Talk:Liverpool F.C./Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

AfD Notification

Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest (1983–84 European Cup semi-final) article is up for AfD. Govvy (talk) 09:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Anfield capacity is wrong. It’s supposed to say 54,074.

Anfield capacity wrong Humayun007x (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Really? Have you even looked at the source provided next to the capacity in the info box? Govvy (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy: I Goggled "What is Anfield's maximum capacity and it came up with 54,074. Also the source says that that was the capacity at the start of the season. Also have you noticed that in the lead section it states that the capacity is 54,074. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 10:18, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Also there is this. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 10:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I only just saw your reply, don't think that ping you did worked, I only looked in the info box earlier, which is the current seasons premier league booklet which is a newer source than the 2016 BBC one, so they might have dropped the capacity down for some reason. You would need another more recent source, but there does seem to be an issue by have two different capacity values at the moment. Govvy (talk) 10:59, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@Govvy Google doesn't seem to know either. look at This search result and then This one. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 12:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

We have two reliable sources contradicting each other. We have the Premier league putting the capacity at 53,394. And we have LFChistory saying that the maximum capacity is 54,074. Not really sure what to do. REDMAN 2019 Stay at home:Protect the NHS:Save lives (talk) 12:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

@REDMAN 2019: Well, there's a difference between premier league capacity and the full capacity if the PL has particular rules around accessible seating for example; that would mean that more non-accessible seats would have to be removed for a PL match than they might do for a Cup game for example. I don't know the rules, but that's most likely the reason for the difference between the two sources. We could update the article to reflect the two sources; the larger number is more likely the actual stadium capcacity, and the PL one is the capacity for PL games. GedUK  14:57, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2020

Liverpool haven't won the Europa League, they've only won the Uefa Cup 86.31.244.235 (talk) 08:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Done. Mattythewhite (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2020

Liverpool Football Club is Englands most successful football club with 49 major club honours KeshavNaidoo18 (talk) 09:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Rummskartoffel (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 July 2020

Please add a reference to the 2019/20 Premier League honour with the following link https://www.premierleague.com/coronavirus 532435653159abc (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There are multiple links to the page 2019–20 Premier League pointing out Liverpool won that year, including the infobox, the "History" section, and the "Honours" section. The link provided is hardly relevant. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 08:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Liverpool Player Of The Season

Hendo just got voted 2019-20 winner. Can someone do that? I don't really know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brotato The Great (talk • contribs) 12:31, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done That's best addressed at the Jordan Henderson article. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, in the players section, there is a list of Liverpool Player Of The Season Winners, including Gerrard, Suarez, and Virgil. I think there should be another row added to the bottom with his name, the English flagicon, and the season 2019-20 Brotato The Great (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Are You Sure?

Actually, in the player's section, there is a list of Liverpool Player Of The Season Winners, including Gerrard, Suarez, and Virgil. I think there should be another row added to the bottom with his name, the English flagicon, and the season 2019-20 Brotato The Great (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

NapHit (talk · contribs) The article Liverpool F.C. was made a Good Article with that table in it. I would feel that alone makes it worthy of staying there if the reviewer liked it, don't you? Also, you can't put the notice "further information" over no information. Brotato The Great (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it wasn't because I was the one who got the article to featured standard and that table was not included when it was promoted. The table is in a separate article, we shouldn't be duplicating content just for the sake of it. Instead, we should be working to build up the quality of the other article. We don't have manager tables, lists of records, or league records included for the same reason. They're in separate articles and the reader can navigate through to them if they wish to know more. NapHit (talk) 19:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

But that's just it! The reader can navigate through to them if they wish to know MORE. Right now you just have a heading that says click this link. We should at least give some information about the award itself. Brotato The Great (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not relevant to the article as a whole. There's no need to duplicate information. The reader can click on the link to find out more. It's hardly troubling to click through on a link. The article is featured, as it's determined to be one of the best one Wikipedia. Adding loads of tables because we can, diminishes the value of the article. WP:NOTSTATS, is a useful guide. We have a separate page for it, that's where the table should be. NapHit (talk) 11:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

The FURTHER link should be used in front of other information. The FOR link is for when there is no info whatsoever like it is right now. It should either say further and have a couple of sentences or say for and have none, right? Brotato The Great (talk) 16:31, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I really don't think it makes a difference. It's currently further information, what's the point in changing it to for? Just leave it as it is, it works perfectly fine. Making changes for the sake of changes is just pointless. NapHit (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

History of Liverpool F.C.

