Jump to content

Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Correcting Kits

Sorry, I'm new around here. How do you cite sources for home/away kits? X.qz 08:59, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Is there a website showing the design of the new kits? I reverted the changes made yesterday that show a black away kit. I haven't seen this anywhere, despite a fairly thorough google search. Stu ’Bout ye! 09:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Yeah that was me, I forgot to sign in =)
The away kit should be white with some red stripes, and the home kit almost pure red. I was actually editing from experience, but i found some websites for citation of sources: Home Kit and Away Kit The sources are from liverpoolfc.tv, the official site, so it's reliable. -X.qz 11:04, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Update: I figured I'll go ahead and make the change to the kit since I now have concrete references to back me up. Can somebody who knows how cite the above sources for me? Thanks! -x.qz 11:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
No need to cite those references in the article. They're here if anyone needs them. I removed the red sides of the away kit though. Seems that red shoulders would be more proper. – Elisson • Talk 12:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Apropos of nothing, fairly reliable sources (though not quite reliable enough for Wikipedia) say the new kits will look a lot like the adidas uniforms worn in the World Cup - think the French jersey, but all red and white trims. Now, the away jersey will be all-yellow for domestic matches (same design as home, but red trims) and the white/green number (seen against Wrexham) for Europea matches. I'm assuming the domestic away kit will be shown in the article (once the new designs are officially unveiled, of course)? Ytny 16:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, given that the green/white European kit has been confirmed, I think it's safe to assume that the other images that were in the same style (i.e. the "catalogue"-style drawings) will prove to be accurate as well, i.e. a yellow away kit with red trim. However, there's no real rush to get the kits on the WP entry until they're unveiled - at which point you can bet it'll be changed within minutes of the announcement! I'm betting they'll keep us waiting with the away kit, though - both the upcoming friendlies are away to teams who play in red (Crewe and Kaiserslautern), but I'd hazard a guess they'll continue to wear the European shirt for those... Seb Patrick 22:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Transfers

Could people please stop adding transfers until they're confirmed by the club? While the Echo has reported that the signing of Aurelio tomorrow is a near-certainty, he has not signed yet, and so listing him as a member of Liverpool's squad compromises the accuracy of Wikipedia. Deals can fall through at the last minute - we all remember the pictures of Lee Bowyer at Melwood, I'm sure (Phil Thompson's autobiography says they even had shirts printed for him for a tour they were going on) - and the only confirmed transfers in so far this summer are Paletta and Bellamy. This goes for transfers out, too - can people please stop putting that Cisse has gone on loan to Marseille when he has done nothing of the sort? Seb Patrick 09:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew we'd get people adding Pennant before it was officially confirmed... hopefully they'll confirm it today so we don't need to spent too long being vigilant! ;-) Seb Patrick 13:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
lol/sigh... aLii 13:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Scottish Connection

Reference for this? Is it really necessary?

I have removed the Scottish connection assertion in the lead as a cliam unsupported by facts. The cited reference [1] only mention about this once, and far from the extent as was previously asserted in the lead. By the way, please sign your posts on talk pages. --Pkchan 16:14, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where Liverpool FC not started by a group of ex-pat Scots? The cream of Liverpool's greatest players have been Scots as well as there finest manager. I always thought Liverpool fans had the same affection for Scotland as Celtic fans have for Ireland. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.64.8 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 4 July 2006.

Oh aye, Hall, Keegan, Crazy Horse, Smith, Thommo, Case, Fairclough, Lee, Cally, Clemence, Neil, Heighway, Hunt, Rushie, Barnes etc, all from the east end of Glasgow - lol! Vera, Chuck & Dave 17:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Theres actually a St Andrews cross on the current Liverpool badge

WHAT? Since when did we have one of THESE on our badge?? Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Since 1992 i think when the badge was redigned to include it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.76.153 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 4 August 2006

I certainly can't see a St Andrew's cross on our club crest - can anyone else, or am I colour blind? I don't think I'd fail to see a white cross on a blue background, I'm a highly trained Firefighter. Cheers. Vera, Chuck & Dave 16:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the Celtic connection which was entered by 58.84.64.8 as this is already mentioned under "Club Culture". -- Alias Flood 15:27, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


I've removed the reference all together. We don't have "traditionally had a close connection to the Scottish team Celtic". --Leipzigger98 10:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoever keeps editing the Extaernal links section please stop. You can't just decide what are applicable links and what aren't. If you unhappy - discuss (shock horror!) Jamie 09:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

