Talk:List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won/Archive 2

Charity Shield
you're having a laugh! Can we agree to get rid of this? Note the word 'major' in the title of the article. --Villafancd (talk) 18:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Like the FAIRS Cup, this "trophy" was invite only for many years and only relatively recently was turned into a match between league champions and FA Cup winners. By rights Villa should have competed for fourteen Charity Shields but have taken part in approximately three due to the earlier, invite only rules. It's ridiculous to include it on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.20.36 (talk) 13:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Its an official, competitive trophy just like any other super cup. the fact that it was established too late for Aston Villa to take part in it when they were winning titles is not anyone's problem and doesnt take away from its standing. Davefelmer (talk) 06:19, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Community Shield
I think the Community Shield should not be included in the article. The article says in the introduction "It lists every English football club to have won any of the three major domestic trophies, in addition to other domestic competitive trophies contested by teams at the elite level," but the Community Shield is not a competitive trophy !

This is a part of the Dailymail report on Ivanovic red card at the 2012 Community Shield:
 * "It was reported that Ivanovic would be banned for three matches, starting with Chelsea's opening Barclays Premier League fixture at Wigan next Sunday. However, a change in FA ruling in August 2009 means that red cards in pre-season fixtures do not result in suspensions from competitive games. As the rule change covered all non-competitive pre-season fixtures, including the Community Shield, it means Ivanovic will be free to play at the DW Stadium."

--MR.HJH (talk) 07:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The Community Shield change I just made was to remove it from the "last honour won" column. It's obviously immensley more important, interesting and informative, to know that what Man U last won was the League in 2013 and that Arsenal won the FA Cup in 2015, than that each won the CS. The 1992 Charity Shield was won by Leeds against Liverpool. Any well informed guesser would assume Liverpool had won the League and Leeds the FA Cup, but in fact it was the other way round. So if the team's last "real" honour was followed by the Community/Charity Shields, I've marked it with a dagger. Silas Maxfield (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Davefelmer (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC) 03:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)Im sorry but that is factually incorrect. The Charity/Community Shield is an official super cup and is recognised as a competitive fixture and while it may not be seen as "major" by the english media, super cups are very often attributed "major" status on the continent.

Sheriff of London Charity Shield Suggestion
As this list includes past iterations of competitions (e.g. Inter City Fairs Cup --> Intertoto --> Europa League; Intercontinental Cup --> World Club Cup), should it include the precursor to the Charity Shield, the Sheriff of London Charity Shield? This was a formal competitive competition, effectively a supercup between the best professional side and the best amateur side of the year, despite being a one-off match it was organised by the FA until the amateurs broke away in 1907. Thoughts welcome.

I'm not suggesting this is a great source but the details of matches are presently quite cleanly here: http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engsupcuphist.html

My vote would be that this is worthy of inclusion based on the competitive honours criterion. I do not see a justification for not including the predecessor of the Charity Shield, especially when the professional representatives were almost always the Football League winners.

Mountain cirque 16:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Are there any comments on this proposal? I invite editors to check out the Sheriff of London Charity Shield page. The trophy was the direct predecessor to the Charity Shield and had full FA backing (even having the current and former presidents on the committee of the trophy as well as the honorary secretary of the FA), this is all fully referenced on the trophy page. The trophies from 1898-1907 are all worthy of inclusion in this honours list until the trophy was replaced by the Charity Shield due to a rift with the amateur sides, later matches were fundraisers. These early matches were some of the most high-profile and well-attended matches of the era, bringing in large crowds to see the league winners and FA cup holders play against Corinthian F.C., the side which produced the most England internationals between 1880-1900. Mountain cirque 14:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Final bump on this? Please let me know if you have any comments on this proposal. As this is an FA-led competitive honour I see no reason why it should not be included as a precursor to the Charity and Community Shields. I plan to incorporate in the coming week or so unless there is opposition, Mountain cirque 10:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

As explained on my talk page, I disagree with the inclusion of the Sheriff of London Shield. Although mentioned as something that evolved into the competitive Charity and later Community Shield, it appears to have had no official standing. The RSSF source lists it as a precursor but does not include it in the total hauls of teams in the competitions, and it is not recognised by a single club on their official mediums (websites etc) such as Liverpool's that I showed you. We deal with sources here and they do not corroborate its inclusion. Also, please do not start adding it everywhere until you reach a consensus on doing so. Davefelmer (talk) 23:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Its getting silly now, this was only added so lfc could add 1 more charity shield to their total!! Still a long way back in 2nd place though, lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:200:D800:F426:8936:A547:E8F5 (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

There are 2 in favour and 2 against in this chat, until a consensus is achieved I will revert to the original totals. Please dont just add back, you must get a consensus not just add it because you say so! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C0:200:D800:F426:8936:A547:E8F5 (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070211234251/http://www.football-league.premiumtv.co.uk/page/History/0%2C%2C10794%2C00.html to http://www.football-league.premiumtv.co.uk/page/History/0,,10794,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203092702/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LeagueCupPastWinners/0,,10794~1354853,00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LeagueCupPastWinners/0,,10794~1354853,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ecwc/history/index.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.arsenal.com/article.asp?thisNav=Club&article=344299&lid=History&Title=Club
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.liverpoolfc.tv/lfc_story/honours/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080529205257/http://www.fchd.info/LUTONT.HTM to http://www.fchd.info/LUTONT.HTM
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905052832/http://www.stokecityfc.com/club/honours/ to http://www.stokecityfc.com/club/honours/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090213170831/http://www.army.mod.uk:80/royalengineers/sport/football/history.htm to http://www.army.mod.uk/royalengineers/sport/football/history.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203092702/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LeagueCupPastWinners/0,,10794~1354853,00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LeagueCupPastWinners/0,,10794~1354853,00.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uefa.com/competitions/ecwc/history/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225041824/http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/index.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Recent vandalism and messy mobile edits as a result of Manchester United's 2017 EFL Cup win
I have reverted the table to what it was before the barrage of edits which rendered the table unreadable and incomplete. There seems to be an argument about what constitutes a trophy...it's best discussed first before unilateral changes which upend years of consensus. Kronix1986 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Full Members Cup/English Super Cup (and what honours qualify)
This question has probably been asked many times but can anyone tell me the reason why these cups are on this table? Most of the big teams didn't even participate in the Full Members Cup, how can it be considered a major honour? [Unsigned]


 * To answer this unsigned/undated comment, the page has done away with major/minor honours definitions some time ago as they were deemed very hard to define, the page lists all competitive honours which the FMC and LSC were at the time. Mountain cirque 12:22, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Also, if we include the Sheriff of London Charity Shield here, we should also include the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup (the predecessor to the Football League Cup). Hashim-afc (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Hashim, the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup was only for a small sub-section of English teams in London and the South-East, it is therefore unfair to list it alongside national-level honours as the majority of clubs could never have competed in that trophy. It was also 'replaced' by the League Cup, and was not organised by the same organisation, so it is not really an 'official' pre-cursor to the League Cup and not recognised as such by the FA.


