Talk:List of current Premier League and English Football League managers/Archive 1

New Dario Gradi question
I'm no good at editing but the current Crewe Alex boss has been sacked and Dario is caretaker manager. This needs to be put on the list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.31.50.21 (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Records Page
This would be good if we could have the top ten longest serving managers (including current) in the league since it started like you have top ten premier league goalscorers and most appearances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.19.233.11 (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Dario Gradi question
I am wondering if Dario Gradi still counts as a current manager when he now officially holds the title of Technical Director. Can we have some clarification on this? El Paulio (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Issues with page upon creation
HornetMike 19:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No date for Ronnie Jepson's permanent appointment.
 * Peter Grant (footballer)'s appointment was announced by the Norwich website earlier than said date (before a weekend game as I recall), but wasn't officially done until a press conference the following Monday. What should be done.
 * Improve footnotes with website/date citations
 * Create some re-directs (needs discussion)
 * Find birthdays for Steve Thompson and Paul Fairclough
 * Find dates for Hereford United manager Graham Turner (1995 at some point) and Accrington Stanley manager John Coleman (1999 at some point). They are not presently listed because of this.


 * The LMA website has much of this info. Click on their heads. sʟυмɢυм • т • c  20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Have added Turner and Coleman using soccerbase. Both say 1st of the month, which might be slightly out, but they at least in the right place in the table. WikiGull 20:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, I wish I'd known about that LMA site when I made this table! It would have been rather useful! Anyway, I've amended the Coleman/Turner dates of appointments from the LMA website. As has been said above, Soccerbase most likely guessed. HornetMike 20:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Date maths
It's possible to use Template:Age in days to calculate managers' tenure in days. Dario Gradi - 16 June 1983 (8945 days days) Gives: Is there any demand for such a thing? I can get to work on it if there is. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 20:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Dario Gradi - 16 June 1983 (8945 days days)

Dario Gradi
Is there really any need for the Italian flag as well as the English flag. I know "Sir" Dario (:-P) was born in Milan, but that's the only connection he has with Italy. Should it just be the English flag, because it's his primary nationality and it looks much neater ;-). Sorry, just a suggestion.-- S kully Collins Edits 23:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've decided to remove the Italian flag from Gradi. I was browsing the list and realised we've got a fair number of people with Welsh/Irish flags born in England - they've chosen one nationality over enough. Seeing as Gradi's "Englishness" seems to supercede his "Italianess" I've removed the Italian flag.HornetMike 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * New issue on the Gradi front - this article says his job's changing a bit, although he's still the manager. Reading the article, I'd still keep him on here over this first-team chap, but I thought I'd check what other people thought. HornetMike 11:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd agree for the time being - from what I've read it looks like it will be a gradual handover of power, so now idea how we know when he's no longer in charge! WikiGull 12:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just updating the page to move Gradi and replace him wtih Holland. To my ears training the first team, being involved is what makes you 'manager' rather than 'director of football' as here <<<. Any views? Me677 17:44, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * While I could have some sympathy with that point of view, I would take more of a lead from the club chairman quoted in HornetMike's citation above the descriptions in what amounts to an on-line fanzine, which itself says that Holland might be quietly named as manager an indeterminate number of years into the future. Kevin McE 19:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Very confusing. The Crewe article lists Holland as manager. For me, its got to be all or nothing; if Holland is listed as manager on the Crewe article, then Gradi should be removed from this list. Or the Crewe article needs to be amended accordingly. I'm not convinced either way. Bigmike 18:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it is confusing, but unless Crewe rescind the comments of the chairman, or announced that Holland, or anyone else, is the manager, I think Gradi has to stay. Any Crewe fans able to direct to a more definitive citation either way?  Kevin McE 18:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * As neither has role of manager, Gradi should stay. It's safe to say Gradi will have more control over team selection next season, however Holland will be more involved in training. Dave101 →talk  20:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Contrary to my earlier position on the Holland/Gradi dilemma, I notice that the League Managers' Association link at the bottom of the article omits Gradi in favour of Holland. In the absence of a clear lead from the employing club, then maybe their professional association's recognition takes precedent. Kevin McE (talk) 16:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to go along with the LMA's recognition of this issue, they seem to be the only source that have a clear definition of who is in charge at Crewe. So I would say Steve Holland needs to be inserted in the list at the appropriate point, perhaps with a footnote also. Bigmike (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Lee Richardson
...has been appointed as caretaker manager until the end of the season. For now at least, I've put his appointment in the caretaker column and added a note. It differs a bit from Brian Carey at Wrexham, who's been appointed as manager until the end of the season. Oh, and if anyone can find out the DOB/nationality of Gerry Murphy I'd be grateful. HornetMike 15:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC) ...and now David Wetherhall has been appointed as caretaker until the end of the season at Bradford. Slightly different this one, as it gives his original appointment a degree of permanance. Still, for now I won't put a permanent appointment in as it still says caretaker. HornetMike 10:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Glenn Roeder
Assuming i've understood the ordering for this table, which I might not of and is why I'm asking rather than just changing, should Roeder be above Mark Wright as his caretaker period began before Wright became manager? WikiGull 09:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Urr, yeah. Dunno how that happened. Simon Grayson and Ronnie Jepson were in the wrong order too. I've fixed it. Cheers, HornetMike 10:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Sortable Table
Much as I love the sortable table feature, I have removed it here.
 * The article is called "...by date of appointment": as soon as the list is sorted by another field, that ceases to describe it.
 * The three dates columns sort according to date within the month, not chronological order.
 * The Name column sorts by Forename.
 * The nationality column does not sort.
 * The division column sorts in the order Champ/League One/League Two/ Premiership, which is scarcely logical. Kevin McE 08:46, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Not sure where to post this so I did a ctrl+F for "sort" hence the post here. There is a problem with sorting. Some columns will not sort despite a both-way sort arrow. The affected columns are "date of birth", "appointed" and "time as manager" The arrow changes direction to acknowledge my command but the list itself remains unchanged. Maybe a bug or a missing piece of code? Freethinker 12:28, 17 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micmar00 (talk • contribs)

