Talk:List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

New tournament?

@Madshurtie: While looking for sources about the Centenary Tournament I came across another tournament that possibly could be on this page. It was called the Football League 100th Championship Challenge, played to commemorate the 100th edition of the Football League. Played between the current holders of the Football League at the time (Sunderland) and the record winners of the Football League at the time (Liverpool). Liverpool won 3-2 and won the cup. I've searched for some sources that say it's a friendly, but haven't found any. You can do some more research on it if you think it sounds like something that could be on this page and let me know what you think. Hashim-afc (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Hashim-afc: Hmm, looks like it fits the top-qualifying official criteria, but I can't find out much about it. It seems kind of like a once in a hundred-years community shield. Do you have any decent quality sources I've missed? Madshurtie (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Madshurtie: Yeah I also can't find much about it either. I found this match report about it, and this article about it being Steve McManaman's last game for Liverpool. This is the match programme, and here are images of the game. That's about the extent of what I can find. To me, it doesn't seem to be a friendly (none of the articles I found said so and all the main players seemed to be playing despite it being after the league ended) and definitely fits the top-qualifying criteria so it looks like it should be included to me. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hashim-afc: Those are the sources I saw, but they aren't especially high quality. I don't have a major problem adding it, but it would be nice to have some better sources if we do. Madshurtie (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
@Madshurtie: Thinking about it, we also don't have a source to say there was a trophy handed out, it could just be the title of a friendly match (e.g like the "MLS All-Star Game" which has no trophy) so we would probably need to find that before putting it on the page. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:26, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hashim-afc: In the forum source, two people talk about the trophy. One says it's a glass trophy on display in Liverpool's trophy room, which could be verified by visiting it or examining a photo. Madshurtie (talk) 18:41, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
@Madshurtie: Yeah you are right. I could only find one other source talking about the game, talking about how Kevin Phillips got injured. Nonetheless I think it probably merits inclusion with the sources we have but I don't know. What do you think? I've created an article for it at 100th Football League Championship Challenge as it should have an article regardless of whether it gets included on this page or not. Hashim-afc (talk) 20:22, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
@Hashim-afc: Great job on the new article. I didn't notice the forum source has a pasted article from the Press Association. If we could find the original article, that would be a much improved source, but I haven't found it yet on the web archive or through a library search. Also, I've added the trophy to List of FA and league honours won by men's clubs. It's reasonable for the spinoff article to be more comprehensive so I'm including all FL/PL/FA honours there. Your call on whether to add it here too. Madshurtie (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Regional competitions

"County Football Associations organise regional competitions, but all full list of their honours is not provided in this article." Where we can find them and why they aren't? Should be two articles about this; one of "competitive honours" involving ALL TITLES and another for federative (national) and international honours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angel Millo (talk • contribs) 09:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It would not make sense to have them here as they are not national governing bodies, they will be listed on the various counties and regions FA pages as well as in the honours sections of the teams themselves. For instance, Aston Villa have won the Birmingham Senior Cup 19 times I believe in their history, this competition is only open to west midlands based sides and often the league sides will use reserve or U19/U21 sides so it makes very little sense to compare it here with how other clubs have done in their own county or city tournaments. See this page for the list of county FAs: County Football Association Mountaincirque 09:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Spurs Honours

Can I ask, there are only two league wins in the combined totals for Spurs, Tottenham won the 1919–20 and 1949–50 Div Two/Championship as well at the First Div/Prem wins? A total of four league wins. Govvy (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

It is only 'top division wins' counted in this table/page for each side. It is explained in the lead. Mountaincirque 10:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I guess it's the table presentation where it shows (FA, EFL and PL (top-qualifying)) for domestic trophies, confused me there thinking that the table was also counting EFL championship old Div two. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Football League Super Cup and the like

The Football League Super Cup, Full Members Cup and Centenary Trophy should be in the Shield section (renamed like the European section equivalent). These simply aren't major trophies that should be considered alongside the FA and League Cups. Efbo (talk) 13:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no 'major' definition here on this article as it is a subjective term, the page simply encyclopedically reports all the competitive trophies clubs have won. A super cup by definition is a one-off game or sometimes a two-legged tie between two sides, usually between the winners of two other major contests, so none of the competitions you listed match that criteria as all were played over a series of games. The only 'super-cups' in English football at the charity/community shield and its direct predecessor the Sheriff of London Charity Shield which was an FA-authorised annual match. Mountaincirque 08:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Table template rows

I have converted the main table to use templates for the rows, as this provides a much cleaner editing space as well as automation of the totals which comprise over half the total columns and thus can be determined (accurately) from the values provided. There is no visual difference and I have ensured to retain existing formatting functionality in the template. If you spot an issue, i'd appreciate if you could correct this rather than reverting the template! Thanks. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Liverpool have 63 trophies, not 64 trophies

Liverpool have 63 trophies, not 64 trophies because The Sheriff of London Charity Shield does not count. https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/9726838/man-utd-liverpool-successful-english-club-super-cup/ That's The Sun Magazine....they counted 62 trophies, and The Club World Cup row had 0 because Liverpool haven't won it yet. Since Liverpool have recently won The Club World Cup, they have 63 trophies, and Manchester United have 66 trophies. I think this case is over, I'll revert it back to 63 once and for all. No one should revert it back to 64 because I gave in a reliable source, and everything got clarified. Mostafa2704 (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

@Mostafa2704: There is an ongoing discussion taking place above, which suggests a consensus is trying to be reached. You therefore should not revert anything because the cup in question is taken into account for the inclusion of other teams in the table, and simply removing it from Liverpool's count causes an inconsistency.
Secondly (and I hope you're joking), the "Sun" newspaper, as a reliable source for anything to do with Liverpool FC is ridiculous. If you continue to revert before a conclusive decision has been reached, you do risk being blocked as I noted on your talk page. This is wikipedia rules and not any individual opinion. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion, however your rationale won't be taken seriously by anyone, i'm afraid. Bungle (talk • contribs) 09:32, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
You'll need a better source than that. The Sun is deprecated as a source per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. DrKay (talk) 11:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

As if you’ve used The S*n as a reliable source for a start and secondly used as a source for Liverpool FC. Regardless of opinion, it’s a trophy that has been won by not only Liverpool and counts towards their overall trophy count (see Villa, Newcastle, etc. and it’s actually listed as a honour won on their respective Wiki pages).

Again, regardless of opinion the Sheriff of London Charity Shield was an FA club competition, fact. It was only on 1908 when the AFA split for the FA that the Charity/Community Shield we know today came into play. FACT.