History of Liverpool F.C. is currently a page that does nothing more than point to three separate articles about Liverpool history. Should it redirect to the History section in this article? I don't see why a whole separate page is necessary when the section also points to the three articles and has a lot more info on the topic. Ae245 (talk) 14:39, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah. I agree. The main articles are linked at the section. I redirected the history page to the section. I don't have an issue with the article either way, but seems to make more sense as you suggested. intelati^talk 15:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Title

Surely this article should be entitled Liverpool FC without the punctuation - as per normal British usage, and as is very clearly the standard from the club’s own website? MapReader (talk) 06:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Every club article on Wiki abides by the same rule regarding the punctuation. You'd be better bringing this up at WP:FOOTY instead of here as this is a wider issue that affects more than one article. NapHit (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2021

In the history section you should add the following;

On the 19th April the football club announced that is had agreed to join a new European Super League (ESL) along with Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Tottenham, AC Milan, Atletico Madrid, Barcelona, Inter Milan, Juventus and Real Madrid.

Critics say the move is being driven purely by money, would destroy domestic leagues and is against the integrity of the sport.

Unlike the Champions League, which teams must qualify for, the ESL would include the same 15 teams every year, with the remaining five qualifying annually. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/56795811

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Uefa and the Premier League condemned the move when the news broke and said that that the government will consider using what he called “a legislative bomb” to stop English clubs joining a breakaway European Super League, as official efforts to thwart the plan were stepped up. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/apr/20/uk-government-may-legislate-to-stop-european-super-league-says-minister

There was also considerable push back from across the footballing world including UEFA and other national football governing bodies. UEFA said the following in a statement;

UEFA, the English Football Association and the Premier League, the Royal Spanish Football Federation (RFEF) and LaLiga, and the Italian Football Federation (FIGC) and Lega Serie A have learned that a few English, Spanish and Italian clubs may be planning to announce their creation of a closed, so-called Super League.

If this were to happen, we wish to reiterate that we – UEFA, the English FA, RFEF, FIGC, the Premier League, LaLiga, Lega Serie A, but also FIFA and all our member associations – will remain united in our efforts to stop this cynical project, a project that is founded on the self-interest of a few clubs at a time when society needs solidarity more than ever.

We will consider all measures available to us, at all levels, both judicial and sporting in order to prevent this happening. Football is based on open competitions and sporting merit; it cannot be any other way.

As previously announced by FIFA and the six Confederations, the clubs concerned will be banned from playing in any other competition at domestic, European or world level, and their players could be denied the opportunity to represent their national teams.

We thank those clubs in other countries, especially the French and German clubs, who have refused to sign up to this. We call on all lovers of football, supporters and politicians, to join us in fighting against such a project if it were to be announced. This persistent self-interest of a few has been going on for too long. Enough is enough. https://www.uefa.com/insideuefa/news/0268-12121411400e-7897186e699a-1000--statement-by-uefa-the-english-football-association-the-premier-/ 188.221.193.195 (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

As we don't know what the outcome of this will be, it's best to wait and see what happens before updating anything. Things could, and probably will change very quickly. NapHit (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: per NapHit ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we add this now? I submitted the text again with updates about the outcome of the situation and I've changed the present tense to past tense but the edit was reversed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.221.193.195 (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd still a little while longer. Seeing as this is still an ongoing situation, it's best to wait and see what happens and then update. Punishments could yet be handed out for example. Until we now for certain what's happening, it' best to wait then be all WP:CRYSTAL. NapHit (talk) 11:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Under "Club Officials" Peter Moore is no longer the acting CEO of Liverpool Football club, and it is now Billy Hogan, as of 1st September 2020, reference: https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/announcements/407208-interview-billy-hogan-on-beginning-new-role-as-liverpool-ceo#. 2A00:23C4:FA3:2301:902C:3CA7:1E27:41C (talk) 23:48, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Ben ❯❯❯ Talk 00:18, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 June 2021

