Talk:Liverpool F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liverpool F.C. article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2, 3
Good article Liverpool F.C. has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Liverpool F.C. was supported by the football article improvement drive, a weekly collaboration to improve association football-related articles to featured article status.
Archive
Archives
  1. May 2005 – May 2006
  2. June 2006 – July 2006
  3. July 2006 – March 2007

Contents

[edit] Irish Flag in Managers list

Can someone please update the Irish Flag in the Managers section under John McKenna, i'm afraid St_Patrick's saltire as seen here should be used instead of the modern Tricolour http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/20/St_Patrick's_saltire.svg/715px-St_Patrick's_saltire.svg.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifcp1 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Robotforaday 11:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good article?

I'm confused as to why this has been nominated to be a good article. Clearly the way to go is get a peer review and go for featured article as it has enough content (quoting What is a GA) "A good article may be of any length, as long as it properly addresses all major aspects of the topic. However, the authors of very short articles might consider whether it is more appropriate to merge them into larger articles. For articles longer than about 20Kb, rigorous reviewing of the Wikipedia peer review and featured article candidates guidelines is generally more appropriate than the process here." SenorKristobbal 19:29, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, new comments go at the bottom. Secondly, the article is severly lacking in references at the moment, and this would prevent it reaching FA at the moment. Alexj2002 22:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Then put some references on it. Getting Good Article status generally means it can't get FA status which with work this article clearly can. SenorKristobbal 11:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article Delisting

The article does not follow a logical order of progression. It does not have an encyclopedic tone. It has multiple citation needed tags. It was put up for review on 21 December and it was voted to be delisted. There are reasons outlined on the Good Article/Review page linked above as well as the history section comments above last month. ChrissMari 23:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

In order:
  1. The logical progression of this article follows the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs template.
  2. Some sentences do not have an encyclopedic tone, most do.
  3. I see no citation needed tags.
aLii 23:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
In short there are a few minor problems with the article. I fail to see how your "It's a festering pile of shit" description fits in any way. I notice that you've just censored your above comment. Sadly you can't remove it from the history Chris. aLii 23:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

It went under review.. and it was delisted not only by me.. do not change the tags or risk banning --ChrissMari 12:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Handbags! Someone needs a tissue!

Also can someone post the url of this delisting review so I can peruse it.

Jamie 12:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Here you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:GA/R#Liverpool_F.C. - the link of the last heading would have brought you there - but it wasn't explained. The review seems a bit harsh - but at least User:Homestarmy has actionable points. Cheers. SeanMack 16:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

People who delist articles should make sure they follow the procedure, which is there for a very good reason- that is to help people IMPROVE the article. Specifically, Chris, I feel it is a shame you did not follow points 4 to 7 on WP:GA.

If you can't fix it, leave a message in the article's talk page stating the problem(s). If possible, put appropriate maintenance template(s) on the article's page. See Category:Wikipedia maintenance templates. I don't see that you made any effort to do this. "until it's logical and written well" is not helpful and useable criticism.

Allow enough time for any active editors to improve the article. If I had an idea what the specific problems were, I certainly would have done this.

If the problem(s) is not resolved, remove the GA tag on the article's talk page and put in its place DelistedGA|4 January 2007. Do not use FailedGA. Remember to explain what the problem is and what needs to be improved to meet the criteria. We STILL have no explanation on this talk page as to what the specific problems are and what steps we can take to meet the criteria.

Look, if this article isn't up to scratch, then I for one am keen to help improve it. But the fact of the matter is, this process has done nothing to aid us in that process. Having someone coming along and saying "it's a festering pile of shit" (even if he later censored himself on that) and then delisting it without following proper procedure is really not the way to go about helping editors with their work. Robotforaday 16:44, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Currently, the discussion seems to stand at a clear majority to relist. While I still see some of the comments I was talking about on the review page, (Although the one I cited in particular isn't there anymore, it still doesn't read very neutrally in the same area, a quick read through should be enough to see what I mean, I don't think it would take too long to fix.) its like 4 to 2, that's definently a majority to relist the article. Chriss did violate the rules by not giving time here to let editors fix any problems before delisting, but really, the tag isn't the objective so much as the feedback with GA reviewing. At the current way things seem to be going it will probably be relisted soon anyway. Homestarmy 14:30, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
The simple solution is to put the article up for Peer Review and satisfy all critera ensuring you post on WikiProject Football that it is up for peer review. SenorKristobbal 22:26, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article?

After the work I just did, mostly organizing the article according to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs template, I think this article can be a candidate to become a featured article. That is, if noone objects to my edits. The only question I have is what to do with the Takeover section? Leave it or move it to the History article and shorten it to one sentence in the LFC article. But if you ask me it looks like a featured article. Timpcrk87 08:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, it's great to see someone helping to get this article up to scratch! I think in the main the article has been improved, although I would argue that the notable former players section for this article should be placed after the history of the club rather than where is suggested in the wiki football template. This is because our notable former players section consists of prose rather than a list of names (the list of names just got longer and longer and names such as Antonio Nunez were added...) I am of the somewhat subjective opinion that it looks messy to have a prose section in the midst of some tables, and would prefer to see it flow from the history section, where I believe it follows on naturally (i.e. we've just discussed the great moments of the team, here are the people that helped make them happy).
I agree with you with that the takeover section could be shortened to a sentence and the rest moved to History of Liverpool F.C. (see above in this talk page). I have to go shortly, but I'll try and do that later today if nobody's done it already.
However, as for Liverpool being a featured article, it's not that long since the article was stripped of good article status (although I could never quite make out what that was for!) Perhaps the route to take would be to put it up for peer review to see what else is needed. A lot of people have put a lot of work into it, but I think it could still be improved. Robotforaday 11:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the notable players section should be exactly where you just put it. I'm also beginning to think the records and statistics section should follow the notable players section since it is also prose. Good work on the takeover edit.
Also see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Football/Article_improvement_drive#Liverpool_F.C., we might get more help.
Timpcrk87 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Well to start off this football improvement drive I've archived the talk page and put the article forward for a peer review, see here. Hopefully we'll get some useful responses. It'd be a good idea for people to watch the peer review page so as to be able to converse with anyone who happens to be willing to help us out. aLii 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LFC and religion

I notice that earlier someone removed the sentences in the article which discussed the earlier links between the football club and protestant movements. While I can fully understand someone removing this on the grounds of relevance, I personally think that this element to the club's history gives an insight into LFC's early orgins, and places it in the cultural context of Liverpool at the time - the history of the club, after all, is not just a sporting history, even for those who would like it to be, it's a history tied up with politics (responses to the disasters in the 80s) and economics (the foundation of the club, the recent takeover). If the article is going to be as good as it can be, I think it's important that these contexts are given consideration, and I would say that the question of religious affiliation (even if the question is no longer something most fans care about) is part of that. I remember growing up that older people would often accuse me of supporting the 'wrong' team, and that Liverpool was a protestant team. I never could quite find out from them why that was the case - well, now here I can see a little about about the historical basis of such beliefs, and the person who added it provided a full citation. Robotforaday 12:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

meh. It certainly shouldn't have been randomly in the middle of the history section, and it was poorly written, and I could see no good place to put it. aLii 12:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well I've moved it and edited most of it away. It needs a new reference too, as the I can't check the one given [1] due to it being a subscription-only article, costing £13 to view. The abstract gives no details of any religious affiliations. Saying merely that "a significant proportion of directors were involved in influential socio-political organizations on Merseyside." As far as I'm concerned the religiousness or not of a club chairman doesn't have much is any bearing on the club culture. If the Dubai group had taken over the club would hardly have become Muslim, would it? I'm tempted to remove it entirely again as in its current state it seems a little pointless. aLii 12:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is sensible for the moment to move it to the culture section (although I maintain that the reduction of the history of a major football club to a series of sporting results is to miss the point of the massive impact of these institutions), however I think your removal of the reference on the grounds that it requires a subscription is unfair. Institutions/ libraries etc would have access to the journal, and it gives an option for logging in through athens, which is the major portal for university/ academic access to journals. It's not as though the only people in the world who could read it are the ones who'd pay 13 quid to view it. I think that in the absence of a freely accessible alternative, a subscription required reference is quite acceptable. References to books, journal articles etc are plentiful elsewhere on wikipedia, if we were restricted to just what can be got hold of without any restrictions, the encyclopedia would be greatly impoverished.
Now, of course, having said that, we need to know what the article actually says in order to see whether it is usable and how best it might fit into the article. I do, in fact, have an athens password and so can get hold of it. I will try and have a proper read later, as it is my impression that it is not just based on the religious orientation of the chairman, but talks about certain institutional ties between the club and protestant bodies (perhaps arising from the religion of the chairman/ directors). Once I've read it properly, I can give my opinion on whether it's fair to include, and in what way. I can then make an attempt to better integrate it into the article. Robotforaday 13:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Further to the above, my last edit summary got cut off when I accidentally struck return. To say "Liverpool F.C. has never been particularly associated with either Protestantism or Catholicism" is itself an assertion that would require some form of verification. I would not argue that Liverpool has any particularly religious affiliation today, and the arguments of Glasgow sectarianism are irrelevant to us (thankfully), however, if there is actual historical evidence of past religious associations (and as I have said, I intend to check this up), then I don't think we can ignore this, although it would probably be done more in the manner of "some historical evidence points to the early association between the club and certain protestant associations" rather than "LFC is a protestant club", which would just be silly. Robotforaday 13:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
It is clearly part of Everton's history that they were formed out of St. Domingo Methodist Church, but Liverpool has always been simply a football club. There's an interesting Everton-centric article here. The same infomation can be found in this article (or this one) on The Guardian. Both could be used as sources for "Liverpool F.C. has never been particularly associated with either Protestantism or Catholicism." Infact, I'm going to delete what I left in the Culture section anyway. The board's religious affiliation is completely irrelevent to a non-religious sports article. aLii 14:35, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Note: Please don't put back the same ridiculous text again. I believe that your edits are in good faith, but having the text in the form that you are insisting is misleading at best, and plain incorrect at worst. Also note that you don't want to fall foul of the Three Revert Rule — something that's had me banned in the past :(
aLii 14:44, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Re-reading what you said at the start of this conversation, "growing up that older people would often accuse me of supporting the 'wrong' team, and that Liverpool was a protestant team." Well I hope you've just learnt that both Everton and Liverpool are "Protestant" teams if you want to give labels due to the affiliation of their founders. aLii 14:53, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Ali, I'm sorry this is becoming a bone of contention, as you've done so much to improve the standard of this article. I will hold off all further comments on the content of the article until such time as I've had an opportunity to read it fully, however I will then report back and if it is appropriate include a section in the article. To say that the article on Liverpool F.C. is a "non-religious sports article" is of course true on one level, but you cannot consider anything in complete isolation as though religion, economics, politics, the law etc. has no part to play. Liverpool F.C. is a non-political sports article, but includes reference to the Taylor report. It is a non-business related sports article, but includes reference to the businessmen who paid money to take it over. I fully accept the point you are making about the sentence previously added to the article, but if you are going to blindly delete sections based on Liverpool F.C. being about "sports" and so nothing else mattering other than "sports", when even sports are situated within the history of what goes on off the pitch (and haven't we learned that in the history of Liverpool in particular), then I'm sorry, but I will not agree with that. You do not own the article, I would urge you to seek consensus about what it is appropriate to include or exclude. Robotforaday 19:23, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