I cannot stand disinformation, take your opinion out of this. Was this competition won by Liverpool? Yes. Should it count as an overall trophy won? Yes. Now, were this gets murky is do we count this as a major honour, I’d say no BUT it counts just as much as today’s Charity/Community Shield. Solid Snack90 (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is not disinformation. This is about how perspectives change. The only person that has so far presented their opinion is you. 1. Their wiki pages are not irrefutable bastions of knowledge and will often include things we would not include on this list (like second tier wins, informal competition wins etc). 2. This is about reliable sources, and you have not as yet presented a single reliable source describing why the Sheriff of London competition should be ranked within some official measure when it is excluded by even those teams that have won it.
If you want to help your case, bring reliable sources to the table and stop with the speculation and accusations. Koncorde (talk) 11:41, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Koncorde - we simply can’t find and reliable source as information regarding this competition as it doesn’t go that far back. In regards to Liverpool not recognising it, does that mean that this Wiki page should include the Lancashire League titles, as Liverpool recognise them officially? I think both sides of the discussion are valid, however we’re never going to get one answer everyone agrees on. If we go down this ‘purist’ path of removing honours like this, then it’ll open a whole new can of worms with other competitions. I don’t see a solution here. Solid Snack90 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes we can find a reliable source, there are many almanacs still produced, and encyclopedias on football etc, and of course myriad secondary sources. And my point is quite clear: many sources (including the club's) think any number of things are honours and many do not include or even reference quite common honours. Meanwhile many secondary sources, particularly clickbait and tabloid, reduce down their lists to what they refer to as "major".
This article is a list of competitive honours. At some point someone has decided through consensus what should be included on this list, and how they should be categorised. This list is effectively a record of all results, regardless of their seniority apart from where someone has arbitrarily drawn a line in the sand already by providing a definition. This definition has resulted in the inclusion of the LoS trophy. That definition was not based on any reliable sources, it is a meta-definition. An opinion.
In contrast the Liverpool vs Man Utd rivalry page is sourced and cited to what reliable sources have used for comparison. Unlike some of those sources however we do not exclude the Charity Shield (which can be in or out depending on the POV they are pushing). Meanwhile each club page is cited to whatever list they choose to use. The end result is that in all likelihood no two lists on Wikipedia are going to match as each are using their own criteria, just as Wikipedia will not match the next clickbait article published by the DM or Mirror, or Sky Sports. That isn't inherently wrong, it will just lead to arguments like this, and the persistent edit wars.
The solution is to outline what is included and not try to synthesise a "list" that does not exist in any reliable sources. That doesn't mean excluding the SoL competition, it means properly categorising it in a way that reflects the sources available. Koncorde (talk) 13:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Liverpool trophy count

Given this seems to be contentious and disputed, I think it best it be conclusively clarified exactly what the table should be declaring as appropriate trophies. Yesterday, BRACK66 wrote on my talk page that the total should be 64, not 62 but Mostafa2704 is of the view it's 63, not 64. As I understand, the trophies are:

  • 10 UEFA/FIFA cups
  • 4 UEFA/FIFA super cups

UEFA/FIFA total of 14

  • 18 League titles
  • 16 domestic cups (7x FA cup, 8x league cup, 1x league super cup)
  • 16 shields (15x charity shields, 1x sheriff london shield)

Domestic total of 50

Combined as above, this brings a total of 64. Are any of these disputed or considered not major enough for the overall total? It's getting silly with the continual reverting and disputing of the total that it needs some consensus about what exactly is considered a competitive honour. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:00, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

It's the Sheriff of London cup causing the issues. It's not usually listed in any trophy totals as it pre-dates professionalism and was formally supplanted by the Charity Shield. Now I can see the argument that as a precursor it is a trophy of note - however very few, if any, reliable sources actually mention it. For whatever reason when this article was being out together someone decided it was relevant but this leads to discrepancies between this page and other pages within Wikipedia. By the same time there are dozens of regional leagues etc that pre-date the formal championship that I wouldn't expect to see in most charts such as these (and aren't included) where the Sheriff of London is. Koncorde (talk) 21:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, Mostafa2704 disputes the cups, not the shields and if the one-off league super cup is included, then it's 16. The sheriff shield is supposedly counted because of the inclusion of clubs on the table such as Queen's Park F.C. and Corinthian F.C., both of whom only ever won this sheriff of london shield and so would not/should not be on the table if this shield is considered irrelevant. If they remain, then Liverpool's shields count has to be 16, so perhaps the discussion extends beyond purely Liverpool and more about exactly what trophies are considered relevant for table inclusion? Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Mostafa is referring to this list which is the detailed comparison between Liverpool and Man Utd where the Super Cup is referenced, but not the Sheriff of London trophy because no reliable sources refer to it in the same vein as the other competitions. The issue is the Amateur / Professional splits at this time. Most southern teams resisted professionalism, where a lot more northern and midland teams went with it. It takes until 1930 for a London team to win the title. The table should probably reflect the difference between amateur and professional a little better. Koncorde (talk) 21:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

The Sheriff of London Charity Shield should remain as an honour and counted towards Liverpool’s overall trophy count. Before the FA and Amateur FA split (1908) this was deemed a big deal, especially by Northern teams. Now if you go to the Wiki pages of: Villa, Sunderland, Newcastle, etc. It’s listed as an honour - next to their Charity/Community Shield triumphs. Solid Snack90 (talk) 13:59, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

That sounds like a lot of personal opinion. Reliable sources are required to support the claim of it being considered a significant trophy, and ideally these need to be in the context of a list of trophies, comparisons etc. As I have said, I don't know of any sources that even make reference to that trophy when making such trophy lists, so it strikes me as odd that they are being used for this purpose.
Lots of clubs have trophies from long dead competitions from the formative years of football that just don't carry any weight under analysis. The Charity Shield is just about maintaining a shred of relevance. Koncorde (talk) 14:11, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
How would it be determined whether the Sheriff Charity Shield is considered major enough or not? Whatever the decision, it would affect the totals of several other teams too, so it's inconsistent to change only the Liverpool tally on this basis alone, without making a decision that would be reflective of every team to have won this. In a similar vain, the short-lived League Super Cup was a competition in its own right so I accept this is also a trophy (perhaps more-so than a UEFA super cup or shield, for that matter).
Therefore, it seems to me that unless there is a compelling reason to discount the sheriff shield, then the tally seems correct. Being a precursor to the contemporary shield is not in itself sufficient justification and the conditions for participation were not the same as the modern day one. If it's not mentioned by any reputable sources, or the clubs themselves, then it's questionable as to whether it should be included as a major competitive honour. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:57, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
It would need to be consistently referred to in reliable sources as an honour, ideally when included within some analysis of trophies won. And to be clear; this isn't about removing any mention of it, but it is about using reliable secondary sources when discussing titles, trophies and honours. On the primary source front:
This proves nothing other than primary sources cannot be relied upon for comprehensive detail about their own clubs. Koncorde (talk) 21:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks like this was previously discussed on a few occasions so will need the input of these guys. Will ping later. Koncorde (talk) 21:53, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

