Talk:Anfield

older entries

I've rewritten this to apply just to the stadium, as all but one of the links to here refer to the stadium rather than the district. sjorford 10:04, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Spion Kop, Which Ground First?

What verifiable evidence do we have for the claim that the terrace "at Sheffield was named 'the Kop' first"? It's interesting, since some Arsenal fans contend that their old Manor Ground [1] was the first to have a Kop, albeit unofficially. Ste B 02:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

The Manor Ground built in 1904, a few years before the orignal Kop at Anfield (). Although the Arsenal one was built first, it was the huge earth bang at Anfield that reminded local journalist Ernast Edwards (The Liverpool ECHO) of the Spion Kop in South Africa. He often referred to The Kop in his articles this caught on with the fans and then eventually the club.

I can see how the confusion exists with the Manor Ground Kop being built a few years earlier but the Ernast Edwards story has always been the most widely accepted. It's also importent to remember the majority of men who died at The Battle of Spion Kop where from Lancashire regiments. (Liverpool was part of Lancashire at the time of the battle)

One last thing, the Anfield Kop wasn't like other 3 stands, it was a huge bank of earth, very simlier to the real Spion Kop.

82.42.24.92 03:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Pitch Dimensions

I was wondering whether anyone had a good source for pitch dimensions? I only ask ask the width has just been changed from 79 m to 69 m, without a reference. aLii 14:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure !!!

• [2] = 110 x 75 yards
• [3] = 101 x 79 yards
• [4] = 101 m x 68m
• [5] = 111 x 74 yards

and I can't find anything on the official site !!! I guess its maybe worth a phone call to the ground !!!! DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 14:39, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who changed it, but I've just measured the width using Google Earth, and it seems that the 69m is more accurate. I don't know how accurate the measurement is; I'm not sure whether it counts as a source or original research. KeithD 16:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Lol! Personally I think it'd be good for someone to look it up on Football Manager. They know their stats... aLii 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Come on, come on, come on Surely this is a basic fact that someone here should know !!!!!! I don't, coz I don't really care !!! But, fact is fact and it should really be 100% accurate ... someone please get yer measuring tape out !!!

DavidHumphreys^{SPEAK TO ME}ABOUT_{THE THINGS I MESSED UP} 02:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've just sent an email to the official site, see: http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/news/archivedirs/news/2006/aug/17/N153191060817-1118.htm The chances are they'll actually put the answer on the website, making it verifiable. KeithD 18:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

And I've just found http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:goY7spMcmBkJ:www.liverpoolfc.tv/reducate/activities/anfield_measurements_internet.xls+anfield+pitch+dimensions+site:www.liverpoolfc.tv&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&client=opera is from the official site, and says 110x74 yards. It's part of a maths worksheet, but it's the best source we have, so I'll update the article accordingly. KeithD 18:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Quote: it is the home of Liverpool F.C - England's most successful club, having won the English Premier League 18 times and the European Champions' Club Cup a total of 5 times.

Incorrect. As far as I'm aware, Liverpool have never won the English Premier League. Pedantic, I know, but still. ^{The preceding comment contained scenes of a violent or sexual nature, and should not have been viewed by young children.} L.J.Skinner_WOT?|^CONTRIBS 17:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is correct. Read the article. --Iriseyes 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Unfortunately, this article is in some disrepair. It needs a cleanup, so I tagged it.

--Iriseyes 13:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is in serious need of some work. It's obviously been tapped away at by fans and is, in places, awful.

Kicking towards the Kop

It is stated that on "most occasions" Liverpool play towards the Kop in the second half. Is there any proof of this? I know that it is the home side's preference but surely it depends on who wins the toss and opposing teams would probably try to negate this supposed advantage. Therefore it should be roughly 50-50 unless someone has detailed statistics. Barfbagger 19:23, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

No proof but I'm a season ticket holder on The Kop and have been for many years. It's very rare that we kick away from the kop in the second half, probably happens around 5 times a season. As the players come out they take position at The Kop end of the field, as though they're going to be kicking away from The Kop. If the opposing captain wins the toss and chooses against our tradition, it's greeted by huge booing from us.