Misleading title
The "English Football League" refers to either the Premier League only, the Football League only, or the entire English football league system; it never means the top 4 leagues in the English football league, which is what this article contains. This article should therefore be moved to another title but I don't know what that title should be, "list of managers in the top 4 leagues of the English football league system by date of appointment" seems far too long but in the most concise title I can think of, any other ideas, or is this article now going to be edited to prove me wrong? - MTC 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never heard "English Football League" as referring to the Premier League alone. Although technically you are correct, in common parlance, to talk of the "league" usually means the 4 levels administered, until 1992, by the Football league. For example, when talk is made of non-league teams in the third round of the FA Cup, they do not mean Manchester United or Arsenal.  Likewise, it will be said that Dagenham are about to join the league, but the same phrase would not be used of Watford.  Let it stand. Kevin McE 18:47, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK then, looks like I'll be the one to edit this article to prove my original point wrong. Though when I first saw the link to this article I did think it would include only the 72 Football League clubs, as that is what the name seems to suggest. - MTC 18:56, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Proposal
Further to the suggestion above, I also think it would be very useful if one of the date-math templates was introduced to display the total time for each managers tenure - for instance adding the Template: Age in years and days template could see the table look something like this (sorry, I'm not very good with the tables myself)

This one would be better than total days (41 years, 24 days) Seedybob2 22:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This looks really good. I didn't know about it when I made the 'Age in days' suggestion. Perhaps the table would also benefit from being sortable. slυмgυм [ ←→ &#93; 00:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That would definitely be an asset to the page.  As regards the sortable table proposal, see section above for my comments when I reverted the table from a sortable one on an earlier date.  Kevin McE 08:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Permanent???
It is by no means unique to this site, but football parlance has a real blind spot to the application of the English language when somebody is given a medium to long term contract. Thus the word permanent comes in for severe abuse of its real meaning: Without end, eternal; lasting for an indefinitely long time (Wiktionary) whic is scarcely a fair description of managerial appointments. Sometimes when a caretaker manager is confirmed in the role, the even worse error of talking about him becoming "full-time" manager is committed, as if a caretaker only turns up occasionally as it suits him. Is there a better word than permanent that we can give to what is typically a two or three year contract? "Confirmed as manager" perhaps? Kevin McE 10:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair point - as you say the word "permanent" is applied through the custom-and-practice of football terminology and not through correct grammar. In fact, if a manager is appointed temporary, then confirmed at a later date - is it actually necessary to have both dates? See another possible solution to this below Seedybob2 22:24, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In terms of employment legislation, I suppose managers would be "fixed-term employees" - provided they had been employed for less than 4 years - but I think using "permanent" is close enough. We really mean "non-temporary", but such a term is seldom used. Oldelpaso 09:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The "non-temporary" argument seems fair. So if Mick Harford has been appointed until the end of the season, with a clear implication that his role will not continue beyond then, should he be listed as a caretaker? The BBC headline describes him as "stand-in", which IMHO is virtually a sysnonym for caretaker. Kevin McE (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that he's a caretaker manager and have amended his entry to indicate such. However I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Peanut4 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

New style table
Have today updated the table with date math as suggested above. There are a couple of issues. Seedybob2 10:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Appointment - have removed the caretaker/permanent - but a reference to when they were permanently appointed has been included.
 * 2) The managers which were appointed temp then permanent need to be double-checked for errors.
 * 3) References seem to have gone pear-shaped, but is probably a minor error with typing, removing a { or something - please attempt to fix rather than revert as I believe my edit adds to the article


