Talk:List of current Premier League and English Football League managers

English Football League/EFL

First use should be English Football League (EFL) and every use after should be simply EFL per MOS:ACRO1STUSE. No idea why you persist on reverting this. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you would explain why you continued to insert your preferred texts rather than having proper regard to WP:BRD. Long term stable version did not break MOS:ACRO1STUSE, while you seem to be breaking the third paragraph of MOS:ACRO Kevin McE (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not "my" preferred text, it's what all EFL articles do, including the main EFL article. And I'm not edit-warring over the terms acronym and initialism. Not sure where you got that idea from 👍. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That does not excuse your edit warring and refusal to follow the steps of BRD. Kevin McE (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss right here. You are failing to discuss it. I'll repeat it for you. First use should be English Football League (EFL) and every use after should be simply EFL per MOS:ACRO1STUSE. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There is no "should be": that is a misunderstanding of WP:ACRO, which by no means mandates use of the acronym at all, and as soon as you reposted after reversion you were in breach of BRD, so I'm not at all surprised to see that you are not willing to discuss that.

And please drop the patently insincere sign off: passive aggression is not welcome here. Kevin McE (talk) 14:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That Wikipedia policy that you didn't link to says: Acronyms are abbreviations formed, usually, from the initial letters of words in a phrase i.e. English Football League. EFL is a widely used acronym, hence the articles EFL Championship, EFL League One, EFL League Two, EFL Cup, EFL Trophy. Not even sure why you're actually arguing against this, this is nonsensical. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have no particular objection to the way that it is used in the article at the moment, but you have no right to say that giving the unabbreviated form, as previously, was wrong, and that the change is anything other than stylistic preference. And as a matter of stylistic preference, you shouldn't have edit warred over it. And yet in the first comment of this thread, you started personalising it. Kevin McE (talk) 14:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not a "stylistic preferences" nor any personal preference, it's the manual of style and per other articles about the same subject. I've not said anything was "wrong", not sure why you're trying to put words into my mouth. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Where does MoS state that acronyms must be used when available? And given that it does not, it is precisely stylistic preference, and therefore, to answer the implicit question in your OP, I had every right to revert it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME. EFL is the common name. EFL isn't the natural disambiguation. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This discussion is not about the name of an article. Kevin McE (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The name of the article is "List of current Premier League and English Football League". The acronymisation stems from this use. All these policies are used in conjunction with the other. MOS:ACRO1STUSE, WP:ACRO, WP:COMMONNAME all point to the use of English Football League (EFL) being correct. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Youngest manager

the youngest manager is currently Lewis Young of Crawley town who was born on 27/9/89 Katherine Northey (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Ralph Hasenhüttl

Has just been dismissed by Southampton this morning. Culloty82 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC) Culloty82 (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

References

Text specific to Premier League

Itskesha added in June, and continues single-handedly to editwar in order to retain, information without which the article happily existed for many years, namely prose about Klopp being the longest standing PL manager. It is clumsily presneted, as if it were to suggest that either he is the fourth longest serving PL manager in history (he is 18th), or that the information in the table is wrong in placing him third: the detail that he was at that time 4th is unsourced, and probably onlty verifiable by looking at previous versions of this page (and as we all know, Wikipedia is not a source). It would seem to me to be entirely unnecessary to add information specific to one of the four levels, and discriminatory to do so for only one. The information is self-evident in the table, and the table can be ordered by division and then date of appointment if anyone really needs the it.

The scope of the article is the four levels of football traditionally reguarded as the opposite of non-league: it has never been the intention of the article to consider PL and EFL as two separate entities. If this is considered necessary, then I would suggest that there should be two separate articles. But I do not consider that necessary or desirable.

Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 20:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Five days on, no counter-argument presented. I shall remove the phrases involved. Kevin McE (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

If it's "entirely unnecessary to add information specific to one of the four levels, and discriminatory to do so for only one", then why does the title of the article discriminate for only one? The claim that Klopp was fourth longest in the entire top four flights is not unsourced, this source is used which clearly states "Should Simon Weaver, Gareth Ainsworth and John Coleman find alternative employment in the meantime, he will be the longest serving in the Premier League and the Football League". Deleting information because you don't understand it, or because it may no longer be up-do-date, is just baffling. There is no deadline to Wikipedia articles. Oh and you started a discussion here, didn't tag me into it, and then removed the information after a puzzling "five days" for, what reason? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Please do not try to reduce dscussion of what is desirable to groundless accusations about what somebody is, or is not, capable of understanding.

The key issue is whether the principle of this article is to group the top four levels into one concept, as has been commonplace for many decades and pre-dating the PL, and treating these collectively as the opposite of non-league, as the fully professional divisions; or whether two separate entities are being dealt with in one article for no apparent reason. If the former, there is no need or merit in singling out the Premier League: if the latter, then is there any reason for these leagues to be gathered, or for the National League to be excluded, rather than separate articles being maintained? Kevin McE (talk) 22:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

The Premier League hasn't been part of the Football League since 1992 when they broke away. The reason they are included is because they are the four fully professional leagues in English football, but the article title "List of current managers of the four professional English leagues", or something similar, would be appalling. Of course it's worth highlighting the longest current reigning Premier League manager. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"of course" is not a reason. If there is a reason to single out PL stats, there is a reason to remove PL from this list altogether. The only reason for having an inclusive list is to include the 4 levels, and if 4 levels are included, they should be equally so, without distinction.

But we have both made our opinions clear, let's hear what others think. Kevin McE (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

"Of course" wasn't my reason. My reason was the preceding 50+ words. WP:SALLEAD says: "A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected". All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Ian Foster sacking

Ian Foster has been sacked very recently

[1]https://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/sport/football/simon-hallett-explains-ian-foster-9200243 Katherine Northey (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2024 (UTC)