Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Colour of city

Someone needs to correct the line about red being the city of Liverpool's colour. It isn't. it's purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PJMulholland (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 August 2006

Got a reference for that? aLii 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, [1] is all purple. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Has it always been purple? An interesting question is: Was it once red, but was changed to purple to accomodation the "blue half" of the city? I have no idea, and my simplistic google searches aren't helping me. aLii 10:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to send an email to liverpooldirect@liverpool.gov.uk, but their server is rejecting my mail. Maybe you could try. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I did email them asking specifically about any possible historical changes etc. and the reponse I got was: "The colour Purple is the corporate colour for the Council." Other than a few formalities that was it. ] 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I am from Liverpool and can tell you that the official colours of the city are purple and green. All city council documentation has purple font/crest and even the cities wheelie bins are purple! Both clubs choice of kit colours have nothing to do with the city colours, they have both worn variants of blue and red. Bluemonkey

In the absense of anybody else doing it then I have just removed it so it simply states "changed to red." User: PJMulholland 21:58, 21 Feb 2007

Colours and badge (history)

Going through various of the other team pages and Template F.C. it would seem that the Liverpool page is severely lacking a "Colours and badge" section. For instance see Everton F.C.#Colours and badge. I would just write the section, but I can't find much info on the history of such things.

• LFC Story on liverpoolfc.tv says: "Unable keep the Everton F.C. name he then thought bigger and finally acceded to his secretary's proposal, and named his club after the entire city rather than one of its suburbs, even adopting by 1894 the City's colour of red for the playing shirts and by 1901 the Liverbird as the crest."
• This page's history section says: "In 1896, the strip changed from blue and white quarters to red and white"
• and also: "In 1964, Liverpool lifted the League Championship for the first time in seventeen years. It was also the year in which the team adopted its all red strip."

What is blue and white quarters anyway? Is it:

Blue and white quarters?

Or blue and white quarters?

etc... Anyway so what about all the other years? Was it simply:

1896 - 1964?

Is that even correct? Was it red socks? If anyone has any ideas, old photos, or general info it'd be useful, cheers, aLii 12:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure that it was red socks when it was white shorts, but photoreference would be needed. It's a pretty widely-known anecdote, however, that the all-red was introduced by Shankly in an attempt to make the team look more intimidating, so if a source can be found for the quote, then mention of that should clearly go in any such section. Seb Patrick 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I tell a lie, it was white socks. Check out this Times article with extracts from Ian St John's autobiography :

Shankly had great attention to detail. Before another European game, against Anderlecht, he came up with the idea of wearing red shorts to match our red shirts. He thought the colour scheme would carry psychological impact — red for danger, red for power. He came into the dressing room one day and threw a pair of red shorts to Ronnie Yeats. “Get into those shorts and let’s see how you look,” he said. “Christ, Ronnie, you look awesome, terrifying. You look 7ft tall.”

“Why not go the whole hog, boss?” I suggested. “Why not wear red socks? Let’s go out all in red.” Shankly approved and an iconic kit was born.

So there we go, seems it was a combination of Shanks and the Saint that led to the all-red kit. Seb Patrick 13:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.liverweb.org.uk/archive.htm has team photos dating back to 1892. Not every year, but should be enough info. The socks seemed to be usually white but sometimes red, sometimes striped... ArtVandelay13 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, LiverWeb has lots of detailed information on the history of the kits. Should certainly be enough to work from there, if it can be suitably re-worded. Seb Patrick 13:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that just seems to make it a bit more confusing! "After the club were formed back in 1892 after the famous rent row at Anfield with Everton the club came into existence wearing a blue and white halved shirt similar to what you see today at Blackburn Rovers. Just inside the 1900s the two clubs switched to their more commonly known kits."

And then there's the photos:

• 1892–93 (here) — I can't tell anything much about that top. Terrible contrast & being black and white doesn't exactly help :P
• 1893–94 (here) — Looks like the famous red & white to me...

My best guess for the first strip is therefore:

1892–93

It's also interesting to note that the 1965–66 photo shows white shorts, so this article's timeline of 1964 for all red may be a bit off... (edit: I just checked and noticed that the above mentioned Anderlecht game occured in Nov/Dec 1964. It still doesn't explain the 65-66 photo though) aLii 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah ha! Check this out! aLii 02:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

1892–93

Its like this. Although I am an Evertonian *ducks*. My Mum's side of the family are Liverpool supporters and my uncle told me...saying it was ironic Liverpool started blue. Def black socks...they all wore black socks in those days pretty much. SenorKristobbal 23:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Right. Several points. I am almost certain that the original kit was quarters and not halves. Don't know where the quote above comes from and I've never read it. The dark green and white quartered away shirt from the 90s was a reference to the original kit, but while there were rumours it would be belue, I think they bottled it in the end.

The blue colours were not taken from Everton. They wore a 'ruby' shirt at the time of the split (!).

What? The blue colours were not taken from Everton? You ARE Everton, Everton mark 2! The only reason you lot are called "Liverpool" is because the Football League would not allow two teams to be named "Everton" - you also play in Everton's old ground, and the Toffee is correct about the shirt and socks. Has anyone writing this ever been to Anfield BTW! Chris The Gooner.

Socks were black early on, but by the 50s they seem to be red or white or hooped. Doesn't seem to be any consistency.

The all-red kit was adopted after the Anderlecht game, but I don't think it was used in every game for a season or so afterwards.

See http://www.aardnet.co.uk/lfc/kits/kits.html for more.

Suggestion for total removal of "Notable former players" list

This evening I've been keeping tabs on the addtion of approximately 40 new players into this list. I've removed none, nor had any words with the user who is adding them, as quite honestly the players in question have as much right to be listed as many of the ones that were previously in the list. Anyway I'd like this article to reach Featured Article standard one day (a LONG way off) and for this we need to removed as many of the lists as possible. There is already a very comprehensive List of Liverpool F.C. players.

As I was scanning over the Wikipedia:Peer review page earlier I noticed the Chicago Bears page. More pointedly I noticed the Chicago Bears#Famous players section. It merely provides a link to the list of players and lists their "Hall of fame" inductees, which number only about 10. There is now an English Football Hall of Fame. Liverpool do only have two players (one being Sir Matt Busby!) and two managers there, and the list is horribly biased (IMO) towards Man Utd, but still it must be better than listing everyone who ever held down a first team place!

The only other option I can think of is a short list with notable players and reasons for why they are notable, e.g. Ian Rush — club record goalscorer.

The list as it now stands is entirely unmanagable. What I really want is opinions on what should replace it — a way of keeping the list below 15 players would be ideal. aLii 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to see that section deleted as it is inherently POV. There have been discussions at limiting it to players who have made more than 100 first team appearances, for example, and I have almost edited the list to portray that fact but I see little point as it would be duplicating the fork that we have to List of Liverpool F.C. players. You are quite right in wanting to get this article to featured status, which is my own objective, but lists are frowned upon in the FAC with the advice always being to incorporate the subjects of the list into the article. This article is already well endowed with references to past and present 'legends' and we have a section for "Records and Miscellany", where records such as Rush's feat could be placed. The important thing with such records, in my opinion, is that they should portray accomplishments of the club rather than the individual although Rush's record would not be out of place. -- Alias Flood 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to its removal, for the reasons outlined above. There are a handful of players that are indisputably the most significant to have played for Liverpool - Keegan, Dalglish, Rush, say - but beyond that it becomes inherently POV. List of Liverpool F.C. players covers the bases for the inclusion of all the randoms, and all the more important figures should - if the article's any good - be included in the main body of text. And removing it does at least eliminate the hassle of constantly having to remove the Oyvind Leonhardsens of the world... Seb Patrick 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I do like the look of the revamped article, but it does flag off towards the end (pun intended). The problem with a list of notable players is that:

1. It is entirely POV and that cannot ever be sorted.
2. There are that many of them, that it does become a bit boring looking through screen after screen of flags.

My suggestion is to have a list of superlative players - eg :

• Longest serving player
• Player with the highest goal tally
• Goalie with the longest clean sheet record
• Player who won most tropies championships etc

Of course the list would have to be strictly defined, otherwise you'd have a list that included the player who scoffed the most oranges at half time, or somesuch. I do think that if this idea were to be adopted, it would prove to be useful and controlable. DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 08:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to replace it with something akin to the Arsenal page's notable players section. A small list with ten or fewer players per decade, with a link to the list page. It's tidy, and making it more exclusive would ward off the inclusion of people like Oyvind Leonhardsen, I reckon. ArtVandelay13 08:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I see with your suggestion, ArtVandelay13, is that it's not really any different to what we currently have. Heck I couldn't remember that Davor Šuker ever played for the Gunners! Why is he there? Is David Rocastle or Michael Thomas (that one goal aside) particularly famous? I know that the Arsenal article was once a featured article, but scanning the talk archives & peer review I see no discussion about the POV nature of this section. aLii 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's how Template F.C. has it. To be honest, it's hard to see how almost any article can be completely free from POV, and completely objective, particularly a section like this, a selective list. I think this would be a fairly minor and harmless level of POV, if we picked 10 or so players per decade, thar are agreed on here, and have definitely contributed something notable (relative to their decade), then it would work. It would need to be watched, perhaps, but it's hard to see a solution that's completely free from POV. ArtVandelay13 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to start that discussion off then by nominating, *shudder*, ~110 players? aLii 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I would still like to delete that section for the reasons that I have given above. This seems to be the feeling of most editors that have commented at this time. I agree that subjectivity will creep into an article but, in recognising that, we should strive even harder to maintain objectivety by avoiding POV lists — especially as we strive for FA satus (eventually). If we are able to reach a unanimous consensus here to include notable players only within the body of text (which is already done) and under the "Records and Miscellany" section, where appropriate, and disregard a section that we all see as POV and somewhat unmanageable, we will have made a major step in that direction. I know that Template F.C. has a provision for such a section but that is not mandatory. Indeed, after we have reached a consensus here, it may be worth having a similar debate on the talk pages of that template. -- Alias Flood 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd suggest removing it altogether, as the article on the list of players is very good. However, as an alternative way to get it down to a manageable level, perhaps the answer is to start from 0 players and then build it up. Start with, say, everyone who scored in a European Cup final, then perhaps those players that captained the side. Of course, it's still POV as it requires picking the category of player to add, but it might be a step forward. ...As I say though, I think it could comfortably come out of the article without being a major problem. KeithD 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

We could of course use the club's own official Hall of Fame which was decided over a number of months with articles appearing in the official magazine. The club convened a panel of judges to find two players per decade:

"Liverpool Football Club is the most successful English League Team ever and in 2002 started out on a process to officially recognise the players of the past. The Hall of Fame was generated from the fans and ex-players making suggestions to a top notch panel of judges. That panel consisted of Ian Callaghan, Alan Hansen, Phil Thompson, Brian Hall and Rick Parry. The club set out to elect two players from each decade of existence to the Hall of Fame. Below are those duly elected members."

