Talk:Liverpool F.C. in international football

Liverpool F.C. in international football is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

Liverpool F.C. in international football is part of the Liverpool F.C. series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on February 12, 2013.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
November 21, 2010	Good article nominee	Not listed
April 9, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
June 24, 2011	Good article nominee	Listed
August 14, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
December 5, 2011	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
December 20, 2011	Peer review	Reviewed
March 3, 2012	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 8, 2012	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 1, 2015	Featured topic candidate	Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Football: England / Liverpool Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Liverpool task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by BDD, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 3 May 2012.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Previous copyedits:
/
	This article was copy edited by Diannaa on 19 April 2011.

Merseyside Mid‑importance

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

Europa League is missing

Liverpool had a semi-final run in the 2009–10 UEFA Europa League. It's not found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.173.243.143 (talk) 03:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liverpool F.C. in Europe/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: found two, fixed one, Luis García, I removed the wikilink from Peter Robinson as there appears to be no article on him in Wikipedia, he is not listed at the disambiguation page.[1] Jezhotwells (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: None found. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Liverpool team competed in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup during Paisley's first season. Missing indefinite article.

and a 1–1 at the Olympiastadion in Bruges ensured Liverpool won their second UEFA Cup. Missing "result"?

As League champions during the 1975–76 Liverpool entered the 1976–77 The 1976-77 what?

scoring inside the first two minutes courtesy of Kevin Keegan. "who scored?

'With six minutes remaining David Fairclough was brought on to replace John Toshack, within seconds of replacing Toshack he had scored to make it 3–2 on aggregate in Liverpool's favour and ensure their passage to the semi-finals. semi-colon rather than comma?

Victory over FC Zurich of Switzerland saw Liverpool face Borussia Mönchengladbach in the final, who were the opposition in the 1973 UEFA Cup Final. Who were their opponents?

This article is poorly written and fails the criterion WP:GACR #1 well written. please get it copy-edited. This should have been addressed before nomination. The examples above are from the first few sections but the article is poorly written throughout. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
All references check out, assume good faith for off-line sources
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
will need updating for the 2010/11 season, what about the Europa league?
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
images check out
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
On hold for the article to get a thorough copy-edit, query re Peter Robinson, updates for 2010/11 season?. Seven days hold. Jezhotwells (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well there have been a couple of minor edits, but no real progress has been made, so I will not list at this time. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The writer hasn't edited in a month+, might as well fail it now. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I pinged the nominator by email, it appears that they are now editing the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Liverpool F.C. in Europe/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Mykleavens (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC) I am planning to review this. Note that I am still fairly new to the site and this will be my first review. No comments about the article as yet. --Mykleavens (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Initial points and suggestions (review placed on hold)

I've read this a couple of times now and before I even go into the specific GA criteria, I am placing the review on hold for two weeks to give editors time to address various concerns I have at present (there may well be more to come). I have several initial comments to make and I am proposing a rewrite of the lead:

1. I'm not sure if anything can be done about this but I would prefer the title to be Liverpool Football Club in Europe because I see "F.C." as an unnecessary abbreviation that may not be clear to all readers.

I disagree with this, the main article about the club is Liverpool F.C. with the abbreviation intact. Why should this page be named differently? I think there have been discussions before about this at WP:FOOTY before, so it is probably best to look through them for guidance on the issue. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2. The club and the team are singular entities and should be denoted by "it" and "its", not the plural "they" and "their". This should be fixed throughout. The frequent use of "the club" is a distraction and should mostly be replaced by "Liverpool", subject to context.

I'm sure there is convention at WP:FOOTY to choose "they" a number of featured articles such as Ipswich Town F.C., Manchester United F.C. and Arsenal F.C. so I would bring the issue there because if these are articles are featured and use that convention. Plus those articles also use "the club" frequently, I also do not understand why it's a distraction. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'm proposing a new version of the lead below but one thing that stands out here and elsewhere in the article is a need to clarify the current status of the Premier League vis-à-vis the former Football League Division One. The article tends to give a misleading impression about the Premier League when half of Liverpool's European qualifications were by virtue of their success in the old First Division.

done NapHit (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. "Milan" is called "A.C. Milan" and should be referenced as such throughout. Similar examples are Ajax Amsterdam, Deportivo Alavés, Olympique Lyonnais, Olympique de Marseille and so on: I'm finding too much colloquial rendering of team names.

Again we do not refer to clubs by there full name but by there most common name see WP:COMMONNAME. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Remove all references to the Intercontinental Cup and its successor as that is out of scope: the article is about European football.

I'm not sure about this. Granted it is not technically European competition but entry is gained through winning a European competition so on that basis I think it comes under the scope. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. It is not clear if Carragher's appearance record is Liverpool-based or if he is the English or even European record holder; and, as he is a current player, this needs to be made clear. Similarly, the statement about Gerrard's scoring record needs to note that he is a current player. At what date did the two statistics apply?