 * The Sheriff of London Charity Shield was presided over by a committee including the FA and the winner of the league or FA Cup was invited to play the best amateur side each year, so it was effectively open to all English sides if they excelled that season. It then became the FA Charity Shield when amateur sides withdrew in 1907. The crucial definitions to remember in my opinion for this page are: competitive (not a friendly), national or continental (i.e. not a county or regional match) and elite (for the top tier of teams in the country at that time).  Mountain cirque 12:18, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. After consideration, I agree with what you say about the Southern Floodlit Cup. However, why is the League Centenary Trophy not eligible for this page? It was played by the top 8 teams in the league, it was during the season (i.e. not a pre-season tournament) and as far as I know it was competitive (not a friendly). Awaiting your reply my friend. Hashim-afc (talk) 17:51, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Also another quick comment, are you sure the Sheriff of London Charity Shield was not a friendly match? Hashim-afc (talk) 17:52, 13 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks. The Sheriff of London Charity Shield was definitely not a friendly, in fact Corinthian (who played in all but one of the matches) had to change their constitution to allow themselves to play a competitive game for charity, as they were an amateur side they had previously said that they would not play a competitive match. I think that is quite conclusive.


 * In terms of the Football League Centenary Tournament (and its 'sister' tournament, the Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy), you raise a fair point. I had not heard about these before but they seem to have been competitive series of games played by first team sides invited based on their league position. One oddity is that games were 40-60 minutes in the case of the tournament which is not normal association football rules, however, rules do often differ from one tournament to the next. If these were accepted it would mean an additional honour for both Arsenal and Nottingham Forest. They could potentially be joined with the Football League Super Cup which had a very similar format and was only a couple of years before. Mountain cirque 11:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup has been included for ages on precursor grounds, but that wasn't open to all top-level teams. It was also 'replaced' by the League Cup, and was not organised by the same organisation, so it is not really an 'official' pre-cursor to the League Cup. This also applies to the ICFC. Surely the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup should be included if the ICFC is, and vice-versa? Madshurtie (talk) 12:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I disagree I'm afraid, as the ICFC is a European tournament (which you rightly state was basically invitational based on the big cities in Europe) it could not really be open to 'all teams' but was obviously a competitive football tournament which top division English sides played in and won. The 'pre-cursor' status is a bit of a red herring here I think. It seems to me that any competitive trophy that English teams from the highest league level won should be listed. Whether a tournament became another tournament is of little import. So I would disagree that the Southern Professional Floodlit Cup be included as it is a regional competition within England, if we go down that route we may end up with county level honours being listed for everyone which would be a bit absurd. Mountain cirque 13:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Could the Fairs Cup be considered a pseudo-regional competition given that only certain cities could enter it? Madshurtie (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Football League Centenary Tournament Addition
It has recently been highlighted by (and I agree) that the Football League Centenary Tournament should be added to the article. It was a competitive series of matches for the centenary celebrations of the football league and has in my opinion equal status to the Football League Super Cup which had the almost identical format (and is already included). There was also a Centenary Trophy that season of equal stature as the final part of the centenary celebrations, I suggest that these two trophies are added as they were competitive, elite level, and national in scope. They are undoubtedly 'minor honours' but this page aims to list all competitive honours in English football and these meet that criteria. Please reply with your support/comment/disagreement... Mountain cirque 12:01, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Football League Centenary Tournament, because it seems the teams who participated didn't qualify based on any criteria (e.g. league position) shown by the fact that there was a Division Four team in the tournament and yet some of the biggest teams like Arsenal, Tottenham, Chelsea etc did not participate. Also because the matches were 40-minute and 60-minute long games played on the same day, I don't think they can be considered as competitive games, rather it seems to be a friendly tournament. The tournament I was referring to was the Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy (known as League Centenary Trophy) which was played by the top 8 teams of the previous season over a period of two months during the season (not pre-season) and all the games were full 90 minute competitive matches. So I don't know about the Football League Centenary Tournament (I think it was a friendly tournament not competitive) but I think definitely the Centenary Trophy should be on the page. Hashim-afc (talk) 18:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)


 * As with the Sheriff of London Shield, the Centenary tournament should not be included either. Arsenal themselves, who won it, do not even recognise it as an honour on their official mediums and it is not on the FA's list of former tournaments. The consensus for what were official honours has stood for years, awards not included have been done so for good reason. Lets not mess with it now. Davefelmer (talk) 23:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi there, I would like to point out the the honours listed on a club's webpage, or even the FA's webpage for that matter (this is not a list of FA ratified tournament honours after all) is not the single definitive resource, honours should be verifiable by non-primary sources. I have just reverted your removal of all of Aston Villa's county and Sheriff of London Charity Shield honours, are you suggesting that those honours are ignored as the club doesn't list them despite them being verifiable? There are multiple references for these honours on the appropriate honour pages and the thing to do would be to reference those on the Aston Villa F.C. page if you want to improve the encyclopaedia rather than remove information. I also disagree with your point above, Arsenal's recognition of a trophy does not affect the criteria for inclusion in this article which as I understand it are based on an honour being: competitive, elite and played in by English sides. Please explain how the Sheriff of London Charity Shield and the Football League Centenary Tournament were not competitive honours and played in by elite English sides of the day? Mountain cirque 10:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The Centenary Tournament seems to have been more casual than the Centenary Trophy, since it had laxer inclusion criteria and shorter matches. I think if the Tournament is included, the Trophy should be, but am agnostic about the other way around. Madshurtie (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Come on guys, we can't seriously put the Centenary Tournament on the page. The matches were 40-minute games that's not even a full half let alone a full game, and there was no inclusion criteria (Division Four Tranmere Rovers entered but no Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham etc) and the games were played over two days. Clearly this is a friendly tournament and not a competitive one. Even the final was only 60 minutes and was played on the same day as both semi-finals... Hashim-afc (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

On the Aston Villa page, you reverted a sourced honours section to an unsourced one and added in a ton of nonsense small time awards also without any sources. It was immediately reverted by another editor so evidently others do not agree with your interpretations either. Non-primary sources should be used only when they are reliable and address the issue at hand. For example, a source simply describing say the 1901 Sheriff of London Shield in a match report style does not address the issue of whether it is competitive or not. Unless explicitly stated, we turn to the most reliable authority we have on the matter, which is the club itself. In every case, the clubs do not list nor recognise these awards, like Liverpool which I showed you. Why would they otherwise not include and recognise the Sheriff of London Shield but include and recognise the Charity Shield, unless one simply was not competitive and the other was? So no, it shouldnt be included, and neither should the Centenary Tournament for the reasons Hashim-afc outlined above. Davefelmer (talk) 05:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Sheriffs charity shield consensus
Sems there are 4 people on here against this being listed as a major honour won as it was a friendly game only open to certain teams (saying it was nearly always the champions means that sometimes it wasnt!) and only 1 person for, Mountain. Yet he has just added it and ignored the consensus. Please vote below and do not revert until we have a majority consensus:

Me - against — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simply-the-truth (talk • contribs) 14:41, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, shall we discuss civilly before you partially revert edits that took months of research and referencing? Firstly, there are no major honours on this page, the page has not used that term for a few years as there are no solid definitions on what that means. This is a page of competitive, English, football honours, played at the elite level i.e. not county honours or second/third/fourth division titles. If a tournament meets these requirements, as noted in the lead of the article then it deserves to be added.


