Talk:List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won/Archive 3

1985–86 Full Members Cup

@Madshurtie: @Mountaincirque: Another observation, is it true that the very first edition of the Full Members Cup did not include the top 6 teams because they played in the English Super Cup instead? If that is the case, technically the first edition of the Full Members Cup was not a cup for the elite teams? Because they weren't able to enter. I haven't really been following all the discussions though so apologies if this situation has already been resolved above. Hashim-afc (talk) 23:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Looks like it wasn't the top six, but the six who would have qualified for UEFA competitions. I guess it depends on how we define elite (which should be specified in the intro, but currently isn't). If we're saying all competitions where the club wouldn't be playing in a different one if they had performed better, then yeah it looks like the FMC wasn't elite that season. If we're saying any competition that a top division team qualifies for is elite, well the FMC had at least two top division teams that season. I'd say the best bet is just to put a note in the Key about that season. That seems far less controversial than removing the whole competition or removing that one season from Chelsea's totals. Madshurtie (talk) 10:15, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: On the topic of what constitutes an elite cup, do you have an opinion on any of the cups talked about in the Additional Cups section above? Madshurtie (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: @Mountaincirque: @Davefelmer: I think these cups seem to be invitational with random teams participating, except the Watney Cup but that cup wasn't open to teams in European competition so I don't think it would count as 'elite', although you could say the same about Europa league so it's a bit confusing. By the way out of interest, why did Arsenal, Man Utd, Tottenham and Liverpool never play in the Full Members Cup? Hashim-afc (talk) 16:16, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: How about the Anglo-Italian League Cup? That one appears to involve the winners of the Coppa Italia versus the winners of the EFL Cup (initially) and the FA Cup. According to four-four-two, Arsenal turned down the Full Members Cup in the first season because they thought it was beneath them, and the others qualified for the Super Cup. Dunno about the other seasons, but probably similar reasons. Madshurtie (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Hashim on this, as for the Anglo-Italian Cup, do the relevant clubs list them as honours on any official mediums? Is there proof of its official competitiveness i.e. not a friendly or uncompetitive game? Davefelmer (talk) 07:25, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ongoing-table justification

I'm unsure of the justification for the new table on "Clubs by elite, ongoing, multi-club honours won", this seems a little like original research and the title is long-winded. You seem to have made editorial decisions on what to include i.e. no European Cup Winner's Cup (defunct) and no European Super Cup (one game), this is edging towards a major/minor debate which is why the main table was made inclusive of all honours a few years ago. Another complication I think you have missed is that the European Super Cup was officially a two-legged affair until 1997, though some earlier matches were only one leg, for example Villa beat Barcelona over 2 legs in 1982 (1982 European Super Cup). Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I had two motivations: firstly, there seem to be several news lists that exclude two-team cups, so this seemed to be a category that had special notability; secondly, I was thinking about how to precisely classify trophies for this page, and elite cups at the highest level with several entrants seemed an interesting list that wikipedia currently doesn't have. I feel like I've defined it clearly enough that it avoids the old arguments over what should be included, and it doesn't replace the other list, it just complements it. As for the other complication, hopefully I cleared it up after changing it from multi-round to multi-club. If you're still opposed to it, you're welcome to remove it. Madshurtie (talk) 15:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I can see why you have placed it in there and you've done a good job. My main issue is that it does not show any new content from the table above, it simply excises certain parts of club records based on whether competitions are active and/or super cups. Let's take an example, you have decided that only the European Cup is the elite top-level cup for Europe but have not included the European Cup Winner's Cup, which was a much higher profile trophy than the Europa League and only open to national cup-winners - by your criteria that means they qualified as the best side in each country above all others, so there is a strong argument for inclusion of that trophy. My gut reaction is that I can see what you are doing but it opens a huge can of worms about what should be included and devalues trophies that were quite high profile at the time by the fact they have later been merged into the Europa League. My vote would be to delete, sorry, the articles you link show the difficulty of 'major' 'minor' definitions as there are sources going both ways, which is why this page went down the route of listing all significant honours rather than cherry-picking. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 11:33, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: The new content it shows is just the totals columns. I was interested in what the totals are when you don't include two-side cups (and discontinued ones to a lesser extent), and, while I know those media sources are inconsistent, it seems they are also interested in those types of totals. Whether that's enough new content to justify inclusion, I don't know. To some extent, cherry-picking is what this article does, since we've currently gone down a route of including elite-ish (mostly but not entirely trophies for which there isn't a higher alternative), non-county, non-youth, mens, football association trophies, when there's a bunch of broader or narrower possible inclusion criteria. I'm not sure having a narrower table without ongoing trophies or supercups is any more or less arbitrary, it's just different. Madshurtie (talk) 12:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll leave it to your call unless there are other editors who want to express an opinion on this. I'm an inclusionist on Wikipedia generally so I lean away from distinguishing between major/minor honours where possible, which this seems to be if not in name. I can see why it is interesting but I feel that if people can see all trophies won above they can make their own minds up as to whether certain sides totals are 'skewed' by having won hatfuls of charity shields. It seems unfair on the five English sides to have won Cup Winner's Cups that their honours aren't listed for the reason that the competition was later merged with the UEFA Cup, the Cup Winner's Cup was different to the European Cup but not necessarily inferior to it as club's qualified by being cup winners, by definition there is no higher competition to qualify for - it's just cup qualification rather than league. I'm tying myself in knots just discussing it which I why my opinion is to bench this table as it is too complicated to curate and other people will come along wanted their UEFA/CWC/World Club Cups adding on. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 12:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, I quite like the why not both approach, and thought it would be clear to future editors which trophies go in which table. I don't really want to impose a table that you oppose. Should I put a call out on WT:FOOTY or somewhere to get enough editors to resolve this? Madshurtie (talk) 12:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you should continue to refine the idea and see where we get to? I wouldn't say I'm opposed, just cautious. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 13:34, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Final thought @Madshurtie: If they ended the European Cup next season in favour of a 'European League' then your table would logically exclude the European Cup. Why? My point is, I don't think it's fair to not list honours based on what is being run today. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 13:51, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If they created a European League, that would be a very different format that's less vulnerable to luck and arguably a better measure of quality. So it might not be very comparable to the European Cup, and the old European Cup might become less interesting to future readers. I certainly wouldn't exclude the old European Cup from the main table, but would it be that harmful to have a secondary table that shows totals without it? Madshurtie (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: Do you have any suggestions for refinements? I imagine the most obvious change would be to include discontinued cups (you'd get the recognition for the ECWC then), but that might make the table's existence less justified, since it's then more similar to the main table. Madshurtie (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that would be my main suggestion actually, to just exclude trophies where only two sides competed, so all Shields and UEFA Super Cup. One thought would be to re-order the top table somehow to present the information in a single table. You would have to change the association columns I think and present the data as Ongoing Competitions (Total) / Shields & Super Cups (Total) / Discontinued (Total) (Grand-total). Then you would in effect have the table you want in the first third and people could see all other honours too. [??] Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 14:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: Actually, having totals showing with and without the super cups and with and without the discontinued cups could be pretty interesting. I still quite like the subtotals in the first table showing the reader how domestic and european returns compare (and it seems to be a major point of interest in some famous rivalries such as MUFC-Liverpool and Arsenal-Chelsea). What do you think about organizing the third table according to your description and leaving the first table as is? Madshurtie (talk) 14:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Go for it, sounds good! Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 15:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: I've implemented it, though I had to split it into two tables because I wanted to give each discontinued cup its own column for the first time. Let me know what you think! Madshurtie (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: so much better than the previous one, it's logical to have both and now the discontinued honours are clearly noted for each club. A brief note on the main table to say "discontinued honours are listed in Table X below" wuld be nice to cross-link the tables a little. Great job Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 08:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted the ongoing honours table. It is basically no different to the table at the top of page minus 1 or 2 honours for one or two clubs. Furthermore, its unsourced, it was messy (clubs with less honours listed above clubs with more) and the table built in that didnt count the super cups was totally out of place. Yes, some media sources use that count (which is primarily only British as well, just to be clear), but a lot of these same publications, and other major ones, use the other count with super cups, i.e. BBC and Sky Sports . A lot of papers just seem to use either count depending on whats the better story at the time, for example you listed Goal.com as one of your sources yet here they are calling United the most decorated team when they won their 19th title in 2011 (putting them above Liverpool in total honours as well). So its not that many sources even use the count. But in any case, if you want to reflect it, then it should be where all relevant competitions to that count (not one game) are included, which would include the old UEFA Cup Winners Cup and Inter City Fairs Cup. Then there is the debate on whether the Europen Super Cup should go in as it used to be 2 games, and the Club World Cup goes in as its a multi-game competition. Davefelmer (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Hi Davefelmer, I put a fair amount of work into those two tables, and formed a limited consensus with Mountaincirque above, so I hope you don't mind my restoring them. The discontinued-honours table is especially important in my opinion, because the top two tables have eight discontinued trophies grouped into three columns (to save space), and the discontinued-honours table is the only reference on this page (or wikipedia) that concisely shows all the clubs alongside their haul of discontinued trophies. I strongly oppose removing the discontinued-honours table.