The list can be found here: http://www.liverweb.org.uk/hallfame.htm --172.142.68.154 07:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this list makes more sense since it was concise (2 per decade) and panel judged (also peer reviewed by players in a sense) I agree that we should use it rather than fall into the mistake of POV lists that we have no qualifications to make. --raraa 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Formation

Do we really need this? It's different for teams like AC Milan, where the 05/06 season saw a generally consistent lineup week in/week out, but choosing which players to put in a formation for Liverpool is inherently POV - the one listed, for example, puts Gerrard on right midfield when he surely played just as many games in the centre, and includes Morientes/Cisse as the first choice striker pairing despite the fact that it was inconsistent all season. I just don't think such a section is workable in the LFC article, nor is it particularly necessary. But I've removed it a couple of times, now, so I don't want to be accused of excessively reverting. Seb Patrick 11:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No, you're right, it needs to go, as you say, Liverpool have a less consistent line-up than almost anyone. ArtVandelay13 11:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I was just coming onto the talk page to comment on this- surely its misleading to suggest that Liverpool simply had a fixed starting XI- and given the changes in team lineup, it's always likely to be subjective at best. Even the formation, whilst true a lot of the time, was not really an unchangable given, given Rafa's tendency to change things. --86.144.143.22 14:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the formation before and notified that editor but I see that "new" editors are re-posting it. -- Alias Flood 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, it should be removed, no point in having it, removing it will also pave the way for featured article -- --raraa 14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notable players list (again)

Meanwhile, someone's altered the notable players list, now ordering it by country. I know there's discussion about whether or not to keep the thing anyway, but should we really leave it like this? I didn't want to revert an apparent good faith edit, but the HTML formatting seems totally unnecessary, there are now a lot of redlinks, and the list is just too long. If it's going to be included at all, I think it should be in the by-decades manner it was before, but I thought I'd open the floor to opinions and consensus before making any changes. Seb Patrick 11:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, we need to decide once and for all what to do with it. I think the Arsenal-style (see earlier discussion) or nothing are both workable, but the big table needs to go. ArtVandelay13 11:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I have made my views clear before in that I would like to see the section removed completely due to its inherent POV and needless duplication of List of Liverpool F.C. players. -- Alias Flood 16:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Then we need a vote to decide once and for all. Ending next Sunday, whichever is the most popular we settle on. Deal? I vote Short Summary by Decade. ArtVandelay13 20:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

If there is to be a straw poll on this issue, the guideline is that "Consensus must be reached about the nature of the survey before it starts. Allow about a week for this process." We almost have a unanimous agreement to delete the section completely from the discussions at Suggestion for total removal of "Notable former players" list. My preference is that we try to reach a consensus to delete this section completely due to the following reasons:

1. It is unmanageable in its present format
2. It is WP:POV in its present format
3. If we change it to reflect players with 100 first team appearances, it will be as long as the List of Liverpool F.C. players
4. If we change it to reflect players with 100 first team appearances, it will duplicate that list and make that list redundant
5. If it is reorganised into decade format, it will still be WP:POV
6. If it is reorganised into decade format with a qualifying criterion, such as 100 appearances, it will be even longer and make List of Liverpool F.C. players redundant
7. The article is too "listy" as it is and will stand little or no chance of attaining Featured Article Status unless we start cutting the lists now
8. The article has a "Records and miscellany" section that caters for players of outstanding note
9. Players of outstanding note should be used illustratively within the article (as many already are)

-- Alias Flood 04:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with all of the above, particularly point 9. ArtVandelay13's suggestion strikes me as something that could perhaps be worked into a prosified section; either that, or simply work any of the most important players into the already-existant text. Seb Patrick 06:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed per AF & SP. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:24, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Alias Flood's comments. As I've said above I think that the section should go.

I would say it is duplication of the Liverpool F.C. players cat myself. I think it makes the article too long but I know this is just my POV. I favour for links to former players section and that's all - think it would keep the size of the article down a lot Steve-Ho 12:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the list as it stands at the moment is ridiculously excessive - HOWEVER, any reasonably casual visitor to the article on Liverpool FC will certainly look for a list of the most notable figures from the club's history. To remove any list of notable players altogether because the list is becoming unmanagable seems to go to far. What are required are much more stringent criteria for mention as a notable player on this page - as in, among the top few in terms of appearances, goals, etc., and maybe also those who captained the team to a number of trophy victories. So we would then have a short list of the 'true greats', so to speak, and a link to the the List of Liverpool F.C. players for those who want to see more. So, disagree with removing the section entirely, but yes to tightening it up radically.--Robotforaday 23:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The problem I have with making a decision on such criteria, though, is that it's an inherently POV decision, and one that could be debated over for ages. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be as unbiased as possible, and selecting which players qualify as "notable" and which ones don't is, unfortunately, a biased and subjective decision whatever way you look at it. Furthermore, if the article is ever to make Featured status (although it needs to become a lot more stable before doing so), then the number of lists needs to be kept to a minimum - articles always get marked down for having lists and are usually told to integrate them into prose wherever possible. While it would still be subjective, though, I have less objection to a couple of paragraphs discussing the most notable players - it's perhaps the only way that the section can really be kept, and furthermore it precludes people just adding the odd player whenever they feel like it, as thought has to go into writing about each one. Seb Patrick 07:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

You're probably right, a couple of paragraphs of text sound far and away the best way. With regards to the undoubted fact that lists need to be minimised for gaining featured article status, what was Arsenal F.C. like at the time they were made featured article? Did they have a list on the page (as they do now) in addition to a longer list on a seperate page?--Robotforaday 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to note the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Listing famous players. Perhaps this discussion can move there? aLii 12:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I really can't stand looking at a list of notable former players that includes Nunez any longer! argh! We must get some rules for this section or remove it. aLii 11:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed The list is not only obtrusive but innaccurate. Delete the whole thing please. If you can't intuit this information from the article, then there is clearly a problem from the article. Audioweevil 03:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Audioweevil

The club has its own official Hall of Fame with just two players per decade. The list is here: http://www.liverweb.org.uk/hallfame.htm --Leipzigger98 07:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's been a week, and the consensus is pretty much overwhelmingly in favour of getting rid of the list, at least in its current form. I don't think the list as it stands should wait any longer through discussion of how to replace it - I think we should delete it now and then discuss how to replace it, either with a much shorter list (such as the above-mentioned hall of fame) or a couple of paragraphs of prose outlining the few most important players. Agreed? Seb Patrick 08:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Agreed. And I'd go for the hall of fame, with a link to the bigger list. ArtVandelay13 08:52, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Agreed. And I'd go for the hall of fame, with a link to the bigger list.

--raraa 14:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Carl Medjani

Is there a source for his transfer to Lorient, as added to this page and his own entry? I can't find one, and he is still listed on the LFC squad page. ArtVandelay13 10:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Lorient website said a week (or more) back that he was due to sign a 3 year contract with them (I think... my French is a bit rusty!), but there's been no official reportage other than that. I'd keep him on the LFC page until we get confirmation. Likewise, I'm wondering if there might be a temptation to count Diao as transferred while he's "on trial" at Charlton, but I'd imagine that he's still under contract to Liverpool and so should be kept on the page until/if he leaves. Seb Patrick 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Diao should stay - trials are too 'fluid' to count, they don't really belong on WP. You never see them mentioned in official records, for example. ArtVandelay13 10:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Reserve Squad list

While I do think it's a good idea to have a list of the reserve squad players, who I strongly support, the article is clearly too list heavy as it stands at the moment. Therefore, I have taken the plunge and moved the neat table created (I think) by Alii_h to a new page with information on the Liverpool F.C. Reserves. I have linked to the reserve team page below the current first team squad list. I think this is probably the best way to preserve the important information whilst preventing the article from going on forever and consisting of list after list.--Robotforaday 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good work, I agree that this is probably better. (Oh and yes I did create the table). aLii 08:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Dean Bouzanis does not appear in the reserves even though he was signed by Liverpool in 2007. He is currently out on loan to Sydney F.C.

Honours (new addition of coming runners-up?)

With Liverpool FC having such a great history, they have also came runners-up many times in major compeitions. I think that we should note this, and even more when you see other teams do it, and ours would definitely look more impressive, just like the winners part! :D Anyway, I hope it gets the go ahead! There are about two suitable places that it could go - underneath the 'FA Youth Challenger Cup' wins, and have them all again but in their respective runners-up years, or, where it already has the winners years, we could put the runners-up years right underneath the winners years for the competition in question, and maybe underneath the competition name, have 'WINNER:' and 'RUNNER-UP:', if you know what I mean. We could do that, and I would appreciate it, but I would like to know what the rest of you think.

By the way, about us mainly being a catholic club, well we're loved and supported well all over the World that much that I think just about every religion is involved with fans of LFC, so one single one couldn't be said, only a majority, and it's nothing of an official thing anyway, unlike Rangers and Celtic.

Anyway, back to the main discussion point!

Also, I won't be able to check this as much as I'd prefer to, because I'm currently not allowed on the computer, and need a 5AMP fuse to get on it in the first place. The household think I'm not onto them, but I am - only I can't keep getting the fuse out of the digital box! Adiós hombres, and remember about the runners-up discussion.

User: Mazito 02:24, 02 August 2006 (BST/British Summer Time - GMT+1)

Mazito speaks! Excellent to see that you're at last joining in some form of discussion after all the unreplied messages I've left for you. Unfortunately I've found myself reverting every single one of your edits for two reasons

1. The history section is meant to be a brief overview, not inclusive of every little thing
2. When you edit the already perfectly good Honours section you always break it by changing "FA Cup" to "FA Challenge Cup" or whatever. The FA Cup is the FA Cup is the FA Cup. It is not the FA Challenge Cup. No-one calls it that.

