Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 1

message: Boring football team not NPOV, unless written by a LFC supporter. description of player as Bignose unwarranted, even if true
jimfbleak — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.50.14 (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Initial message

message: We're missing a picture of Rafa! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sars~enwiki (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rafa 

message: Just noticed a few inaccuracies in the text but didn't want to change them as i'm new to all of this:
*Alan Hansen wasn't made captain until Kenny Dalglish took charge. Graeme Souness was captain for 1983/84, and i'm pretty sure Phil Neal was captain the following season
*The text implies Ray Houghton was at the club in the 1985/86 season. He didn't join the club until 1987
*John Barnes and John Aldridge are mentioned as replacing Ian Rush, but what about including Peter Beardsley? David f1976 01:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracies in Joe Fagan/Kenny Dalglish Eras 

message: I have noticed under the Graeme Souness years it is mentioned that he was sacked. He in fact resigned. To this day Liverpool FC have not sacked a manager.JamieStapleton 13:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited references to both Souness and Houllier being 'sacked'. Souness resigned and Houllier and Liverpool parted by mutual consent. JamieStapleton 14:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Souness\Houllier Era Inaccuracies 

message: Do we really think Harry Kewell can be regarded as a star? He's limped off in two of our important matches, and been out for injury for most games. He was only a really notable player at the start of his debut season. - sars 15:23, August 7, 2005 (UTC)
I would rate others above him.  Most Liverpool fans, including myself, have found him a disappointment more than a star. Soul Embrace 15:50, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stars 

message: I added a whole section on the club's history from 1892-1950 yesterday, it took me 4 hours to write and it has been removed today. I am not impressed.
I also amended the club's record defeat. Official sources always quote the 9-1 defeat at Birmingham City in Division 2 on 11th December 1954. Also deleted. Can anybody explain? (Unsigned comment by User:212.32.106.70)
:Your excellent contribution to the article hasn't been deleted. It's still there. Perhaps your browser has cached the old page and you're not seeing the most recent version? KeithD (talk) 09:23, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've answered on your talk page, along with the traditional welcome message. In short though, the register link should be visible in the top right corner of every page here. KeithD (talk) 12:09, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Early history

message: One third of the article is on the 2004/5 season, detailing Liverpool's entire CL campaign, and the 2000/1 treble-winning season is worth 1 sentence.  Some balace eh? Mandel 19:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: European Cup 2004/5

message: I have gone ahead and created an article at History of Liverpool Football Club. I have just yanked the entire existing history section from this article and put it there (like they have at History of Arsenal F.C.). The Arsenal F.C. article is a featured article, and I think that this article has the potential to be as well (but only if we get rid of many of the details that form the main article). I will stick a link to the history article in the apppropriate section of the LFC article.Oktom 13:53, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The history section as it stands is different to the previous version. As it stands, it is supposed to be a summary of the larger article, and so I guess some duplication is okay. I think that a history section is a valuable, factual contribution to an article such as this. And a brief mention of the club's founder belongs in such a section.Oktom 17:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: History of Liverpool F.C.

message: It might be an idea to put some comments  in the history section advising people to add history stuff to History of Liverpool F.C. instead of this article.  We had the same problem when the history was split out for Manchester United, and ended up with two history articles of about the same length, which was a pain in the arse to fix.  I think the Arsenal article had the same problem as well before the comments were added.  CTOAGN (talk) 01:50, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: CTOAGN (talk) 10:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section and separate article 

message: I don't understand, Liverpool has an even more historical history, so why is the section being minimised? True Redders will not truly understand the significant events of the issues, and will have wrong conclusions on the history of the club. --chapter1 08:54, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Liverpool history so little compared w e rest? 

message: It's strange that the reserve squad section is duplicated and above the first team. I'm thinking of:
a) deleting the first list of reserve players
b) copying the data about the Racecourse Ground to the lower section
c) removing any players from it that are in the first team table
d) Making all the players names links, even though most won't be on there.
Any thoughts?
Well there is some errors on that reserve list anyway. Paul Barratt (correct sp) isn't a reserve, he plays with the Under 18s, I can verify this because I know him personally. One correct list of reserve players is desirable, and I agree with the rest of your proposals. I just felt the need to highlight factual accuracy. --Thehumph 22:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve Squad 

message: Does anyone know about the new song that's being sung at Anfield, where we'll show the "5 Cups" sign to the English clubs (especially Chelsea)? If yes could there be a section on famous songs sung by the Kop? --chapter1 21:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does anyone have the new song sung at Anfield? 