As for the ongoing-honours table, that one is less critical, but it pairs neatly with the discontinued-honours table, and it basically provides different totals to the reader from the top table. The ongoing-honours table is organized by the total of non-super cup trophies (as it says in the prose preceding it), because this total provides more distinction from the top table, and provides a similar count to several media sources. I don't understand your point about the goal.com source: that new link doesn't provide any totals other than the league; and nobody said Man U are behind Liverpool in total honours, nor do the totals in the table. The UCWC and ICFC are in the top table, the FCWC is not listed under Super Cups, and that's a fair point about whether the European Super Cup was a actually a super cup for its history, but it's simplest to classify it like this. Madshurtie (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Madshurtie: I agree with your revert on these deletions by Davefelmer. @Davefelmer: you should have debated/raised this before deleting a significant section of the article and leaving the article in a disorganised state. I have discussed this with Madshurtie as above and I do not see how the table excluding discontinued honours has a negative impact on the article, it simply provides an another viewpoint for readers to see the data presented, having the super cups in their own column is also neat as it allows subtotals without them for those interested. Please debate this further rather than edit warring? Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 13:39, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

OK guys, you are right. Maybe I was a bit quick to judge. One thing to make sure to add though is in the coloumn detailing the trophy hauls without super cups, the UEFA Cup Winners Cup should be inserted, as it currently isnt. This is an official honour, the second biggest one in Europe for many decades that eventually merged with the UEFA Cup. It was won once by United, twice by Chelsea, once by Arsenal, once by West Ham and once by Spurs. You can't have a list of non-super cup trophies without including it in my opinion. What do you think? Davefelmer (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

ALSO, pretty crucially, in the table of teams by ongoing honours won, a lot of clubs are in the wrong order, with those that won less ahead of those that won more. There are several situations like this in the table. We should look to rectify those. Davefelmer (talk) 07:33, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest, I do think the ongoing-table is less essential than the discontinued-table at this point, but I think it's fairly harmless keeping it for a different perspective.

The UEFA Cup Winners Cup is in the main (top) table. There are eight discontinued trophies on this page at the moment, it's going to get a bit controversial if we add one or two of them ad hoc to the ongoing-table. Also I don't know what we'd call it if it's no longer only ongoing competitions.

It mentions in the text before the ongoing-table that the clubs are listed by the order of the first "Total" column (the one excluding super cups). The only reason for this is because it's more different from the top table, to make this table more notable. It looks like the order is correct to me, though if you find any inaccuracies, corrections would be great. Madshurtie (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah I dont really see a purpose for that whole table either to be honest. It is virtually the same as the full one above. The perspective doesn't really change as the order of clubs is virtually identical and I'm worried it is too much original research since there are no sources. I think we should just remove it. It is also becomes a bit silly to include a table without super cups and not list one of the most prominent competitions that wasnt a super cup because it is defunct. If you wanted to have that table, maybe it would be better suited in the full list on the top of the page where any relevant competition that wasnt a super cup could be included (using sources).

As it stands, Spurs and Everton are below Villa despite having won more in the ongoing honours table, same with Wolves over Newcastle, Blackburn and Forest. Burnley and Derby should be higher than they are etc. The table isnt looking that good to be honest. Davefelmer (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Like I said, the sources for every competition are in the key, which is stated in the description before each table. We can add up the totals without sources, as per WP:CALC.

Your idea of separating the super cups in the top table instead does work (Mountaincirque also thought of it above), but then we lose the grouping by football associations. I'm not sure it's worth the trade off, which was why I wanted to do it in another table. Another idea is to replace it with a table just with alternative totals, such as with/without super cups, with/without discontinued trophies. I'd like to think about this idea a bit more first though.