OK, so addressing this actual point, I don't have any strong feelings either way as to whether runners-up placings should be included. The only points against that I have are:

1. Isn't Liverpool FC all about winning things rather than coming second?
2. It'd make the list huge and unwieldy.

aLii 07:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Only clubs that never win anything should feel the need to crow about being runners-up. For a club with Liverpool's track record of success, being a runner-up is failure. And given the amount of finals and whatnot that Liverpool have been in - and the years in the 1980s when, every time they didn't win the league, they were usually second - it really would just make the list ridiculously large. Seb Patrick 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The is no point informing a reading of this article how many times Liverpool have been runners up. Remember this isn't a LFC stats page its an informative article detailing Liverpool Football Club. Jamie 11:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It should be a Wikipedia decision not a Liverpool decision. Liverpool's ethos may be that first is everything, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a Wikipedia article shouldn't mention the runners-up spots. It'd probably be too unwieldy for the main article, but on a separate article on Liverpool FC statistics, records, or something like that, it would be useful information, even if it just mentioned the number of times, rather than listing every single year. KeithD 15:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I just realised how "hur hur hur, Liverpool are better than you!!!111" my last comment sounded - it wasn't really meant like that, it was more of a factual statement that, say, being beaten by Manchester United in an FA Cup Final (such as in 1996) means a lot less to Liverpool fans than, say, Millwall fans (as in 2004). For many clubs, just getting to the final of a cup competition, or being runner-up (or even third or fourth) in the table one season, is an achievement in and of itself, and I don't mean that to sound disparaging (heck, before leaving Liverpool I regularly went to see my local Unibond League team), it's simply the way things are. In contrast to KeithD, I actually think it is a matter that should be judged on each individual case. For example, if a non-league club had reached the fourth round of the FA Cup one year, that might go down as their most notable achievement, and as such you'd put it in the article - but would you list every time that Arsenal had done it in their article? Seb Patrick 15:51, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

OK guys. And yeah, I finally speak. Maybe the runner-up years should not be on the 'honours' part, but I thought in my head, and then read shortly after it (by the user: KeithD), that we should actually make a new article on it, in the 'see also' section, and now I'm thinking about it, we could also do semi-final appearances (without progressing to the final), and quarter-final appearances, and maybe even more. And make many statistics like how many FA (Challenge) Cup appearances, etc. Oh yeah, and by the way, I put 'challenge' in it because that's what it's actually called, 'The Football Association Challenge Cup', I wouldn't put it there if it wasn't actually called that! I know it's not usually referred to as that, but that's only to shorten it down, especially when it's used a lot, and it's just basically a more common name. I'm not the kind of person to add things in, especially like that, if it wasn't perfectly right, man! Anyway, I'll remove it. But the rest of the part of the 'honours', that should stay the same (in my [great] way).

Mazito 01:22, 03 August 2006 (BST - GMT+1)

I really do not think that is the way to go. We already have Liverpool F.C. statistics and this main article should be a well-presented overview of the club not a Liverpool database consisting of every score or the club's position in every competition. In the Honours section, only the outright honours that the club has won should be shown for a club of Liverpool's stature. Liverpool have been a high achieving club for over a century now and the article should reflect that fact. Semi-finals may be worthy of a mention within the main prose to illustrate a particular point (most likely a lean spell) but they are not worthy of a separate article — reaching quarter-finals is even less deserving. If articles are created for such trivia, they would not fare well in articles for deletion. Everything needs to be kept in context and entered within prose where appropriate ensuring that we write about notable matters that are verifiable from reliable sources, and conform to a neutral point of view. As for the Challenge Cup, Wikipedia's Manual of Style on names suggests that the most well known term is used which is the FA Cup — although showing that FA stands for Football Association early in the article is only good manners. I am also opposed to the warning at the beginning of this article stating that "The 'honours' section should be left as it is...I don't see any reason to edit the stuff now (but acceptable stuff can be added)". This is against the spirit of Wikipedia and it is my intention to remove it in due course. -- Alias Flood 00:48, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

For all kinds of crazily in-depth LFC stats just make a link to www.lfchistory.net. Wikipedia doesn't need to and should not mirror all this information. Also I think anything more than runners-up placings is complete overkill for the statistics page. aLii 08:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The writer of the times Liverpool FC has been runner-up speaks: I agree that here there are the Honours of the team, but is not to be runner-up a Honour? I think that it is. And you can see the pages of Juventus and there are written in the honours the times the team has been runner-up. And finaly, I am not writting every position of Liverpool FC has got every year, I am writting the honours.

--200.86.125.180 01:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Disasters sentence

Ok, so one of the lead section sentences has been bugging me for a long while, but I've been loathe to change it because of the surrounding emotions. Basically this bit: Heysel in 1985 when thirty-nine spectators were crushed, and at Hillsborough in 1989 where 96 people died and 766 were injured. My problems with it are:

1. thirty-nine vs. 96, i.e. one in numeric characters and one spelt out — both should be the same. I would spell both out.
2. No injured number vs. 766. We should either list both or neither (600 or so were injured at Heysel). I would list neither — the links to the main articles are there.

Any opinions before I change it? aLii 09:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree with both. I'd say that numbers below 100 should generally be spelled out; and I agree with removing the number of injuries, it doesn't seem a necessary detail to include in the lead. Seb Patrick 09:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add my agreement to both -- Alias Flood 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Section naming

I actually want to talk about the naming of the sections of the History of Liverpool Football Club page, I left a note on it's talk page, but I guess less people watch that page, and so there are no responses. To keep you all from having to make an extra click I'll paste the message here:

Having just seen the section titles basically returned to what they once were, which was criticised, I thought that it is worth discussing what should be used here.

When this info was in the Liverpool F.C. article someone nominated it for Good Article status. It failed with criticisms such as:

"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."

I therefore named the sections in this kind of way, 1983–1985 — Joe Fagan's two season reign. This has just been renamed The Joe Fagan Era (1983-1985): Two seasons of success. This is obviously tending back towards how it used to be.

Looking at the Manual of Style for headings the main points that leap out at me are:

• Keep the heading short: headings with more than 10 words may violate their purpose.
• Avoid unnecessary words or redundancy in headings:
  • Avoid "a/an/the" in headings: use "Voyage" instead of "The voyage"; use "Traders" instead of "A trader"

Therefore I propose that titles should be, for example,

• 1959–1974: Bill Shankly's era
  • or Bill Shankly's era (etc.)
• 1983–1985: Joe Fagan's two season reign
• 2004–present: Rafael Benítez's era

I would (personally) prefer more descriptive titles, any ideas for some short, snappy and descriptive without sounding like it was written by a fan? I can't think of anything better within six or so words. Titles are indeed only titles, prose should be kept in the article. The current titles look messy to me (especially in the contents box) aLii 22:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Grammar

Liverpool are a football team. More specifically, they are a BRITISH football team. Therefore, British English should be used when describing them. Therefore, the opening sentence should not read "Liverpool is a professional football club", it should say "Liverpool are a professional football club". If anyone wishes to debate the matter, please do so here before simply reverting others' edits. Seb Patrick 14:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know much about British English, but I feel like wikipedia is more of an American English site. And therefore should use is. In addition, a quick search of 6 football clubs turned out this result. Reading, Middlesborough, Newcastle United, Leeds United, Manchester United all use 'is'. Chelsea does use 'are'. In English grammar, Liverpool FC is a singular pronoun (i hope theres no dispute there) and therefore should use 'is'. Not to mention, 'are' sounds wrong. eventine 15:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It only "sounds wrong" to you, though - not to many millions of people in this country who talk about football. Go to BBC Sport and have a look at the articles there - tell me how many of them use singular verbs when describing football clubs? Also, your point about Wikipedia being an "American site" is completely at odds with the site's own philosophies and guidelines - please see the Manual of Style, where it states that If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect.

Strictly speaking, in English, both forms are acceptable, depending on how you view the noun being used. However, it is a convention within football-related circles to use the plural, as most people consider a team or a club to be a group - rather than singular - entity. Therefore, if Wikipedia decides to go against the grain of the majority of football-related reportage, it begins to look extremely incongruous. Seb Patrick 15:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• My point was that while choosing between British and American english, we should go towards more American. I disagree with the strong tie since Liverpool is not a small town team with a small following. Liverpool is renowned world wide and has one of the greatest histories. I've gone through a bunch of news article outside in addition to BBC and you're right most do use 'are'; on the other hand, every one of these articles originate in from england.

Just a point, while a club ay be considered a group, a group is still singular ie, audience. Only when we talk about multi-groups does it switch over to plural. I think this should be voted on instead of edit warred. eventine 15:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Any vote here will come out in favour of using "are" I would guess. It's certainly my vote. Using grammar that isn't used in the majority of related news articles seems dumb to me. aLii 16:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

My point was that while choosing between British and American english, we should go towards more American. - and my point was that Wikipedia guidelines disagree with you. This is an international site, not an American one. Seb Patrick 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• And international uses American English for the most part. eventine 18:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia convention is to use the grammar applicable to the country specific to the article. This Wikipedia article on discretionary plurals also substantiates the use of "are". -- Alias Flood 18:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats not what it says. The article says what Seb said, If an article's subject has a strong tie to a specific region/dialect, it should use that dialect. I dispute that Liverpool FC has a strong tie with the region, its not local, its world renown. And the second article says that singular vs plural is used at own descretion; mine says is, Sebs says are and we're discussing it. eventine 18:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a British club and the dialect should be British, hence the discretionary plural is correct. -- Alias Flood 18:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

A discretionary singular would be correct too. eventine 18:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I dispute that Liverpool FC has a strong tie with the region, its not local, its world renown. - as someone who was born in Liverpool (but has since moved away), who has grown up supporting the team that generations of my family have supported, and who was among the many thousands of people outside St George's Hall to greet the European Cup-winning team bus last year, I take great offence at this statement. As one of the most successful teams in the history of the world's most popular sport - yes, Liverpool are renowned worldwide. And yes, as a result of that success, they have many fans worldwide. But I think it might be prudent to do a little more investigation into British football fan culture before making statements such as the above - it may not be the case in America, but over here, football teams are very much a matter of local pride and interest. And I reiterate, as has been said by others above and below - Wikipedia should reflect the fact that Liverpool are a British club. And the examples I cited from the BBC (and from any other sports reportage in this country) demonstrate that David's views, while valid, are very much in the minority. Seb Patrick 21:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

From the MoS: Article on Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings: British English usage and spelling. Replace The Lord of the Rings with Liverpool F.C.. It would appear that the argument is not against the use of English in this article but against the MoS itself as this article conforms to the MoS. -- Alias Flood 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Go into the article, The Lord of the Rings is. And while we're on that, LotR is a terrible example since it really isn't specific to England. Even though it originated in England, LotR has a massive following throughout the world. That to me defies 'specific'. Whereas the American Civil War happened only in the US (though Britain was slightly involved), Montreal will always be in Canada (unless US invades or Quebec declares independence), Uluru is in Australia, EU exists only in European counties. My point is, of the examples, LotR is the only one where it originated in but isn't confined to the country of origin.

