Talk:List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

septuple?? domestic league, cup, league cup and supercup, continental cup and supercup and fifa club world cup --SquallLeonhart_ITA (talk) 14:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember to include sources if you add content, especially if it's contrary to what is already sourced. Sandman888 (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Generaly i was trying to correct a major misunderstanding growing from one small article on Fifa.com calling Barcelonas 1008-2009 achivements for "a Sextuble" - this however undermines the entire stucture and meaning for tubles. If minor tophies like domestic and continential supercups are to be included ind the tubles system, hundreds of teams have achived trebles, and the list of qaudrubles would be growing too. I cant see the logic in breaking this system on the basis os one article erroneously calling something that was indeed a great achivement a Sextuble. And when has the intercontinental cup ever been cited as part of a tuble? This should be corrected to.. Friislund79

I sympathise, but FIFA is quite authoritative on football matters, so you need sources to back up your claims. A news.google search on sextuple gives many hits. Sandman888 (talk) 14:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

But then this needs to be made explicit. Then the Sextuble, that Barcelone won is indeed not made on the same basis as doubles, trebles, Quadrubles and so on.. If my moderations are misleading, then perhaps we should find another way of making this clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.246.52 (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes it might be made on another basis, but you need a source: a news article or book discussing what is a treble and what is not. Or at least you need someone to say that the sextuple is not an ordinary sextuple, else it's original research, se

WP:OR. Sandman888 (talk

) 14:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

But my point is that the way it is portrayed now is misleading. If there is a thing called a sexuble, then it shoud either be placed somewhere else, or it should be made veryu clear, that it is based on a new method of counting. This is not the case before mu editing. Therefore the original content was not valid. And instead of deleting the whole part I tried to edit it.

Well you need a source that it's a new method of counting. Perhaps they only count supercups when you have won the ordinary treble? Who knows? We don't know, that's all we know. Sandman888 (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do I need a source to point out an obvious flaw. I am merely correcting false or misleading information. On what basis is this particulary tuble been put under the other tubles.. This must indeed also be considered "new knowledge" - You need a source unless its considered commen sense. No matter what, it must be made explicit, that this way os counting to a tuble is new, cause i have never seen og heard of supercups been considered in any tubles ever before, and i cant se no other sources backing this up.

You need to source anything that another editor questions. Common sense is not an acceptable source. Sandman888 (talk) 15:13, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Then I question the comparability of the sextuble with the other tubles. I would like to see some sort of source on this. The only thing similar is the name. Under other articles writen on this, single leg matches are not seen as part os af tuble, there for i would suggest, that it either be placed some where else, or be made explicit, that it is based on another counting method. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.19.246.52 (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want, cd you give an example? Sandman888 (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

It is obvious that now it's easy to find articles referring to Barcelona's performance as a sextuple, it is an amazing result to win the six competitions and it easily had to be celebrated with a name. But no-one before 2009 celebrated Quadruples comprehensive of a supercup. Barcelona's perfection is an exception which makes easy the use of an improper name if compared with the general Tuples criterion. If you are so convinced that from now on we should count supercups too (please be honest, you know that it's after Barcelona's record that someone wants the change), at least edit all the voice, it's not acceptable to have one definition at the beginning and a different criterion in the end. --Vittorio Mariani (talk) 10:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I havn't edited anything apart from including the sextuple. If you have a definition of a quadruple you have to provide a reliable source. If some Celtic win is called a quadruple by the Times or similar, then it is a quadruple regardless of whatever definition you might personally use. Edit what you want, but include a source. Include a source. Always include a source. Sandman888 (talk) 11:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you have "only" added one paragraph, which disagrees with the definition given at the beginning of the voice. So you are sure this definition is wrong, why don't you correct it? My edit didn't cancel yours, I just pointed out that someone (yes, a lot of people) calling "sextuple" is an exception to the general "tuples" criterion. My edit was very neutral, preserved your source but also the obvious reality of the question which you seem to be the only who don't (want to) see. --Vittorio Mariani (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The FC Barcelona page lists them as having won a Sextuple and refers to this page. I am not so familiar with the cups, so could someone else please add it? Thanks! 72.93.174.37 (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should supercups and similar be excluded from being part of a quadruple (and a would-be quintuple) while they are ok in forming Barcelona's sextuple?? --Vittorio Mariani (talk) 17:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Barca's "sextuple" included 2 supercups and was achieved across 2 seasons anyway (2008-09 and 2009-10) rather than all 6 trophies being won in eg 2008-09, so I have removed it. The flaws in including the "sextuple" have already been discussed above. Juwe (talk) 18:26, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The two season issue is not the point, Tuples are counted in the calendar year, but the supercups fact is beyond doubt.--Vittorio Mariani (talk) 10:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember that wikipedia is about verifiability not, and I must repeat not, truth. It is backed by a reference to FIFA.com as a sextuple so that is what it will stay like until a source say otherwise. Good. Sandman888 (talk) 10:51, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You think that FIFA calling Barcelona's array "sextuple" let's you say "It is formed by analogy with similar terms such as Triple, Quadruple and Quintuple."? Find FIFA callind a Quadruple in a similar way please... And then remember to correct the intro, you are making a self-contracdictory voice. --Vittorio Mariani (talk) 10:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

As a journalist I must make a comment. Using a single article writen by a comunicator from FIFA as documentation for Barcelonas achivement as a Sextuble is highly critisable. It totally undermines the already established way of counting tubles. This problem becomes even more obvious when you look at the effect it will have on the other tubles, because many other teams would have won trebles, quadruables, quientbles etc. This will dilute the entire tubles-system. Sp please underline, that the barca-sextuble is totally different than all other tubles, if you insist to have this (in my opinion false information) on the tubles pages.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.29.232.130 (talk) 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Someone forces that Barcelona accomplished the quadruple in top-level competitions including titles within two seasons. If he means one year, he should add Ajax 1972 and Man UTD 1999 as they did that in one year not season. We can read. Do not try to cheat us by the source, we can distinguish between the words.--188.55.83.30 (talk) 07:07, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a tuple only includes competitions within one season, not one year, meaning: eg. you win the Quadtuple within one year (e.g. in England Champions League, Premier League, FA Cup and League Cup) To win the Quinttuple it is not enough to win the Club World Cup next season, meaning: you have to win the Champions League twice in a row, in the next season you have to win everything.

Just because FIFA.com used the word 'Sextuple' when referring to Barcelona's achievement, does not mean that (The) Sextuple is a term in football that refers to a club winning six tournaments all within a single season or year. which is currently stated in the article. That is complete

Was this not discused at

Wanderer

17:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Here. Adam4267 (talk) 19:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

See Google "sextuple barcelona", for example:

"After Barcelona's sextuple last year, Messi earned the Ballon d'Or and the FIFA World Player of the Year for his great year in leading Barcelona to the unprecidented sextuple and in the process, became the first Argentinian to achieve the honor." Bleacher Report (page 15)

"past Barcelona's unprecedented sextuple in '09" SI

"for an incredible sextuple" UEFA

"How Barca completed the sextuple at the CWC" Goal.com "which they won to complete a world-record sextuple" "The class of 2008/09 won the sextuple"

Even not counting numerous blogs, the definition for sextuple in football is clearly "six trophies in a season or in a year". Kahkonen (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for coming to the talk page to discuss. However, I have to disagree with you. There is a difference between the phrase THE (and I am trying to put as much emphasis on THE as possible) Sextuple and simply the word Sextuple. If you look at the sources I added before I was reverted by Subtropical man. [1] [2] They say the meaning of THE Quadruple is the act of winning four top tier trophies in one season. Both of them say that. Neither, however, have the phrase THE Sextuple as referring to football in any way. When looking at the sources you provide, only one uses the phrase THE Sextuple and that is this one from Goal, "The class of 2008/09 won the sextuple". Which is factually inaccurate because they did not win it in 08-09, they won a Sextuple of trophies in 2009. Not in the 08-09 season, but between the 08-09 and 09-10 seasons. The thing I'm trying to tell you is that there is a difference between, the word sextuple (meaning six of something, i.e. trophies) on it's own and the phrase THE Sextuple. Adam4267 (talk) 13:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much difference between "the sextuple" and "sextuple". But, you are saying, if we simply remove word "the" before "sextuple", everything is ok with the article? Clearly (as seen in the examples) the "sextuple in football" is not "six trophies", not "six trophies in five seasons" or something like that but a specific "six trophies in a year". But as I can't English that well, I don't know if there must be "the" or not.

By the way, the article you are referring, says fairly clearly that the achievement was in 2009: "The fact of the matter is, their achievements in 2009..." and "class of 2008/09" is simply referring to the Barcelona squad. By the way, there is another example from Goal, "How Barca completed the sextuple at the CWC" (headline in the picture with Pep [3]). (And I am not sure if "Barcelona's The Sextuple" even is correct spelling. I think it is wrong and should read "Barcelona's sextuple" as it is in the articles.) Kahkonen (talk) 22:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The thing is, we are trying to establish whether this is a commonly used phrase in football. While the Goal reference you provided [4] does say The Sextuple it is only one reference, which isn't really enough to establish the phrase as a commonly used term. Also, I personally find Goal to be a particularly error-strewn and unreliable site.