7. Re Gerrard, the sentence "The most goals scored in European competition by a Liverpool player is Steven Gerrard, with 38" is poor English. Suggested change: "Steven Gerrard with 38 goals (to May 2011) is Liverpool's record goalscorer in European competition".

think this was the sentence in the record section, which is now bullet points NapHit (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. The table in the Record by Season section doesn't provide enough information. The equivalent article about Manchester United has a table providing the results of all matches played in European competition in an easy to read and useful format. More research is needed to provide similar detail for Liverpool: the "last opposition" column says nothing to the reader and looks like an easy way out.

With all respect that article hasn't been up for GA. To have a table of all the matches played in Europe would be unruly and more than double the size of the page. With Liverpool likely to add to their European experience I don't think this table is appropriate. I'll remove the last oppsotition column as you're not the first user to complain about it. NapHit (talk) 15:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. The article needs careful checking for factual errors. For example, Liverpool did not win the 1970–71 FA Cup but was the runner-up and qualified for the CWC because Arsenal had "done the double". Another one is the misinformation that Shankly "resigned" and "was replaced" by Paisley. It is more accurate to say that Shankly retired and was succeeded by Paisley.

done NapHit (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. There are several examples of what looks like tabloid-speak, always a danger when writing about football, though at least the awful "grabbed a goal" cliche does not make an appearance. In effect, this is about the need to remove cliches. An example is this passage: "The club reached the semi-finals of the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the 1970–71 season. They faced fellow English club Leeds United, who won 1–0 on aggregate en route to winning the competition". Instead of "the club", use "Liverpool". This applies throughout as already mentioned. Remove "fellow English club" and suchlike redundant expressions. Better is: "Liverpool reached the semi-finals of the 1970–71 Inter-Cities Fairs Cup but lost 0–1 on aggregate to Leeds United".

gone through the article and cleared this up hopefully NapHit (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. The main narrative ends with the defeat by Atlético Madrid in 2010 which was the last match under Benitez. A new section is needed to begin with the 2010–11 season and point out the changes that have taken place at Anfield this season, albeit these did not produce immediate European success.

done NapHit (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

12. The introduction to the Records section is compressed into a single paragraph when the individual facts should be presented as bullet points for readability.

done NapHit (talk) 10:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a lot of problems with the lead which needs to be revised. Taking the current content and without introducing any additional information, I would write the lead along these lines:

Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside, which has regularly taken part in European competitions since its first appearance in the 1964–65 European Cup. Qualification for English clubs is determined by the team's performance in its domestic league and cup competitions. From 1964 to 1985, Liverpool qualified for the European Cup several times by winning the former Football League First Division. Since 1992, qualification to the renamed UEFA Champions League has been via a top four placing in the Premier League. Liverpool has also achieved European qualification via the FA Cup and Football League Cup and has played in the UEFA Cup Winners' Cup and UEFA Cup competitions.

Liverpool's first participation in European competition was in the 1964–65 European Cup against KR Reykjavik of Iceland. Liverpool competed in Europe for 21 consecutive seasons until the 1985 European Cup final, the occasion of the Heysel Stadium disaster, following which all English clubs were banned from UEFA competitions for 6 seasons. Since being reaccepted in 1992, Liverpool has qualified for either the Champions League or the UEFA Cup in most seasons to date.

Liverpool has won the the European Cup five times, a British record, most recently in the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final. As a result of that victory, Liverpool won the European Champion Clubs' Cup outright and was awarded a multiple winner badge. Only Real Madrid and A.C. Milan have won the competition on more occasions. Liverpool has won the UEFA Cup (now called the Europa League) three times, a record shared with Juventus and Internazionale.

Liverpool's record win in Europe is an 11–0 victory over Strømsgodset in the 1974–75 Cup Winners' Cup; this is the club's record victory in all competitions. Jamie Carragher holds the club record for the most appearances in European competition with 136 to the end of the 2010–11 season. Steven Gerrard is Liverpool's record goalscorer in Europe with 35 to the end of the 2010–11 season.

The above are first impressions. I will continue to review in detail and will work on the GA criteria now to complete the review in due course, providing the points raised to date are addressed. --Mykleavens (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further points following copyedits and review of GA criteria: article remains on hold

Over the last couple of days, I've tried to improve the wording, content and layout of the article which was nowhere near a pass for being well-written. Although some further tweaks will be needed, it is now in a much better shape (a bit like Liverpool themselves in recent months!). However, I still have concerns and am not able to pass the article yet, but I'm not going to fail it as I think it is definitely heading in the right direction. I'm continuing to keep it on hold so that more work can be done within the term of this review.