Both of you, being (I think) British, clearly know the rules better than I. But from what I got from you two, MoS says that it can be either singular or plural at a person's own descretion. Even if we are to conform Liverpool to the British English, there is nothing that says it must be 'are'. I think most Wikipedia readers would have an easier time with 'is'. eventine 19:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I have the following rules when writing about singular entities.

• The Spice Girls are going to perform a concert ...
• The Beatles are a famous band from Liverpool ...
• Simply Red is a band fronted by Mick Hucknall ...
• Tranmere Rovers are based across the River Mersey from Liverpool ...
• Bolton Wanderers are a Premiership team ...
• Chelsea is a football club from London ...
• Liverpool is the most successful team ...

Even in informal spoken English I would tend to use the phrase "Who is Liverpool playing this weekend?" I think that where there is an implied plural (ie Wanderers), are simply sounds better: equally where there is an implied singular (ie Chelsea) is is more agreeable.

With the singular being discretionary, in all cases is or are are both correct. However, I would, in this case, prefer to read Liverpool is.

BTW, I am English and coincidentally from Liverpool. DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 19:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds really good to me. Quick question then: LotR is or are?eventine 19:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia is so reliant on citing sources, if anyone can show me a single British news article that refers to a football club in the manner David describes above, then I'm prepared to accept that there's a debate. But look at BBC Sport. Sky Sports. Football365. Every single newspaper. They all use the plural when describing football teams. I've never seen a report that goes "Chelsea has just launched a bid to sign so and so". "Liverpool is playing Everton tonight". For that reason, I think it's clear that - in this country - the view that the singular should be used is in an obvious minority. Ergo, the plural should be used. Seb Patrick 21:13, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Jamie Carragher says "Liverpool is my city and Liverpool is my team" here and Rafa Benítez says "Liverpool is the most important club in England" here.

--Quywompka 13:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And another point - since I'm so determinedly hammering this home here ;-) - consider the following groups of sentences :

1. Liverpool FC are a football club from the North of England. They play in the Premiership.
2. Liverpool FC is a football club from the North of England. It plays in the Premiership.
3. Liverpool FC is a football club from the North of England. They play in the Premiership.

Even if you decide to use singular verbs when following the noun itself... what pronoun do you use? Even in the examples you cited above, would you ever use the word "it", instead of "they", to describe the club? Didn't think so, no - that would be ludicrous. Therefore, if you're someone who prefers to use the singular, you'd have to go for option (3). But if we use that style in the Wikipedia article, then the person is jumping all over the place from sentence to sentence - and the article is just going to look bad. For me, the important thing is consistency throughout - and that creates all sorts of problems if you're using the singular. Seb Patrick 21:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Even in informal spoken English I would tend to use the phrase "Who is Liverpool playing this weekend?" - and that is exactly the point. I would be very surprised if you could find one British/ English person who would not say "who are". Liverpool are a British football club and therefore British English should be used in this article Steve-Ho 21:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a Liverpool and last time I check I was british and spoke british english. Most educated Liverpool fans would use the plural, "Liverpool are playing....", to say most people would say "Liverpool is playing...." is ridiculous. Ignore anyone who argues standard english grammer is the wrong. Jamie 07:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

To quote Jamie above (and to sidetrack, somewhat) "I'm a Liverpool and last time I check I was british and spoke british english." Hmmmm. Anyway, my point was that no-one has stated in this discussion that "most people would say "Liverpool is playing...." DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 18:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This discussion doesn't belong here, it belongs at the Manual of Style. Until a change is made there, the plural should be used. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

On purpose and totally due to this discussion; tonight I asked (in the pub) "Who is playing Liverpool tonight" (Champions League) and the answer was "some team from Israel". Not a flinch, not a single question with regards to the grammatical construction of my sentence. I'm still not convinced either,and,or whichever way the introductory sentence should be phrased !! But I think that I still belive Liverpool FC to be a singular entity (ie is) and sentences around it should be thus :

• Liverpool FC is a football club from the North of England. The team plays in the Premiership...

Either way it makes sense, but, surely, surely, surely (and don't call me Shirley ... I am English (from Liverpool), not American), Liverpool FC is a football team. It is a team based in Liverpool. It is the most suuccesful team .... blah, blah, blah DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

British English does not favour "are" over "is" when talking about football clubs. According to David Crystal, for example, "the difference is one of point of view: the singular stresses the impersonal unity of the group; the plural the personal individuality of its members." (Similar claims are made in Alexander; Quirk and Greembaum; Thomson and Martinet - in fact every standard British English grammar.) --Quywompka 12:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Liverpool F.C.?

What would people feel about a LFC Wikiproject, similar to the Sheffield Wednesday one? I think it might be a good way of co-ordinating all the pages together, enabling better discussion, planning what needs to be done, etc. Any thoughts? ArtVandelay13 14:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It does sound like a nice idea to try and get various historical pages up-to-scratch. However I'm not convinced there is a need for it. What pages would you propose including? aLii 14:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say pretty much everything in Category:Liverpool F.C., plus the squad template, the current squad and staff, major (or all?) ex-players. Going by what the Sheff Wed one cover, really. ArtVandelay13 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

First question if you are thinking of starting a WikiProject - will there be enough regular contributors? The Sheffield Wednesday one hasn't got off the ground yet, and might never do. At least half a dozen editors (and preferably more than 10) need to contribute regularly for the effort of running a project to be worth it. Oldelpaso 17:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave any discussions as to the need for the project to others, but if one does start, I'd certainly be keen to join it. Robotforaday 20:45, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have it, it makes sense, I have failed to contribute, to this article because because of excessive reverting and edit wars, if we do have a project we could vote on debatable things internally.

Diao & Le Tallec (or: Squad in general)

Now that the season has started and the first team has been named, and these two don't have numbers and haven't left, I've moved them to the reserve squad and taken them off the template. ArtVandelay13 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough to me. Seb Patrick 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a bit of an issue with the new numbers (36-39 for Hammill, Peltier, Darby and Lindfield), though. I would take these as official, and not just database numbers, because these four players are listed with UEFA in LFC's Champions League squad (indeed Peltier was on the bench last night), but I'm not sure what this means for David Mannix, who was listed as 38 in the original list. You can have separate numbers for the Champions League and domestic football, but it starts to get complicated. ArtVandelay13 08:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Dean Bouzanis is not in the Liverpool reserves or the first team. He was signed in 2007 and is currently out on loan to Sydney F.C.

Liverpool related watchlist

As there seems to be a large amount of regular Liverpool F.C. editors, and I've been having some problems keeping up to date with various anti-Liverpool edits, I thought it would be useful to create a list of Liverpool related articles that need watching. Right now I'm locked in slow edit wars with anonymous users on the following pages:

• Kenny Dalglish
• You'll Never Walk Alone

It's incredibly irritating to come home, check my watchlist and find these poor edits have been sitting there all day! Manchester United first sang YNWA! As if... aLii 19:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

• Stevie G gets a lot of vandalism, and I keep an eye on it when I can. Funnily enough, it generally seems to be about a fifty-fifty split of positive/negative nonsense! This and this, for example, are two of my favourite pieces of vandalism I've ever seen on WP, just 'cos they're so stupid, random and funny!

Of the Liverpool squad, I think SG is the most prone to vandalism; but Carra, being a Scouser, probably gets a fair bit from angry Mancs, too. And Crouch gets a fair bit from the heightists who can't accept that he's actually a decent player, as well. Seb Patrick 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I didn't have King Kenny or YNWA on my watchlist ... but I do now. -- Alias Flood 23:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

sigh... this goes on and on. I have reverted Kenny Dalglish three times already today. Anyone care to look over the case and back me up or perhaps even disagree with me on his talk page? aLii 22:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok so now I've been banned for 24 hours for my reverts of the Kenny Dalglish page! Fat lot of good this watchlist did me. 81.158.243.141 08:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (aLii)

I'm sorry to hear that, Alii- I thought that the 3RR didn't always apply for bios of living persons?Robotforaday 16:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

THE EDIT/VERSION OF Mazito AS OPPOSED TO THE EDIT OF Whoever-it-is, MAYBE Alias

I have edited it, but it just gets changed back, and whoever it is knows what I'm on about. I think it's User:Alias. My version it basically the same, with the very start introduction slightly different, and actually grammatically correct (unlike now, North-West should have capitals at the beginning, and a dash in between the two words, although that is commonly missed out on stuff these days, but is correct more to be there), but I really do think my wording is better. Also, the honours, for example, for the league title, etc., I have done the year of winning across both the calendar years, instead of just the actual year it finished and was won, for example, the last time LFC won the league title, my way has 1989/90, as opposed to 1990. Only the UEFA Super Cup and the FA Community Shield is the single year, like they should be. The honours themselves are more perfectly named also (and for you who know what I'm on about, the 'Challenge' isn't in the FA Cup, I took that out after I read the comments).

What's bad is, and I haven't even bothered changing it, we have shared the FA Community Shield 5 times, not 4, and the one missed out is the most recent shared title, in 1990, but it'd probably get changed back even if I did change it. I could probably even do a section on it, then everyone says oh yeah, '¡Tú eres correcto Mazito!', 'You are correct Mazito!'.

And one more thing's different. On the history, there's a few more sentences at the bottom, but not much. More brief history, important but not originally included. Just them 3 points really. User:Alias, I told ya' I'd make a discussion on it, and I have. I told you a few days ago, and said it would be not straight away because I'm not allowed on my comp., but I have managed to do it now. I'd like to check this shortly and loads after that, but I probably won't be on for a few more days guys, so I am trying, but I probably won't be able to answer straight away. The situación is proper unfairly fuckin' bad, FFS! Maybe some people by now have noticed the kind of times I have to resort to and wait just to get on, and it's been like this for kinda' ages now! FFS man! Anyway, this needs sorting out, and mine is surely the better way. There isn't much difference anyway, only mine makes it that little bit more perfect, and might achieve us the star and into that list which Man. City FC are in. I'll try and reply as quick as I can, but I apologise for the wait, it's seriously not my fault. Get sortin' out guys, and well done LFC on their 15th Community Shield success. Adiós... User:Mazito 03:19, 14 August 2006 (BST/GMT+1)

And now, I'm going to change it back for this time, so some people can see what it's like, if it isn't changed back, that is. But I'm going to change it again, and I actually need to anyway to update the honours. And the honours has 3 little numbers at the bottom, which is like a key, and they mean important things. The 3rd one is about to be added newly, and if you manage to see it, you'll know why, or at least ya' should do like...