It is the precursor to the current Community Shield, and should therefore, in my opinion, be included in club totals. BRACK66 (talk) 01:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Shield validity

So it can be decided conclusively, can we determine consensus about whether the Sheriff of London charity shields should be included in this table or not, seeing as it pre-dated the contemporary charity shields? I personally don't have a view on this either way, but I note the discussion about this has stalled somewhat and it could do with some consensus that can be referenced for any future disputed edits on the amounts for the clubs including this shield. I don't think any of the other trophies can be disputed, including the official League Super Cup which was a competition in itself, albeit short lived; it seems to just be an issue with the Sheriff shields that needs to be resolved. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:37, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep, it is clear from Sheriff of London Charity Shield and the historic references that the competition was overseen by the FA (even having both the FA President Lord Kinnaird and former president Francis Marindin on the trophy committee). The fact that people today do not know about it, and press coverage is limited as began in the late Victorian era, is not a reason to exclude it from the page. As can be seen from the wiki page for the Shield, a key source is an 1906 book on Corinthian F.C., this is exemplary of what we are dealing with here: reports from a time when electricity was only just becoming commonplace. The trophy morphing into the Charity Shield in 1907 also cuts short the availability of sources, though there are some good contemporaneous newspaper and written sources referenced at the trophy's wiki page.
There are clear sources showing that the SoLCS is the official precursor to the FA Charity Shield and should be treated on a par with it, sources show that this was a competitive match, and Corinthian even famously had to change their club rules to play in it as they had previously vowed to never play in a challenge cup or prize match (but amended them to be able to do so for charity) [1]. I am generally concerned that requests to remove this trophy are tainted by those who openly or secretly want to remove honours from leading clubs to place them above or below other sides. This is something we have seen repeatedly with people wanting to reduce Liverpool's honours to be less than Manchester United's for example. The discussion noted above on whether clubs list the trophy in their online honours lists is completely against notability guidelines: we have the sources for this trophy's notability and importance at the time. This was the original 'Super Cup' in the UK drawing major crowds to big grounds such as the The Crystal Palace, the FA Cup final venue at the time.
I have watched and edited this page for around 7/8 years and have seen a clear improvement with the move away from 'major/minor' honours which was always a subjective definition and prone to bias. Moving to remove the SoLCS would be a backwards step, taking out a competitive match that was one of the biggest games of the season in the late 1800s and early 1900s seemingly because it is not 'well known enough'. This is an encyclopedia where the facts are reported, not a place to rank achievements or spread opinion on whether one is above another. I am yet to see a good factual reason, backed up by sources that counter the contemporary sources between 1897-1907, as to why the Shield should not be considered a competitive honour which is the key matter that we should be focusing on. Mountaincirque 12:21, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is disputing the above, or advocating its removal (I'm certainly not), and in particular my comment in conclusion was "This proves...primary sources cannot be relied upon for comprehensive detail about their own clubs" in response to claims about clubs that do or don't include it in their own figures as some kind of criteria for inclusion (or exclusion). However the question is more are we synthesising such records by placing them in a table like we have? Are we creating an analysis that isn't actually being done by secondary sources? And ultimately what is the appropriate way to reflect the information (the current table "works" but is it clearest format?)? Koncorde (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree, I was just responding to Bungle's quite clear question on whether to include this trophy or not and wanted to re-state the key arguments, I have seen some discussion before Christmas on whether it should be removed and some commenting that there were little to no sources for its inclusion (which is factually incorrect).
I don't see collating factual information as 'creating an analysis', you could say the same about creating a biography of a person from 20 sources, it is a collation not an analysis (or should be). A discussion on the format is welcome, in my personal experience it has often taken a WP:BOLD editor to propose and implement an improved format as reaching a table consensus through a talk page is so tricky. Mountaincirque 14:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The analysis part is where we go from just creating lists of all titles, to creating collated tables grouping different competitions together. Stating X has 10 charity shields is one thing (multiple sources will state how many of that trophy that they have won). Stating X has 15 "Shields" and 10 "Cups" and therefore has won 25 cups and is 5th on the list of all trophy winners is why we're at where weare at - as many secondary sources create their own criteria. This means that we are subject to easy challenges in many reliable sources. We have this issue with other rivalry articles where the Charity Shield has been excised from the competitive records for whatever "major" Vs "minor" justification they want to use. Koncorde (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The 'Shields' and 'Cups' thing is ridiculous logic in any case though. The Community Shield IS a cup, the fact that it isnt SHAPED like a traditional cup doesn't change its status as one. You wouldnt refer to the Bundesliga trophy in Germany as a 'bowl' and list it seperately in trophy comparisons by referring to it as 'total cups + bowls' or something. 'Cups' is merely referring to official silverware, not the shape of the silverware in question. By that token, the term could always be changed to 'trophies' to reflect a tiny bit more accurately on the info being conveyed, if it is causing significant confusion. Also, what articles are excluding the Charity Shield in their records? The notion of major vs minor doesnt exist on Wikipedia I thought because of the unofficial, arbitrary and inconsistent notion of 'major'/'important' silverware, aside from the fact that it is a very niche count not proven to exist anywhere beyond certain sections of the tabloid English press. If there are such articles where this has been done, they should be reverted or changed to include it as this is an encyclopedia and we dont remove official competitions because "they aren't very important in my opinion/some people's opinions" or "this shouldn't be a major trophy". Davefelmer (talk) 02:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
My take was that the editor who put in the current versions of the tables along with the tables further down breaking them properly down into individual trophy columns found that it was very hard to present the data in one table with a column for each trophy, it was incredibly wide and had to include columns with limited data. I honestly think that the Sheriff of London Charity Shield / Charity Shield and Community Shield are perfectly acceptable to have in one column as they are directly linked, chronological (i.e. no years when they overlapped) and are all 'FA Cup winner' vs 'X' super cup matches where obviously X has changed over 130 years as leagues formed and changed. I don't see this as 'analysis', it is a fact that Liverpool have won 16 FA Charity Shields for example, but one of them was the Sheriff of London CS, these are facts, not analysis, even if some contemporary sources don't report the same as they are poorly researched, that is not our concern, as the factual evidence of their existence and FA involvement is there for all to see. Mountaincirque 13:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the evidence and all the discussion that has taken place, I think the Sheriff of London Shield should be kept provided its officiality/competitive nature can be verified. Whether it goes into the same section as the FA Charity/Community Shield or it needs its own section/a seperate note on the side is still up for debate as we'd need to verify and get reliably sourced evidence for it being the official precursor to the Charity Shield as per the FA. Davefelmer (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm very easy-going about a reorganisation if there is consensus for that, it could mean you get less disruptive IP editors barging in to change totals as they haven't read the article properly and don't understand why some sides have additional Sheriff of London Shields in that column.
Quickly, to me the 'official precursor' case is very strong, it opens the history section of the FA's history section on the Community Shield for example, using the term 'evolved from' [2]. I have looked at British Library newspaper archive records from 1907-1910, the basics seem to be that the FA worked closely with the Sheriff of London Shield committee over a decade to plan the trophy, and many members wore both 'hats'. In 1907 there was a big bust up leading to the amateurs leaving the FA and the FA refusing to let amateur sides in any competitions they ratified, so they changed the Shield format to be League v. Southern League rather than League v. best amateur side and took the Sheriff of London out of the title. There was pressure, reported in the press at the time, to not let charities and hospitals who had been the beneficiaries suffer from the match not going ahead, hence the FA took it on themselves to keep it going in 1908. I would like to add more references and detail to both 'Shield' pages one day, the archives are there in the British Library newspaper archive for those interested. Mountaincirque 10:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response mate, been super busy with work and travelling but have a bit more time now. I do think your little project idea of adding more references and depth to both Shield pages using the archives and such is a very interesting one, and I think it'd be great for the project if you saw it through! Let me know if you need any help with it down the line when you decide to get it rolling.
As for the inclusion of the Sheriff of London Shield in general, I do nudge in your favour considering that the sources are there to support it. I would however go on the side of caution in regards to including wins in the Sheriff of London Shield together in one box alongside Charity/Community Shields without explanation. At the very least, I think a note should be provided, either in the key or in the boxes for relevant clubs individually (something like a note next to the total that says "this includes the club's Charity Shield wins in 1965 and 1972, as well as victories in the Sheriff of London Charity Shield, the FA's official precursor to the competition, in 1899 and 1904" or whatever the dates are, for example). Davefelmer (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
That's a really good idea for a quick fix actually, adding notes to the handful of clubs that won both charity shields. I'm very busy at work this week but will revisit this soon! Mountaincirque 15:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone please chip in on how on earth you add the footnotes to the actual column the footnote is referring to. It seems out of place now how they stick to the club name in the table. The comment on Liverpool's Football League Super Cup for example also seems out of place as it is hard to see which column item it is actually referring to (it was a cup competition with multiple sides called a 'super cup'...but not a 'super cup' by the definition used here). Mountaincirque 15:07, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

