Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 3

message: Someone needs to correct the line about red being the city of Liverpool's colour. It isn't. it's purple. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PJMulholland (talk • contribs) 20:17, 23 August 2006
:Got a reference for that? aLii 20:19, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well,  is all purple. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 00:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Has it always been purple? An interesting question is: Was it once red, but was changed to purple to accomodation the "blue half" of the city? I have no idea, and my simplistic google searches aren't helping me. aLii 10:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to send an email to liverpooldirect@liverpool.gov.uk, but their server is rejecting my mail.  Maybe you could try. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 22:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did email them asking specifically about any possible historical changes etc. and the reponse I got was: "The colour Purple is the corporate colour for the Council." Other than a few formalities that was it. ] 15:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colour of city 

message: This evening I've been keeping tabs on the addtion of approximately 40 new players into this list. I've removed none, nor had any words with the user who is adding them, as quite honestly the players in question have as much right to be listed as many of the ones that were previously in the list. Anyway I'd like this article to reach Featured Article standard one day (a LONG way off) and for this we need to removed as many of the lists as possible. There is already a very comprehensive List of Liverpool F.C. players. 
As I was scanning over the Wikipedia:Peer review page earlier I noticed the Chicago Bears page. More pointedly I noticed the Chicago Bears#Famous players section. It merely provides a link to the list of players and lists their "Hall of fame" inductees, which number only about 10. There is now an English Football Hall of Fame. Liverpool do only have two players (one being Sir Matt Busby!) and two managers there, and the list is horribly biased (IMO) towards Man Utd, but still it must be better than listing everyone who ever held down a first team place! 
The only other option I can think of is a short list with notable players and reasons for why they are notable, e.g. Ian Rush — club record goalscorer.
The list as it now stands is entirely unmanagable. What I really want is opinions on what should replace it — a way of keeping the list below 15 players would be ideal. aLii 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be more than happy to see that section deleted as it is inherently POV. There have been discussions at limiting it to players who have made more than 100 first team appearances, for example, and I have almost edited the list to portray that fact but I see little point as it would be duplicating the fork that we have to List of Liverpool F.C. players. You are quite right in wanting to get this article to featured status, which is my own objective, but lists are frowned upon in the FAC with the advice always being to incorporate the subjects of the list into the article. This article is already well endowed with references to past and present 'legends' and we have a section for "Records and Miscellany", where records such as Rush's feat could be placed. The important thing with such records, in my opinion, is that they should portray accomplishments of the club rather than the individual although Rush's record would not be out of place. -- Alias Flood 23:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't object to its removal, for the reasons outlined above. There are a handful of players that are indisputably the most significant to have played for Liverpool - Keegan, Dalglish, Rush, say - but beyond that it becomes inherently POV. List of Liverpool F.C. players covers the bases for the inclusion of all the randoms, and all the more important figures should - if the article's any good - be included in the main body of text. And removing it does at least eliminate the hassle of constantly having to remove the Oyvind Leonhardsens of the world... Seb Patrick 08:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My suggestion would be to replace it with something akin to the Arsenal page's notable players section. A small list with ten or fewer players per decade, with a link to the list page. It's tidy, and making it more exclusive would ward off the inclusion of people like Oyvind Leonhardsen, I reckon. ArtVandelay13 08:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem I see with your suggestion, ArtVandelay13, is that it's not really any different to what we currently have. Heck I couldn't remember that Davor Šuker ever played for the Gunners! Why is he there? Is David Rocastle or Michael Thomas (that one goal aside) particularly famous? I know that the Arsenal article was once a featured article, but scanning the talk archives & peer review I see no discussion about the POV nature of this section. aLii 09:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's how Template F.C. has it. To be honest, it's hard to see how almost any article can be completely free from POV, and completely objective, particularly a section like this, a selective list. I think this would be a fairly minor and harmless level of POV, if we picked 10 or so players per decade, thar are agreed on here, and have definitely contributed something notable (relative to their decade), then it would work. It would need to be watched, perhaps, but it's hard to see a solution that's completely free from POV. ArtVandelay13 18:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Would you care to start that discussion off then by nominating, *shudder*, ~110 players? aLii 18:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would still like to delete that section for the reasons that I have given above. This seems to be the feeling of most editors that have commented at this time. I agree that subjectivity will creep into an article but, in recognising that, we should strive even harder to maintain objectivety by avoiding POV lists — especially as we strive for FA satus (eventually). If we are able to reach a unanimous consensus here to include notable players only within the body of text (which is already done) and under the "Records and Miscellany" section, where appropriate, and disregard a section that we all see as POV and somewhat unmanageable, we will have made a major step in that direction. I know that Template F.C. has a provision for such a section but that is not mandatory. Indeed, after we have reached a consensus here, it may be worth having a similar debate on the talk pages of that template. -- Alias Flood 20:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest removing it altogether, as the article on the list of players is very good. However, as an alternative way to get it down to a manageable level, perhaps the answer is to start from 0 players and then build it up. Start with, say, everyone who scored in a European Cup final, then perhaps those players that captained the side. Of course, it's still POV as it requires picking the category of player to add, but it might be a step forward. ...As I say though, I think it could comfortably come out of the article without being a major problem. KeithD 17:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think this list makes more sense since it was concise (2 per decade) and panel judged (also peer reviewed by players in a sense) I agree that we should use it rather than fall into the mistake of POV lists that we have no qualifications to make. --raraa 14:01, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion for total removal of "Notable former players" list