If English is not your first language then I can understand why you could be confused with this. I will try to explain for you; the word Sextuple means, basically, six of something - in this case trophies. So it is correct to say that Barcelona won a Sextuple of trophies in 2009, (this means they won six trophies in 2009). However, the phrase The Sextuple, in the same way as The Double/Treble/Quadruple/Quintuple means to win six trophies in one season. So if Barcelona won The Sextuple in 2009; it would mean that they have won six trophies in the 2008-09 season. So in the references you have provided they have been referring to Barcelona's trophy haul in the first way rather than the second. I hope I have explained this well to you, but I am more inclined to think I may have confused you more. Adam4267 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam4267, you claim that "we are trying to establish whether this is a commonly used phrase in football", but "we" are not trying to establish anything, "you" are. No one else is contesting this matter. Kahkonen has made it patently clear what "the Sextuple" means and has provided several verifiable and notable sources. You seem to have a strong bias against F.C. Barcelona, and are attempting to create a straw man argument out of the word "the" as an excuse to revert this entire page back to an insignificant version with little to no information. Furthermore, in your edits, you claim the prior versions were "unsourced" and "factually incorrect", when all the victories listed for each Club on the page link internally to a Wikipedia article for that particular victory. This isn't "original research", it is simply a collection of facts, made notable by the governing body of Football in over 290 pages in multiple languages for "sextuple" alone. So your use of the word "alleged" to refer to those confirmed wins together with your incorrect description of the information as "factually incorrect" makes your personal bias clear. If you want outside sources for those quadruples, quintuples, and sextuples, then make a note of it and specifically request them, but do not revert an entire page to an insignificant version due to your own personal biases and preferences. The "tuples" is a well-known, often-discussed, and thus notable achievement in Football, as such I have reverted the page to its prior completed version as several pages on Wikipedia link to this article. Please do not revert it back as you are the only one having an issue with the completed version. Feel free to continue discussing here and to request external citations where you feel they are necessary to improve the article. JohnMannV (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Adam4267, stop reverting this article to "your" version. You do not own this article. If anything is "factually incorrect" (as you put it), then point out what it is and let's discuss it. JohnMannV (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

No. I am not going to enter into a fruitless discussion with you about what the problems on this page are, nor am I going to do anything else you ask of me. However, I am not going to delve into the realms of baseless personal attacks either. Consensus is for this article to be cleaned up, which I have been trying to do. Chris Cunnigham provided the link below which shows this, and other users have also reverted you on this page, and Subtropical-man on others. I have made my points above and feel no need to do so again. Adam4267 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

As expected, you have no argument, and are unable to point out was is "factually incorrect" about the complete version of this article. Furthermore, your true intentions are now clear to everyone. You support the Celtic F.C. (as per your Talk page - talk) and "your" version of this article that you keep reverting to conveniently only lists and recognizes the accomplishments of the Football club you support. If you continue to censor this article in favour of your bias, I will expose you to the wider Wikipedia community. You have been warned. JohnMannV (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

After the action by User:Adam4267 - what it is?. This is pseudo-article. This article to delete. Apart from that he gave the stupidest arguments (almost no one understands what he wants), ...and on the other Wikipedias create separate articles for each keyword. This article is pointless. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On the contrary, this article serves as a useful placeholder rather than having a potentially unlimited number of articles on

neologisms which aren't in common use. This is currently being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Tuples in association football, where consensus seems to agree with Adam4267. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk

) 20:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Subtropical-man, I disagree. The "Tuples" are a well-known and often-discussed milestone in international Football even by the FIFA governing body. Several relevant articles link to this page, and it meets all necessary requirements for a stand-alone Wikipedia article. That said, Adam4267's attempt to censor the factual contents of this page goes against everything Wikipedia represents. JohnMannV (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Please don't use "censor" inappropriately. The removal of unsourced or trivial material is editorial discretion, and is a vital part of maintaining the quality of articles.

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk

) 10:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

When someone uses false reasons to remove facts in favour of a biased version, it is censorship, so my use stands. This is especially evident when you consider that Adam4267 supports the Celtic F.C. (as per his Talk page - talk), and that "his" version of this article that he keeps reverting to conveniently only lists and recognizes the accomplishments of the Football club he supports. I also find it interesting that both of you are from Scotland as that could explain why you have the same agenda for this article (that is, an agenda that only lists the "Tuples" accomplishments of a Scottish Football Club) and why you both have double-teamed me on my Talk page. Furthermore, this article goes beyond an "indiscriminate collection of information" as you have put it. You and Adam4267 fail to grasp that. As I pointed in another response above, the "Tuples" are notable not only because they are often discussed in the media when a new tuple arises, but are also recognized by the FIFA governing body. To put the notability of this subject matter to rest, here are some facts:

• over 100,000 search results containing "sextuple" and "football",
• over 1.3 million search results containing "quintuple" and "football",
• over 2 million search results containing "quadruple" and "football".

Now on the Official FIFA site alone, there are:

• over 250 results for "sextuple",
• over 550 results for "quintuple", and
• almost 1,000 results for "quadruple".

So both you and Adam4267 can stop pretending like this subject matter (in its entirety) is not notable as it just makes you look uninformed. Neither you nor Adam4267 are above FIFA, no matter how fervently you support a Scottish Football Club. JohnMannV (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You don't know who or what I support. If I were you I would stop casting aspersions over other editors, and I would do so straight away. Furthermore, you're flat-out wrong in your characterisation of my edits, as I specifically noted that reliable sources have referred to Celtic's 1967 season as a quintuple. There are several separate issues here, and you would do well to stick to the topic at hand instead of attacking other editors:

• Is the term "tuple" a good name for this article?
• Is "The Xtuple", in general, a good pattern for naming these articles?
• Need we have an article for individual cases of multiple trophy wins in the same season? If not, how many articles should we have?

Right now, the evidence presented in favour of a more expansionist approach appears to consist solely of Google search results (

WP:GHITS) and anecdotes about FIFA using the term (an authority using a term lends it some credibility, but is not an ultimate arbiter as far as we're concerned). Furthermore, Adam4267's point regarding the use of the definite article is most certainly relevant here, because while "The Double" (titlecase, definite article) is an extremely well known term in itself, there has been no firm evidence thus far that any other "tuple" other than "The Treble" (in countries with a League Cup) has this sort of popular impact (not least because, unlike those two, higher multiples inevitably include a nonstandard collection of trophies). I've yet to see that point addressed. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk

) 11:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wherever I see evidence of a bias by Editors of Wikipedia, I will immediately point the bias out together with the evidence to support that accusation. Others will then be able to draw their own conclusions. So my point still stands. Furthermore, I find it laughable that you claim "an authority using a term lends it some credibility". FIFA are THE governing body of the sport. End of story. Them using the term doesn't lend it "some" credibility, it seals the credibility. In fact, your attempt to weaken the credibility of the world governing body of the sport makes you lose credibility. At any rate, I have added external citations for Galatasaray SK's Quadruple, Inter Milan and F.C. Barcelona's Quintuples, and F.C. Barcelona's Sextuple. It really wasn't that difficult. Three of those citations are from FIFA, and I think they are a more credible source for Football achievements than either you or Adam4267 will ever be. JohnMannV (talk) 12:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

So this http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11907_5006367,00.html ref in the article really names Linfield with 7 titles. That should be added above the Sextuple then. -Koppapa (talk) 12:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see "septuple" mentioned anywhere in that article nor in the Linfield F.C. article. It's also a "semi-professional" team. If this article were to list accomplishments from teams other than fully-qualified and recognized professional teams, then I'm sure we can find a high school team in America that has won more than 7 "titles" in a given year, yet I don't think we should list those either. That said, if you insisted on adding it, I wouldn't personally censor you as other here have done. I would probably just divide the page between professional accomplishments and semi-professional accomplishments as the degree of difficulty for a fully-professional team to win a Tuple is significantly greater than for other teams, so that division would seem natural. JohnMannV (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

If you continue to make personal attacks on other editors you will be blocked from editing. So stop it. As for the issue at hand, nobody is saying that no "credible" source has used the term "the sextuple"; the matter is whether this is widely used by independent sources, and the governing body for a sport can hardly be said to be independent (indeed, it's not as if this were some official statement by FIFA anyway: these are incidental mentions on articles on the FIFA website). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Lay off the threats, they don't phase me. I call it as I see it. Your arguments are inconsistent. You keep stretching the burden of proof to fit your personal bias. If the governing body of the sport isn't enough to give the term credibility and you insist on requiring "independent sources", then allow me to indulge you to put this matter to rest once and for all. Let's take "Sextuple", for example, as it is the rarest of the terms. Here are a few notable "independent sources" using that exact term to refer to the Sextuple of

F.C. Barcelona

in 2009:

• TheGuardian.co.uk
• Indepedent.co.uk
• SkySports.com
• Metro.co.uk
• SportsIllustrated.CNN.com

Can you please stop arguing this point and wasting everyone's time now? You have no argument left. If you were a gentleman, this is the point where you would admit you were wrong. JohnMannV (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Article has been improved by several users and removed OR and unsourced text, rest of text is OK. To make it better, I propose to use the tables as there. If anyone has any doubts to something else - 1) discussion! only and 2) compromise! among other users. You can also add new text to article, but with the sources. Is the proposal to change the name of the article, see

Is there any reliable sources (other than Celtic's own website), citing the achievement as a/the quintuple? I couldn't find. Plus, the link does not work: [5]. See also

Yes, I have re-added the sources. They were removed by either JohnMann or Subtropical Man when they were re-adding unreferenced information. Note that one of them [6] explicitly states that Barca won the treble in 2009. Adam4267 (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, although that is the source stating it "a quintuple of sorts", other two "a quintuple", and The Times is not working. Please also note that the date of the news is May 28, 2009, when Barca had only treble and not Dec 19 when Barcelona completed the sextuple in 2009. Kahkonen (talk) 23:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User John Mann insists that Barcelona have won 6 trophies during the

That's incorrect and the sources say clearly the sextuple was completed in 2009 not during the season 2008–2009. Personally I agree with John Mann and think that Supercups and Club World Cup belong to previous season, they are like an extended season or playoffs: You can compete in them only if you qualify in the end of regular season. But that's not what the sources say. Kahkonen (talk) 21:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Thats what I'm saying they were not completed in the 2008–09 season. They were completed in 2009 from a mix of both seasons. The sources don't confirm his theory neither do the season articles. I understand where it is coming from but it isn't the case for instance Barcelona have just won the 2011 club world cup now half way through this season but they qualified by winning it at the end of the last season.

