Talk:Football in England

England Top‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England 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.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Football: England High‑importance

	Association football portal This article 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as High-importance).

Women's football in table

Is it possible that the big table can have women's stuff like the FA Women's Cup added in? i have no clue how to do it and don't want to cock up. A.K.A.47 — Preceding undated comment added 23:21, 16 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Football by Region is redundant

Besides missing a lot of links, doesn't the "Football in different regions of England" section just regurgitate details that can be found on the pages of the respective clubs? Does anyone else think it should be summarized a bit? --Howcheng 19:18, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - currently it's just a club-by-club dump of facts, so I've taken it out. Having a subsection of "History" dealing with the spread of footballing power throughout the country might be worthwhile, but this is just an unwikified mess. sjorford #£@%&$?! 09:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Axe

Hi. I just took an axe to the lists at the Football League First Division and suchforth. We now have articles

I did this because I thought it was not especially useful to have long lists that acted as if the Premiership was a new league, rather than pretending it was a renaming of the first division (for the purposes of record keeping, the structure had been static ever since the 3rd/4th divisions were set up - people keep track of how many old 1st division+premiership wins clubs have, for example).

This means that the first article has the Premiership winners and the old first division winners - the second article has the Championship and the newer first division winners, etc. Hope this makes sense to everyone else.

Morwen - Talk 14:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me - as you say, most people just see these as just name changes, particularly when counting First Division/Premiership titles. sjorford (talk) 14:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's a shame I suppose that they didn't adopt the "League Championship", "League One" and "League Two" terminology back in 1992. But oh well. Morwen - Talk 15:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've reverted to saying Third and Fourth Divisions instead of Leagues One and Two ;) sjorford (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I've got a couple of ideas though:

I'd like it better if the clubs were linked every year instead of just the first year that they won a division. It's strange that if someone sees Aston Villa winning the league in 1981 and want to go to their page, they have to go back to 1894 to find the link, and I don't think over-wikifying looks bad in tables. Also, I think players' full names would be better than initials and surnames. If no-one makes any objections I'll make a start on this later. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 18:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, with perhaps the caveat that this is only used where victories come a large distance apart e.g. Blackburn, Aston Villa or Chelsea. There's no point having link after link to Man Utd or Liverpool Robdurbar 23:08, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I was wondering if, for completeness, we think that divison threes north and south could be incoporated into this, perhaps in the League 1 and predecessotrs page? Robdurbar 23:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, 3N and 3S were not really part of this 4-division system. Oh, and the tables are rather inconsistent at the moment - they need making consistent at least within a page. Morwen - Talk 13:12, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any way you look at it, the mighty Man U will never be there so dont worry about it!!-TTT13

I have created an all-time list for the English First Division up to the creation of the Premier League and would like to submit it, how do I do it? Robd27 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)robd27[reply]

Great players/managers

I recommend these should go or at least be trimmed/re-named. Such lists are very subjective and p.o.v., and usually just seem to be an excuse for people to add their own favourites to the list. SteveO 23:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is a discussion on "lists", albeit those that form articles, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. You might find it useful to raise this matter there as it is related. Alias Flood 00:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here, here --Robdurbar 07:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've removed them. SteveO 02:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about "see also" links to the PFA Players' Player of the Year, PFA Young Player of the Year and FWA Player of the Year articles instead? They are verifiable and cover most of the same names. A q uilina 16:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Last section unfinished?

At the bottom section of the article it reads "These two led to a modernization of English football and English grounds. Efforts were made to remove hooligans from English football, whilst the Taylor Report led to the". Is someone still finishing this? --81.157.138.137 13:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A whole chunk at the end got cut off by a careless editor, I have restored it and sent him a message Bob Palin 15:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condensing and reducing number of sections

I made a few changes a couple of weeks ago in an attempt to consolidate the number of subheadings and sections in the article. At some point it was reverted, though its not obvious when without quite a bit of digging through the history. What are people's thoughts about changing the League system and Cup competitions sections to a single Structure section as in [1]? Oldelpaso 15:23, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think they're best left as they are - they're a healthy size each and there's very little overlap between the two. Qwghlm 09:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & reorganisation