 * The templates do not work because it breaches some size limit. Village pump (technical). I have looked at the source and cannot find a problem with any of the templates. I think the changes will have to be reverted because it cannot stay like it is. Woodym555 22:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Could the table be broken up into top 20, 20>40 etc to reduce the size? It would be a shame to revert it because the length of service for each manager really adds to the article in my (biased) opinion Seedybob2 17:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that it adds to the table, but it is the page as a whole that is breaching the limits at the moment. I have cut out the spaces and datelinks in the early references (top 25 i think), this has helped slightly but i don't think it will be enough. When i look at the number of templates it seems that Template:Age and Template:Age in days are being used as well as Template:Age in years and days. One suggestion from the technical help desk is to substitute these in, but i can't see where they are!
 * If we cannot rectify the problem it will have to revert to the old style, we can't have a featured list, nay any article, with such largescale problems as this. I will try and remove some more spaces and find where the templates are specifically. Look at Village pump (technical) for the suggestions. Woodym555 17:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gets a bit technical for me. Hope something can be done and thanks for trying - but if not I understand now if it has to be reverted. Thanks Seedybob2 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Can we not gat around it by using a simpler citation, so instead of:
 * we could have:
 * I know that this is not the preferred way of presenting web references, but it provides a verification of the fact, and IMHO is better than losing the immediate view of the length of tenure.
 * Beter still, if it will be sufficient: can we remove enough of the template overload by getting rid of flags? There is no obvious need: it is about as relevant to length of job tenure as hair colour, and probably less relevant than the managers' ages, which are not given. If anyone wants to know more about the manager, the wikilinks are there to follow.  Kevin McE 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there, there is a huge debate about flags at the moment anyway. I will remove them and see how it goes. I do see the tenure as the most important thing at the moment. Woodym555 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Beter still, if it will be sufficient: can we remove enough of the template overload by getting rid of flags? There is no obvious need: it is about as relevant to length of job tenure as hair colour, and probably less relevant than the managers' ages, which are not given. If anyone wants to know more about the manager, the wikilinks are there to follow.  Kevin McE 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you there, there is a huge debate about flags at the moment anyway. I will remove them and see how it goes. I do see the tenure as the most important thing at the moment. Woodym555 20:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Removed the flags, only a small improvement. Can i suggest we roll it back and try and move the current version to a sandbox and edit it there until it works. I don't think that we can leave it like this to be honest.Woodym555 21:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've just found Template limits, which explains why this happened so suddenly, though much of it goes way over my head. Oldelpaso 16:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone pointed it out to me in a Help post!! I have to admit to having the same problem. I do think that the Sortable version by Badmotorfinger is good. Featured criteria says that it must be uniform in the article, and it is. I do think that rank should be reinstated though. Woodym555 16:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternative versions
I have made two alternative versions of the table. I have reinstated the flags (not really necessary, but in my opinion it adds to the table) and used a different date format to reduce the width. See for yourselves, and tell me what you think.


 * Non-Sortable
 * Sortable

--Badmotorfinger 17:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the sortable table is good, but, we still have the same problem with the cite templates not showing up properly. The flags were removed to try and eleviate that problem, and they do slightly. I think we need to remove the cite templates and replace them with one that does not need a template. At the moment the template load is too big. (add reflist to your tables and see what i mean.) Woodym555 18:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean, and I've now tried to sort out these issues by using Kevin McE's suggestions about simpler citations. For now, I've only implemented these changes in the sortable table above. --Badmotorfinger 15:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that is excellent, GOOD WORK! I do think though, that the rank should be reinstated. It was part of the nom that passed Featured list and i think it should be reinstated. It quantifies the data and adds an easy view for people looking at the table. Woodym555 16:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes since this was featured
This list has undergone some significant changes since it was featured. Two of these (sorting and the Time as Manager column) are useful additions. However, the other changes are debatable and two changes (citation format and date format) jeopardise its Featured status.
 * Rank:This column seems superfluous since sorting on Appointed and Time as Manager achieves the same effect. It wasn't present in the list when Featured. It will cause maintenance hassle when a manager near the top drops out. I recommend it goes.
 * Recommendation carried through, rank deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Woodym555 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Date of birth:This now uses a compact date form in UK DD/MM/YY format, which is ambiguous and therefore not an acceptable format. Virtually the only reason to wikilink dates is to allow formatting according to user preferences. Since you've overridden the formatting, the wikilink is redundant. The only unambiguous date formats are ISO 8601 (which is discouraged) and spelling out the month. I encourage you to reformat this with wikilinked dates, like  → 1 January 1980. Don't wikilink an ISO date—that only displays in a friendly format to logged-in users, which are the minority. You should, of course, keep the ISO format for the non-displayable text that is used for sorting.
 * Recommendation acted upon: dates now correct for personal preferences. Woodym555 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm struggling to see the point of this column. What connection does it have to a manager's tenure at a club? - Dudesleeper / Talk  18:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A lot more than the division of the club or his nationality, I would suggest. It can reasonably be assumed that a manager who was  in his late 20s or early 30s when appointed, had less previous jobs than someone taking up the post at 50+.  Kevin McE (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Appointed:This has the same date issues as the DoB. This new column combines the Caretaker and Permanent appointment columns. I appreciate this is a useful combination for (a) seeing when someone really started as manager and (b) working out the length of time as manager. However, some information has been lost—we no longer display the date when they became permanent. We could restore the Permanent appointment column, and keep the new Initial appointment column. I guess you need to decide how important this information is. Having such a column would eliminate the need to footnote a Caretaker-only manager.
 * This is an issue with the Template:Age in years and days and not with any entry by an editor. It requires the template to be changed. I think that template is very important to the article as it automatically updates. Woodym555 14:49, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Struck because i was wrong. Woodym555 14:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The dates have been done. Woodym555 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * References:I understand the extensive use of cite templates combined with the new use of templates in the table to exceed some limit. There's no requirement to use cite templates, but there is a requirement to fully cite the sources. For web sources, the "Retrieved on" date is required. In addition, the news-article date needs to be wikilinked and the month spelled out as discussed above.
 * I agree it could do with some retrieved dates, they were lost in the transfer the template free system. Yet the dates, as per the citation templates, should be in the ISO format (2007-09-03). Woodym555 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MOS:DATE discourages ISO format, but is only concerned with visible text, not markup. If you choose to use ISO, you must wikilink in order for this to be rendered into a date format that is accessible to our readers. However, most of our readers are not logged-in editors. For them, they will see the original ISO markup. If, instead, you used a format that spelled-out the month, then at least they would see a friendly date format. The citation templates require ISO format for the accessdate parameter due to the difficulty of handling any other date format (you cant just enclose "1 January 1980" in double-brackets). I don't know why they suggest ISO for the date parameter, other than reflecting the preferences of the editor who wrote that. I used to use Wikilinked ISO dates, but am going off them for all these reasons. Similarly, I am going off the citation templates because they make it harder to format citations consistently and properly. Colin°Talk 14:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that most of the featured content currently at the candidates stage is using citation templates, i think this should be carried through into this article. We would be using citation templates if it weren't for Citation templates. We are mimicking it without actually using the code. As such i have put the retrieved dates on (almost) all links. Woodym555 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: a few editors so dislike requirement to wikilink in order to format date preferences that they would rather not auto-format them at all. You could choose to write all the dates in UK style for such a UK-specific article. You must be consistent, if you do this. The reduction in blue links reduces article size and visual noise. However, American followers of UK football might not be so happy. Colin°Talk 12:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Bruce at Wigan
Press reports seem to have been presumptuous, and so editors posting Steve Bruce's appointment at Wigan were properly vindicated by verifiable and usually reliable sources. BUT if Wigan cannot announce him as manager, neither can we. As it seems likely that the legal wrangles will be short-lived, I have left his name on the list, but remmed it out. Kevin McE (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is now cleared that he will be manager on Monday. The info is updated and awaiting removal of the "commenting out" marks, but this shouldn't be done before Monday.  Kevin McE (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