@Mountaincirque: Not too difficult - I just added additional footnote parameters to the template and positioned them at the end of the raw data columns. I have thus now changed where the footnote appears for LFC. There are only 5 numerical values that are passed through the template and so we only need 5 additional footnotes to cover this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-Italian League Cup

The article mentions the Anglo-Italian League Cup, if we are counting that, then why have you added all the data for it? Tottenham won that in 1971 yet it hasn't been included in either table, please explain. Govvy (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Also missing Swindon Town's win in 1969. Govvy (talk) 10:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I am confused by too many tables, article is somewhat annoying!! :/ Govvy (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Well done for spotting that they were missing, that's just a genuine error. We have found it almost impossible to present all the data in one table. Hence there is an aggregated table using various categories (league/cup/supercup) and then two disaggregated tables below. We have just started to implement a system of improved footnotes in the top table to clarify where clubs have won minor or defunct trophies such as the Sheriff of London Charity Shield or the Anglo-Italian League Cup, which despite being less well-known were fully authorised competitive competitions by the FAs of their time. Please help us get it right :) Mountaincirque 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Mountaincirque Should the Anglo-Italia be added to the first table or not? Govvy (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Mountaincirque It looks like you put the Anglo-Italia cup in domestic column, shouldn't it go under FIFA/UEFA because it was against another team from Europe? Govvy (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
There has been discussion on this in the past, it was regulated by the FA and the Italian FA as it was their cup-winners, so it was not a FIFA/UEFA competition. It is a quirky one but that seems to make most sense, it is divided by authority not geography. Mountaincirque 15:12, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Summary of European competition winners is necessary in the introduction

The admin in control of this page is demonstrating a bizarre level of pedantry towards the content of this page. A short paragraph describing European competitions has been consistently deleted despite being highly relevant to the article. This paragraph would follow the bloated paragraph concerning English competitions (which absurdly contains reference to now defunct, and irrelevant, competitions such as the Anglo-Italian cup). I fear the admin is too possessive over their own work to allow necessary improvements to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.92.216.35 (talk • contribs) 11:45, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no "admin in control of this page", as it's a community-led project. Anyone can add/remove content appropriately and anyone who disagrees can revert. The content on the page belongs to no single person, yet that doesn't mean to say editors won't want to ensure it's kept accurate and appropriate. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Trophies by club

If the Sheriff of London Charity Shield, and Anglo-Italian Cup, are being counted, then Spurs have 26 trophies, not 24.

League 2, FA Cup 8, League Cup 4, SoL 1, Charity Shield 7, Ango-Italian 1, Uefa Cup 2, CWC 1. BRACK66 (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Most "decorated" team

@Davefelmer: I am mindful that much of the unconstructive edits, vandalism and edit warring tends to be around either how many trophies a club has won (which is statistically verifiable as a fixed figure), or statements which, while not wholly original research, are controversial depending upon what you interpret to be "major" or substantial enough. I have watched this article for some time and revert/undo undesirable edits where I see them, but I happen to find the sentence in question an issue, not least because it's always going to be subjective in some people's view, especially as super cups and shields are often not seen in the same respect. Indeed, some edits over time have sought to convolute the sentence by stipulating that Manchester United have the most trophies, but Liverpool have more major ones, which I feel is an unnecessary explanation and just seeks to create further dispute. Anyone can see the table and which club sits where. If others feel it's still appropriate to have mentioned then that's fine, but i'd still think that, even if/when Liverpool overtake (which is plausible), that it would be better (and easier) just letting the table tell the story. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, to reference your edit statement, it's not been "up for a long time", it was only added when this unconstructive edit inaccurately said Liverpool were the most decorated, and this was just back in November 2019. There was no statement like this before that time that I can see. It's been edit warred a various times since. The fact it only came about in this manner highlights the concern I raised. Bungle (talk • contribs) 07:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether anyone holds super cups and shields in the same respect as anything else, as an encyclopedia we only deal with official realities which is that all honours count the same in the trophy cabinet. Hence we don't include anything to do with "major" trophies as those are unofficial and arbitrarily defined measures of what someone constitutes to be an 'important' trophy which often varies from claim to claim. Being up since November 2019 is also definitely an established edit, that's over half a year now! Furthermore, the only issue with these pieces of information seem to be various trolling IP edits, and we should not be influenced nor act in a reactionary manner to such edits. They usually flurry for a week whenever a trophy is won and then disappear, if it becomes an issue we can always increase protection of the article for a little while as well. I haven't seen any established editors that have come across and edited on this page express an issue with the phrase, and as a lead section it is supposed to summarise what the body of the article shows, and this is one of the pieces of information that does so. Davefelmer (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing competitions