When I read through the article just now I was shocked at the sheer quantity of external links. I've replaced the many links to supporters club branches with one to the relevant page on the official website. As for the large number of fansites, Wikipedia:External links says "Fan sites: On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. In extreme cases, a link to a web directory of fansites can replace this link." As I'm not a Liverpool supporter I don't know which site would be most appropriate, but its clear the list needs some severe trimming. Oldelpaso 08:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)


external links has two official sites, isn't there just one official site - www.liverpoolfc.tv? Isn't redandwhitekop.com a fan site? Kinda crazy 06:50, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Cleaned up. Vandalism. Word of warning some person is plastering a link to his personal website (www.richstevens.com) on the external links section. Is there anyway we can track his IP and ban it as this is happening almost everyday. Jamie 09:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any information on whether this is being spamlinked from a lot of articles? We can ask for it to be added to the spam blacklist, which will prevent any page containing the link from being saved. -- Arwel (talk) 11:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Well every edit i've seen here has a specific website of www.richstevens.com/naked.swf . I think its valid enough to add to the blacklist. Do you want to do it? Jamie 13:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Can you cite specific edits where this has been inserted - and preferably to several articles, they don't like using the blacklist when protection or a user ban will do. -- Arwel (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Could we get some concensus on tidying up the external links? As it stands I think there are far too many fan sites listed. Currently one could have little argument against any fan site being added as the updating user would simply turn around and say "but look at all the other fan sites that are listed!". I was about to revert the Indonesia link that was added, but stopped myself, thinking that it'd be better to sort it out here first. aLii 12:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I've just removed the bulk of the external links. It was becoming almost impossible to keep track of what was worthwhile and what wasn't. I personally checked every single link and removed anything that:
  • Was simply a forum. There were a few of these, the official website has one too. If we allow one person's messageboard we'd have to allow them all.
  • Wasn't regularly updated (A few).
  • Was broken (one of these).
  • Was foreign language. I updated the description of the page with the official list - surely that is better?
  • Was full of advertising (A lot of these).
  • Had no original content (Just copies of Liverpool Echo articles etc.)
  • Had no useful content over and above the official page.
This actually only left two sites, LFC Wallpapers (not my cup of tea, but could be useful to someone) and LFCHistory (I found it to have an extensive statistics page, and described it as such). aLii 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history for links to external sites in recent days and it looks like a small war has broken out. I removed possibly the worst external site for Liverpool FC (POV - but POV of many) Koptalk.com. It's essentially a site that acts as a teaser for a pay site - so most content of value has to be paid for, and that's against Wikipedia Guidelines. The site-owner himself has added his own site too. See Insider blog article for details and examples of why the Koptalk site should be excluded from this article. --Whatthef 02:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Players that have crossed the Mersey

It would be a good idea to to add players that have gone Liverpool ---> Everton. And also Everton ---> Liverpool.

That move doesn't involve crossing the Mersey but Stanley Park. Not a bad idea though. Audioweevil 02:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Audioweevil

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Liverpool F.C./Archive 2 has failed, for the following reason:

(My biggest objection here is the prose. It seems so unencyclopedic, it sounds as if a fan wrote it. Fans of stuff probably write 95% of everything on Wikipedia but it shouldn't sound like it. Titles like "Brief but Glorious," and text like "Liverpool have had some glorious moments during the years that followed the 1990 title glory, but life at Anfield has never been the same without the championship trophy in the club's boardroom." It also makes slightly point of view assertions through the use of weasel words i.e. "...Alan Hansen and arguably the greatest player to ever wear Liverpool colours, Kenny Dalglish who is also a Celtic legend."
A smaller thing is "necessary technical terms or jargon are briefly explained in the article itself, or an active link is provided," I'm still wondering what exactly is the milk cup and who exactly "The Reds" are.) TonyJoe 01:23, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've started to address these problems. I've hopefully removed a lot of the POV. I also changed Milk Cup to League Cup to avoid confusion. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:55, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
I've removed further POV headings that were added today. Stu ’Bout ye! 17:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

YNWA and Other Clubs

Fans of Celtic FC strongly proclaim to have sung the song before Liverpool. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.72.38 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 3 July 2006. The "YNWA" on the Liverpool crest is in bold green and white. This has already been heavily discussed, see the talk archive , cheers, aLii 12:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting, and disturbing to note that I'm currently in a slow edit war on the You'll Never Walk Alone article. Basically some random IP has come along and inserted The first recorded instance of it being sung at a football ground was by Manchester United supporters in the wake of the 1958 Munich Air Disaster, led by a local operatic society who were rehearsing the song for a show and felt it appropriate [2]. The MEN article in question is obviously a terrible source, ug.. some people...
for future reference see this.