If this were an article about Celtic or Rangers, then I would agree that reference to the religious affliliation of the club should be noted. However, those are very rare and distinctive cases. Liverpool isn't and never has been a church team. I seriously do not care whether the founders were religious men or not. The same goes for whether they were freemasons or not. I also don't care whether they were closet homosexuals. It just isn't relevent.
Most people in the 1890s were church-goers. When we talk about long-established businesses we never talk of the religion of their founders unless it's relevent. The same should be true of football clubs.
One thing that is far more famous than any supposed sectarianism is that many families in Liverpool would be split between Liverpool and Everton supporters. The only talk of a religious divide that I've ever come across is the ramblings of a few seemingly demented over-50s. If you can find me one good source for either Liverpool or Everton being a Catholic club, then we can start to discuss the relevency (I've already provided two to say that there is no such divide). Until then, there is none. aLii 16:59, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
In as far as a wikipedia article must be properly sourced, I accept your point, and given that we haven't read the particular article in question, it is a little silly to argue as to its relevance. However, I think you are attributing some pretty bizarre motives to me. I have no interest in claiming Liverpool (or Everton) as a Catholic team, or as a protestant team, or as a scientologist team. I merely sought to defend a reference which another contributor had put onto wikipedia in good faith, saying that removing it just because you personally can't get to it is not in and of itself a reason for calling it a bad reference. I personally think that if that reference (or another good reference) can be used to say that some have attributed protestant historical origins to the team, then that should probably be used, but balanced by the other (non-scholarly) references you have provided which indicate the clear understanding of fans (including myself) that there is no religious affiliation to today's Liverpool F.C. Robotforaday 20:22, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Just realised that my Guardian link above was actually not linked. Well it is now. The relevent part is:
Sam Johnstone of the Football Research Unit at Liverpool University says those speculating on the origins of the Liverpool-Everton, Protestant-Catholic thing are talking nonsense. "Both clubs were founded by the same people (essentially the wealthy, protestant middle classes of 19th-century Liverpool) from the same church (St Domingo's, a protestant church)," he says.
"The story of Liverpool's formation is familiar to all. Everton were formed in 1878, team falls out with John Houlding (the guy who owns Anfield), Houlding forms Liverpool FC in 1892, the rest we know about. What is more interesting is the involvement of the Masons. The guys who formed LFC and EFC were wealthy, middle class, protestant, businessmen and, importantly, pillars of the political and religious establishment (Houlding went on to become Lord Mayor of Liverpool). Freemasonry attracted these very people (for many reasons) and it is known that Houlding and his friend W. Barclay were in the Lodge.
This is basically the information that I took out of the article. The point is that whenever anyone talks about religion with Liverpool and Everton, then one of the two clubs is always "the Catholic club", and sectarianism is involved. If neither is actually a Catholic club, then there is no story other than baseless rumours, and I don't see the point of including information that is solely intended to refute rumours. aLii 23:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Fair point, but if it gets to the point where, in the words of the Guardian "half of Merseyside writes in to have their say" (!) then I do think we're getting into the realm where this is not just invented speculation, but a relatively common (mis?)conception which should be explored if (and I suppose here is the crucial part) this can be done with decent material. Robotforaday 23:42, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
True, but the main point seems to be that there is a lack of any real evidence. There isn't even good evidence (on the internet) of rumours! I guess the whole thing has grown out of sectarianism in Liverpool city, of which there was some. On a small scale there probably was a sectarianism between clubs, but it was as likely to be one way around as the other. Then this weird urban myth sprung up from somewhere.
Looking at the fan-written evidence it would seem that there is some claim for Everton being "the Catholic club". I can see a way to integrate a sentence or two about Everton, having in the past, been considered, by some, as "the Catholic club", into the Everton article. However it's hard to formulate a good way of saying that Liverpool FC, during the days of sectarianism in Liverpool, were considered, by some (Everton fans), to be "the Protestant team".
The oddest thing is that Everton seemingly have the stronger ties with Rangers (i.e. Catholics befriending Protestants) and the perceived wisdom is that Celtic and Liverpool have a history of friendliness. If nothing else dispells this myth then that should. aLii 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I spent a lot of time on the Everton page in a successful effort to get it featured. This issue obviously came up while I worked on it. The stance I took was that people who do label the teams on religion are idiots. The Merseyside derby is the best in the world and is based on so much more than religion. I know Liverpool fans who are Catholic and Protestant...similarly I know Everton fans who are Catholic and Protestant too. Lets not give any attention to the people who attempted to divide merseyside football supporters by religion and concentrate on the facts...Everton was formed from a church and Liverpool was formed from the people in Everton who wanted to stay at Anfield. SenorKristobbal 14:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Your personal opinions are all very interesting but the question is really not about what any of our opinions are - it is about what to do with referenceable material which deals with the issue of religion - hence the reasonableness of Ali's position that given the lack of referencable material it seems inappropriate to include any comment on the matter, and my position that seeing as a contributor did add an reference on this matter, it would be inappropriate to remove this simply because we don't like to think about the fact that some people have considered LFC in terms of religious affiliation. There are lots of things I wish people didn't think, but I'm not going to just discount any mention of it on the article just because I decide to call them 'idiots'. Robotforaday 15:30, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave opinions yes but then I finished it with fact. This is how I worded it (refined by others) on the Everton page

Everton's biggest rivalry is with fellow Merseyside team Liverpool, against whom they contest the Merseyside derby. This stems from Liverpool's formation after a dispute with Everton officials and the owners of Anfield (the ground Everton were using at the time). Religious differences have been cited as a division, though both teams stem from a Methodist origin, undermining the notion of a Catholic–Protestant split.[1] The Merseyside derby is usually a sell out fixture and tends to be a scrappy affair; it has had more red cards than any other fixture in Premiership history.[2]

All of this discussion is very interesting - I have to say that I've been involved in several arguments both in real life and in cyberspace on this very issue. I'd have to agree with Alii, overall. Both clubs have the same origins in the same Methodist parish. The city's demographics are similar to those of Belfast and Glasgow, but I suppose we should be thankful that the football has never been divided along those lines, whatever the rumours (and I've heard rumours in both directions, that Liverpool is Catholic and Everton Protestant, and vice versa.) As regards being told you're supporting the "wrong" club, I would have thought that a Liverpool family tends to be one religion, and that it's unsurprising that the older generation might tell their young nephew that he's supporting the wrong team. But this is football banter, rather than religious sectarianism. Being from a mixed family myself (in football terms, at least, but Catholic by family) I used to stand on the Kop and the Gwladys Street in the 1970s on a regular basis. It was a weekly event on both terraces for someone to shout "Celtic" in order to receive the shout of "Rangers" in return (or vice versa, of course). Both the Kop and the Gwladys Street seemed pretty evenly divided when those Celtic-Rangers chants took place. It's true that a lot of older Evertonian Catholics see Everton as "their" club, despite its origins. It's equally true that Everton the district is the literal and figurative home of Liverpool's Orange Lodge. --Quywompka 18:48, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Staff section

What happened to this section? I think it's a useful bit of info that people will want to know. ArtVandelay13 00:50, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree that some form of staff list should be provided, but perhaps more concise than the form that the list had previously balooned into. I think essentially it should be limited to key coaching personnel (I don't see what place a full list of the board, etc., would have.) Robotforaday 20:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The current list of Technical Staff is out of date, following Steve Heighway's departure as Academy Director. It would appear his role is being assumed by the manager. RTÉ Sport report. NoelMac 14:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Has Heighway already left the position or is he stepping down at a future date? I've read several articles but I'm not clear on the timing. Seeing how he'll continue to have some role within the club but that new position hasn't been announced yet, I'm guessing he's still officially the academy director. Ytny (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] International caps?