Wanderer

21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I just checked the final from that year was december as well that is 6 months since they won the champions league that is clearly the middle of the next season.

Wanderer

21:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

For the record,

Wanderer

. The first only wanted to list the accomplishments of Celtic F.C. (a Scottish Football Club). The second kept stretching the burden of proof to satisfy his own personal bias. The third insists on editing back to an incorrect and biased version that they added in the past 24 hours. This is all recorded in the Article history and Talk Page. When confronted, all three attacked and threatened me on my personal Talk page. This is a very disturbing pattern.

This coordinated group of Scotsmen first removed Galatasaray S.K. from the Quadruples list after I cited it. Now they are trying to create their own version of reality for the Sextuple of F.C. Barcelona. For the record, I'm going to post what I removed and I'm going to dissect its bias and inaccuracies. Below is the text I removed:

"No club has won six trophies in a single season, however it has been achieved in a calendar year.

FC Barcelona were described by FIFA as having won a sextuple by winning six titles in 2009, although these straddeled the 2008-09 and 2009-10 Spanish football seasons. [15] This sextuple also included a quadruple for the 2008-09 season"

Let's dissect it:

• "No club has won six trophies in a single season, however it has been achieved in a calendar year.

...

, although these straddeled the 2008-09 and 2009-10 Spanish football seasons. [15] This sextuple also included a quadruple for the 2008-09 season."

• False and intentionally misleading. F.C. Barcelona won six trophies in the 2008 - 2009 season. Those are the 6 trophies that were already listed. The six wins were all part of the same season. La Liga and Copa del Rey lead to the Supercopa de España. The UEFA Champions League leads to both the UEFA Super Cup and FIFA Club World Cup. F.C. Barcelona had to win either the La Liga or the Copa del Rey to make it to the Supercoda de España. They won both, so they played the runner-up to the 2008–09 Copa del Rey runners-up. For anyone to suggest that the Supercopa de España is not part of the same season as the La Liga or Copa del Rey would be ludicrous as they are intimately tied. Similarly, F.C. Barcelona had to win the 2008-09 UEFA Champions League to qualify for both the 2009 UEFA Super Cup and 2009 FIFA Club World Cup. To try to label the two latter ones as being part of a "different" season, or to specifically point out that they were not during the "same" Season, is to purposefully attempt to mislead readers into thinking that F.C. Barcelona won 6 unrelated titles in two different seasons that happened to fall under the same Calendar year, and is further proof of the bias being perpetrated in this article. It is a petty semantic battle with a clear bias towards diminishing the merit of a team that had to keep winning to keep advancing throughout the season and calendar year, and that won every single tournament it contested in 2009, every single one of which stemmed from the 2008-09 season and were won in 2009.

• "FC Barcelona were described by FIFA as having won a sextuple by winning six titles in 2009"

• False and biased. This is written in a clearly biased way so as to suggest that they did not indeed win a Sextuple, but that FIFA merely "described" it as such, when I had already posted references to those victories being labeled as "Sextuple" by The Guardian, The Independent, The Metro, Sky Sports, and CNN/Sports Illustrated. Again, further evidence of the bias perpetrated by this group. This group of editors are attempting to sow seeds of doubt regarding what FIFA and the international media had declared as an "unprecedented sextuple" victory in the history of the sport because it was not won by the Club they happen to support. It is so transparent as to be laughable.

To add insult to injury, this same group of biased editors removed Galatasaray S.K. from the Quadruples list after I cited it and with no discussion whatsoever, and then turned around and accused me when I replaced incorrect, misleading, biased, and unsourced information with correct, neutral, and sourced information. I do not support either Galatasary S.K. or F.C. Barcelona, but I know a transparent bias when I see one and I will not let it stand. JohnMannV (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I have clearly demonstrated above that the Barcelona fact you are adding is false they physically couldn't win the Club world cup in the 2008-09 season as it happened six months after it finished.

Wanderer

22:38, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Honestly the only connection here is we are all member of wikiproject football where there have now been two separate discussions re this article. I already asked the user to stop the nationalist attack statements he made on my talk page and he has repeated them here.

Wanderer

22:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is a petty semantic battle attempting to diminish the accomplishments of a team you do not Support. Not everyone in the world considers a "season" to be games played between a specific set of dates. It's the logical interrelationship between tournaments that define a natural "season". Furthermore, why does it even matter? What matters is that the those 2 sets of victories (domestic and international) were intimately related and happened in the same year by the same team and the same coach as a step-by-step progression from one victory to the next. Why are you defining a "Tuple" as a set of victories within two specific dates rather than logical sets of interrelated tournaments occurring in the same year? The point is those victories were unprecedented, are naturally intertwined, and they happened in the same calendar year. Period. End of Story. Don't muddle it with needless semantics that add absolutely nothing to the article. Your group wants to purposefully confuse the reader and take away from a once-in-a-lifetime event in the history of the most popular sport in the world by creating your own biased definition of the word "Tuple" and then using that loaded definition to conveniently diminish the accomplishments of a Football team you simply do not support. Again, very transparent. JohnMannV (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

So you admit it was in a calendar year that is exactly what the article said. A season is a defined set of dates in football usually between August and May. These never change and are set by the governing bodies of the game. I do not support Barcelona, Celtic or any of the teams you mention. I am only interested in the pure facts which are they did not win it in one season they won it in one calendar year which technically is not winning a sextuple which again is what the article stated.

Wanderer

22:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

"in one calendar year which technically is not winning a sextuple" – This one you got wrong. As cited many times, it is widely considered as a sextuple, your personal opinions do not count. Just cite the sources. Kahkonen (talk) 01:58, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I edited the section. Now it says more clearly that those three competitions did not occur during 2008–09 season but after it. It also says those competitions are related with another three. I did two versions, which one is better? 1 or 2? Kahkonen (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

it is not technically a sextuple in the technical form of football as that needs to be done in a season they may have won a sextuple of cups but they did not do The sextuple.. The article should be reverted to how it wa before John Mann changed it which fully explained that they one 6 trophies in a year but not in one season Uwhich the other teams achieved. It was perfect the way it was. My personal opinion is irrelevant if it was mine then Bareclona wouldn't be listed because they failed robot in one season but a compromise was to explain it was done in a calendar year.

Wanderer

07:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

"that needs to be done in a season" – That's definitely your personal opinion, if you do not give any source for it. All sources provided say: "Barcelona won sextuple in 2009".

I think the article now perfectly explains how the sextuple was won: "their three trophies in the 2008–09 season allowed them to play and win another three competitions after the season in year 2009".

Kahkonen (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with User:Kahkonen. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with

Wanderer conveniently defining a "Tuple" as a set of victories within two specific dates rather than logical sets of interrelated tournaments occurring in the same year? The point is those victories were unprecedented, are naturally intertwined, and they happened in the same calendar year. Period. End of Story. He is trying to muddle it with needless semantics that add absolutely nothing to the article. His group wants to purposefully confuse the reader and take away from a once-in-a-lifetime event in the history of the most popular sport in the world by creating their own biased definition of the word "Tuple" and then using that loaded definition to conveniently diminish the accomplishments of a Football team they simply do not support. JohnMannV (talk

) 00:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Where have you been hiding whislt John Mann was here very interesting period to be absent. Im sorry but they never won The sextuple they won a sextuple of cups in a calendar year. Now we have finally accepted that Barcelona never Did it in a season something both of you argued against. The definition will need to be agreed at

Wanderer

21:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Discussion started there so we can come to a decision on the Footballing term now the first bit it finally sorted.

Wanderer

21:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anything. I'm just saying the usual way in Wikipedia is to follow what sources say. Kahkonen (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes and no The article hinges on it being a football term. So the best way forward is to agree what that term means. I feel it means this but others may disagree so the only way forward is to take Barcelona out of the picture decide what The Sextuple is and then fit them into it. Barcelona need to be mentioned one way or another but we need to agree if they won a sextuple of cups which is supported by the sources or did they also do a technical The Sextuple. The dispute here is technical because we now seem to agree they did it in a year not a season so the only debate is the term. There is not enough of us here to come to a consensus on the term.

Wanderer

21:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Your obvious bias oozes out of every single sentence you write on this topic. Now you are suggesting we remove Barcleona's Sextuple from the article when I have already proven that the world governing body of football and over 5 very well-known media organisations have referred to Barcelona's victory that year as a Sextuple. End of Story. You and your personal bias are not above FIFA, The Guardian, The Independent, The Metro, Sky Sports, and CNN/Sports Illustrated. There is no discussion here. You have no arguement other than your personal opinions which have no place here. You are simply trolling at this point. JohnMannV (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources clearly implify the definition for sextuple is "six titles in a year" (as they are naming Barcelona's six trophy year as sextuple). But it seems you have already decided the definition is "six titles in a season". Your duty is now to find some sources supporting it, not Wikipedians to support it. Kahkonen (talk) 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NO they don't they say the one sextuple i.e. sixs cups none of those sources show they won The sextuple therefore they never the one six cups in a year. Im sorry but the sources support the original wording of the article. You need to disprove that you seem to be determined to put through your view by hiding behind false sources. Where as i think consensus is far stronger when your sources prove nothing. Whats your problem. What is it you are trying to promote because your view is pov not backed up. I don't need sources because yours prove nothing the way forward is consensus on the term why can't you let a discussion take place rather than hiding behind false arguments. I couldn't care less if the community agree with you. If they do then we go with that if they agree with the original view point then we go with that.