Hi, Wijnaldum needs removing after signing for PSG today. 2.31.177.52 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Even though it's been announced, players don't actually leave until the end of the month when the transfer window formally opens. Alyo (chat·edits) 00:25, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Players on-loan need moving up, and Van de Berg’s loan status needs changing. 95.148.103.187 (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Melmann 09:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

3rd captain

Why do people claim that the Liverpool page must only have 2 captains, when Klopp confirmed the 3rd and 4th captain orders were van Dijk and Wijnaldum (who left)? Other pages have more than 2, there's no reason for this to be any different. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 01:08, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a justification to include it. We don't need to include the third or fourth captains, it's overkill. The first two are fine. NapHit (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

In addition, the sources for this kind of addition often fail WP:RS or are just pure original research (someone watches a match and does the math on who is captain when X and Y players are out). Alyo (chat·edits) 13:44, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Michael Edwards sporting director How old?

Good Evening I have a question how old Michael Edwards sporting director I mean a date born and age--5.63.188.106 (talk) 18:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Google is where you should be looking for this answer. Not the Wikipedia page of a football team. NapHit (talk) 19:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Liverpool league performances chart

Liverpool F.C.'s league performance from 1892 to 2021.

I would like to add this chart to this page since it's very useful information. These kinds of charts are on numerous other football club articles so I don't see why it shouldn't be on here. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:36, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid reason to include something in an article. Personally, I don't see any real need for it to be included. Would be interested to hear the views of others. NapHit (talk) 10:29, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with NapHit. It isn't especially illustrative and doesn't add any value. I suggested the request was brought here because the edit was reverted three times for reasons of image stacking and text cramping. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I think the user is better served by checking out the seasons article than this image. NapHit (talk) 13:57, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I can put it there then at least? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Other football club articles seem to use these kinds of graphs as well, why should this be an exception to here? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains why. It's not about standardisation across articles, it's about a consensus regarding the article in question. Does it benefit the reader to have that chart in the article and is better than the other images which represent Liverpool F.C.? I think it's hard to argue it is. There's more of a case for it to be in the season's list, but then the reader can just browse through the table rather than the image, so again, there's not much use for the image. NapHit (talk) 19:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

What if I were to put it the seasons article then? Will it be removed there? Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I was looking for this exact graph about Liverpool as I've seen them on other team pages and find that it is very easy to read, but more importantly a quick way to get a sense of how the seasons have gone for the individual teams. In the discussion above it is correctly pointed out that the information encapsulated by the graph is accessible elsewhere but not in a concise easily readable way, which this graph provides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.22.104.40 (talk) 10:16, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Enquiry regarding Sheriff of London Charity Shield

Hi guys, I am just curious as to why the SoL Charity Shield is included on this page. I have went and checked the honours on the official Liverpool page ( see link : https://www.liverpoolfc.com/history/honours). They do not include this trophy in the trophy cabinet, neither do they mention it in the club's history. They have trophies like the Lancashire League mentioned and the Reserve Division one. But not this one, perhaps it should not be included. I took it a step further and contacted the club to get further insight on this matter.

The text below is the email response from Liverpool Football Club. I could not upload the actual screenshot image of the email as Wikipedia does not allow me to upload such images. However if people want to contact me for the actual email, please privately contact me your email address and I will forward you the email and send a screenshot. You guys are more than welcome to contact the official email address of Liverpool(mentioned below), just as I did. You can even use my reference number , to re-query and see that the email I sent was legitimate.