You're still reading the table wrongly. It says in the description text, and I've mentioned twice above, that the table is not organized by the totals on the right, it's organized by the totals in the middle. The examples you're giving don't apply to the middle totals. Madshurtie (talk) 11:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It all just looks very messy with it being arranged by the middle colomn and the main totals in the wrong order. I don't agree with the look at all. Not to mention its all still completely unsourced. This is far too much original research for me. If you are going to make a table with a certain criteria then it should at least be followed through all the way. The discountinued honours table just doesnt work as well without any sources. I am thinking of taking this to the wiki football page to be honest, I appreciate you guys and Mountain are editing in good faith but wikipedia deals with sources, not personal projects. Davefelmer (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I've said twice now, and it is stated in the description before each table that the sources are in the Key. There you will find at least one inline citation for every competition on this page, showing all the winners of that competition. I've also mentioned we can add up the totals without sources, as per WP:CALC. If you'd read what I'm saying, it would save us both a lot of trouble. I honestly don't think WT:FOOTY are going to react very well if you start trying to tell them these tables have no sources when they do and you have been told they do. Madshurtie (talk) 08:13, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

As I said below, a source merely showing that games took place in the past doesnt prove anything. It doesnt show they were official or competitive honours. If the clubs themselves do not list them in their official honours count and neither do reliable media sites and papers then there are no grounds to include them as club honours regardless of you showing me they took place. You are completely twisting the meaning of WP:CALC to suit your own agenda. It says firstly there must be a consensus, and that "the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources". You dont have a consenus (2 editors for and one against) and none of your calculations are obvious or even correct by definition. You are taking a multitude of sources and coming up with your own tables from them that none of the sources reflect. You're using individual lists to construct your own info, and thats original research in all senses of the term. This can be explained on the football page so a greater number of editors can evaluate the added work on this page beyond you and Mountain. Davefelmer (talk) 20:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

So now you're acknowledging the data is sourced but you think we shouldn't use it because you're claiming some of the honours aren't official. Then this is exactly the same argument you've had with multiple other editors, and I see no point in revisiting it again.

You are taking a multitude of sources and coming up with your own tables from them that none of the sources reflect. You're using individual lists to construct your own info, and thats original research in all senses of the term. That's exactly what WP:CALC says we can do! Quote: Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations.

Quote from WP:NOTSYNTH: Treatment of numeric data is an encyclopedic issue: summarization by sum, average, etc. are necessary expedients, and should not be confused with original research. As an example, if a source shows (without any total following it) "1+1+1+1", a Wikipedia article can express the same data with summarization "1+1+1+1=4".

Look at this example table in WP:AVRC. It has columns with data copied from the sources, just like these tables, and then has columns with new calculated totals, just like these tables.

Are you seriously proposing Wikipedia should only have tables that are carbon copies of tables published elsewhere? If so you're going to need to take it further than WT:FOOTY and go to WP:Policies and guidelines. Madshurtie (talk) 23:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The rule implies calculations can be made from the same source, not combined from multiple sources to form brand new tables. That's not "routine calculations". You are not 'summarizing' anything as the rule says either, you are creating your own information that isnt there in any of the sources. Davefelmer (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: WP:About Valid Routine Calculations, which expands on WP:CALC, says "synthesis of numerical data is not original research by synthesis", so policy seems to permit combining multiple sources to form new tables (so long as all the data the table relies upon is sourced). I would also add this page has been through peer review and featured list review, and no one raised such an objection then (it was sourced by row not column then, but the situation with the totals was the same). The reviewers could have been oblivious to policy of course, but you'd think that would have been a fairly fundamental objection.

On another note, I've replaced the ongoing table with a table showing just totals. Hopefully this addresses your earlier objection that it duplicated the first table too much, even if it doesn't address some of your other objections. Madshurtie (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Your changes to the partial honours table made it a lot better, the format is much more clear and I can see how they contribute to the total numbers. Although I'd much rather have the UCWC in the non-super cup total, I can see what you've done not to include it and at least there's a clearer consistency to the criteria now. I'll leave this issue at that. Davefelmer (talk) 23:56, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Texaco and Anglo-Scottish Cup

@Hashim-afc:@Mountaincirque: In light of my new research above that the Texaco Cup and early years of the ASC had clear qualification criteria involving elite clubs from the top division, and that they were organized by multiple national football associations, I would be interested to see if Hashim-afc, Mountaincirque, or any other editors who haven't commented have an opinion on this. Madshurtie (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Madshurtie: sorry, I'm very busy with work currently and I'm not as active as I have been. I disagree with the Texaco Cup and Anglo-Scottish Cup inclusion as I don't see how they are 'elite', they were open to sides who had not qualified for European play and saw sides fielded from lower levels, I have cross-checked entries from the Texaco Cup source you have above with the actual English league positions in those seasons, sides competing were not the 'next side' to miss out of European qualification, they were often much lower and sometimes just above relegation (e.g. winners 'qualification position' Wolves 13th in 1970, Derby 9th in 1971, Newcastle 11th in 1972, 9th in 1973).

In no seasons does it seem that the best sides played e.g. Celtic played once (1978) and Rangers played once (1980) in the ASC over six editions, Aberdeen were also Scottish Champions in 1979 and did not play either. The fact that the tournament evolved into the Football League Group Cup which evolved into the Football League Trophy is the final nail in the coffin for me, as this is a non-elite trophy which we also do not include in the article. It's great that you have done more research on these and I think it would really benefit the main articles for those trophies but I don't think that these should be included here. As the article you shared above notes: Texaco put up for what would be a kind of British Isles Cup for also-rans so I strongly think that this was not a football association event. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 12:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: No worries, you're under no WP:OBLIGATION to get involved. I think I talked about your points here above, but I may have written too much and buried them. If you have the time, I'd like to know what you think of my response below.

I have cross-checked entries from the Texaco Cup source you have above with the actual English league positions in those seasons, sides competing were not the 'next side' to miss out of European qualification, they were often much lower and sometimes just above relegation (e.g. winners 'qualification position' Wolves 13th in 1970, Derby 9th in 1971, Newcastle 11th in 1972, 9th in 1973). Based on all of the sources above, it looks like the TC struggled to attract some top division teams, so the reason they drew bottom-table teams was just because some clubs who qualified turned it down. Crucially for me and for consistency, this is no different from the Full Members Cup, which multiple clubs who qualified turned down, but we still list the cup here.

they were open to sides who had not qualified for European play We include the Europa League and Intertoto, even though they were also competitions for top division sides that missed out on a higher cup.

saw sides fielded from lower levels This is only the case with the final season of the Texaco Cup, and then the next two cups. For almost all of the TC's history, it seems entirely elite to me. I would also note this is the case with the EFL Cup and FA Cup, which we include here.

The fact that the tournament evolved into the Football League Group Cup which evolved into the Football League Trophy is the final nail in the coffin for me, as this is a non-elite trophy which we also do not include in the article. I used to agree with this when I discovered it above, but after my new research, I think this is probably WP:recentism. The reason the line of cups became the Associate Members Cup/FL Trophy is because by then they had degenerated and were losing first division sides. The FLGC was also no longer an international competition. But is there a policy where we exclude a elite competition because later versions of it became not elite?