Wanderer

22:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Now he states "I don't need sources", against our litany of sources, including FIFA, The Guardian, The Independent, The Metro, Sky Sports, and CNN/Sports Illustrated, which not only describe it as a "Sextuple", but as an "unprecedented Sextuple". This user is clearly trolling. He thinks he's above citations. Please don't feed the troll. JohnMannV (talk) 00:48, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The sources do not back the claim of The Sextuple, they won a sextuple of cups their is a difference. sources not required consensus is. I have suggested a compromise which does not weaken the achievement.

Wanderer

10:07, 22 December 2011 (UTC)I

OK, first of all you all NEED TO CALM DOWN. And stop the accusations of bias/trolling etc. Now, let's disect all of this. I think we remember the following:

• First of all, 'sextuple' is a neologism. There is no 'proper' definition of it because it is not a real word
• Secondly, Wikipedia needs to base its claims on sourced comments. Now, Barcelona's six titles have clearly been described as a 'sextuple' by multiple sources. That's good enough for me, and should be good enough to get this mentioned.
• Thirdly, it is worth mentioning in the article the distinction between Barcelona's sextuple and the other achievements listed here. Barcelona's acheivement is over a calendar year and not a season. Check the 2009–10 in Spanish football and 2010–11 in Spanish football articles - the Supercopa is associated with the subsequent season and not the preceding season. Now, this is fine because of the first point (that as sextuple is a neologism, it has no fixed meaning). However, we should mention that this is a year and not a season because this differentiates Barca's acheivement from the 'quadruple' and 'quintuples' that we have mentioned. Take Liverpool's 2001: they won five trophies that year, but it is rarely mentioned as a quintuple (a few, not particularly reliable sources, do use this phrase). Essentially, I'm concerened about 'year creep'. I don't think that the '-tuple' phrase is usually used for a whole season (and sources support this). However, as Barca's achievement was so unique, it has been used that way. The point is the decision we make with regards to Barca impacts on the article more broadly. For that reason I'd be happy to include it, but I'd want to differentiate it from the other entries somehow. I think the recent wording change does a decent, if not perfect, job at this.Pretty Green (talk) 10:09, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify this whole "preceding season" thing: the quirk with the Club World Cup is that, because it's a worldwide competition, it doesn't fit neatly into the predominant European winter season. Nevertheless, if sources refer to Barcelona's success as a sextuple (and they do) then we have to consider it as such: however, rather than macking about with adding the words "or year" to the article title we can simply add a footnote explaining the situation. So remarkably I'm actually in the same boat as JohnMannV et al on this particular issue, contrary to the continued and really quite immature assertion that there's some nationalist bias involved here. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with this, but I think that, if nothing else, the Sueprcopa is clearly part of the 09-10 season. But yes, it should be included, as long as there is some recognition that it differs from the season-based 'tuples'.Pretty Green (talk) 11:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree, too. For "quintuples", there may have been some shift in the meaning (maybe after 2009, after Barca's sextuple) as there are sources describing Inter's five in 2010 and Barcelona's five in 2011 as quintuples [8][9]. And then there are also sources discussing possible seasonal quintuples [10][11]. Kahkonen (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

There is a difference between winning a sextuple of cups which the sources show and winning The Sextuple winning like The double that should be done in a season. Im all for it being included as its some achievement but there has to be clear that it very much different to the others. A footnote will not suffice we have to be clear about what the article is otherwise we might as well revert it to the mess it was in before. Lets get this sorted and enjoy christmas this has gone on far too long. Oh and by the way someone with my level of edits is no troll.

Wanderer

22:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Ive changed the wording slightly. Article is looking really good thanks to Kahkonen.

Wanderer

16:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

I think an the septuple should be included in this article if there is any verification.(2.99.21.164 (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2012 (UTC))

I still do not think that a team who has one several trophies in one calendar year should be in this list. Firstly the name of the article is one season but also the ones that are for a year are

WP:OR. There is no source which states that winning four or more trophies over one year or more is a particularly good achievement, at least not more so than say winning 13 trophies in three years. It is also not officially recognised, Barcelona's own record books mention nothing about winning six trophies in two seasons [12]. They define their own season with most titles as 5 and describe the 2008/09 achievement as a treble. Adam4267 (talk

) 16:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. They're mostly ridiculous. However, some sources do refer to clubs holding several trophies at once as trebles etc. Let's see what others think. --hippo43 (talk) 20:54, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree. Your link mentioning nothing about six trophies: "Year with most official titles: 2009, with 6: Copa del Rey, Liga, Champions League, Spanish Supercup, European Supercup and Clubs World Cup." So yes they (they too) mention it while not playing with weird "in two seasons" definitions. Also, I can't see this as a "list of particularly good achievements" but merely as a "List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season or year". In earlier discussion there was some reason not to mention "or year" in the title but include "or year" titles into the article. Kahkonen (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It's worth remembering how this article came about. It was a merger of articles on various

neologisms

such as 'sextuple' and 'quintuple'. The article as it is was then created to cut down on this proliferation, and to ensure that everything was referenced. There were also questions as to what constitutes a season: what season is a Super Cup part of? My preference is to retain the definition of a season as is commonly understood: for most European countries, that's with a summer gap, while in most South/North American and Scandinavian countries, that is from February/March through to the Winter. My preference would be:

• List achievements in one season in the current full format. Seasons as typically defined in the club's own nation. That would leave a few teams in the four section, only Celtic in the five, and none under 6.
• For the five and six trophies sections note, in the text along the lines of: "other teams have also won five trophies in one calendar year. Liverpool achieved this in 2001 (ref) Barcelona achieved this in 2011 (ref) and Inter achieved this in 2010 (ref)" and "No team has won six senior trophies in one season. However, Barcelona won six trophies during a calendar year in 2009 (ref)". Don't list these achievements in full, though.

This leaves the topic as '4 + in a season" but recognises the relevance of the annual achievements. It prevents an over emphasis on and proliferation of achievements which are only roughly/vaguely recognised, usually by fans of a club, but reflects that these do exist as well. Pretty Green (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Strong oppose. First - your edit delete the data and sources (and also changes article according to your opinion). To this - must be a consensus. Otherwise it is willfulness or/and vandalism. Second: this text long existed in separate articles "quadruple", "quintuple" and "sextuple" and later, after combining items into a single article. Your version has existed for several days, by oversight - you done three editing at once, I not analyzed all your editions (if I noticed that you're doing it without a consensus, I stepped back your edition in first hour). For now, we wait for consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

It should clearly be in one season with the mention of year as Pretty green says. The article was returned to a good state following the above discussions and at

Wanderer

20:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, change it - if there be a consensus. Subtropical-man (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Adam4267, are we back to this again? This has been discussed ad nauseum in the sections above. Please stop allowing your personal bias in favor of the Scottish team Celtic that you support to tarnish this article. You say "There is no source which states that winning four or more trophies over one year or more is a particularly good achievement", but this is patently false. I have already proven in the sections above that the world governing body of football and over 5 very well-known media organisations have referred to Barcelona's victory that year as a "sextuple", marking it as a very notable achievement since the competitions Barcelona played in the subsequent year were a direct result of the competitions they won the previous year, and are thus intimately tied. In fact, the world governing body of football called Barcelona's six victories that year "unprecedented" and "record-breaking". No Wikipedian is above FIFA, The Guardian, The Independent, The Metro, Sky Sports, and CNN/Sports Illustrated:

• FIFA.com
• FIFA.com
• TheGuardian.co.uk
• Indepedent.co.uk
• SkySports.com
• Metro.co.uk
• SportsIllustrated.CNN.com

If you want to continue arguing this point, then please check your personal opinions at the door and bring facts, citations, and sources to the table, as I have done above. JohnMannV (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There is now FC Barcelona 2011–12, four trophies. That's valid, it fits clearly into "won four or more trophies in one season" article. The club won four also in

I added 2009–10 and 2008–09. Kahkonen (talk) 21:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please add sources. I'm not sure that those are actually considered "quadruples" because generally one or two match tournaments aren't considered part of a quadruple. i.e super cups. Adam4267 (talk) 22:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I see the the article is not anymore "*tuples in football" but "multiple titles in one season". The title of the chapter is "Four titles in one season or year". Found two four title seasons more: Al-Sadd

2010–11. Kahkonen (talk

) 03:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no such thing as 'a tuple': it is a neologism largely created by users of this page. 4 (senior) trophies in a season is the only reasonable measure that can be used for this article. Pretty Green (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I added those new entries. I would say multiple official trophies is reasonable measure. That excludes friendly tournaments such as Audi Cup, World Football Challenge, Copa Catalunya and Franz Beckenbauer cup. Kahkonen (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well the sources say senior trophies. You can't just make up your own definitions and not use sources. Adam4267 (talk) 13:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

<reduce indent> It depends what 'senior' means here, but I would take it to mean both the first eleven, and a match that would be officially competitive. It benefits no-one to include friendly tournaments in this list. Pretty Green (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-FIFA (and its continental childrens: UEFA etc) events do not count. In this list is not Barack Obama Cup and other non-official cups :-) Only officially cups and events. Subtropical-man (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

re the Barca/6 titles: I think it's fine as it is. At the moment it states that no-one has achieved the topic of this article - won 6 titles in a year. Barca's comes close and is worthy of mention, but is not listed fully as it is not the full achievement. Pretty Green (talk) 16:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I've done as Adam did and removed the unsourced content. This has no right to be in here unless accurate and verified. In regards to Six or more titles in one season I've put this back until its further discussed however this should not be there. The article is clearly about clubs who have achieved something in one season. Barca have never done six in one season but a year so there is no need to mention something that they have not achieved.

Wanderer

16:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They were not unsourced, the sources were in competition articles. From those it's clear that Al-Sadd (2006-07), ManU (2008-09) and Barcelona (2009-10, 2011-12) won 4 trophies in a season. Of course I can google url's for those too. Quadruple definition "In football, a The Quadruple is the act of winning four top tier trophies in one season" is nonsense in this article because the article is "List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season". I suggest to revert back to version [13]. Kahkonen (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Unless they are sourced to this article then they cannot be included in it I'm sure you know full well our verifiability policy and that using wiki as a source isn't. Your point is totally mute you say a Quadruple definition In football is The Quadruple is the act of winning four top tier trophies in one season then you say the article is called List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season, That is the same thing.