message: Do we really need this? It's different for teams like AC Milan, where the 05/06 season saw a generally consistent lineup week in/week out, but choosing which players to put in a formation for Liverpool is inherently POV - the one listed, for example, puts Gerrard on right midfield when he surely played just as many games in the centre, and includes Morientes/Cisse as the first choice striker pairing despite the fact that it was inconsistent all season. I just don't think such a section is workable in the LFC article, nor is it particularly necessary. But I've removed it a couple of times, now, so I don't want to be accused of excessively reverting. Seb Patrick 11:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're right, it needs to go, as you say, Liverpool have a less consistent line-up than almost anyone. ArtVandelay13 11:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was just coming onto the talk page to comment on this- surely its misleading to suggest that Liverpool simply had a fixed starting XI- and given the changes in team lineup, it's always likely to be subjective at best. Even the formation, whilst true a lot of the time, was not really an unchangable given, given Rafa's tendency to change things. --86.144.143.22 14:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have removed the formation before and notified that editor but I see that "new" editors are re-posting it. -- Alias Flood 16:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should be removed, no point in having it, removing it will also pave the way for featured article -- --raraa 14:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Formation

message: Is there a source for his transfer to Lorient, as added to this page and his own entry? I can't find one, and he is still listed on the LFC squad page. ArtVandelay13 10:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Lorient website said a week (or more) back that he was due to sign a 3 year contract with them (I think... my French is a bit rusty!), but there's been no official reportage other than that. I'd keep him on the LFC page until we get confirmation. Likewise, I'm wondering if there might be a temptation to count Diao as transferred while he's "on trial" at Charlton, but I'd imagine that he's still under contract to Liverpool and so should be kept on the page until/if he leaves. Seb Patrick 10:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, Diao should stay - trials are too 'fluid' to count, they don't really belong on WP. You never see them mentioned in official records, for example. ArtVandelay13 10:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carl Medjani 

message: While I do think it's a good idea to have a list of the reserve squad players, who I strongly support, the article is clearly too list heavy as it stands at the moment. Therefore, I have taken the plunge and moved the neat table created (I think) by Alii_h to a new page with information on the Liverpool F.C. Reserves. I have linked to the reserve team page below the current first team squad list. I think this is probably the best way to preserve the important information whilst preventing the article from going on forever and consisting of list after list.--Robotforaday 00:59, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work, I agree that this is probably better. (Oh and yes I did create the table). aLii 08:49, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve Squad list 

message: Ok, so one of the lead section sentences has been bugging me for a long while, but I've been loathe to change it because of the surrounding emotions. Basically this bit: Heysel in 1985 when thirty-nine spectators were crushed, and at Hillsborough in 1989 where 96 people died and 766 were injured.
My problems with it are:
#thirty-nine vs. 96, i.e. one in numeric characters and one spelt out — both should be the same. I would spell both out.
#No injured number vs. 766. We should either list both or neither (600 or so were injured at Heysel). I would list neither — the links to the main articles are there.
Any opinions before I change it? aLii 09:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd agree with both. I'd say that numbers below 100 should generally be spelled out; and I agree with removing the number of injuries, it doesn't seem a necessary detail to include in the lead. Seb Patrick 09:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to add my agreement to both -- Alias Flood 22:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disasters sentence