Recently someone has added bold to the names of people with international caps in the squad list. Frankly, I think this is not particularly relevant, and makes the squad list look a bit messy (it's also wrong; Jamie Carragher has been capped). What do other people think of it? Robotforaday 09:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm undecided. It looks a bit messy, but at the same time shows quite a lot of information very succintly. I'm tempted to put it forward for discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football. aLii 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

I am proud to announce that this article has just been voted as "featured article" on the Italian Wikipedia. As I used also sources mentioned in the English article, I wish to thank all the people who have contributed to it, and wish you good luck. Blackcat it 23:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Not meaning to sound bitter, but it must be so much easier to get featured articles on non-English wikipedias. This English article isn't even GA standard apparently, and yet seems superior to the Swedish, Chinese and Italian FAs in many respects. I do like some of the details on the Italian article though... There are definitely some ideas worth pinching. Are those two photos from the 1970s really public domain? Can they be used here or only in Italy?. I also quite like the little tables of top appearances and goal-scorers.
Both the Swedish and Italian articles seem to have huge history sections, which is to be frowned upon here. Also the total number of references over the three foreign language FAs is less than there is on this one article, and apparently we don't have enough! ha. aLii 00:11, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Heh, I was wondering that about the images myself. The tags they have contain the following - Warning: this image is public domain in Italy, but in other countries it might be considered differently. Please verify if italian public domain is compliant with your country's law before using it. However, this image cannot be uploaded on Wikimedia Commons. Any lawyers around? Robotforaday 12:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


Thank you. To answer to your questions:

  • I've been a longtime LFC's supporter - since 1977 - and I saw them play in Rome for their 1st European Cup's final against Borussia Mönchengladbach, that's why I was able to write a quite detailed story of the club - at least of their last 30 years.
  • Public Domain. Debated and hot question. According to the law any non-artistic photo either
  1. Taken in Italy or
  2. Produced in Italy or
  3. First published in Italy

more than 20 years ago (or better, more than 20 years before the latter 1st January) are in the Public Domain and this is valid worldwide. But some say that the Italian law cannot limit anyone's copyright out of their borders so is debated whether the author of a non artistic photo taken i.e. in 1984 is able to claim their rights out of Italy (in Italy they can't). That's why for example Shilton's (or Clemence's or even Grobbelaar's) picture could be published on it.wiki even though it's copyrighted anywhere in the world: Shilton's and Clemence's photo were taken during the EC 1980 that took place in Italy more than 20 years ago and thus in the Public Domain.

Anyway we were lucky that many of European wins of LFC were in Italy, so we have free material to choose from :) I also read the English article, it doesn't seem an article unworth to be declared "featured". Why has it been delisted?

Blackcat it 15:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I really like the Italian wikipedia's style for handling the squads, managers, most capped players. Nicely done. I suppose though that it would be a very long haul to get that mirrored in English wikipedia Steve-Ho 20:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Maybe because en.wiki is American, not British. I had an arguement with an American just because I wrote down that New York Red Bull ARE an association football (soccer) club from New York, and he corrected me writing that it IS an American soccer team... There's no agreement between the two opposite Atlantic coasts :) Blackcat it 22:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Could I add an External link

I would like to add a link for http://www.lfconline.com/ --06cat 13:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would think that the general consensus would be that it is a fan site with advertising and items culled from current news reports. Unlike lfchistory.net which has more scholarly tone. Therefore your request would be denied. Barfbagger 11:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colours and crest

Following the referencing drive (which surely makes us the best referenced/ most overreferenced football team article?) I have been trying to add some references to the Colours and Crest section. However, I could not find anything concrete for the adoption of red in 1894 (everything I've read has said that the dates are unclear). I recall there being a lengthy discussion on this, and so thought I'd ask here to see if anybody has the reference that this date comes from. Also, looking at the other FAs, I was wondering whether we could have a little more on the crest of the club? I'm going to look around for some decent sources for another sentence or so on that. Robotforaday 12:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you are looking for this part of the talk archive. From looking there at the work I did, this seems to be the link you're looking for. aLii 14:24, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Nice one- you're right, on the second page of that history: "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." Robotforaday 14:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
On a trivial note, I think Feyenoord may be the most referenced article, with a massive 155. ArtVandelay13 19:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The badge section states that the writing above the badge says "Your Always Never Alone", when it should actually say "You'll Never Walk Alone" (since this is the club anthem). It still links to the right page so its probably a just a typo. 88.107.94.196 19:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivalry

It says in the article that Liverpool's biggest rivalry is with Everton. It then gives a whole paragraph on the topic. No mention goes into in my opinion, the biggest rivalry in English football, let alone Liverpool's biggest rivalry. I am of course talking about Liverpool and Manchester United, the most watched club football game in the world consistently. I think that the unsourced statement about Liverpool's biggest rivalry being with Everton removed, and something about Liverpool's rivalry with Manchester United in place. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 21:06, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Liverpool v Man Utd is far more important to Liverpool fans and there is arguably more rivalry between the two than with Neverton. Jamie 08:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. On a day-to-day basis for fans in the Liverpool area the rivalry with Everton is far more pronounced. It is true that Everton's form has fallen away in the past 20 years, which has somewhat diminished the rivalry, and in that time the rivalry with Manchester United has become more pronounced due to their success, but I think Everton is still the more noteworthy rivalry. However, I wouldn't have any problem with people adding details about a rivalry with United.
Put it this way... try polling Liverpool fans with the question "Who would you rather lose to; Everton or Manchester United." aLii 09:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Both are important, but for me, growing up in Liverpool, getting the banter every day, getting stick from your mates in school if you lost, having gloating rights for the next few months if you won, it was the Everton match that was really important, and it was losing the Everton much that really stung. Anyway, I'm sure you can reference both rivalries - just don't try and bring up recent Sky-manufactured rivalries like the one with Chelsea. Robotforaday 10:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
That polling suggestion wouldn't prove anything. I would much rather Liverpool lost to Manchester United than Everton, because losing to Everton is embarrassing (particularly 3-0). And yes, I don't plan on putting in 'Sky-manufactured' rivalries such as the one with Chelsea. But yes, I think they are both big rivalries but I don't think we should say either one was more than the other. It appears that different fans value the rivalries differently depending on which kind of fan they see more often. I see more Man U fans around, so I value that rivalry more. So in this post I've really said nothing of any value at all. Cream147 Shout at me for doing wrong 23:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
The only reason its embarrassing is because Everton are crap, losing to any crap team is embarrassing. Try polling Liverpool fans and asking who is it more important to beat Man Utd or Everton. I think you'll find it's Man Utd purely because beating Man Utd actually has some impact, most seasons, on Liverpool's league performance. Jamie 10:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be true if you conducted the poll in London or Ireland (or Worthing), but not in Liverpool. I don't want to see this reduced to the level of "you're only a proper fan if you live in the Liverpool area," but there are obvious differences in perception between local and non-local fans. Historically Liverpool's fans have been mostly from the Liverpool area and the Everton rivalry has always been the main one. More recently the club has gathered many fans around the world and these obviously won't feel the same local rivalry with Everton, because Everton don't have much worldwide support. Man Utd do, hence this argument. aLii 11:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's correct but to be fair I've posted the question of rivalry on a big Liverpool forum I post on - where the majority are "locals". So the outcome should prove a good indicator.
One point you raised made me think though. You say that local rivalry is biased towards Everton but why should the article focus on a regional bias of rivalry when arguably the majority of fans outside of Liverpool would consider Man Utd as their biggest rival? Jamie 11:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[pov]Because only the fans who go to Anfield matter[/pov] ;-) Oldelpaso 18:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: My poll after one day has produced a staggering bias towards Man Utd as the fans biggest rivals (including scousers). No surprise there!. See here for poll. Now I am in no way saying this is a consensus amongst all fans but its pretty clear that most fans, regardless of location, consider Man Utd our biggest rivals. Beating them means more and losing to them means more to Liverpool fans than to Everton. The rivalry between Liverpool and Man Utd is as historical as that with Everton the only difference being proximity (See here).

All I can say is find a few articles from reputable sources that back up your assertation, then we don't need to argue. See WP:ATT. You could also attempt to start an article for the rivalry to rival the Merseyside derby article. aLii 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There's no argument here? You say that I should back up assertions with articles yet I don't see any cites for the fact that Liverpool's greatest rivalry being Everton. The paragraph describing the rivalry should be without local bias it should reflect the majority opinion of supporters in terms of greatest rivalry. I think it would be wrong to not mention the Merseyside derby because it is a big and important game to Liverpool fans. My problem is that Everton should not be defined as Liverpool's greatest rivals when they clear are not to the majority of supporters. I'll go ahead and edit the paragraph in a couple of days time. Jamie 13:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
In fairness, if you look at the history of the article, you'll see that over the past few weeks editors have been saturating the article with the required references - a big work which is not yet complete. Compare the version we have now with the one, say, a month ago (or was the article improvement drive actually a month and a half ago?) and you'll note that there are now far, far more references, and we hope to complete this process as part of the work of getting this article up to FA standard. If you see an unreferenced statement in the article, the best thing to do it to slap a citation needed tag on it (or better, find a citation and add it!). Robotforaday 13:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What is not addressed in the concept of rivalry is the era. When Everton were a "big club" <grin> in the fifties & sixties, then winning or losing to them mattered more than to Man Utd. However over the past thirty years MUFC has become the team to beat. Originally because of the perceived media bias but also since SAF declared that Liverpool were the team that Man Utd needed to surpass. With MUFC closing on Liverpool's title tally then it is not surprising that we want to knock them off their perch. Beating Liverpool matters more to Evertonians than the other way round. Barfbagger 16:11, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The amended paragraph is a good start although I think the final sentence needs changing. Although midday kick-offs are to prevent crowd trouble I was always under the impression that this was because the majority of pubs won't of been open long enough for fans to drink heavily prior to the match. Jamie 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Fishfingers15 added a few paragraphs on the topic last night, which I edited down to that one. I wasn't certain about the last sentence, so put the {{Fact}} tag on it, but it rang true. It needs rewriting again I think. Have a go. More detail about the actual rivalry wouldn't hurt either. aLii 12:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
One thing I would definitely change is the description of the rivalry with United as "local". Oldelpaso 18:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

@aLii: I know what you mean, being I a Juventus fan from Rome: unlike fans from Turin, we don't feel bitter rivalry vs. Torino; we rather feel rivalry vs. Inter or Milan. But being in Rome I can witness the more-than-bitter rivalry between Roma's and Lazio's fans, rivarly magnified by the fact both teams haven't won much in their history so winning the game is a sort of reassertment of local supremacy... Blackcat it 11:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It depends because Liverpool v Man Utd is the most watched game in the world but when we v Everton its derby day. I still say Everton is our biggest rival but they say Man Utd biggest rival is Liverpool but that is only home rivals I think, so i am still undecided. --Lacharrder 09:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