How short a contract is a caretaker role?
In January, Mick Harford was "named manager for the rest of the season" at Luton; in February, Kevin Blackwell was "named as his (Robson's) replacement until the season ends." at Sheffield Utd; in March, "Keith Alexander has been appointed as manager of League Two strugglers Macclesfield Town until the end of the season, with a view to a longer deal", and "Chester City have appointed Simon Davies as their manager until the end of the season." (quotes from the BBC News pages cited)

At present, the first 2 of these are listed as caretakers, the latter two are not. Maybe the "with a view to a longer loan" clause puts Alexander in a different situation, but this seems inconsistent. I've no particular preference, except that it be resolved one way or the other. Kevin McE (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that an "until end of season" appointment is not a caretaker role but rather a fixed term appointment. I would see a caretaker role as one that could end at any time due to an active search for a replacement.Natcong (talk) 11:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a problem, Mansfield have just appointed Paul Holland as manager until the end of the season . I agree with Natcong's definitions, but feel there still should be a footnote to say "appointed til end of season etc." because there is a bit of a difference. This can be removed if they stay longer than that, albeit I'm sot sure whether a third longer contract citation should be added. With regard to Davies and Alexander, Davies perhaps should have a footnote - the only thing that makes it look like he's there for longer is the fact he's bringing in staff. Alexander does seem to be a more permanent thing - the wording of the news story makes it sound like the contract is just an initial deal (make sure relegation isn't on the cards, he's probably expensive) rather than a fixed term of appointment. Plus we can read between the lines, he's a far more respected manager than any of the other "end of seasons". Still, that leaves ambiguity... 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * To me caretaker manager would suggest a manager who does not have a full contract. A manager would be one who has a contract as manager, even if that is as short as one until the end of the season. However I suppose it's still only guesswork what the contract might say - I suppose some longer term caretakers won't even have a different contract. Peanut4 (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Stan Ternent
Shouldn't Stan Ternent's start date be after the end of the 2007-08 season, since Gerry Murphy was caretaker for Huddersfield's last game against Luton? See here. Peanut4 (talk) 02:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How literally do we take the title of the article?
The Scolari/Chelsea situation gives rise to a distiction between the date of appointment (which is, after all, the title of the article) and the date of taking up the job. It's not the first time this has happened (see Wenger and Hodgson), and I agree that the date of taking up the appointment is the relevant one, but does that mean we need to change the name? Kevin McE (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Good question. Stuart McCall is down as May 22 (which is when the news was finally broken), yet he didn't take over until June 1. I don't think the dates are consistently abided by. Peanut4 (talk) 20:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Although the title of the article has changed, we still have situations when the takeover date is not obvious: the BBC reports today, in relation to Guus Hiddink at Chelsea, that he "is likely to be a spectator at Chelsea's FA Cup fifth round tie at Watford on Saturday, with the Premier League clash at Aston Villa on 21 February expected to be his first in charge": are we going to record Sunday as his first day in charge? Kevin McE (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd say there is also a problem with the capitalisation in the article title. There is no such thing as the "English Football League", nor is the article about the English managers in the Football League. If you uncapitalise League and Football though, it sounds like the managers are all English. The correct title is probably something like "List of Premier League and Football League managers" or "List of league managers in English football" or something. Also, should the word "current" be added to the article title, to make the scope clear? Just throwing a few thoughts out there... --Jameboy (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Kevin, I totally agree there is some problem with this. I've updated Hiddink with today (Sunday) being his first day in charge, but I'm not sure when his first day is and there is no way to prove when it is. I notice the column is headed "Appointed" and mentions nothing of first day in the job. Peanut4 (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Present issues
Right, a few issues affecting the list at present. Anyway, thoughts please! HornetMike (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably we're doing a wait and see job for Shearer/Kinnear?
 * Hasn't Paul Hart been given the job permanently? I'm on such a slow connection at present that I don't want the hassle of a search, but I believe he has (for how long is another matter).
 * Chris Turner seems to have been given until the end of the season (there should be a ref around) and although there's been no further announcement it looks like he'll be continuing (involved in transfers etc.) See here. What do we do?
 * Most importantly - when the list was reformatted a while back, all the refs were, for some reason, switched from the cite news template to another standardised format. Whilst it was kept like that for a while, cite news templates are coming back at the bottom of the list. I prefer cite news, but if we use it it needs to be used for all refs for this list to keep its FL status. Is anyone up for the task? I don't really have time.
 * I believe that we used the alternative format because the article was falling over under weight of templates. Will we run into this problem again if we roll out Cite news again? Kevin McE (talk) 18:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The refs were switched due to the template load exceeding the limit meaning that most of the cites weren't showing. The trouble we have now is that they have changed the presentation of refs in the cite templates (removing the brackets from the dates). This means it looks inconsistent in the article and so we need to fix it.