As I said at the outset, I am very unhappy with the title. Okay, I am English and interested in sport, though football is not my favourite. As such, I immediately understand this article is about a football club playing European matches. But I have asked four people I know who have no interest in football to tell me what they think the title indicates and, apart from one lady who remembered that Liverpool does have a famous football team, they were confused. The initials F.C. could mean almost anything to a non-football fan and the words "in Europe" completely lack context. An American gentleman guessed that F.C. might mean "Ferry Company" given the Mersey ferry association; all of them pointed out that the C could stand for city, council, committee, etc. I know you have followed football project precedent in using this title but, although many football supporters do not realise it, the majority of people do not like football and have no knowledge of it. To them, this form of title is cryptic and misleading. My colleagues all think the title should be "Liverpool Football Club in European competition". However, this would appear to be an issue for the whole site rather than just the football project and I doubt if I would be able or willing to take it further so I'll let this go.
When I suggested above that the club and the team are singular entities, I was incorrect as the team is clearly a plurality so I accept the "they" and "their" in that context, but any references to the club must be treated as singular. I think we have resolved this now via all the copyediting.
Re points 3 to 12 raised above, I'm happy with the responses provided and the actions taken so those are all now closed.
This is the first of the new points. The main reason I am keeping the article on hold is because of the coverage. The article is essentially statistical in spirit with a focus on which competition Liverpool played in each season, having done such and such in the previous English season, and how far they got before winning or being eliminated. There is nothing about tactics and nothing, except goalscoring, about the key players. Several key players such as Callaghan, Clemence, Heighway, Hansen and Alonso are not mentioned at all. The article needs to discuss the strategies and tactics used by the major managers in European matches: comparing their approach to a home leg with that to an away leg; European tactics versus league tactics; evolution of tactics from Shankly to Benitez, etc. The reader needs to know why Kevin Keegan, for example, was such a significant player for Liverpool in European matches and how Shankly and Paisley made use of him. At present, the article fails the broad in coverage requirement.
One further suggestion I have re the scope is around Liverpool's transfer activity in the European market. This began with Keegan's move to Hamburg and then there was a gradual influx of players like Molby, Henchoz and Hyppia from the continent before it escalated under Houllier and Benitez. Benitez in particular wished to improve Liverpool's chances of European success by introducing a largely Spanish contingent including Reina, Alonso, Torres. All of this is relevant to the club's strategy in European football and needs to be discussed. --Mykleavens (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I don't think this is related to this article. I think they were bought simply to improve the team domestically and in European football, I'll try and mention signings where necessary Keegan and Dalglish I think are necessary due to debate Keegan being replaced other tan this I'm not sure they would fit in. I'll see what I can fit in though. NapHit (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Shankly section does not mention one single Liverpool player but it does name a referee and one opponent. Major Liverpool players under Shankly were St John, Hunt, Yeats, Callaghan, Smith, Hughes, Clemence, Heighway, Keegan, Toshack, etc. The 1973 UEFA Cup win, a milestone in the club's history, is dismissed in a few words.
No mention of the Super Cup win against Hamburg – needs to be rectified. --Mykleavens (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The season summary table links are unsatisfactory and need to be overhauled. The season column links to both English seasons and Liverpool seasons while the competition season link is under the right-hand column for the round. Also, there is no need to link any of the competition names as this amounts to repetition. Please unlink everything in the competition and round columns and use the specific tournament link for each season. --Mykleavens (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Linking repetitively in sortable tables is allowed as this quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (linking) states: "where the links are in a table or in a list, as each table or list should stand on its own with its own independent set of links." other than that I'll start moving the links shortly. NapHit (talk) 23:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although the 2005 final was a great match, I think recentism is evident given the emphasis placed on it. The 1977 final was the key Liverpool triumph in Europe as it opened the floodgates at a time when Liverpool were not the competition favourites they subsequently became. A balance is needed when referring to individual events so my concern is about undue weight.
I cannot see anything that suggests original research or point of view (apart from perhaps the recentism concern) so it is objective and passes that requirement.
I am reasonably happy with the citations except that more may well be called for and I have already added a few citation requests here and there. Given that additional work is needed to broaden the coverage, I haven't reviewed the existing citations in detail as yet but, in general, they are plentiful and varied. I would, however, like to see more use of the books in the bibliography and less of the internet.
I have no problem with neutrality. The article is stable and is well supplied with images that cannot have any copyright problems. It easily passes all three of these criteria.
Subject to the way the additional material is incorporated, the article would currently pass the well-written requirement although it has needed a lot of copyedit work to bring it up to standard and, as mentioned above, more may be necessary. I will expect the standard to be maintained as the coverage increases.

To summarise, the article remains on hold for one month pending additional information to broaden its coverage. I'll update the GA nominations page accordingly and will keep looking at the article to help where I can. --Mykleavens (talk) 12:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I've noted your comments and I'm grateful for you allowing the process to continue. I've added more additional per the comments you left above I would just like to know if I'm on the right tracks and where more information could be added. Cheers NapHit (talk) 00:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the status of this review? Month's almost up so everything should be addressed. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 13:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verdict

You've done everything I've asked and I have been quite strict to try and make this not just good but better. It's been a close run thing on occasion but the article is there now. Please try to ensure it retains its current good writing as that was at first the main barrier it faced. It's a good article now so well done. And I hope to see some more Champions League content in 2012–13! --Mykleavens (talk) 18:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking

"from 1964 to 1985, Liverpool qualified for the European Cup on eight occasions by winning the former Football League First Division, and qualified for the UEFA Cup and Cup Winners Cup by winning the FA Cup and Football League Cup".