And then last weekend Man Utd. v. Arsenal was the most watched game in the World (Daily Telegraph). And perhaps a bigger game for United fans. There is a difference between eternal derbies: Man Utd v Man City; Arsenal v. Spurs; Liverpool v. Everton and recent and changeable, if bitter, rivalries. 81.157.125.245 15:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Houllier

I have been adding more refs, and come to the bit in the history about Houllier leaving the club "by mutual consent". Is this really a fair thing to say? I know that the club tried to make it look mutual in various ways, but most of the sources seem to treat the departure as a dismissal. Robotforaday 14:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to find an official statement on the matter, but I found Houllier's final Liverpool interview for the official website.
The interviewer says: There is usually a lot of animosity when a manager is told his services are no longer required...
Houllier: (Clearly moved) "First of all, that is not the culture of this club. Myself and Rick both want the best for the club and if this is the best, then I can accept that. If I didn't want the best for the club then it would mean that I was just working for me and that is not how I am."
Rick Parry: "I can remember the day we started working together four years ago and we both said, the nature of this is that one day the job will come to an end but that doesn't mean the friendship has to come to an end. Words are cheap and sometimes it's easy to say that but we're sitting here together now. It's the nature of this business that every manager must end his reign at some point."
So was it mutual consent? It's hard to say. Was it a straight sacking? Again, hard to say. aLii 13:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

If it wasn't mutual there was certainly no animosity in the decision as Houllier has since attended many prominent LFC games, most notably the 2005 CL final in Istanbul. Not the actions of either a man or team holding a grudgePrijs 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say the club allowed Houllier to leave by mutual consent out of respect for him, and also Houllier was probably himself aware it was time he left. Technically it was mutual, but realistically it was just time for Liverpool to change managers and wasn't really about Houllier wanting to leave, but more him accepting that he had to. - What Lad

[edit] Godwin Antwin

Someone needs to change Antwin's home country flag, he's from Ghana, not Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.221.212 (talk • contribs)

Yes, but he's a Spanish youth international, so for football purposes, he is (for now) Spanish. Ytny (talk) 04:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, you have ti go with the country they currently represent, or last represented. ArtVandelay13 10:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

His surname is spelt Antwi not Antwin. Jamie 11:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heysel Stadium

Historiography of the disaster is very different to the article displayed on wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heysel_Stadium_disaster

The standard historiography is that it was Juventus fans who caused Liverpool fans to surge towards the Juventus congregation. Juve started the throwing material from the stadium, rubble, terrace poles, etc.

Liverpool fans moving towards Juve fans caused pressure on an aging wall, this wall collapsed, as the pressure of the Juve fans against it.

The article needs a great deal of attention as it is heavily biased, and flies in the face of the standard historiography. Londo06 05:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The Heysel disaster article is pretty well sourced, can you provide some sources to back your version of events? May I also point out that most Italians that visit the article this that it is biased towards Liverpool. aLii 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Needs attention, stating that it WAS Juventus fans that started pelting the Liverpool fans. Liverpool fans moved both against the Juve fans and also away from the barrage of material. Liverpool fans did throw material, however the Juventus fans did start the throwing of rubble, terrace bars and other material. Liverpool fans did retaliate, and it cost lives. That is a matter of fact. The articles vagueness in relation to the cause of the disaster absolves both Juventus and Juventus fans of blame they deserve. The article also needs to look closer at UEFA and the stadium authorities. At the minute the article comes down harshly because of the lack of depth, does not explain the Juventus fans throws, or clearly the mechanics behind the deaths, and the full details of the faults of the authorities. Alexsanderson83 13:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

It's only a matter of fact when you put forward some reliable sources saying as much. aLii 13:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, reliable sources must be provided for assertions like that or else the text must be changed to something far more neutral. The Rambling Man 08:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Apologies if I'm violating any etiquette here but I've added two userboxes to my User page.Feel free to borrow them.


L.F.C. This user supports
Liverpool Football Club
Image:Ynwa.png
96
This user supports justice
for the families of the
Hillsborough disaster

Barfbagger 07:11, 12 April 2007 (UTC)





[edit] An English club with a Scottish heritage

Not enough is said about the clubs strong Scottish Presybterian heritage The club was started by a group of Scots and even has the St Andrews flag on the crest The clubs greatest coach was Scottish as where the clubs greatest players during the dynasty era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.65.35 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 14 April 2007

Really, the issue is that there is a need for sources for these kind of claims, and if you can suggest sources, we can work on integrating this - as you may see above, the religious aspect is particular contentious without any concrete evidence. As for the St. Andrew's flag on the crest, this comes from the Shankly gates, and I've always assumed was part of the gates as a reference to Shankly's nationality? Robotforaday 10:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Everyone knows Liverpool where formed by Jocks as much as Celtic where formed by Paddy's Everyone knows the Crest has a St Andrews cross on it. The Religous aspect from what ive seen and read is fairly straight forward the club's heritage was of Scottish presbyterian. The club may not be like that now and neither should it be but facts are facts and shouldnt be glossed over for the PC brigade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.76.196 (talk • contribs) 14:10, 16 April 2007

This has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with verifiablity and attribution. If "everyone knows" -which isn't the case, since I didn't- then you shouldn't have any trouble finding reliable sources stating the fact. Remember that this is an encyclopedia article and meant for people who know little or nothing about a subject, not experts and fans. You should never assume common knowledge. Ytny (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thats fine and dandy to say you should never assume but that should also go for the club's fans saying they sang YNWA first without viable evidence to back it up,ive never ever saw anything from either Liverpool FC of its fans which catagorically states with real hard evidence that they sang that song first,yet it appears on this site —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.84.77.20 (talk • contribs)
I realize the distinction is subtle, but we're looking for verifiability, not "catagorically (sic) stating" or providing "real hard evidence". And at the very least, we can verify that a reliable and independent claiming that YNWA singing began at Anfield. If you can find a similarly reliable, independent source contradicting this, then by all means, bring it here.
But we digress. Where are your sources regarding Liverpool's Scottish heritage and religious affiliations? Ytny (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Where was the St Andrews Cross on the club crest before the Shankly Gates were built? And less of the "Jocks" & "Paddys" pal, if you mean Scots & Irish say so, this is Wikipedia, not a hooligan blog, thank you. Vera, Chuck & Dave 14:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pedant but can we spell Shankly correctly? Barfbagger 15:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Quite right Barfbagger, well spotted la! Vera, Chuck & Dave 15:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

From the contribution histories of our anonymous editor friend I am going to summise that they are a Celtic fan who, like most of them, doesn't like Rangers. This being a given, then rather than arguing over how Scottish John Houlding was, I would like to direct everyone's attention up the page to Talk:Liverpool F.C.#LFC and religion. A lot of this has been discussed before, and there isn't a whole lot of online evidence. In my eyes it simply isn't relevent to report the religious affiliation of everyone associated with the club. In the 1890s everyone went to church... aLii 15:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honours section

I notice that the Honours section has recently been altered to include all (winning) final results instead of simply listing the years each trophy was won. I'm not convinced that this is a good thing — the article is already quite long, and the results can easily be found on the various competition pages. What does everyone else think? aLii 10:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I think it's overkill - the links to that year's competition and/or final should be enough. Just listing the years is tidier. ArtVandelay13 12:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I agree. Get rid. Robotforaday 19:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish

I've just seen that Xabi Alonso and Pako Ayestaran are named as Spanish people. As this is a free dictionary and they have said so many times that they feel themselves as Basques, I wonder if there is anything we could do about that. I can document with interviews where Xabi Alonso says that he would "sure play with the Basque national team if there was so", "because I am Basque". I think it's more proper to put the Basque flag than the Spanish if he says that. I just wanted to start a discussion to see what do you think about it.

I would be more prepared to accept this argument if Alonso refused to play for the Spanish national team, but he seems to have no problem with that. Generally you'll find that player flags are for the countries that they turn out for, not where they were born. Other examples in the Liverpool squad are Sissoko and El Zhar, who are both French by birth. Antwi is from Ghana, but sports a Spanish flag. aLii 10:09, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
The point of the matter is the Basque country is one of 17 autonomous communities within Spain. Just because they are self-governing does not mean they are independent. Alonso may consider himself Basque but inevitably he is Spanish until the day the Basque people gain independence. But in any case he would of already played for Spain competitively and therefore be ineligible to play for another country. Jamie 10:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually this is incorrect, just like how the splitting up of the Soviet Union hadn't left all of the former bloc countries with no players Imagine the trouble Serbia would have! 77.99.232.104 (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Basque does not have a national football team that is recognised by Fifa and seeing as he is still a Spanish intenational the Spain flag should remian next to his name. If Basque becomes recognised by Fifa and Alsonso starts to play for them put it up then. KP-TheSpectre 14:32 1st July 2007

[edit] Florent Sinama-Pongolle

Isn't he still our player? If so shouldn't he be on the list of loaned out players? His Wikipedia page says nothing about it being a permanent transfer. aLii 10:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

He still is a Liverpool player (on loan) according to the club website. Jamie 10:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
He was disappeared from the loaned players along with Roque and Guthrie by vandals early this morning. I've put them back. Struway 11:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It was confired awhile ago on the club site that he has left on a permanent basis. The club site doesn't seem to be updating the squad list at the moment KP-TheSpectre 12:50, 30 June 2007 (BST)

