Talk:List of current Premier League and English Football League managers/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Vacancies

Vacancies can't have an appointed date, they can't have a nationality, they can't have a name, they can't have a time as manager. The list is about current managers, vacant isn't a manager. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

But if sorted into another table the sortability advantages of the table are lost. Any reader with enough intelligence to operate an encyclopaedia will regonise what is presented. Kevin McE (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. Suggest the vacant posts are reinserted back into the main table as quickly as practicable. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A vacancy isn't a managerial reign and isn't a current manager, it's a completely different thing. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The point is well made by Kevin, and you appear to be in the minority. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, none of the issues were even addressed. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:12, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Because no-one supports your singular position. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a "singular position" to suggest a vacancy can't have a time as manager? Great contribution, really helping drive along the discussion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

John Coleman

Why is the information about John Coleman being removed? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Because this article is about current managers' current tenure. It is highly likely that extra info in the lead will be missed when the manager referred to leaves the post. Kevin McE (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The text you are defending the inclusion of by nonsensically reverting my edits says "Some managers listed have had more than one spell in charge at their current club or had spells at more than one club", and yet you don't want any examples of multiple reigns includes, even though it is seemingly pertinent? Why? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It is there to exclude editors from arguing for inclusion that eg Coleman has been at Accrington for 20 years+, or Bruce has spent 24 years as a manager. But specific examples are not needed unless the concept is so complicated as to need an example to explain, and specific examples are not helpful (ditto for youngest/specific divisions etc) as the lead is very often overlooked when changes happen. Kevin McE (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't include information in the lead solely to warn editors from making erroneous edits, editors make up a tiny percentage of Wikipedia readers! And yes, specific examples are helpful and in fact welcomed as per WP:SALLEAD - A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content, provides any necessary background information, gives encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected. Yes, mentioning the youngest (and oldest) manager is helpful otherwise there's literally no point in having the date of birth, mentioning the amount of managers of nationalities should be included otherwise what's the point in having that column. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Having the DoB column makes mentioning it redundant, it does not need the comment in the lead to justify it. I'm at a loss as to how you can assert that SALLEAD recommends examples and then claim to verify that by posting a quote that does not mention examples as necessary or even useful. Though that quote does explain why the "Some managers listed have had..." sentence was fine as it was. Kevin McE (talk) 14:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

A stand-alone list should begin with a lead section that summarizes its content. There you go. Glad to be of help mate 👍. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And it does so fine without picking out strange examples from various points in the list. Kevin McE (talk) 14:50, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not really a strange example to say that Kieran McKenna is the youngest manager or that Simon Weaver is the longest reigning, seeing as it is a summary of two of the columns included and is information mentioned in reliable sources. It would be a strange example to say that Paul Ince was the 13th oldest or that Michael Duff was the 10th longest reigning, or that Micky Mellon was the second longest reigning Scot. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, it did so fine without multiple examples. Kevin McE (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you really happy with "fine"? Is that really the right philosophy to use when editing? "It's fine". Do you think articles should remain static from their status 16 years ago? Or do you think articles can be improved all the time? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course articles can be improved over time. But if a bold change is reverted, it is then incumbent on the person wanting to make the change to argue for what they consider to be an improvement at talk, not to repeatedly re-post the rejected change.

So I would challenge you to do what you should have done at 9:39 last night: upon discovering that your WP:BOLD edit had been reverted, accept that fact and leave it as it is in article space, and argue (as you have since) for change on the talk page, while leaving the article alone.

Go on, show that the "warmest wishes" thing is not just passive aggression: change the article back to how it was at 9:38 last night, and see whether any of your proposals get consensus. From me, the change from flag template to flagcountry definitely gets a thumbs up. Kevin McE (talk) 15:49, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If you consider text saying "Some managers listed have had more than one spell in charge at their current club or had spells at more than one club" to be of upmost importance, I'd say the onus is then on you to explain why giving an example of this is deemed unworthy of inclusion.
If you're happy with information being extrapolated from the table to state Simon Weaver is the longest serving manager, why are you unhappy with information being extrapolated to say Kieran McKenna is the youngest manager?
If you're happy to include (unsourced) information saying, well, actually, Gareth Ainsworth has the longest concurrent reign, why are you unhappy with sourced information saying Jurgen Klopp is the longest reigning manager in the Premier League, particularly when the title of the article specifically mentions the Premier League. Bear in mind "I don't like it" won't suffice as a counter point. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You either accept the principle of consensus being necessary to change an article, or you leave Wikipedia. I leave the choice on your hands. Kevin McE (talk) 16:03, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have accepted it, which is why I began six discussions, not sure if you noticed. Your sole argument against any changes is that "it's always been like that". Which isn't an argument. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have presented extensive reasons where I have disagreed with your changes. Even if it were no more than "it's always been like that", which I by no means accept, it is incumbent on you to get consensus before you change it from what it's always been if your initial change is challenged. You have not demonstrated willingness to accept BRD as you have not allowed the article to be returned to how it was before your 'bold' changes. Kevin McE (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity and collaboration, would you be so kind as to collate all your extensive reasons in one reply? Many thanks. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Tell you what: you explain first why you decided that you were not bound by the principle of consensus when your changes were reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I was making an edit to support existing text ("Some managers listed have had more than one spell in charge at their current club or had spells at more than one club") within the article. Now you. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

And that was reverted, but you still placed it again. So you have not explained. Kevin McE (talk) 17:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What are your actual "extensive reasons" to objecting? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Country codes