message: I actually want to talk about the naming of the sections of the History of Liverpool Football Club page, I left a note on it's talk page, but I guess less people watch that page, and so there are no responses. To keep you all from having to make an extra click  I'll paste the message here:
Having just seen the section titles basically returned to what they once were, which was criticised, I thought that it is worth discussing what should be used here.
When this info was in the Liverpool F.C. article someone nominated it for Good Article status. It failed with criticisms such as: 
:"My biggest objection here is the prose. It seems so unencyclopedic, it sounds as if a fan wrote it. Fans of stuff probably write 95% of everything on Wikipedia but it shouldn't sound like it. Titles like "Brief but Glorious," and text like "Liverpool have had some glorious moments during the years that followed the 1990 title glory, but life at Anfield has never been the same without the championship trophy in the club's boardroom."
I therefore named the sections in this kind of way, 1983–1985 — Joe Fagan's two season reign. This has just been renamed The Joe Fagan Era (1983-1985): Two seasons of success. This is obviously tending back towards how it used to be.
Looking at the Manual of Style for headings the main points that leap out at me are:
*Keep the heading short: headings with more than 10 words may violate their purpose.
*Avoid unnecessary words or redundancy in headings:
**Avoid "a/an/the" in headings: use "Voyage" instead of "The voyage"; use "Traders" instead of "A trader"
Therefore I propose that titles should be, for example,
*1959–1974: Bill Shankly's era
**or Bill Shankly's era (etc.)
*1983–1985: Joe Fagan's two season reign
*2004–present: Rafael Benítez's era
I would (personally) prefer more descriptive titles, any ideas for some short, snappy and descriptive without sounding like it was written by a fan? I can't think of anything better within six or so words. Titles are indeed only titles, prose should be kept in the article. The current titles look messy to me (especially in the contents box)
aLii 22:09, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section naming

message: Now that the season has started and the first team has been named, and these two don't have numbers and haven't left, I've moved them to the reserve squad and taken them off the template. ArtVandelay13 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds fair enough to me. Seb Patrick 21:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diao & Le Tallec  (or: Squad in general) 

message: What do you think, should i add these boxes to all (Charity Shield). User:MotorSportMCMXC 19:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I don't understand. Add the Charity Shield sucession box to all what? (It's called the Community shield now by the way) aLii 18:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it's a very good idea, Liverpool have won 66 trophies, it might get a bit cluttered. ArtVandelay13 18:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In case anybody hasn't noticed, the box he's referring to is the Community Shield succession box he's added at the bottom of the article. If Liverpool had one of these for everything they've ever won, it would get ridiculous! And to start with perhaps the most humble trophy of all, the Community Shield is nothing short of perverse. I appreciate what you're trying to do, but really, I think the result could be chaos. Robotforaday 21:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice idea, but infobox overload. Stu ’Bout ye! 07:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we have a firm agreement on whether we are going to keep this or get rid, before MotorsportMCMXC does any more work than is necessary? Robotforaday 23:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, sorry I just got rid of it! Basically MotorsportMCMXC created a new section header for it, Titles. This was my cue to delete it all, for the reason that it's all sufficiently covered in the Honours section. aLii 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Box

message: Now the season is about to start I think it's about time we removed this list. I would however quite like it to be turned into a new article List of Liverpool F.C. transfers or Liverpool F.C. transfers. The page could have details about Liverpool's record transfers, the net spend of each manager, etc.. It could be a useful resource. Perhaps it isn't needed though — the Liverpool F.C. statistics page already has a list of biggest transfers. Opinions? aLii 13:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At the very least, I think the transfers out section should be kept, it's useful to see where the recent departures have gone, rather than them just disappering off the squad list. The In section is more debatable, though. ArtVandelay13 13:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Get rid of them, Wikipedia is not a news service. Though as raised in the Everton peer review, you could create an appropriate section in Wikinews and link that. Oldelpaso 17:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good idea- I can understand why people want the information, just really unsure whether it fits in the way its presented there. Robotforaday 20:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Transfers section?