[edit] Loan returns

When do we consider the loaned out players to be back? Officially speaking, most of the loans are untill June 30th, but as soon as their loan clubs' seasons are over, they have no more involvement with the club. Peltier, Martin, Antwi, Idrizaj, O'Donnell and possibly Guthrie and Roque will have played their last games for their adopted clubs by monday morning, but do they go back into the main squad list and template? ArtVandelay13 17:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Guthrie is listed as loaned out on the Reserves page as well as this. Should remove the one on this page as he is still a reserve player really. Same for Bouzanis, although he needs adding to the Reserve Page. Godwin Antwi's is listed correctly on the reserve page. Also, someone remove Cisse and Le Tallec from the loan section after midnight. They'll have to go back in the 1st team squad methinks, unless you're feeling cruel, in which case stick them in the Reserves list! --MickeyPickup 21:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Traditionally all loaned out players have gone on the main page, although I suppose this could change. Guthrie should definitely be on there, though, as he has a squad number. Cisse and Le Tallec are in the first-team list, and if they're still at the club when next season's numbers are announced, and they don't have any, then they can move to the reserves page. ArtVandelay13 22:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yep, i agree with the Guthrie point although, now i'm thinking about it, I don't actually see the point of listing a separate 'squad' on the reserves page as everyone on there is part of the main squad, whether they have a number or not. Anyone can play for the reserves so that page should just list history/achievements etc. and not a list of players as it could be argued that it is speculative and even plain factually wrong. The entire squad should be listed on the main page. Would add the Academy bit underneath as well probably. Just unneccessary to separate them. What do people think?--88.105.39.212 11:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nickname

Pool. Are Liverpool known as 'Pool anymore or just the reds 194.75.128.200 22:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really called 'pool much any more these days. the reds is the most common nickname. Londo06 15:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I have heard them get called 'Pool' KP-TheSpectre 12:50, 30 June 2007 (BST)

I added Pool to be consistent in the article at List of English football club nicknames. I have also still heard people referring to them as Pool. --== Waycool27 ==-- 03:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA passed

Generally well referenced, no obvious POV issues. No doubt it'll appear on WP:FAC at some point in the future. Oldelpaso 10:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Good news, I could never understand why it was de-listed in the first place.Dave101→talk→contributions • 14:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Definatly a GA but a long way to go before we can consider making it a FAC. Buc 15:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Recent additions

Someone keeps adding this article to the Recent additions list, always nothing that Liverpool FC are the top English club. Recent additions is not a general Did You Know or a My-Team-Is-Better-Than-Man-U article. Please don't do it again. Taylor 15:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Robbie Fowler Removal?

I have put Robbie Fowlers name back in the Squad Listings as it was removed before the Champions League Final. As we all know the Champions League Final is his last official involvment as a player for the club.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.48.218 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, some overeager editors want to be the first! to insert any sort of news they hear. He's officially part of the squad until June, if I'm not mistaken? --Ytny (talk) 13:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
He may even be retained, well only if Crouch and Kuyt break each others legs in a savage training ground accident. Right to be left until his contract expires. Londo06 18:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
It's the norm to remove released players as soon as their seasons are over (obviously now, with one game still to play, is far too early), but there's an argument for keeping them in until June 30, and if people want to do that with Fowler, it helps with my denial. Either way, I'll let someone else remove him, it would be too much for me. On a related note, I've been re-adding the returned loanees as soon as their active loans are over, but for the un-numbered players, and the new arrivals, it's probably best to leave them out until July 1 or later. ArtVandelay13 00:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Steven Gerrard MBE

Am i right in saying that Steven Gerrard's MBE should still be recoignised on the squad list, because he has gained it partly through the Champions League and FA Cup titles! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.202.168.46 (talk • contribs)

I personally don't like seeing it on the squad list. It doesn't seem very modest. Having said that, the official liverpool website does put it on their squad list. No other site does though. aLii 12:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

But i think that it is an Achievement that should be recoignsed, seeing as this is a Factual Encyclopedia Chaza93 19:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's on his article, that's enough. It's irrelevant to a squad list, and almost no official squad list, particularly not his player registrations would refer to it. ArtVandelay13 19:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
A further point; We don't call everyone Mr Steven Gerrard, etc. on the squad list do we? It is not a formal list. Also, you don't see me going around signing posts as Dr aLii PhD, even though I am a doctor with a PhD. aLii 09:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

OK maybe itsjust too much for me to ask to keep an edit lol Chaza93 20:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

The MBE is a minor honour. To insist he be called Steven Gerrard MBE in the squad list would be inconsistent with the accepted convention, as nobody in public life who's been awarded an MBE, CBE or OBE ever has the letters affixed to the end of their name, whether in the news or in everyday conversation. This is different to a knighthood, which is why Alex Ferguson is universally know and referred to as Sir Alex Ferguson. Kronix1986 13:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trophy picture

What's wrong with a picture of the team holding a trophy? And your comment (On any site team site on wikipedia there is no imge of team captin lifting Cups so imge removed) is wrong, as Arsenal FC has one too as well as the victory parade. Jmbox 20:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Untrue Facts and Immeasurable Statements

Just reading only the introduction of the article, I realize that many facts are untrue. Eg: Liverpool FC have sixteen English League titles, not eighteen. Also, saying that Liverpool is "the most successful club in English football" is extremely debatable. (specifically by Man Utd fans) Gdawg99 06:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's definitely 18 titles, this is widely known, and not controversial nor disputed. As is Liverpool being the most successful English club - most league titles, most European Cups, most of everything except the FA Cup. This is all explained in the article. ArtVandelay13 08:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
?????????????? I've heard of historical revisionism, but saying Liverpool only have 16 titles - this is a wind up, right? I can't believe I'm having to do this, but here's a reference: [2] And it's from the Premier League, not from Liverpool (so you can't accuse the club of just making it up)! Mate, check your facts before you wade in with crazy statements like this. As for "most successful", I think we have said in the article that this is being measured in terms of trophies, and it's a measurable fact that Liverpool have won more trophies than any other English team, and also that they've won every competition (except for the FA cup) more times than any other English team. Robotforaday 10:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And the Cup Winners Cup :p aLii 14:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worst fans in Europe jib needs to be removed...

...since it has been retracted by the President of UEFA Michel Platini. That's very ignorant and disrespectful. If you're going to put it up that fast, it either needs to be erased just as fast, or the retractions needs to be published immediately following. That is clearly biased and irresponsible in itself as UEFA is making a claim in which it is impossible to back. (Unsigned)

I think if you follow the press closely enough you'll find that they have retracted the report. Wikipedia should cover both sides of anything as controversial as the jib.

But check out this link |Sporting Life's version of the Platini reply - I'll keep on checking to see if theres any better news feeds that we can add to the section. Mike33 16:43, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase needs to be removed. Maybe incorporate it into the article, but not in the top section. Surely a club with 115 years of history has something more constructive and informative that can be placed into a two paragraph summary? Novadeath69 07:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I would agree but I think it needs to stay until the government have considered the UEFA report. I also agree that the top section should mirror the Whole article. Mike33 07:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have remodelled the section on criticism, expanding on the post-Heysel criticism to include the correct year amongst other things, and expanding the June 2007 section. As both Platini and Caborn are now in agreement that the argument over tickting at the Champions League final should be closed, perhaps we should leave this section, or remove it entirely and place it into the History of LFC page??Mwmonk 16:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Mwmonk 07/06/07 17.48 BST

Liverpool football club just doesnt get a couple of pages in the echo - it creates controversy worldwide - i think the google news hit for liverppol uefa report showed 900 mirrored reports. My own view is to keep it until the minister of sport starts reports to parliament that he condemns the report as a work of fiction or that he insists that the ticketing issues were beyond the fans or clubs culpability. WE KNOW THAT TICKETING WAS A NONSENSE. As for a drunk lad larkin with a lad an snatchin a ticket - lets see the report.
I have changed your changes (your welcome to revert) or amend. I wont edit again today. Most new people who have read the article will come here because of news reports. (BBC sometimes quotes wikipedia as link but hasn't done in any report! aticle needs to get up to date or and sourced ;-) (thats a joke). Just keep it NPOV and we're all ok :-) again edit or revert. I just want to make a good clear concise subsection. We can always mint it somewhere when ppl get bored). Mike33 17:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


I have reverted some of your changes, Mike33, and kept others. I believe it is necessary to include Tom Hicks' statement that Gaillard is 'a clown' because I think it shows how upset this unsubstantiated allegation made a huge number of people feel, and it also shows how the club chose to fight back against it. If we are to even incude this information here, then it has to be the full story, regardless of how people chose to make their arguments. It is not a particularly NPOV subject in the first place!!

I believe that it would be better for this section to now be removed either to the LFC History page, or to a separate page of its own, titled something like 'UEFA Criticism of Liverpool Football Club' - I also believe that the same information could easily be included in the articles on UEFA, Gaillard and PlatiniMwmonk 11:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it should have ever been in the lead section, but a sentence about the controversy should definitely be included in the history article. It doesn't deserve its own article though. aLii 14:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I've moved the whole section to seperate listing History of Liverpool F.C.. Its just a pity that we wont ever get to see the stuff they wrote. Its history but UEFA leave a very bitter taste behind. Mike33 10:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong Chairman????

I know Gilette and Hicks own the club, but I was still under the impression that David Moores was retained as Chairman. After looking at the website this is definitely the case. Could someone make the change please unsigned

I think you'll find that David Moores is honary president, i think he keeps stakes in liverpool but doesn't attend board meetings. Mike33 10:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FAC?

The PR from 2 mounths ago said it was ready. Anyone here think it need anything eles before it nominated? Buc 16:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Nominated  ¢нαzα93  20:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Marvin Pourie needs to be added to incoming

He's a 16-year-old German striker who comes via Borussia Dormund. I'm not sure if he'll be a reserve player or at the Academy, but due to his age, I'm guessing the Academy.

