England Template‑class

This template is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Football: England / Liverpool Template‑class

This template 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 Template This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This template is supported by the English football task force. This template is supported by the Liverpool task force.

For all current LFC players, loaned in or out, with a squad number. ArtVandelay13 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that some of the other squad templates include players that don't currently have a number (which is why I thought it alright to add Kirkland and Diao, now that they've returned to the club). Is it generally preferred not to do this, hence the removal of my additions? Seb Patrick 10:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seemed to be the norm when the templates began, although a few have taken to adding non-numbered players. Personally, I think it looks neater, and it seems like a good measure of whether a player is in the squad or not - i.e., if you don't have a number, you can't play. So when next season's squad is announced, anyone likely to play will get a number, and the problem will resolve itself. Of course, these are just my thoughts on the matter, it's not set in stone if enough people feel differently. ArtVandelay13 11:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, cool, fair enough. I just wasn't sure what the accepted norm was. As you say, it's not really worth doing anything now until the new season starts and the new numbers are given out... Seb Patrick 11:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that at this pre-season time, it's right to include those without a squad number. Examples I can mention are from Kirkland, Carson and Bellamy, all should be considered part of the current LFC squad, none of whom yet have a squad number.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  15:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Includes loaned-in and loaned-out players. so that means a few players who won't have a Liverpool squad number for some time.

OK, I concede on the squad numbers issue. I guess the longer I kept Bellamy off the list, the longer I could convince myself he hadn't joined. :) Don't forget to add the template to the players' pages though. ArtVandelay13 17:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, but I think that when the season starts and squad numbers are handed out, we should then remove any players who haven't been given one. Seb Patrick 08:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind over including loaned-out players, so I am removing the note. All the players without squad numbers seem to be members of the current squad.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  22:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

liverpool will always win period!

http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/drilldown/N152952060721-1137.htm

I've removed (commented out) Idrizaj, as he's a youth player, but I'm not sure what to do with Diao, Le Tallec and Medjani. I suppose we should keep them in untill the season actually starts - presumably Benitez expects them to leave or be loaned out, and if they're not by then they'll be assigned numbers. Barragán is still listed as 36 on the main squad page. ArtVandelay13 11:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Anderson isn't on that list (but is on the main squad list), but Roque is no longer listed as 27 anywhere. I'm not sure what to do as the 27 number has not been replaced. Squad numbers never used to change this much, I'm sure... ArtVandelay13 11:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual "Team" page on the website often isn't the most reliable resource to use, though - I mean, it has Idrizaj listed as #50, and some of the other players still in the #80s and #90s from the friendlies. The way I see it is that the list that was announced on the news page is the official first team squad list - and Anderson, Roque, Barragan, Medjani, Diao, Le Tallec etc. aren't in it. If they play a match, they'll get given a number, and they'll be considered part of the squad - but at the moment, they're no higher than reserves. Personally, therefore, I'd remove any players that don't have a number from the list altogether. A crucial point to remember is that numbers like Barragan's #36 could theoretically be given to another liverpool will rule.

I have posted a 3RR message on the editor's page who has been repeatedly adding BR's name today. Although there is increasing speculation there is also cautionary words being used and there is no confirmation of an appointment to the Liverpool Manager's job as at this time.Tmol42 (talk) 21:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There is also no confirmation on the LFC website. The Swansea website just says that they need to sort out compensation, which could break down. BBC says that LFC could announce their new manager within the next 24 hours, so I'd suggest you wait until then. Mr tim111 (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Malarious is still edit warring and being rude to everyone im on 2 reverts of him now--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 21:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]