Talk:History of Tottenham Hotspur F.C.

Featured nomination
Hi, this article appeared at Featured Article Review but that's only for pages that are already Featured Articles, and someone believes they should lose their Featured status. If you want to nominate for Featured status, you should go to Featured Article Candidates (FAC) and check the instructions there. I'd like to offer some advice before that, however. Firstly, everything in a Feature Article needs to be cited to a reliable source, and there are several paragraphs in this article that don't end in citations -- that needs to be rectified before FAC. Also it's a good idea to take articles to Peer Review before attempting FAC, so they can get some commentary outside the pressure of the FAC assessment process. Feel free to ask me any questions on the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * er? I don't know what I am doing, I am confused now... I feel like giving up, why is this so complicated. Govvy (talk) 10:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am going back to my normal work, rental reviews and lease contracts are easier to understand than this process... Govvy (talk) 10:18, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Some of the processes may seem a bit complicated at first glance, that's why I'm trying to help by pointing you to the correct venue for what I think you're trying to achieve. Unfortunately there is an added block to you nominating this article for Featured status at WP:FAC, which is that you seem to have only a couple of edits to the page. Nominees of Featured Article Candidates are expected to be major contributors to the article, so that they're familiar with the prose and sources, and can field questions and criticism of the article during the FAC process. The next step would be to discuss such a nomination with the main editors, here on the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised I haven't done much editing on this one, because I mainly did the edits on Tottenham Hotspur F.C. it got copied over to this article at one point for being too large. Govvy (talk) 10:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The article did start out as the history section of the main article, so Govvy is correct. I have made some additions to this article, and I would be happy to address any question or criticism on the article, so I'm fine with any nomination should Govvy want to do it. There are however a few issues that need addressing first (sourcing, a little rewriting, and general tidying up), and it may take a few weeks. Hzh (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * don't sweat it - I'll be happy to help out too. I will keep an eye for when Hzh reckons he's happy with the page to be sent to the snake pit. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * cheers, Would it be better if put the article forward then to FA? He has done a lot of work on it!! :) Govvy (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no problem with two or more editors co-nominating an article at FAC -- only one of the editors can physically do the nominating, but the co-nom can put their name to the nomination page afterwards. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me. Cas Liber can start the process off if he is happy to do it. As Govvy found out, it takes time to work out the procedure, if someone is willing to do it, then I'm more than OK with it. Hzh (talk) 11:53, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah happy to do and list everyone as a nominator. The more the merrier as responding to issues raised quickly generally makes for a good FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

are you happy with it? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:19, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you give me until the end of the week? I'll try to finish it by then.  Sorry that I haven't been giving it my full attention as I was preoccupied with something else. Hzh (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No dramas, take all the time you need :) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it is mostly done now. Although there are many parts in there that could still be improved, and there are always players, games and other events that can be mentioned, but tinkering with it could take ages, so it might be best to leave it for others to judge. It could do with a bit of copy-editing because I don't always notice the mistakes I make, and if you notice anything that needs fixing let me know. Hzh (talk) 01:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have been watching over your wiki-shoulder as we go. Nice work. I think it is good to go prose-wise - as there are three of us keeping an eye on the FAC we will be fine I think. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:19, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominated now (wolf-whistles) hey ! check my contribs and you can see how it is done! In for a penny, in for a pound, this should go ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. I will keep an eye on it to see what response we get, and try to deal with any issues raised. Hzh (talk) 02:31, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Very cool,, Hopefully all goes well, cheers. Govvy (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Mourinho
@, please stop adding content on Mourinho, it is excessive for someone who managed only one and a half seasons and did not win anything. It is WP:Recentism and does not reflect his significance in the club history. He at best warrants only a few sentences, and most of what you added will be deleted. Hzh (talk) 07:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Earnt
An uncommon, but valid UK English word for the past tense of earn.


 * https://www.lexico.com/definition/earnt
 * https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/earnt
 * https://www.yourdictionary.com/earnt

-- Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:07, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * whichenglish.com Govvy (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I can find recent examples of earnt by the BBC, Times, Telegraph and Independent (the Guardian uses earned). —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 08:35, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is still common usage in British English (like "dreamt" or "learnt"), you can find in everywhere, from government and official organisations to newspaper - . Using a website that says it is archaic would tell you something about that website, i.e. it is unreliable as far as British English is concerned. It is not archaic by any stretch of imagination, the most you can say is that it is less used nowadays. I don't really care one way or another and it is not an important issue, although WP:ENGVAR would permit it. Hzh (talk) 09:14, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The whichenglish.com article appears to be the work of one person. His opinion is of interest, but certainly not authoritative. Yes, "earnt", along with "learnt", "leapt" and "dreamt" (but not, for some reason, "meant"), are becoming less common, as often happens with irregular verbs.  But that's not a reason for removing it, and you can find frequent use of it,for instance, in discussions about footballers salaries.   I'm not that bothered, but don't care for perfectly good words being erased from Wikipedia for bad reasons. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 09:34, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I changed it back to earned from earnt, as earnt has a redline on my computer dictionary as a spelling mistake. But do as you wish. Govvy (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The spelling of ‘earned’ as ‘earnt’ is non-standard in all languages, there is nothing 'perfectly good' about it. You won’t find it listed in the major dictionaries and any that do will flag it as non-standard (British or otherwise).  Many people think of it as valid owing to their mispronunciation of the correct spelling, ‘earned’.  We should not be using non-standard spelling in the general text of a Wikipedia article. Neils51 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

How many surviving team members of the 60-61 double squad are still around today?
Aside from Cliff Jones. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 21:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)