User:Mazito 03:26, 14 August 2006 (BST/GMT+1)

The main problem I have with your edit is it's carelessness. For instance see the disasters sentence discussion above - you revert concensus there.

I also believe that having your footnote numbers (^{1 2}) in the Honours section is a bad idea. I personally wrote the prose for that section so that they could be removed. Having them only adds to the complexcity of the list.

I have no real opinion on how the years are listed, but perhaps listing single years rather than entire seasons is neater. 81.158.243.141 08:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (aLii)

My major concern was the note which read, "ATTENTION: The 'honours' section should be left as it is...I don't see any reason to edit the stuff now (but acceptable stuff can be added). This LFC page is looking great now, no-one mess it up! This is a Wiki which encourages good faith edits — and civility. WP:POV comments, such as "dubious penalty", should also be kept out of the article unless they come from reliable sources. Obviously, as other editors also reverted, I was not the only one that felt this way. -- Alias Flood 17:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well little things like that can be easily changed! Overall, mine is well better! I can change that little opinion and the little numbers on the honours, and then there basically isn't anything anyone else is moaning about, and my way is better. I'll make it like that now. But infact, I didn't say it was a dubious penalty, whoever said that, man! You might be on about the FCWC Final, where I stated a fact about replays showing AT LEAST one of the goals should've stood! I'm going to change it back to mine. Nothing really even needs changing. And if there's one thing my edit isn't, it's careless! FFS!

User:Mazito 01:43, 15 August 2006 (BST/GMT+1)

I'm afraid it's still the same careless, POV-filled revert. I don't see what you've done to address any of our concerns? I also don't see a single thing that you've made better. Your edit should be reverted to the previous state in my opinion. aLii 01:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Question for Mazito: Do you know how to do a diff? Have a look at this. You just broke:

• the infobox format
• the disasters sentence and other details surrounding Heysel
• the Liverpool Senior Cup wikilink
• added POV about the penalty claim
• added pointless prose about losing the league cup final and European Super Cup
• re-added photos with dubious copyright status
• removed the footnotes describing the renaming of various competitions
• re-added your footnotes, just using * and ** instead of ^{1 2}
• removed the loan transfer of Scott Carson

And that's not all of it! You even added the ATTENTION: The 'honours' section should be left as it is bit again too! Why do you believe that this isn't a careless edit? On top of all of that the page isn't better in any way (my opinion) I suggest that if you want to put the seasons into the honours section you start a vote about it. Otherwise please do not persist in this reverting. cheers, aLii 01:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As much as I admire your enthusiasm, Mazito, I have to agree with aLii. If you look back on this talk page, you will see where and how consensus has been reached about many things, some of which you are changing with these edits. I suggest that you strive to reach consensus about these edits and respect the views of your fellow editors if you are unable to reach that consensus. -- Alias Flood 01:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Mazito, but I agree with the above. If there are good changes you have to make - and I'm sure there are - they're getting lost among the damaging ones. You keep breaking the infobox, changing an agreed-upon format for years, adding an un-civil note, POV claims, and so on. Instead of just wholesale reverting others' edits to your own (thus removing, as has been said, crucial information added since such as Carson's transfer), you should take the time to look carefully and make some individual edits that can be agreed upon. There's nothing wrong with adding fresh information, but in some cases, you're changing others' work to a format that you feel is best, and WP convention generally dictates that that shouldn't be done. Seb Patrick 15:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

BBC Personality Team of the Year Awards

Do we really need to mention these in the honours section? I mean, they're not really on a par with the real trophies the club has competed for and won. Personally if I think somebody really thinks them important, they should be added to the prose, but to have them listed there like they were league or champions league titles just looks a little silly. It's only the result of a poll, after all, not the result of a football tournament. Robotforaday 12:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a decent honour LFC has won, and MUFC shows it for their honours also, so we want team to know we've also won it, and although this isn't a main reason, we've won it more than them!!!!!!

User:Mazito 01:44, 15 August 2006 (BST/GMT+1)

hahaha, I put it there, but have to admit I've been thinking of removing it! Perhaps it merits a mention in a trivia section, I don't know. It looks lame where it is though. aLii 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, is Liverpool that pathetic that they have to show they've won everything more than Man Utd? They've won the league more times. They've won the european cup more times. But still, in order to show they're more important, they have to show they've won the BBC personality team of the year award more times? Come on! There's better evidence than that, surely! I think yes, move it to the trivia section, that seems a better place... and you can probably mention there in the prose that it's more than Man Utd have won it, if you feel it merits it.Robotforaday 03:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it should go. It could be mentioned in other stuff, but if it's not, no problem, having it on the Sports Personality page is enough. ArtVandelay13 08:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OMG! Yous are all making it seem didn't, and exactly the thing I didn't want to happen about making a big deal with the Man. United FC thing has happened. It wasn't a main point, I was just saying it like... Anyway I'm not even going to explain about the stuff you made me seem bad about just before, but believe me, my edit is good, and even if there was mistakes, they could be sorted out! So we can start the voting for the first thing. This is at the vert start (not counting about the Uruguayan team LFC) how it currently is.

• Liverpool Football Club (usually known simply as Liverpool) are a professional football club based in Liverpool, in the north west of England.

And I want it to be like:

• Liverpool Football Club (usually known simply as Liverpool) is a professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, North-West England.

Not only is mine better, but it's perfect in English grammatical terms, whereas the North-West doesn't even start with capital letters where they should be, and doesn't have the dash in between it either. So in my slight rebuilding programme, I will go bit by bit. What do you people think is the best. The voting now starts here. I only do the best, but because some people seem to have different ways of how to have it, this is the only way, but you people should see sense. So what does everyone think anyway? The top one, which is the current (and bad) one, or the bottom one, which is my way, perfect, unlike the top one, and naturally better. It's already been changed a few times, but this needs permission for it to be changed again. Get voting people... User:Mazito 00:58, 16 August 2006 (BST/GMT+1)

I don't mean to be rude Mazito, but it does seem like you're intentionally trying to wind us up. I see little point in a vote as it seems pretty obviously concensus to use British grammar on a page about a British subject. aLii 00:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

As a resident of the north west of England, I don't see what exactly your point is. You are trying to correct a form of proper and accepted usage. Robotforaday 00:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

My preference is "in the north west of England". -- Alias Flood 01:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"north west of England" is a descriptive phrase, it's not referring to an officially-recognised region. Ergo it shouldn't be capitalised. And even if it were, there shouldn't be a hyphen - I don't know about you, but I haven't ever seen a programme called "North-West Tonight"! And as for the point about "are/is", you should read the lengthy debate above rather than simply assuming that you are "right" (the consensus agreed upon above was that both versions are correct, but that the established version should not be changed). Seb Patrick 15:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

New Box

What do you think, should i add these boxes to all (Charity Shield). User:MotorSportMCMXC 19:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Add the Charity Shield sucession box to all what? (It's called the Community shield now by the way) aLii 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's a very good idea, Liverpool have won 66 trophies, it might get a bit cluttered. ArtVandelay13 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In case anybody hasn't noticed, the box he's referring to is the Community Shield succession box he's added at the bottom of the article. If Liverpool had one of these for everything they've ever won, it would get ridiculous! And to start with perhaps the most humble trophy of all, the Community Shield is nothing short of perverse. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but really, I think the result could be chaos. Robotforaday 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, but infobox overload. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we have a firm agreement on whether we are going to keep this or get rid, before MotorsportMCMXC does any more work than is necessary? Robotforaday 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Eh, sorry I just got rid of it! Basically MotorsportMCMXC created a new section header for it, Titles. This was my cue to delete it all, for the reason that it's all sufficiently covered in the Honours section. aLii 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Archives
May 2005 – May 2006 June 2006 – July 2006 July 2006 – March 2007

Featured article

Following the Man City page appearing on the front page today, is it time we nominated this again? The lists have been reduced and a lot of the POV removed, which were the main problems last time. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Or a peer review first? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 09:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion a kit/colours and badge section could do with adding. The kit details are further up this talk page, but I haven't as yet been bothered to write it. I have some badge details kicking around on my other computer somewhere... aLii 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's probably still too much in the way of what could be called "clutter" by some. Looking at the Manchester City page which has now made it to FA, I note we have at least two bits of info they don't have; the table of league positions since 1992-93 (when some sky subscribers seem to think football began ;) ) and also the list of transfer ins/outs. Now, these details may be useful or not- but I would say it is likely that they'll be considered as making article messy.Robotforaday 20:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the transfer for the latest pre-season should always be there. It actually does make it look good, and doesn't look too messy at all, and it's in a good place near the bottom of the page. Let's keep it there, and help to make this whole page of the highest standard, recognised by more people and get the star (like Arsenal FC), and into whatever lists someone was on about that we're not in but MCFC are! We are, with no disrespect to them, a lot better a footy club with a lot better a history, and we're bigger, etc.; I don't need to continue. The next title, which is by me, should be listened to and should be put like that! User:Mazito 02:58, 14 August 2006 (BST/GMT+1)

I've recently got Everton F.C. featured. What you really need to do is:

• Get a peer review - you can't get featured without one
• Make sure you post on WikiProject football you are up for peer review then more people will see it.
• Satisfy all the points that are brought up
• Nominate it for featured article status
• Satisfy nay new points brought up
• You're done!

Tips for the meantime: I can tell you now the history section is way too long. Have a look at Arsenal F.C., Everton F.C. and Manchester City F.C. for correct length and STYLE. The player of the season and reserves pages will be asked to be deleted so be prepared. Needs more references, particularly BOOK references. Remove Liverpool ladies section unless you plan to actually make an article for them, don't have a link to a main article when there isn't one. The Gerrard European cup picture shouldn't really be there - the tags aren't right as there are free alternatives (fan photos perhaps) SenorKristobbal 19:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Peer review isn't a requirement, but it saves a lot of work on FAC if it gets a decent response (hint hint). Oldelpaso 19:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I'm a person who wants to see this become a featured article - but it seems to be stuffed to the brim with info. Just looking at the introduction; perhaps those two second paragraphs would be better as part of the history? Moreover, perhaps the history section should be trimmed down - that's what the (see also) links are for - I also noticed that the beginning of the history section is word for word the same as the beginning of the separate "History of Liverpool F.C." article.

In keeping with the template in the Wikiproject: Football page on club teams - maybe we should get together crest and color sections.

Comments?