The areas in bold above need to be double checked for accuracy. [2] this seems to be an excellent online resource. Jprw (talk) 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first two paras

I'm thinking of changing

Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside which has regularly and successfully taken part in European competitions since 1964. Qualification for English football clubs to European competitions is determined by teams' domestic league and cup performances; from 1964 to 1985, Liverpool qualified for the European Cup on eight occasions by winning the former Football League First Division, and qualified for the UEFA Cup and Cup Winners Cup by winning the FA Cup and Football League Cup.

Liverpool's first participation in European competition was in the 1964–65 European Cup against KR Reykjavik of Iceland. Liverpool competed in Europe for 21 consecutive seasons until the 1985 European Cup final, the occasion of the Heysel Stadium disaster, following which all English clubs were banned from UEFA competitions for six seasons. Since being reaccepted in 1992, Liverpool has qualified for either the Champions League or the UEFA Cup in most seasons to date.

to

Liverpool Football Club is an English professional football club based in Liverpool, Merseyside which has regularly and successfully taken part in European football competitions since 1964, winning a total of ten European trophies.

Liverpool's first participation in European competition was in the 1964–65 European Cup against KR Reykjavik of Iceland. Liverpool competed in Europe for 21 consecutive seasons until the 1985 European Cup final, the occasion of the Heysel Stadium disaster, following which all English clubs were banned from UEFA competitions for six seasons. Since being reaccepted in 1992, Liverpool has qualified for either the Champions League or the UEFA Cup in most seasons to date.

Any thoughts?

Jprw (talk) 10:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you do realise that the article is currently on hold at GA, and that the reviewer suggested the lead that is currently there. For this reason I would wait to see what he has to say on the matter. NapHit (talk) 10:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sure, apologies if I jumped the gun. I do think however that the changes I made addressed a lot of issues, mainly to do with repetition and excessive detail in the lead. The UEFA Cup photo semed to work well too. Buy you're right let's see what the reviewer says. Jprw (talk) 12:49, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that the suggested lead given by the reviewer above DOES NOT correspond to what is currently in the article. I would go with installing the reviewer's, which similarly deals with a lot of the repetition problems as my rewrite, but I would cut the last sentence as it is stats that is repeated in the stats-like appendix at the end. Jprw (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a lot seems to be happening at all, so I'm going to revert to my edit in the lead which seems to be at least an improvement to work from. Jprw (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Newly worded, shorter and tighter lead

This is what we now have (pictures of cups not shown):

Liverpool Football Club are an English professional football club which have regularly taken part in European competitions since 1964, winning a total of ten trophies, including five European Cups—the most successful haul of trophies of any British club.

Liverpool's first appearance in European club football was in the 1964–65 European Cup, and they went on to compete in Europe for 21 consecutive seasons, until the 1985 European Cup final, the occasion of the Heysel Stadium disaster, following which all English clubs were banned from UEFA competitions for six seasons. Since being reaccepted in 1992, Liverpool qualified for either the Champions League or the UEFA Cup nearly every season up to 2010.

Liverpool have won the the European Cup five times, a British record, most recently in the 2005 UEFA Champions League Final. As a result of that victory, Liverpool won the European Champion Clubs' Cup outright and were awarded a multiple winner badge. Only Real Madrid and A.C. Milan have won the competition on more occasions. Liverpool have also won the UEFA Cup (now called the Europa League) three times, a record in Europe which they share with Juventus and Internazionale.

I believe that in order for the rest of the article to get up to GA status, it needs to be copy edited and reworked as boldly as this—to cut out the numerous examples of language that are non-encyclopaedic; to reduce the bloated feel of much of the language; and to deal with examples of repetition. Jprw (talk) 09:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the lead that the reviewer suggested was fine seeing as he is reviewing the article and has done a great job so far his lead should be used. Plus the way you have used the images makes the lead look awful in my opinion. On this basis I'm going to revert back to the reviewer's lead as it is more comprehensive than yours. NapHit (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lead that the reviewer suggested was a massive improvement on what was there before, but it was a provisional first stab. What I and he then did was to improve it further—it still contained repetition and too much detail for the lead. The fact that the reviewer made further cuts to my reduced lead would I have thought been a tacit acknowledgement from the reviewer that the changes I made were a move in the right direction. The addition of the image of the UEFA cup was also a clear improvement (though I'm beginning to have doubts about where it should go exactly, maybe next to the description of their win in Dortmund. I'm therefore going to revert it back, putting the cups (for the time being) 100px size and both on the right Jprw (talk) 16:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image was not an improvement it made the lead look clunky and awful. It's not repetition, the lead is supposed to summarise the whole article see WP:LEAD. Therefore it should include aspects of all sections, by this notion if a para about the records is not included then it fails this criteria. Plus there should not be a one sentence paragraph in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarise the article not introduce it at the moment it just introduces it that's way I think the reviewer's lead was much better as it conforms to the MOS on leads. Your edits were in violation of some of the MOS see WP:MOS#IMAGES and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(layout)#Images. Images should not be stacked and the two images now in use are too small to be seen. It was better with the one image in the lead and one in the main text. I'm not going to revert the lead back as it will just result in an edit war, I'm going to message the GA reviewer to get his opinion as at the moment with reverting and re-reverting the article is never going to get to GA. Hopefully the three of us can reach a consensus in this regard. NapHit (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the changes introduced to the lead by Jprw earlier today might have consensus so I confined myself to removing repetition and general copyediting. I think there should be only one image in the lead section so I would prefer to put the UEFA Cup photo in the main text where it is appropriate and can easily fit: best place is next to the 2001 win (I would prefer the 1973 win but that will cause stacking).