As of January 2021 this article exclude the Texaco Cup and Watney Cup despite those tournaments involving top-tier English clubs. Indeed only in its last season - when entry was expanded to 16 with an English preliminary groupstage - did any English club from outside of the top-tier participate in the Texaco Cup; while the Watney Cup was strictly criteria-based, being entered by the top scorers in each division (excluding promoted clubs and those who qualified for Europe). There seems no obvious reason to exclude them while including the Anglo-Italian League Cup and the Full Members Cup (which like the early years of the League Cup sometimes saw certain big clubs opt out - and at times clubs have declined or been prevented from playing in the Intercontinental Cup, Charity Shield, Europe or even the FA Cup).

It also exclude the Anglo-Italian Cup (1970 to 1973) - a majority of its entrants were top-tier, or newly promoted into the top-tier.

It also exclude the Anglo-Scottish Cup which was a continuation of the Texaco Cup, and again featured top-tier and second-tier clubs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:3803:A001:CD83:90F8:736F:C88F (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

The rationale for not including these competitions is noted in the final paragraph of the lead. These competitions were not open to all clubs, only invitational to those who had not qualified for Europe, or invitational to sides from lower divisions that scored the most goals in the case of the Watney Cup. The list also excludes County and City honours for the same reason. They could potentially be included in the future if there was consensus for a change in the competitions included. Mountaincirquetalk 10:27, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

WAR CUP

What about the WAR Cup played in the WWII instead the FA Cup?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FranXBSC (talk • contribs) 00:24, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

These games were not considered fully competitive, there has been an ongoing debate about Jackie Milburn in this regard as if you included his 38 Wartime League goals he would surpass Alan Shearer as Newcastle's all-time highest goalscorer. However, most sources do not count the goals/appearances as they were designated as 'friendly', often having guest players from other sides to make up numbers or having games cancelled due to not having enough players. There could be a debate on including the Wartime League/Cup in future is enough sources can be presented to show that it was competitive. Mountaincirquetalk 10:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

mmm but its considered official by the FA? or not?, or simply the FA never talk about, and The Anglo-Italian Cup, the Anglo-Scottish / Texaco Cup isnt considered official? only the Anglo-Italian League is counted here. FranXBSC (talk — Preceding undated comment added 06:47, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Adding last title won to the table.

Hi. I've noticed that several of the equivalent pages for the other major European football nations (e.g. Germany, Italy, France) have an additional column in their main table of titles won which indicates what was the last title won by each club. Has this been considered too for the English clubs? --Ratchet8865 (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Ratchet8865: I have considered this a few times and think it would be an ok addition, but I can't see how it could be added on without causing the table to extend beyond a reasonable size. The alternative is to remove some columns (as the totals are effectively duplicated), though there would perhaps need to be some consensus for that. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2021

2601:14D:4401:80:DAC:13ED:FCD1:D174 (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. —Sirdog (talk) 03:13, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Are the numbers in the table correct?

I'm not claiming to be an expert on football data, but Liverpool have 14 European cups here, topping the table. When I look at the club's own wiki page and honours, it reads that there are 6+4+3=13 different European cups. Am I missing something? Beyondheat (talk) 05:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Beyondheat: That column says FIFA and UEFA, which includes the Club World Cup won in 2019 by Liverpool. It isn't exclusively European trophies. Bungle (talk • contribs) 06:23, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Beyondheat: you just need to scroll a bit further down to see the next table which neatly breaks down all the FIFa/UEFA trophies for each club. Bungle above is right, they have a World Club Cup win too which has gone in that column. Mountaincirquetalk 09:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Thanks both for clarifying. Beyondheat (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Why aren't lower Division winners included on the top chart?

They are also champions too, aren't they? Label them under "Other". Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The table says that the domestic trophies are "top qualifying", as I don't think you can compare the PL to Championship, or that to National League etc. I guess "top qualifying" denotes competitions that are open to teams in the highest league, even competitions that lower league teams can participate in (but not exclusively). The line has to be drawn somewhere. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:20, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

"Most trophies" in the prose

I observe that the age-old debate has reared its head again, now that Liverpool top the table. When it was MUFC who were noted for this honour, I did have reservations about its inclusion as the table already tells the reader what they need to know. At that time, Davefelmer seemed quite adamant in ensuring that it was included regardless as a summary of the table (i'd be interested in his view now). Now the tables are turned, and I suspect so are the editors who believe the wording should or not should not be included. I imagine that unless there is some actual consensus to refer to, we'll end up with an indefinite edit war of whether we should have this sentence or not. Unfortunately, I also think that anyone who does not support Liverpool may now think it should not be included, while those who do support Liverpool may want it included. The Sheriff of London Charity Shield shouldn't be included,thus Liverpool have 66 trophies,tied with Manchester United