Jma2133 21:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find little disagreement, but to cut down the history section any further requires quite a large amount of work! What's there now I cut down from the main history article. As far as the introduction goes I think the second paragraph should definitely stay, but perhaps it could be edited. I always use Arsenal F.C. as an example, but that's because it is very good! Maybe a sentence about the rivalry with Everton could be added? I'm not sure about removing Heysel/Hillsborough from the lead, but I personally wouldn't mind.

A colours and crest section should definitely be added, and I will do it myself, in time. I think I'll simply rewrite the IFK Göteborg#Colours and badge section and add in a few of the kit images from the top of this talk page. aLii 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of Transfers section?

Now the season is about to start I think it's about time we removed this list. I would however quite like it to be turned into a new article List of Liverpool F.C. transfers or Liverpool F.C. transfers. The page could have details about Liverpool's record transfers, the net spend of each manager, etc.. It could be a useful resource. Perhaps it isn't needed though — the Liverpool F.C. statistics page already has a list of biggest transfers. Opinions? aLii 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, I think the transfers out section should be kept, it's useful to see where the recent departures have gone, rather than them just disappering off the squad list. The In section is more debatable, though. ArtVandelay13 13:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Get rid of them, Wikipedia is not a news service. Though as raised in the Everton peer review, you could create an appropriate section in Wikinews and link that. Oldelpaso 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea- I can understand why people want the information, just really unsure whether it fits in the way its presented there. Robotforaday 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Removal of (or reduction of) Premier League Performance

While we're paring the article, I think that it's certainly the case that the current table with all of the final positions in the league since 1992-93 season (when Murdoch invented football) is somewhat excessive. I think that an argument can be made for a recent overview (e.g. the last 5 years), although really I side with its complete removal. Thoughts? Robotforaday 20:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Football wasn't invented in time for the 1992/93 season to exist as it was. It's not even a separate issue, just when the leagues broke away and it changed. So last 5 seasons I think should be there, and having the last 5 seasons there is actually a very good thing, to show how LFC have been faring in the league.

User:Mazito 14:13, 24 August 2006 (BST - GMT+1)

Notable former players

Around the time that the notable former players section was removed altogether, the idea was mooted of having a prose section there rather than just an (ever expanding) list of names. Well, I've written a prose section for notable former players, and I'd like to see if it is a workable idea. I'm sure there are problems with what I've written (e.g. Rush being the latest player mentioned), and also some people don't want to open this can of worms again, but I really do think that an article on Liverpool F.C. needs a section on the great players that have contributed to its success. Hopefully, with a prose section rather than a list, it will take more effort to expand it, and so it won't bloat out of control as easily (it's unlikely somebody will add Nunez into the paragraphs, for example). So, feel free to completely change the text itself, but please don't just delete it straight off without discussion, as I'd really like to see whether this could work. Robotforaday 18:10, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well one immediate problem I see is that your prose is basically restating the History section and the Club records and statistics section. The only player that you actually added to the page is Elisha Scott, so I'm afraid I'm going to have to say that it's unneeded, and I fear that it will again become unmanageable given enough time.

Perhaps if we removed all mention of past players from the History section? I believe that we probably have to find a way to cut 50% of the History section to reach FA status, so perhaps this may be a way to keep and rework your prose. Any other ideas? aLii 20:59, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it would certainly look strange if the history section included no mention of players, particularly ones who made a key contribution to specific points in the history. However, I would say that other team articles (and see esp. Arsenal and Manchester City) have much less mention of individual players in the history section. That doesn't necessarily say anything about whether or not we should keep a notable players section- but I do think it is not an option to keep as much reference to players in the history section as we have done. Robotforaday 21:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Lets be specific. Is there any reason not to remove these excerpts from the History section?

1. In 1921–22 and 1922–23 Liverpool won their first back-to-back League titles, captained by England full-back Ephraim Longworth
2. Within his first year, he released twenty-four players. Fellow Scots Ian St John and Ron Yeats were signed as striker Roger Hunt, winger Ian Callaghan and full back Gerry Byrne also established themselves in the team.
3. Around this time, future internationals Emlyn Hughes and Ray Clemence were signed from clubs in the lower divisions. Shankly then added Kevin Keegan in 1971, again from the lower leagues, as the 60s team was gradually dismantled and built anew.
4. Under Paisley, a new era of stars emerged including Graeme Souness, Ian Rush, Alan Hansen and Kenny Dalglish.
5. The likes of Michael Owen, Robbie Fowler, Steven Gerrard and Sami Hyypia contributed to the club's third place in the Premiership
6. Liverpool went on to win the penalty shoot-out thanks to goalkeeper Jerzy Dudek.
7. with captain Steven Gerrard scoring an incredible equaliser in the 91st minute to take them to extra time and then penalty shoot-out. Pepe Reina saved three of four West Ham penalty kicks to clinch victory for Liverpool.
8. with goals from John Arne Riise in the 9th minute, Peter Crouch in the 80th and Andriy Shevchenko equalising in the 43rd for Chelsea.

We can't keep everything in there... aLii 21:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

n.b. All comments on these sentences refer to how much they bring to what is meant to be a summary of the history on the main article; in the seperate History article, I can see a place for almost all of them.

1. If Longworth is mentioned elsewhere, unnecessary detail; otherwise perhaps keep because of his importance to the success of that period.
2. I can understand the importance of this sentence, as it is meant to indicate the wholesale changes which rung in the Shankley era. Nonetheless, there is far too much detail of names; perhaps an indication that he brought in many important players and then naming one or two would be the best way.
3. Unnecessary detail- in fact, the whole section of which that is a part seems a very longwinded blow by blow account.
4. Understandable wish to indicate that Paisley brought in a slew of great players, and they are listed concisely; but still perhaps unnecessary.
5. Unnecessary detail; too many names listed when scaled against other club achievements.
6. Here's a tricky one; his contribution was indeed immense, and my continuing gratitude might cloud my judgement on this. However, I would say, if his penalty heroics are to be included, why not Brucie's antics in ?
7. Unnecessary level of detail.
8. Complete ridiculous level of detail about events in a relatively minor match.

Well, those are my thoughts. Robotforaday 12:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

A case for lfchistory.net

To put things into perspective, I was the first one to really crack down on removing all the fan-site links. I even removed lfchistory.net at the time.

Anyway, over the past few months I've used lfchistory.net over and over for getting various bits of LFC information. It is basically a better, LFC version, of rsssf.com. It has easily searchable stats for every single player and every single game, and as such, in my view, it deserves mention in the external links section of this page. It is FAR more useful than the premierleague.com link. I'd even argue that in many respects it's also more useful than Wikipedia and even the official site for getting LFC related information. I feel that a link to it should be available from this article.

Reading WP:EL, in the section What should be linked to, points 4 and 5 are:

4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.

5. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.

See http://www.lfchistory.net/index.asp

aLii 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If it's a vote, I say include it. Regularly updated, useful, and not over commercial. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

One fansite is fine as pre wikipedia:External links (althought it's not REQUIRED), so stick it in. --Charlesknight 11:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

My whole arguement is that it isn't just a fansite. The site is in my opinion a very useful resource to anyone interested in LFC related statistics. Here, as a random example see Goals scored by Alf Arrowsmith in 1963-64. I've never heard of the guy, but he apparently had one good season. Every game is documented with the full line-up, goal-scorers, goal-timings, etc... The level of detail is quite amazing. aLii 11:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

But it IS just a fansite - it's very very detailed but it's still a fansite. It does seem to represent of the type and that's why it should go in. --Charlesknight 13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The other alternative is Liverweb http://www.liverweb.org.uk which is similarly detailed. Leipzigger98 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would definitely support its inclusion, it's a fantastic resource, and a logical continuation of a lot of the LFC info on WP. ArtVandelay13 11:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, looks good to me too. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 12:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

A very useful resource, please include. Robotforaday 18:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

History Section

I have tried to cut down the history section some more. There is also a bit of rewriting in there to try and make the narrative flow a bit better, although I don't know whether I've succeeded. It's likely there are errors, so I'd be pleased if people could look it over and sort out anything I've messed up. And bloody hell- it's STILL long. Would putting in some subheadings to make it read easier just be admitting defeat? Robotforaday 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Kit images

Our kits have grey arms in the article, and really really shouldn't have. Does somebody know how to sort this, because I can't. Robotforaday 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

what grey arms? they look, and have always looked, ok to me. aLii 07:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, is it possible that there's something wrong with the browser I'm using (IE6.0)? It is using Kit_left_arm_whitelines.png‎ (and the version on the right) and showing up as though the arms are grey. Robotforaday 10:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Eek! Oh yeah... I was in linux using Firefox at the time. Firefox in windows also works fine, but IE6 is messed up for me too. Not only are the arms grey, but there is a thin strip-coloured line sticking out from between the shorts and top, in both directions. aLii 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I just started a discussion at Template talk:Football kit about this issue. aLii 12:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing and clicking on an arm shows that Chavski also have grey armsBarfbagger 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• New home kit colours look more like Arsenal then Liverpool. Djln--Djln 09:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Arsenal have white sleeves, shorts, and socks, and they never go all-yellow either. The yellow kit has gray shorts and socks. - Slow Graffiti 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Liverpool F.C. Reserves article nominated for deletion

The Liverpool F.C. Reserves article has been nominated for deletion. Personally, I think that it's a useful place to put Reserves information which is notable in its own right. As the likely alternative to keeping the article is to merge the information back in there, I don't think this can be achieved without bloating the article again (just as we're trying to tidy it up to get it up to FA standard)- or losing information which is useful. Just as the History article allows us to go into more depth there without making this article go on for ever, so too I think we should be able to generate other articles which go into more depth about genuinely significant parts of Liverpool F.C. I would urge you to go and support the article's continued existance, for the sake of this article as well as the Reserves article itself. Robotforaday 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Fields of Anfield Road Merger?

Seeing as User:Erechtheus tagged the page with a link to a discussion about this merger, I thought we best have a discussion before removing it! User:Spiderlounge created an article for Fields of Anfield Road, and Erechtheus thinks that there should be a discussion about merging it into this article.