Notable Former Players

Think we need to consider what constitutes 'notable'.. Are John Scales and Oyvind Leonhardson notable former players? I would like to trim this down a bit but curious to see what others think. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slick Beef (talk • contribs).

For your reference, Arsenal F.C. adopts the criteria of >100 appearances in the "Famous players" section. I think the same criterion can be adopted here. --Pkchan 12:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
I would agree with that. At the moment the list is POV. -- Alias Flood 14:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
>100 appearences seems sensible. I'll work on that a bit when I get a chance. Thanks for the feedback Slick Beef 21:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Meijer

Someone's just removed Erik Meijer from the "notable players" section. I don't inherently disagree with this edit, and so I've held back on reverting it, but I will just point out that LFC.tv are currently running a fan-voted feature called 100 Players Who Shook The Kop, and Meijer made it in. I know he didn't make many appearances, and I also know that having 100+ players in the "notable" list would be excessive, but even so... do we reckon that 100PWSTK is a sufficient criterion for inclusion, or not? Seb Patrick 09:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I don't think it is. If Meier had been a Liverpool player 50 years ago he would have never made this list. The fact that he is a more recent player does not make him more historically notable in my eyes. aLii 09:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
He started just 10 games. While he may have been a cult hero of sorts, he had no impact on Liverpool's history. He doesn't fit the criteria given for List of Liverpool F.C. players, never mind this page. Oldelpaso 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More than 'a cult hero of sorts,' Meijer's reputation wasn't connected to his playing ability but more that fans related to him because he was akin to an ordinairy fan on the pitch. Many will recall his windmill arm waving that earned him the nickname Mad Erik. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.12.32.28 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 22 July 2006.

Aurelio

Alright, this is getting confusing, now. Aurelio has been known as likely to sign for Liverpool for some time now, but I've tried to stop people from adding him as a confirmed transfer until we actually get official news from either LFC.tv or a reputable source such as BBC News. He's been added again this evening, and so before reverting, I decided to check the official site once again. His transfer still hasn't shown up as a news item (despite the reported date of 1st July having been and gone), and he's not listed in the squad section - but he is mentioned by name in this article ("Rafa Benitez tonight led colleagues and players Pako Ayestaran, Jose Manuel Ochotorena, Fabio Aurelio, Momo Sissoko and Eduardo Macia in sending condolences to those affected by today's train crash in Valencia."). BBC News hasn't confirmed the transfer yet, though, either.

As such, I've left him in the article for now, but I'm hesitant to do so until it really has been confirmed that he's signed. If it gets through tomorrow and there's still no confirmation, I'm going to remove him until we receive some. I hope this sounds fair. Again, I'm citing Bowyer as an example of a deal that can almost happen, but shouldn't be reported as fact until it's done and dusted. Seb Patrick 21:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

There is also a Liverpool Echo interview with him from July 3 [3].
It looks to me like the transfer has gone through, but Liverpool are just holding off the official annoucement so that they can unveil a bunch of players together, rather than wasting half a day of Rafa's time for each of the potential 5 signings (Mark González, Craig Bellamy, Gabriel Paletta and Alves/Pennant/whoever) aLii 15:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Curiouser and curiouser - the official site has mentioned the Paletta signing (as in, his actually putting pen to paper, even though that was confirmed a while back) today, but still no mention of Aurelio. I still think it's better to wait for official confirmation - and I certainly don't think there's any place in ANY WP article for a section like the "Possible Ins" that was recently added/removed! Seb Patrick 18:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree ... and I removed the "Possible Ins" section under WP:NOT -- Alias Flood 02:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, you just beat me to that one - and I think WP:NOT could do with a "Wikipedia is not a Transfer Speculation Website" clause adding! ;-) Seb Patrick 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, now we can draw a line under this one! For the record, I never doubted that he would sign, I just didn't want Wikipedia to be reporting information before it was officially confirmed. Now, how long before we go through the same rigmarole with Daniel Alves? ;-) Seb Patrick 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes

Why are the notes not sequentially numbered? There appears to be a "Paisley" note while all the rest are numeric.Barfbagger 09:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Antonio Barragán

Anyone have a source on his transfer? Liverpoolfc.tv haven't confirmed it. ArtVandelay13 19:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