More often than not the opposing team when they win the toss will choose to attack The Kop in first half. This could be because they also wish to attack their fans in the second half, who are situated opposite The Kop. It could be for convenience, attacking the opposite end would mean all the players having to swap sides. It could just be them respecting our tradition. 77.97.106.78

I'll take your word for it. Unfortunately I no longer live close enough to have a season ticket. Although I have to take your supposition of "them respecting our tradition" with a large dose of salt. Barfbagger 21:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

new Interwiki

[[ru:Энфилд Роуд]]. Manecke 16:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

My Anfield Stadium Seating Outline

I created this. If it is found useful, I'll insert it in article.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Anfield_Outline_df2k2.png

File:Anfield Outline df2k2.png —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Df2k2 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

No Logo to prevent copyright conflicts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Liverpool_outline2_df2k2.png

File:Liverpool outline2 df2k2.png

If I edit the image I will increase the size of the stand names, but until then, I guess look at the 500px preview. :)

I like it, and something similar would definitely be useful for this page. My only slight worry is whether an image with the Liverpool badge can be used in such a way? Isn't it a copyrighted logo or something? Image:Liverpool FC logo.png seems to claim that it is. aLii 17:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice, fast work there! One final request, could you increase the size of the stand names somewhere in the region of 100-200%? Just so that they can be read easily at that 300px size. :) aLii 18:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Spion Kop, Lack of toilets

Why no mention of the habit of some kopites, on the old kop, of urinating down a rolled up newspaper often onto the legs of fellow supporters? (It has been said that the smell was quite repulsive)

History

With regards to the September 8 edit by the user Operating. I think, as Everton were the original tenants of Anfield, and the information was accurate, that it should be reverted to include that section. It certainly shouldn't be deemed vandalism. Moethesleaze 11:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

By all means mention Everton as the original tenants. That is one sentence. There was an essay about Everton and no mention of LFC, it shouldn't be restored. Operating 11:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The page is about the ground - Anfield, not specifically its current tenants Liverpool. The problem with the paragraph was that it finished with the involvement of Everton and should have continued to the early history of LFC in the ground Moethesleaze 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Everton were tenants for a few years IIRC, and LFC for the next 90. The Everton years are notable, however there was too much content, much of it irrelevant and unecyclopedic and the article was unbalanced with no mention of the 90 years of LFC tenancy. The Everton content as it was needs copy editing down to the bare bones before restoring, something i'm not prepared to do. Operating 13:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Everton were the first tennantes at Anfield. That should be included in the article. I can't see any reason not to. Obviously, it's about Anfield Road, the stadium, but who uses it is important. I question the judgement to those who disagree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.62.17 (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup from vandalism

I think a revert back to September 1st approx is necessary after the recent vandalism. Comparing versions for instance reveals that the construction cost is missing from the most recent edit. Also the edit from "most successful club" to "one of the most successful clubs" has persisted. I don't think its in dispute that Liverpool are historically the most successful club, so surely the former should be used. Moethesleaze 16:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Needed Fix

Someone needs to fix the average attendances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.250.189 (talk) 16:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the Anfield outline up-to-date?

With the recent creation/planned creation of a "Block 1892" (mentioned by Tom Hicks at one point, but I haven't got a source handy) for the more vocal fans/season ticket holders, does anyone know a) Has this plan actually happened? and b) was the relevant block actually renamed to Block 1892? If so, the outline ought to be amended to reflect this, IMO. Obviously, I can't do this as I'm not sure whether it happened, or which block was used —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenifh (talk • contribs) 21:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable external link?

Is anfield.com really notable enough to be included in the external links? You can count the most members online at once on one hand! Michael Wincott (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed link as total membership of forum is 7! Seems odd to link to something so low-key. Michael Wincott (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Construction cost

This article states that Anfield was built in 1884 - the constrution cost reads: £555,099. That amount of money would have bought the whole of Lancashire, with enough change left over to then build the ground. It may be a good idea to find out how much it cost Everton to build, and then the price of further redevolpments. I know this may seem slightly pedantic, but the way it stands at present, is not really accurate. Thanks. 'Arry Boy (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah well, it seems that Anfield was the most expensive ground constructed in the history of football. Will someone please contact the Guinness book of records? 'Arry Boy (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Page moves

Anyone thinking of moving this article to a disambiguating name (e.g. Anfield Stadium) is strongly advised to read WP:COMMONNAME and also the current discussion at WT:FOOTY. --Dweller (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

I'll be attempting to review this article for GA status, and for now I'll just list the things which stand out at the moment that I feel might need some fixing. Once satisfied I'll pass or fail it, or possibly put it on hold if there are any final issues. This is a bit long, but I figure most of these are minor fixes.

• The stadium has been the home of Liverpool F.C. since the club's formation in 1892 and was the home of Everton F.C. until 1892, when they left following a rent dispute. - Although I know that the stadium is clearly known more for its association with Liverpool, would it not make sense to put this sentence in chronological order instead? Also, no mention is made of when the stadium was actually first built.

Done NapHit (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• The information box features UEFA with four stars, seemingly for the stadium's 4-star rating. However, there is no real explanation offered in the information box unless one reads the full text. Maybe include the word rating, or link to UEFA Stadia List rather than just UEFA?