Personally I don't see any way to merge the two articles. Even adding the lines:

"Fields of Anfield Road" is a football chant based on the song "Fields of Athenry". The song contains several past players and managers of Liverpool FC such as Bill Shankly, "King" Kenny Dalglish, Bob Paisley, Steve Heighway, and the Kopites - people who support Liverpool FC from the Kop stand at Anfield Stadium.

seems too much for the main article really. I am undecided about whether the chant is notable enough to have its own article, but that is a seperate discussion. aLii 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd be against it as well. If it fits anywhere, it's probably at The Fields of Athenry page. It's already mentioned there though. Afd? Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems quite obvious that there's no basis for a merger; the song is already mentioned in the article. Also, the Fields of Anfield Road page seems to violate policy, in consisting primarily of the song lyrics. Whether or not that page should be deleted, I'm gonna remove the tag, cause it's damaging to the GA nom. Eixo 10:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

My thanks go out to those of you involved in this discussion. Now that it is clear you have reviewed the possibility of merger and rejected it, I feel better about moving toward deletion. Best of luck with the GA nomination. I'd make this my second GA review but for my prior involvement in making this merger proposal. Erechtheus 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: I decided to attempt a bold redirect to Fields of Athenry as a result of this discussion and other considerations. Erechtheus 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

On the subject on songs and music synonomous with Liverpool FC, I would like to know why someone felt the need to mention the humorous singing of "Always look on the bright side of life" when Alan Smith was stretchered off with a broken leg. My personal bias is irrelevant but I was at the game and LFC fans were totally oblvious to the fact that the player was seriously injured, and indeed Alan Smith was given a standing ovation when he left the field. To include this one incident on a supposedly professional encyclopedia just smacks of personal bias and bitterness. It is also totally irrelevant and contributes nothing to the article. It should be removed. If this one line of text is deemed relevant and necessary for an encyclopedia entry, why not all impromptu songs that football fans sing. Why not include a mention on the Manchester United article about the songs they sing about the Hillsborough disaster that killed 96 fans? The point is no one should, and this line should be removed. It is unprofessional, irrelevant, and offensive. - Ellis14 Sunday 12th November, 19:48:47 **

Toby Smith

Who on Earth is Toby Smith Kingjamie 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Order of listing of titles - European Cups first surely

I am surprised that the clubs honours are not listed with the European Cups first, or at least second after the League titles. Also surprised that it is not simply referred to a 5 European Cups which sounds better than 5 UEFA Champions Leagues.

Well, in answer to the first point, that's just the standard protocol for listing honours - domestic titles first, then European, then inter-continental. As for the second point - it refers to "European Cups and UEFA Champions Leagues", because the competition changed its name prior to the last time LFC won it. It's not called the European Cup any more (much as it should be). Seb Patrick 08:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Managers Section

Great article alround but there was addition that I think would be good - though i'm not sure if it is possible:

The manager-section shows how many games they won/drew/lost, is it possible to have wikipedia show a win-percentage? Obviously it could be manually figured out and added for the historic managers, but if Benitez's stats are up to date it would take rework - unless there is an automated feature.

It would be nice to compare across managers because whilst what is there is informative it is difficult to see whether one manager was more successful (in terms of games won) than others.

ny156uk 09:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I decide to 'be bold' (i think that's what they call it) and add in the win-ratio calculation. Whenever somebody updates current-manager stats (presumably after each game somebody update Rafa's record) please also update within the formula which is next to it it goes hash-sign EXPR: games won (integer) forward slash games managed (integer) multiplcation sign 100 (integer) and add 'round 2' (this rounds to 2 decimal places)

e.g. 40 / 100 * 100 round 2 = 40%

ny156uk 19:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

5 champions league titles?

They won the Champions League in 2005, but the other 4 were just known as the European Cup, I know its the same but it isn't officially right. I'm not sure what to put instead because '4 european cups and 1 champions league trophy' doesnt sound right. I'll change it to 5 european cups. 81.153.38.130 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I just reverted you because the Champions League is the current title, and therefore should be preferred (at least in my opinion). aLii 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

What about something along the lines of "have been Champions of Europe 5 times"? Robotforaday 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I think 5 Champions League Trophies is accurate. That is the term used now and while the others were won under a different name, it would be like seperating out all of the League-cups they have won into milk cup/coca-cola/worthington/carling and whatever other names it has had historically. ny156uk 18:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The cup itself is still entitled the European Cup, no? If you win the Champions'League, you get the European Cup.

Ok, if youn want to be unaccurate about it, why don't you change 18 league titles to 18 Premiership titles. This is ridiculous! This is supposed to be an encyclopedia!81.153.134.169 21:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it is wrong to label all 5 as Champions League wins. The format should be by type I.e. League Cup not Coca-cola, Carling cup , etc; European Cup not Champions League. It is strictly inaccurate and misleading to state Liverpool have won the Champions League five times. A reference can be made to the format at the time of winning the cup later on. I will revert if no one opposes. Jamie 07:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have to say that I agree with this, it is simply inaccurate to say we won 5 Champions League titles. As complicated as the change in competition name and format has made it, we can't just fudge it by saying that the wins in the 70s and 80s were of the Champions League any more than we can say that the league wins were Premiership wins. European Cups is definitely better, as that is, after all, what is still on the trophy, although I agree its not perfect. Robotforaday 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And to be fair the references at the bottom of the article cover the name change, which in my opinion is easily sufficient. I think we have to try and detach ourselves from allowing recent events, I.e. champions league win, to cloud the articles encyclopaedic value. Jamie 16:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Third/European away kit?

Where is the third/european away kit? Here is an image of the new kit to copy from: Click Here!

List of Liverpool F.C. players is a featured list candidate

Bit of a shameless plug, but I've nominated this list as an FLC now that it's completed. If you have any opinion, go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Liverpool F.C. players. ArtVandelay13 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Mohamed Sissoko

Yes Sissoko was born in France, but he has played at senior level for Mali, thus leading him to be listed as Malian. CanbekEsen 21:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But nationality is nationality. He's French, of Malian descent. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 21:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

In football, a player's first nationality is the nation he represents at international level (if any). To put it another way, with FIFA he would be registered as Malian. He also has a French passport, but it's the nation he represents that's the useful information. ArtVandelay13 22:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What if he represents no nation? Does he get no flag? He would have represented France if France took him. Does FIFA really "register" a nationality? I think it would register someone as playing for a team, not being any nationality. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 01:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

1. If the player hasn't representeda nation, you list his published nationality, or if that's not available, you get it from his place of birth.

2. "He would have represented France if France took him" is POV and irrelevant

3. All football assoctions, continental associations, and FIFA require players' details to be registered, including nationality, for example to control foreigner rules. In FIFA's case, he would be registered as Malian; he has represented them at senior level and can not represent any other nation.

4. People can have multiple nationalities; multiple passports. Footballers particularly so. In fact, Sissoko would probably be registered as French with the FA and UEFA (as an EU national), but in football, a player's primary nationality is (where applicable) the one he has represented at the highest level of international football. All of this is standard practice across all football media, including Wikipedia, and is the most useful information in this context; in fact, to show second nationalities instead would be misleading. It might be useful to show the French flag as a second nationality next to the Malian flag, as some of the Spanish football pages do, but the squad template doesn't allow for this, nor does it particularly need to; it is designed as a table of minimal information. ArtVandelay13 01:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fine, I concede. However, with respect to an edit which is not in a football squad template, but is in a biographical article, Mohamed Sissoko, I stand by my change that he is a "French footballer of Malian descent", not "a Malian football player". A biographical article must conform to universal rules of citizenship--it must be factual across the board. My change incorporated his actual nationality while not ignoring his Malian heritage, an edit that is both a compromise and correct It is not, despite CanbekEsen's protests, a skewed point of view on the issue. _└ ^OzLawyer / _talk ^┐ 12:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I think it's important, though, to state that he is a Mali international in the first paragraph. I would change it to something like "...is a Malian-French footballer who plays for Liverpool F.C. and the Mali national team". ArtVandelay13 12:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

LFCWire.com

Anybody got any objections to me adding LFCWire.com as an external link?

It basically indexes BBC Sport (LFC feed), The Liverpool Echo (LFC Feed), Red And White Kop, The Liverpool Way, Shankly Gates, YNWA and LiverpoolFC.tv to provide a comprehensive feed of the days stories. It's updated every five minutes 24/7, too. 82.35.216.206 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking at it now all I see are Liverpoolfc.tv articles, and the odd one from the Echo, both of which are already linked here. While the concept of the site is good, if doesn't offer any content other than extra adverts. aLii 10:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you caught the feed at a bad time (e.g. just after they done a bulk update of liverpoolfc.tv)? Looking at it now, there are also articles from BBC sport, Red and White Kop and Shankly Gates as well as the Echo and the official site, and having seen it before, I am sure I recall links to stories from other media sources. I'd say to keep an eye on it before making a judgement. Robotforaday 21:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Robotforaday, exactly... the site indexes all of the above feeds. We've added Liverweb today. Alii h, FYI the adverts are only there to try to recoup the money I spend each month on hosting. It doesn't cover it by a long shot. I monitor the site throughout the day to make sure that the content is relevant and worth reading. Sometimes you may see a lot of posts from LiverpoolFC.tv and icLiverpool in one big block, but these sites do tend to post in batches. I'm throwing this one out to everybody; if we can get consensus on this one, I'd like to add the site to the article. I was one of those fans that used to manually trawl the internet looking for LFC stories and that's its reason for existing. 82.35.216.206 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Alii h -- Sorry, that previous note might have appeared snotty... didn't mean it to be, I was just being defensive! 82.35.216.206 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Alii, I've added a 'View older articles' button to the page. That will help you to see the mix of articles that are fed into the site. Cheers. 82.35.216.206 01:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

LFCWire.com has been reviewed on Shankly Gates. Nice. 82.35.216.206 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Friendly association with Celtic F.C

Should there be a mention at the fact that Celtic F.C and Liverpool fans traditionally have got on well together. I myself saw at both Liverpool and Celtic Games a banner with both teams crest and there European Cup wins on them. Even heard cries of "Come on the Liverpool" "Come on the Liverpool "Come on the Glasgow Celtic". At the recent Liverpool and Celtic legends match, by all accounts both sides got on well and had a good time. Anyone find any written evidence for this.

It goes deeper than the fans, Liverpool FC have over the years built up association's with other clubs across the world. Other Teams that Liverpool FC have the same association with are Ajax and AC Milan and in recent years Liverpool have built up a friendly association with Valencia and Real Sociedad, plus Liverpool are known to help out the smaller clubs of the world like Crewe, Wrexham, Le Harve and ST Etienne.

Who is Jordan G. Christodoulou?

I think someone's having a luagh.

"Some of the Premiership's greatest ever players began and forged their careers at Liverpool. Steve McManaman, Robbie Fowler Michael Owenand the greatest ever footballer, Jordan G. Christodoulou began their careers at the Liverpool Academy, emerging across the 1990s among the batch that later included current captain Steven Gerrard."