 * I suggested posting the Sheriff of London Charity Shield a while ago as it was the only trophy that was not included based on those criteria, mainly it seems because it was a long time ago. Your point on it being a friendly game is incorrect, Corinthian F.C. actually changed their constitution to allow them to play in the game competitively and it was always the league or FA Cup winner that was invited not just random sides. There is a 1906 book reference for this here: . There were no comments against including the trophy at the time (you added your 3 days ago, three weeks after the edit was made) so it was added as per the criteria above. If you want to remove it please justify why it is not a competitive English honour? I have had one ongoing debate quite civilly about this with User:Davefelmer on my talk page (one of the votes against you note) and he has now stated that he "won't object to its inclusion". I find it very odd that an IP account with three edits appears on this page to argue over this issue and even stranger that the majority of your edits and those of the IP editor are in Liverpool F.C. related articles. Do you have a vested interest? The IP editor certainly seems annoyed that Liverpool gain a single charity shield honour form this addition: this was only added so lfc could add 1 more charity shield to their total!! Still a long way back in 2nd place though, lol.


 * To put it simply, the Sheriff of London Charity Shield from 1898-1907 was almost exactly the competition as the FA Charity Shield from 1908 onwards (that's why it started in 1908!), they simply invited the Southern League winners rather than amateurs (before going back to inviting 'amateur XI' sides a few years later). Show me one reference to prove it was a friendly and we can remove the honours. Mountain cirque 15:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I vote to Keep Sheriff of London Charity Shield honours in this list of competitive English honours, as it was undoubtedly a competitive English honour, attested by the numerous newspaper and published references on the page of that article.

Hi, as per my discussions with Mountaincirque on my talkpage, I did say I will not object to the Sheriff of London Shield's inclusion but I did state my concerns with it at the same time. The winning clubs of it do not list it or recognise it while they do the Charity Shield (thus distinguishing them) but Mountaincirque did provide a reliable source (The Guardian) showing that Corinthians, a winning club in the past, had to change their club rules to take part in a competition since they were known for not wanting to take part in non-amateur matches, thus showing an argument for it being a competitive precursor to the Charity/Community Shield. Ultimately, I am happy to leave this to the majority consensus, but without one, the status quo must be maintained until one is reached. Davefelmer (talk) 20:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, Mountaincirque raises a legitimate concern in terms of partial editing. Revertions should be done to restore the status quo, not simply remove honours from Liverpool. Davefelmer (talk) 20:05, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Edits by Sockpuppets
There have been a few edits in the past week that partially reverted honours for the Sheriff of London Charity Shield (mainly seeming to want to deprive Liverpool F.C. of the trophies rather than actually all the sides who won the trophy or actually remove them thoroughly). To quote the IP editor above "Its getting silly now, this was only added so lfc could add 1 more charity shield to their total!! Still a long way back in 2nd place though, lol" having looked at both these accounts (total of 14 global edits between them on football and Liverpool/Manchester United related articles) it seems likely to me to be sockpuppetry.

To be clear, I have added the Sheriff of London Charity Shield honours to this page in good faith and from a neutral perspective having recently done a significant research piece on the trophy and having strongly referenced the trophy page, the references are there for anyone who cares to look from books, newspapers and respected sources. It's not featured article status but it is strong as far as this type of page goes, especially considering the age of the trophy. The trophy was a competitive fixture at the end of every league season from 1898-1907 which was FA ratified (they put forward the league winner and sat on the committee), contested by either the league champion or FA cup winner against the side judged to be the best amateur side of the year. Corinthian F.C. had to famously change their constitution to play the match competitively for charity as previously they had stated they would not play for any 'prize' or in a league.

I would really welcome the comment of an experienced editor on this. I am struggling to deal with the constant partial reverts, which almost always seem to be targeting Liverpool's honours total. It is making me feel like I am subverting the page myself when all I have done is add a competitive honour to the list of competitive honours. Mountain cirque 08:53, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Sweeping reverts to the page contents and trophies listed Comment
The page has been reverted following about 3-4 months of edits from a range of editors including myself yesterday by Davefelmer. Could an editor or administrator not associated with these edits please review? Pinging, , for their advice? Some of the discussions can be seen above. The user has taken a lack of responses to be a "non consensus" and has removed additional competitive honours that have been added in that period without consultation or consensus on what to remove.

, you have gone back on your comments above where you stated that there was a case for the inclusion of the Sheriff of London Charity Shield in the honours list. Please justify that? There has been no significant objection to the inclusion of the trophy apart from a couple of sockpuppet accounts that swiftly disappeared and made no further edits. I would suggest that if you are going to make a major overhaul to the page, reverting my edits, s edits and many others it should be discussed here in the talk page. Please be collegial and discuss this matter, I have put months of research into the Sheriff of London Charity Shield and can show through tens of references that it was a competitive FA backed trophy as shown on that wiki page. Mountain cirque 10:38, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * PS I am pointedly not going to edit the page myself until this matter is resolved either way. I have been one of the major contributors to this page over the past 3-4 years, preventing vandalism and adding in minor competitive honours that were simply overlooked due to the fact they were not in the modern era. I am strongly against the page being reverted so strongly to a perceived time it had perfect consensus with no consultation and months of editors work being removed. Mountain cirque 10:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I understand it you wish to add the Sheriff of London Charity Shield into consideration as a counted honour? Why? GiantSnowman 16:44, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I missed your note in the following conversation. The Sheriff of London Charity Shield was a competitive English honour, I have been working on improvements to said page this year and realised that it was an omission to the list of honours noted here, seemingly as it was Victorian and lost in the mists of time somewhat. It is formally the precursor to the FA Charity Shield and had multiple FA representatives on the trophy's committee. I do not see any reason for it to be excluded from this list of honours. I would value your opinion? Mountain cirque 09:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

First of all, it wasnt "3-4 months of edits", it was a month and a half, as I reverted it back to the version at the start of March. This was done because a multitude of editors have shown dissatisfaction with your constant edits, be it on the talk page here and on the edit section of the article. You have been told repeatedly to get consensus for your edits which you have not done. I told you my personal stance on the Sheriff of London Shield, that I would not object to its inclusion. Those were my words and I stand by them, but it is not solely up to me. You need to get a consensus amongst other editors so there are no major disputes if you want to make such a major change as adding another honour into the table and you clearly havent done that. So by wiki policy the edits cannot stand until/if you get one. A lack of reverts recently does not mean you are in the right either, as people have maybe simply just gotten bored with the constant argueing.

Also, I have not reverted edits from a "range of editors". On the whole the edits were mostly yours and Hashim-afc's in adding the sheriff of london shield and mercantile trophy to the honours lists, both without consensus. A hefty portion of the comments in between are simply people in dispute with these decisions.