RE: Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry [Case ref: 3ERFnN, Message ref: dkelRB]

contactus@liverpoolfc.com

Attachments 17:03 (1 hour ago)

to me

Dear ******,

Thank you for contacting Liverpool Football Club.

This fixture was considered a friendly competition for charity and as it no longer exists it was never recognised as a major trophy or as an established competition in the way that the Community shield is.

We thank you for your support.

Kind regards

Matt

Fan Services Liverpool Football Club From: ****** ****** ****** <*******> Date: Wednesday, 2 March 2022, 19:14:17 To: <contactus@liverpoolfc.com> Subject: Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry [Case ref: 3ERFnN, Message ref: dkelRB]

Contact enquiry About you Name ******* Email address ******* Phone ******* Address Date of birth

Your enquiry Enquiry type Fan Services > Club Information Queue email address Subject Sheriff of London Charity Shield enquiry Your message Hi there. I would just like to know why the Sheriff of London Charity Shield won in 1906, is not counted under the competitive honours in this website, neither is it mentioned? Reference number(s) : 3ERFnN — Preceding unsigned comment added by HMD 1315 (talk • contribs) 18:37, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Rivalry with Chelsea (say from 04-onwards?) and Manchester City (say 2018-onwards?)

Just curious about what people think of potentially adding a brief section (and eventually their own Wiki pages should we have a majority say yes) in the rivalries section.

Thoughts? 2A00:23C6:7A0F:F301:6457:6891:59EF:A55E (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The Man City rivalry already has it's own page here. Not sure the Chelsea one merits and article of it's own though. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the City 'rivalry' is worth a mention now as we have a page about that, even though it's not much of a rivalry in my opinion. I think there should be an article on the Chelsea rivalry if we have one on City. That rivalry was much more intense and visceral than the one with City now. Until, or if there is, an article on the Chelsea rivalry, I'm not sure we should mention it. NapHit (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Lede

Prior lede is objective mess after over a decade of incremental changes. Poor grammatical structure, emphasis on trophies immediately rather than what the club is and so on. The FA status from over a decade ago with a completely different lede is not a defence against changes being made per the FA status: Liverpool F.C. is the main article in the Liverpool F.C. series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. Reverting JUST because it's an FA is not a sound policy. If my changes are not an improvement - tell me why. Koncorde (talk) 10:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see why the trophies should be shifted from the opening para. The extra detail about rivals seems excessive for lede (surely just mentioning rivals should be enough, with the body of the article going into more depth). And the tragedies, again, mentioning the basics in the lede with more detail in body; Heysel, escaping Juve fans pressed against collapsing wall, and Hillsborough, Pool fans crushed in terracing. It’s concise and to the point. Cranberry Wood (talk) 12:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I actually think Koncorde's version is better. As the person who got this article to featured status, the lead has changed a lot since then, with and without consensus. If the article can be improved, then it should, and in this case I do think the changes are an improvement. NapHit (talk) 15:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Kinda agree the current lede is a bit disjointed. I think Koncorde's version is better but with one proviso. IMO, the sentence " Liverpool is the most successful club in English football in terms of major trophies won" should be at the end of the very first paragraph i.e.

Liverpool Football Club is a professional football club based in Liverpool, England, that competes in the Premier League, the top tier of English football. The club was founded in 1892 and joined the Football League in 1893. The club have played at Anfield Stadium since its formation. The club are one of the most widely supported in the world, as well as one of the most valuable. In terms of major trophies won, Liverpool is the most successful club in English football. Koppite1 (talk) 19:42, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

There should be more content full stop. Any additional information included by myself was information that summarises those events more accurately, in particular the Hillsbrough exoneration and campaign for the 96 (now 97) is incredibly significant.

The trophies meanwhile are clunky when included with no context in the opening paragraph, particularly when the following paragraph talks about the success of the club, and the next one talks about winning those trophies. It lacks coherence and is poor structurally. Koncorde (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Moved it into the recommended max of four paragraphs, with the trophies/success being in one of them, the fan base/rivalries in another. Some trimming of repetition with ‘English teams’ mentioned twice, while retaining the content. Nampa DC (talk) 00:20, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Stop with the Removal of being the most successful English Team

Raised this due to the addition and then removal of this sentence - “most successful English team in terms of overall honours won”.