Some idiot trying to impose their useless sense of humour on us. Jamie 12:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Takeover / investment

It appears likely that the club will either be sold or a rights issue will be made which will generate significant investment to finance the new stadium, construction of which is currently planned for January / February 2007. The investment issue may be resolved as early as November 2006.

and your point is? - wikipedia is not a discussion forum and the discussion page should be used to discuss contents of the Liverpool home page - i.e to make suggestions on content. Just friendly advice Steve-Ho 10:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it's done. We've been sold. Is there anything that should be added to the article do you think? aLii 13:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Yesh, something in the history section. Maybe a sentence in the lead. It is on the official website now, so I presume it is 100% official. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 13:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The press conference is going to be at 2pm GMT if anyone's interested. That's 7 minutes from now. Sky Sports News will be covering it live. aLii 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

History Section

IMHO it would be less confusing to those people who are not football fantatics if the history section didn't start off with "Everton F.C started...." If the first bit could be re-worded to say something like the club was born out a conflict or split within Everton vis a vis John Houlding (wordsmith..this comment's a bit off the cuff)

For example The FC United of Manchester Page, which as we all know started from conflict:

The club was formed in 2005 by Manchester United supporters, who turned their backs on the Premiership outfit during the Malcolm Glazer's takeover.

It doesn't say "manchester United were formed in 1878 and 100 years later FC United Split off". It makes more sense to start off the section/sentence with the club you're actually talking about --ChrissMari 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Although I personally didn't (and still don't) see much of a problem with the old phrasing, it is now changed. I still don't see the any good reason why the article should have been demoted from Good Article status though. There are perhaps a handful of questionable sentences, but nothing major. There was a reason it wasn't ranked as a Featured Article... aLii 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The treble

Liverpool has never won the treble. The Treble is the league, the fa cup and the champions league, every football fan knows that. Just because a team wins 3 cups in a season doesnt mean they won the treble. i think that you are just trying to make lfc sound more succesfull than they are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.171 (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 December 2006

Liverpool have never won the treble, why does my edit keep being delited? Every football fan knows the treble is the league, the fa cup and the champions league. Liverpool HAVE NEVER WON THIS!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.171 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 10 December 2006

It doesn't say "The Treble", though, it says "A treble", or "Trebles", and it's explained what they amount to. ArtVandelay13 02:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Well it actually says "two trebles", but whatever. It is true and definitely notable so should stay. Both this article and The Treble article explain which trophies are counted. aLii 13:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Whilst it is true that Liverpool won 3 cups, you know that does not count as the treble. I think that section should be re-written to state that the 1 unique treble that all fans know, has never been won by liverpool. My team, Tranmere, won the leyland daf cup, the playoff final andt the Liverpool senior cup in one season in the 80s, does that count as "The Treble"? No of course it doesnt. daveegan06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.242.8 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 10 December 2006

Dave, I'm unsure as to whether you added the first two comments, but if you did you should have read the above replies. As far as I'm concerned this article doesn't state anywhere that Liverpool have won "The Treble". Manchester United's treble was only invented as The Treble after they won it, so it is kind of arbitrary anyway. You should have a read of The Treble article. aLii 17:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thats a lie, when liverpool were winninh everything in the 70s they were always chasing "The Treble". They came close on several occassions, but never managed it. If you are a football fan you know what "the Treble" is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.145.241.81 (talk • contribs)

A lie?! Have you got any sources to back your 70s claim up? As far as I'm concerned the treble, before 1999, used to refer to the League, the FA Cup and the League Cup - which no-one has ever won. In 1999 Manchester won a more impressive, but different, treble and the definition changed. "The" Treble now refers to Manchester Utd's feat, of that there is no doubt. "A" treble still refers to winning three trophies in one season though. Heck, St Helens won a treble last season - in rugby league. aLii 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Placement of Liverpool Ladies F.C.

While I don't necessarily have a problem with including a mention of the Ladies team in the article, I think the current placement of the information is poor, as it falls in the midst (and breaks up) information about the main team which the article is about. Ideally, I would place it at the end of the article, although I suppose it can't really fall after all of the tables. Certainly I think it should come after the section on "Club Records and Statistics"- but then it seems strange to go straight from that into the current (male) squad. Perhaps I'm just thinking up problems where there are none! Robotforaday 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Personally I wouldn't have it as part of the article at all, and I have deleted it before now. aLii 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I'd put it before notes and references; all the sections above apply yo the men's team, and it's jarring and misleading in the middle of them. It needs its own article, actually. ArtVandelay13 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

It has its own article, Liverpool L.F.C., its just that that article is a stub. Robotforaday 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't noticed that. Still needs expanding, maybe I'll get around to it one day, but I'm not sure if I can be arsed. ArtVandelay13 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed page move

• PageName → Liverpool Football Club —(Discuss)— Because that is the full name of the club, it is also the name given in the pargagraph. —Franz-kafka 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's the full name, all football club articles have the F.C. suffix. Archibald99 18:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

All articles of clubs called xxxx Football Club are named xxxx F.C. for sake of consistency. If this is to be changed it would have to be changed for all of the clubs. The best thing for you to do would be to take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and make the case for a new consensus. Robotforaday 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Hillsborough

The article states that on the day of the Hillsborough disaster, "hundreds of Liverpool fans were trampled on the terraces in a human stampede." This is not the case. The deaths at Hillsborough were caused by crushing due to severe overcrowding. See http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/ for more information Elskip8 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Very important point. I have now made some small changes both to this article and also to History of Liverpool F.C. which will hopefully miscorrect this misapprehension, with a reference to an interim version of the Taylor Report. Any more concerns of this time, please do let us know. Robotforaday 14:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Takeover

As notable as the takeover is, I believe it would be recentist to allow news of it to become overly prominent within the article- certainly I think that giving it a section to itself (and therefore almost placing it on a parity with the whole of the rest of the club's history) is excessive. My suggestion would be to wait a couple of days until the dust clears and the inevitable flood of people who want to add about this has dried up a bit, and then to cut it down to just a sentence at the end of the history section, while moving of the more detailed information to the History of Liverpool F.C. article. Thoughts? Robotforaday 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this exactly, in fact it has probably been long enough for someone to implement this now. Timpcrk87 07:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Done, although now the section on the History article needs work, in my opinion. Robotforaday 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool Reds

Interesting quote for possible reference in the takeover section, from Parry allay's fans' takeover fears BBC News - Sport - Wednesday, 7 February 2007

Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry has moved to appease fans concerned by some comments made by new joint-owner George Gillett. Gillett, who has bought the club with fellow American tycoon Tom Hicks, called the Merseysiders a "franchise" and "Liverpool Reds".

- Foxhill 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should dwell too much on the new owners' phraseology. They admitted to having limited knowledge of the UK football scene and have used the American terms that they are accustomed to. It would be untoward to make anything out of this. Barfbagger 23:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd never use the term "franchise" for American sports teams, but that's because I'm British. "My baseball team is the San Francisco Giants" etc. It's just one of those things. They obviously need to brush up on their English, just as many of us would need to learn American to fit in over there. pavement=sidewalk, motorway=highway, franchise=club etc.. aLii 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If anybody as the transcript from the press-con they will see that the words "Liverpool Reds" was never spoken, "The Reds" was but never "Liverpool Reds" this was twisted by the press, sadly franchise was used but this word is a common word in the U.S when speaking about a sports team so why the fuss I dont know.

The RIGHT chairman

In the article "Liverpool F.C." is false information about the club's chairman. The real chairman STILL is David Moores, until Gillet & Hicks have officially bought all the shares. You can check this information also from The official Liverpool FC website www.liverpoolfc.tv

In the press conference on the day the deal was confirmed both Hicks and Gillett confirmed that they would be co-chairmen and that Moores would be "life president". aLii 13:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Correct! They will be but they are not yet as there are still some legal niceties to tie up.Barfbagger 14:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think that's so important. The legal niceties will be tied up quickly, and I don't think anyone is going to come along and nit-pick. Besides, I think if you ask any Red fan they'll tell you the charimen are, "Those two Yank blokes." 24.251.147.57 16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mascherano

|- class="vcard agent" | style="text-align: center" | 20 | style="text-align: center" | MF | style="padding-right:15px;" | ARG | style="padding-right:15px;" | Javier Mascherano

this needs adding to the current squad list

Not yet it doesn't. aLii 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

yes it should!! if you look at the UEFA website where it list's the Champions League squad's you will see it clearly states that Mascherano as a member of that squad wearing the number 20 shirt. http://www.uefa.com/footballeurope/club=7889/competition=1/index.html he may not be available for premiership games "yet" but he is available for liverpool in their European games.

I wish to complain as Javier Mascherano has not actually being unveiled as a Liverpool player as he is also not up on the clubs official website. The page also has him assigned the nmber 20 jersey, this would be impossible as although Scott Carson is playing for Charlton, under premier league rules he must have a number with Liverpool and he is registered with the number 20 jersey.

Scott Carson was not given a number this season.

Mascherano is number 20 as seen in this picture of him training with Liverpool http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/images4/180207_npx_train_300_03.jpg

The FA will not yet allow Liverpool to put him on there website until there investigation of west ham is finished but UEFA have aloud Liverpool to register him for european games which you can see from there website, http://www.uefa.com/footballeurope/club=7889/competition=1/index.html .

So complain all you want but the facts are that Mascherano in the eyes of FIFA and UEFA Mascherano is a Liverpool player.

http://www.premierleague.com/fapl.rac?command=setSelectedId&nextPage=enNewsLatest&id=1674494&type=com.fapl.website.news.NewsItem&categoryCode=NewsLatestFAPremierLeagueNews Now he is a Liverpool player.

Good Article Review

It should probably be delisted until it's logical and written well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrissMari (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 December 2006

Without necessarily disagreeing with what you say, it would be far, far more useful if you actually stated WHERE the problems were, so that people could actually work on them. As it is, your contribution is entirely negative. Some of us want to actually improve articles, after all. Robotforaday 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I disagree completely. It's a festering pile of ****. I've made suggestions before...I put this up for review over 2 weeks ago, I've also nominated this for the football improvement drive and no one has responded until it's been delisted?

COME ON!

--ChrissMari 23:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I dunno about you, but I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and Christmas is perhaps the busiest time of year. Your tone is coming over as quite aggressive by the way. There is absolutely no need for a complete rewrite. The article as it stands is well referenced, has good photos and diagrams, and has a huge amount of good information. A few overly familiar sentences do not a bad article make. aLii 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

good for you, don't complain because you have a life. it's been delisted. change it back and get banned --ChrissMari 12:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)