Wanderer

18:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

OK: First, note that under each section, teams who have won trophies in the calendar year are mentioned. This gives further information to the reader, without giving undue prominence to the acheivement. If it was up to me, we'd mentione Barca's acheivement without giving the tournament names, but frankly if we did that then someone would only re-add them. I really don't see the problem of listing in full the achievement of winning x trophies in the year, and giving a mention to winning x trophies in a season.

Second: please please please forget about the definitions of 'quadruple', 'quintuple' and so on. These are

Wikpedia's policy for neologisms we do not write articles about them, and we do not care about them. They are almost totally irrelevant. Pretty Green (talk

) 23:30, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They are irrelevant i totally agree. What is a far bigger issue here is sourcing, if they aren't sourced directly to this article then it should not be included. In regard to mentioning in a year it defeats the purpose of the article to some extent. However if we want to include it then the section titles should still be Four titles in one season as thats what its about with a note at the bottom explaining that some have don't it in a year. The section titles should be consistent with the article title.

Wanderer

23:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

In regards to six in a season that is giving undue wait to the achievement as no team has ever done it in one season. We are giving prominence to that achievement which is not inline with what the article is actually about. If a team had done six in a season then maybe we could mention it why should we mention Barca.

Wanderer

23:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

<reduce indent> I agree entirely with the section titles. Re undue weight - I really don't think it does do that, sorry. It's describing a situation close to this acheivement, but also showing that it isn't there. I really don't see a problem with that. Pretty Green (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree about them being neologisms. They have not been defined as such, and even Webster's English Dictionary lists winning four football trophies under quadruple. Maybe Quintuple and Sextuple are neologisms but not Quadruple. The only reason it is not widely used is because only one team has ever done it. Adam4267 (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me why Barcelona and Manchester United is not on the "Four titles in one season" list? Is it because people here do not think that you can count one or two game tournaments as titles? In that case I have to ask, who are you to decide that? MartinDahl9 (talk) 12:14, 27 Marts 2013 (UTC)

Those were re4moved, because they weren't sourced.-Koppapa (talk) 11:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am forced to create a section to address this very specific issue because after having discussed this ad nauseum and coming to an agreement in December of last year (2011) regarding the "sextuple" section and unprecedented accomplishments of F.C. Barcelona, the same group of Celtic F.C.-supporting editors have gradually and systematically reduced the prominence of F.C. Barcelona's "sextuple" since then (and once again) in order to increase the prominence of their team's accomplishments. You will find evidence of this scattered throughout this talk page (feel free to Ctrl-F and search for occurrences of "JohnMannV" on this talk page). I have also noticed this same group of individuals attempting to change the title and purpose of this article (from "Tuples in association football" to "List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season") so as to be able to conveniently exclude F.C. Barcelona's accomplishments by specifically referencing "season" in the title. In other words, they keep moving the "goal posts", so to speak, in order to pursue their agenda. However, removing and/or diminishing the accomplishments of a team that broke unprecedented records in the sport specifically for the number of trophies they won in a single "season or year" is to do a disservice to all readers searching for this information. So please do NOT edit the "sextuple" section without first discussing your proposed changes here, as that section is very thoroughly cited from highly-reputable sources. Furthermore, as I've already mentioned several times above, I have already proven that the world governing body of football and over 5 very well-known media organisations have referred to Barcelona's victory that year as a "sextuple", marking it as a very notable achievement since the competitions Barcelona played in the subsequent year were a direct result of the competitions they won the previous year, and are thus intimately tied. In fact, the world governing body of football specifically referred to Barcelona's six victories that year as "unprecedented" and "record-breaking". No Wikipedian is above FIFA, The Guardian, The Independent, The Metro, Sky Sports, and CNN/Sports Illustrated:

• FIFA.com
• FIFA.com
• TheGuardian.co.uk
• Indepedent.co.uk
• SkySports.com
• Metro.co.uk
• SportsIllustrated.CNN.com

If you want to continue arguing this point, then please check your personal opinions at the door and bring facts, citations, and sources to the table, as I have done above. JohnMannV (talk) 11:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the title of the article? Adam4267 (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, have you read what I wrote above? I know the context in which it was changed, and what your personal agenda is as it is all very well documented in this talk page. You and your Celtic F.C.-supporting editors deliberately changed the title to be able to exclude F.C. Barcelona sextuple in order to give more prominence to Celtic F.C.'s quintuple. If you were unbiased about the situation, you and your fellow editors would have either created a separate "sextuple" article to document F.C. Barcelona's accomplishments before reducing that section by over 90%, or left the section as it was back in December which already included a season vs. year clarification, yet you insist on diminishing one club's accomplishments to give more prominence to the club you personally support. So either F.C. Barcelona is properly addressed like it was agreed upon in December in this article, or it is addressed in its own article. In the meantime, I reverted back to the December version that was agreed upon with Pretty Green, Chris Cunningham, Kahkonen, and Edinburgh Wanderer and documented further above. JohnMannV (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The title was not changed to deliberately include exclude or promote certain achievements. It was done to make sure only notable achievements and as football runs in seasons not calendar years. I remember a few editors trying to say Barcelona did do it in a season but that was categorically proven to be false. There have been multiple discussions since then that have confirmed the current version and on top of that every entry must be sourced on this page no exceptions so some material added back in was also unsourced. Im concerned that you are accusing Adam of promoting Celtic when to be honest it appears you are trying to promote Barcelona. If you want to discuss that is fine but edit warring when consensus had been established isn't correct neither is accusing other editors in bad faith.Blethering Scot 16:37, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me take a wild guess. you are Scottish? Am I the only one noticing a pattern here? This is the fourth Scotsman to have issues with anything that does not give Celtic F.C. (a Scottish club) full and clear prominence in this article. For the record (again), I am not an F.C. Barcelona supporter, but I know a bias when I see one, and I don't need to call my Wikimates who are F.C. Barcelona fans to come defend my point of view because my point of view is not an opinion, it's a fact based on highly-reputable sources, including the world governing body of the sport and numerous reputable news sources which you have completely ignored. Adam4267, do your own arguing, there is no need to call on your countrymen to back you up, when the problem is precisely a bias in favor of a club from your country. I reverted back to the December version that was agreed upon with Pretty Green, Chris Cunningham, Kahkonen, and Edinburgh Wanderer and documented further above. If you want to remove it, then create a "Sextuple" article for F.C. Barcelona first, then link to that article from this one with the season/year clarification. JohnMannV (talk) 17:33, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Make any more accusations like those or attempt to delete previous discussions and this will be going to ANI. You know consensus has changed and unfounded bad faith accusations are not on.Blethering Scot 17:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You have exactly 24 hours to produce evidence that I deleted previous discussions or I will be the one going to ANI. I will not tolerate completely false accusations (particularly ones that can be easily disproven since every single edit history is saved on Wikipedia). And no, consensus has not "changed", it's just the same group of Celtic F.C. supporters that have had the same exact "consensus" from the start that just so happens to give prominence only to the club they support. Section reverted to original consensus from December 2011. Your 24 hours start now. JohnMannV (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Evidence [14].Blethering Scot 18:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

That is my reply to your first comment in this section. JohnMannV (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you'll find I am virtually the only Celtic supporting editor curently active on Wikipedia, certainly the only one that's contributed to this page. As far as bias goes using terms like "unprecedented" and "record-breaking" suggests you probably are a Barcelona fan. For what its worth I actually am a Barcelona fan and I've been to the Camp Nou. However, facts are facts and bias is bias. Barcelona may have won six trophies over two seasons but that's not a particularly special achievement. And if we start adding any old achievement in then the page will become an unsourced mess full of originial research and puffed up achievements. Like it was before it was cleaned up. And considering how stable the page has been recently I think you'll find consensus was for the previous version before your revision. Adam4267 (talk) 18:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for admitting you are a Celtic supporter, but it was already obvious. Also, allow me to correct you, I am not the one that used the terms "unprecedented" and "record-breaking", the world governing body of football known as FIFA did [15][16]. So no, I do not support F.C. Barcelona, I support facts. JohnMannV (talk) 19:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

In the evidence provided you deleted 77,404 bytes of date which was the previous discussions and links to other discussions. This is back at ANI.[17].Blethering Scot 18:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand how a reply to someone can delete other discussions, but if that indeed occurred, then it was unintentional on my part. At any rate, I am glad you brought this to the attention of the Admins as we need more neutral editors to scrutinize what has been transpiring with this article since the very beginning. It has honestly been tiring getting jumped on by the exact same group of Scotsmen. In case you decide to create another straw man argument and suggest I am a racist for stating that fact, allow me to state for the record that I love Scotland and all Scottish people and I firmly believe they deserve full and unequivocal independence from Great Britain. However, that does not change the fact that I keep getting ganged up on by the same group of people who all "coincidentally" happen to be from Scotland, which "coincidentally" happens to be where Celtic F.C. is from. JohnMannV (talk) 19:49, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Slow Down

I'm a little lost as to what you both want? As far as I can see, the best option with dealing this is two acknowledge Barcelona's achievement, but also to note that it is not 'six trophies in a season'. I don't quite see how this can be so controversial? Whether or not we list the trophies is, for me, a moot point: I'd rather not do it, but if it makes people happy then I don't see any harm. Pretty Green (talk) 20:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am happy with this version of the "Sextuple" section by Blethering Scot himself that clearly differentiates between seasons and year as you mentioned. I thought that was a good compromise then, and I think it's a good compromise today. JohnMannV (talk) 20:34, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