This is getting tedious now. I don’t get how this can be argued? Objectify speaking Liverpool have now won more than any other English club - this isn’t up for debate - as shown in the ‘List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won’ Wiki page.

Now what is up for debate is which of these honours are deemed ‘major honours’ - this purely subjective because some people count the UEFA Super Cup (Sky being one) as some don’t - which is why we must ensure the wording doesn’t contain ‘major honours’ and strictly just ‘overall honours won’ - which has been added but for some strange reason, keeps being removed? Solid Snack90 (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The problem being "overall honours" is a lie, and specifically is not in the wording of any reliable source. The mere fact we avoid the subjective "major" categorisation is because of the disputed status of the Charity Shield and other trophies resulting in edit wars between Utd and Liverpool fans - but when your "overall" only works if you count the Sheriff of London (a competition no club includes in trophy counts, and is excluded in all other reliable sources) it is clear the intent is to undermine the source that the claim is attributed to. That defeats the object of saying stuff like "overall", when the reality is if we included all kinds of ancillary trophies the result may be something completely different depending on the conflicting sources. Koncorde (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Koncorde, 100% get that, but we can’t retrospectively put or take away importance of a trophy that was competed for over 100 years ago. It was the predecessor for what’s known today as the Community Shield - a trophy which some clubs and sources like Sky just don’t count as an honour. We’re making a rod for our own back by not including it. Just so I’m clear here, if Liverpool had 68 honours - 67 if we removed the Sheriff of London Shield - the Wiki community would be happy? Solid Snack90 (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

We have to be careful here with statements like the one that was included in the lead. Does it add anything to the article? Not really. This is contentious because there's a lot of antipathy on both the Liverpool and United side of things. We can't use Wikipedia as a source, as Koncorde states, so unless we find a definitive source that states 'x team are the most successful...' we should be careful about what we include in a featured article no less. I say this as a Liverpool fan too. NapHit (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The trophy had no more importance than many other trophies competed for at that time. It is our Original Research that has resulted in us attributing value to the trophy that no reliable source does. In effect we have created the metric by which we arbitrate who has won the most trophies. That is blatantly wrong and just as fraught as excluding other FA trophies because we consider them minor. For example List of FA and league honours won by men's clubs produces a completely different total because we use entirely different inclusion criteria, and have a separate list for Lower Qualifying Honours (bearing in mind the SoL was a fixed invitational to play Corinthians and not the FA Winner vs League Winner as the CS became). Koncorde (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Naphit - if that’s the case then, surely you source sport broadcasting companies such as Sky, ESPN, etc. who use the metric of ‘Major Honours’ - that ends all debate as Liverpool currently sit on 50 and United 46. If we can’t decided ‘overall honours’ then we go off and source big sports broadcasting companies? Solid Snack90 (talk) 14:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Immediate dispute of what "Major" honours each site includes. There are routine exclusions, particularly the previously noted SoL, but also Charity Shields, and various other Super Cups and the like. It's why our Liverpool vs Man Utd rivalry page includes everything (Major & Minor) but the SoL - because we can source the trophies without the need to start adding together obscure metrics - and even that has problems because few articles have been done recently including all trophies. Koncorde (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Koncorde. You’re putting up barriers here. You’ve said we can’t use overall honours, you’re now saying we can’t use major honours. I’ll ask the inevitable. What do you suggest? Because you’re offering no solution, just blockers why you think we can’t use neither. I suggest we create another talk subject and take it to a vote which metric we want to use going forward, because this is an endless cycle. Solid Snack90 (talk) 14:52, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I think you'll find I changed the wording to "major" as it is explicitly supported by the source over an hour ago so you can perhaps check your attitude? I very clearly explained what the issue is - the lack of reliable sources for the objective claim of "most successful team" or "major" by whatever criteria is used will not be universal. Attributed statements like "considered the most successful team in England" would be fine, but very clunky for the lede (which, tbf, is a hot mess anyway). Koncorde (talk) 15:05, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that 'major' trophies is still a subjective term without a clear official definition that varies wildly between independent and reliable sources. On top of the fact that it appears to not be used at all outside of SKY Sports (SOMETIMES) and some of the tabloid English press. The very nature of assigning arbitrary weight to some official trophies over others is inherently WP:UNDUE and unencyclopedic, and considering that SKY also use separate counts that presently would have Liverpool and United level in trophies ie https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11715/10676765/leeds-united-englands-13th-biggest-club-according-to-sky-sports-study, selectively choosing one set of sources highlighting one count to use over the other in order to make the statement Liverpool are most successful would violate WP:NPOV.