message: To put things into perspective, I was the first one to really crack down on removing all the fan-site links. I even removed lfchistory.net at the time. 
Anyway, over the past few months I've used lfchistory.net over and over for getting various bits of LFC information. It is basically a better, LFC version, of rsssf.com. It has easily searchable stats for every single player and every single game, and as such, in my view, it deserves mention in the external links section of this page. It is FAR more useful than the premierleague.com link. I'd even argue that in many respects it's also more useful than Wikipedia and even the official site for getting LFC related information. I feel that a link to it should be available from this article. 
Reading WP:EL, in the section What should be linked to, points 4 and 5 are:
:4. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
:5. Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as professional athlete statistics, screen credits, interviews, or online textbooks.
See http://www.lfchistory.net/index.asp
aLii 11:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If it's a vote, I say include it. Regularly updated, useful, and not over commercial. Stu ’Bout ye! 11:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One fansite is fine as pre wikipedia:External links (althought it's not REQUIRED), so stick it in. --Charlesknight 11:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My whole arguement is that it isn't just a fansite. The site is in my opinion a very useful resource to anyone interested in LFC related statistics. Here, as a random example see Goals scored by Alf Arrowsmith in 1963-64. I've never heard of the guy, but he apparently had one good season. Every game is documented with the full line-up, goal-scorers, goal-timings, etc... The level of detail is quite amazing. aLii 11:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But it IS just a fansite - it's very very detailed but it's still a fansite. It does seem to represent of the type and that's why it should go in. --Charlesknight 13:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The other alternative is Liverweb http://www.liverweb.org.uk which is similarly detailed. Leipzigger98 18:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, looks good to me too. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 12:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A case for lfchistory.net

message: I have tried to cut down the history section some more. There is also a bit of rewriting in there to try and make the narrative flow a bit better, although I don't know whether I've succeeded. It's likely there are errors, so I'd be pleased if people could look it over and sort out anything I've messed up. And bloody hell- it's STILL long. Would putting in some subheadings to make it read easier just be admitting defeat? Robotforaday 19:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History Section

message: Our kits have grey arms in the article, and really really shouldn't have. Does somebody know how to sort this, because I can't. Robotforaday 20:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: what grey arms? they look, and have always looked, ok to me. aLii 07:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, is it possible that there's something wrong with the browser I'm using (IE6.0)? It is using Kit_left_arm_whitelines.png‎ (and the version on the right) and showing up as though the arms are grey. Robotforaday 10:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eek! Oh yeah... I was in linux using Firefox at the time. Firefox in windows also works fine, but IE6 is messed up for me too. Not only are the arms grey, but there is a thin strip-coloured line sticking out from between the shorts and top, in both directions. aLii 11:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I just started a discussion at Template talk:Football kit about this issue. aLii 12:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the same thing and clicking on an arm shows that Chavski also have grey armsBarfbagger 06:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Arsenal have white sleeves, shorts, and socks, and they never go all-yellow either.  The yellow kit has gray shorts and socks. - Slow Graffiti 05:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Kit images

message: The Liverpool F.C. Reserves article has been nominated for deletion. Personally, I think that it's a useful place to put Reserves information which is notable in its own right. As the likely alternative to keeping the article is to merge the information back in there, I don't think this can be achieved without bloating the article again (just as we're trying to tidy it up to get it up to FA standard)- or losing information which is useful. Just as the History article allows us to go into more depth there without making this article go on for ever, so too I think we should be able to generate other articles which go into more depth about genuinely significant parts of Liverpool F.C. I would urge you to go and support the article's continued existance, for the sake of this article as well as the Reserves article itself. Robotforaday 18:50, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Liverpool F.C. Reserves article nominated for deletion