Included link to UEFA Stadia List NapHit (talk) 16:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

• It is a UEFA 4-star rated stadium, and has hosted numerous international matches at senior level, including England fixtures, the ground was also used during Euro 96 to host matches. - I think you have two sentences accidentally stuck together here? Also, is it supposed to be the senior level, or are you referring to something specific? Also, I must admit that I am writing this from an American point of view (but have been involved with "soccer" for many years), so I must admit my confusion with what you are implying with England fixtures.

Senior level simply refers to the highest level of international football and England fixtures refers to the internationl matches England have some of which have been played at Anfield, I'll try to change it to make it more accomodating

• Although the memorial to Hillsborough is notable, I'm not sure if it belongs in the lead, or in the section it is currently placed. Possibly integrate it into an explanation of why the stadium was converted to an all-seater? Also, a year should be added for the conversion, I believe.

Move alongside the Shankly Gates section, as it was not integral to why the stadium was converted into a an all-seater stadium

• Any citation on the reasoning behind Everton's leaving?

Added

• I think the fact that Houldering owned Everton should be noted, otherwise Orwell's friendship with him seems a bit useless to bring up.

Done

• I'm also a bit confused about Houldering's ownership of Anfield. He owned Everton, but your article states that Orrell owned the stadium. Houlding was left with an empty stadium, and decided to form a new club to occupy it. therefore makes no sense, as Houlding's team left, so wouldn't Orrell be the one with an empty field? I assume that Houlding does actually own the stadium, and that this needs to be clarified and expanded.

Clarified

• Liverpool Association Football Club should link to Liverpool F.C. in the opening paragraph of the history.

Linked

• Liverpool's first league match at Anfield was played on September 9, 1893 against Lincoln City, with Liverpool winning 4–0 in front of 5,000 spectators. - Is there a specific league you can link to?

Done

• It was constructed on the site of the present Main Stand and remained until 1973, although many changes were made to it over the years. - I think this may be getting ahead of yourself a bit. You jump from 1865 to 1973 then back to 1903. You cover the 1973 alterations later, so there's no need to mention this twice.

Rectified

• The stand proved to be a landmark in English football. - I know this is cited, but can you include any specific reason why?

Removed this

• The Kop, by banking I get the feeling of an earthen bank, but later it is mentioned that it featured seating. Again, possibly a word usage I'm not used to, but wouldn't "stands" or "seating" be a better use than "banking"?

Changed to stands

• Many stadiums in England had Kops - Specify to say that many stadiums have seatings/areas named after Spion Kop (or possibly named after Anfield's Kops?)

Specified

• It remained virtually unaltered until 1994, when it was turned into an all-seater stand following the Taylor Report. - Again, skipping around on dates.

Removed this bit

• Any specific reason why the mast of the Great Eastern was brought to the stadium? Also, link Rock Ferry.
• Maybe expand a description of the Shankly Gates, including specifying that he was the manager of Liverpool, and the inscription on top?
• In 1989 after the Hillsborough disaster, the Taylor Report stated that all grounds in the country would be converted into all-seater grounds. - From my understanding of the report, it was merely a recommendation. The requirement that stadiums convert came later through government/sanctioning body mandates. You might want to include a very brief background of why the all-seater layout was necessary in response to the Hillsborough disaster.

Done

• In 1992, a second tier was added to the Kemlyn Road stand, turning it into a huge double decker stand, to include executive boxes, function suites as well as 11,000 seats. - Bit POV with the huge. Also, were the 11,000 seats including the boxes and suites, or just standard seats?

Clarified this

• but two old ladies living in Kemlyn Road refused to move out of their house and the plans were put on hold - Cite?

Cited

• Investigations found that the frequency of the construction was not high enough - Not sure what this means?

Neither do I so I've removed it

• You seem to switch back and forth between capitalizing the use of the word Stand. If the name is Centenery Stand, it should be capitalized in all places where the two words are used together. It the proper name is simply Centenery, then stand should never be capitalized.

Gone with capitalisation for all usages

• The Anfield Road stand is used to house the away fans during match-day, the stand was once a simple single-tier stand, with multi-coloured seating seats. - Run-on.

Fixed

• A lot of the Structure section seems to simply repeat the dates used in the History section. There's no need to repeat the dates a second time.

Sorted this

• There are 36 spaces available for the visually impaired, the seats are situated in the paddock area of the Main stand, with space for one personal assistant. - A bit of an odd sentence. which are seems better than the seats.

Fixed

• Again, the history of the Gates and Memorials doesn't need to be covered again. Simply their location a physical description are probably all that is necessary.

Done

• Original plans to replace Anfield were initiated by Liverpool in May 2002.[11] At that time the proposed capacity was 55,000, but it was later revised to 61,000, with 1,000 seats given for segregation. The club had first announced its intention of building a new stadium 18 months earlier, with the original plan as a 70,000 seat stadium which would cost around £200 million and would be ready for the 2004–05 season. - So who actually started the plans to replace Anfield? Liverpool (I assume you mean the government) or Liverpool F.C.? The addition of 18 months earlier makes it all very confusing.

