Talk:The Quadruple

	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Football This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles

What is it exactly?

I'm not sure about referencing this as a Trophy in comparision with legitimate competitions. If a reference could be found describing why Celtic won it and what it actually is I'd be happy to leave it up.Neiljbradley 11:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I helped write part of the original but in hindsight I don't think it's really needed. Yes a near quadruple is impressive. But the three teams who could be listed are all ready listed for their near trebles. After all, their near trebles were a lot more interesting. ManU won the Treble but missed the quad when they lost in the League Cup quarter-finals. Chelsea won the Cup and League Cup but missed the league by a good 8 points and only made it to the Champions League Semi-finals. And Bayern Munich actually came the closest; they won the Bundesliga and the second cup in Germany, but lost in the finals of both the German Cup and the Champions League. Anyway, my point is that in this case, I don't think we should list the near quadruples. But before I delete, I wanted to get some feedback. Anyone? Nygoodliving 02:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want it in the article, please justify it being in there. Quad means 4 and the article is talking about winning trophies, the Copa America is one trophy, however often you win it. Kie (talk) 12:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the following text

• The
  Portuguese Liga
• The
  Portuguese Cup
• The Portuguese
  SuperCup Cândido de Oliveira
• The UEFA Champions League

Firstly porto did not win the 2004 Portuguese cup. Secondly the SuperCup Cândido de Oliveira is the equivalent of the community shield. Now admittedly Portugal doesn't have a second cup competition therefore making a quadruple like celtic's impossible but nevertheless I don't think the text should remain. (Statto999 (talk) 13:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"At present - in the majority of leagues - The Quadruple is the ultimate achievement, consisting of every major top tier trophy a club can win in a single season. Yet it remains a practical impossibility in some countries, such as Spain and Italy, where there is only one major domestic cup competition."

The majority of leagues don't have four major trophies available, so it's hardly an achievement if it's outright impossible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.107.222 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads a little

What are you on about son? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.107.222 (talk) 15:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with "John" that this article isn't going anywhere, esp. as the subject is unofficial. Is it worth trying to improve it, really? bigpad (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neither Original resarch or "unofficial" The term "quadruple" is as legitimate as "treble" and "double" when referring to football trophies won in a season IMHO. It is a feat that is almost never achieved in a season but has been deemed possible prior to the season's conclusion in recent years in the (English) Premier League (see links below for use by newspapers) http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/chelsea/article508085.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/premier_league/article1652832.ece http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article1438293.ece The term Quadruple is clearly an accepted term. If more teams had achieved it then there would be more written about it. As it is Trebles and Doubles just happen more often.

I would be interested to hear John's and Bigpad's responses —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto999 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC) See also http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/football/article2132317.ece for use of "Quadruple" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Statto999 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, simply because The Times uses that term doesn't mean that it's well known. The article is limited in how far it can go, given that a treble is very hard to do and almost unknown. It's tagged as containing unverifiable claims (i.e 'lack of research' as mentioned above), which needs to be attended to as the item of greatest urgency. Still, there is no reason why the article shouldn't exist. Its importance in the football world is questionable, though. bigpad (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bigpad I'm not sure about several things you say. Number 1 is the so called "importance" of the article. There are many articles of dubious importance on Wikipedia and how exactly do you determine importance? I would argue that the quadrpule page is somewhat more relevant to the football world than the

Ali Dia

page.

Number 2 I agree that the article is limited in how far it can go but is that really a barrier? There is not much more to be said about Wanderers F.C. but I wouldn't dispute whether that article needed to exist.

Number 3 could you define "unofficial"

Number 4 could you be a bit more specific as to which claims are unverifiable. There is little doubt that celtic did win 4 trophies in 1967 a feat which has been referred to as "the Quadrpule" see above.

My final point is what burdern of evidence do you actually want? I've cited above 4 examples of the use of quadruple/Quadruple. Do you want me to go to the telegraph the independent etc and site them. I would have thought a "reputable" newspaper's usage would be enough but are you saying that it has to be 3 or 4?

I agree that it does need a bit of work on it. Perhaps you could give us a few pointers?

(Statto999 (talk) 18:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hi again. I'm not questioning its right to exist; why should I? Celtic's 1967 feat is definitely notable but let's keep it in context. I repeat, the major point about this article is that is remains relatively unimportant inasmuch as the Quadruple is an impossibility in two of the world's leading football nations, Spain and Italy, as the text indicates. And as to newspapers referring to it, how else can they do so easily: "the Quad", the "Four-timer", "the Foursome" (!!)? As to unofficial, aren't the double and treble unofficial, too? They're merely common ways to indicate winning two or three trophies in the same season. As to unverifiable research, I didn't comment on that and recent edits have added citations, which is grand. So "John's" points were well made, and clearly well taken as the article has improved. bigpad (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The International section certainly looks like original research - there is not a single citation. I added in Arsenal LFC's achievement as that certainly has been described as a Quadruple in reliable sources such as the FA and The Times. As for the rest - it depends whether you count minor trophies or supercups in (I wouldn't, but that's my personal opinion) - a reliable source is needed to back this claim up as well. Qwghlm (talk) 09:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The part about their Community Shield win needs removed. At least celtc's Glasgow Cup wasn't a one match trophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.97.223 (talk) 02:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the intro slightly. There is no reference given which offers a definition of the term. A quick search of usage in online sources shows that although it's most often used in the sense of 'Champions league + 3 domestic trophies', there are plenty of other examples. See for example, [1] [2] [3] --hippo43 (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think being more vague about it certainly has its benefits. It's just a number after all. Does anyone support a move to

^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 21:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I dont think this article should go the same road as the the Treble article because it's too inclusive of Mickey Mouse trebles... There's only one real quadruple and we all know it, and its not just winning four trophies in one season, it has to be the top four trophies. For example doing the same edits to Quintuple like "it means winning the quadruple and the fifa club world cup all within a single season or calendar year" to"it usually means..." would include Liverpools 5 trophies in 2001. chandler ··· 21:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SFB it would make more sense to do what you suggest. It would make things clearer and more "encyclopedic" Statto999 (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SFB, I also agree that it should be renamed.

Chandler, I realise that most often, the Quadruple means the 4 biggest trophies, but there aren't sources which support the definition. Per

WP:V, we would need references, i.e secondary sources detailing how the term is used, for such a narrow definition. --hippo43 (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

The flip side of it is this Chandler: if we define it so certainly (and remember not one source has explicitly defined that "The Quadruple consists of X") is it really a notable enough term to stand in its own right? What makes it more notable than

The Treble

was) we see people adding various types of trebles anyway.

The only two decent solutions I can think of are (a) detailing all multiple wins of that number in clearly defined and explained sections, or (b) making a dab page providing a single sentence definition of the term and adding links to sections/paragraphs of team articles which discuss those victories. A single decent, explicit citation has continually failed to appear for all these articles.

^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 00:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

This is NOT a major competition. It takes about a week to play and gets practically no coverage outside of countries that have clubs participating. The Emritates Cup or Amsterdam Tournament may as well be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.230.168 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, we all have our own point of view. No newspapers actually seem to focus entirely on what "The Quadruple" means or could mean so we continue down this unenlightened path of

original research. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 01:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

I propose this be merged with the Quadruple, since both are rather short articles and could easily be merged into one coherent article defining the different achievements in football. This would also open op for the inclusion of the sextuple, which was deleted rather inconsistently.Sandman888 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]