Talk:Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
English football Portal
The article on Liverpool F.C. Reserves and Academy is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the England task force.
This article is supported by the Liverpool task force.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-09-06. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Contents

[edit] Recent edits

I think that the recent addition of the infobox is a good idea, as is the move to the new article name. However, I think the text could be made a little clearer, and I will now attempt an edit of it.

Also, with regards to the move, the page you get when you wish to move a page CLEARLY STATES that you should check for and correct double redirects. I won't shift it back again, but please, if you want to move a page, make sure you have the time and the inclination to do the associated legwork too.Robotforaday 20:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Thank you for your kind words about the my edits. I appreciate the point about changing links, but sometimes people get distracted. There is no reason to change back page just because links have not been corrected. These can always be changed later. I think you are being extremely pedantic in this case

Djln--Djln 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Why remove the text "The team largely consists largely of young players who are yet to break through into the regular lineup of the Liverpool F.C. first team."?

While it might seem obvious to some, I think it's a useful explanation of the position of the reserves vis a vis the first team. Just saying all first team and academy players are eligable doesn't explain this. Robotforaday 21:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It adds nothing to the article and just states the obvious. It would be like saying the England national football team largely consists of English players who play football! Every reserve team contains young players waiting to get a chance in the first team and anybody with a passing knowledge of sport knows this. Djln --Djln 21:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You could be right, although I personally remain unconvinced. I have posted on wikiproject football to ask for another opinion on this. Robotforaday 21:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
I am disappointed that you are unable to discuss collaboration on this point. Your recent reversion says "removed one bad sentence"- which is fair enough if you think the sentence is bad, but it is an inaccurate summary of what you have done, as you have changed the order of the text and, in my opinion, made it a lot less clear and more clunkily written. Now, fine, you can edit whatever you see fit and change whatever you see fit. But I think it's a shame that you are incapable of discussing this. Robotforaday 21:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I am very willing to discuss this. No offensive, I just think my version is slightly better. The league the team plays in should be included near beginning of article and I not over keen on the phrase more and more as it lacks clarity. Djln --Djln 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What you now have is a list of short statement like sentences about the reserves with very little flow between them. It reads like bullet points, which is ok if that's what you're going for. As for the term "more and more", you could be right, and I hesitated using it myself. However, I used the term to suggest an incremental development (which has been the case), rather than just stating that it is the case now. Robotforaday 21:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think our versions are radically different. But most articles on sports clubs begin with which league the team plays in. I'll try an alternative version and see what you think. If you think it needs improving, we can work on it. Djln --Djln 21:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're right in treating it in exactly the way you would treat a sports club. It is a section of Liverpool F.C., and as such, I think it should start with an explanation of its place in Liverpool F.C. as a whole. Now, you say that's obvious to anybody who knows anything about sport, and you could be right, but frankly, when I'm writing I tend to assume that the more you assume people know about a topic, the more specialist and less encyclopedic the article becomes. Robotforaday 21:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you to a point but I don't think it is absolutely necessary to expand on every single detail, such as what a reserve player is. There is an article on the phrase reserve team that covers this. Perhaps you can add more explanation there. Plus the article makes it clear that the team is part of Liverpool F.C..

--Djln --Djln 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Fight! Fight! Fight! LOL... To be honest I don't like either version. Earlier in the day you had it better with: "Liverpool F.C. Reserves are the reserve team of Liverpool F.C.. They play their home games at the Racecourse Ground, the home ground of Wrexham A.F.C.."
  • "The team largely consists largely of young players who are yet to break through into the regular lineup" seem superfluous to me.
  • "Liverpool F.C. Reserves are the reserve team of Liverpool F.C.. In 1999 they were inaugural members of the Barclays Premiership Reserve League North" This to me seems to be jumping into too much detail too soon. "Inaugural" is interesting, but not what I'd put in the second sentence
aLii 00:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, following that perspective I've tried another edit, which might have more consensus to it (although looking at it now, perhaps it could better follow Alii's sensible obserations a bit more closely)- anyway, see how it fares. Robotforaday 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Use of infobox for reserve teams

While I think it's appropriate to use the infobox, I was wondering if it would not make some sense to abridge it. For example, does it really make sense to have the establishment date, the name of the chairman, or even the club nickname for the reserve team? In some ways at the moment it looks like a team masquerading as a team in its own right- and stealing LFC's identity to boot! Of course, having the crest, the name of the reserve team manager, the league in which the team plays, the kit colours, does make sense. Robotforaday 01:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I can live with the current intro, although it not perfect. I think the info box is fine as it is also. I don't think there is any real likelihood that Liverpool F.C. Reserves could be accused of some sort of identity theft. It is clear from the outset that this team is part of Liverpool F.C.. Both teams have same foundation date, same chairman and same nickname as they are part of same club. Therefore the inclusion of this data is legitimate. Other reserve teams in Wikipedia have similar info boxes. Djln--Djln 21:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Are there any other English reserve team articles? I only ask out of interest, and for comparison. I've only ever seen Spanish reserve team articles, which are somewhat different given the reserve teams' participation in the same league structure/ cup competitions. Robotforaday 04:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think there are many. I've spotted one for Manchester United F.C. Reserves and added it to category. However, when I checked today it was only a stub. Djln --Djln 20:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

The academy page is poor its just copied off one page on official website. As academy feeds into reserves and both pages are small (academy could be far smaller) merging seems sensible. 138.253.239.151 13:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - support merging of articles and deletion of academy page Steve-Ho 20:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
At very least merge the two. Keeping reserves SenorKristobbal 21:45, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support Merge: keeping reserve team. Djln --Djln 23:10, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Organisation since the merge

Personally, I don't agree with the merge of the Academy and Reserve pages, but wasn't really active at the time to oppose it. However, now that all the information has been copied over, I really think it would be a good idea for people to suggest how to better organise it. Right now, it is quite obvious that it's two sets of information thrown together. Robotforaday 20:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm in the (slow) process of doing it. What needs to be done, as far as I can see:
  • The opening para needs to be changed to give an overview of Liverpool's youth system, and describe the status of the reserve and youth teams.
  • The 'Noted Graduates' section needs to be extended to pre-academy players and the 'Selected Former Players' section to be moved as a sub-section (I'm working on this)
  • The Academy section should be changed to The Academy Complex, and should be more focused on the commplex and what goes on there.
  • The selected former mananagers section needs to be completed and renamed.

ArtVandelay13 21:09, 12 January 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)