[edit] Fernando Torres Signing

Added but yet to be confirmed. The footnoted link ( to The Guardian )even says the same! Someone should remove it. --MickeyPickup 11:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed him from the player list and have put a note in saying not to change it until it is actually confirmed. --dvyuk 12:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, please do not add players that are not officially confirmed on www.liverpoolfc.tv. Cheers, aLii 14:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
www.liverpoolfc.tv. don't seem to be updating the squad list at the moment so put some Leniency on that please KP-TheSpectre 19:03, 30 June 2007
They'd still announce it as a news item. Immediately. ArtVandelay13 18:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, that is what I meant. It should be confirmed on the liverpoolfc.tv news. Their squad list section is notoriously poor. aLii 18:32, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
He is about to join the club, everything is agreed. If your going to take Mark Gonzalez off then Torres should be put on now KP-TheSpectre 20:33, 03 July 2007
Fair enough, Gonzalez is back on there. ArtVandelay13 19:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Torres is officially transfered. I will include a link to atletico madrid's website. Do not change it back, it is official. Dpool2002 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you reiterate what you mean by "official"? Mattythewhite 22:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What I mean, is that one of the clubs has released the information through a public source of information, in this case their official website. Therfore, I would say that it is "officially" completed. Party B, in this case Liverpool, has confirmed that he has completed a medical (the last step in completing a transfer). Therfore, because both have confirmed it, I believe it to be "official". Dpool2002 22:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

HE HASN'T SIGNED THE CONTRACT! Actually read the news!! Go to The BBC, "He will return to Liverpool on Wednesday afternoon and BBC Sport understands he will sign a six-year contract before he is unveiled" - future tense, hence he hasn't already signed the contract! Mattythewhite 22:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a very long history of football players who made the medicals but then weren't signed. Do not add Torres back without an official statement by Liverpool FC. Thanks in advance. --Angelo 22:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said he signed a contract. I said he had been transferred. Atletico's official website says this. An official statement from Atletico should be sufficient. They are as reputable as the Liverpool site. But fine, I'll just add another sub section then. http://www.clubatleticodemadrid.com/en/atleticoaldia/noticias.asp?id=1435Dpool2002 23:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

The bid is not official until the contract is signed. Maybe you recently heard about the Suazo affair: Cagliari chairman said first to have found an agreement with Inter, then he sold him to AC Milan, then he retracted everything, and in the end Suazo was signed by Inter. This is a great lesson for all of the guys here in the Wikipedia attempting to include players without a proper official announcement by the signing club. --Angelo 00:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

In the Suazo affair, there was never an official announcement on the club's website saying that the transfer had been agreed to. Regardless, nothing should be changed then tomorrow either, despite an announcement from Liverpool, because the transfer isn't "official" until the papers are approved by the premiereship. We should hold off until that happens a month from now or so.

There was one single announcement at AC Milan's website saying just "Milan signed Suazo". Of course this wasn't true, as the player never signed a contract with AC Milan, whereas Cagliari's chairman did. In any case, when Liverpool will announce Fernando Torres has agreed to sign a contract with Liverpool we'll be able to include him in the squad section here. --Angelo 03:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The transfer move was finalized, so now you can add him. Here is the source: [3]. He will play with the #9 shirt. [4] --Angelo 15:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transfers In/Out

What is wrong with listing the players coming in and the players going out during the transfer window?

Also why were they removed in the first place? KP-TheSpectre 12:50, 30 June 2007 (BST)

It's unnecessary clutter, and not really appropriate - WP is not a news service. The link to a general transfers section is enough, and more useful. ArtVandelay13 13:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Benitez just confirmed that Anderson went on loan yet my edit was undone. Clearly the link i provided (which states the loan move as fact) went unread. Can i ask that people please read the links provided before making edits as they are the true source of info, not a personally held misguided opinion of the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MickeyPickup (talk • contribs)

Sorry, my bad. I saw the second edit, but didn't realise there was an edit to the loan section, with a reference. ArtVandelay13 18:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
No probs bro, gonna leave him in for a bit. Seems like the word of Benitez is about as reliable as the official site at the moment regarding players' situations! Probably is a done deal but will wait for pool or swansea to say so.--MickeyPickup 20:19, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mark Gonzalez

Shouldn't he still be in the squad list as he is still officially a Liverpool player.

Yes, I know that he is supposed to be moving to Real Betis but that deal doesn't appear to have been completed and the official club site still call him a Liverpool player. His transfer is also not listed on the 2007/2008 transfers page.

The club also recently updated the squad list, removing playes such as Dudek and Fowler but Gonzalez is still there. He also isn't on the Real Betis squad list on thier official site. KP-The Spectre 10:19 1st July 2007

True, and they've removed Zenden too, although Sinama-Pongolle is still listed on the official site and i thought he left in January! They do suck at updating the site. There are still many ommissions and the youth section hasn't been touched for months. Putting Gonzalez back in would be correct although how long he will be there is unknown as it's pretty guaranteed he's moving. The official site keep creating news items about him though so i'm sure he's still ours for a few more days/weeks.--88.105.39.212 11:39, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Pongolle only left on loan in January and they list players who are out on loan, but he has left permanently now. As for Gonzales, I don't think I ever saw conformation of him saying he left the club except for Benitez saying a deal had ALMOST been done. I also doubt if he had left that they would be talking about how he is doing in copa america on the site KP-The Spectre 14:12 1st July 2007

Ok, I have checked some of the links and it seems a deal has been done, it just seems for the time being he is still a Liverpool player but he will leave before the start of the new season KP-The Spectre 14:20 1st July 2007

NB Sinama-Pongolle left on loan in August. The permanent deal was done a few weeks ago, it's on the main transfers page. ArtVandelay13 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

He's a Betis player. Confirmed by Marcelino when he was discussing terms with Betis, confirmed by Mark Gonzalez himself when he was in Chile a couple of weeks ago, confirmed by Lopera when trying to appease to los beticos, and confirmed, OFFICIALLY, by LFP.es. Check out Betis on the squad list. --It's simple, really simple.... 17:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not confirmed in http://www.lfp.es transfer list . Matthew_hk tc 20:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. This morning there is an article on liverpoolfc.tv [5] mentioning how "Liverpool winger Mark Gonzalez" is to play in the quarter finals of the Copa America tonight. aLii 07:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Club Culture - Vandalism

Would someone please take care of the vandalism in the final paragraph of this section?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.152.252 (talk • contribs) 02:58, 4 July 2007

There is nothing here that reflects the trouble Liverpool fans cause wherever they go. Before someone takes out the Vandalism remark maybe they could address the wholesale wrecking of toilet facilities at Old Trafford during their FA Cup semifinal against Chelsea on the 22nd April 2006.
If this article does not start to reflect the true nature of the Clubs supporters then it needs to be wiped. Ever football supporter in the UK and quite a lot in Europe know how bad the Liverpool fans are and quite frankly to make out they are well behaved is an insult to every law abiding fotball fan in the world.
I have not commented on hillsborough or Hysel but those sections need a little bit of objectivity too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.211.89.191 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 July 2007
I will remove the vandalism whenever the page is unprotected. As far as 85.211.89.191's claims go though, I think there is little merit in what you have to say. For instance the article doesn't (and couldn't) comment on all the good that Liverpool fans do, so it wouldn't be balanced to comment on every little indiscretion. aLii 13:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
One word: sources. That's what wikipedia needs. It's not a place for hearsay about this kind of behaviour. I am sure that a minority of fans behave badly (as is the case with fans of most football clubs, unfortunately), however, this is not the place to add an inventory of bad behaviour with each and every club. I have seen Manchester United fans (like many 'good' united fans, they weren't from Manchester at all, they were from Ireland) kicking a Liverpool fan who was on the ground. I called the incident to the attention of the police, but I will not add it to the Manchester United article. Why? Because it was a single incident, which I could not call representative of Manchester United 'fan culture', and besides, as far as I know it was not reported in any newspapers or anything like that. Your accusations about the Heysel and Hillborough coverage are even more contentious, especially given that the remarks on Hillsborough draw heavily on the Taylor Report's account of events. So tell me, have you actually done any reading up on Hillborough or Heysel? Is there anything substantive here which is a problem? Or are you just, as I suspect, sounding off? Robotforaday 13:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Vandalism removed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brace yourselves

Saturday means the beginning of pre-season friendlies, which will mean a lot of temporary squad numbers of 80+ on Lfc.tv's squad list. People are bound to set these as the new players' actual numbers, so we'll need to watch out for that. ArtVandelay13 17:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, there won't. Liverpoolfc.tv won't be updating squad number lists until "most of the comings and goings" are completed, according to ThirdPaul (administrator of said website, who also uses forums). So, thankfully, we don't need to worry about it. Kenifh 04:38, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
haha, that's a rather naive viewpoint methinks. You don't need the official site to get updated for people to change details on this page. Merely playing with a new number on the back will almost certainly get a response. Hopefully though most fans will remember these "false numbers" from last pre-season and ignore them, hopefully. aLii 07:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
Really though, how many people will even notice what the new numbers are? And of those that do, I think I could count on one hand the number 73 or something like that could possibly be Gerrard's new number. I don't see more than a handful of the less bright fans rushing to change Wiki about it, really. Kenifh 09:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not Gerrard and co that will get the #73, it's the new and youth players. These numbers were added a lot last year. ArtVandelay13 11:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
It has begun... Mattythewhite 13:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
so Kenifh, see here. aLii 09:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Despite that ONE case so far i also thing we need not worry, the page is semi-protected... and users should know that you need a source to be able to add something that remians Chaza93 18:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Player

Liverpool signed Ryan Babel from Ajax for £11.5 million. And that is not shown in the Liverpool F.C. page. Marcoantoniomaiamartins210493 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)Marco MartinsMarcoantoniomaiamartins210493 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The player has not yet officially joined, the deal could still collapse before he signs the deal, expected to be completed today, sorry Chaza1000 05:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Voronin's Squad Number

This will eventually be corrected, but it's worth mentioning that Voronin's Squad number appears to be 11 not 10 that the website and wiki say http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N156358070712-1125.htm (bottom but one photo) Welshie402

Training numbers don't mean a great deal. He was announced as Liverpool's number 10 when he joined. [6] ArtVandelay13 22:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Training numbers tend to not mean anything, however, everyother player has their squad number as their training number, including Torres, so it may be worth watching the situation, even if his number has been confirmed.