Ultimately I am not taking sides at all, but saying that before making big changes, please get a consensus. I said before I dont oppose the Sheriff of London Shield's inclusion, but its not up to me (although I do object to the Mercantile Trophy). It's also worth remembering that wikipedia is not a place for original research, and only deals in sources. Thanks. Davefelmer (talk) 17:29, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Why does he need consensus for improving an article? There are always questions to ask, why do this that or the other, but for what I have seen Mountain has done some good work and Davefelmer is in-fact removing citations which make some valid points for the article. As for Sheriff of London Charity Shield, this is part of the history of the game and shouldn't be dismissed, it's the predecessor to the Charity Shield/Community Shield and could be considered the same in evolution for that cup. I would more likely include it than remove it. Govvy (talk) 18:01, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Well your view is subjective in the sense that you think including the Sheriff of London Shield would improve the article. That is debatable. And I didn't remove any citations. I removed the inclusion of the Shield not because I personally object, which I have stated repeatedly i do not, but because other editors do, which you can see if you scroll up to the recent discussions on this page and the comments made by other editors in the edit section when they reverted Mountain's edits. You need consensus for making significant changes to an article when several editors have disagreed and no resolution has been made. Davefelmer (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Only one editor previously said to remove the charity shield as it's not a major honour, yet it's listed in the article, if you are listing that, then you must include it's incarnate trophies which is also the Sheriff Charity Shield from 1898 to 1907. If you fail to list them then in fact you are failing the nature of the article, if you can't see the problem then you're creating the problem. The point of the article is to list major honours, yet 1898 to 1907, football is still in it's infancy and these early trophies hold merit, major and minor is a far more blurred line. If you goto the newspaper library you will find various articles on football in those years and the trophy had what you would call at the time for news sourcing major coverage. So please don't be in err to think the cup is meaningless, you have to understand the nature of how the FA came to be, how football evolved and the Sheriff of London Shield is a part of that, hence the evolution to FA Charity Shield. There is no need for a consensus, Davefelmer; you will only fail the article if you hold such a stubborn view like you are now, you seem to be holding your own consensus and not allowing Mountain to improve the article is clearly a fatal floor. Govvy (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I am not talking about the Charity Shield, I am talking about the Sheriff of London Shield, which are distinct competitions whether it is the 'official' predecessor or not. And I keep saying that I do not personally object to the SoLS being included, however, others do. Look through the talk page and you will see multiple editors disagreeing with its inclusion and requesting a consensus. Go on the edit history of the article and you will see likewise from several other editors. You may agree with Mountain, but no one editor can decide what should or shouldnt be put in an article. You do indeed need a consensus, unless you are saying that every article should be a total free for all in which case the entire process and wikipedia would be a mess. This talk of failing the article is just silly. Davefelmer (talk) 00:50, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Really? Please tell me who these people are? And if you're counting the IPs and sockpuppets then you must be reading a different page to me. Unless there are legitimate account user comments, I hardly see any of that. So please go a head and have a count then come back to me once you realise who has paid attention to this talk page. Govvy (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Look, if you cannot scroll up and read then that is your choice. I can't be asked to go through each comment and name each editor, but user Simply-The-Truth and Kronix1986 clearly disagree just above, on top of multiple unsigned accounts. BRACK66 reverted several times on the edit page. And you cannot just discount an unsigned account as a sockpuppet unless there is proof. There is evidently no consensus, with multiple editors against the changes. Davefelmer (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Simply-the-truth is an obvious sockpuppet account with 11 total edits across this page and one for Liverpool F.C.–Manchester United F.C. rivalry which obviously shows the agenda in play there, incidentally that other page is your most edited page, funny that . I welcome to chip in with the debate here, they made a (very) partial revert of some of charity shield honours leaving the page incomplete and haven't been on Wikipedia since. User:BRACK66 has been warned multiple times on their talk page for making vandalising/unsourced edits to club honours and their only edits to this page were to reduce Liverpool charity shield honours. Davefelmer, I am really struggling to see your agenda, this is a page for competitive English honours, the page following your revert does not currently display all competitive English honours as you have removed the SLCS and Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy which was a one-in-100-years competitive trophy for the top 8 sides from the previous year. I just don't see how you can deny they are competitive trophies contested by elite English sides, the fact they are 'minor' is of no import. To note, I don't think that the Football League Centenary Tournament should be included as matches were 40-60 minutes long and it was invitational to sides right down to Division Four (Tranmere), so it was not entirely elite and not played as per normal association football rules.  Mountain cirque 10:36, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I dont have any agenda here, I am simply trying to do right by the project and when several editors object to your changes, some of which (the Mercantile Cup) are unsourced, then they have to be agreed upon before added again. I didnt look into the editors that made the objections, as I dont have that much time on my hands, but a few edits doesnt necessarily (in my mind) mean a sockpuppet. And what does being warned in the past have to do with someone's concern on a different article? I said before I do not object to the SoLS being included in light of the sources you showed me, but if there is disagreement then you need a consensus. Why don't you take it to wikiproject football and see what they say? In terms of the Mercantile Cup, I don't care that the top 8 sides played it. Big teams play pre season tournaments, should those count as trophies because the big clubs play them? The club that won the only Mercantile trophy doesnt even list it on their honours page! Davefelmer (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


 * First off, I didn't add the Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy, I'm not sure who did without referring back but I support it as it was competitive, played by elite teams who qualified by league position, played by normal association football rules, and crucially initiated by the Football League (who moved a whole swath of league matches to play it). The fact that a club lists or does not list an honour is of zero relevance to the encyclopedic content and inclusion in this page. It was not a pre-season friendly tournament, it was held during the League season by the organising body of the league. There is a Guardian source here showing that it was an official Football League competition, albeit minor, and I honestly want you to reply on why you think this does not merit inclusion in this page of competitive honours? This is not a list of 'major' honours and no one is suggesting that the SLCS or CT is of equal status to the league or FA cup, but they were competitive English honours(!). You state you don't care that the top 8 sides played, what criteria are you using?


