Talk:History of Liverpool Football Club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Current Season

I can't help but wonder if the section on the World Club Cup in Japan is a little bit excessive, given that it was considered a minor competition by most fans (albeit one they wanted to win). For a week's involvement in a competition involving 6 teams, it's a bit much to give it almost as much space as the whole Shankley or Paisley era have!--Robotforaday 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to detail every event that happens this season? Why don't we just put nothing about this season until the end of the season and then write a summary. I will delete the last 2 sentances Jamie 11:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think all current season events should be put in the main LFC article and at the end of the season a summarized version can be copied here. And the Goalkeepers section is somewhat awkward where it is, although I don't know where to move it. But I'll move the reference to sources to the end of the article to where I think it belongs. --Biziclop 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I see the problem to be that Shankley and Paisley don't have enough written about them, rather than recent events having too much.. aLii 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Goalkeepers?

Do you really think its necessary to have a section on Goalkeepers at all?? There's no section on midfielders or strikers? Its seems rather random. I think it should just be removed, I can't see the historical usefulness of knowing the goalie history of liverpool? Jamie 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No more than is written at those two links! I feel there should be a mention of it in the article. It'd be good to find out whoich players were implicated/banned. aLii 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Friday scandal of 1915

Anybody know anything about the Good Friday scandal of 1915 [1] [2]? Cutler 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming of sections

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)

why should we follow someone elses notion of style .... article reads fine to me 168.209.97.34 15:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not "someone elses" style, it's WIKIPEDIA's style. This is Wikipedia, and hence that style should be followed here. aLii 10:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The FA Community Shield

Near the bottom, where it shows what LFC won in all the eyars, it doesn't include the fourth and final major English honour - the FA Community Shield. I think it should mention it, and on the 'honours won' part underneath the managers and their era. It should be there, shouldn't it. It's the equivalent of the UEFA Super Cup, only for England, not the whole of Europe! Also, where it says honours won for managers, it doesn't have the UEFA Super Cup or the FA Community Shield, at least on the list near the bottom it has the UEFA Super Cup. I think it should have them both in the list near the bottom and in the 'honours won' part underneath the manager's name and era! Come on guys, who the hell made it not like that! Does anyone agree, that's the best option like, isn't it, guys! Come on!

MAZITO - Thursday, 14 December, 2006; 01:50 (GMT)
Go for it.. add them in. I agree that there's no good reason to leave the Community Shield out. aLii 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../h/i/s/Talk%7EHistory_of_Liverpool_Football_Club_0528.html"