Tl;dr. Do we have a consistent policy that allows us to: include the Europa/Intertoto Cup but exclude the TC for being second-rate; include the Full Members Cup, which had clubs turn it down, but exclude the TC because clubs turned it down; exclude a cup that drew entirely top division sides because it later evolved into one that drew no top division sides. Madshurtie (talk) 13:42, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

1. The Full Members Cup was organised by the Football League management committee as this source shows [1]. It was an official league-backed tournament fully open to all sides in Division 1 & 2 (but the 'top-four' of the time turned it down apparently). The official league backing is a big difference for me: it was part of the sporting calendar replacing European play, the ASC/Texaco was an 'additional' tournament incentivised/proposed by sponsors and though I see your point the information I read seems to suggest it was more invitational in nature which I see as a point against it.

2. My take on Intertoto and Europa is that they are ratified UEFA tournaments on the continental level, any competitions of this level and ratified by an official body should be included.

3. I feel like we have to include all of a competition or none, we cannot say "the first season of the Texaco Cup" was elite but then became gradually less elite, there is no clear line.

4. Based on the Football League Group Cup page, there were 64 entrants over the two years it was held, 3 were in the first division. This is not 'elite', the majority of sides were in the 3rd and 4th divisions showing why it evolved into a trophy for clubs at that level.

Summing up: My main comment having thought about this more is that maybe we need a policy of football association ratified? I can see no evidence for these cups being FA tournaments while the Full Members Cup and League Super Cup for example were arranged/proposed by the Football League committee. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 14:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: I think you missed a detail I mentioned from the Scottish Football Historical Archive. The Texaco Cup's official name was the International League Board Competition because it was organized by the English, Scottish, and Irish Football Leagues. Similarly with the Anglo-Scottish Cup, the same source directly says After Texaco had decided to withdraw their sponsorship of the International League Board competition (aka the Texaco Cup) , the Management Committees of the English and Scottish Leagues decided that the tournament should continue as the Anglo-Scottish Cup. Once the Scottish league left, there was only The Football League left running it, hence the new name "Football League Group Cup". I agree absolutely that we should have a policy of national/international football association run cups only (plus precursors SLCSIC and ICFC), and I would oppose including these cups if they weren't run by The Football League. Madshurtie (talk) 14:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

3. I agree the degeneration of the three cups makes this case complicated. It seems to me it's simpler to include all national/international FA trophies with top division sides than to have a carve out for ones that became less top-division-ey over time.

4. The FA Cup and EFL Cup have more lower division sides than top division sides, but we consider them "elite" because of the top division sides. The Texaco Cup of course had only top division sides almost every season. I agree the loss of top division sides appears to be why the Associate Members Cup/FL Trophy was conceived. Madshurtie (talk) 15:06, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

You make a good point there, I had noted the title but not the section on the league organisation aspect. Can I suggest that you have a bash first at heavily improving the Texaco Cup page to reflect this research as if it does get added people are going to click through to a poorly referenced page that does not necessarily substantiate the fact it was officially organised and it's non-sponsor title. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 09:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

PS Why have we stopped talking about the Anglo-Italian Cup and League Cup, wasn't that also league supported? They have the same issue with including lower league sides though. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 09:37, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: Good idea, I'll add some of these references to the Texaco Cup article and include the non-sponsor title today or tomorrow.

I created a new talk section about the Texaco line of cups because I had discovered new info about qualification criteria and Football League management that I thought might change the picture. I didn't have new info on the AIC/AILC.

As for my position on them:

• I'm still completely confused about the Anglo-Italian Cups, because there were several iterations and only the four season professional bit at the start seems to meet any inclusion criteria. But I have no idea why those English teams were chosen (did they win cups?) or, more importantly, whether it had FA/FL backing.
• The Anglo-Italian League Cup I think (and looks like Hashim-afc probably agrees) should be included, so long as we can show it had FA/FL backing. It did have elite qualification criteria (League Cup then FA Cup winners vs Coppa Italia winners) and most of the participants were top division.

On a related note, I have implemented the national/international football association criterion into the lead to keep the article a bit narrower. While doing this, I created a footnote excluding the Texaco Cup line for being succeeded by the AMC/FL Trophy. It looks pretty clumsy to me, but at least the article gives a reason now. Madshurtie (talk) 10:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: Not sure about your changes to the footnote: County Cups are already excluded by the national/international FAs bit, and moving it to the bottom makes it less clear it's modifying the inclusion criteria of the second and third sentence.

@Mountaincirque: I've now reworked the intro to the Texaco Cup page so that it includes this info and these references. Madshurtie (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

A new proposal

@Madshurtie: @Davefelmer: @Mountaincirque: Going back to what Madshurtie proposed earlier ("competitions organized by national or international football associations that have had participants from the top division"), my only improvement on this would be "competitions organized by national or international football associations that have had participants from the top division and that had a criteria for qualification/inclusion" (or some other better wording of this). For example, to 'qualify' for the Football League Centenary Trophy you had to be in the top 8 of the league, to 'qualify' for the Football League Super Cup you had to have qualified for European competition, to 'qualify' for the Full Members Cup you had to be in the top two divisions, to 'qualify' for the Anglo-Italian League Cup you had to win the FA Cup or League Cup. The reason I propose this is to exclude competitions like the Anglo-Italian Cup, Texaco Cup, Anglo-Scottish Cup and Football League Group Cup which seemed to just include top division teams at random without any inclusion criteria. (Also I would maybe exclude Watney Cup because although this did have a qualification/inclusion criteria, the full name of the cup is Watney Invitation Cup so it seems that it may not have been a competitive tournament, although I'm not sure about this). Overall I think this proposal is the best way to go forward, so basically the tables would be exactly the same as now with the addition of the Anglo-Italian League Cup (and possibly Watney Cup), what do you guys think about this? Hashim-afc (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: I'm wondering who organized most of these cups. If they weren't organized by The FA or The Football League, then we don't have to worry because they fail under the national/international associations bit. Though the Football League Group Cup was presumably organized by The Football League, and might drag in the TC and ASC as precursors. Excluding precursors then gets rid of those two, but also removes the SLCSIC and ICFC, so would need consensus.

Only having competitions with stated qualification criteria could be good, but I can't for the life of me think of a precise category of qualification criteria. If we just say any criteria for qualification inclusion, those cups don't include non-league sides, so they already have that criterion. Also, the Anglo-Italian League Cup and Watney Cup may be excluded anyway, depending on who actually organized the things.