 * Given that we subst'ed a large number of templates last time round, I suspect that we won't hit the limit again but the only way to be sure would be to test it. Regards, Woody (talk) 14:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, seems like we need someone willing to devote the time to trying. Not sure I have that, unfortunately! HornetMike (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article says Hughton is caretaker at Newcastle so I don't think Shearer should be there. Pretty sure they must have let Kinnear's contract laspe too. Wasn't it only til the end of the season. Can't see him coming back. HornetMike (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * www.nufc.premiumtv.co.uk is only talking about Hughton, and neither Kinnear nor Shearer are mentioned on the page listing the coaching staff. The club article here on Wiki shows club manager as vacant, so yes, I'd say Hughton as caretaker (although the club site only describes him as coach), but as to since when... Kevin McE (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Filtered article
Is there any justification for filtering out the Premier league members (or those for next season, to be accurate), and presenting that as a separate article? Kevin McE (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, no. HornetMike (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Now deleted, after an uncontested prod. Kevin McE (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hartlepool
Turner has now been listed as caretaker manager for 9 months: he is officially the director of football, but there seems to be no activity on the club's part to appoint a manager. Is this simply a job title that does not exist there? Any Pools fans able to put us in the picture? Kevin McE (talk) 10:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Portsmouth
Paul Hart is missing from this list! 77.86.94.22 (talk) 22:08, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He appears to be there, I think you must be mistaken. Mattythewhite (talk) 22:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Hartlepool again
Maybe the LMA simply don't like the Pools, but after the long drawn out Turner "caretakership", we now have the situation where the original stopgap has been confirmed as being in post until the end of the season. In the case of Pitman at Hereford, that has been sufficient to get the manager onto the list of appointed managers at the LMA site, but for Wadsworth at Hartlepool, it hasn't. If LMA only report 87 managers as being in place, should we have 5 explanatory notes at the foot of the table? Kevin McE (talk) 11:48, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * They have included him at last. Kevin McE (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Page name?
I think this page should be moved to a less ambiguous title. Once upon a time, there was a representative football team for The Football League, and I think that the current title of this page could suggest that it is a list of managers of that representative team. Maybe List of managers in the Premier League and the Football League (or something not shit) would be a better option? – PeeJay 16:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I definitely think it should be changed to something like List of professional football managers in England so that'd still be the top 4 leagues, as teams below that are only semi-professional, while being less confusing than the current one used. 82.35.211.208 (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Not entirely true, as a number of clubs in the Conference National are fully professional. I'd say the title proposed by PeeJay2K3 would be good to go with. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, would it not be just a little long, though? 82.35.211.208 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Until the end of the season
By my reckoning, we have 4 current managers about whom it was said they would be manager until the end of the season. Now that we are at that stage, what of Pitman at Hereford, Kean at Blackburn, Smith at Walsall, and Forster at Brentford? If they are more permanent, do we need a third refernce, to validate/verify their remaining beyond the timeframe of the references we have in place? Kevin McE (talk) 17:21, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think Forster's being kept on actually, they were going after Derek McInnes and others. So he can probably go, although do we need a ref to say the position is now vacant? The others will presumably be kept on based on their managerial performances, so need to keep an eye out for refs. I'd say if they're BBC links we can just that instead of the end of season one. It'll contain a link to the end of season article, should anyone fancy investigating. HornetMike (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposed change
Firstly I was looking at the page and thought it would be useful if we could have a rank column. When looking into it I realised it would be permanently wrong unless it was nor part of the main table. After doing a bit of research I came up with this

Does anyone have a problem with adding this.

that leads onto my second question. When I actually implemented it I discovered there was 93 names on the list. Spudgfsh (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Quick question, what does a "rank" column give us that the "Time as manager" doesn't, besides the maintenance issues? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There used to be such a column, when the article was called something like 'List of English League managers by date of appointment', but when we included sortable columns it ceased to be relevant, as a reader might be looking by order of age, or may have gathered nationalities or divisions together. There will be appointments on the same day that are difficult to order confidently.
 * If Wenger leaves this season, we would need to edit 91 fields that are not directly related to Arsenal at all. I can imagine some interest in being aware of who is in the top ten, but that can be done pretty much by sight.  I can't imagine anyone being that bothered whether the manager of my club is 44th or 59th by length of tenure. (I guess he is somewhere of that order, but if I were to check I would disprove my point)
 * The 93rd manager is Knill covering for Ling at Torquay, but Ling has not been removed from his post. (An advantage of sortable columns: you could have listed them by club and quickly spotted which club appears twice) Kevin McE (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

The beauty of this solution is that it requires no direct editing to correct the order (as it is two separate tables within in a third) and gives the rank no matter how you sort it.