 * There are now quite a few editors in favour of the SLCS inclusion, myself,, (?), (?), and apparently yourself; the "against" are a couple of accounts that have only made a handful of edits and haven't logged in for 2 months. I find your revert quite hypocritical as you have no consensus to remove honours from the page that multiple editors have worked on (you're not counting the fact that many editors contributed to the page after these honours were added as tacit agreement I see, you want them to formally write their agreement on the talk page). To me you have thrown the baby out with the bath water by taking the SLCS out which as myself and Govvy have pointed out (and you have noted too), has an undeniable amount of referencing and was an FA-led trophy officially recognised as the precursor to honours on the list. If I can't add a competitive English football honour to a page listing competitive English football honours without a major consultation then something is wrong with the system. Please look at this logically and answer to me why you think that the Full Members Cup and Football League Super Cup are listed but the honours we're discussing here are (currently) not? Mountain cirque 09:34, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop putting words in people's mouths. When did user Madshurtie say he was in favour? Looking up at recent edits I can see he said he didnt care either way, that is not the same as being for the inclusion of this content. So it is you, Govvy and Hashim for it, and Brack, Simply-the-truth and Kronix1986 that have expressed objection. I have said many times I am neutral on the subject. Hence, there is clearly no agreement. And stop with this bullshit of how often someone logs on. Now, granted there may be a rule for this that I may not know, but someone logging in often or not doesnt have any impact on opinions on a subject does it? I dont need consenus for removing something that was introduced with no consensus, you need a consensus to make a change that has been repeatedly objected to. If you added these trophies and there were no onjections, then like I said I would not care as I am indifferent to adding the SoLS as an honour. But there were several brought up, in the talk page and edit section. It appears though that the editors that were against the inclusion have not come back in to join the debate, so maybe you could poll the people at wikiproject football on whether they would add these as honours and see if there is consensus there. Again, I dont care either way but am only trying to do right by the rules of the project here. Davefelmer (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to do your research my friend. "In terms of the Mercantile Cup, I don't care that the top 8 sides played it. Big teams play pre season tournaments, should those count as trophies because the big clubs play them? The club that won the only Mercantile trophy doesnt even list it on their honours page!" It was not a pre-season tournament. The entire tournament was played over a 2-month period during the League season and League matches were rescheduled to make way for the Centenary Trophy matches. Before, I used to agree with you, I didn't want any of the Sheriff Shields and Full Members Cups or anything like that on this page. But User:Mountaincirque explained to me that over the years it became too difficult to separate trophies in terms of major and minor because such terms have only been used in the modern era since there are always the same competitions every season nowadays. This page is for competitive (so no pre-season cups and no cups where matches were 45 minutes etc), national (so no London Challenge Cups or County cups etc) and competed by teams at the elite level of English football (so no Johnstone's Paint Trophy or FA Trophy etc). Please tell me how, using this criteria, the Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy should not be included on the page? And the argument that Arsenal doesn't list it as an honour means nothing. Some clubs like Tottenham list every single trophy they have won on their website whilst Arsenal only include the main ones, does that mean we leave them out for Arsenal and add them for Tottenham? Personally I haven't done much research at all on things like the Full Members Cup or Sheriff Charity Shield, but I am absolutely sure the Mercantile trophy should be on the page based on the criteria for inclusion. And I had not added this trophy on without consensus before, as I had asked on the talk page and it was either agreed or not disapproved by anybody. Mountaincirque also asked about the Sheriff Shield on the talk page and again everyone agreed. The only edit that has been made without talk page discussion has been you reverting all the edits that Mountaincirque, Madshurtie and myself have made. I am going to be WP:BOLD and revert your unconstructive edits. Please actually discuss the reasons why the Centenary Trophy should not be on the page before removing it again. Hashim-afc (talk) 10:58, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There is absolutely no proof that Mountain's claims about the difference between 'major' and 'minor' trophies is true, it is just his opinion. Secondly, yes, if Spurs list pre-season trophies on their website and Arsenal dont, it is our job to stick with it. If that is what the sources list, then that is what we list. We dont do personal research here.

Thirdly, and most importantly, stop making complete and utter fabrications. You did write about including the Mercantile Cup on the talk page, and nobody replied apart from Mountain (who obviously agreed) and me (disagree). 2 editors agreeing and one disagreeing isnt a consensus in my eyes, and in terms of the Sheriff of London Shield, are you serious? Look up, there are multiple objections to its inclusions in the talk page and edit page. Obviously without a consensus it cant be included. So why dont you do as I suggested to Mountain, and take it to wikiproject football and ask people if they would add these as honours to form a consenus there? Preferably without making up supposed consensuses on these pages because anybody can check that. And once more, I am neither in agreement or disagreement about the SoLS. If people dont object I am fine with its inclusion. In terms of the Mercantile Cup, I personally object because it was held once and the club that won it didnt even recognise it as an honour, whereas with stuff like the Super Cup and Full Members Cup that Mountain brought up, they are all listed on the winning clubs' websites as official honours. But again, if there is a consensus to include it, I wont object. Davefelmer (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Your argument makes no logical sense to me. Let's cut this right down. This is a page for competitive English football honours played by elite sides which should be the only basis for deciding whether an honour is relevant for inclusion. Whether the website manager at a football club has decided an honour is listed on their site makes absolutely zero difference to whether that was competitive, elite, played by association football rules and by English sides. There is no distinction between a minor or major honour on this page as there are multiple sources debating that classification either way. Your statement above is bizarre: "Secondly, yes, if Spurs list pre-season trophies on their website and Arsenal dont, it is our job to stick with it. If that is what the sources list, then that is what we list. We dont do personal research here." - we use non-primary sources to make the pages on Wikipedia strong, you seem to be suggesting that there are no reliable sources for the SLCS or Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy and that for some reason myself and have added these based on incorrect assumptions or personal research, there are many references from reliable sources to support the fact that these trophies meet the classification as competitive English honours - just go to their wiki pages to see them.


 * To review: You are neutral to the inclusion of the Sheriff of London Charity Shield (the official precursor to the FA Charity Shield but have removed it due to the briefest of user comments (some of which are obviously sockpuppets) and none of those editors feel strongly enough to bother debating the matter or in fact making more than a single comment, I warmly welcome them to join in. User:Simply-the-truth has made 1 comment on talk pages and 10 edits to Wikipedia, I struggle to see how they are to be considered an authority on the procedure of adding information to this page, especially as they havn't bothered to take part in this discussion.