Currently, I can think of three solutions to these cups: 1) come up with something similar to what you're describing that's concise and precise; 2) Include whichever of these ~6 were organized by the big governing bodies (the cups wouldn't crowd the main table because they're all discontinued); 3) Same as previously, but exclude precursors to keep out TC and ASC (if they weren't organized by the FA/FL anyway), which also means removing the SLCSIC and ICFC.

3) sounds ugly, 2) looks simplest to me right now, and 1) might be ideal if it can actually work. Madshurtie (talk) 20:54, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the Texaco Cup did have fairly exclusive qualification criteria: it involved the top UK teams who hadn't qualified for the European Cup (though a few turned it down, like with the Full Members Cup). We are already including second tier cups like the Europa League and Intertoto Cup, and this cup seems in a similar category. It seems like the Anglo-Scottish Cup began in the same vein, but began to struggle to attract top division teams later in its history. The FLGC just continued this trend, though it only had two seasons, and then they created the Associate Members Cup and finally gave up on trying to attract top division teams. This may be why Newcastle, who have probably won the most other trophies out of the Texaco Cup winners, list the TC on their honours list. Since we don't do WP:RECENTISM and this set of trophies seemed to start off fairly important, I now think we should include them.

As such, I think our best option here is to stick to the simpler national/international-FAs+top-division-clubs+precursors criteria, and include the TC, ASC, and FLGC. I think the Anglo-Italian League Cup must have been organized between the FL or FA and an Italian assocation, so I would probably include it as well. The Watney Cup and other Anglo-Italian Cups I'm less clear on the details, so I remain unsure on these. Madshurtie (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way we are including those, especially as their criteria for qualification and status remain dubious. The Watney Cup was invitational and included random teams from each division. The Anglo Scottish Cup was a farce, a summer tournament that held no prestige, was totally invitational by the end and won by clubs like Bristol City and Chesterfield who hadn't qualified on any merit. The FLGC was the precursor to the FL trophy, which excludes top level teams, so it's obviously ineligible. Madshurtie, you don't get to pick and choose what to include into the article, and there is no basis for any of these cups going in. Give it a rest. Davefelmer (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, some of this doesn't look very WP:Civil to me:

I don't know what your infatuation with county cups is

There is absolutely no way we are including those

Madshurtie, you don't get to pick and choose what to include into the article

Give it a rest

If I came across as brusque or impatient earlier in these discussions, I apologize now, but you may want to strike out some of those comments so it doesn't reflect badly on you to other editors. Madshurtie (talk) 09:43, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no way we are including those You didn't mention the Texaco Cup or the Anglo-Italian League Cup, which I now think are the ones with the strongest case for inclusion. (turns out the AILC was organized partially by The FA and had multiple finals at Wembley [it didn't have Wembley finals, I mixed up my sources here]). The Anglo-Italian League Cup was one of the early international tournaments, and involved the winners of the League Cup/FA Cup and the Coppa Italia. The Texaco Cup was the most successful attempt to have a competition among the constituent leagues of the UK, and it had clear qualification criteria that only included the top division clubs just below the ones qualifying for Europe.

The Anglo Scottish Cup ... was totally invitational by the end You're saying what I'm saying. This line of trophies started off as an elite honour with clear qualification criteria (Texaco Cup), maintained that format when Irish clubs left and it became the A-S Cup, but then degenerated over the next few years, until they eventually gave up on attracting top division teams and formed the Associate Members Cup/FL trophy. Since we must avoid WP:Recentism, surely we need to acknowledge the Texaco and early seasons of the A-S Cup were elite trophies because top division clubs had to qualify for them, they had competitive rules, were at an international level, and were organized by more than one national football association.

The Watney Cup was invitational and included random teams from each division. I said I'm unsure about the Watney Cup, but it did not include random teams from each division (look at the wiki page). I'm unclear on what an invitational trophy constitutes, other than the name.

you don't get to pick and choose what to include into the article I'm trying to achieve some sort of consistency here, so that we set out clear inclusion criteria and include everything that meets it and exclude everything that fails. It seems to me that you're the one giving cup-by-cup ad hoc reasons to exclude cups. Half of your last reply reads like WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Madshurtie (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

1. A consolation prize for teams that didnt qualify for Europe isnt an honour. And under a different name it became a complete farce. You can't recognise a compeitition that was like an unofficial European trophy and that became a mess a few years later. It never maintained any kind of status, so it shouldn't be there.

2. I understand what you're doing and I am only going cup-by-cup because some of the ones you are mentioning are ridiculous. Just because something existed doesnt make it an official honour. If there are no sources proving its status and it isnt recognised by the relevant clubs or mainstream media on any official mediums then they aren't honours, regardless of whether you can show that they existed in the past. Davefelmer (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I'm not saying I'm a big fan of the cup, but I think it's not quite true it isn't an honour or it never maintained any kind of status. It may have degenerated in later incarnations, but it was basically the only serious attempt to create a cross-border competition between the UK's constituent nations, and it would have had some status, even if not much.

If there are no sources proving its status and it isnt recognised by the relevant clubs or mainstream media on any official mediums then they aren't honours It's recognized by Newcastle on their honours list, and they've probably won the most elite trophies out of the Texaco winners.

I don't mind us excluding it, I just think we should only do so if we're consistent about it. Madshurtie (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmm, its a tricky one because Newcastle do list it, but they also list their European qualifications as honours and its below even those! Ultimately I think the problem with the Texaco was that, although I accept it was a fair attempt to establish a cross-border competition, but it failed almost immediately, with Scottish and Irish sides withdrawing after 2 years and it became an open invitation for third and fourth tier clubs. It is also an official precursor to the FL trophy, which excludes top tier sides. I suppose it would be similar to a club listing its second division titles. It doesn't fit with the criteria of the page, so it shouldn't be included. Davefelmer (talk) 19:50, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I suppose it would be similar to a club listing its second division titles. I'd say it's a bit closer to listing Intertoto Cup wins, though not quite as prestigious.