I have had a number of discussions with football supporters over the number of managers that have been in post for over a year (it was because of one such conversation I started editing wikipedia). Spudgfsh (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Question, what does rank mean if it doesn't mean how long a manager has been in the job? (Incidentally, two separate non-linked sortable tables is a nonsense and entirely pointless!)  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I hadn't appreciated the subtlety of the solution, which I admire. That would certainly lower my opposition to very minor, but I would still suggest that the lack of confidence in ordering of those appointed on the same day, and the occasional existence of joint manager (and more often joint caretaker managers) posts weigh against. Kevin McE (talk) 21:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, it's no longer sortable. Fair enough, it would be reasonable to include it I suppose, for "ease of viewing", but Kevin's right, we would need to deal with ='s and duplicates. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Chris Powell
Re appointment date - |Soccerbase has Keith Peacock down for one game in charge, |v Spurs on 9/1/11. The reference for Powell's appointment says he will take charge on Monday (17/1/11). |This report says Powell's first game in charge AND refers to caretaker Peacock. So maybe Soccerbase is wrong, Peacock had two games, one of which was the game needed to supported the Note in the article?--Egghead06 (talk) 22:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Flags
I see each managers nationality is displayed with a bare flag and no text, so I'm asking if it would be fine to include their names? The Manual of Style covers it and there is enough free width remaining to do so, on my screen at least. I'm not keen on over-linking that it would cause using a template that would generate the name automatically, so adding plain text next to the current one should look better. Impressive list by the way and I'm surprised I didn't find it sooner. Walls of Jericho (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

A couple of maintainability suggestions for the table
Currently the table is sortable using HS undefined for all columns.
 * 1) If we used 22 October 1949 for the dates we do not have to put the dates in twice in the column and we can enter the date in any format we like.


 * 1) Currently there is a HS undefined and a 24 years, 185 days for the length of service for a manager. Isn't the 24 years, 185 days on it's own enough?

This is the result of making the changes

=> Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 19:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Date appointed
Is this the date a manager signs a contact to do the job or the day he starts? With van Gaal we seem to be going back and forwards between the two.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

longest serving manager / alex ferguson
it states at the top of the article that alex ferguson is the longest serving manager of all time. this may be true for the premier league era (as the link refers) but is not accurate in the history of football. i.e. Syd King was West Ham manager for 31 years.

suggest correcting or removing.
 * Agree this needs clarifying. Ferguson is the longest serving of the Premier League era but not in the history of the Football League. Who is?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:53, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I've pulled it, it was wrong in its initial format, and taking it down to Premier League is too much like trivia. Given this is a list of current managers, I'm not sure stats about who is the longest serving manager of all time/in X period are required anyway. It was added by an IP on 5 October. The manager list they put in is similar, so I've added a see also section. HornetMike (talk) 12:22, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Mark Warburton - has he actually left Brentford yet?
according to the source there Mark Warburton is leaving as manager of Brentford at the end of the season (with no date specified). someone has updated the table so that the Brentford manager is now Vacant but has he actually left yet? => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 10:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Another column to table - number of times manager has been sacked
I'd appreciate someone adding another column to the main table showing the number of times each manager has been sacked. pmailkeey 21:46, 19 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.64.3.237 (talk)
 * Very difficult thing to verify. Do you have a reliable source to show sackings per manager.--Egghead06 (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Date: It is no longer last Tuesday!
Maybe my computer is doing something odd, but the 'Time as Manager' column is returning values as though today were 17 October. Are other people getting this? Is there a coding issue? Kevin McE (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Same happened here, just seems to be the page that needs purging, then the correct amount of days should appear. Bbb2007 (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