message: Seeing as User:Erechtheus tagged the page with a link to a discussion about this merger, I thought we best have a discussion before removing it! User:Spiderlounge created an article for Fields of Anfield Road, and Erechtheus thinks that there should be a discussion about merging it into this article. 
Personally I don't see any way to merge the two articles. Even adding the lines:
:"Fields of Anfield Road" is a football chant based on the song "Fields of Athenry". The song contains several past players and managers of Liverpool FC such as Bill Shankly, "King" Kenny Dalglish, Bob Paisley, Steve Heighway, and the Kopites - people who support Liverpool FC from the Kop stand at Anfield Stadium.
seems too much for the main article really. I am undecided about whether the chant is notable enough to have its own article, but that is a seperate discussion. aLii 15:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be against it as well. If it fits anywhere, it's probably at The Fields of Athenry page. It's already mentioned there though. Afd? Stu ’Bout ye! 16:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems quite obvious that there's no basis for a merger; the song is already mentioned in the article. Also, the Fields of Anfield Road page seems to violate policy, in consisting primarily of the song lyrics. Whether or not that page should be deleted, I'm gonna remove the tag, cause it's damaging to the GA nom. Eixo 10:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My thanks go out to those of you involved in this discussion. Now that it is clear you have reviewed the possibility of merger and rejected it, I feel better about moving toward deletion. Best of luck with the GA nomination. I'd make this my second GA review but for my prior involvement in making this merger proposal. Erechtheus 16:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Update: I decided to attempt a bold redirect to Fields of Athenry as a result of this discussion and other considerations. Erechtheus 01:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea. Stu ’Bout ye! 08:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fields of Anfield Road Merger?

message: Who on Earth is Toby Smith Kingjamie 18:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toby Smith 

message: I am surprised that the clubs honours are not listed with the European Cups first, or at least second after the League titles. Also surprised that it is not simply referred to a 5 European Cups which sounds better than 5 UEFA Champions Leagues.
:Well, in answer to the first point, that's just the standard protocol for listing honours - domestic titles first, then European, then inter-continental. As for the second point - it refers to "European Cups and UEFA Champions Leagues", because the competition changed its name prior to the last time LFC won it. It's not called the European Cup any more (much as it should be). Seb Patrick 08:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of listing of titles - European Cups first surely 

message: Great article alround but there was addition that I think would be good - though i'm not sure if it is possible:
The manager-section shows how many games they won/drew/lost, is it possible to have wikipedia show a win-percentage? Obviously it could be manually figured out and added for the historic managers, but if Benitez's stats are up to date it would take rework - unless there is an automated feature. 
It would be nice to compare across managers because whilst what is there is informative it is difficult to see whether one manager was more successful (in terms of games won) than others.
ny156uk 09:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managers Section 

message: They won the Champions League in 2005, but the other 4 were just known as the European Cup, I know its the same but it isn't officially right. I'm not sure what to put instead because '4 european cups and 1 champions league trophy' doesnt sound right. I'll change it to 5 european cups.
81.153.38.130 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just reverted you because the Champions League is the current title, and therefore should be preferred (at least in my opinion). aLii 23:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What about something along the lines of "have been Champions of Europe 5 times"? Robotforaday 08:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think 5 Champions League Trophies is accurate. That is the term used now and while the others were won under a different name, it would be like seperating out all of the League-cups they have won into milk cup/coca-cola/worthington/carling and whatever other names it has had historically. ny156uk 18:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it is wrong to label all 5 as Champions League wins. The format should be by type I.e. League Cup not Coca-cola, Carling cup , etc; European Cup not Champions League. It is strictly inaccurate and misleading to state Liverpool have won the Champions League five times. A reference can be made to the format at the time of winning the cup later on. I will revert if no one opposes. Jamie 07:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to say that I agree with this, it is simply inaccurate to say we won 5 Champions League titles. As complicated as the change in competition name and format has made it, we can't just fudge it by saying that the wins in the 70s and 80s were of the Champions League any more than we can say that the league wins were Premiership wins. European Cups is definitely better, as that is, after all, what is still on the trophy, although I agree its not perfect. Robotforaday 18:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And to be fair the references at the bottom of the article cover the name change, which in my opinion is easily sufficient. I think we have to try and detach ourselves from allowing recent events, I.e. champions league win, to cloud the articles encyclopaedic value. Jamie 16:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  5 champions league titles? 