There isn't any point in discussing this any further until the ANI is over. Accusations of us all being Scottish and issues mean discussing with him at this time is not appropriate. If he wishes to actually admit and apologise at the ANI then maybe but until then im not even going to bother as the version of the article as it stands was established through consensus and gives no undue height to what isn't actually covered by this article or is in footballing terms an achievement. Mentioning it is a compromise.Blethering Scot 22:42, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Both Galatasaray and Arsenal Ladies won 5 tropies during the seasons described previously as being 4-trophy seasons. The former's missing trophy was the 1999-00

The source says four as far as i can see, this article has to be sourced there has been real problems with that in the past. Galatasaray is totally unsourced so should not be there. I imagine if they did it in a season there will be a source so just re add with sources. I know it wasn't me you wanted a reply of but gave you one. Blethering Scot 13:19, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a website charting the Galatasaray one. The Arsenal Ladies one is a little less well publicised for obvious reasons, but I'll try and track something down. Gefetane (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Here... "The Ladies actually won a fifth trophy during the 2006/2007 season... the London County Cup by beating Millwall 2-0 in the final". The date of the Cup win is referenced here. Gefetane (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

"London County Cup"? What it is? It is too low competition and not subject to International Federation of Association Football. Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

So what? What evidence is there to back up that claim? Why should a Trophy be recognised by that affiliation to qualify for this page? Gefetane (talk) 13:59, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you really need a better source for Galatasaray but don't see harm in using it until another is found.Blethering Scot 14:02, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a source that describes the tournament victory. It is in Turkish! Gefetane (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Gefetane - sure, for example FC Yellow Moth also won 5 trophies during the season: Municipal Toilets Cup, Sobava City Cup, Sobava County Cup, Urban park of Sobava Cup and Supermarket Cup. It should be in the article? Not. Only cups subject to International Federation of Association Football. "Junk" tournaments are not subject to FIFA (and its continental organizations, UEFA etc). Sorry. Subtropical-man (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for this body and specifically the lists of trophies affiliated or not affiliated, then we can discuss whether this "qualification" should apply to trophies within the context of this section. Thanks. Keep the unjustified pejorative language like "junk tournaments" to yourself please, it serves no purpose within this discussion. Gefetane (talk) 14:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you add that source for Galatasaray thanks.Blethering Scot 16:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the source as i say if better ones can be found they can be added later.Blethering Scot 01:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The London County Cup should be in the same league with the Glasgow Cup. -08:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The County Cup is organised by the London Football Association, which is the regional organisation of the FA in London. It is indeed an equivalent of the Glasgow Cup. In the women's game senior teams are still entered - in the men's game professional senior teams have not entered sides in the early 1900s (London Senior Cup). Pretty Green (talk) 08:18, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Arsenal won the

FA Women's Community Shield that season too! source Clavdia chauchat (talk

) 11:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

If were using individual references then we need to doubly check all the dates and make sure they all definitely fit in that season and arent technically a year. The only reason I'm saying that is the source published later clearly states 4 so we need to be careful. It certainly looks right but just double check all dates.Blethering Scot 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, most sources say Arsenal won a quadruple. I don't think the County Cup or the Charity Shield really counted because one is for reserve/academy players and the other is essentially a pre-season friendly. The Irish club Linfield have twice scooped seven gongs in a season, but I'll leave it to others to decide if these included junk tournaments (!) Clavdia chauchat (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The charity shield is a valid trophy in mens football, if the other was competed by the teams reserves i.e. not the first team then that shouldn't be included. Im probably in favour of adding the charity shield maybe not the other one but there seems to be a bit of a debate above, so well see.Blethering Scot 18:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Should this section be restricted to "major" trophies? Leagues, National Cups, Top flight European competitions etc? I think the inclusion of regional trophies has opened up a can of worms! Gefetane (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I dont think so because back in the day regional comps were very notable and senior cups, most regional cups these days are now for reserves or youths. Its more a debate about whether its senior than regional. Clavdia said the county cup was the reserves so that would rule it out anyway, the charity shield for men is notable i don't know enough about the women's to compare.Blethering Scot 21:53, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

No sources I've read have said it's a reserve tournament, I'd like to see what Clavdia bases that assumption on. It's a regional trophy, and perhaps Arsenal that season (they were European Champions) were able to win it with a weakened line up, but that doesn't mean it's not a senior tournament within the Women's game. Gefetane (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I know nothing about women football other than if its related to Glasgow City so cannot comment, Clavdia does. Regional isn't the issue only whether its senior, if its senior it should be included if not then it shouldn't. Given the sources that cover it never mention these cups there is an issue and we need to address why.Blethering Scot 22:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Here's a photo gallery from the match. I'm no expect on Women's football, but I know Kelly Smith isn't a reserve player! :-) Gefetane (talk) 22:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This also seems to indicate it is a senior tournament: "Arsenal Ladies lifted their second trophy of the season with a 2-0 win over Millwall in the London FA Women's Cup Final. Our ladies already have the FA Women's Premier League Cup in the trophy cabinet this season, and are top of the table and in both the FA and UEFA Cup finals." Gefetane (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

First team players can play in reserve matches, heck you dont have to be under-20 to play in an spl under 20 match. Im more convinced by the latter. Don't get me wrong I'm not opposing these being added just that unless we have one single source stating them and we don't then we have to be careful and make sure we are right. I think we probably are, but Ill wait to see what Clavdia says as i cant read minds, would like to but i cant.Blethering Scot 22:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

is there are an arsenal source for the last cup, if there is then it might mention all cups.Blethering Scot 23:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This article states "No top-level team has been documented as winning six or more senior competitions in one season", however in the 1920-21 season,

1.The Irish League

2.The Irish Cup

3.County Antrim Shield

4.City Cup

5.GoldCup

6.Belfast Charity Cup

7.Alhambra Cup

Am I missing something? 188.28.213.67 (talk) 20:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Were they all senior i.e. non junior or reserve cups and do you have a source for that. Thanks in advance.Blethering Scot 20:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The source I used was WP...the first five are senior cups,,,not sure about the other two (wp seems to think they are)..188.28.213.67 (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Im assuming you mean 1921-22. We cant source to wiki and i don't know anything about Northern Irish football to work out the two that aren't wikilinked. Someone here probably will though or have an idea. If they have then its fine but their site[18] doesn't mention some of those cups so might need looked in to whether they were senior cups. To be honest im not the person to find out but hopefully someone can clarify.Blethering Scot 20:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This article to me has the feel of

WP:OR, I just threw Linfield up as an example, are we going to equate the FA_Community_Shield with the UEFA Champions League, are there soccer leagues which have trophies like Rugby union for nearly every match? 188.28.213.67 (talk

) 20:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Its notable achievements, the

WP:OR in its previous form where non notable achievements and cups were included it certainly was. Currently it's probably six maximum but you would have to be playing at a very high level to be eligible for those cups and even then its not been proven to be done, some like Barcelona have come very close. I have my doubts over Linfield due to them not even mentioning some of those cups, which im guessing some may not be senior, my doubts are over the Belfast Charity Cup & the Alhambra Cup. Come back with a reliable source and then we will include. The article has been discussed to death and only info backed up by reliable sources are included and they must be notableBlethering Scot

21:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting.Blethering Scot 21:10, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

<reduce indent> We can't use wikipedia as a source. As Linfield themselves don't cite these tournaments we can pretty much discount it I think. Pretty Green (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the lack or reliability of wikipedia, what is the definition of "top-tier trophies" in this context? Is it defined by FIFA, or another external body? 188.28.46.97 (talk) 11:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Truth be told I don't think we're working from a set definition that would fit every case. However, I would say any competition for first teams (ie not reserves) which does not exclude top tier sides organised by: FIFA; a continental confederation; a national federation; a regional sub-federation (eg those that would enter the

UEFA Regions Cup); the recognised national football leagues. I'd still want to leave open exceptions for competitions that are generally recognised as a top level competition within that country, if this is sourceable. Pretty Green (talk

) 16:34, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Any thoughts? Gefetane (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Look at those fat trophies. :) I'd say Linfield should be included, that season got much coverage. You find many articles about what that season. To be honest, to win one match trophies like super-cups and in my view even the whole club world cup are not really major achievements. -Koppapa (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

With the possible exception of the 'Alhambra Cup' and the 'Charity Cup', the other five certainly count as competitive senior level trophies. Not sure why Linfield hasn't been added into the five trophy category (the first to achieve the feat, which they seemed to have repeated). Snobbery towards a perceived inferior football backwater perhaps? You can only beat who's put in front of you! Gefetane (talk) 10:46, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The honours are listed on the IFA Premiership website here, whilst an official club source cites them here. and describes them here. Gefetane (talk) 10:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

By virtue of the league champions competing in the 'Alhambra Cup' and the 'Charity Cup', can they not be considered senior competitions? 188.28.127.138 (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

What snobbery, If the did they did it they did it and we if sourced should include it, not the most helpful of comments. Unless we can find information about those latter cups then how can we include them, IFA site doesn't mention them and neither does Linfield's own honours section, what were they. It should be all senior cups mainly because its the fairest and most inclusive and back in the day UEFA tournaments either did not exist or were not as prominent whereas a lot of old cups were. Im not seeing a major issue here, if its verifiable and senior include if non senior and unverifiable exclude.Blethering Scot 18:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Gefetane - they've not been put up because your posts are the first to provide any citations! It definitely counts as a '4' season trophy under the suggested level I put above: the national league; the two national cups; one regional FA cup. In addition to these four, only the City Cup is listed are listed in the 1921-22 season on the Linfield and the IFA website. I'm not sure about the Alhambra Cup and Charity Cup, which aren't listed on these sites, and only appear on the one picture. On another website the Irish Intermediate Cup is listed as one of the seven one, but this appears to be a B team trophy and indeed Linfield's own website accredits this win to the 'Linfield Swifts' who appear to be a 'B' team. If we can find more info about the City Cup and the other two cups then we could definitely increase beyond 4, but I'd be keen on not letting any old trophy count.