End of Season: Caretaker or not?
I accept that the current Ipswich position is probably-but-not-definitely-to-the-end-of-the-season, but that aside, we have discussed a number of times above (1,2, 3) whether such an appointment is to be footnoted as caretaker or not. I believe that we had settled to a (not very strong) consensus, but when I tried to apply that today, Rambling Man rejects it. We ought to try to get some sort of consistency. We don't have access to details of whether contractual details have changed or not, so we can't use that. Strongest argument I have heard so far is that it is fixed minimum term, and not ad hoc while the club us actively seeking a long term appointment as soon as possible, so I would say not a caretaker. Thoughts? Kevin McE (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I reject in absolute terms an attempt to redefine a well-used phrase that is used almost ubiquitously throughout reliable sources in favour of a contrived notion made up by a single Wikipedia editor. No consensus whatsoever has been actually proven to find in favour of the latter position, and editing against reliable sources is tantamount to disruption, and should stop immediately.  Thanks, by the way, for talking "about me" and what I believe, and not letting me know you'd started this thread.  Very honourable, very honourable indeed.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I have acknowledged that it is not a strong consensus, but it was unchallenged as the last word of the last time this was discussed, and by no means contrary to any clear balance of opinion in the other direction. That's why I have operated according to it, but raised it for discussion when there is evidently some interest in acting otherwise.  Although the phrase "caretaker manager" is widely used, it has, I would suggest, no strict definition to clearly include or exclude to-end-of-season placements.  I was initially for labelling these as caretaker, but was won around by the arguments that I summarise above.
 * I have raised the tone of TRM's response and his attack on my character on his page: this is about how we use the notion of caretakership.(later edit: but he deleted it, which shows how willing he is to be held accountable for his behaviour) Kevin McE (talk) 23:14, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say that the amount if time left in a season is not relevant to the definition of caretaker. With any manager there are sources which will say either caretaker or recruited with a permanent contract. This is the only factor in applying the "caretaker" title. BTW Ian Evatt is also a caretaker.--Egghead06 (talk) 11:06, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't get it. Is the discussion about using the term "caretaker" if RS use it? I'd go with RS. If there's a clash in RS, we can and should mention that. Same as with anything. Which is what I think Egghead is saying, too. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:40, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No contract is "permanent". It does have an end point, which is typically two or three years, but just because it is a few weeks does not mean it is not a fixed term appointment.  This is the problem with caretakerships: there is no clear contractual definition, at least not in the public forum.  The term is so loose in meaning that typically one source will use it and another won't, so RS are not consistent: the BBC article cited for Evatt doesn't use the word, so we are none the wiser.  If we can't have consistency in what constitutes a caretaker appointment, I would suggest that we don't use the footnotes about it at all (the simple fact that Fred Bloggs is currently managing Footown United and has been since 32nd Neveruary remains true with or without it); mid season, where caretakership means he could be changed at any time and the club is actively searching for a replacement, it is clear, but if the manager knows when he is to be replaced, and the club has essentially said, "We'll think about who our next manager will be when your stint is over", it is rather different. Kevin McE (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not really any clearer. Is your objection that in this specific circumstance we don't have RS saying he's a caretaker appointment, or are you blanket objecting to any use of the term? You seem to be mixing the two in a way I can't follow. The former is a cast-iron argument, but one that can objectively been challenged with someone providing RS in this situation. The latter comes across as your POV that is over-ruled by our policy-based need for dependence on RS. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm saying that if a term is ill-defined, its use in sources is not very informative. If the definition of "caretaker manager" is 'man in charge for unspecified amount of time', then Evatt is not a caretaker, and the club's website has misused it.  If that is not the definition, what is?  If it is not possible to give any definition, we shouldn't be using the term.  Kevin McE (talk) 15:36, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no one definition which covers all managers who are perceived to be on a short-term contract and are thus described, mostly by the media, as caretakers. Some come after the previous occupant resigns for a better job. Some come as the previous occupant made a hash of it and it is obvious change is needed but we'll take our time before appointing a manager on a longer deal. It is really governed by their contracts (which we are not privy to) and the short and long-term intentions of the board (which, again, we do not always know). Personally, I'd remove the footnotes. The manager is there until he's not there.--Egghead06 (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Code
The FIFA's code for Spain is ESP not SPA. 94.73.43.103 (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * True, but irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 20:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Burton
The cited article says that "Buxton, 35, will take charge of Burton as player-manager "in the coming weeks"." It has been posted three times now as having already happened. If events have overtaken the (not very specific) timetable of the initial announcement, that should be referenced. If not, is this just editors posting a story without even reading it? Kevin McE (talk) 10:12, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * BBC reference has Clough “leaving on Monday”, as in last Monday and “new boss” Buxton.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So maybe it could be posted with that reference. What on earth was going on with the initial announcement though, saying that it would wait until Buxton's playing contract expired?  Kevin McE (talk) 14:18, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Think it all might be something to do with the fact that no football is being played due to coronavirus. Clough resigned saving the club a lot in wages. If Buxton is in place, it’s hard to say. Maybe they don’t need a manager under the current conditions? The reference is certainly good to verify that Clough is no longer Burton manager.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Buxton referred to on 11 June as the manager. No indication as to start date but clearly manager no longer Clough.--Egghead06 (talk) 03:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Ainsworth image
It's lovely to see him there, but at the "thumb" version it looks like he's making a conversation with a strangely complicit child. I would crop the image around his head (the resolution supports it for a thumbnail) and remove that ridiculous "effigy". The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!&#33;!&#33;) 21:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Interim?
For a couple of years we have desisted from marking managers as being caretakers. Someone has now started putting an asterisk to mark what he is calling 'interim' managers. Do we want to return to that? (My !vote would be revert) Kevin McE (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect Mark Bonner linked
The link to Cambridge united manager Mark Bonner is not the one who manages them. according to the bbc (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51803999) the Cambridge united manager is 34. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 14:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find more information on the correct one but I've redlinked the link and removed incorrect data. If anyone finds more information please correct it. => Spudgfsh  ( Text Me! ) 15:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

It's a good spot. Most sources have the 1974 guy as manager, clearly just copied off here. I've added year of birth but it's sketchy. Him not having a playing career means details are slim. CoatbridgeChancellor (talk) 15:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I see I am guilty of having linked to the former Blackpool/Cardiff player when the Mark Bonner with no league career was in the job for a couple of weeks in Dec 2018. I note that the 'wrong' Mark Bonner's article only gave him the job for a few hours in the 6 months or more that his namesake has held it.  Are there no Cambridge fans reachable at WP:FOOTY who might be able to get something on him from local media?  I have put a distinguish tab on the 'wrong' MB.  Kevin McE (talk) 19:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Ian Dawes
The Ian Dawes who is currently caretaker manager at Tranmere Rovers - here (and here for background ) - is not the same Ian Dawes as used to play for QPR and Millwall. I've made a quick correction, but someone may want to tweak it, and perhaps start an article on the Tranmere manager. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I've started Ian Dawes (football manager) - I don't usually cover football topics, so others will need to bring it up to the usual standard. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Rob Kelly, or is it?
I have added the caretaker managers at Bradford and Barrow (why do people post a club as Vacant, when the caretaker is named in the news source that they site for the sacking of his predecessor?), but I suspect that, following the name doubles of Mark Bonner and Ian Dawes, I suspect we may have the same again. Is the Rob Kelly who was assistant at Barrow the Rob Kelly last heard of (and still, according to his article) as assistant manager at Fortune Dusseldorf? It would seem a fairly dramatic drop, so I have been cautious and not wikilinked the RK at Barrow. But if anyone is confident that it is the ex-Leicester/Wolves, go ahead. Kevin McE (talk) 11:37, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved as unanimous consensus has been established. &mdash; Music1201  talk  00:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

