Talk:Livingston F.C.

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

Scotland Mid‑importance

	Scotland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Scotland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Scotland and Scotland-related topics 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.ScotlandWikipedia:WikiProject ScotlandTemplate:WikiProject ScotlandScotland articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Proposed split

I'm proposing that the articles on Livingston's former identities as Ferranti and Meadowbank be merged into that on their current incarnation. I know that separate articles exist for Wimbledon / MK Dons / AFC Wimbledon, but that's a different scenario due to the creation of a "breakaway" club and the dispute over who can claim Wimbledon's history and honours etc. In this case, there's no such argument to consider. Meadowbank quite clearly became Livingston, whether you agree with the morality of what happened - I personally don't - and there was no "AFC Meadowbank" left behind. As far as I'm aware, a number of the Meadowbank fans ended up watching Edinburgh City who now play at Meadowbank Stadium, but this was a pre-existing club which merely took over the tenancy.

Livingston F.C. continue to give 1974 as their year of foundation. It should be noted that on becoming Livi they inherited Meadowbank's league place - they were never elected to the Scottish League as Livingston. Also, they initially played at Meadowbank under the new name before Almondvale was ready, as well as inheriting Thistle's players, management and colours.

In turn, Meadowbank were pretty much a direct continuation of Ferranti Thistle, despite the slightly perverse 1974 foundation date. Although that year marked a change of name and ground, this was a result of Ferranti being elected to the Scottish League, and not a precursor to it.

Finally, I've noticed that on Wikipedia pages on American sports teams, where franchising of this sort is of course common, standard practice seems to be to have only one page, even for teams that have migrated across thousands of miles, e.g. the Brooklyn / L.A. Dodgers Jellyman 21:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also Sports franchising --Concrete Cowboy 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

(1) If the Wimbledon situation is a different scenario, surely reference to it should be removed from the 'see also' section.

(2) Where did you get 1974 as the year of foundation? Everything clearly states 1995 when Livingston is concerned. That's why Livingston, as a club, just celebrated 10 years of existence. look on the badge, it says 1974 thats what matters anon.

(3) This is not an American sport.

(4) While it might be a continuation, I feel it is appropriate to have different pages for the different identities of the club. After all, to some supporters they are considered completely different. It also allows future additions and more focus to be placed on the history of both Ferranti and Meadowbank at a future date.

(5) You should also note what happened during the creation of Inverness Caledonian Thistle. I'll not go into details, but there are separate pages for both Caledonian FC and Inverness Thistle FC. If you do intend on making these changes to the Livingston FC page, then the same must apply across the league.

Anon. 10 March 2006

Okay, I've left this a for a few weeks to see what developed and while I still stand by what I said, I won't be going ahead with the merge at the moment given the lack of positive reaction here. I would, however, like to respond to the points raised by our anonymous friend:

(1) I wouldn't disagree with removing the Wimbledon link - I personally wouldn't have put it there in there in the first place. Not particularly on the basis of how similar or otherwise it is to the Livingston case, but because I think a "see also" link would be better when referring you to an article on a directly linked subject rather than an unrelated but similar one.

(2) I got the date of foundation from Livingston F.C. - it used to be on the club badge! While they have subsequently adopted a new badge without any date on it, at first they used the exact same badge as Meadowbank, changing only the name. Both before and after the change this badge had the date 1974 on it (an admittedly hard to see example is here). Oh, and reputable publications like the Rothmans / Sky Sports Yearbook and the Scottish League Review also give this date and include Meadowbank stats and records with Livi's. I know Livi have been trumpeting the 10 years thing recently, but then again it's a good excuse to flog commemorative merchandise, isn't it?

(3) No, thankfully it isn't American sport, but the creation of Livingston was an example of exactly the unpleasant sort of franchising which operates there, and so I think the analogy was valid.