As well as this article there is a Football in regions of England article, whose existence is dubious given that the top five levels of football in England are played on a national, not regional scale. I would suggest merging it with the History of English football section in this article, but that would probably make the page too long. So instead I propose splitting off the History section to a separate page, merging what's possible from the regions article into that, and providing a mere summary here. Does anyone have any opinions? Qwghlm 00:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Plus, it might free up room in this article for a summary style Economy of English football section which is currently lacking. (I made a start on this in a sandbox a while back, but never got around to finishing it). What do you think of the idea of a Structure section I proposed above? Oldelpaso 08:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've split the article off, as no-one objected. Qwghlm 13:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now done the merge, which was painful. Some of the writing quality admittedly isn't very good; the History of English football could do with a going over as a CotW, to be honest. Qwghlm 21:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons in English football

This is not specifically about this page, but I have noticed that in the 'seasons of english football' there are only a few records of international success (or lack thereof). I think that every season in English football page should have information about how England performed internationally —The preceding unsigned comment was added by funkyduncan (talk • contribs) 29 Jan 2007.

"soccer"

it isn't "unusual" for it to be called "soccer." ITV regularly use the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.157.115 (talk) 20:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It tends to be called "soccer" in places where there is another type of 'football', like the Republic of Ireland and the USA. Unfortunately there is small but forceful movement on Wikipedia to disambiguate with "Association" rather than "soccer". Someone changed Football in the Republic of Ireland over to Association football in the Republic of Ireland - on a 60% "consensus" too. There is a vote to try and change it to "Football (soccer)" right now, as the press uses "soccer" in the Rep of Ireland to disambiguate from Gaelic football. The rationale is WP:COMMONNAMES.

I'd like to see them try adding "Association" to England, just because some people use "soccer" in England! My view is that Wikipedia should disambiguate with "(soccer)", where there is another version of football as a national game (like the Republic), and leave everyone else well alone. Who knows what some people will try to do if the "Association" ball gets rolling though - "conformity" is always the big argument with these things. Hopefully the Rep of Ireland vote will see "Association" removed - does anyone really want to see it in the national teams? It's bad enough that it's taken over the main "Association Football" article, but now that (unhappy) fact is being cited as a reason to change the Rep of Ireland article too.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the original comment and keep this on topic rather than drifting off to discuss something else, many in the UK seem to forget that soccer is a word in common use here and it is not unusual at all. It is also of British origina. Soccer Saturday and Soccer AM are popular British shows about the sport. And soccer is used rather than Football AM or Football Saturday. Then there is Granada Soccer Night on ITV. And isn't World Soccer magazine a British publication?♦Tangerines♦·Talk 21:23, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the British use. My old games teacher in my junior school in Wales was very fond of it - though I don't remember us using it. It's always been footy to me! World Soccer is IPC, which is a UK publisher, yes.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer seems to be used in the media predominatly. You don't hear the term much in everyday usage, where it is almost universally football. Ihave always known the sport as 'football', but out of respect to followers of other football codes in England such as Gaelic Football and American Football, I would support a move to Association Football in England. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll - on changing to Association football in England

The Republic of Ireland football article has recently been changed to Association football in the Republic of Ireland. The attending voters had a chance to use the common Irish-media-used 'disambiguator' of "Soccer" (ROI of course has Gaelic football too), but instead they chose "Association". It was pushed through on an "over 60% percent consensus". There is a vote going on now to change the article to "Football (soccer) in the Republic of Ireland". But even now "Association" is winning out - and the most common reason given to keep it is that the 'main article' is called Association football - and so other articles must keep in line.

But for this 'conformity' to make proper sense, it would mean that the other national team articles like England's would have to fall into line too. Some voters have openly expressed a desire for this to happen. Where will it end - with the national teams?

I think people here should be alerted to the tide of change that was first started with the move to Association football, and that a collection of UK nation 'straw polls' would be an interesting barometer for us all.

