Talk:Liverpool F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry

This article was nominated for deletion on 3 July 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liverpool F.C.–Manchester City F.C. rivalry article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Merseyside Low‑importance

	North West England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Merseyside, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Merseyside-related articles. In so doing it works and collaborates with its mother project WikiProject UK Geography. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Please also feel free to join in the discussions on the project's talk page.MerseysideWikipedia:WikiProject MerseysideTemplate:WikiProject MerseysideMerseyside articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: England Mid‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Greater Manchester Low‑importance

	Greater Manchester portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greater Manchester, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greater Manchester on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Greater ManchesterWikipedia:WikiProject Greater ManchesterTemplate:WikiProject Greater ManchesterGreater Manchester articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Should this Page even exist?[edit]

There is no great history of rivalry between Liverpool and City in the way that there is between Liverpool and Manchester United. By this standard, there should be a Liverpool - Chelsea rivalry page for the Benitez / Mourinho years. A transient rivalry between the 2 best teams at that moment of time is not sufficient justification for a rivalry page. This feels like a candidate for WP:AFD. 46.65.96.7 (talk) 09:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, a rivalry is a long term thing, not just a permutation of any 2 of the top 4-5 teams at a given point in time. Spike 'em (talk) 11:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also, large amounts of the content is lifted, without attribution, from the liverpool - man utd rivalry page. Spike 'em (talk) 11:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree too. This page is basically an unsubstantiated claim padded out with fluff about each team that has nothing to do with the purported rivalry between them. There is no particular rivalry between these two clubs beyond the fact that they have been the main rivals for the league title during the last couple of seasons. The same could be said about dozens of other pairings of clubs over the years who are not considered particular rivals. The article is direly lacking in any citations relevant to the subject matter. The few citations provided either talk about a rivalry between the two current managers, not the two clubs, or in a single case raise the question of whether a rivalry may be developing. Surely a WP:AFD here. 92.5.55.91 (talk) 14:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfDed. Spike 'em (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noone knows if Man U anytime soon will be fighting against Liverpool for the gold-medal. City has done so for a lot of years now, whereas United has not. History of football develops just like any other history. Today the rivalery City - Pool is obvious among every football-fan. What happened in the 2010s starts to some time ago.

--80.203.12.15 (talk) 15:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the idea of a long-term rivalry between Liverpool and Manchester City is laughable. Sure, the two teams are competing for trophies now, but there's no enmity between them like there is between Liverpool and Man Utd or City and Man Utd. Even Man Utd v Arsenal is more of a rivalry than this, and that fizzled out a long time ago! – Pee Jay 22:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agreement that this Page should be removed. A situazioni where the two teams are on top of the table for just a few seasons cannot be described as a rivarly. 14 novembre (talk) 11:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Found this page randomly via a google search and was surprised to see it exists. Came to the talk to see if anyone else thought the same thing, I'm glad they do. The two fixtures that count for Liverpool are against Everton and Man Utd. Obviously we'll get excited about playing any in form team, but Arsenal and Chelsea (until recently) have as much meaning as this one, that is: nothing beyond 3 points on the day. It's an artificial rivalry. Fiddley (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article title[edit]

If an editor wishes to change the title of this article, they need to provide sources for the new name. Unilaterally renaming the page 'M62 Derby' without offering a single source referring to the rivalry by this name, isn't appropriate. The Raincloud Kid (talk) 17:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The name "M62 derby" isn't really used, and even if it were, I've seen it used more often for Liverpool v Man Utd than Liverpool v Man City. – Pee Jay 19:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

football[edit]

man city vs Liverpool league title 92.40.172.241 (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]