It doesn't fit with the criteria of the page, so it shouldn't be included. Surely that depends on what the criteria are, though I have no problem coming up with criteria that exclude it, so long as they're sensible. Madshurtie (talk) 08:03, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Intertoto/Charity Shield

I doubt there's a single person on the planet who considers these major trophies; indeed the Super Cup is probably pushing it too. I don't see that winning these ought to be in the table at all. The Intertoto is to European football what the Associate Members' Trophy is to the Football League - a consolation prize for those not good enough for the bigger prizes. In Vitrio (talk) 11:03, 7 September 201 (UTC)

This page is not about major trophies. I don't see how the European Super Cup can be considered 'pushing it' either as it pits the winners of the two highest prestige tournaments in Europe against each other, it was also over two legs for a long time making it historically not an 'easy' single match affair. Mountain^{cirque · Join the Karate Task Force?} 11:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we can justify excluding the Intertoto without also excluding the Europa League, which would be pretty unreasonable. Whether to include super cups is an ongoing argument on this page that's been going on for a decade. I think it adds information having them, and would be a shame to lose them, though I understand the argument over whether they're competitive or not. Madshurtie (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Why would excluding the Intertoto Cup require excluding the Europa League? Where does this line of logic come from? And of course the Super Cups should stay. There really is no doubting their legitimacy. Although some people in Britian sometimes refer to them using the tagline of "glorified friendlies", they have always had official status and nothing has changed. Our job is to reflect facts, not certain fan opinions. Davefelmer (talk) 23:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: @Madshurtie: @Mountaincirque: @In Vitrio: I assume Madshurtie meant because the Intertoto Cup and Europa League are both tournaments for teams that didn't finish in the top 4, i.e. had they performed better they would be in the Champions League instead. So either we remove both as they are not for 'elite' clubs, or we keep both. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: @Madshurtie: @Mountaincirque: It does say ELITE honours won. The Intertoto is not an elite honour. Sometimes English clubs were basically strongarmed into taking part, and then did not take it seriously, fielding guests and triallists.

Definition of elite

The main problem with this page in my opinion is the vagueness of the word 'elite'. Really, elite means the very top trophies. I.e. the trophies that a team would win if they managed to win every single match in a season, which are League, FA Cup, League Cup, League Centenary Trophy, League Super Cup, Full Members Cup, Community Shield, Champions League, Super Cup, Intercontinental Cup and World Club Cup. They wouldn't even be involved in Europa or Intertoto (or CWC/ICFC) as they are for the lesser teams. However at the same time I don't think Europa or Intertoto or CWC/ECFC should be removed because they are important honours for top division teams. Similar thing can be said about the 1985/86 Full Members Cup where the top 6 teams in the country played in the Super Cup instead so technically it was not an 'elite' cup. So it's a tough situation, maybe we should all agree to a definition of 'elite' in this context. Hashim-afc (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: A precise definition of what should be included is definitely the main problem with this page, and was even the reason it failed its featured list nomination way back in 2008. I'm currently thinking we go with competitions organized by national or international football associations that have had participants from the top division. The national/international FA bit narrows it way down and excludes County Cups, friendlies, etc., and the top division bit excludes other trophies organized by those associations, such as the FA Vase, FA Trophy, and FA Inter-League Cup, as well as trophies for non-first teams, such as the FA Youth Cup and UEFA Youth League. It doesn't run into problems with the Intertoto Cup and Europa League, and, most importantly, it's very simple and can be stated in one sentence in the first line. I'd probably allow an exemption for precursors like SLCSIC and ICFC, and I think we might then be good. Madshurtie (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

If we're having to allow 'exceptions' then the phrasing doesn't fit. Without a suitable alternative, leave it the way it is for now. Davefelmer (talk) 07:23, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: The way it is for now doesn't have an acceptably clear definition of "elite". We could simply include this semi-exception in the definition. The first line of the article would contain something like This is a list of English football clubs by elite honours won. It contains honours that were run by national or international football associations and have had participants from the top division. It also contains precursor competitions of these honours. This way we don't need exemptions at all, and it's still simple and objective. An alternative would be not to include precursor competitions (SLCS, ICFC, IC), but that sounds more unfair and controversial. Madshurtie (talk) 12:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Swapping 'elite' for 'top-level' or 'top division' is a much easier solution. There is no reason to write all that. Davefelmer (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: You mean swapping "elite" for "top division" in the current beginning This is a list of the competitive honours won by football clubs in England. It lists every football club to have won a competitive domestic honour contested by elite teams at the national level in England, as well as six European competitions which have existed at different times, and the two global competitions FIFA has recognised.

I'll firstly point out that this wouldn't obviously be shorter, so I'm not sure why it's easier. Secondly, a "competitive domestic honour contested by top-division teams at the national level in England..." bit wouldn't be precise enough, since competitive isn't well defined. I've mentioned several other competitions elsewhere on the talk page that weren't friendlies and had top-division teams from around the nation.

Honestly, I've thought through a lot of different formulations of the lead sentence, and my suggestion above feels the least bad so far. Madshurtie (talk) 12:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

To be honest it is just not a serious enough issue to need to be looked at so thoroughly. And since we do not have a clear alternative, the status quo should remain. Which competitions did you list that weren't friendlies and contested by top level teams? Because cups based on criteria that isnt on a heirarchical league table for entry aren't competitive honours. So trophies contested between the top scorers from each division or something don't apply here. Those are still invitational. Davefelmer (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: If it's not serious, how come it caused the article to fail its featured list nomination, and is constantly provoking arguments on the talk page over including certain competitions? And I state that competitive isn't well defined and it's not clear whether it includes certain competitions, and you say we don't need to include some of these competitions because they're not competitive. I honestly feel like I'm talking to deaf ears here. Madshurtie (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The article failed some featured list nomination due to the use of a word in it? I find that pretty silly, show me if that is the case. Other than that, the debate is only down to your preference for a definition, not any reliable sources. The competitions you believe it excludes that you listed above arent recognised as official by the clubs themselves on their official websites nor by high profile news sites when listing club honours. You showing a source that merely lists the competition as having taken place doesnt prove it belongs in the list, nor its competitiveness. Davefelmer (talk) 20:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

That's right, though it was "major" rather than "competitive" back then. To quote Peanut4, who wrote most of that version of this article However, I think your query backs up my worries that the title, particularly the word major, is misleading. [...] I think this list needs a bit more work / thinking about to be honest. To quote The Rambling Man while there may be a generally agreed WP:FOOTBALL version of "major honours", it won't stop a non-WP:FOOTBALLer popping up to tell you it doesn't cut the mustard (although probably not in such an Imperialist tone!). I'd think long and hard over the title of this if you wish it to succeed. That was from the end of the nomination discussion, and the list was not promoted. No other objections went unresolved.

So now you're saying we don't need to define in the lead of this article what types of trophies are included, because the article will have sources and those sources will only list certain types of trophies. Firstly, that's terrible for creating an informative article. Secondly, reliable sources in the article currently (such as the Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation!) list honours but you're saying those honours don't count. Thirdly, club websites and news sites don't agree on what trophies are official, as many other editors have mentioned to you. To quote one Davefelmer A lot of papers just seem to use either count depending on whats the better story at the time.