NapHit is right that the lead must summarise the whole article and, in my view, should outline the scope. Therefore, I think it should include mention of the main records and, given that the structure is based on management terms, it should also say something about those managers who won trophies. I've been working on it again to try and combine the best aspects of both your versions but I would point out that more content will be necessary because the article should be expanded to improve its coverage, per the latest review. --Mykleavens (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you both, I agree that it's all about striking a balance now and I apologise if I went too far in my edit. I now look forward to trying to optimise the lead according to WP:LEAD, and, of course, with a view to achiving GA. I also fully agree about the issue with the images and stacking as well, I actually wasn't aware of this. Jprw (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More tidying up

I've just had another go at tidying up the article; see [3] [4] [5] and [6]. There still seemed to be quite a bit of non-encyclopaedic language, irrelevance, and repetition, and a couple of important bits missing. At this stage I'm worried about the following sentence:

The final, at Rome's Stadio Olimpico, was in fact an away match against A.S. Roma, and as they were playing in Roma's home ground, they had to take chances as it was unlikely Roma would not score. The tactics worked: Liverpool went ahead in the 13th minute when Phil Neal scored, but Roma equalised towards the end of the first half.

Is this source reliable? the wording/tone also seem to be questionable. Jprw (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LFC History is an extremely reliable source, the stats are always updated regularly, plus the owners of the site are releasing a book very soon which I think verifies that the site is reliable. NapHit (talk)

I'm just not 100% sure that it meets WP:RS criteria, it looks like some kind of a fansite. Also, I wonder if we can use this image somewhere. [7] Jprw (talk) 17:15, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely 100% its not a fansite its the most comprehensive site related to Liverpool and there info has been used on the official site so I think that indicates how reliable the site is. The image cant be used as its not free use, the fair use rationale on the image page specifies that it can only be used on the article it is relevant to. NapHit (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for clearing that up. I wonder if we could contact that site to try and get them to donate WP some photos, especially of Liverpool team captains lifting a E trophy? Jprw (talk) 08:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ye go for it, I'm sure they'd be willing to submit a few photos NapHit (talk) 06:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I shall :) Jprw (talk) 10:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Images, continued

I've written to the website; in the meantime, [8] this image from flickr seems to be usable. Jprw (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm not sure it says all rights reserved at the bottom which normally means it cant be used. Try uploading it to the commons using the flickr upload bot if it won't upload it, we won't be able to use it unfortunately, which is a shame as its a great image. NapHit (talk) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[9] [10] [11] Good idea, hopefully it will work as there are tonnes of them... Jprw (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's complicated! Hopefully it will be possible to get a couple of images but it may take some time. Jprw (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emlyn Hughes

Hughes isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, which seems wrong as he lifted consecutive European cups as Liverpool captain in 1977 and 1978, and possibly the UEFA Cup in 76 as well. Jprw (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Background to 84 final

Under new manager Joe Fagan, Liverpool reached their fourth European Cup final in 1984, after first- and second-round victories over Danish champions Odense BK and Spanish champions Athletico Madrid, respectively, a quarter-final 5-0 aggregate victory over Benfica (managed by Sven Goran Eriksson), and a highly physical 3-1 semi-final encounter against Dinamo Bucharest, which Liverpool won 3-1 on aggregate. In his 2009 autobiography Ian Rush wrote, "our games against Dinamo were the most brutal of my entire career".