message: Bit of a shameless plug, but I've nominated this list as an FLC now that it's completed. If you have any opinion, go to Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Liverpool F.C. players. ArtVandelay13 18:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Liverpool F.C. players is a featured list candidate 

message: Anybody got any objections to me adding LFCWire.com as an external link?
It basically indexes BBC Sport (LFC feed), The Liverpool Echo (LFC Feed), Red And White Kop, The Liverpool Way, Shankly Gates, YNWA and LiverpoolFC.tv to provide a comprehensive feed of the days stories. It's updated every five minutes 24/7, too. 82.35.216.206 01:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at it now all I see are Liverpoolfc.tv articles, and the odd one from the Echo, both of which are already linked here. While the concept of the site is good, if doesn't offer any content other than extra adverts. aLii 10:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps you caught the feed at a bad time (e.g. just after they done a bulk update of liverpoolfc.tv)? Looking at it now, there are also articles from BBC sport, Red and White Kop and Shankly Gates as well as the Echo and the official site, and having seen it before, I am sure I recall links to stories from other media sources. I'd say to keep an eye on it before making a judgement. Robotforaday 21:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Robotforaday, exactly... the site indexes all of the above feeds. We've added Liverweb today. Alii h, FYI the adverts are only there to try to recoup the money I spend each month on hosting. It doesn't cover it by a long shot. I monitor the site throughout the day to make sure that the content is relevant and worth reading. Sometimes you may see a lot of posts from LiverpoolFC.tv and icLiverpool in one big block, but these sites do tend to post in batches. I'm throwing this one out to everybody; if we can get consensus on this one, I'd like to add the site to the article. I was one of those fans that used to manually trawl the internet looking for LFC stories and that's its reason for existing. 82.35.216.206 23:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Alii h -- Sorry, that previous note might have appeared snotty... didn't mean it to be, I was just being defensive! 82.35.216.206 00:34, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Alii, I've added a 'View older articles' button to the page. That will help you to see the mix of articles that are fed into the site. Cheers. 82.35.216.206 01:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

text: LFCWire.com has been reviewed on Shankly Gates. Nice. 82.35.216.206 23:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  LFCWire.com 

message: I think someone's having a luagh.
"Some of the Premiership's greatest ever players began and forged their careers at Liverpool. Steve McManaman, Robbie Fowler Michael Owenand the greatest ever footballer, Jordan G. Christodoulou began their careers at the Liverpool Academy, emerging across the 1990s among the batch that later included current captain Steven Gerrard."
:Some idiot trying to impose their useless sense of humour on us. Jamie 12:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Jordan G. Christodoulou? 

message: It appears likely that the club will either be sold or a rights issue will be made which will generate significant investment to finance the new stadium, construction of which is currently planned for January / February 2007. The investment issue may be resolved as early as November 2006.
:and your point is? - wikipedia is not a discussion forum and the discussion page should be used to discuss contents of the Liverpool home page - i.e to make suggestions on content. Just friendly advice Steve-Ho 10:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's done. We've been sold. Is there anything that should be added to the article do you think? aLii 13:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesh, something in the history section. Maybe a sentence in the lead. It is on the official website now, so I presume it is 100% official. Stu ’Bout ye! 13:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The press conference is going to be at 2pm GMT if anyone's interested. That's 7 minutes from now. Sky Sports News will be covering it live. aLii 13:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takeover / investment 

message: IMHO it would be less confusing to those people who are not football fantatics if the history section didn't start off with "Everton F.C started...."  If the first bit could be re-worded to say something like the club was born out a conflict or split within Everton vis a vis John Houlding (wordsmith..this comment's a bit off the cuff)  
For example The FC United of Manchester Page, which as we all know started from conflict:
The club was formed in 2005 by Manchester United supporters, who turned their backs on the Premiership outfit during the Malcolm Glazer's takeover. 
It doesn't say "manchester United were formed in 1878 and 100 years later FC United Split off".  It makes more sense to start off the section/sentence with the club you're actually talking about 
--ChrissMari 22:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I personally didn't (and still don't) see much of a problem with the old phrasing, it is now changed. I still don't see the any good reason why the article should have been demoted from Good Article status though. There are perhaps a handful of questionable sentences, but nothing major. There was a reason it wasn't ranked as a Featured Article... aLii 23:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  History Section 

message: While I don't necessarily have a problem with including a mention of the Ladies team in the article, I think the current placement of the information is poor, as it falls in the midst (and breaks up) information about the main team which the article is about. Ideally, I would place it at the end of the article, although I suppose it can't really fall after all of the tables. Certainly I think it should come after the section on "Club Records and Statistics"- but then it seems strange to go straight from that into the current (male) squad. Perhaps I'm just thinking up problems where there are none! Robotforaday 15:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I wouldn't have it as part of the article at all, and I have deleted it before now. aLii 18:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd put it before notes and references; all the sections above apply yo the men's team, and it's jarring and misleading in the middle of them. It needs its own article, actually. ArtVandelay13 18:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has its own article, Liverpool L.F.C., its just that that article is a stub. Robotforaday 00:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I hadn't noticed that. Still needs expanding, maybe I'll get around to it one day, but I'm not sure if I can be arsed. ArtVandelay13 01:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Placement of Liverpool Ladies F.C.