List of English Football League managers → List of current Premier League and English Football League managers – The page name doesn't state that this is a list of current managers (there are similarly named pages detailing all managers that have served in each league) and also doesn't state that the list includes managers from the Premier League. Bbb2007 (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC) --Relisted. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment - notifying WT:FOOTY. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support More accurate and descriptive title. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support the current title suggests that the article should include all managers who have ever managed in The Football League, the proposed title is therefore better. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - new title is much more appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 17:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - as above. GiantSnowman 17:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - reasoning is entirely sound - Ba se me nt 12  (T.C) 22:33, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - as above. Fenix down (talk) 08:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, but I would suggest dropping the word "English" from the proposed title. "English" doesn't appear in the name of either league. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * From the start of 2016-17, the Football League is being renamed to the English Football League (see here), so the proposed title is appropriate -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:31, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I had forgotten about that. Presumably the current title was a bit premature. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Spain code, again
has changed the coding for the Spanish managers from SPA to ESP, and when reverted chose to ignore the usual principle and reintroduced the change. His argument, that ESP is a trigramme used by IOC, UEFA and FIFA is irrelevant here; this is not produced for a multi-lingual document or audience as would be the case for those bodies, but is a page within English Wikipedia. The abbreviation might be widely recognised, but that does not mean that it is somehow 'more correct' than the more logical English language abbreviation. Conventions of the IOC etc have no special status in Wikipedia's MoS. There is no merit in placing Spanish managers between those who are English and French when sorting by nationality.

Similarly, to indicate Ireland there is no good reason to use a code devived from French (IRL, Irlande) rather than one derived from English (IRE). Nor does there seem any need for NED rather than the English-based ISO standard of NLD for Netherlands.

Of course, by strict application of the MoS, no flag or abbreviation should be used without having the country name in full on first appearance. Kevin McE (talk) 12:38, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no need to use AUT for Austria by that argument, and yet the article does anyway. In football articles, we use the tricodes assigned by the relevant governing bodies. It avoids confusion that way. You're arguing that we have no reason to use abbreviations that aren't English, but the ones you've come up with are basically just original research. At least the ones used by the IOC, FIFA and UEFA are recognised and can be sourced. Really we shouldn't be using abbreviations at all, as you point out, but if we're going to use them, use the UEFA ones. – PeeJay 22:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ISO is not original research (and AUT is an ISO code), that is a ridiculous assertion, and I had already given the source of the abbreviation in my last post. Who is the "we" that you cite here? Is it established anywhere as a Wikipedia policy? What other country would get confused with IRE or SPA? Are you really claiming that IRE and SPA can't be recognised?  Now that really would be original research. Kevin McE (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * In the lack of any convincing argument to the contrary, and no consensus for change from the long standing version, I have re-instated the English derived abbreviations. Kevin McE (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Premier League managers
Re: the title, it explicitly mentions Premier League managers, it therefore stands to reason that somewhere in the lead should at least one Premier League manager be mentioned. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The title refers to Prem/EFL as a collective grouping. Status within a subset of that is not relevant. Kevin McE (talk) 13:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They aren't a collective grouping, as the Premier League isn't part of the English Football League. Reliable sources also mention Klopp being the longest serving Premier League manager without needing to mention the EFL. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 13:32, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * If you do not believe that the top four tiers can be dealt with as one entity, you should propose this article for deletion. If you accept that they can be, then there is no need to make a special case for one of them. Kevin McE (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * They aren't one entity, hence why the article is titled "...Premier League and English Football League...". Because the Premier League and the EFL are separate. There's a good article about the split called Broadcasting and the foundation of the Premier League. And it's why Jurgen Klopp is reported as having the longest current Premier League managerial reign, with no mention of the EFL. If there was no need to "make a special case for one of them", the article would have a more succinct title. I have no qualms with the existence of the article, don't use a strawman please. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that they are one entity, I said that they are dealt with as one for the purpose of this article. And given that they are being dealt with as such, comments that belong to a subsection are irrelevant. Kevin McE (talk) 14:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because they are included collectively, doesn't mean they have to be treated exclusively as such with no variation, particularly when reliable sources do otherwise. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nor does it mean that any one of them has to be given an emphasis. Nobody has considered it necessary in many years that this be included, which is clearly not a reason to say that it cannot be, but evidently it need not be. And if you want to change the long stable presentation, it is up to you to create a consensus for that change, and not to repeat a change after your initial WP:BOLD was reverted. Kevin McE (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "[E]vidently it need not be". What evidence is there? Oh and talking about "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) 15:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I specifically said "which is clearly not a reason to say that it cannot be [changed]".
 * Absolutely articles can be amended or content removed, so long as there is consensus for such change. But not without.  I refer you to my challenge to you in the John Coleman section below: put the article back as ot was, then see if you get consensus for what you want to see in the article. Kevin McE (talk) 16:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any actual reason you object, or is fine being included? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)