Although personally I am a Liverpool fan, I think it's more hassle than its worth, which is why I suggested removing it when MUFC had the top honour (but seemingly not through "major" trophies or cups, hence some dispute). The article is primarily a list article and the list clearly shows the tallies. Maybe if it is included, the wording and citations need to be carefully considered. Pinging @Koppite1 and Koncorde as it looks like we may have an WP:EDITWAR. Bungle (talk • contribs) 11:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I intended to start a talk at WP:FOOTBALL but have been taken up all day with family life. I have to admit to not noticing if the "has won the most trophies" existed previously in the lede, but the issue is that we cannot source that claim to our own list (this is blatant WP:OR). Particularly if we claim "major" or "first class", because that is not what our list purports to be (this would then be WP:SYNTH) and even worse if we try to use a reliable source that doesn't agree with our own list (creating both OR and SYNTH). Principally the claim will forever fail in this article (as it does in others where the reliance is on obscure trophies):
  1. we include trophies that are never included on any comparisons of clubs trophy hauls because we have created our own definition for the purpose of this list (I still have no idea why we chose to go down the OR / SYNTH route)
  2. most sources do not agree about what constitutes a "first class" or "major" honour or trophy, creating mutually exclusive lists.
  3. many sources are not npov, which is fine for them but it means that there are immediate conflicts between (say) The Liverpool Echo vs The Manchester Evening News[3]
However, many Liverpool supporters still seem to think they have a claim as the most successful English side because they believe the Community Shield shouldn't count. United have won six more Charity Shields than Liverpool, and as a result some fans believe it means that Klopp's side deserve the accolade. This has not gone down well with United fans who have accused Liverpool supporters of hypocrisy for choosing to count the European Super Cup but not the English Super Cup to suit their argument. This sort of bias is reflected in the Echo's own coverage declaring Liverpool top already which specifically excludes the Charity Shield. Notably neither of them count the SoL in their counts.
In the end the issue will likely become moot in the near future if Liverpool continue to win trophies, but at present making declarative statements based on OR / SYNTH is not what we are about. Koncorde (talk) 20:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
Just for further evidence of our own "Original Research" where include the SoL in our lists, the relevant RSSSF source specifically excludes it from the trophy count. This is pretty egregious SYNTH where we are making a claim the sources themselves are not making. Koncorde (talk) 11:07, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm struggling with the logic here on the SoL (Sheriff of London) Charity Shield. This is a page that lists competitive English football honours, which is definitely the only non-subjective way to do it and was agreed by consensus to avoid the horrible major/minor debates that raged on for years. The SoL Shield was definitely a competitive honour that was overseen by the President of the FA, there are many references for that, and the FA have noted repeatedly that the Community Shield developed/evolved from that competition, the fact that RSSSF haven't included it in their own editorial list is by the by, that's their own 'major/minor' in-house matter which we've skirted with the definition used here, the only reason it was initially missed was due to the fact that Victorian football has still received little attention in the modern press and consciousness. There isn't original research here as per WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY. I'd be happy to take the most trophies overall out of the lead if it's going to cause a stir (Aston Villa fan myself if we're in the business of clarifying biases). Mountaincirquetalk 13:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The creation of our own definition or what should be counted is by definition Original Research. The creation of a new trophy count is WP:SYNTH. Explicitly SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources where we have taken the comment that the SoL trophy is the precursor to the Charity Shield (one reliably sourced statement), and the relevant trophy counts (another reliably sourced statement)... and then decided that statement 1 means we should add 1 to the total (Original Research). As I have stated previously - by all means list the trophy, but this makes this list specifically unreliable for any sourced claims of "Most trophies" because it will never, ever, be mirrored by a reliable source because it is very specifically a piece of Original Research as presented in this way. Koncorde (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The objective inclusion of the SoL trophy is List of FA and league honours won by men's clubs btw rather than being shoehorned in here, given its relative obscurity and lack of relevance in reliable sources. Koncorde (talk) 13:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:Routine calculation: all we've done is total up 'competitive trophies' which is a common concept in sport generally, that is not original research in my opinion. One step back I would take is the 'top level qualification' clarifier that is used here, if we got rid of that to include all national competitive trophies (so add the EFL Trophy) then would you agree that this was a fair list that factually reported trophy wins without any additional 'original' approach/filter?
What is your proposed solution @Koncorde? I don't think we're really far apart if you want to propose something. Mountaincirquetalk 14:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The Routine calculation logic refers to the the table of results adding up at the ends for Total values, or deducting / adding from year values (or conversion of numbers). The OR is our decision that we should add together the two competitions, and which competitions we have decided to include. That is significantly more than just routine calculation. As I have stated: for the purpose of THIS LIST we can do what we want. However expressions of statements like "Liverpool have won the most trophies" will be fundamentally incorrect within this article and impossible to source without conflicting with our calculation (due to different definitions of Major / Minor, and the universal exclusion of the SoL by any reliable source), and reliance on this list on other articles as a means of reference "most successful club" claims will be fraught with challenges because the other articles MUST use reliable sources for their claims and not our own OR or "routine calculation" meaning there will be perpetual dispute (until there is a clear winner in all cases whether including all Minor/Major or not).
For me the SoL should be considered a Lower Qualifying Honour where we don't need to SYNTH and OR an outcome in other pages, but I know that has been opposed here and barring an RFC to discuss it I don't see that being resolved. But this list should not be used as a reference for any stated claims that are themselves not made by reliable sources that corroborate our total in full. Without this, it is blatant SYNTH and OR to make any such claim. Koncorde (talk) 14:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I can see both sides to this, including the fact that the SoL was a predecessor to the recognized charity shield, yet the point about it's significance is relevant given the clubs themselves don't officially acknowledge it. The current trajectory Liverpool are on means this discussion may soon be moot when it becomes indisputable as to which club have won the "most major trophies", but for the moment i'd be inclined to not explicitly state in written form which club is the "most successful". The table is, in essence, a verifiable numerical list of "competitive honours" won for each club and I think as it stands is fairly accurate in conveying that, as it was when the top two were recently alternate.
I don't agree with trying to erase mentions of the SoL trophy from other articles either, as it was a relatively significant honour for its time but for the purposes of defining what is major or minor, the easier thing is to avoid that altogether until such a time when the honours are indisputably comparable. So long as the table is reflective of all competitive honours for every club, then there should not be any course for disagreement. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Except it isn't a list of competitive honours... it's a list of competitive honours and a friendly invitational against a fixed opposition (Corinthians being the default opposition), and we exclude other competitive honours by using the definition of "top flight" or top level or similar but somehow this squeeks through despite there being no reliable sources indicating its equivalent notability, or seniority, other than in our OR / SYNTH process. It's no more erasing the SoL to place it with equally historic trophies of little relevance these days than it is for us to segregate "lower qualifying honours". Koncorde (talk) 23:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
This is your own 'original research' take and frankly generally incorrect. The Shield was never claimed to be a 'friendly invitational' and was not described as such in any contemporaneous sources, in newspaper sources it was given very high billing as an end of season 'super cup' and saw crowds in the 20-30,000 region routinely due to the interest in it at a time when there were only the FA Cup and Football League as national level honours. The trophy was ratified and supported by the FA who nominated a side to join each year and Lord Kinnaird (who annually presented the medals and shield) and Francis Marindin were on the committee [!], demonstrating the close/overlapping link to the FA. In terms of being 'invitational', that's factually incorrect, it was always either the Football League winner or FA Cup Winner versus the best amateur side of the year, on the occasion that Queen's Park F.C. defeated Corinthian during their regular annual rounds of games, they took the spot in the 1899 Sheriff of London Charity Shield. It's just that Corinthian really were that dominant over that 9-year window to be regarded as the best amateur side for 8 of those 9 years, they won the vast majority of their matches.
You make some fair points on the 'top level' and 'lower level' honours, which I also agree needs another look, but I can't stand you misrepresenting the facts when I've spent years researching the Sheriff of London Shield and reading newspaper articles from the time to improve the sourcing on the article. If you have a single reference for the SoL Shield being a 'friendly' I will sit up and listen. Mountaincirquetalk 09:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Invitational is what it was: two clubs were invited to play for charity (Corinthians themselves only competed by invite as gentlemen footballers). That's also how the Charity Shield was described (among many other competitions), and is described, such as on 1908 FA Charity Shield based on "contemporary" sources description. From the Ryehill website, an unnamed source, describes it as "Sunderland were honoured by an invitation to play the Corinthians for the Sheriff of London Charity Shield on Tottenham Hotspurs ground. Sunderland were at full strength but the Corinthians were lacking 3 of their most celebrated English amateurs in C.B.Fry, R.E.Foster and Woodward.", the Dundee Courier (apparently) "It is officially intimated that Villa have not accepted the invitation, though they have not definitely refused it.". This isn't controversial, the 1902 & 1904 SoL was contested between the FA Cup Winners and Corinthians, early Charity Shield were between Southern Football League winners and League Winners, but the 1913 FA Charity Shield was two select squads, and 60 years later the 1971 FA Charity Shield (among other instances and oddities inbetween, such 1950 FA Charity Shield and 1961 FA Charity Shield) was contested by the Div2 Champions and the League Runners Up by invite (around the same time the FA tried to change the image of the Charity Shield from being a "Friendly" for charity to a competitive curtain raiser - for charity - held at Wembley).
The whole premise of an invitational against gentlemen amateurs was for this to be a "friendly", because Corinthians own rules bound them from competitions (they did some amendment to get around this by specifically allowing this one "charity" game)[4][5] and the method of choosing the "best amateurs" was by the selection committee - again this was not some fought for competition, as Corinthians were themselves a super club made of players from other teams (much like the Barbarian F.C., also described as a "British invitational rugby union club". There is a reason the Charity Shield has retained the prolonged stigma of being a "glorified friendly".
Treating it as a competitive match is completely against the ethos of Corinthians The 1906 Annals of the Corinthian Football Club called its members ‘missionaries of the Empire’, linking British sportsmanship to international understanding as well as the bringing together of colonies and the ‘Mother Country’; prioritized charitable causes; and emphasized that a game should be a game, opposing competitive glory-seeking and trophy-hunting. to quote the full entry discussing their charitable objectives in taking part in the SoL:
British idea of true sportsmanship, and to break down that insular prejudice which we both acknowledge and deplore. It is unnecessary to recount the many great advantages that those of us who have been fortunate enough to participate in these tours have derived from the social intercourse with sportsmen of different nations. And it should be added that these tours are entirely free from any financial objects. Expenses are guaranteed, and beyond that not a penny goes into the coffers of the Club. The Club, too, is always ready to aid charitable objects, although it is not suggested that it claims a monopoly in this respect. A further characteristic may be mentioned. The Corinthians have, from the first, set their faces against "pot-hunting" ; with the one exception of the Sheriff of London's Charity Shield, the Club is not allowed by its rules to enter for any competition. Now, in these days of cups and medals, when " friendly" matches have ceased to be taken seriously, and the one aim of a club, in so many cases, is to be at the head of a league or the winner of a cup, this "self-denying ordinance" on the part of the Corinthians should act as a valuable protest against the growing tendency to play the game only for the prizes it will bring.
We're the ones objectively elevating a competition, when not even the successor competition is universally accepted by reliable sources as being "competitive". Koncorde (talk) 11:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
"with the one exception of the Sheriff of London's Charity Shield" sums it up for me. They had a special relaxation of their 'friendly only' rules to compete in it...which verifies that it was competitive. Mountaincirquetalk 12:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
Or the exception is for the act of playing for a trophy and "prizes" as their book states, which are awarded for numerous "competitions" we choose not to include in this list and do not change the public perception of "friendlies" which can also have said trophies and pots to win. Koncorde (talk) 19:00, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Just to add my thoughts to the above discussion, I definitely agree an isolated lead statement "x club has won the most honours" is inappropriate and controversial. I've removed statements like these in the past, but they keep getting added back. I don't think there was ever consensus for a statement like this since I started watching the article, it's just something that certain editors like to keep adding.