There's also the 1961-62 season, where Linfield again won seven trophies. I'm struggling to determine the value of these trophies though. Again, there are the same 4 trophies listed above (league title, Irish Cup, Gold Cup, County Antrim Shield). There was then the North-South Cup which, while short-lived, would seem to be reasonable to include (I agree with 188.28.127.138 that we should include Super Cups). This again leaves the City Shield and something called the Ulster Cup. Can you shed any light?

To clarify: the 21-22 season is definitely a minimum '4' trophier, and the 61-62 is definitely a minimum '5' trophier. I'd like to know more about the other competitions before being comfortable including them. Pretty Green (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry where was the Super Cups comment, and what do you mean.Blethering Scot 18:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Linfield Swifts were a reserve side, there is no doubt on that.Blethering Scot 18:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is a reliable 3rd party source which states Linfield have twice won seven trophies in one season 188.29.225.178 (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There is little info at all on the Alhambra Cup, which seems only to have been contested on two occasions (Linfield and Cliftonville winning it), and the Belfast Charity Cup (whether or not it was competitive). The other two, that are not current competitions (City and Gold Cups) ran for decades and appear to be competitive, senior trophies. I think an entry on two FIVE trophy seasons, including the 20s one and the 60s one, is justifiable based on the sources. Personally, I don't think the Alhambra and Charity can be included. Gefetane (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

This all hinges on wikipedia's definition of what a major trophy is, and based on previous edits would appear that we don't have one, It appears that the league champions competing in a competition doesn't give it enough seniority to count and and we are using

WP:OR to define what a senior trophy is. 188.29.225.178 (talk

) 19:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Senior is not Or, neither is Reserve or B football. But its clear to me where someone is going with this.Blethering Scot 19:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ive reverted this[19] for a number of reasons, but the one ill disclose here is that we or Wikipedia as the user states have not decided anything we are discussing and when the governing body and the club miss these cups then its clear something isnt correct. The comment Wp chooses not to accept it isnt relevant as we haven't accepted or not accepted anything. Once we have then its relevant and likely well need to look at it.Blethering Scot 19:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any protest regarding the five trophies (excluding the charity and alhambra one)? By the way, the snobbery comment was tongue in cheek. Gefetane (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It may have been tongue and cheek but given recent comments by someone not far from here I'm not taking any comments along those lines lightly. I have no objection what so ever, i dont have any objection to the seven if it can be proven but given Linfield and the governing body don't cover it i have severe doubts even the club count it, which casts doubt over the validity of the claim. That could be solved by contacting the club for more information whether they give it all is another story.Blethering Scot 19:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Are we currently working under the assumption that The Belfast Telegraph , Linfield (Twice), Coleraine fc and Sky Sports are not reliable sources? 188.29.70.214 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

No but we are assuming other things at least i am. For the wider audience as far as im aware the Sky Sports is good although I'm unaware of the source before now. There is no issue with the sources, however there are issues with the validity of the claim plus whether we accept the claim from there. Linnfield's own honours section does not acknowledge it and neither do the governing body. Linfield have Linfield Rangers & Linfield Swifts which are the reserve and youth teams of this club, and i think the best course of action would be to contact the club to verify the validity of the claim.Blethering Scot 20:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The Linfield website acknowledges the seven trophy winning seasons on 49 pages, and I have yet to see the achievement attributed to "teams" rather than "team" 188.29.70.214 (talk) 20:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Im really not interested because there is a conflict on the linfield website rather clearly, ive said if its accepted as a valid claim then its fine but eithier way there is an issue that needs addressed here whether you like it or not. We have to be 100% sure and as Linfields honours section clearly casts some doubt i have emailed them to ask for clarification, it does no harm to the credibility of this encyclopedia to wait and verify.Blethering Scot 21:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to park this until you have your response 188.29.93.235 (talk) 21:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime

Ive emailed them to two relevant addresses on their site bit one was undeliverable which tells you a lot, but whether the other reply's or not is another matter. We have options list the five or list the seven with a footnote explaining the status of the Alhambra cup and charity cup are unknown. I feel the Sky Source stands up for itself the best but ill leave the rest up to everyone else, ill let you know if they reply but otherwise im bowing out as this really isnt in my general interest scope. Sorry.Blethering Scot 21:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

<reduce indent> There's no question that Linfield won seven trophies that season. Who have you emailed anyway? And why?

The issue is twofold. First, it's whether these trophies were all won by Linfield's first team. A source which appears to be a pdf of a Linfield FC publication list's only five first team trophies from 21-22, while granting one to their reserve team (I refer to this soruce here, alongside the page from the IFA website above) in which the Linfield Swifts (aka Linfield Reserves) won the 'Intermediate Cup', with only five trophies listed for the first team that season. No-one's doubting that Linfield won seven trophies of a sort from that season, but it's reasonable to question whether we should be including trophies that are not even considered serious enough by Linfield to make their own honours list.

There's also nothing

WP:OR about setting criteria for inclusion on a page. We should have thought about this previously, but we haven't. It wouldn't count as OR at all to limit to (clearly stated) criteria: restricting the list to a set of criteria is no different from restricting it to, say, association football

. Many many Wikipedia articles do likewise.

I'd be very unhappy about allowing any trophy at all. It paves the way for including friendly competitions, and competitions which had little meaning or value attached to them. This would drown the point of this page.

As for your references - yes, you're right, they're reliable sources. But, they also contradict other sources (such as the one linked above) and we should all be aware that a lot of news-type websites are prone to repeating interesting stories without fact checking.

I'd like to list Linfield under 'five trophies' for both seasons, with a note that (in addition) they won other friendly trophies. I'd then change the six or more to read that Barcelona have won six in a calendar year, and that Linfield won seven, though these include trophies that we know little about.

As for this 'no team has been documented as winning more than six': this was a fudge that I created, and is a crap sentence. What I mean is 'we don't know of a team that has won more than six'. I'd like someone to change it to a better phrasing, but I can't think of one. It's much more helpful to state your objections to a comment or question them, than to just tag them unhelpfully. Pretty Green (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why, well we want to know who actually won them, main Swifts or Rangers and the status of the competition, also why they don't include them on the page. I think thats fairly relevant and important information. And who ive emailed well clearly the best place would be the club themselves. Your saying they are friendly tournaments and we don't actually conclusively know that, thats something else i asked them. If this was a Scottish club i know a resource that would tells us but its not and without someone who is aware of something like that then quite frankly there is nothing wrong with asking questions. I prefer five as status is verifiable and no doubt over claim but Sky Sports is a very good source and in the absence of precise information well thats up to everyone else, i dont have any more time to spend on this.Blethering Scot 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok according to the reply i got it was Linfield and not the Swifts that won these trophies, they advise that the reason they are not on the honours page is because they have a lack of programming space. Without evidence to prove these were not serious cups i think we should include them per several reliable sources. Its easy to establish cups status these days but not back in the 1920's its an anomaly but not a reason for not including, the Sky Source should be included.Blethering Scot 17:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that you just add the material rather than being disruptive. Known doesn't need a tag if we know it should be included you've been asked to stop tagging to prove a point. Honestly just add the material.Blethering Scot 16:03, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

(I've moved this down the page to its own section to avoid confusion --Pretty Green (talk) 18:11, 28 August 2012 (UTC))

Can you provide a citation for this? Pretty Green (talk) 18:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The clubs records are here], although they claim five.for that season 188.29.225.178 (talk) 18:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

barcelona mentioning here is nothing more than a fan;s vandalism.. its over two seasons so no need to mention it in the article!remove it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.177.132 (talk) 05:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Barcelona won 4 trophies in the one season on 2 occasions recently (2009-10 and 2011-12). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.18.21.92 (talk) 05:08, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Funny how the whole world congratulates Bayern to the first German triple but wikipedia has credited four titles to them. It fit's the article, but the German Supercup is really of pretty low value. -Koppapa (talk) 06:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

IP enter incorrect data, Supercup 2012 (after 2011-12 season) and 2012-13 season are two different seasons. Bayern have a three trophies in 2013 season. Subtropical-man (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it's correct. Everybody is congratulating Bayern for the Treble (winning continental cup, national league and national cup), but they also won the supercup (which, obviously, doesn't count on the Treble). Supercups are the first competitions of their own country's season, kickstating them. So, the 2012 DFB-Supercup was the first tounament of the 2012-13 German season, 2010 Supertaça was the first tounament of the 2010-11 Portuguese season, etc.

Fifa.com states the same.ABC paulista (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You wrong. Supercup 2012 is continuation of 2011-12 season (master of Bundesliga from 2011-12 season vs master of German Cup 2011-12 season). This is not part of 2012-13 season. Please see article 2012 DFL-Supercup, quote: "The 2012 DFL-Supercup was the 3rd DFL-Supercup, an annual football match contested by the winners of the previous season's Fußball-Bundesliga and DFB-Pokal competitions. It took place on 12 August 2012.[1] It featured Borussia Dortmund, winners of both the 2011–12 Fußball-Bundesliga and 2011–12 DFB-Pokal, and runners-up in the Bundesliga and DFB-Pokal Bayern Munich". Subtropical-man (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

You are based on what? Fifa.com and these sources say the opposite.