Removed the confusing 18 months

• Liverpool were granted planning permission to build a new stadium on July 30, 2004, - Permission was granted on July 30 or building was started July 30?

Permission was granted, I hope I've clarifie this in my edit

• Knocked down - I think there could be a better word or words used here.
• The last international to be hosted at Anfield was England's 2–1 victory over Uruguay on March 1, 2006. - Is there no way another international match could be played at Anfield, or is this simply the most recent?

it's unlikely another one will be held there, but no=ones knows so I've changed it to most recent

• Professional tennis was played at Anfield on boards on the pitch, with the US Open champion, Bill Tilden and Wimbledon champion, Fred Perry entertaining the crowds. - Is this implying it was an exhibition match?

adde exhibition match

• The highest attendance recorded at Anfield is 61,905 for a match against Wolverhampton Wanderers in the FA Cup fifth round on February 2, 1952. Since Anfield has been used for football matches other than those by Liverpool, it'd help to specify both teams, rather than just the one.

Seeing as this the highest attendance ever recorded at te ground, I see no need to include any of Everton's attendances

• Could there be anything added about supporters who attend matches who do not use the train system? I would assume that, although there may not be that many of them, that there would have to be some means besides this, especially with no parking at the stadium.

Not really, It's about the supporters, this section is about the acessibility of the stadium in relation to public transport

• The chart of stadium attendance is difficult to read, even at its large size. I think it might be possible to not only crop out some segments, but also to make the text larger in some regions.

Seeing as I didn't produce any changes are going to be hard especially since I have no software to change it with

• The heading can be eliminated as it merely replicates what is already in the thumbnail description.
• Since the stadium attendance has never dipped below 30000, why not simply show the left side between 20000 and 50000?
• Although I understand your reasoning for listing every individual season, maye it would be better to simply list every 5 seasons or so, so that you can make the text larger and more readable. You can keep the individual points on the chart and simply use marks on the X axis for each individual year, but simply not label each individual year.

In fact only every two seasons are included, but not sure if this changes anything

Hopefully this can all be squared away easily, and I can give the article my final review. I have this article on my watch list, so feel free to respond here and check off items you have completed. The359 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've dealt with your comments, hopefully everything is to your liking, I wait in anticipation of your final review :) NapHit (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think most everything has been covered. No worries on the chart, it's not a glaring problem, but one that can hopefully be fixed later.

There is one more issue that I believe needs fixing before you're there, and it's partially my fault because I did not specify correctly what I was looking for. Mostly, the Structures and Facilities section still seems a bit off to me. A lot of it seems to cover the history of each of the four stands, most of which was already discussed in the history section. I think that the Structures and Facilities section should really just discuss the stands as they are now.

A few other things I think could stand to be added. For instance, there is almost no description of the pitch. Is there anything unique about it? I know that there are varying guidelines for pitch dimensions, so what are the dimensions at Anfield? How far are the stands from the pitch? How about the physical dimensions of the stadium itself? Land area covered and such things. I know some of these statistics may be difficult to find, so I do not expect them all to be covered, but I think that they might be useful in filling this section in place of the history elements that do not belong.

Once this is covered, it'll pass. All the other sections are alright. The359 (talk) 22:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok I've aded details about the pitch, what I've got is about as much asI can find so I'm sorry if doesn't match your demads, but I think it's more than enough. Cheers NapHit (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No worries, I wasn't expecting everything to be found, I just figured a little more was needed for those that wanted something other than seating capacity. The359 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Final review

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   No noticeable problems with the writing.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   Everything is properly sourced, no debatable facts uncited.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Covers everything necessary for a stadium, without straying much unless necessary for a description.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   No POV problems

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

   No disputes

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images are useful and without copyright problems.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Good job, that's everything covered in my eyes. I'll update all the templates and lists as necessary. The359 (talk) 18:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyedit done/Transport section

I've just carried out my own copyedit of the article, with additional help from User:Finetooth, and I think all that needs improving now is the article's flow - an common problem given the way wikis work. Also, in the transport section, can mention be made of bus links to Anfield, i know there's at least one because i've taken it myself. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Oh and please could you explain the difference between "The Kop", "The Spion Kop" and "The Kop Grandstand" if any. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 02:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Other uses