message: *:PageName → :Liverpool Football Club —(Discuss)— Because that is the full name of the club, it is also the name given in the pargagraph. —Franz-kafka 17:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All articles of clubs called xxxx Football Club are named xxxx F.C. for sake of consistency. If this is to be changed it would have to be changed for all of the clubs. The best thing for you to do would be to take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football and make the case for a new consensus. Robotforaday 18:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed page move

message: The article states that on the day of the Hillsborough disaster, "hundreds of Liverpool fans were trampled on the terraces in a human stampede." This is not the case. The deaths at Hillsborough were caused by crushing due to severe overcrowding.  See http://www.contrast.org/hillsborough/ for more information
Elskip8 18:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very important point. I have now made some small changes both to this article and also to History of Liverpool F.C. which will hopefully miscorrect this misapprehension, with a reference to an interim version of the Taylor Report. Any more concerns of this time, please do let us know. Robotforaday 14:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hillsborough

message: As notable as the takeover is, I believe it would be recentist to allow news of it to become overly prominent within the article- certainly I think that giving it a section to itself (and therefore almost placing it on a parity with the whole of the rest of the club's history) is excessive. My suggestion would be to wait a couple of days until the dust clears and the inevitable flood of people who want to add about this has dried up a bit, and then to cut it down to just a sentence at the end of the history section, while moving of the more detailed information to the History of Liverpool F.C. article. Thoughts? Robotforaday 18:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, although now the section on the History article needs work, in my opinion. Robotforaday 22:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Takeover

message: Interesting quote for possible reference in the takeover section, from Parry allay's fans' takeover fears BBC News - Sport - Wednesday, 7 February 2007
Liverpool chief executive Rick Parry has moved to appease fans concerned by some comments made by new joint-owner George Gillett. Gillett, who has bought the club with fellow American tycoon Tom Hicks, called the Merseysiders a "franchise" and "Liverpool Reds".  
- Foxhill 19:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd never use the term "franchise" for American sports teams, but that's because I'm British. "My baseball team is the San Francisco Giants" etc. It's just one of those things. They obviously need to brush up on their English, just as many of us would need to learn American to fit in over there. pavement=sidewalk, motorway=highway, franchise=club etc.. aLii 12:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liverpool Reds 

message: In the article "Liverpool F.C." is false information about the club's chairman. The real chairman STILL is David Moores, until Gillet & Hicks have officially bought all the shares. You can check this information also from The official Liverpool FC website www.liverpoolfc.tv
:In the press conference on the day the deal was confirmed both Hicks and Gillett confirmed that they would be co-chairmen and that Moores would be "life president". aLii 13:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct!  They will be but they are not yet as there are still some legal niceties to tie up.Barfbagger 14:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't think that's so important. The legal niceties will be tied up quickly, and I don't think anyone is going to come along and nit-pick. Besides, I think if you ask any Red fan they'll tell you the charimen are, "Those two Yank blokes." 24.251.147.57 16:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The RIGHT chairman 

message: this needs adding to the current squad list
:Not yet it doesn't. aLii 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mascherano 

message: It should probably be delisted until it's logical and written well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrissMari (talk • contribs) 20:12, 21 December 2006
:Without necessarily disagreeing with what you say, it would be far, far more useful if you actually stated WHERE the problems were, so that people could actually work on them. As it is, your contribution is entirely negative. Some of us want to actually improve articles, after all. Robotforaday 23:06, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I dunno about you, but I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and Christmas is perhaps the busiest time of year. Your tone is coming over as quite aggressive by the way. There is absolutely no need for a complete rewrite. The article as it stands is well referenced, has good photos and diagrams, and has a huge amount of good information. A few overly familiar sentences do not a bad article make. aLii 23:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:GA/R|Good Article Review]]