Talk:Livingston F.C.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject on Football
Association football Portal
The article on Livingston F.C. is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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)

---

(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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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 57 18:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)