 * Please simply explain why the honours removed are not competitive English honours (the title of the page)? You have failed to do so. Your point on the Centenary Trophy only being 'held once' does not mean it was not a competitive English honour, that just means in your opinion, based on no references, that you have decided it is somehow 'not worthy' of inclusion here. I remind you that the Football League Super Cup, organised by the Football League as the centenary Trophy was, was only held once also but you have deemed it worthy of inclusion. You are inconsistently applying your logic to the page. Mountain cirque 09:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Please look at the title of this page. "List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won". User:Mountaincirque has added a lot of references to the Sheriff of London Charity Shield page that show it was a competitive honour. For example Corinthian had to change their constitution to play in the match. So this was a competitive match and thus was a competitive honour. Why then, if it has been proven to be a competitive honour, does Mountaincirque need a consensus from a large number of users to add this trophy? It was a competitive honour, fact, and this page lists football clubs in England by competitive honours won. Like User:Govvy said, you do not need consensus for an undoubtable improvement to an article. The exact same applies to the Centenary Trophy. It was a competitive trophy (I have the full match tape with interviews from George Graham, players and commentator about the game which show this, it was not pre-season as it was competed during the League season and League games were rescheduled to fit it in) and it was competed by the top 8 teams in the league. So this should also undoubtedly be on a page that is titled "List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won". Looking above, there are 2 editors against the inclusion of these trophies. One is you and the other is Simply-the-truth. Simply-the-truth has not given a single reason why they don't want these trophies on the page, apart from saying that it was a friendly trophy which has already been proven to be false. And you have not given a single argument to show that these are not competitive honours. Your only argument seems to be that Arsenal don't list it as an honour on their website. The fact that you would count is as a trophy if Tottenham won it but not if Arsenal won it is based solely on what the editor of their website decides to include is utterly ludicrous. The other editors who have reverted changes, BRACK66 and Kronix1986 have also not given any reasons as to why the tournament is not a competitive one. A consensus is not needed as both trophies are competitive, and the title of this page is "List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won". If you can show that neither trophy was competitive then things might change. But opening this issue up to WikiProject Football will only lead to more editors like yourself ignoring the essence of what this page is about (competitive honours) and start to argue against the inclusion of such trophies based on the fact they aren't "major" or because they don't want to give their rival teams trophies. Like I said, if you can give reasons as to why you don't think these trophies are competitive, then a consensus will most definitely be needed. So far, you have done nothing of the sort and have asked for a consensus based on nothing expect that Arsenal's website doesn't include it. As Mountaincirque said: "we use non-primary sources to make the pages on Wikipedia strong, you seem to be suggesting that there are no reliable sources for the SLCS or Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy and that for some reason myself and @Hashim-afc have added these based on incorrect assumptions or personal research, there are many references from reliable sources to support the fact that these trophies meet the classification as competitive English honours". So once more I will be WP:BOLD and revert your unconstructive edits as there is no need for a consensus at this time until you can tell us why you don't think these trophies are competitive. The simple fact that editors have reverted the changes in the past is not enough to warrant a request for consensus. Hashim-afc (talk) 11:55, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411034859/http://www.football-league.premiumtv.co.uk/page/History/0%2C%2C10794%2C00.html to http://www.football-league.premiumtv.co.uk/page/History/0%2C%2C10794%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131205125241/http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/about/history.html to http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/about/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203092702/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LeagueCupPastWinners/0%2C%2C10794~1354853%2C00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LeagueCupPastWinners/0%2C%2C10794~1354853%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329230552/http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engleagcuphist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engleagcuphist.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203092702/http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LeagueCupPastWinners/0%2C%2C10794~1354853%2C00.html to http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/LeagueCupPastWinners/0%2C%2C10794~1354853%2C00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131205125241/http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/about/history.html to http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/about/history.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111225041824/http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/index.html to http://www.fifa.com/clubworldcup/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160329230552/http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engleagcuphist.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablese/engleagcuphist.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Edits to List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won Comment
Hi there, your recent major edit is largely good but you have removed quite a few honours for the Sheriff of London Charity Shield, I can quickly see that Villa (2) and Liverpool (1) have both lost trophies. Mountain cirque 15:38, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I've added the SLCS on now. I assume it was accidental on Madshurtie's behalf. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There had been back and forth over that, so I just didn't bother to re-add SLCS out out of convenience. The RSSSF document doesn't include SLCSs in the total at the bottom either, though they are listed individually at the top. I don't really mind whether we include them or not, maybe it should be discussed on the talk page? Madshurtie (talk) 15:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi Madshurtie, I'd also like to make a comment - I like the edits you have made to the page but I'm wondering how are teams that have the same number of honours ranked? E.g. Everton/Villa/Spurs all have 24 trophies but seem to be ranked randomly rather than by alphabet or by domestic honours or something like that. Hashim-afc (talk) 15:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The teams with the exact same trophies won (mostly the ones with one trophy) should be sorted alphabetically (though just noticed Reading and Crystal Palace are wrong). In general, they're listed by the rightmost total. When that total's the same, it should be national honours, then league champions. Hopefully there aren't too many inconsistencies. Madshurtie (talk) 16:08, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It used to be based on 'most recent honour', I have no preference for the ordering myself and would suggest alphabetical or most recent would be the least controversial. Major changes to the page should really be discussed on the talk page to avoid any conflicts with other editors. Mountain cirque 16:15, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I got WP:BOLD, though possibly too bold. I wanted to salvage the best bits from the recently deleted duplicate table, which I felt had several organizational advantages. The deletion was sensible to avoid WP:REDUNDANTFORK, and that was the certainly the worse location for the table, but I would have recommended a merge. I also have no preference on the ordering, and am happy for anyone to change it. Madshurtie (talk) 16:35, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point and would have been a good idea in retrospect, at the time I judged the previous table to be an out of date version of the more regularly updated version at "List of..." and more importantly not a 'record' in the context of the page. I think that with an added proviso sentence 'teams are ordered by most recent win' ahead of the table we will have ended up with a table that is much improved from where we started off and merges the previous approach. One minor point on honours rather than format, I'm a little uneasy about the Centenary Trophy being added and not the Football League Centenary Tournament which was organised by the same committee, in the same year, was competitive and had mostly teams from the elite level competing. Mountain cirque 09:40, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
 * It's because it was a friendly tournament and not competitive. The matches were not full 90 minutes, they were 40 minutes or 60 minutes played over the space of 2 days. So I don't think it would be a "competitive honour" and there also did not seem to be any inclusion criteria. On the other hand the Centenary Trophy was for the top 8 teams in England played during the season (not pre-season) over the course of 2 months with full 90 minute matches, so that one should definitely be on the page. That's my opinion, Hashim-afc (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Defunct Cups
Editing the table to do this might be a bit tedious, so thought I'd see what other people thought first before risking reverts. Basically, what if, under each governing body, we group the defunct trophies under one column. It would mean we have more room to manoeuvre, without running out of horizontal space, if we decide to add something like the Centenary Tournament. It would also reduce crowding in the table and make it easier for readers to find the ongoing trophies people are most interested in. The key would specify which tournaments are listed under defunct, with a short reason for inclusion next to each. It could even mention a few tournaments that meet some inclusion criteria but we have decided not to include under defunct for a specified reason. This means future editors and readers can see why each tournament has been included or not. It could also be a solution to the Sheriff of London Charity Shield dispute, because we could move it to defunct, which would keep it in the totals while leaving the Community Shield with the official numbers. I've drawn up an example table below.


 * Comment - I see what you've tried to do with this idea and it would make the format cleaner but I'd be uncomfortable with grouping the honours into one box as you are effectively losing information. For instance, Villa would have 2 defunct English honours (SoLC Shields) and one defunct European honour (Intertoto) but there would be no way of telling from the table what they were. There's also the fact that some of these honours may not have been under UEFA/FA auspices officially (maybe England/Europe/Global) would be more appropriate? I'd keep what we have with a few minor amends for tidyness and ordering of the sides with equal honours. Good job though Mountain cirque 14:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I dont think it is fair to group something defunct like the intertoto cup with something defunct like the European Cup Winners Cup, which was a huge tournament with massive prestige for a large period of time. Davefelmer (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

So...... I may have just implemented this against consensus. I thought, if I was cleaning up the code, it would save me a lot of work to clean up the included trophies at the same time. For what it's worth, here's my responses to the above arguments, which I really should have posted months ago: If people are still unhappy with this system, we can change it back. Madshurtie (talk) 17:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This system more clearly provides the information most readers are looking for, and better reflects media focus. The ongoing trophies are the ones of major media and public interest. Having them clearly laid out improves navigability, without the similar acronyms of other trophies generating confusion.
 * Loss of information is partially mitigated under this new implementation by specifying the list of defunct trophies in the Key. Club links already exist for readers curious to find out the exact trophy dates/types.
 * The ECWC may have been more prestigious than the UIC, but it declined in importance after the establishment of the UEFA Champions League. As the table stood, it didn't distinguish trophies won after the ECWC became a second-rate trophy (such as Arsenal 1994 and Chelsea 1998). And it may be above UIC in current prestige, but it's surely below the ongoing trophies listed.
 * I'm concerned there are more defunct trophies that should be in the table. We've already added one or two more over the last year. For example, the Watney Cup looks like it might have been a Football League competition and should be included. Having the defunct category future-proofs us against further additions crowding the table and/or forcing a major reorganization.
 * Possibly most importantly, this system is consistent and objective, and heads off a lot of arguments over what trophies should be specified in the table.