It might be worth a mention in this section that Anfield was also used for some of Wales' home matches while the Millenium Stadium was built. I can't remember how many or the dates, but one match was against Italy (I was there!). I assume it would have been for qualifiers for the 1998 World Cup, as the Millenium Stadium was completed (just) in time for the 1999 Rugby World cup.--Rhyswynne (talk) 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have proposed that The Boot Room be merged into Anfield. The Boot Room article has many problems - it is full of original research and unverified claims, does not have a single inline citation, and has a list of "honours" attributed to the room which is a little strange to say the least. I've no doubt that the room has a part in Liverpool F.C.'s heritage, but is there really enough attributed, encyclopedic information about it to make an article? I personally don't think so. A few sentences, or at most a section, within the Anfield article would surely be sufficient. Incidentally, the Anfield article doesn't even mention the Boot Room at the moment. --Jameboy (talk) 21:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I would support said merger. I can't really see how the content of The Boot Room necessitates a separate article. – PeeJay 11:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this still under discussion, its been almost a month and no-one has objected so i think its safe to do so. Skitzo (talk) 22:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree to a merger but I'm unsure how to document the idea of a somewhat mythical bootroom. This BBC article provides some background about a "bootroom" lineage from Shankly to Evans but I think this would be more appropriate in the Liverpool F.C. article. Is this so-called bootroom featured on the LFC tour? If not, I don't see why it should be mentioned in this article at all. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 01:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

It's not featured on the tour because when Graeme Souness became manager he knocked it down. I think it should be in the rtilce to an extent, perhaps a paragraph summarising it and nothing more, it should definitely be covered in the Liverpool F.C. article as well NapHit (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no strong view as to how this is covered provided it is written about somewhere, and with some depth. It is undoubtedly notable - see here and even gets a mention on the UEFA site. Smile a While (talk) 23:52, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The Boot Room should really be discussed in BOTH the Liverpool FC and Anfield entries. The physical boot room was an integral part of Anfield stadium up until it's removal under Souness but the philosophy behind the Boot Room, and the internal promotion, was of huge importance to the history of Liverpool FC. The Referee (talk) 13:03, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge it, this serves no purpose on its own. Uksam88 (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've closed the merge discussion as there doesn't appear to be a plan for doing the work. To be honest, the article consists entirely of unsourced anecdotes and an arbitrary collection of awards; it doesn't seem right to merge it to the stadium article. It'd be best merging the records to the various history articles and doing away with the anecdotes. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The history was inaccurate. Everton were playing at Priory Rd prior to Anfield and were not thrown out of Stanley Park. The dispute with Everton and Houlding was not about rent. See the Liverpool History page. Cite given to university study document stored at Cambridge university.

The open section was poor and looked like it was written by a 15 year footy fanatic. It was not concise and full of far too much irrelevant in-fill. The opening has to concise and the following sections filled out.

The whole page still requires re-structuring and English tightened up. It is far from objective and professional in parts.

My amendments were reversed. NOT DO do this. If anyone has any reservation discuss it on here. Highlight specific points of concern. DO NOT meddle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.17.209 (talk) 08:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Paragraphing

User:Waterspaces (under his IP) has repeatedly been playing with the formatting of the article. I believe that every sentence does not need to command its own paragraph as this interrupts the flow of the prose and makes the article disjointed. Futhermore, he is including legitimate edits to the prose within these edits which makes it hard to pick up the changes (I have included some of these in the reverted version where possible).

What do others think?

Is it better to space every sentence out?

I'd appreciate your thoughts. (Annoying isn't it?) Sillyfolkboy (talk) 20:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Waterspaces:

The current lead links the incidents together through connecting, flowing prose. This is not a list of facts about Anfield, but a discursive encyclopaedic article. Bullet point listing is therefore discouraged while an analytical and descriptive style is explicitly encouraged. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

And I've had a quick read of The Elements of Style and I believe you have misconstrued what a "topic" comprises. I refer you to page 21 point 2: "The succeeding sentences explain or establish or develop the statement made in the topic sentence". Which parts of the second paragraph of the lead do not adhere to this?

Secondly, for the purpose of being concise we must break some of the rules in order to aid the reader and prevent repetition and circular arguments. Rules exist purely for the purpose of fulfilling certain necessities. Do not mistake fulfilment of the rules as fulfilment of the spirit in which they were written.

Your comments at Goodison Park reveal that you have mistaken the writers of an encyclopaedia for an uneducated fifteen year old. Asserting your apparent superiority is unlikely to garner you any amiable relationships. Need I remind you that this is a collaborative project? Sillyfolkboy (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Open section

This is a joke and amateurish!!!

Here it is....

Anfield is an all-seater association football stadium in the district of Anfield, in Liverpool, England. Built in 1884, the stadium has been home to Liverpool F.C. since they were formed in 1892 as a result of the original tenants Everton leaving the ground.

all-seater is mentioned further down so redundant. English is clunky and childish.

Anfield is an association football stadium in the district of Anfield, Liverpool, England. Founded in 1884 by Everton FC, the stadium has been home to Liverpool F.C. since formation in 1892.