Note on "canvassing"

Supporters of the word "Association" are very critical of "WP:CANVASSING on this subject, and it is my opinion that they prefer their votes to be tight and guarded: and I can see no bias involved in informing all the UK nations at all. I am risking this accusation as I believe this vote is of major importance to all national team articles: I have given valid reasons for this above - so please restore this poll if it changed or removed, and explain why it is important in your edit note.--Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw Poll

Would you like to see this article CHANGED to Association football in England? Or would you like to KEEP it as it is?

Please vote "Change" or "Keep" in bold, and sign.

Keep. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Football (soccer) was changed to Association Football per naming policy. There is nothing wrong with the title of this page, it doesn't have to please different people in England because different names for the sport are used comprehensively. It is widely known as football so keep as Football in England per WP:COMMONNAME. Peanut4 (talk) 19:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is in breech of WP:CANVASSING,WP:Point and WP:Vote Gnevin (talk) 18:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

My first impression of the article is that the lead section as it is today is not about English football, but about the word football as it is used in England. This does a disservice to the rest of the article. I propose that it be moved into the body of the article, and a new lead section written which defines the topic and summarises the article. I like the guidelines at WP:LEAD, that style seems to work well for featured articles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clubs

A section on clubs would be useful here, listing numbers, oldest, most successful etc. Also a paragraph on those clubs located in England that play in other nations' leagues, such as Berwick. Grunners (talk) 20:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to Football's Pre War GOAL INFLATION

With the Pre War era being an amateur, undeveloped, substandard era, slack rules/offside (sometimes non existant), goal inflation, easy scoring, with teams filled with local players only who had multiple jobs..and goal records galore...

most goals by a player in a game - 10 (1936). most goals by a player in top flight game - 7 (1935, Drake). most hat-tricks in a season - 9 (1926, Camsell). most top flight goals in a season - 128 (1931, Villa). most home goals in a season - 83 (1928, Millwall). most away goals in a season - 60 (1931, Arsenal). most goals in 1 day - 209 in 44 games (1936). most goals in a game - 13-4 (1936).

There should be more detail on this...also explain why the weak Pre War era is ignored and dismissed by contemporary writers and experts due to its lack of credibiity...and the use of the term "Post War" record is dominant in the media when the sport started to develop. 666 Eddie (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

London wiki

If anybody wants to develop articles on London-area football clubs for London wiki [www.london.wikia.com] please do so (given that my knowledge of football is very limited). Jackiespeel (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Summarised Cup Eligibility Table

Not being English the huge number of cups is confusing, not to mention the fact they regularly change sponsorship name and also have similar names. Being a visual person, I think it would be great to include a table that summarises per league which cups (including vases, trophees etc) a club in that league is eligible to participate in. Using the following columns:

League Level (ie. 1,2,3,....-11)
League (name eg. Premier League, Championship....)
Then a column per Trophee indicating if clubs at that level are eligible to participate using a tick or cross.

Thoughts? Is anyone good at wiki tables? --TinTin (talk) 01:54, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current National Cup Competitions

Level	League(s)	FA Cup	Football League Cup	Football League Trophy	FA Trophy	FA Vase	Conference League Cup
1	Premier League	X	X
2	Football League Championship	X	X
3	Football League One	X	X	X
4	Football League Two	X	X	X
5	Conference Premier	X			X		X
6	Conference North / South	X			X		X
7	NPL / SFL/ IL Premier Divisions	X			X
8	NPL / SFL/ IL Division Ones	X			X
9	Various	X				X
10	Various	X				X
11	Various	X				X

I got around to creating the table to show what I meant (see above). I think it nicely summarises the text. I haven't included the FA Community Shield as the eligibility is a bit more complicated because technically the FA Cup winner could be from any level. --TinTin (talk) 00:04, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Football in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100124022902/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlrZO-r9KBg to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlrZO-r9KBg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Football in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Football in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070418122238/http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk:80/Fhistory.htm to http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fhistory.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Football in England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Fhistory.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050909181731/http://www.ynw62.dial.pipex.com/thirty43b.htm to http://www.ynw62.dial.pipex.com/thirty43b.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]