Since this has now moved onto your old arguments with other editors that some honours apparently aren't official, I think I'll disengage now. Madshurtie (talk) 23:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Just because there was a dispute over the use of the word 'major' that caused it to fall the nomination test (a word now established as too arbitrary to use), that doesnt mean the same thing applies to the word 'elite'. You are taking one situation and applying it to a different one. Secondly, RSSF is a reliable source but it lists everything, competitive or not. I can find records there on the Emirates Cup, so are you gonna tell me thats an official honour, despite its non-competitive status? RSSF lists competition winners, but using several random lists to construct tables is completely original research. You are cherry picking what competitions to choose from various lists to make your own tables with your own criteria (i.e. without super cups, discontinued trophies, etc). Thats not what the sources are there for and how we can use them.

Yes, I did say some articles refer to different trophy counts but when an arbitrary count is used, it is specified i.e. a paper will say "major" honours or "we are only including the league and FA Cup" for instance, implying that this is just a piece of an overall trophy haul. When a paper or club simply uses the term 'honours' or 'trophies' then there is no reason to believe they arent including the full haul. They are not saying anything that implies this is just a piece of the trophy haul. This IS the trophy haul. And all the major publications and clubs, when listing honours, match each other's lists. For example, here's Arsenal's website (which list a total number just to make things even clearer) and Sky Sports' list: (SKY's was made during last season to factor in the end of season trophies to the clubs that won them)Davefelmer (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: "And all the major publications and clubs, when listing honours, match each other's lists." – Not sure about this. Liverpool's website says they have won 41 major honours, and that Sky Sports page says 60. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: I think "elite" is easier to define, but I don't see it as any less arbitrary without a definition. Thanks for pointing out the Emirates Cup, this is an example (among some others I've given elsewhere) of why I don't think we can list every honour documented by a reliable source, and need clearer inclusion criteria. Madshurtie (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: @Hashim-afc: Yeah, I don't want to go too deep into the past discussion about official honours as listed by clubs and the news media, but it seems the biggest problem is there isn't a universal standard of what honours are major/official/competitive/elite/etc. To give some club examples, Arsenal and Newcastle list the Fairs Cup, Man City and Forest list the Full Members Cup, Everton lists County Cups, and Newcastle also lists the Texaco and Anglo-Italian Cups (which aren't even on this page at the moment). All of those clubs are from near the top of this list, so it's not like they're short of other honours.

Among the news media, I'm struggling to find many recently updated lists from broadsheet papers or major broadcasters (a lot of them are old or published by less reputable organizations). However, compare Sky Sports' official football stats account, which says MUFC has 45 trophies, with The Independent, which says MUFC has 42. And then there's the problem you have acknowledged that some sources exclude super cups (FACS, USC, etc.), and some don't.

Insisting we follow some universal standard on what a major trophy is, as per the sources, seems impossible when the sources don't agree. To take that approach with this page, we'd have to provide a source showing that all other sources agree on what a major/official/competitive/elite/whatever honour is, which is impossible when they don't. Madshurtie (talk) 18:34, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: @Madshurtie: I specifically said when media sources are consistent in their listing of 'honours' when they arent narrowing them down through clear arbitrary means i.e. the term 'major honours'. Those United trophy counts are merely some publications opinions of what is 'major', you will find that when counting total 'honours', the most reliable of sources tend to agree. Here is United through the BBC, SKY, and Talksport. Obviously they are within a year or two of each other but if you plug in the trophies in between the years its very clear the counts are identical. And all are very recent. Also, in regards to Liverpool's site, they may say 41 major trophies in a blurb above their honours count, but their website lists the 60 trophies in the actual section, as well as their reserve title wins, which obviously don't apply here. Davefelmer (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Three sources is not a large enough sample size to show that all reliable sources that don't use a qualifier like "major" agree on trophy totals. One of those sources (talksport.com) is a less reliable source anyway. Since the clubs listed have clearly won other trophies (such as County Cups), we know it is factually wrong for a source to say this is all trophies won by the club. In the case of the BBC however, it doesn't even say these are all of Liverpool/MUFC's trophies, it just lists some trophies. It seems much more common from what I've seen so far for news media to say "major trophies", so I honestly just think those three journalists are being lazy not including a qualifier, and it's a coincidence the three lazy journalists have the same totals.

And compare it to the club pages I mentioned above. Most don't add "major" or any other qualifier, and yet they still disagree on what to include. It is clear to me that there isn't a universal standard among clubs and news media on what trophies to list, even if some trophies are listed much more commonly than others. Madshurtie (talk) 12:11, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

SKY Sports and the BBC are most definitely a good selection of reliable sources by which to judge, and Talksport isn't unreliable, if not as good as the other two. But in any case, here is the Telegraph in its place. As you can see, there is a clear consistency across the board. Your opinions of what is more common to list are irrelevant here, and wrong on top of that. I assume you live in Britain, which is the only place the phrasing "major trophy" is used. And as the above articles showed, the sections of the British media that use them don't even have a clear definition of them. I don't know what your infatuation with county cups is but they are almost never listed on club websites and never listed on official and reliable media sources. Just because they existed doesn't mean they were official and competitive games that quantified as honours. They were almost always played in by reserve sides or development teams in any case, which makes them ineligible towards a club's senior honours. The one club you showed me that list them, Everton, pretty clearly prove the point. They've won their county cup multiple times in recent years, so are you implying that they took their first team down to play Stockport and Shrewsbury amidst their premier league program? Of course not, nor would they have done at any point prior. Maybe in the beginning of football history these cups meant something as there was no national league but you cannot judge their importance on the first 15 years of their existence instead of the following 100. Davefelmer (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Sky and BBC are great sources for football; I never said otherwise.

I don't know what your infatuation with county cups is Is recognizing these trophies exist an infatuation? I think they should be kept off this page, and you may remember I arbitrated an argument between you and another editor over whether they should be on the Arsenal F.C. page. I think you've missed the point here. I was merely mentioning them as examples (not the only ones) of trophies those clubs have won those sources don't mention. You say they aren't official or competitive. But those sources didn't say anything about only listing "official" or "competitive" trophies. In fact, you're saying they list all trophies. Whether you consider County Cups not official/competitive/major/whatever, they falsify that claim.