message: A whole section on Liverpool FC songs is a good idea,only it would make the page even longer, and some have already raised objections to that.
The thing is, there are loads of liverpool songs floating around everywhere, ranging from the hilarious to the downright disrespectful, maybe even offensive. Some would probably be marked as vandalism. So there really isn't any point including some of the songs and leaving out the rest.
Should i add a link to this website i discovered which has only liverpool songs? Its great fun.
I would like to know of other club songs too, if anybody knows, its damn interesting.
No, i haven't heard the latest, but i just downladed "anfield rap", its got to be the funniest i've head, and at times ironical.
Kinda crazy 09:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liverpool FC Songs 

message: In the section "Club Culture" the name "Ian McCulloch" appears.  There is insufficient information included to allow disambiguation among the several persons by that name; could a knowledgable person please edit the wikilink to point to the correct person, a listing of options being found at Ian McCulloch - or add another to this listing if needed.  Thank you. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A simple solution surely would be to label Mr McCulloch along the lines of ... (80's band) Echo and the Bunnymen's front man, Ian McCulloch.  Dalglynch-72 04:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguating "Ian McCulloch" 

message: Is it really necessary to have a running season commentary. I have deleted the text on liverpools 10 wins in a row, etc. This has happened before and as said before why not wait til the season ends and then write a summary. Remember this is a encyclopedia, not a way to catch up on their progress. Only significant events shoudl be included. Jamie 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Running Season Commentary 

message: I think a BOT is making excessive large amounts of link editing. Its making the article look messy. In the first paragraph alone almost every other word is being made a link. I'm going to remove the inappropriate ones. Jamie 11:47, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BOT making link edits? 

message: Thsi should be incorporated into the Rafael Benitez article IMO.  A sentence should do.
Sounds good. I'll try and make the changes today. Have you considered registering with Wikipedia? It makes editing and tracability alot easier. Jamie 08:43, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World club Championship - Reds in Japan 

message: I'm proposing changing the player classification in the squad list. Currently Strikers are classified as FW (Forward), i think this is very old-fashioned. I think ST (Striker) looks better. Ideas? Jamie 14:36, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty much all sports pictures are problematical from a copyright point of view - basically, unless you took the photo yourself, or the photographer's been dead for more than 70 years (it sometimes only feels like more than 70 years since Crouch scored! :) ) then it's very difficult to satisfy Wikipedia's copyright licensing requirements. There are very few publications, professional photographers, or sites which will license their work under the GFDL or CC. If you look at FA Cup, the hands holding the cup are those of the photographers' little kids, which is how we know the photo's legit! Even club logos are a bit difficult - I know the Premier League has asserted  copyright on them and forced some sites to take them down - it's only because our servers are in the US and we're able to assert fair use for how we use them that we've really got away with them. -- Arwel (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I just think Striker is more commonly used when referring to a Striker!! Forward is more often used specifically for Centre-Forward which defines a specific role on the pitch, whereas Striker is more generic. Jamie 16:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Forward is far more generic than striker. Kenny Dalglish would be classified as a forward and Ian Rush as a striker for instance. Striker has a narrower definition and suggests a player who is in the team just to score goals, whereas a forward has far more to his game. Rushian77 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. The Wikipedia article for 'Forward' redirects to Striker. Quote - "Strikers, also known as centre forwards, forwards, and attackers, are the players on a team in football (soccer) in the row nearest to the opposing team's goal, who are therefore principally responsible for scoring goals". So in my opinion and by implication wikipedias is that Striker is more generic. Jamie 12:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is such a poor Wikipedia article though. Forward has always had a more general meaning than striker. Forward can refer to attackign wingers for instance - Chelsea play with three forwards, Drogba, Robben and Duff yet only Drogba would be referred to as a striker. All three could be referred to as forwards. Rushian77 19:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, the fact that an attacking midfeilder (i.e. Robben, Duff) can be classed as a forward, then surely Striker should be used to classify the distinction between a attcking player who isn't a midfielder. I.e. A Striker. Remember the whole point of this part of the discussion is what term to classify our strikers in the squad list as - FW or ST. If we use FW, there could be confusion where they play (not their role).Jamie 15:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority of club pages use FW. Some pages use CF. For the sake of uniformity I think FW should be used, despite CF being more accurate. Stu 15:41, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally disagree. Look at a random selection of premiership club official websites and take a look at their squad list, you'll find they use the term 'ST' for striker. I checked Liverpool, Arsenal, Tottenham & Newcastle - all used Striker. I must add these we're random selections, i'd be pretty sure that the majority if not all clubs used the term striker. I think this should be reflected in the wikipedia article.Jamie 09:08, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamie, I'm talking about the club's pages on Wikipedia, not external pages. There needs to be continuity with other Wikipedia club articles. You may have a point about Forward not being accurate enough, but if we change it here then all football club pages will have to be changed. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football might be a good place to discuss it. Stu 09:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When we consider the idiomatic expression, 'star striker' (no such 'star forward' exists), we should accept that players employed with goal scoring their primary job description to be strikers.  As stated, forwards is more generic including wingers and strikers.  It's not such an important issue though methinks.  Dalglynch-72 04:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Squad List 

