Talk:List of FA and league honours won by men's clubs

Removal of PL and EFL run competitions

@Davefelmer: This page was set up with the clear and simple scope of listing all competitions run by England's national governing bodies the FA, EFL, and PL. The same scope as the featured list, List of UEFA club competition winners. Indeed this page was created with this edit summary: Create page of all winners of English national trophies. This is a domestic counterpart to List of UEFA club competition winners. It is more narrow and comprehensive than List of English football clubs by elite honours won. Your changes don't just revert some edits, they also alter the scope set out at the creation of the article, for which you need consensus. The reasons those two trophies weren't in the page at outset are a) another editor didn't point them out until a few days later b) this article didn't start already finished!

This page is not List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won, so it doesn't list the same trophies. It serves its own functions: as a WP:SPINOFF of less notable national honours from that article; as an encyclopedic resource for anyone who wants to see all national honours together with their winners; and as a national counterpart to the List of UEFA club competition winners. Please don't try to make this article a mirror of List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won.

On two points from your edit summary: Wiki football has frequently stated that friendlies arent honours and dont belong in such lists. If you have an issue with that then you should take it up with them. Where? I don't see this policy when searching "friendly" in WT:FOOTY. In fact this discussion says the opposite, that they should be included on the project, but spun-off into other articles when less notable. Which is exactly what this article does for List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won. So maybe you should take it up with them. Other pages covering FA and EFL honours dont list friendlies and there is no reason for this one to. How about this featured list and this featured article. Madshurtie (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not the same as the UEFA list at all because the UEFA list does not add friendlies and uncompetitive games as you do. The list would not be the same as in the English list of competitive honours page had you not decided to add a seperate list of purely domestic honours (and then another for only European ones which mirrors the UEFA Competitions winners page anyways) instead of just keeping them together, which is the point of that article and consistent with what is on all the other such pages of honours lists on wiki. No idea what point you're trying to make with the featured list stuff but it really doesnt matter that the Premier Asia trophy page is featured. It is still a friendly tournament, and is not listed as a professional honour. In the Arsnal page there is a clear distinction that such competitions are under a seperate "friendly" section, whereas here you are proposing to lump friendlies together with the FA Cup and Premier League, which is absurd. Listing friendlies under a "friendly" section is sometimes seen, but they are never lumped together with official honours and anyone would tell you that on the wiki football page. What this article really shows is why having divided lists on the Competitive Honours page is silly, because it prompts the desire for these to be "slightly different" which then facilitates ideas like adding friendlies as honours, and thats something that should be brought before wiki football, I think.Davefelmer (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, what consensus were you even on about in your edit? You yourself created the page 2 months ago and are the sole main contributor. You notified yourself in edits that you were gonna add in several friendlies into the list, which you then did. The list is the same one as the one on the page for competitive honours that distinguishes English only trophies, plus 2 friendlies. This is ridiculous, why was the page even made? In any case, consensus would obviously come from all the other articles of such nature on wiki, that all seperate competitive and friendly games. Clubs may have small 'friendly' trophy sections but these are distinguished as such and not mixed in with league titles and cups. Lists obviously cant highlight the distinction so friendlies are kept off them.Davefelmer (talk) 07:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The UEFA list doesn't list friendly club competitions because UEFA doesn't run any. If it did, they'd presumably be added.

The list would not be the same as in the English list of competitive honours page had you not decided to add a seperate list of purely domestic honours. This list isn't the same even without the FLCC and PLAT; look at the second and third sections. My point is just you don't need to make the first section the same. instead of just keeping them together, which is the point of that article and consistent with what is on all the other such pages of honours lists on wiki. The honours weren't kept together before (they were split by ongoing/domestic), and there's too many to just have one table on that article. And it's commmon to separate domestic and european honours, see here, here, and here. What this article really shows is why having divided lists on the Competitive Honours page is silly, because it prompts the desire for these to be "slightly different" which then facilitates ideas like adding friendlies as honours Whether the FLCC and PLAT should be included here has nothing to do with the layout of that other article, so I don't know why you keep coming back to it. I never said I wanted section one of this article to be "slightly different" to section two of that article, I just said they don't have to be the same if the criteria are different. You're the one trying to make them the same.

which mirrors the UEFA Competitions winners page anyways No it doesn't, check out the second section of the UEFA article. Also note the first section doesn't include the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, because it has different inclusion criteria. Just like this page.

The list is the same one as the one on the page for competitive honours that distinguishes English only trophies, plus 2 friendlies. This is ridiculous, why was the page even made? No it's not, you clearly haven't looked at the second and third section of this page.