Why are nonsense country codes being used? SPA is not a recognised country code according to anybody. This is now the third time that this issue has been brought up to mention that "SPA" is wholly incorrect. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

But the template still renders the Spanish flag for our readers, right? So there's no problem, right? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 13:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

SPA is a recognised code according to wikipedia, which is all that matters to us here. But if the countryname is displayed such that the alphabetical sorting incongruities are avoided, it really doesn't matter what code is used so long as it returns the correct country. Kevin McE (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a source. FIFA, ISO, RSSSF, IOC are. Wikipedia should use the most commonly used, not what you favour. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Is it the incorrect flag? The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not the discussion. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The coding is not relevant and the fact the template even takes it into account means this conversation is truly a waste of time. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The coding was relevant, hence it regularly being brought up. Nobody asked you to contribute if you thought it was such a waste of time. Thanks for your input. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No, the coding is irrelevant. It's like complaining about people who double-space after a full stop. It makes no difference to how it's rendered to the readers and that's all that's really important here. This is seriously undermining your attempts to improve things I'm afraid. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 16:39, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The coding is now irrelevant because I made the improvement, therefore how is it undermining my attempts to improve things when I already improved them? Why are you continuing this discussion? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like someone decided to make a very simple change which should be clear to all. Now perhaps we can worry about truly relevant things. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Kelvin Davis, Mike Stowell, and Adam Sadler

What possible relevance does it have that they took charge of a game? This article has no mention of how many games the manager had, it is wholly irrelevant. If you are to include those notes, why not include notes for games where other managers were absent i.e. through COVID, or when Darrell Clarke had his assistant in charge when he was on leave for bereavement? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 11:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Those notes are there to explain the discrepancy between the dates of appointment and the dates on which they took up their role. Absolutely nothing to do with the number of games. Kevin McE (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There should be no discrepancy. The day they are appointed is the day they are appointed. If they take up the role on XX/XX/XXXX, that is the day the appointment begins. The appointment being announced on YY/YY/YYYY is not relevant. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Precisely: the day they are appointed is the day they are appointed; the day the appointment begins is sometimes a different one. And where there is a difference between those dates, that should not (and never has previously in this list) go unexplained. Kevin McE (talk) 13:41, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The day the appointment begins is the day the appointment begins. There is no discrepancy. It's the same date. Sometimes it may be announced in advance, but that isn't the day the appointment begins. If Mr Manager is appointed on XX/XX/XXXX, that's when his reign begins. If Mr Manager is announced on YY/YY/YYYY as beginning his role on ZZ/ZZ/ZZZZ, his reign begins on ZZ/ZZ/ZZZZ, not YY/YY/YYYY. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Headline on Man Utd's website on 21 April: "Manchester United appoints Erik ten Hag as manager" Do you think he was Man U manager when they lost to Brighton on 7 May? "If Mr Manager is appointed on XX/XX/XXXX, that's when his reign begins" is patently untrue, and you trying to use a patronising tone to assert it does not make it true. The 6th column is based on what you call YY/YY/YYYY, and column 7 on your ZZ/ZZ/ZZZZ. In most cases they are the same, in some, including Southampton and Leicester, they are not. If you want to argue that it should simply be presented as in the case of, eg, Arteta, without naming the managers who filled the gap between the announcement and the new guy taking over, that is valid, but removing explanation of the discrepancy is not. Kevin McE (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Ten Hag's managerial reign didn't begin on 21 April. His future appointment was announced on that date. The article you mention literally says his reign begins "from the end of this season". There is no discrepancy, his appointment begins at the end of the season. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

So are you saying that ten Hag was not appointed on 21 April? Is that headline from Manutd.com a lie? He was appointed on one date to take up a role from another. Kevin McE (talk) 14:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm saying Ralf Rangnick was still United manager on 22 May 2022, and Erik ten Hag became manager the following day. Exactly the same as with Roy Hodgson and Rob Edwards at Watford. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

So you are ignoring the issue. That won't resolve the article. But thanks for the heads up about Watford. Kevin McE (talk) 15:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

He was appointed on 23 May 2022 when the reign of Ralf Rangnick concluded at the end of the 2021–22 season. Exactly the same scenario as Rob Edwards replacing Roy Hodgson at Watford. Or are you saying that on 21 April, ten Hag was added to this list? Afterall, that's when he was appointed you claim... All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between the act of being appointed, and the state of being in an appointment. This list has for many years observed that distinction. I think it should continue to do so, and you clearly have no consensus for removing it. Kevin McE (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

You can't be appointed if somebody else is appointed. That... should be obvious. I've not tried to remove anything,, what are you talking about? Also, "the list has for many years" is an argument that shouldn't be used. As the essay states, nothing is set in stone. Just because something has been in this list for X years, doesn't mean it can't be amended or removed. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:27, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Why is the column header even "appointed", when lots of these articles simply say "from", which is much more definitive and less prone to discrepancies. This sister article also uses from. This Gillingham managers list, made a featured list in October, uses from. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Historically, that is probably because it used to be called "List of English Football League managers by date of appointment"

Your suggestion is an alternative way of dealing with the matter. And if it gets consensus, it can be applied. But until then, please do not interfere with the explanatory notes that describe the differences between appointed and making up appointment. Kevin McE (talk) 17:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

So, you're saying the article can change from how it used to be when it received its' featured list status? Interesting. Also, do you have any objection to this? You can't just keep basically saying "gain consensus" without offering any opinion or policies. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think we have probably both said more than enough about a range of matters. Let's hear some other views on all of this. Kevin McE (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you actually have any objections to the outlined change? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)