Minor page re-title? Thoughts?
The page title and start of the lead is slightly incorrect in my opinion. As the page concerns English competitive honours which have been open to Welsh and Scottish sides (with Cardiff, Swansea and Queen's Park all in the list currently as winners of the FA Cup, League Cup and Charity Shield), a more appropriate title could be List of football clubs by English competitive honours won. Thoughts? Mountain cirque 12:36, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree this is a bit of a problem, though could "List of football clubs by English competitive honours won" be confusing because many of the honours (UEFA, FIFA), aren't English? A reader looking for the page might think it excluded international honours won. Could List of football clubs by competitive honours won in England work, or does it not really address the Welsh/Scottish problem clearly enough? How about List of football clubs by competitive honours won in English football? Madshurtie (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * On this topic, my other concern with the title is the "competitive". Firstly, it's a bit vague and potentially prone to argument. Secondly, it seems like it should include a much broader category of honours. The County Cups, for example, were clearly competitive trophies played under standard rules (and for clubs that hadn't joined the FL, they were generally held as the most prestigious trophies after the FA Cup). They may not have had participation by clubs across the nation, but neither did the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, and the title only specifies "competitive" anyway. I feel like the title should be a bit more narrow and rigorous. List of English football clubs by national and international football association honours won / List of football clubs by national and international football association honours won in England might do the job, though they're so long. List of English football clubs by EFL, PL, FA, UEFA, and FIFA honours won / List of football clubs by EFL, PL, FA, UEFA, and FIFA honours won in England are slightly shorter? List of EFL, PL, FA, UEFA, and FIFA honours won in England is nice and short, though it doesn't explicitly say the honours are grouped by club. Overall, I feel the name of the page should change, but I'm not sure the best way to do it. Madshurtie (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * One more suggestion, how about the broader but shorter List of English football clubs by football association honours won / List of football clubs by football association honours won in England, and we give the table a narrower section heading and add a section or several at the bottom linking to various County FA pages. Madshurtie (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it would be good for style to begin listing names of tournaments or associations in the page title. I think the competitive was included to distinguish from friendly tournaments and to move away from the major/minor debate that plagues this kind of page. I agree with your point on my suggestion excluding the European honours, I hadn't thought of that. Having reflected, I'm leaning towards keeping it as is as the Welsh and Scottish sides are all clearly footnoted as to why they are included (as they compete or briefly competed in English tournaments). Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 11:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you think it looks too clumsy listing the organization names in the title, what do you think of titles like "List of English clubs by football association honours won" / "List of clubs by football association honours won in England"? We could put a mention in the lead or create a subsection (or both) saying why County Football Associations aren't included and where to go to find them. I guess I feel a competitive/non-competitive debate is going to be similar to a major/minor debate (indeed competitive might be even broader). Madshurtie (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * What about removing Cardiff, Swansea and Queens Park from this list since they're not English? Limit the list to English teams and mention the anomalies as a note at the bottom. – PeeJay 14:10, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Consensus Vote on Inclusion of Charity Shield and Centenary Trophy Honours
There is an ongoing discussion as to whether the Sheriff of London Charity Shield and Football League Centenary Trophy should be included in this list of English competitive football honours. User has been reverting any inclusion of these honours on the page over the past few weeks (and past 24 hours particularly) as he feels we need more consensus on their inclusion, I propose this vote to hopefully amicably end this somewhat circular discussion.

I invite all users watching this page and those involved in discussions around this so far to vote to Include, Include neither or Include ____ (one or the other) below. Please include (brief) comments justifying your decision if you feel like it.

Pinging:, , , , , , , ,. PS: if you are a sockpuppet account with no editing history then please desist from joining this vote as we have already had interference above.

Mountain cirque 12:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Include: The Sheriff of London Charity Shield and Football League Centenary Trophy were undoubtedly competitive English honours which is the criterion for inclusion. The Sheriff of London Shield is officially the precursor to the FA Charity Shield and was a key fixture in the league calendar. There are multiple references (newspapers, books) from the time of the trophy on the corresponding wiki page. The Centenary Trophy is also worthy of inclusion as a competitive trophy organised by the Football League during the League season for the best 8 sides in the previous year to celebrate their Centenary year. I do not see any reason for either to be excluded from this list of competitive honours despite them of course being less well known than many of the other honours in the list. Mountain cirque 12:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Seriously, this is a list article that says competitive competition, of course you should be including competitive tournaments. Govvy (talk) 18:28, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Include neither 2A00:23C4:275:A300:EC68:A7AE:58CA:3CF6 (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Any more sockpuppet IPs with a single edit? Do chip in. Mountain cirque 08:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Soft include: I'm more bothered about consistency than inclusionism, but both of these trophies were clearly organized by major football associations, and had historical importance which may be educational to the reader. That said, I don't think this argument is going to end with these two trophies, and I think there are probably trophies left out that could reignite this type of argument. Without rigorously defined and sufficiently narrow inclusion criteria this argument could rear its head again. Hopefully my recent major change is a compromise that resolves both issues? Who am I kidding, I've probably made everything worse. Madshurtie (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Professional Honours
I don't agree with your 'professional' addition to the lead today. Lots of early winner of the FA Cup and Charity Shields were not professional so you are creating a bit of a hole there, you would have to remove sides from the table such as Old Carthusians FC, Corinthian F.C. and Oxford University A.F.C....which would mean we were not listing every competitive honour awarded in English football. I think that competitive and national level should be the main criteria. Mountain cirque · Join the Karate Task Force? 10:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting, hadn't thought about that. I added professional to have an explicit statement that semi-professional cups like the Inter-League Cup and FA Vase are excluded, but looks like you're right. Unfortunately, I don't think competitive or national exclude those cups, but I can't think of a better criterion right now. Madshurtie (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think elite is a good word to use, as then you exclude second/third division titles and FA Vase etc. as you mention. Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 09:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it helps, my only problems are it's a bit vague, and the Europa League clearly isn't the elite competition under that body, so it seems inconsistent. Madshurtie (talk) 09:48, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Four minor style questions

 * Is there a wiki guideline for which suffix should be used in British English? Both -ise and -ize are suffixes preferred by different British publishers. I can't see much in MOS:ENGVAR, WP:ISE, or WP:IZE advising on this. I've personally used the Oxford variant (-ize) because it's more etymologically and phonetically accurate, but I'm not sure which is more appropriate in the case of English football. Would MOS:COMMONALITY indicate we should use the -ize variant because it's the form of British English with wider use outside Britain? There's only four words at issue in this page at the moment. Madshurtie (talk) 10:41, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It just needs to be consistent. My understanding has always been that -ise is British English and -ize is American English. As this is a British-related article I would go with -ise (as I edited earlier). Neither is more 'accurate' than the other. The Oxford variant is just that, a variant of the usual way of spelling the word in British English and is not inherently superior. Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 10:55, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to imply one way was superior, I was just mentioning that my habits are because -ize is apparently closer to the etymology and pronunciation of the suffix (which is just of personal interest and not relevant to its usage on Wikipedia). It seems to be a common misconception that it's a British/American distinction, presumably because -ise is only used in British English, and only -ize is used in American English. Is MOS:COMMONALITY relevant here when choosing between two common British English variants? Or are we just following MOS:ARTCON as you say? Madshurtie (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)