The solution here is to not state who's most successful at all, at least until it becomes consistently clear amongst reliable sources. Simply state the clubs' individual trophies, and let readers decide the nuance for themselves. Davefelmer (talk) 01:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Neither UNDUE nor NPOV are relevant in this situation Dave. There are plenty of sources describing Liverpool as being the most successful club side, the same way for the decade prior Utd were described as the most successful by many sources, it is therefore far from UNDUE to discuss an attributed claim. NPOV meanwhile specifically requires us to represent "all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources". Deciding we should just use raw numerical counts is therefore a more egregious form of NPOV violation by yourself.

As dealt with below and above by myself, we do not need to incorrectly use wikipedia policy to point out the issues with the use of arbitrary definitions. Koncorde (talk) 06:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Check your attitude baahahaha. It wasn’t said with any attitude whatsoever, I was merely pointing out the fact of the two choices provided, to shot both down with no solution - which I can now see you have updated it, and I think that’s the best metric to use, however, it’s only a matter of time before someone jumps in and amends it to what they see fit. Thank you for providing a solution though! Solid Snack90 (talk) 15:12, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't shoot down "both". One is objectively wrong. One is subjectively dependent upon POV of the reliable source which will result in content disputes - and I explained how it is tackled on the Rivalry page. I pointed out the issue of what happens when someone says "surely you source sort broadcasting companies" without acknowledging the issue at hand as if it "ends all debate" as you said, but have now acknowledged that it doesn't in fact end all debate. Koncorde (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 June 2022

Change x - Liverpool not having a number 13 and back up goalkeeper (in the players tab) Into Y, Liverpool having a number 13 and a back up keeper, Adrián San Miguel del Castillo is still under contract with Liverpool and is still the clubs number 13, he hasn’t gone anywhere and should be recognised as such 2A02:C7E:1358:1F00:F0:A43A:893E:7F57 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done Dhruv edits (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Dubai Champions/Super Cup 1986

Any objections to adding this to the list of honours section, maybe under minor titles?

https://gulfnews.com/today-history/december-9-1986-liverpool-lift-dubai-cup-after-penalty-shootout-1.1942297#:~:text=1986%20-%20Liverpool%20lifted%20the%20Dubai%20Super%20Cup,after%20the%20scores%20had%20ended%201-1%20at%20full-time.

Koppite1 (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 September 2022

The second disaster took place during an FA Cup semi-final between Liverpool and Nottingham Forest at Hillsborough Stadium, Sheffield, on 15 April 1989. Ninety-six -> change six to seven 2600:1011:B00B:6517:A8AF:259E:6695:B123 (talk) 22:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. According to The Guardian, the death figure was 96. Please provide a source for the change. Kind regards ~~ lol1VNIO (I made a mistake? talk to me) 17:10, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 February 2023

{{subst:trim|1=

i wish to edit this to update all the information and just participating in editing.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 July 2023

Could you add this as I added John Henry:《| owner = Fenway Sports Group (John Henry)》to the infobox of Liverpool F.C.? as there is only the chirman and this is the source to add:(https://www.liverpoolfc.com/corporate/directors). 41.47.76.36 (talk) 06:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2023