We've already shown, and I'm glad you agree, there is inconsistency among news media sources talking about major (etc) honours. You're convinced of the theory that there is no inconsistency when sources just talk about honours (without the qualifier). So the Liverpool counterpart to that Telegraph article you posted falsifies that theory. It's a recent broadsheet article that doesn't mention the word "major" or any other qualifier, and yet it includes the Lancashire League and the Second Division. Madshurtie (talk) 09:45, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Also I just noticed my Telegraph source and your Sky sources include the Football League Super Cup, whereas the BBC source doesn't. This discussion is settled beyond doubt now. Madshurtie (talk) 10:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Football associations organise grassroots level games as well. Are those official? Just because they are organised doesnt mean they have the status of professional honours, especially county cups which beyond the very first few years have been played by reserve and non-league sides. I recognise they exist of course but I also know what they were and can see that no national governing body, football club or media ever put them on any honours counts, because they dont belong there. County Cups dont falsify the claim in the same way reserve titles wouldnt.

In terms of the media, there may be ever so slight changes in between articles but you'd have to be being deliberately obtuse not to see there is a consistent pattern in terms of what is listed. Yes, the telegraph listed Liverpool's second division titles, but the general consistency is there. Davefelmer (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer: Are those official? Those few sources didn't say "official honours", so this is exactly my point. The few sources that were lazy by not saying major/elite/competitive/official or just anything that narrowed it down do not include all honours. Even an unofficial honour would falsify the claim they do.

County Cups: no national governing body, football club or media ever put them on any honours counts. This is not true: the Liverpool Telegraph article contradicts it.

you'd have to be being deliberately obtuse not to see there is a consistent pattern in terms of what is listed. Yes I've already said some honours are extremely common on these lists and some honours are extremely rare. It's just those edge-cases we have to be careful about. Taking a cursory look at all the honours lists (with whatever wording), quite a few lists exclude super cups, the occasional list excludes the Fairs Cup or the League Super Cup, I'm pretty sure I've seen the Europa League excluded before, and the occasional list includes more unusual things like the Texaco Cup, Lancashire League, or Second Division. So what we have to do is decide how to manage these edge-cases consistently. Madshurtie (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The use of the word 'honours' is implicitly stating it is considering all honours won by the club. In the event of extra language to imply a part of a count, words like 'major' or 'top' would be included. You are overthinking it, the word 'all' doesnt have to be there. And an unofficial trophy is not an 'honour' in football parlance. So it wouldn't falsify the claim.

Yes, the Liverpool Telegraph article includes their one Lancashire title but that is an anomoly and one of its kind. No other source does so. It also has to do with what I explained earlier, that these competitions might have had some status at their initial incarnations but at the advent of national tournaments these became games contested by non league and reserve sides, making them not viable as senior honours.

What list excludes super cups without using a word like 'major' in them? I can't find one reliable source that does. Furthermore, the use of the word 'major' is purely an arbitrary measure used by some sections of the British press. It is not used outside of Britain, so cannot be judged as a basis for facts. Furthermore, the term 'major' rules these counts out as it defeats the point of the list, which shows 'competitive honours'. I have never seen the Europa League exlcuded nor have I seen the Texaco Cup, Second Tier titles or Lancahire League included in a list of trophies. They were included once in one list of a club's honours, and this against many more that do not. The second tier and texaco titles make sense since the club actually won them but they are excluded from the list due to top division and qualification criteria requirements. Davefelmer (talk) 19:59, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

@Davefelmer:

You are overthinking it, the word 'all' doesnt have to be there. I never said I word "all" has to be in there, I'm responding to your assertion that it's implied these lists include all honours. There is of course nothing in the source saying that's what they're implying, but it is what you keep asserting.

And an unofficial trophy is not an 'honour' in football parlance. Trophy is synonymous with honour in this context, so how is an unofficial trophy not a subset of trophy (both unofficial and official trophies are trophies, by definition). And regardless, County Cups are organized by official regional bodies, and there's plenty of forgotten official trophies organized by national bodies; neither are mentioned in some of those lists that you're saying show all honours, so the claim's falsified either way.

What list excludes super cups without using a word like 'major' in them? Where is your evidence the few sources that don't use a word like "major" are providing a fundamentally different type of list than the ones that do? The sources don't say they are, and it could just be author laziness. You keep asserting this without proof.

It is not used outside of Britain, so cannot be judged as a basis for facts. Where's your evidence it's not used outside Britain, and why does the nationality of the source affect its reliability?

but they are excluded from the list due to top division and qualification criteria requirements. So we do need inclusion criteria for this article and can't just rely on a universal honours standard provided by 100% of sources. This dispute has drifted into a load of tangents, but wasn't that where it started? Madshurtie (talk) 07:59, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The very nature of the term 'honours' implies it is a total list of trophies. That's what the term means and thats what is listed when the term is used. Unless a specific word to cut the count such as major is used, the obvious implication is that this is the full list. What proof do you have that it is not?

An unofficial win is not an honour in football terms. It never has been so I don't know where you are getting that from. No club has ever officially listed a friendly or uncompetitive game as an honour. County Cups, as already discussed, are for non-league and reserve sides for the vast, vast, majority of their history. Them holding some prominence for 15 years 100 years ago is irrelevant here, whether using recentism or not. A competition that for 95% of its history excludes senior teams is not a senior honour.

Well, find me a non British source that uses the term 'major' that isnt just copying a British source that did. This is more of a case of just having to know. And it isnt even used in Britain by most major publications, as the SKY and BBC articles show. Not saying its unreliable because of where its from but you can hardly use it as a universal standard for defining honours when one region in the world uses it. Davefelmer (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The very nature of the term 'honours' implies it is a total list of trophies. That's what the term means and thats what is listed when the term is used. Unless a specific word to cut the count such as major is used, the obvious implication is that this is the full list. What proof do you have that it is not? I have no proof they didn't mean that, but do you have any proof against the alternative hypothesis (That they wrote a list of major/competitive/elite/official/whatever honours, and couldn't be bothered or didn't think to put a word like that in)? You have to reject alternative hypotheses before you can be confident in the original hypothesis. And in this case, the alternative is more consistent with the fact those lists don't include all honours.

No club has ever officially listed a friendly or uncompetitive game as an honour. Forest list the Bass Charity Vase, among other trophies. Why do you keep stating that things have never happened without checking a few examples first.

A competition that for 95% of its history excludes senior teams is not a senior honour. The articles didn't say anything about "senior" only. Please stop coming up with types of honours they're not and then saying that means they aren't any type of honour.

Well, find me a non British source that uses the term 'major' that isnt just copying a British source that did. You're the one making the claim, I'm just asking whether we know it's true. I haven't heard this from anyone before, so I'm wondering your evidence.

but you can hardly use it as a universal standard for defining honours when one region in the world uses it. I never thought there is a universal standard. You're the one talking about following the honours standard agreed by the sources. Madshurtie (talk) 08:02, 11 October 2017 (UTC)