[edit] Squad numbers

Official word on the liverpoolfc.tv messageboard is that;

Benayoun 11

Arbeloa 17

Babel 19

Carson 26

so who is Arbeloa making way for?? The link is http://forums.liverpoolfc.tv/Forum15/HTML/179007.html but you need to be registered to read it. aLii 11:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I hadn't seen this thread. I concede on the Arbeloa issue. Maybe it's his preferred number or something (it was taken when he arrived). ArtVandelay13 12:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Mihaylov has the number 30 as his training number, so, as Liverpool have the same training number as squad number, it could be presumed that this would be his squad number. 81.158.181.110 17:35, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
But, it should not be added without a RELIABLE source Chaza93 19:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree I meant it more as a 'look out for a source' rather than just adding it. 217.255.238.46 21:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Players

PLAYERNAME (FROM)
Mikel San Jose (Athletic Bilbao)
Nikolay Mihaylov (Levski Sofia)
Krisztian Nemeth (MTK Hungaria)
Andras Simon (MTK Hungaria)
Ryan Crowther (Stockport)

And Lucas name should be changed to his full name, Lucas Leiva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjoppa (talk • contribs)

They're all on the reserve list, but the first-team squad list is for squad numbered players only, and for those players likely to get a squad number soon. Mihaylov fits the bill as the third 'keeper, but experience shows that purchased youth team players don't get a number straight away (cf. Durán, Antwi, Brouwer, Huth, etc). As for Lucas Leiva, as far as I'm aware he goes by Lucas, so listing him as Lucas Leiva would be a bit like having Ronaldinho Moreira. We'll see. ArtVandelay13 20:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just thought that people might be interested to hear that Lucas and Mihaylov's arrivals are being held up by work permit issues. Lucas is actually still waiting for an Italian passport (rather than already having one) and Mihaylov is struggling to acquire a work permit. So says this article in the Liverpool Echo anyway. aLii 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Luvas Leiva should be listed as Lucas - he is listed by what he wears on his shirt if they are brazilian Chaza93 20:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] error in club culture section

In the club culture section, just after citation 48 there is a discussion about the Shankly Gates. The article correctly states that they were erected in memory of the former manager. It states that the managers name was Shiv Parbakhar. Obvioulsy this needs to be changed to Bill Shankly. I don't know how to change this, sorry.Chasbigspuds 21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I haven't had chance to look at the history section, but can assure you it was quite recent. I have changed to offending vandalism and make sure that I inform the editor about vandalism. Well spotted and thanks. Mike33 21:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Vandalising editor Icerx issued with a {{test3}}

Mike33 21:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LFC TV

I've added a little more info on LFC TV - start date and the fact it's to be available via E-season ticket, but van't we expand it a bit? MUTV has a dedicated article, surely we can manage at least a section on LFC TV! Or even a combined section on LFC TV and EST? Kenifh 03:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty neutral about how notable this sort of thing is, maybe it should have its own article, and a "see also" link to that? Is it really a historic moment in the club on the same level as the clubs origins, league victories, the various european cup wins, etc.? Robotforaday 13:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
It does, I think deserve a mention, and more than the current 3 sentences, but I'd wait until it's been up a while and there's more to say about it before adding an article for it. Personally. Kenifh 14:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
If other people are happy to see a brief mention of LFC TV included, then I'll go with that, although for me its hardly a major event. But giving it more than 3 sentences? We're often being told that the article is too long, and as a result the contribution of some trophy winning managers gets less than 3 sentences. The new investment from Gillett and Hicks, which is certainly more significant, only gets one sentence in the history (and a brief mention in the lead). Robotforaday 14:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be 2 identical articals for this, 1 should surely be deleted as having both is pointless. (Note: this is not a redirect) AfTaDaRkCrU 23:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

It may just be me, but I cant find anything about LFC TV on the Liverpool page. Has it been removed it. If it has then why KP-TheSpectre (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted on 7 January by NapHit on the grounds that it constitutes recentism, and I have to say that I personally agree with him on that score. Robotforaday (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dean Bouzanis

Apparently this kid is no longer with Sydney.[7] I first noticed a few weeks ago that he'd disappeared from their website, but I haven't heard any word from Liverpool about him. The word from Australia is that he's been "delisted" from Sydney's squad so that he can link up with Liverpool. aLii 13:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Guess he's still on loan downunder even though he's our player.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.104.11 (talk • contribs) 08:50, 28 July 2007
He's now on the liverpool website [8] and his loan with Sydney seems to have ended so he should be moved from loaned and added to reserves. 86.148.184.107 22:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Done - I took him out of the loan section last night and added to the academy as it is showing on the official website that he his due to join the academy for the 2007-08 season. I would assume this will be in January when he reached 17 yrs and 3 months (the age restriction for Australians) Steve-Ho 12:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Finnan Ireland Flag

Problems with the Irish flag at the minute, . Anyone know how to place it in. Londo06 14:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with it. Mattythewhite 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Been fixed. Someone was messing around with it, affecting numerous sporting articles. Fixed now though. Londo06 14:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note 1

Surely the mentions to Man U in note one are not relevant to Liverpool's status as the team who have won more trophies than any other English team. I know wikipedia is meant to show many sides to arguments, but surely the facts alone are neutral enough. I mean, surely the fact that Liverpool have not won the Cup Winner's Cup is not relevant to their having, numerically, the greater number of trophy's of all English teams. If the Man U comparison is entered for neutrality, then surely every other club in England would have to be entered for the same reason, which would be obsurd. 217.255.204.107 21:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lucas Leiva?

Anyone else notice that Lucas wore "Leiva" on the back of his shirt yesterday against Portsmouth? Perhaps his full name should be listed in the squad details after all? aLii 07:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

His name is Lucas Pezzini Leiva. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.8.104.11 (talk • contribs) 08:47, 28 July 2007
Well, if that's the case, then fair enough. ArtVandelay13 22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pezzini is not required - Lucas Leiva will do - unless it changes during the season Chaza 93 11:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

What did i say, LUCAS was on his shirt against Toulouse El-Nin09 19:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. And the LFC shop sells his shirt with 'Lucas' on the back. I'll change the relevant pages. ArtVandelay13 19:17, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anfield

The anfield page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anfield) needs to be updated and revised. Please go volunteer...

[edit] FA Review

Ok can we actually have some feedback this time? Does Any body feel that we need to add anything else before i nominate it? El-Nin09 20:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs a whole new peer review before even thinking about another FAC. Mattythewhite 20:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Please don't submit it just like that! We need to take time to really make sure things are in a decent state, AND we need a peer review. The problem is, every week people add things to this article and change things around, so there are always problems that need to be picked up on that will prejudice people looking at the article for Featured Article. What still needs to be done from the things that the article was failed on during the last rushed nomination? Robotforaday 22:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the article is close to getting to FA standard, maybe a peer review is needed again any thoughts? NapHit 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Insua

He has now fully transfered to Liverpool as part of the Paletta deal [9] can someone update this please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.148.185.108 (talk) 13:24, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Johnny Todd - then what is significant?

In light of the club agreeing to the unprecedent (in the Liverpool Echo's own words and that of the club) playing of Johnny Todd in light of the murder of Rhys Jones at tonights game at Anfield, I included the text below in the article in the section relating to rivalries with Everton. Unfortunatly, editor User:NapHit decided it was (quoting form his edit summary) "not significant enough to be included in the article." To avoid a 3RR editing debate, if the playing of the Everton theme tune at Anfield before a game which doesn't included Everton is not, then what exactly is "significant"?

Following the murder of 11 year old Everton fan Rhys Jones, after a suggestion from Liverpool Echo columnist Tony Barrett in his blog,[3] which was supported in volume by its readers,[4] in an unprecedented move Rick Parry agreed to play the Z-Cars theme tune Johnny Todd - the song which traditionally greets the arrival of the Everton team onto the Goodison Park pitch - prior to the Liverpool theme tune of You'll Never Walk Alone ahead of their UEFA Champions League game with Toulouse on 28 August.[5]

Rgds, - Trident13 17:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is really the tendency towards recentism. As tragic as this death was, the amount of text there is about as long as the section in the article on the Hillsborough Disaster, which was an incident which rocked and defined the club. While I would in theory support some mention of this gesture of solidarity between fans of the two teams, I think it could be stated far more briefly, probably in a single sentence. Robotforaday 00:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As a red nose myself, I would agree with that - we'll never forget Hillsborough, and in historic significance it should have more coverage. Care to suggest how a sentence might be composed? Rgds, - Trident13 08:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the Z-Cars thing belongs on the Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08 article, as well as Rhys Jones' own, but not on the main LFC article, you can't list every single thing that happens. ArtVandelay13 09:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that it not stay. That is not to say that I don't think that the whole incident wasn't barbaric and cruel and doesn't need sorting, but I really don't think that it will stay in Liverpudlian memories for long. I can imagine that this will take a better place in Everton F.C. page rather than here. TehPoep 12:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New stadium capacity

This is a mess. Top of the entry says capacity is to be 60,000, expandable to 80,000, and cites a BBC news article which shows a picture of the rejected design. That's not going to be built. Old news, out of date. And for the record, that design never was expandable - it was speculation by the Echo which was later denied. Lack of expandability was why we needed to change the design.

Later on in the 'Stadium' section we have more up to date information, saying that it'll be a 61,000 seater stadium, expandable to 78,000. That links an article on the LFC official site, which is good, but nothing there says 78,000, just 'the high seventies'. Exactly what that means is not clear.

Sure, I'd love a huge stadium, but if we're going to specify numbers we'll need actual, current, reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.17.108 (talk) 22:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the section, it justs reflects how the stadium has changed over time NapHit 16:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes you have made your point but we need a bigger staduim capacity but I dont think we should build a new Anfield we just need the capacity up more round about 60,000 I say --Lacharrder 09:15, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bolding players with international caps?