message: I've put the latest results on the page. What's wrong with it? Someone keeps on deleting it.
--Number 8 07:27, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your edits are getting replaced because this is an encyclopedia - a knowledge base. Not a results service. The page isn't a fans website, where you can get all the latest news. Its purpose is to inform someone who Liverpool FC are and include some key historical background information and stats about the club. Although your additions have good intentions, keeping an up to date service is inefficient and messy, thats why we only include big events. Hope this helps Jamie 09:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I think your getting confused, Dudek maintained the #1 shirt at te beginning of the season, Reina was assigned #25. Things will most probably change next season Jamie 13:40, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting 

message: Further to the request for discussion before making changes to the section, I thought it needed its own discussion section. To start off one from me - why is John Lennon included when all authorative Beatles/Lennon biographies indicate he had no interest in football? Rushian77 18:30, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure. Maybe someone who knows different may offer a suggestion? If not we'll get rid. Maybe someone was getting confused with the fact he was born in Liverpool??? Jamie 08:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Fans 

message: :::::::::With the Champions League squads being set following the transfer window, a few more Liverpool players have been given squad numbers.  Adam Hammill is 40 (David Martin hasn't been assigned a number yet), James Smith is 41, Daniel O'Donnell is 42, Lee Peltier is 43 and Robbie Foy is 44.  Great job with the page! 24.68.200.219 07:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The club have announce to sign new argentine central defender which arrive at june, Gabriel Alejandro Paletta, now playing at C.A. Banfield. Can someone write the article b4 he arrived? Matthew hk 14:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Her is some material: He born in February 15 1986, and won the 2005 FIFA World Youth Championship,  weight 80kg, 183cm tall...Matthew hk 15:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: I noticed that recently the section has been changed regarding the table and its format. I don't know whether its intentional but its really messy. Anyone want to revert it or fix it? Jamie 07:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famous Fans / Managers Section 

message: Some of the infobox has been vandalised - I don't know all the information/characters though so I can't change it back. 82.71.216.90 11:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: At 43 kb I think this article is probably more suited to a peer review than a good article nomination. Anyhow as I'm here I'll make a couple of suggestions as to things which can be improved:
* The history section pays too much attention to recent events and not enough to those further back; of the club's 114 years of history, the first 67 years are given just seven lines, whereas events from the last 12 months take up several paragraphs.
* No need to include reserve players, scouts, masseurs etc.
* There is a section about the proposed new stadium, but no section about Anfield. Oldelpaso 18:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Good Article nomination

message: So the page states Liverpool is mainly considered a Catholic club. Oh? I'm a bloody atheist and I support them. The only real link with Celtic is they sing our song. I'd say that Liverpool is mainly secular, and frankly religion just doesn't get involved. I don't know of any religious songs regularly sung, the players are mixed denominations, the fans are from all backgrounds. The only reason I haven't deleted that entire sentence (typo on prominent included) is that some muppet would just revert it. Please, take religious aggrandising elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.104.228.185 (talk • contribs) .
: Does it? I reverted that edit (along with another) almost an hour ago. – Elisson • Talk 20:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think any reference to religious allegiance is entirely misleading.  My mother's family came from a strong Orange background and were Liverpool supporters.  My father's family were also Protestant but supported Everton. My mother insisted that Everton was in fact the Catholic club.  As a seventh-day atheist I continue to support Liverpool in a purely secular fashion.  Religious tags are probably purely the POV of whoever is doing the tagging. Barfbagger 13:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, one of my uncles, strongly Welsh Methodist, supported Liverpool for well over 50 years. -- Arwel (talk) 13:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes I think its probably due to Liverpool having that special relationship with a certain Scottish club with affiliations to the Catholic church. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.84.64.8 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 July 2006.
Neither liverpool or everton where founded or indeed associated with religious factions in a similar way to the glasgow situation. However Everton generally became the 'Catholic club' during a period of the 20th century, due to a number of Irish Catholic players they had. Therefore the whole religion debate is a bit pointless,b ut it should be mentioned that at certain periods there has been a loose cultural connection.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.112.229.66 (talk • contribs) 00:49, 6 June 2006.
My family's origin is Turkish. I was born and raised in Australia. I am a muslim. Religion has nothing to do with this song nor the club. I am a strong, faithful Liverpool supporter and the support has been passed down from my fathers side which happen to be all Turkish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.165.218 (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2006
Everton are traditionally considered the Catholic club and Liverpool are considered the protestant club.  I'm sure that there are plenty of people from different religions who support theses clubs and no one is disputing this.  It is however true that certain clubs are considered to have or to have had links with religions.--The Next Biggish Thing 14:19, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

text: See, that's always the way I'd considered it, too (although I'm a Catholic who supports Liverpool). However, the debate still rages fiercely - I used to work at Radio Merseyside on the Roger Phillips phone-in, and it would crop up all the time. As soon as one person said on the phone that Everton were always the Catholic club, you'd get twenty people phoning in to say they were the Protestant club. It's such a fervent debate that there's really just not the space it needs on the Wikipedia entry, and surely the fact that there's even a debate shows that the religious affiliations of the two clubs aren't as ingrained in their existence as those of Rangers and Celtic - as such, I don't think it's necessary to include it. Seb Patrick 14:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Catholic??