Also, what consensus were you even on about in your edit? I'm not on about a consensus, I'm on about a lack of consensus. I created the page with certain inclusion criteria, you're trying to change the criteria, I oppose that change, so you don't have consensus for it.

In the Arsnal page there is a clear distinction that such competitions are under a seperate "friendly" section, whereas here you are proposing to lump friendlies together with the FA Cup and Premier League, which is absurd. Listing friendlies under a "friendly" section is sometimes seen, but they are never lumped together with official honours No, the Arsenal page separates out competitions not run by official governing bodies into "Other". These two competitions are run by official bodies. And Liverpool's article (also featured) lists the 100th Football League Championship Challenge alongside Liverpool's other cups. My understanding is it's controversial whether some honours are friendlies or not (for example the ESPN Sports director and a Chelsea manager say the PLAT is not a friendly), so friendly may be a POV term. And if you're saying the honours should be listed in a separate section, why did you delete them? Suggesting an alternative structure would have been far more constructive. Madshurtie (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

No, they "presumably" wouldnt be added because they are not added anywhere else on any of these lists. You do need to make the first section the same because friendlies have no place alongside official honours like the FA Cup and Premier League. Additions for the sake of differentiation have no purpose at all on here. I cannot suggest an alternative because in a table format there is simply no way to include them with the proper noting that club articles that list friendlies can have. It isnt the same as comparing pages that only list pro honours.

As for the sources suggested, you are clearly being obtuse. Arsenal is an exception, not the rule, and under 'other' is clear referencing to the section being about pre-season friendlies. That kind of a description cannot be lumped into a table and counted with pro honours. The adding of that centenary thing to Liverpool's honours page is equally absurd, as no sources say it was competitive and the club itself dont list it. Hashim-afc, the only other major contributor to discussions on our pages and with an interestingly similar post history to you, added it a month ago. With no proper sourcing proving its competitiveness and its lack of inclusion in club and mainstresm trophy counts, it will be removed. And as for the Barclays Asia Trophy, even within your source it is described as a pre-season game several times. The wording of it "not being a friendly" is dubious in light of this, as he could just mean clubs wont take it lightly. Or as it was the first year of the tournament they wanted to drum up some interest. You would have needed more sources to prove its competitiveness, which in any case is crazy because it has always been described as a friendly tournament by a range of sources since it was actually played, as shown .

I am not saying this isnt a good article, the highlighting of the lower-qualifying honours and such is a nice touch. But as per usual as I have seen with you, you take a good thing and take it too far to the point where you start sullying it. Remove the friendlies (Centenary cup and Asia Trophy) and its fine, otherwise if we cant resolve this I really will have to take it to wiki football, because uncompetitive games cannot be listed as pro honours and compared as part of a trophy count with them. No sources or consistency across wiki articles shows that.Davefelmer (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I agree that the PLAT is often considered a friendly. Producing sources calling it a friendly (albeit two are suspect quality) just makes my point that it's controversial whether it should be called a friendly. It's certainly a pre-season comp, but so is the Community Shield (which was a friendly and is still sometimes called one). I'm not trying to prove its competitiveness, I'm just saying it's not always considered a friendly, as that source shows.

uncompetitive games cannot be listed as pro honours and compared as part of a trophy count with them. This isn't a list of competitive games or pro honours. It's a list of all competitions run by the national governing bodies. My whole issue is you're trying to change it into a different type of list.

I've already shown you that the Project consensus established in a long recent discussion is that honours lists should include all competitions, even if the club doesn't list them on their website, but spin off less notable ones where necessary. I don't know why you think raising this on the project will change the consensus, but feel free if that's what you want to do. Madshurtie (talk) 12:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Again, you can't compare it to the Community Shield because that is actually an official game with official status! It isnt a pre-season friendly, and while it may be referred to as such by some in the media, it is in fact a competitive honour. The Barclays Asia Trophy is not an official fixture! Your goals for it would not count towards your total for the season while if you score in the Community Shield it does.

What's the point of making a list the same as the one on the competitive honours page and then adding two friendlies to it? It just makes it all look amateurish. Who will ever take it seriously? You yourself created the page for reasons I can't understand just two months ago, its got limited sources and I don't see any purpose for it. The lower level cup lists can be branched into their own page or included in the bottom of the competitive honours page. No purpose on creating the list for the pro honours on that page and adding 2 friendlies.