This keeps getting removed and I'm not sure why. It looks like necessary background information to 1984 final, with a salient ref included. The games in the run up to the final are important and need mentioning. Jprw (talk) 16:47, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Although on second thoughts this looks better:

and a highly physical 3-1 semi-final tie against Dinamo Bucharest, which Liverpool won 3-1 on aggregate, and which Ian Rush described as "the most brutal" games of his career. Jprw (talk) 16:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can't mention all of the games in the run up to the final, the article would be too long, and as there were no notable matches in the run up to the 1984 final there is no need to include them. Quite frankly, the bit about Ian Rush is most definitely not needed so what if he considered it the most brutal game of his career, that has no relevance in article about Liverpool in Europe. Why not include what Thompson, Hughes, Yeats etc through was their most brutal game or favourite game, why Rush? That sort of info belongs in the player's article not this one. NapHit (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"There were no notable matches in the run up to the 1984 final"

This is simply not true. The Benfica and Bucharest games, at least, deserve a mention. Also, the games leading up to other European finals are documented in the article; hence by not including the 84 run up games the article is inconsistent. You may be right about the inadvisability of singling out the Rush quote, although both Hansen and Dalglish mention the ferocity of the tie in their bios so maybe a general description is warranted. I’m also wondering if this could be included somewhere, it looks like a great ref.

Please note that all these changes are with a view to further improving the article and I welcome the chance to discuss them. Rgds, Jprw (talk) 06:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough I'll have a look at my books and try and pick out some notable tidbits about the run-up, I'm fairly sure there was an infamous incident with Souness who broke one of the Bucharest's players jaw, which could be included. Instead of the Rush quote I'll try nd find one from Fagan, or from all the team which corroborate what Rush said. NapHit (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The semi-final against Bucharest and the threats and abuse suffered and endured by Souness in the second leg ("the backs of his socks were in ribbons") are covered in detail here. Souness had broken the jaw of the Romanian player Movila in the first leg. Alan Kennedy also documents it in his book, Kennedy's Way. See here. Rgds Jprw (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photos

I have rearranged the photos of the cups to more logical places in the article. Jprw (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid the way you rearranged the photos is against policy, you can't stack photos. The photo of the trophy in the museum is fine in the lead, its more relevant to the article than the other one. Please stop removing the European competition section, this was requested in the recent Peer review by an experienced editor. It is for people who are unaware of all the different competitions UEFA has had. The goal is to get the article to FA, this section will be needed, as many people that read the article will not follow football, and will be baffled by all the competitions. This section helps them understand the different competitions. NapHit (talk) 15:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article is going backwards: the section outlining all the competitions is lengthy and inappropriate. A see also section with the appropriate link gets round the problem perfectly; a footnote may be another solution. The image in the lead is terrible -- out of focus, not even centred. The best possible image of the trophy should be in the lead and your image relegated later on to, say, the Istanbul section until a better image of the Istanbul trophy is found. These are logical and sensible suggestions. You seem to think that you own the article and resist / immediately undo the helpful edits of other editors for taking the article forward. Jprw (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I believe that you think you own the article considering your edits. I keep telling you that the competitions section was recommended at the recent PR, because you obviously haven't read it. If a respected editor such as Ruhrfisch suggests the section is needed then it should be implemented. A see also does not solve the problem perfectly, the problem is still there. The problem being that readers unaware of European football will be confused by the different competitions. Therefore, a section outlining them is necessary, a see also section means they have to trawl through another page to find the information when it can be provided briefly at the start. Its not my image by the way, its a random one from flickr, but its more relevant to the article that's why it should be in the lead, as it is the trophy they won permanently, as opposed to a random one. Plus moving it to the relevant section doesn't solve anything as then there are three images of the trophy in the article, when others should be used. The article is not going backwards at all, I have experience getting articles to FA standard and this article is heading there. I don't what to start mud-slinging but to say I am stopping editors from taking the article forward is not the case. If an edit improves the article I'm gine with that, but removing a section tat was requested in a peer review is not taking the article forward, so perhaps you should take a look at yourself before accusing others first. NapHit (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest how is the article unbalanced? As regards needing to be rewritten, I've recently requested a copyedit with regards to FAC so once that is done it should be fine. I personally think your doing the reassessment to make a POINT, which shouldn't be done. But I'm sure the GA community will find the article is up to scratch. NapHit (talk) 15:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) I'm trying to get permission for this image from Flicker. As a thumbnail image next to the Istanbul para, I think it would work well.

I agree this image would be useful. NapHit (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2) Re: the lengthy detour to describe the history of UEFA footballing comps, it just to me looks bizarre and wrong. That is surely why we have things like internal refs, "See also" sections, and footnotes. An opinion from another editor is perhaps needed.

It is definitely needed the more I think about it. For me and you who know about the intricacies of European football its not necessary, but for the casual reader with no knowledge it is needed as they won't understand the competitions. See also sections are in my opinion a waste of time. As the topic is about European competition it makes sense to explain the different European competitions to the reader as its relevant to the article. Especially since some of them, have changed their name recently. Getting the opinion of other reviewers is what peer reviews are for, and seeing as it was suggested I'm going to put it back in. NapHit (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3) The article is unbalanced in terms of there being no logical reason for certain sections having greater coverage than others.