On the discussion about the SoLCS, I now think the whole top table should be reworked to include significantly fewer trophies. The criteria behind what's included or not is a bit labyrinthine. A reader has to get their head around the top-qualifying criterion, and has to notice the sentences about friendly tournaments being included elsewhere. This is partially my fault because I tried to make the structure more objective after failing to get it through Featured Article Review a few years ago. But I now think chasing an objective structure is unrealistic. Instead we should try to follow the inclusion criteria for honours lists presented by RSs. This can't be done perfectly because the inclusion criteria vary from source to source. But my suggestion would be to actually explain this problem to the reader in a paragraph or two before the table, describe some controversial trophies, and to include in the table only the trophies that the overwhelming majority of sources include. If the trophies are only listed by say half the sources (as is the case with the Community Shield), they should go elsewhere in the article. It would also make this top table easier for the casual reader to understand. The summary totals table doesn't currently name the specific trophies, so it's hard for the reader to verify the totals in-line, and this is likely the most viewed part of the article.

Now that the article has subsequent sections, it is at least easy to move trophies without removing them from the article entirely, unlike in the major/minor debates a decade ago. I also think "major" is the most suitable word for describing the trophies in the summary table. In reliable sources, the articles seem to either just talk about trophies without any qualifying adjective, or talk about "major trophies". Other adjectives, such as "competitive trophies", "professional trophies", "official trophies", "top-qualifying", etc. seem to be hard to find. A qualifier is necessary imo because the table objectively doesn't include all trophies (doesn't include lower division trophies, doesn't include regional trophies, doesn't include friendly trophies like the Premier League Asia Trophy, etc.). Given a qualifier is necessary, we should use the word most commonly used by reliable sources. I'd also simplify the article name to "List of English football clubs by honours won". "Competitive" seems to be a rarely used adjective in the sources below, and isn't completely NPOV anyway (Is CS competitive? Was A-I Cup competitive given the semi-professional phase?).

I think I would structure the article like this:

  • Major honours
  • FIFA and UEFA
  • FA, EFL, and PL section 1
  • FA, EFL, and PL section 2
  • County FAs
  • Friendly honours

Not sure the best way to split the domestic honours. The "top-qualifying" thing kinda works, but it does seem like a slightly confusing OR invention. Ongoing/Discontinued split was used at one point, but did have its own limitations.