 * raised on my talk page the inconsistent usage of defunct and obsolete in the table and the key. I basically did this because, although I thought defunct was a more appropriate word, defunct doesn't seem to have a common abbreviation, whereas obs. seems to be occasionally used. If anyone has a preference here, I'll change it. Madshurtie (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Madshurtie (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Both old tables (on this article and the Football records in England page) had left-aligned club names, but centre-alignment for the rest of the table. When I recently cleaned up the code of the merged table, I didn't bother including left-aligned club names because it seemed unnecessary, but I don't want to change things if there were good reasons. Does anyone have a preference over alignment? I don't see anything in MOS:TABLE about it. Madshurtie (talk) 16:13, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Table has new alignment now for content cells and headers. Still like to hear comments though. Madshurtie (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The merged table from Football records in England had a different colour for the total columns to aid readability. Is this something worth keeping, or is it also unimportant? Madshurtie (talk) 16:20, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

SLCS red links
WP:RED says we should keep red links in the article to encourage editors to create the pages. Since there are pages for the finals or seasons of all the other cups on this page, surely these 10 cups should have their own pages, even if they're only stubs. Madshurtie (talk) 11:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Feel free to revert if you like. I just thought it was messy and didn't have any WP:RED knowledge. There are some perfect book sources (available online) for all the finals in the main article (which I found), but it would take hours of work to draft them all up. Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 11:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah the hours of work was why I just added redlinks in the hope someone else would do it, haha. If it's OK with you then, I'll restore them? Madshurtie (talk) 11:54, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. I've also created stubs for each match, so problem sorted. Madshurtie (talk) 13:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Re-title to more precise "elite"
I dislike the current title's use of "competitive honours". It doesn't exclude County Football Association honours, it doesn't exclude a range of non-friendly trophies that Premier League clubs never compete in, such as the FA Vase, FA Trophy, and FA Inter-League Cup, and it doesn't exclude trophies for non-first teams, such as the FA Youth Cup and UEFA Youth League. Since what we're really talking about is the trophies competed in at the highest level of football, I think this should be what the title says. I propose renaming the page to List of football clubs in England by elite honours won.

If we specify elite as the highest trophies within a football association (i.e. where the club wouldn't be playing in a different tournament if they had performed better), then the title is fairly precise and excludes the full range of non-first team and lower-tier honours. It still doesn't necessarily exclude the County FA honours, but it would be reasonable to have a sentence in the lead mentioning that County FA honours are excluded for space/notability reasons (which the article should really have at the moment anyway). The only other issues I can see are the Europa League and Intertoto Cup, since clubs only qualified for them if they failed to qualify for another UEFA tournament. This could be resolved by putting a footnote in the key and header cell saying although they are not the elite UEFA competitions, they are included because they are harder to qualify for than the PL, EFLC, and FAC, and have high prestige as a result. This gives the reader added information, and keeps our inclusion criteria very clear.

As a bonus, it also makes the title slightly shorter. Madshurtie (talk) 13:24, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this would be a fair re-title. I do think that we need to be careful to not push the European Cup Winner's Cup, UEFA Cup and Europa League (and Intertoto Cup not that it is incredibly prestigious) into the dustbin of history. I am a tiny bit uncomfortable with how they have all been folded into a 'discontinued' column on the main table but understand the rationale in terms of ease of reading. Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 14:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I definitely think these discontinued trophies deserve more awareness, and would oppose removing them from the page. I couldn't think of a better way of simplifying the table than using a discontinued category. Also, there are at least five other trophies that I can think of that should possibly be added to the table (the Watney Cup, Anglo-Italian Cup, Texaco Cup, Anglo-Scottish Cup, Football League Group Cup), so I was concerned if we didn't start grouping trophies, the table could become unusable. If you think the re-title is fair, can I make the move for now? Madshurtie (talk) 14:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm not against the grouping as such, just expressing a minor niggle with it (my issue is that you can't actually tell what discontinued honour a club won from the table, you have to go to their page). I would see if anyone else has a counter-view on the page re-title before going ahead I'm happy to second though. Mountain cirque · Join the Karate Task Force? 15:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll leave it for a few weeks and see if we get any more comments. Madshurtie (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Additional Cups
Madshurtie (talk) 15:54, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Briefly in terms of the cups you list there my opinion is that they would be excluded as 'invitational' and not elite as there were lower league sides playing in there. Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 15:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Only the Watney Cup appears to have "invitational" in the name, but it appears to have qualification based on merit (most goals). As for lower league sides, the EFL Cup and FA Cup also have a mix of lower league sides and top tier sides, and it seems like the TC, ASC, and FLGC were somewhat forerunners to the EFL Cup. Madshurtie (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it's relevant, but I'll note I'm not the first person (see comment by Peanut4 near the bottom) to mention some of these cups regarding this page. Madshurtie (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh my mistake, the TC, ASC, and FLGC were the forerunners to the EFL Trophy, not the EFL Cup. However, teams from the top level did enter them before they were replaced by the EFL Trophy (Associate Members' Cup at the time) Madshurtie (talk) 17:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that as the entry criteria were not open to all top national teams they should not be included i.e. all premier/first division sides are invited to the FA and League Cups which you can argue makes them elite competitions pitting the best sides against each other. But having a tournament where some top sides are invited to play alongside invited lower league sides does not merit inclusion here in my opinion (if they were always the English league winner vs. Scottish league winner for example you would have a strong case). So it's a quite strong disagree vote from me. Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 11:21, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. I'm a bit unclear on the qualification criteria for the top division for some of these cups, but if they are generally invitational and not based on merit, as you say, then that's probably fair enough. Madshurtie (talk) 12:42, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm still trying to find out more about some of the other Anglo-Italian Cups, but it looks like the Anglo-Italian League Cup was played between the winners of the Coppa Italia and the EFL Cup (initially) and the FA Cup. What's more, three out of five English participants came from the top division. Disregarding all the other cups, surely this one at least needs to be added to the discontinued totals? Madshurtie (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Discontinued Honours
Just an observation, we don't know if the Football League Centenary Trophy is discontinued, it may be played at the next centenary anniversary as well. There's no source which says it's discontinued, Hashim-afc (talk) 22:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * you raise a decent point, it's not quite right to say that a centenary tournament has been 'discontinued' but I can see it is a tough one to categorize. I would think that the 200 year anniversary would be celebrated in the 2080s but that would arguably be a Bicentenary Tournament and a completely different event, not a continuation. Mountain cirque ·  Join the Karate Task Force? 11:35, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Hashim! That's a tricky one when centenaries are over such a long period that we can't correct the page quickly. I'd say the 1980s one has been widely reported as getting underwhelming interest, so a 2080s one might well be in a completely different format, if it happened at all. Also, we won't know if it's continued until that date, and then I guess the article could be corrected then. Madshurtie (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2017 (UTC)