Well, it would help if you mentioned what sections these are, so I can see if they need improving. NapHit (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4) Re: ownership, you have undone on a number of occasions work I have done to improve the text / wording with no discussion or (usually) for very flimsy reasons. If I was in your position, I would welcome another editor wanting to take the article forward; you do seem to see this as a "solo project" and input from other editors as akin to "interference". At the same time, the enormous amount of work that you have put into the article is of course commendable. Jprw (talk) 05:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well you've undone work I've done, with regards to the European competition, so I think we're both to blame here. I'll admit I have not been very co-operative, but that's because I don't have experience working with another editor improving an article, I tend to do them by myself. Obviously, we both want the article to improve and get to FA, so I think we need to find a way to work together to achieve this. NapHit (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great, clearly a spirit of cooperation is the best way to take the article forward. At the moment I'm concerned about the extended description of the Torres signing; it seems to smack of recentism, as well as being somewhat off-topic. Re: the images, why don't we experiment with a few options before deciding on the best layout. I didn't realize about the multiple-winner badge being non-free use, sorry about that. Let's also get some input from another editor re: the extended background description of the Euro comps, it still to me looks decidedly odd. Also, isn’t it repetitious of information already included in the lead? Jprw (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another (slight) criticism I have is that the Ponting book is overused. Unfortunately I'm not in the UK at the moment, and so can't get to a library where I could do some spadework to rectify an issue like this. Jprw (talk) 14:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I agree. Hmm, I see your point, but the GA reviewer said he wanted to see info like this in the article, although to be fair Benitez did moan a lot about money to buy players after losing the final, so in that regard its relevant. Ye experimenting with options is good for me, just make sure the images are free use otherwise when the article goes to FA, we'll be pulled up on this. I agree the opinion of another editor would help, ideally one who is not familiar with football, to see if the section serves its intended purpose. Regarding the lead, the job of the lead is to summarise the content of the article, so in that regard it is fine. But another opinion would help. Well, seeing as the book has the same name as the article I was bound to use it more than the other books I have, but I'll try and use a few more of my other books for refs. NapHit (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a trip to the library might be called for :) Jprw (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copyedit October 2011

Hi

During the copyedit a few things came to light that may need attention:

Return to Europe (1991–2004)

(Paragraph 4)

"Having finished fourth in the 1999–2000 FA Premier League, Liverpool qualified for the 2000–01 UEFA Cup and won the competition for a record-equalling third time. The season was the club's most successful since the 1980s as, domestically, Liverpool won both the FA Cup and the League Cup to claim a cup treble." - the sentences implies that the treble was domestic (maybe also link to [[Treble (association football)]]?). Perhaps reword to "The season was the club's most successful since the 1980s as Liverpool won a cup treble with the UEFA Cup, the FA Cup and the League Cup." There is also the last sentence, where it tells of Liverpool wining the Cup winners' cup - surely this is a quadruple? Alternatively the words "Continental treble" could be used?

Benítez years (2004–10)

(para 2) "Trailing 3–0 at half-time, ..." The para graph starts without saying which match this is in. If it refers to the last sentence of the previous para (AC Milan) then they need tying together.

General

Scores - sometimes the scores are written 0-1 and others are 1-0. I do not know what the recommended way of writing them is, but it did not make sense to have them in contradicting styles. One Liverpool loss was written "Liverpool blah blah beaten by Another club 0-1" while others followed the narrative "Liverpool blah blah lost Another club 1-0". I would suggest writing them either all from the perspective of Liverpool, where Liverpool's score is always the left-hand one, or following the narrative, where the first mentioned team is the left-hand score.

Good luck with the FA :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 12:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Winter quote

The Winter quote looks like an excellent addition to capture the historic nature of the match, yet it has been removed twice. It is difficult to understand this, especially given that less important descriptions such as The performance of Gary McAllister, whose free-kick resulted in the winning goal, was praised as "outstanding" by Trevor Brooking. seem to be allowed. Jprw (talk) 07:19, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the two is that the quote about McAllister is not POV as he was the man of the match in the final, whereas this is Winter's own personal opinion, what makes his opinion so important above others? Its not encyclopaedic neither is the inclusion of the ref which refers to the match as the miracle of Istanbul, the article is supposed to have a neutral tone, inclusion of stuff like this does give a neutral tone. Also why did you remove the bit about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup, this is relevant as Liverpool qualify for the competition through the Champions League and are Europe's representatives in the competition so by that token it is relevant, it would help if you discussed these things before jumping in carte blanche and making changes, ignoring the fact that there is an ongoing peer review which is aiming to improve the article. NapHit (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be three main points that need to be addressed:

The problem is that as it stands the very dry and matter-of-fact description of the 2005 final (it didn't even have an internal ref to the WP article on it, by the way) doesn't convey that this was, undoubtedly, the most extraordinary event in Liverpool's participation in European competition (if not the club's history), as well as being one of the truly extraordinary European nights. There is nothing wrong with trying to give the reader a taste of that by using e.g. the Winter quote (which is one of many that can be found in the literature, though I opted to use his because he may well be the most pre-eminent football writer covering the sport in the UK today), or referring to the event as the "miracle of Istanbul" (which the game is commonly called by all manner of media). I don't think this would compromise "neutrality" at all, but rather would give the reader more insight into the event.