I see a ref which its link is dead in infobox that is the source for the Date of Liverpool founded, but it is not daed it just changed; so this is the new one: (https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/159072-happy-birthday-lfc-not-quite-yet) and this is the archive: (https://web.archive.org/web/20230716154914/https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/first-team/159072-happy-birthday-lfc-not-quite-yet), so could you change it? 102.40.60.110 (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done ULPS (talk) 16:10, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2023

Marcelo Pitaluga is now number 45 - https://www.liverpoolfc.com/team/mens/player/marcelo-pitaluga 79.153.165.202 (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:38, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Jordan Henderson

Henderson is no longer apart of Liverpool or is club captain, captain now is Virgil van dijk 172.193.182.246 (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Don't think van Dijk has been confirmed yet. NapHit (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2023

Captain- Virgil Van Dyk 49.185.92.162 (talk) 21:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

That change has already been made, unless you can point out somewhere specific. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:19, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2023

Jörg Schmadtke is the sporting director for Liverpool: (https://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/jorg-schmadtke-appointed-new-liverpool-fc-sporting-director). I think we forgot him. 154.180.1.126 (talk) 07:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 13:05, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 August 2023

Jorg Schmadtke is now the sporting director of Liverpool 202.166.149.73 (talk) 15:13, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Source provided above however you need to be more precise on what and/or where you want the changes to be made. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 16:30, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

New captain

Virgil van dink is the new club captain after Henderson’s departure to Al itifaq in Saudi 154.186.244.108 (talk) 07:20, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: Changes already made. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2023

The captain is now Virgil van Dijk, Henderson no longer plays for Liverpool 92.40.215.136 (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Go complain to google please, not wikipedia. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2023

2A02:C7C:2D45:6E00:984A:16F8:C2A6:ADE9 (talk) 06:44, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 07:55, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2023

2A02:C7C:2D45:6E00:6D9B:B550:22AB:47CC (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Liverpool have won champions league uefa super cup and fifa club World Cup which is classed as a treble any trophy won within the season should be changed Liverpool in my eyes have won 3 trebles

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 11:03, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2023

Could you change Anfield capacity to 61,276. My source is Premier League Handbook 2023/24:(https://resources.premierleague.com/premierleague/document/2023/08/31/132475d9-6ce7-48f3-b168-0d9f234c995a/PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_29.08.23.pdf) page:24 published by Premier League and the publish date was 21 July 2023 and the file update date was 29 August 2023 so I can't select the true date 😅. 41.47.78.147 (talk) 18:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done -- Since that is the capacity at the start of next season, it is not yet the capacity of Anfield. We can make this change when the new stand is formally opened. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2023

Liverpool football club are a small club based in Liverpool Idkchlo (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2023 (2)

Liverpool football club are a small club compared to their rivals Everton. Idkchlo (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:27, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2023

I am editor of this article on Slovak version of wikipedia. I would like to make some minor changes in this article- FYI2023 (talk) 08:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Photo Change

Hello would it be possible to change photo in honours section? There is an outdated picture from 2004 with only 4 UCL trophies. I recently uploaded updated picture on wikimedia commons FYI2023 (talk) 06:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I've gone and made the change. NapHit (talk) 10:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I was also wondering if The Hillsborough memorial photo could be changed. I also recently uploaded updated picture on wikimedia commons with Andrew Devine name added on it FYI2023 (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Changed that photo too. NapHit (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Liverpool honours

Liverpool three peats with carabao cup from 1981-1984 please add to Wikipedia and also Liverpool’s international treble in 2019 2A02:C7C:2D45:6E00:CD81:EAF6:1483:823D (talk) 14:05, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

We don't add four successive trophies wins to the honours and it wasn't a treble as the trophies were won in separate seasons. NapHit (talk) 14:18, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Stadium capacity change?

On the page Anfield capacity of the stadium says 61,276 but on this page the capacity of the stadium is 57,332. FYI2023 (talk) 08:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

bump FYI2023 (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)