Do you see the difference? This is now concise and tells it better. It is knowing how to write concise English to tell the story. Logical progression and some worth-smithing.

It rambles on....

The stadium currently comprises four stands; Spion Kop, Main Stand, Centenary Stand and Anfield Road, giving a total capacity of 45,362. The record attendance at the stadium is 61,905 which was set in a Football Association Challenge Cup (FA Cup) tie between Liverpool and Wolverhampton Wanderers in 1952.

Mentions of Wolverhampton is redundancy as it is mentioned further down on the page. The reader does not need this level of detail in an opening overview section. Colon is required to indicates a following list.

Better like this as short, sharp to the point and no rambling.....

The stadium's capacity is 45,362, down from the record attendance of 61,905 set in 1952. Four stands form the ground: Spion Kop, Main Stand, Centenary Stand and Anfield Road.

The rambling continues......

This happened before the ground was converted to an all-seater stadium in 1994, a change which greatly reduced its capacity. Each of its four stands now has an all-seater layout following the recommendations of the Taylor Report. Notable features of the stadium include two gates named after former Liverpool managers: the Bob Paisley gate and the Bill Shankly gate. In addition, a statue of Shankly is situated outside the stadium. Anfield's public transport links include rail and bus services but it lacks dedicated parking facilities.

Poor clunky English as "This happened". The English tell it sequentially. It says the stadium is an all-seater then goes to say each stand is an all seater too. Anfield is not served by rail. Kirkdale station is too far away to serving Anfield. Note the paragraphs below. They cover three separate points: capacity/seating, Notable features and transport. They should not be jumbled up into one babbling paragraph.

Originally the ground was seating and terracing. Capacity was reduced after all-seating conversion in 1994, following the Taylor Report.

Notable features of the stadium include two gates named after former Liverpool managers: the Bob Paisley gate and the Bill Shankly gate. In addition, a statue of Shankly is situated outside the stadium.

Anfield is directly served by bus transport only. A rail/bus service is available from Sandhills Station. There is no dedicated parking facilities.

Now the section is now concise, informative and easy to read.... e.g., of a full amended section...

Anfield is an association football stadium in the district of Anfield, Liverpool, England. Founded in 1884 by Everton FC, the stadium has been home to Liverpool F.C. since formation in 1892.

Capacity is 45,362, down from the record attendance of 61,905 set in 1952. Four stands form the ground: Spion Kop, Main Stand, Centenary Stand and Anfield Road.

Originally the ground was seating and terracing. Capacity was reduced after all-seating conversion in 1994, following the Taylor Report.

Notable features of the stadium include two gates named after former Liverpool managers: the Bob Paisley gate and the Bill Shankly gate. In addition, a statue of Shankly is situated outside the stadium.

Anfield is directly served by bus transport only. A rail/bus service is available from Sandhills Station. There are no dedicated parking facilities.

I am not into a consensus of mediocraty.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.56.234 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

The above is far better and professional looking than what is there now, so why hasn't it been added to the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.44.109 (talk) 23:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

How Liverpool FC were formed

This site is by far the best at explaining simply the split which created Liverpool FC: http://www.liverpoolwiki.org/History_of_Everton_FC 79.65.116.143 (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Since it's a wiki, which is self-written and does not cite any sources itself, this would not be regarded as a reliable source for our purposes. Rodhullandemu 14:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That source has a number of references which the article was written from at the bottom of the article with a link. It is highly relevant and highly comprehensive. The best I have read of the split at Everton FC which created Liverpool FC. The timeline is excellent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:1098:4F76:6105:4B9 (talk) 15:32, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Largest single tier stand in Europe

This article claims that the Kop is the "largest single tier stand in Europe", and gives this as a reference. Firstly, this reference makes no mention of the size of the Kop and secondly I strongly suspect that the single-tier Südtribüne of Borussia Dortmund's Westfalenstadion is far bigger, particularly as its (standing) capacity is nearly 25,000. I don't know what the seating capacity is, but I would guess it's more than the 12,000 of the Kop, and the Südtribüne stand itself appears far bigger - good image here. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Recentism