For some examples of the trophies included by other sources, I checked these below. Worth noting that some of these only compare Liverpool and Manchester United, so they couldn't consider trophies only won by other clubs, such as the Full Members Cup, Centenary Trophy, or Anglo-Italian Cup. And also some of these sources are more prestigious journalism than others.

  • goal.com Includes league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, UEFA Cup/Champions League, Europa League, UCWC, USC, FCWC, Intercontinental Cup. Article has a discussion over whether to include the Community Shield or not, and presents both totals. Uses adjective "major".
  • Sky Sports No Community Shield. Uses adjective "major". This is one of the larger news companies, and also lists more clubs than just Liverpool and Manchester United.
  • givemesport Includes league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, UEFA Cup/Champions League, Europa League, UCWC, USC, FCWC, Intercontinental Cup, Community Shield. Uses adjective "major".
  • yahoo sports Includes league titles, FA Cups, League Cups, UEFA Cup/Champions League, Europa League, UCWC, USC, FCWC, Intercontinental Cup. Article has a discussion over whether Community Shield and UEFA Super Cup are friendlies or not, and presents both totals. Uses adjective "major".
  • sportingnews Same as above, but only gives list with Community Shield, and also includes 2nd division titles.
  • talksport Doesn't include Community Shield, UEFA Super Cup, Intercontinental Cup, or FIFA Club World Cup. Uses adjective "major".
  • Football Yearbook 2020-2021: This annual is a useful source because it is published every year, for regular comparison. The trophies it compares are listed in the contents and include FA Cup, League Cup, several Scottish and Irish trophies, Champions League, Europa League, Club World Cup, European Super Cup, UEFA Cup/Europa League, Fairs Cup, Cup-winners Cup, Super Cup, Inter-Continental Cup. Community Shield is not listed in contents.

It makes sense that the Community Shield is a controversial inclusion in trophy lists. To win it, teams only have to play one match, which raises the chance of victory due to stochastic luck, and it doesn't follow exactly the same rules as FA Cup or Premier League games, because more substitutions are permitted. Just search "community shield glorified friendly" into Google, and can find plenty of sources questioning its value, which isn't the case with the longer tournaments. Madshurtie (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Any attempt to exclude Charity Shield (and or myriad other of trophies) will be confronted by the sources that do list it, and our need to explain why sources use different definitions of "major" which puts you right back here in OR/SYNTH territory over what a "competitive honour" is (as the list is titled, and which we have already segregated by top honours and so on).
We should be aware that there are implicit bias in many news articles as their goal is not to provide exhaustive lists but to create comparisons to sell papers / generate clicks. The Charity Shield (and other trophies) have been excluded / included to create artificial closeness of the top teams at different intervals since the 80's (particularly when Utd's list of successes started to stack up)... yet the clubs themselves are much more inclusive (I'm not aware of any that exclude the Charity Shield for instance). Koncorde (talk) 08:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
@Koncorde: Yes, clearly some sources do list it and some do not. The gist of my suggestion is just that the top table should only include the trophies there is complete or near consensus over in RS lists. I have not found a single source that doesn't list the League title, the FA Cup, the League Cup, the Champions League, the Europa League, or the UEFA Cup Winners Cup.
A major trophies section could just tell the reader that this list only includes the trophies there is consensus over, and explain that the community shield is a commonly included trophy that there happens not to be consensus over. Currently the reader is given no information that there would be this sort of disagreement among sources. And the totals in our table are different from every reliable source, which must cause confusion for people hoping to rely on our list.
On the point about motives for excluding the community shield, it's equally plausible that some journalists have just excluded it because they think a one-match trophy shouldn't have equal weight in comparison totals to multi-round trophies (some literally say this). This wouldn't be a consideration for a club's own trophy cabinet list, because other clubs aren't listed in comparison. For an older example than the sources I gave above, here was a broadsheet source comparing Liverpool and Man Utd. Liverpool's trophy lead with and without the shields/super cups was a similar size, and the source listed major trophies as not including the shield/super cups. Madshurtie (talk) 00:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Just to say that I'm open-minded about a re-work but just want us to exercise care in the use of the 'major trophies' term, it was quite problematic a few years ago as we would get regular queries on trophies such as the European Super Cup and FIFA World Club Cup being included for Liverpool, Chelsea and Manchester United paritucularly, as @Koncorde mentioned above some sources include them and and some don't. For the Club World Cup is not a 'one-off game' and it right at the top of the FIFA hierarchy, but it is a relatively 'new' tournament for English sides to have been winning/competing in so is present in fewer sources...so what does 'major' mean in this context of mixed reporting that is sometimes a 50/50 split? This FourFourTwo article [6] for example does consider the Community/Charity Shield, Club World Cup, and the European Super Cup as 'major trophies'...this is what is going to be thrown at us and why we went for the current 'list everything' approach which was ultimately divided into 'top qualifying' and 'lower qualifying', if I remember correctly at least partly due to the table widths.
Having said this, if we collect a huge number of sources to bullet-proof the justification of the term 'major' as much as we can, and then present that at the top, and then have secondary tables underneath for 'FIFA/UEFA' and 'other national English trophies' that cover everything else (to avoid original research as much as possible), this could work. An 'everything else' section would be a fairer place for the Sheriff of London Charity Shield and Anglo-Italian League Cup and Anglo-Italian Cup (I need reminding why we don't have that last one listed at all) for example, and I would advocate for including other lower-level trophies there such as the FA Trophy as there is semmingly no sourced justification for not including those in a 'non-major' section.
This format could though create repetition/confusion in the numbers presented, as for example the European Cup would be listed at top in 'majors' and again in the complete 'European/World (FIFA/UEFA)' honours table below, but maybe that's not an issue? I personally think that having a combined table tallying all honours for each English club is still something of value to present to the reader (as the other 'big 4' noted below all have), we could do it in a really condensed way at the bottom of the page potentially with simple columns of 'Majors'/'FIFA/UEFA Minors'/'English Minors' - the break-downs of these would all be above.
I agree with the idea to get rid of the 'competitive' in the title, though I wouldn't go so far as to have a friendly honours section, that is information only of note to include on individual club honours pages in my opinion and would be an absolute quagmire to report.
As a final comment, other similar pages to this for the 'big 5 leagues' in Europe are:
List of football clubs in Spain by major honours won
List of football clubs in Italy by major honours won
List of football clubs in France by major honours won (not a page, but a sub-section re-direct to records)
List of football clubs in Germany by major honours won
These pages all use the term 'major' without justification and all include their own supercups in the tables. This doesn't necessarily affect us but I thought it might help to understand where we sit in a slightly broader ecosystem of pages. Mountaincirquetalk 10:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_football_clubs_in_England_by_competitive_honours_won/Archive_5&oldid=1109902559"