The consensus on the Arsenal discussion doesnt count as the consensus for friendlies as a whole. And in any case, it is as I explained to you, in a club honours section, you can highlight the difference between friendlies and pro honours and list them all. In a table like this, you cant and just end up cluttering them into the same table and count as the Premier League and FA Cup, which has never been the consensus and wasnt even the consensus from the Arsenal page. The equivalent to that consensus would be to make a seperate section at the bottom titled "other comps" or something and describe the other two as run by the EFL but having pre-season/friendly status. Davefelmer (talk) 16:39, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

You've already taken it to the project, so this conversation is less necessary now, but a few notes:

Google definition of official: "relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities". The authority in this case is the Premier League, so, by definition, the Premier League Asia Trophy is official. It runs it in the same way The FA runs the Community Shield. What goals totals are you describing? The Guardian says in the first paragraph here "This is difficult to answer categorically, as even something as fundamental as goalscoring has not always been accurately recorded. It’s not helped by a number of players – morning Pelé, hello Lionel – including goals scored in friendlies."

The project discussion was triggered by the Arsenal page but was also about club honours lists in general. The Arsenal page doesn't separate friendlies from other honours (that was considered a controversial categorization), it separates the honours run by national, international, and regional governing bodies from the rest. So exactly like how this article lists all official national honours. Madshurtie (talk) 15:54, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Quick reply since project decided: being officially organised doesnt mean its an official honour or match. Friendlies can also be officially organised but it doesnt change they are friendlies and cant be included in direct comparison with pro honours, as the project noted. Arsenal's page is divided to highlight regional i.e. reserve and youth side games which are seperate from the friendlies, hence the divide. That doesnt make them official first team honours, and the only other sections other than that one and the pro honours ones are the friendlies, which are divided into mid-season friendlies and pre-season friendlies since the club have a ton of them. It doesnt even come close to implying and I hope you are not referring that reserve, youth and friendly games are held in the same distinction as pro honours, which is dead wrong. I'll check out the Arsenal page as well to make sure the wording isnt off there, and if so it could be something else to take to the project page. Davefelmer (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Excuse me, the project did not decide that. Not one editor in that discussion made the claim officially organised doesnt mean its an official honour or match. Three editors (including you) made a different claim, that friendly honours shouldn't be included. Two editors (including me) said they should. That is clearly no consensus on removing them. Three editors is not enough to establish a project consensus (especially when two oppose). What's more, the much larger discussion about friendly honours in response to the Arsenal page had eight editors. Seven of them supported the position that we should not remove friendly honours from wikipedia (this included things listed like the Norfolk & Norwich Hospital Cup and the Audi Football Summit Shanghai), but should spin them out to another page. The other editor said we should even include them on the main club page. The only one of those eight editors who participated in this discussion was me, so there's six other editors who may well oppose you on this, and one more who definitely would. As wikipedia's official policy on consensus says, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale."

What's more, no other editor in this discussion even commented on your contention that the table layout affects whether friendly honours should be included.

I don't have a problem with creating a properly sourced section and table of friendly honours on this page, but stop deleting stuff as if that's a constructive alternative. Madshurtie (talk) 12:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

The project seemingly totally deviated from what the point of the discussion was, not whether friendlies couldnt be listed with appropriate citing and status affirming on club pages (which I dont mind one way or the other as long as they are attributed friendly status) but rather whether friendlies can be mixed with official honours on tables to puff up certain club's numbers. Am thinking about bringing it back to the project page but with the clear point of addressing this article in particular, not friendlies in general. Otherwise I'm happy to make another place in the article for the official friendlies you mention. I dont think a seperate table per se is the way to go since they are only 3 tournaments that would fit the bill and two of them were only played one time so a table would look a bit awkward but I can leave it to your opinion on that. I suggest we make a seperate section titled 'others' and then say something like "in addition to the competitions above, the FA and EFL have organised and sponsored several friendly tournaments. These include the 100th CC, PL Asia Trophy etc and then we explain how they were structured and who won them. I can do that over the next day or so if we settle on it. Davefelmer (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The initial question on the project seemed to be just whether friendlies should be included at all, so I think the responses were relevant. Now that you've found a source for the 100th CC, I'm happy to separate out those three honours into a separate section, so I'm not sure what issue you would need to return to the project with?

I see your point about the table, that two out of three columns would only have one entry. The other column would only have seven entries though, so it might not look awful. The alternatives would be to have three mini tables side by side, one for each comp., or just to use prose.

I have a bit more time tomorrow, so I might be able to create the section too. I'm glad we're coming to agreement over this. Madshurtie (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah perhaps it was my fault for not wording it so well on the project. And yes its good to be reaching a resolution so no need to go back to the project. I personally think prose would be better for the section because of how few times two of the three tournaments were played so we'd be making tables for one game which seems kind of silly with all the other tables already on the page. Either way if you want to make the edit tomorrow then feel free, if not then let me know and I can do it. The only thing left to consider is where to put the new section. I'd say logically it could go below the lower-qualifying section, as those and the higher-qualifying parts are all official competitive games, whereas these are official but friendly games. Davefelmer (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Ran out of time yesterday, but it's done now. I agree tables aren't ideal here, but I did them anyway because a) it looks more similar to the rest of the page which might make it easier for a reader scanning the page to find the winners, b) it meant I could do a most-recent table, which I'm planning on having for every section.