This site suffers from recentism. Much history has been removed over the years. Anfield was formed in 1884, yet little beyond 15 years ago is mentioned.94.194.102.190 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree the history section certainly talks about the majority of Anfield's history. NapHit (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It does not. Each stand has a history in itself. The main stand is the third stand on that side. Anfield rd is the third. The Kop is the third. There is little regarding the structures in the ground that Everton left behind which was quite comprehensive for the time. Like it or not, Everton made the ground and left stands and terracing on all 4 sides. Once again this article suffers from recentism.94.194.102.190 (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It does I have reverted you revert as the sub heading is clearly called "structure and facilities" not history of each stand. The history section details the history of the stands. The structure and facilities section is to describe the structure of those stands and the facilities they offer. I think you might have misunderstood the nature of recentism in this regard, as the article is most definitely not recentist. Also have a look at Villa Park an article recently promoted to Featured status, the structure and facilities section there is what am I trying to achieve here in order to be able to get this article to Featured status. NapHit (talk) 23:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The previous structures on each side were mentioned at one point but all has been stripped away because some childishly didn't like the idea that Everton built the ground. Each stand should mention what was there before. The fact that front of the Main Stand is still the 1995 stand was never mentioned. One entry stated that the previous 165 Anfield Rd stand had no roof. Everton built a terrace there. LFC enlarged and put on roof. It was redone with a roof, pulled down in 1965 and the current bottom tier of the structure is a part the current stand. To ignore the history of the stadium, and its stands, is irresponsible. There is not even a mention that Houlding wanted Anfield to be a football and athletics ground, by buying the plot next door, staging athletics in summer. A point that widened the split at EFC. The club now owns that land which is behind the Main Stand. It is best you start looking to the history of the stands and giving a mention to previous structures94.194.102.190 (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Well if you have a reliable source for this information add it, instead of moaning on the talk page. My point if your information is correct add it but it will go under the history section not structure and facilities. This article can be featured but the structure and facilities section needs improving as at the moment its a mess, precisely because it does not talk about the structure and facilities in the stadium which is the whole point of the section. NapHit (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Ownership

Twice lately[6][7] an IP editor has changed the infobox line for owner to "James D. O'Reilly", the second time with the edit comment "Incorrect owner. James D. O'Reilly is the official owner on the deeds and Liverpool fc are the proprietors". Of course, Wikipedia can't just accept that statement without a reliable source and on the face of it it's an extraordinary claim. On the other hand, the previous entry of "Liverpool F.C." wasn't directly supported by the ref provided either. So for now I'll revert to the old entry but mark it as "citation needed" and ask the IP to follow WP:BRD and discuss it here. NebY (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Anfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906045556/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2015-16.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2015-16.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://edition.cnn.com/2008/SPORT/football/10/29/first11.stadiums/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:49, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Anfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117145912/http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/records/attendances to http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/history/records/attendances
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205152343/http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/travelling-around/route-maps/pages/soccerbus.aspx to http://www.merseytravel.gov.uk/travelling-around/route-maps/Pages/Soccerbus.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120022605/http://www.footballgroundguide.com/liverpool/ to http://www.footballgroundguide.com/liverpool/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anfield. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130830195612/http://fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem%3D2631/title%3Danfield+listed+as+asset+of+community+value to http://www.fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem%3D2631/title%3Danfield+listed+as+asset+of+community+value

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:44, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Poor structure

The article is poor in parts. That is clear to see. I change the article giving the reasons why, even inserting refs where needed, then some revert without reason, saying go to the talk page. I have gone to the talk page to notify I will do changes. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6D2E:4F93:8C87:B72F (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6D2E:4F93:8C87:B72F: Coming here to notify of changes isn't enough. You need to discuss the actual content of the changes, and why you think they need to happen. This article, like all, could always use improvement, but the room for improvement here is markedly less than most. It is a featured article, the best of the best here on Wikipedia. If you'd like to change it substantially, you need to provide convincing reasoning, and workshop the changes here on the talk page before incorporating them into the article. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Also what about its structure do you find bad and why? Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Not enough about Everton FC

The article is about Anfield, the plot and football ground, not just about Liverpool FC's occupation of this location. What made Everton a big club was all at Anfield. Everton have occupied Anfield for 6% of the time it has existed:

• They founded Anfield
• Built it into a 4 sided football ground
• Became professional at Anfield
• Played in their first FA Cup match at Anfield
• Played in their first league match at Anfield
• won their 1st title at at Anfield
• Hosted their 1st international match at Anfield
• Played in the 1st derby game at Anfield - Everton v Bootle.

These points must be mentioned to give a complete history. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6D2E:4F93:8C87:B72F (talk) 08:16, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

it’s a featured article, meaning it has passed the strictest criteria. Anfield is most notable as the home ground of Liverpool FC, hence that takes precedence. Cranberry Wood (talk) 10:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