The supercup of one season happens with the champions of the previous season. Even the competition's article says it: "The 2012 DFL-Supercup was the 3rd DFL-Supercup, an annual football match contested by the winners of the previous season's Fußball-Bundesliga and DFB-Pokal competitions." Alhough, wikipedia's articles aren't considered reliable sources.ABC paulista (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the DFL_Supercup opens the season. -06:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I have made good faith edits to this article before regarding the 4-title seasons from FC Porto and FC Bayern. I agree that the Supercup opens the season, and the best argument, in my opinion, has not yet been presented. I think the Supercup should be considered the first official title of a season because the clubs who dispute the trophy do so using the players who are registered to the new opening season (transfers included). A club's squad can change drastically from the end of one season to the beggining of a new season at the Supercup. Cpfig (talk) 12:34, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Agreed.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 13:51, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

This is incorrect. The DFL-Supercup is a part of the previous season (as stated above) in the same way as the UEFA Supercup. It is contested between the winners of league and cup of the previous season (like the UEFA Supercup is contested between winners of CL and EL) and should therefore be considered an extension of the previous season. If Bayern win the FIFA Club World Cup, they will have a quintuplet of League, Cup, Champions League, UEFA Supercup and FIFA Club World Cup - all of which are part of the 2012/2013 season. At least that's my opinion.

And the FIFA Club World Cup happens in the middle of the next season. If some club wins it's national league and, consequently, classifies and wins next season's continetal cup, these trophies aren't considered part of the same season. The same logic applies to the continetal cup and club world cup. ABC paulista (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

When I first read the article, I got also confused by the criteria considered to group the titles. So I read the discussions and it appears that a lot of arguments about how a season should be defined. I belong to the group of those thinking it would be more logical to group the further titles related to the win of previous ones, i.e. link the super cup to the previous seasons. The two main recent examples are the famous sextuple of Barcelona in 2009-2010 but also the quadruple of the Bayern: instead of listing the 2012 DFL-Supercup (linked to the 2011-2012 season but opening the 2012-2013 season), I was expecting the 2013_UEFA_Super_Cup where Bayern won against Chelsea (related to their 2012-2013 season but listed as 2013-2014 season). Bayern however lost the 2013 DFL Supercup.

Since this article defines the seasons in one way, a logical proposal would be to write another article with the other definition, e.g. title won in one calendar year. This would list the sextuple of the Barca, and the quadruple of the Bayern as described above (and waiting for the upcoming 2013 FIFA Club World Cup if it could become a quintuple). With such a further article, a clear definition of the season or year in the introduction, and clear links between the two articles, the issues of the discussion would be mostly covered!

Another even more controversial suggestion would be to highlight somehow if the n-tuple of a team contains at least one continental cup or not, e.g. putting the performance of Valletta or Linfield in a kind of lower category since they don't won any European trophy these years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.198.64.20 (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

About Bayern, in almost all confederations the Supercup are considered the season-opener competitions That's why DFL-Supercup is listed but UEFA Super Cup isn't.

The DFB considered the 2012 DFL-Supercup the first competition of the 2012-13 German season, and UEFA considered the 2013 UEFA Super Cup as the start of the 2013-14 European season.

So, that's not "our" criteria. This is the criteria defined by the confederations, hence the official one.ABC paulista (talk) 22:22, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I get what you're saying about the continental cup thing, but this isn't meant to be a list of who has had the best achievement; it's about documenting what's happened. I think anyone reading this can judge that winning several local competitions in smaller nations may not be as big an achievement as winning the national league, national cup, a continental cup, and a super cup of some sort. --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 12:31, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Bt what's to stop spomeone adding the

2013 Uli Hoeneß Cup of 2013 Audi Cup to Bayerns record this season? -Koppapa (talk

) 07:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

They aren't official cups, not being organised by any confederation. And they don't belong to any season, since they're pre-season competitions. ABC paulista (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The preface of this article and others like it should be clear whether the "season" of one club frequently, occasionally, or never includes competitions that are in two different seasons of some other participants. Or whether competitions are commonly, usually, or always in the same season for all participants.

If few important competitions are in one season for some participants, another season for others, they may be named. --P64 (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a set criteria for the tournaments. If we restricted it to competitions organised by the National and Continental football associations, then we'd trim down the number of teams on this list. However, if that was a suggestion, it's probably one that I've support?

With regards to seasons - you've lost me there to be honest. To date, we've used the conventional season dates for the nation of the club in question. I don't think that it needs to be more complicated than that.

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 19:25, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Is some competition considered part of the 2011-2012 season by some its participants, part of the 2012 season by some, part of the 2012-2013 season by some? If so, then one club's winning a set of competitions including this one "all in one season" is less significant. If the participants agree about the seasons then one club's winning a set of them all in one season is more significant. Agreement about the seasons, or not, is one matter of context that makes winning some number "in one season" different from winning "in a row", or in a calendar year that does not define a season. --P64 (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - the

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 11:46, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Also one-game trophies are generally not considered part of these achievements as this TalkSport article says http://talksport.com/football/quadruple-man-united-liverpool-arsenal-and-chelsea-all-fell-short-can-man-city-do-it Adam4267 (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2014 (:UTC)

I've just seen that one of the sources on this page (Sky Sports ten successful seasons) lists Al Ahly's 'quintuple' as a treble http://www.skysports.com/interactive/top_tens_story/0,25722,15881_5006367,00.html Adam4267 (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, the article lists titles, not quadruples etc. -Koppapa (talk) 09:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - the point was that as the definitions of quadruple, quintuple can be subjective, we would go for titles. I'd support a move, if others were willing, to tighten the criteria for inclusion to: national cups, national league cups, national 'super cups', top tier league, official continental competitions, Intercontinental Cup/FIFA Club World Cup?

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 18:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

The Supercups, Intercontinental Cups and FIFA Club World Cups are not counted as part of a treble but they are as part of a quadruple? WTF? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.71.74 (talk • contribs)

This isn't a list of 'quadruples' --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 16:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Since when? The title is "List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season". LOL

Think about it a little, eh? --

Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk

) 08:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't get it. But whatever. I have to agree though, the article is weak and i don't really like it either. -Koppapa (talk) 14:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It's you who doesn't get it.

The treble consists on winning the main 3 throphies available for the team (since winning 3 titles isn't that notable), but winning four or more official titles is rare, no matter the weight of the title. That's why Supercups, Intercontinental Cups and FIFA Club World Cups are counted here, but not there. ABC paulista (talk) 20:12, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. Isn't that notable? It happens every year, doesn't it? LOL In the Treble page it isn't saying that the FIFA Club World Cup doesn't count, by the way.

It's consensus and some sources agree with that. FIFA Club World Cup was listed but someone removed, but you don't find it listed there.

And please, sign your comments. ABC paulista (talk) 20:23, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

And so what? Why should I sign my comments? As if signing my comments would make you knowing who I am. It's consensus and some sources agree with that?

Well, I can show you a source: http://www.uefa.com/uefachampionsleague/news/newsid=1490968.html And the Treble's talk page contains the consensus: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Treble_%28association_football%29#International_trebles. ABC paulista (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello. While on the English Wikipedia, it is requested that all editors communicate in English, so the rest of the community can understand what you are saying. A machine translation of the collapsed content above revealed some foul language. Please keep your comments

civil. Thanks, Mz7 (talk

) 21:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The Supercups and Intercontinental Cups are not counted as part of a treble but they are as part of a quadruple? WTF? Explain me this, then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Portuguese_football_champions#Doubles.2C_Trebles_and_Quadruples.

If they aren't part of treble they are not part of quadruple. 85.246.161.111 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying here, but according to these guys they are part of a quadruple but not part of a treble, which doesn't make any sense. Why did you change what was written? A quadruple doesn't count as a quadruple and a treble but only as a quadruple! If it wasn't for me you'd never know that page existed! If they aren't part of a quadruple why didn't you change that? LOL Answer these questions two, if you can: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_Portuguese_football_champions.

That article shouldn't even mention trebles or quadruples. It's about champions of Portuguese league. 85.246.161.111 (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't I that created it. In that case, why did you change it? LOL You deleted the most part of it! LOL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.75.207 (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated content got deleted because it's present in other articles. 85.246.161.111 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Anishgeorge1997 (talk) 06:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite

reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk

) 07:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111212074122/http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Fclubs%2Fmanchesterunited%2F to http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Fclubs%2Fmanchesterunited%2F

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.

• 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.—

This edit request to List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

| Barcelona (2) | Spain | UEFA | 2011–12 |

It is done Alexis Ivanov (talk) 10:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the article's criteria, a club has to win the top tier of its league system (La Liga in Barcelona's case) to be added in these lists. That wasn't the case for Barcelona in 2011-12. ABC paulista (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Already done

re

}} 20:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111212074122/http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Fclubs%2Fmanchesterunited%2F to http://www.timesplus.co.uk/tto/news/?login=false&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thetimes.co.uk%2Ftto%2Fsport%2Ffootball%2Fclubs%2Fmanchesterunited%2F

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

The title of the article does not mention any requirement that the teams be in the top tier of their league system; could teams that have won 4 titles in a season, not including the top-flight league, be listed on a separate page? Perhaps require that the teams in question win every competition that they entered that season if we want to narrow it down.

Full disclosure: I am a fan of Hereford FC (England) who have a chance of a Midland League Premiership, Hereford Cup, Midland League Cup, and FA Vase quadruple, so I am not exactly unbiased here; I would welcome opinions from those less biased than myself. Surely it isn't something that happens all that often, even in the lower leagues? PsyMar (talk) 21:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

That was a convention aopted many years ago, since it's very common to have such occurences in lower divisions, since many countries have plenty of cups for those lower division's teams, and adding those would fill the article with examples that receive little to no attention of media and/or society, and would make the subject much less notable and noteworthy than it is nowadays, what could make the list fail

WP:NOTABILITY. ABC paulista (talk

) 23:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I have just modified one external link on List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season. 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/20120624201431/http://www.turkfutbolu.net/1999-00tsyd/1999-00tsydfb-gs.html to http://www.turkfutbolu.net/1999-00tsyd/1999-00tsydfb-gs.html

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.

• 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) 09:12, 20 May 2017 (UTC)