearing in mind that these clubs are both now of historic interest only there seems a good case for primary topic. I also note that this was the consensus at the appropriate WikiProject (link given by nom below). Andrewa (talk) 05:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It fails WP:PRECISE since there have been two teams by this name, and this one is not the one with the most history at this name, (the other one has had 17 seasons at this name, while this one only has 1) So, it is not the proper target of this name -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, it doesn't fail WP:PRECISE, or not not on the evidence we have so far at least. Is this other club currently commonly referred to as Liverpool City? It seems unlikely. These clubs are both mainly of interest to those who would be aware of both of them, as I've said before. That's part of the reason that the current article on the other is named Liverpool Stanley although they had that name for only 16 seasons. Andrewa (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Primary topic-ness does not apply to disambiguated titles. Therefore, all topics that exist on Wikipedia that can be called "Liverpool City" as rugby league are viable choices in targets, so yes, it does fail PRECISE. Wikipedia does not only cover the "now", hence this article on a 1906 club, if it only covered the "now", then there would be no 1906 article. The 1950/60's Liverpool City existed as Liverpool City in that era, and is also a past name, just like the 1906 entity. Neither exists anymore as Liverpool City, since one is defunct, and doesn't exist at all, and the other was renamed. But both exists in the past, so both are viable targets, so it is a PRECISE failure. We have redirects from past names because things can be referred to by old names, such as searching through old documents and looking on Wikipedia for information. An 18-year span using this name would seem to be more likely than the 1-season 1906 span, under those circumstance. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As neither team appear to be the primary topic, Liverpool City (rugby league) should be a disambiguation page for both articles. This page should be Moved to Liverpool City (1906 rugby league), Liverpool City (rugby league, 1906) or similar. Mattlore (talk) 19:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Liverpool City (rugby league, 1906), and have Liverpool City (rugby league) redirect to Liverpool City. — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That would currently create a double redirect, as Liverpool City is itself a redirect. Andrewa (talk) 11:03, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Any additional comments:

NOTE Liverpool City (rugby league) currently points to Liverpool Stanley which was known as "Liverpool City" from 1951-1968. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this was discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby league#Liverpool City and this was the outcome Abcmaxx (talk) 23:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That discussion failed to take into account WP:PRECISE -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well let's decide now then. I like the idea of having a Liverpool City (1906) and Liverpool City (1951) which redirects to the appropriate subsection. Also Runcorn Highfield RLFC needs to be merged into the latter Abcmaxx (talk) 17:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Liverpool City (1906) neatly solves the problem of this article's weird disambiguator. Merges can be proposed through WP:PM (proposed mergers) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - The proposed move solves it even more neatly, in my opinion. Andrewa (talk) 05:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll be bold and move it then. I think Liverpool City (rugby league) should then become a disambig page. Thoughts? (I thought the merge of Runcorn had already been discussed/agreed to - someone go do it :) ) Mattlore (talk) 08:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm confused... the move request is to move this article to Liverpool City (rugby league), this has some explicit support and no explicit opposition, and you're now proposing to boldly move to something else? That makes no sense at all. Andrewa (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry, I interpreted your comments to mean that you, along with the anon and Abcmaxx supported a move to Liverpool City (1906). If the discussion decides to move the page to Liverpool City (rugby league) then that still can be done, my move hasn't prevented that. Mattlore (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Please revert your move. It is completely unjustified and just complicates things. Andrewa (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Done. I still think Liverpool City (1906) is the best solution for this page, and it currently seems you are the only opposed - can you please explain why you don't prefer this option? Mattlore (talk) 20:51, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I have done that already, see above, but here's another reason to think about... Liverpool City currently [1] redirects to City of Liverpool, and has since the page was created in 2005, and that's logical, as the city is clearly the primary meaning. Given that, isn't the natural reading of Liverpool City (1906) as an article title an article about a city that was called Liverpool in 1906? The proposal Liverpool City (rugby league) is far more recognizable. Andrewa (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. The problem with Liverpool City (rugby league) is it doesn't distinguish between the two clubs. I don't see why the 1906 version is the primary topic, when it played far fewer seasons under that name. I think a more specific name is needed. Mattlore (talk) 21:03, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Neither club is the primary topic of Liverpool City. The question then is how to best disambiguate. Both clubs are of historic interest only. One has another name by which it is more commonly known, and which is unique to it, so that one is easy, and it frees up Liverpool City (rugby league) as a possible article name for the other club. In some ways it's not ideal, but we have no better option that I can see. Andrewa (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be called anything other than Liverpool City (1906)? If you were looking for something else there is a template at the top point to disambiguation pages. Plus it is the standard for many sporting teams: Galway United F.C. (1937–2011) - Galway United F.C. (2013); Torpedo-ZIL Moscow (1997) - Torpedo-ZIL Moscow (2003); South Shields F.C. (1889) - South Shields F.C. (1936) - South Shields F.C. (1974); etc. etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abcmaxx (talk • contribs) 21:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- So, are you saying Liverpool City (1906-1907) or Liverpool City (1906) ? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:10, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- These examples are none of them particularly relevant, in that they don't have the ambiguity problem that Liverpool City (1906) does. Andrewa (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool City (1906). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706041344/http://www.warringtonwolves.org/results-archive?y=1900 to http://www.warringtonwolves.org/results-archive?y=1900

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liverpool City (1906). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529160809/http://www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/about/page.php?id=394&areaid=46 to http://www.therfl.co.uk/~therflc/about/page.php?id=394&areaid=46

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:57, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]