The article is about the football ground "Anfield", Not Liverpool F.C.'s period in occupation of the site. The article is not a glorification of Liverpool FC. Other articles do that well enough. I have made changes to the article which continually keep being reverted without any reason why, by editors creating an edit war. They say take it to the talk page. I did. This was the first response which is frankly quite childish wanting to eliminate vital history of the football ground. Football partisanship has no place on Wikipedia. I will continue to amend the poorly written and structured article. If anyone wants to assist me they are quite welcome, otherwise leave it alone. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6D2E:4F93:8C87:B72F (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You are edit warring, I’ve asked you twice to cease.PD Rivers (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Do not come this nonsense with me. YOU are edit warring, NOT me. I have told you to stop it, then you develop an attitude. I improve the poorly structured and written article, then Edits are reverted without any reason given. I have told all to take any reservations on the improved content to the talk page. No one has. Is this a gang of mates bunching up is it? Sorry mate it will not work. Wikipedia does not work like that. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6D2E:4F93:8C87:B72F (talk) 23:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

It takes two to edit war, and you might both end up with blocks for breaking WP:3RR if you aren't careful. With that said, I rather have to agree with PD Rivers: this is a featured article and its gone through an awful lot of work. I recommend you follow the WP:BRD cycle, which means that if your edit is reverted, you come here and discuss the changes, not continue to edit war them in. As I see it, the article already gives an accounting of Everton's tenure, and focuses on Liverpool because it is the more notable club and the stadium is known for hosting Liverpool. The content of articles is a direct consequence of notability. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:19, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

To the ip editor, this is a featured article, so the “poorly structured” argument simply doesn’t wash. It passed a peer review. Looking at your edits you are trying to shoehorn in your own perspective on the subject, and ignore what others have said. See NPOV. The subject at hand is Liverpool’s home stadium. That’s what people predominantly click on the article for. Para Clark (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Featured article or not, it is poor in parts needing upgrading. Parts were/not in chronological order, a date was even wrong. The edits were reverted, I took it to this Talk Page, but no one has engaged with me over the content. I suggested people work with me. So far nothing. They just keep reverting, saying I am starting an edit war. I suggested the points about Everton above, which were not inserted. The parts on Everton's occupation of the football ground is far too light. The article is about "Anfield", not only about Liverpool's occupation and must include all relevant history. It does not. The article is about the football ground "Anfield", not Liverpool's "home ground". Anfield has been the home ground of two clubs. Articles like these give Wikipedia a bad name. Yet people are defending such poor content. Amazing. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6D2E:4F93:8C87:B72F (talk) 23:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

You are displaying an obvious bias here with your attempts to shoehorn in an Everton centric outlook on the subject, which is a breach of NPOV. On this Wiki project at the top of the page it states, “Anfield is part of the Liverpool F.C. series”. When people click on this article (such as me, a Celtic fan), they expect to read about Liverpool’s home stadium, which it has been for over 120 years. That’s what people know it as. Para Clark (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

You are clearly displaying an obvious bias towards Liverpool FC, with a Liverpool centric outlook. There are two aspects of Everton relating to Anfield. 1) What happened when Everton were there. 2) The split within Everton FC when Everton vacated the football ground. 1) above is far too light to be embarrassing. 2) above can be improved, as the split is a highly interesting topic in itself. There is no article dedicated only to "Liverpool's home stadium", only the site they occupy, which also includes some of its history. If you want an article, say titled, "Liverpool's Home Stadium", then create one, then Everton the founders of this featured football ground need not be mentioned. What people know it as and what it is, are two different things. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6D2E:4F93:8C87:B72F (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Very few of my edits were about Everton. 2A01:4B00:881D:3700:6D2E:4F93:8C87:B72F (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Retitling

There is a discussion at Talk:Anfield, Liverpool#Requested move 10 June 2019 where there are thoughts to retitle this. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is Anfield a Category 4 stadium?

Why is Anfield a category 4 stadium although it is only 101 m long? According to the regulations the pitch's length needs to be 105 m in order to be classified cat. 4. Sgueckel (talk) 14:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

This is a question best asked of UEFA, or on Google, rather than on the talk page of a Wikipedia article. You'll get a better answer from either than you will here. NapHit (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. I already reached out to UEFA. Unfortunately, there is no official website with a list of all stadiums. Nevertheless, the reference given in this article may be biased since it is a fan-page. Sgueckel (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I received an email from a well known German football-facts website. They claim that they checked with LFC officials and that Anfield, indeed, is a Category 4 stadium. However, they were unable to explain why it is Cat. 4 although it does not meet requirement. Sgueckel (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Anfield name

The leading sentence implies that the stadium is named after a place in Ireland, rather than the suburb (which the Echo article suggests is named after the area in Ireland). The second link is not accessible, so the reader is unable to find out what it states. It is also interesting to note that another Echo article states that the name derives from the 1600s and a Middle English word meaning sloping field (https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/how-liverpool-suburbs-got-names-14097725). Maps that predate the Irish connection story (usually connected to Graves, the mayor from the 1860s) also exist: http://www.alexandremaps.com/backoffice/Pictures/m_0_825242ac207686a9f54e88f048fae7cc_1284408766.jpg and https://maps.nls.uk/view/102344096