I agree it was an extrordinary match, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia it has to maintain neutrality, and your claim that it is "the most extraordinary event in Liverpool's participation in European competition (if not the club's history)" is your opinion it can't be claimed as fact as other people will view other finals as more important, the 1977 or 1984 finals for instance its a matter of opinion not fact. Thinking about I think there is a way to get the refs in the article without it sounding too POV, and we have to remember not to focus too much on this one match, as its undue weight, I'll include them now and you tell me what you think. NapHit (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also why did you remove the bit about the 2005 FIFA Club World Cup. Because the article is called Liverpool F.C. in European football. And it's not a "bit" – you even go on to say how many shots they had on target in the final!

Yes and I explained why that final is relevant above they are representing Europe in that competition, they qualified for it through European competition, it is relevant, editors asked for this to be included at the recent FAC, so I think consensus incurs that it should be included. NapHit (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it would help if you discussed these things before jumping in carte blanche and making changes, ignoring the fact that there is an ongoing peer review which is aiming to improve the article. I believe that I am making obvious improvements, which will help the article gain FA status: the references I want to include are excellent, and the material that I am trying to remove / pare down is quite clearly irrelevant.

You can't make sweeping statements like "the material that I am trying to remove / pare down is quite clearly irrelevant" when other editors have requested this information be included. Granted some of the edits you've made have improved the article, but you can't move parts of the article that we're requested by other editors without discussion. NapHit (talk) 12:28, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regards, Jprw (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1) I don't think there can really be any doubt that the 2005 final, as well as being the final that earned them the right to keep the trophy, eclipses all other Euro finals that Liverpool competed in (there are numerous statements by players past and present to support this, as well as countless media references, etc.) The article must therefore in some way try to reflect this. I fully understand the point about weight, that's why I think it would be a good idea to try and find the juiciest quote by a very high-profile football commentator. 2) A clear compromise would be to state that by winning x they qualified to play in y and then leave it at that. No details of match y need to be given if it falls outside the purview of UEFA competitions. 3) I'm glad that we're making some progress on content. I have to say though that I'm having trouble understanding the rationale of other editors' wanting to include details about a match that should clearly be outside the scope of this article. I suggest a wording along the lines of "which meant that they qualified for the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship" and then editors can click on the internal ref if they want to know more. Jprw (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've trimmed the bit about the 2005 FIFA Club World Championship right down its just two short sentences stating that were entitled to play in it and lost the competition, should be enough. Regarding the quote, the problem I have it is trying to get it to sound NPOV, which is hard, I agree that it is probably the greatest match in Liverpool's history (greatest in my living memory anyway), but other editors might disagree. We've got to try and word it right so it puts the point across about the match, yet does it in a neutral tone, not an easy task. NapHit (talk) 23:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image of 2005 CL trophy uploaded

I've uploaded a cropped image of the 2005 trophy which could be used somewhere in the article. See here Jprw (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now have uploaded another one which perhaps is better? Jprw (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ye the one in the article is much better, looks a lot crisper and clearer. NapHit (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I also thought it was in better focus and clearer, let's stick with it then. Jprw (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on achieving FA status for this article

Congratulations to those editors who took this article from scratch to Featured Article status on Wikipedia. I saw for myself how much of a Herculean effort it was, in particular on the part of NapHit. Well done – you have done yourselves, the encyclopedia, and Liverpool Football Club proud. "What we do in life echoes in eternity" (one of the LFC banners at the Istanbul 2005 final). Jprw (talk) 12:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Champions League, European Cup

In the intro, and elsewhere in the article, it is stated that LFC has won "the UEFA Champions League (formerly known as the European Cup)" and "the UEFA Europa League (formerly known as the UEFA Cup)". More accurate would be to state that LFC has won "the European Cup (since replaced by the UEFA Champions League)" and "the UEFA Cup (since replaced by the UEFA Europa League)". -The Gnome (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/UefaCup/matches/report.asp?Match=67741&Home=7889&Away=69619

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Liverpool F.C. in European football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151018075040/http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season%3D2006/round%3D2361/match%3D300099/report%3Drp.html to http://en.archive.uefa.com/competitions/ucl/history/season%3D2006/round%3D2361/match%3D300099/report%3Drp.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Liverpool F.C. in European football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:06, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111111063012/http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/timeline/1970-1995/fagan-steps-down-after-heysel-tragedy to http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/timeline/1970-1995/fagan-steps-down-after-heysel-tragedy

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Liverpool F.C. in European football. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:52, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100712075314/http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/timeline/1996-present/dortmund-delight-as-reds-win-thriller to http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/timeline/1996-present/dortmund-delight-as-reds-win-thriller

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]