Not sure which location for the section is better. As you say, having top and lower qual. next to each other is logical because they're both not friendly sections. On the other hand, the three friendly comps are all technically top-qualifying (they didn't stop anyone being in a higher comp), so it would be logical to have them next to top-qualifying. I've put the friendlies at the bottom for now, but dunno if that's best or not. Madshurtie (talk) 14:49, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Its cool, had a look at it now and it looks pretty good! I suppose when looking at the location, you have to weigh up whether its more important that they are friendly games or that they technically don't have lower qualifying levels. I think it makes more sense to go based on their competitiveness, so friendlies should be ranked below both sub-sections. I don't think it would be fair to list them above the lower-qualifying section since those games are officially competitive, plus the table might look strange going from competitive to friendly and back to competitive. It could be a really devaluing look for the lower tournaments. Plus the fact that friendlies don't have lower-qualifying criteria is just a technicality since they are invitational and not based off of divisions where such a criteria can happen. Davefelmer (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

References

Questions on the relevance of this page? Suggestion

Hi, I've mainly been looking at the "sister page" of this page: List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won in the past. Quite a bit of the information is duplicated, the lead for example (that I mainly wrote) has been cut and pasted into this page, I recognise my own edits. The top-qualifying honours are also a copy-paste job.

A few queries:

- The "friendly honors" section is questionable, one source on the friendly nature of the FLCC is a fan-run Liverpool History site, it shows the match programme and has made an editorial decision to class the game as a 'friendly', this is not a suitable source to confirm it was a friendly as contemporaneous accounts do not list it as such (or the programme cover which they post on their site).
- The tables on the friendly honors section are quite defunct, the FLCC and FLCF by their very nature are held once per century so you are going to have to wait until 2087/99 to add more info into those columns.
- I'm not going to make edits myself but feel that you really need more evidence to justify whether tournaments are friendly or not, I can find no hard evidence for either FLCC or FLCT being 'friendly', as per the sources on their respective wiki pages, this seems to be opinion-based as they are such obscure one-off events, but neither were classed as friendlies at the time they were run.
-The Premier League Asia Trophy is a friendly tournament, though you need more sources other than the title of a slightly obscure news article to reference it properly, it is listed in friendly reports on the actual PL website for example.

-A suggestion would be to just make this page friendly and lower-qualifying honours with a link through to List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won for the top-qualifying honours section, otherwise it is confusingly duplicative and means that updates to top qualifying honours need to be made twice. Mountain^cirque 10:17, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I have no horse in this race, but a defunct tournaments/cups shouldn't be classified as being Friendly if they were sold off in matchday programmes as competitive matches. But the problem seems to stem from the fact that clubs and fans seem to pick an choose what to include and ignore. When it comes to those defunct tournaments. For example, the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup is pre-cursor to EFL cup in a similar fashion as Inter-Cities Fairs Cup's too UEFA Cup/Europa League. Yet Arsenal only mentions Inter-Cities Fairs Cup on their official list of honors on their website while ignoring Southern Professional Floodlit Cup altogether. Which is odd if Inter-Cities Fairs Cup and Southern Professional Floodlit cup have similar roles in creations of their successor tournaments. I would like to think that it would be fair if both were considered as major honors considering both were forerunners of their successor tournaments. It doesn't seem to be much harmony in considering one a major trophy then not the other. As for further oddities just look a Manchester United maiden statistic website and go to other matches: http://stretfordend.co.uk/stats2menu.html you see they mention Watney Cup on while ignoring Football League Super Cup and League Centenary Trophy, but United also mentions the wartime (World War I and World War II) football, even if its generally considered non-competitive far as I understand. Interested United statistic website doesn't include any other non-competitive football matches as it would be interesting to know how many friendlies and exhibition matches United has played over the years. Generally also ignored are those early region-based cups, that were common in the early years when more organized football was in its formative years. United was at least involved in two on yearly bases Manchester and District Challenge Cup and Lancashire Senior Cup but those are not mentioned on United's statistic website either, and there doesn't seem to be any mention online any where when those were relegated from being a first teams affairs too being Reserves and Academy affairs only. Considering all of this there's. No wonder its easy for fans to get confused what counts as competitive honors when clubs themselves cannot even agree on what counts and doesn't count.

DoctorHver (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC)