Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of English football clubs by elite honours won/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was archived by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of English football clubs by elite honours won

• Featured list candidates/List of English football clubs by elite honours won/archive1

Nominator(s): Madshurtie (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Since this article's FLC

Comments I expect there may be some differences of opinion around the concept of what constitutes an "elite honour" (for example I am old enough to remember the Football League Centenary Trophy being played and find it very hard to think that anyone would regard it as an "elite" honour) but for now I am going to steer clear of that and concentrate only on style, etc.....

• "League football began the next decade " => "League football began in the next decade"
• "The Football League was renamed the First Division" - not really accurate, the Football League was not re-named, rather it expanded to two divisions
• "In 1985, the Full Members Cup and Football League Super Cup were created as substitutes for UEFA competitions" - at this point UEFA competitions haven't been discussed, so this would probably sit better further down
• "The UEFA Cup Winners' Cup, featuring the winners of national knockout competitions was created in 1960" - you need another comma after "competitions" to close the clause
• "See adjacent references for confirmation of the data in the tables." - don't think this is needed
• "Numbers in bold are record totals for that competition." - presumably in the case of European competitions, the bold figures are records for English clubs in the relevant competition - best to clarify this
• "Clubs are organized by the leftmost column" => "Clubs are organised by the leftmost column"
• Note B doesn't specify the level at which Cardiff play, but note C does specify the level at which Swansea play. They also aren't consistent in the date/season format for the honour they won

That's it for now, may spot more later..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@

last discussed

on the talk page include the FLCT, but feel free to suggest better criteria if you think of any. As for the bullets:

1. Done
2. Reworded
3. UEFA is mentioned in the first paragraph, and the FMC and FLSC are in this paragraph because they were Football League organized. I could flip the order of the second and third paragraphs to account for your comment, but just wanted to double check you still think this needs changing.
4. Done
5. Done. It was an attempt to connect the Key references with the data in the tables, but I've deleted it for now.
6. Reworded
7. Done. Both
   MOS:COMMONALITY
   , but I've switched it for article consistency.
8. Reworded. I think the dates were based on the articles themselves, but I've fixed it for this article.

Let us know if you think of anything else :-) Madshurtie (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to wait and see what other people think about the issue of defining "elite honours" before I conclude my review, if that is OK......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have concerns over the "elite honour" moniker as well. It's really not up to Wikipedia to determine what an "elite" honour is, it would be better to stick to perhaps two lists, one which lists domestic honours and one which lists European/World honours. I googled "Ipswich" + "Elite honour" and got nothing, even though we won the FA Cup and the UEFA Cup. I'm not saying that's the definitive guide on things, just it's not a phrase I'm used to seeing associated with my club honours. So perhaps it's not quite right. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, it's not so much the use of the wording "elite honours" specifically, but more how the list of honours included in the article is defined. Several of the trophies included (the FL Centenary Trophy and Super Cup in particular) are/were regarded as somewhere between not-very-prestigious and total jokes, and I'm unsure whether they should be included here, although having said that I can't think of any way to define the trophies included in such a list which is any more robust than the one here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Seem to have got two opposite comments there. I think The Rambling Man is saying it's better to have no arbitrary exclusions and to list all trophies; whereas ChrisTheDude is saying some of these trophies aren't notable enough, especially given the title, so we should exclude more trophies. If I've misunderstood anyone let me know!

• @The Rambling Man: "Elite" was meant to be a one-word way of summarizing the lead paragraph's highest-level criteria, but if you think it's misleading or POV, that's a fair comment. I just want to confirm the specific changes you're recommending, since they might be pretty major:

Listing all honours may be the most NPOV way of handling things, but (assuming we only listed trophies run by major bodies and exclude women's and youth cups) it would mean including a lot of lower-division trophies,^[a] some of which have almost entirely exclusive lists of winners from the winners currently in this article. The title would have to change to something like "List of English men's football clubs by FA, UEFA, or FIFA honours won".

Splitting it into two pages (FA and UEFA/FIFA) as well could work, though it would only make it slightly more manageable because the UEFA/FIFA list is much smaller than a complete FA list. A UEFA page would also overlap a lot with the List of UEFA club competition winners page. It might be a good idea anyway though.

So just checking the specifics there. :-) I might have to de-FLC this article before such major changes.

• @
  WP:LEADFORALIST
  specifically says "don't leave readers confused about the list's inclusion criteria or have editors guessing as to what may be added to the list"). Let me know whether you oppose the page as is.

Madshurtie (talk) 12:34, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to the point I raised, one suggestion might be to include only those competitions which football annuals consider notable enough to include. I just checked one of my many editions of the Nationwide Football Annual and it only lists EFL/Premier League, FA Cup, League Cup, Intercontinental/World Club Cup, European Cup/Champions League, Fairs Cup/UEFA Cup/Europa League, Cup Winners' Cup, Super Cup, Anglo-Italian Cup, Full Members Cup and Charity/Community Shield. As far as I can see the Centenary Tournament and FL Super Cup literally aren't mentioned anywhere in the entire book), but then I don't really know how this could be expressed in the lead without resorting to simply saying "this list is restricted to competitions widely considered notable"..........? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: I suspect basing notability on a reliable source is going to be opposed by other editors, since that was the approach of the article when it last failed FLC. The article used a broadsheet newspaper source, which had narrower notability standards than the Nationwide Football Annual. An unfortunate but inevitable trait of reliable source honours lists is they never entirely agree over what's notable. That said, if everyone agrees this is the way through FLC this time, I will implement it. Madshurtie (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure it failed last time (more than nine years ago?!) because it was based on an RS, I thought it just petered out, mainly because a suitable title couldn't be determined. I think a reliance on RS, maybe a superset of two or three RS, along with an explicit definition in the lead, should be fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be an issue about whether a trophy not included in the RS should go in the article. The FLC nominator then said they thought the article needed more work/thinking about. Digging through a few RSs, they just seem to list honours, rather than actually defining a major honour, so I'm not sure what definition we'd put in the lead. I guess we could say "this list reflects the major honours specified by Phil McNulty of the BBC" or something, but is that going to breech

WP:BALANCE given that only one or two other sources have the same list? For example, some include shields or the League Super Cup (even second division and regional league wins appear in one!). Madshurtie (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Having considered ChrisTheDude and The Rambling Man's useful comments, I increasingly think that The Rambling Man's first suggestion to list all FA/EFL/PL and UEFA/FIFA honours is the best NPOV move, similar to the featured article List of UEFA club competition winners.

This article could be renamed to List of English men's clubs by FIFA, UEFA, and FA honours won, and composed of four sections: FIFA and UEFA honours; FA honours (highest-qualification); FA honours (lower-qualification); Combined totals. The first FA group would be similar to the honours currently in the article, and the second FA group would be all the competitions a club wouldn't be in if it qualified for a first group competition.^[a] At least this way there would be no argument over whether the list is major/elite enough.

Since this would require time and some major edits, I'll delist the article from FLC first. If anyone has any comments on this proposal or thinks it's a terrible idea, let me know before I delist and ruin everything! Madshurtie (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Giants2008 (Talk) 22:14, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]