(4) I can accept to some extent the point about separate articles leaving more scope for expansion, although I would say that was more a useful consequence of having separate pages rather than a reason to have them. As to the feelings of supporters, yes, few Meadowbank fans accepted or agreed with what happened to their club, it's not something I approved of myself; but that doesn't stop it being a continuation in actual fact, if not in people's perceptions. Remember, Livingston F.C. never applied to join the Scottish League - Meadowbank Thistle merely change their name and ground. Surely reflecting things as people would like them to be rather than how they actually are is blatantly POV ??

(5) I would certainly agree that there should be consistency, but Inverness is a whole different scenario. What happened there was that two separate clubs agreed to merge, thereby creating an entirely new entity which had to apply for SFA membership in its own right. The two old clubs resigned from membership and ceased to exist. So I'm in no way being contradictory in saying separate pages are perfectly valid in that case. Jellyman 19:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to see how the Wimbledon situation is any different. As I said on Talk:Meadowbank Thistle F.C., having two articles just avoids endless edit wars. --Concrete Cowboy 01:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see the need to merge all 3. There's nothing to prevent a small paragraph concerning the origins being put in with links to the existing Ferranti and Meadowbank entries. Dougiel - 15:00 23 March 2006

they should all be merged to form a history section of livingston fc, make the other pages redirect to Livingston F.C.--Childzy 18:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All three should definitely be merged. The teams are clearly all the same club with the same history and the Ferranti name change was ordered by the Scottish league. Valenciano 20:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I have no problem with a merger. But the "see also" to Wimbledon FC/MK Dons FC should stay. The only difference between the two situations is that the English migration was opposed with more vehemence than was the Scottish one. --Concrete Cowboy 12:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also agree with the merger; it's not as if there was a split a la Wimbledon/AFC - it is the same club all the way through just with different names and locations. Number 5 7 18:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Players

I was wondering, on the Livingston FC squad template, that maybe we should include the youth players in that. al.im.an (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stadium

The article currently states that the club played at Meadowbank during its time as Ferranti Thistle. Based on this article (and also the extreme unlikeliness of a "works" team being based at such a stadium) I do not believe this to be true.... ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Even though the club no longer fielded a team, the Edinburgh City Social Club continued to thrive. In 1986 Alan Day, who played for East of Scotland League team Postal United, persuaded the committee to revive its football side by absorbing the Post Office team. The name of Edinburgh City reappeared, switching from Postal United's all-red to City's traditional white and black. Gradually the reincarnated club established its reputation, becoming full members of the SFA in 1995 when they moved into Meadowbank Stadium, vacated by Meadowbank Thistle when they became Livingston."

As Edinburgh City do still play in Meadowbank, which was the stadium vacated by Livingston, I think it is true that Livi played there. It would also be a reason why they were called Meadowbank Thistle. al.im.an (talk) 12:24, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Livingston's Almondvale ground has been renamed the Braidwood Motor Company Stadium after the Second Division club struck a three-year naming rights deal.

The deal with the West Lothian firm, which runs until the end of the 2012-13 season, will generate a five-figure sum for the club.

LiviTV

Should we give this a mention? It is on the Livingston website and shows highlights of home matches and some interviews. It's just that some other clubs mention this, but usually they have their own TV channel. al.im.an (talk) 08:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meadowbank

The article currently reads as a re-invented short term history, with no reference to the history of Meadowbank and Ferranti leading to the re-launch as Livingston. The re-direct from Meadowbank Thistle F.C. has no context when landing on this page and there are even inconsistencies with this approach (the club records refer to Meadowbank era, whereas the article does not). Cronoz (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The page had been vandalised and the sections on Meadowbank and Ferranti removed. I have reverted back to the previous version. if you mean something else could you explain and i will look into.Edinburgh Wanderer 15:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I should have looked at the history before jumping in with the observation! Cronoz (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Livingston F.C.. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081204075740/http://www.livingstonfc.co.uk:80/news_011208_2.php to http://www.livingstonfc.co.uk/news_011208_2.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Macaroni arena etc

Could someone update the three citations of the Energy Assets sponsorship deal? This article in the Daily Mirror is too sketchy for an outsider to do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:24, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Livingston F.C.. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 18:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Livingston F.C.. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 11:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Flag of Cascadia.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]