Talk:History of Liverpool F.C.

Current Season
I can't help but wonder if the section on the World Club Cup in Japan is a little bit excessive, given that it was considered a minor competition by most fans (albeit one they wanted to win). For a week's involvement in a competition involving 6 teams, it's a bit much to give it almost as much space as the whole Shankley or Paisley era have!--Robotforaday 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to detail every event that happens this season? Why don't we just put nothing about this season until the end of the season and then write a summary. I will delete the last 2 sentances Jamie 11:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think all current season events should be put in the main LFC article and at the end of the season a summarized version can be copied here. And the Goalkeepers section is somewhat awkward where it is, although I don't know where to move it. But I'll move the reference to sources to the end of the article to where I think it belongs. --Biziclop 20:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Personally, I see the problem to be that Shankley and Paisley don't have enough written about them, rather than recent events having too much.. aLii 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Goalkeepers?
Do you really think its necessary to have a section on Goalkeepers at all?? There's no section on midfielders or strikers? Its seems rather random. I think it should just be removed, I can't see the historical usefulness of knowing the goalie history of liverpool? Jamie 16:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No more than is written at those two links! I feel there should be a mention of it in the article. It'd be good to find out whoich players were implicated/banned. aLii 00:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Good Friday scandal of 1915
Anybody know anything about the Good Friday scandal of 1915 ? Cutler 23:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Naming of sections
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 &mdash; 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, 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)
 * 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


 * why should we follow someone elses notion of style .... article reads fine to me 168.209.97.34 15:23, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not "someone elses" style, it's WIKIPEDIA's style. This is Wikipedia, and hence that style should be followed here. aLii 10:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

The FA Community Shield
Near the bottom, where it shows what LFC won in all the eyars, it doesn't include the fourth and final major English honour - the FA Community Shield. I think it should mention it, and on the 'honours won' part underneath the managers and their era. It should be there, shouldn't it. It's the equivalent of the UEFA Super Cup, only for England, not the whole of Europe! Also, where it says honours won for managers, it doesn't have the UEFA Super Cup or the FA Community Shield, at least on the list near the bottom it has the UEFA Super Cup. I think it should have them both in the list near the bottom and in the 'honours won' part underneath the manager's name and era! Come on guys, who the hell made it not like that! Does anyone agree, that's the best option like, isn't it, guys! Come on!
 * MAZITO - Thursday, 14 December, 2006; 01:50 (GMT)


 * Go for it.. add them in. I agree that there's no good reason to leave the Community Shield out. aLii 10:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Move Duja ► 10:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

History of Liverpool Football Club → History of Liverpool F.C. — consistency with related articles. ArtVandelay13 18:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Survey

 * ''Add  * Support   or   * Oppose   on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~.


 * Support. Seems sensible to me aLii 22:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency's sake with other articles. Qwghlm 14:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support- makes sense, in line with Liverpool F.C., Liverpool F.C. Reserves, etc. Robotforaday 14:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Support Surprised this wasn't noticed earlier.Jamie 10:51, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

 * ''Add any additional comments:
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Revisiting the question of the Goalkeepers section
As was asked by JamieStapleton back in Jan 2006, does the goalkeepers section of this article actually fit into the article as it currently stands? I have been tempted several times to remove it outright, but thought perhaps it would be better to ask if anybody can put forward some different options. Robotforaday 15:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Takeover
I think the info from Liverpool F.C. should be merged into this article and shortened in the other article. Timpcrk87 08:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Liverpool RFC
Is the Liverpool RFC mentioned in the sentence "the club name was changed to Liverpool F.C., after protests from Liverpool RFC", Liverpool St Helens F.C.?--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC) -- Merging with St. Helens is pretty recent thing. Waterspaces (talk) 09:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Uni study of the split
Nothing was copyright in the university text. None of it was lifted - I wrote it all. I have the full 28 page document. It is an extensive study of the split - the only one - please re-insert the piece as it is important and written by two men who are neutral. It would have been better to have contacted me, and understanding what it is about, before doing such an act of what is clearly vandalism. Waterspaces (talk) 10:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * (copied from my talk page reply)Firstly, there was no-way that I could have known that you had written it. Secondly, if you include it on here, it will come under the GFDL licence, and therefore anybody can edit it. Thirdly, a university essay isn't a reliable source, I doubt it's been properly published; if it has, then a summary of it's findings can go in, not a verbatim dump of the text (unless you are prepared to licence it under the GFDL, let me know if this is the case). Fourthly, please be careful throwing the 'vandalism' word around, I really don't consider my edits to have been vandalism, and I doubt you'll find anyone else who thinks they were. Thanks. -- Ged UK  10:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The summary looks pretty good. Previously, the article looked like it was a promotion for the new research, something we should definitely avoid. It's a shame that Waterspaces should bring such interesting new work in such an incivil manner. The Hitler reference just about topped it off! Sillyfolkboy (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The citation given to the Leeds paper is to an abstract, which is insufficient to support the contentions made using it; we need to link to the full paper, but bear in mind that this is just one person's research. If the author is so keen to have it used here, might I suggest that it be donated to Wikisource or Wikiversity under the GFDL or CC-BY-SA 2.0 upwards, so that it can be cited here, with due care. Another point is use of the Liverpool Wiki; we don't consider wikis reliable sources, not even ourselves. Having looked at the linked article, good though it is in its own way, it entirely lacks sources, which at least we could use here as secondary sources ourselves, without going through a layer of unsourced original research. Rodhull andemu  15:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Poor sourcing
 * The citation to Leeds uni is to the storage of the document at Cambridge uni. links to the new book Accross the Park and Simon Inglis's (renowned stadium historian) book too. Other already resent links also have this info too.  The wiki will have reliable links very soon.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.116.143 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Until it does, however, a wiki isn't a reliable source. Please feel free to replace it when it is properly sourced. However, what should happen is the sources cited there should also be cited here to satisfy WP:V directly rather than going through an external site; if the Liverpool wiki were to close, a whole raft of sources would be lost in one go, and that would not be acceptable here. Rodhull  andemu  15:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * will put wiki in when linked. The Leeds uni doc has two authors one from Glasgow uni one from Leeds and about 5 researchers named.  An important historical research doc. Across the Park is linked as is Inglis.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.116.143 (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Other articles
I think this page is unnecessary, History of Liverpool F.C. (1892–1959), History of Liverpool F.C. (1959–85) and History of Liverpool F.C. (1985–present) cover the entire history of Liverpool and they are good articles. This page should only have interwiki links to these articles.--MR.HJH (talk) 20:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just thought I would reiterate this. I think this should be turned into a disambiguation page that links to the above articles, a la History of Arsenal F.C. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion sounds fine to me Matty, I would go along with that. NapHit (talk) 13:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)