A number of online forums have stated that he has gone to Deportivo which I expect will happen but as we do not yet have a reliable source, I have re-added him. Alias Flood 19:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

History

Ok, so I decided to have a go at tidying the overly-large history section. It still looks a bit too long — any ideas on what else can be cut? Note there is a huge History of Liverpool Football Club article. aLii 20:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Mazito seems rather adamant on changing this page to include the entire history that is currently in History of Liverpool Football Club. I don't personally agree with all of his other edits either, but I've reverted enough for one hour. Could some regular editors please comment on this as there has never been much of a discussion (looking through the archives). My opinion is that the Liverpool F.C. page should contain an overview, and History of Liverpool Football Club should be comprehensive. aLii 22:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Note the precedents:

aLii 22:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Arsenal F.C. article has attained Featured Article Status and closely adheres to Template F.C.. This article should do the same in order that it may attain that same status. -- Alias Flood 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

In 2005 CL Final, the three Liverpool goals were scored in seven (not six) minutes, according to UEFA. See Talk:2005 UEFA Champions League Final. Peter Harriman 10:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

UEFA's Match Report is the only one I can find that quotes this as seven minutes, others say six minutes [4], [5]. I don't think the exact time is necessarily relevant, except that everyone remembers this period pace Ancelotti's "six minutes of madness".--Franchecomté 17:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

As I've mentioned in response to your comment on my talk page, I've clocked the amount of time that elapses between the goals by studying the footage, and while it doesn't reach seven minutes (it's just short of 6:50), it's still surely closer to seven than six. Certainly, if you say the goals happened "in six minutes", the implication is that it's under six. They happened within seven minutes. Seb Patrick 18:43, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Squad

Anyone know why the squad list is narrower (and thus less tidy) than others, say Inter Milan? I can't see any meaningful difference. ArtVandelay13 14:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, they look the same width to me. aLii 17:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the difference is an illusion because Liverpool has a larger squad. Inter has a surprisingly small squad meaning there are thirteen/fourteen players in each column whereas Liverpool has nineteen players in each column. The templates used in each article are effectively the same -- Alias Flood 17:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
It's definitely different, look. comparison. It's just a better use of the space and looks generally neater. ArtVandelay13 13:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
No, they are the same :)
I think perhaps you should investigate your web browser. Here are my screenshots for comparison: click me
I use Firefox. Internet Explorer on the other hand seems to have some problems... aLii 16:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Kits

As photos of the new home and away kits have been leaked, is it the appropriate time to update the images of Liverpool's strip, specifically the home, as we'll be wearing yellow this season rather than white.--GoHawks4 07:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

All that's been leaked, though, are some images from an adidas catalogue. I have no doubt that the images are genuine (I hope they are, as the white/green European away kit is gorgeous, and I want one), but with so many fakes and so much speculation around, Wikipedia's not really the place to update with possible kits. It's always best in situations like that to wait until the official site unveils the kits, and I'm afraid that means waiting until next month... Seb Patrick 08:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough.--GoHawks4 02:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to note that the new European away kit is being used in today's match and has been unveiled here on liverpoolfc.tv. Looks like the rumours were 100% correct then... Also note that the new premiership kits are not being unveiled until later this month. aLii 12:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

List of players

I know it's not this article, but I've improved the list of players in the style of the Arsenal one, but I'll need help in creating articles to kill the redlinks. So, if anyone wants to have a go http://www.lfchistory.net is a good source of info.

P.S. I wonder if it removes the needs for the slightly ugly List of notable players table on the main article ArtVandelay13 18:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Squad numbers

As it's that time of year there is the potential for a lot of flux within the official squad numbers. Over the past few weeks all of the new signings have been given squad numbers here, which have then been blanked by people like me. Today I notice that liverpoolfc.tv have given Craig Bellamy a squad number of 17, while the others are still numberless. But then there is this forum post by one of the liverpoolfc.tv administrators, effectively saying that any assigned numbers for today's friendly are still not yet official.

I guess if their squad page shows a squad number then it's official enough for us here. Opinions? aLii 09:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that Bellamy's number has been fixed at 17 having seen this but I would not risk buying a numbered shirt for any player until I see an announcement at lfc.tv for the officially fixed squad numbers. I think that we should continue with similar caution here. After all, it is most unlikely that Gabriel Paletta will retain his # 87 as listed here. -- Alias Flood 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liverpool_F.C./Archive_2&oldid=1136959604"