Is there any point in this? I personally think it looks messy and doesn't tell us anything about the subject of the article, which is Liverpool F.C. If people want to find out whether a player has played for the national team, they can look at their article. I'm sure we had this debate before, and got rid of the bolding... Robotforaday 17:59, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just as I thought, it was debated here, with a majority saying to get rid. Robotforaday 18:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:LFC

I have just created the Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Liverpool task force for anyone who is interested. John Hayestalk 09:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Major honours

User:Mazito has edited the entry to include a massive number of "major honours" (I get the impression he's including e.g. the Charity Shield as a major honour in this tally), and also a redundant mention of Manchester United. I would change this, however, I'm confused about how we define "major honour", and also what the purpose is of having an aggregate tally of "honours" when the competitions are so different. Robotforaday 13:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need more team info and records.

Hi I maybe just a kid bt I think we should add the Liverpool F.C team of the century because other teams like Everton our main rival and anywat I would like to know the team of the century and also today Liverpool beat Besiktas JK. 8-0 in the UEFA Champions League which is a UEFA win higest win record after we passed Arsenal and Juventus when they won 7-0 and also Steven Gerrard is now just two goals away from 23 European cup goals which will be the new Liverpool record, he kick one today, so he passed legend an Rush and now is level with Michal Owen on 21.

Regards --Lacharrder 09:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) Lacharrder

[edit] liverpool fc club motto

blame Chelsea and The NF —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frederick32 (talk • contribs) 16:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? Robotforaday 18:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European Record

I think that this revision is necessary, due to the fact that it exists on the Everton F.C. article, and in Liverpool's case is very impressive, so should be included, but was reverted by Angelo.romano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamF1 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As I already wrote in your personal talk page, paragraphs about European Records are not suggested by the Manual of Style for football clubs, and by the way we already have Liverpool F.C. in Europe which covers the issue much better than that single paragraph. --Angelo (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I absolutely agree with Angelo, this is an unnecessary level of detail for this article. Robotforaday (talk) 22:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liverpool F.C. season 2007-08

I've added, edited and re-written content on this page, and put in some citation markers where I'll provide appropriate citations as soon as I can (I will do it, honest guv!).

However, I have a couple of questions:

Is it appropriate to include off-field matters in such a page? Eg, player transfers, press speculation about Rafa Benitez's future, developments related to the new stadium, etc?

How appropriate is it to talk about player injuries or suspensions here?

I think I know the answers but I'd rather have some input from others before doing anything else. In the meantime, I hope that people find my edit to be a useful contribution.

(It's probably obvious which edit it is but I spent so long writing it that I managed to find myself logged out by the time I was finally happy to hit the "submit" button. The edit is attributed to my IP address, 62.31.118.81.)

Wiakywbfatw (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Player transfers: yes (including fees, bid amounts and additional stuff only when sourced and verifiable); Press speculations: absolutely no, they are speculations in fact; injuries: only major ones; suspensions: I'd say no. About stadium developments, they are content which fits much better in the new venue's article. I hope I've been helpful. --Angelo (talk) 08:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
So even with citations it would be inappropriate to mention, for example, that there has been an owner-manager disagreement on some level that has led to very public discussion (which the club and the owners have denied) that RB's job might not be so secure? I realise that there are issues of verifiability here but surely the existence of the speculation can be mentioned as it is verifiable even if the veracity of the speculation itself isn't?
Again, not trying to rock the boat here, only establish exactly where the line is drawn.
Wiakywbfatw (talk) 19:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
You answered yourself the question. How about the verifiability issue? That's why rumours and speculations should never be included in my opinion. --Angelo (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Liverpool FC logo.png

Image:Liverpool FC logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:18, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Phil Thompson management

Hi, was just wondering why Thompson has not been credited in the management history page? I understand Houllier was still listed as manager but Thompson was in charge while he recovered from the heart attack. Just thought I would open up a debate for his record to be listed

He was. Somebody removed it. God bless wikipedia, the online encyclopedia anyone can mess up. I will search for the last version with the footnote crediting him and reinstitute it. Thank you very much for bringing this up. Robotforaday (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
The information about how Phil Thompson stepped in was previously acknowledged in a footnote to Houllier's entry in the managers table. This was lost a couple of days ago when User:NapHit decided to change the table and remove all the footnotes on it. I have now restored that version, so there's at least some mention of Thompson there; (currently fn 76: "Houllier was absent from October 2001 to February 2002, due to illness. During this time, Phil Thompson stepped in as temporary manager (P33 W16 D12 L5). These matches are included in Houllier's record". Once again, thanks for the spot. Robotforaday (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Champions League image

I have added a fair use dispute tag to the image, as the image fails WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8 of Wikipedia's non-free content policy, as this is a wire service photo, a photo of an annual event is not "historic", and the use of this image is purely decorative. Please address any concerns at Image talk:Liverpool Champions League.jpg. --98.204.112.111 (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reina's full name?

Is it really nessecary to have Jose Reina's middle name (Manuel) listed in the currest squad. Isn't it acceptable just to put Jose Reina. I was wondering as I have never fully understood this (KP-TheSpectre (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC))

Changed to Pepe Reina // F9T 09:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Shirt manufacturer and sponsor

Does the table of shirt manufacturers and sponsors at the bottom of the crest and colours section add anything substantial to this article? Robotforaday (talk) 17:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Well there is one in the Arsenal article which is FA, agreed it doesn't really add anything substantial, but it is pretty useful in some respects NapHit (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I mean this table:
Period Kit Manufacturer Shirt Sponsor
1976–79 Umbro None
1979–82 Hitachi
1982–85 Crown Paints
1985–88 adidas
1988–92 Candy
1992–96 Carlsberg
1996–2006 Reebok
2006 — adidas
I can't see anything which looks like that in the Arsenal F.C. article? Although sometimes my brain can stop working and I miss very obvious things! Anyway, if people want to keep it, that's fine, I just wondered what the feeling on this was. Robotforaday (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
After looking at the Arsenal article it has been removed, although it used to be in there, by all means remove it, it doesn't really add much to the article anyway, although should the prose be kept, as it would only be two sentences which is not sufficient for a sub-section —Preceding unsigned comment added by NapHit (talk • contribs) 18:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
My personal opinion would be that the prose should be kept, as it is reasonably useful (e.g. it is an important fact that Liverpool F.C. were the first team to have shirt sponsorship), but perhaps we could better integrate it into the the section rather than have it as a subsection. Robotforaday (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, I think it needs to be added to the proper section, and integrated chronologically, as that way the flow of the prose shouldn't be interrupted NapHit (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've got rid of the subsection and integrated the text into the main section, although I think that whole area needs a proper look so as to be put into a good order. Robotforaday (talk) 19:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images

I have uploaded an image of the certificate changing the name of the club to Liverpool F.C. and added it to the History of Liverpool F.C. article... I was thinking of adding it to this article, but I don't really think it would add anything; the picture of the 1892-1893 team I uploaded yesterday seems sufficient, but if anybody thinks the certificate should go in here, feel free to add it. I have also added a picture of Elisha Scott, our longest serving player. I think that this kind of thing makes the article better illustrated, but it's really a shame we don't have any more recent pictures, especially one illustrating our recent champions league victories. Does anybody know of anybody with a good picture of the team celebrating winning the champions league, or maybe a picture of the double decker bus homecoming celebration, which they would let us use? Robotforaday (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Paragraph

I am very very very happy to say this: The opening paragraph needs to be edited and have the stuff about the new stadium taken away. :-) Also, somebody needs to remove Tom Hiocks and George Gilletts names. Those money hungry capitaslistic tycoons were a plague, those Americans were the disturbers of our harmony. Now they will go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.227.114 (talk) 16:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy as you might be, nothing's changed yet. Ged UK (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Honours

I suggest removing the numerous runners-up years included. This would bring it into line with the other big football clubs. Also coming runner-up is not a honour as it's not something that adds to a clubs silverware collection. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Completely agreed A bright cold day in april (talk) 09:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Martin Škrtel

According to Wikipedia's article Martin Škrtel is 6ft 4 in (probably taken from his biography at liverpoolfc.tv). Having seen him play I find that hard to believe. According to soccernet.com he's 1.84m, which I find more credible. Tryde (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't see why that's relevant to his article, or am I missing something (other than that he's a Liverpool player) Ged UK (talk) 13:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes i should probably be discussed on "his" talk page... Though I would agree that he looks a bit shorter than Adebayor, who's 6 ft 4 in (according to his article) Chandlertalk 13:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Tom Burton manager?

In the right hand section of the page, where the crest and current details are listed, why does manager state : Tom Burton (with Zimbabwe flag)?? Does someone know something the rest of us dont? :)

Regards

--TartanBono (talk) 11:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism. It has been removed ← chandler 11:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dossena

According to the squad list Andrea Dossena is a Liverpool player.

This is not correct. It has been rumoured in the national press that he is a transfer target but as of 25/05/08 he has not been signed,

Please remove him from the squad list. --Southlands2 (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)--Southlands2 (talk) 09:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Y DoneDone Ged UK (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


no he is now http://www.football365.com/story/0,17033,8652_3656601,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betterthanrenno (talk • contribs) 12:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He is NOT. Please use only official statements from any of the parties (in this case, either Udinese or Liverpool). --Angelo (talk) 13:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Read your own article. The Udinese left-back will complete his move to Anfield in the coming days after undergoing a medical on Merseyside earlier this week. COMING DAYS. He hasn't signed yet.Ged UK (talk) 13:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Merseyside

Hello everyone, I hope this isn't considered spam but it seemed like a suitable place to ask around and see if there might be people here who would be interested in supporting and contributing to a Wikiproject focusing on Merseyside. I'm trying to gauge if there is suitable interest before making a formal proposal. Cheers Zenichiro (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Best team in Europe? Consensus please!

A few days back i reverted a claim that User:Jag0000021 made that LFC were officially the best team in Europe according to UEFA. I took the claim down because there was no source and I couldn't find anything on UEFA's site. Today though, User:Finns found this link on the official LFC site. As far as I'm concerned, this still isn't enough, because a) it's LFCTV which is always a tad, how can i put it, 'excitable', and b) even that article says 'set to be'. Personally I'd wait until UEFA actually release it, because who knows if UEFA are going to change the points system or some such. I thought we ought to get a consensus on this because it's liable to keep popping back up. Ged UK (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)