Talk:Premier League Hall of Fame

Why are we listing achievements that have nothing to do with their entry into the HOF?
We seem to be having a bit of an edit war to introduce Charity Shield etc when we are already ignoring entry criteria by including irrelevant achievements such as PFA awards, FA Cups etc. I am not sure what this article is intending to do, but we seem to be very much blurring the lines between the criteria used for a player and what we have listed for... reasons? Koncorde (talk) 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, per this edit summary I am trying to make this page as informed as possible and I'm using the same references which are used on the Premier League Website using the titles and significant individual achievements that are encompassed on that page. You have removed other valid information for no reason at all and have limited this pages informity. In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that
 * The "key" for the table, including colour coding and the addition of character symbols after names is not appropriate. Some tables for other awards may include chevrons or note indicators, but by practice we do not just add "^*+#~". This is a legibility issue, nevermind needlessly complex.
 * The HOF FAQ states The Premier League Hall of Fame celebrates players who have made significant on-pitch contributions to the Premier League only. and that is it.
 * A player is inducted based upon the information that is best summed up by their profile page such as for Henry. You will note it does not include any competitions or awards that are not directly attributed to the Premier League. This same information is held here. You will note what is included is:
 * Playing statistics
 * Premier League Golden Boot
 * Premier League Player of the Season
 * Premier League Champion
 * Additional qualification criteria are separately stipulated in the Hall of Fame FAQ. Any other criteria is not part of the HOF selection process.
 * The claim that "other valid information" was added might be true, but at the same time wording such as "fully retired" is not in the FAQ, nor is "If a player retired for a short period, then his case and eligibility are reviewed on an individual basis." neither of which appear sourced. Koncorde (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Koncorde Okay, lots of them points are valid but I still struggle to see why you have removed hours of writing from myself explaining the Hall Of Fame and what the description of it is. Other professional sports Hall of fame Wikipedia pages fail to have a complete correlation to the HOF FAQ such as the Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame or the NFL Hall of Fame. Regardless glad you have taken the reigns following my hours of work on this page even if it means hurting the pages informality provided it meets the FAQ, that is ultimately what helps the page. Personally, I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence. I won't make any more adjustments to this Page. Glad you could use areas of my Framework to turn this vibrant, informative page into your product. (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You wrote a few hundred words. None of it is lost, at any time you can recover it from the edit history and just cut and paste it back in. Just not the irrelevant cruft highlighted above.
 * As for this: I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence.. I have no idea what on earth are you on about. I am an editor, not a moderator, and at no point have there been any threats, or rudeness. I have explained everything as succinctly as I can. Koncorde (talk) 22:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Further, the correlation of List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees to relevant website and FAQ you can see is all but negligible. The HOF site lists a lot more data that is, in list format, fundamentally redundant. The selection criteria, while interesting, is not actually something particularly significant. They don't go into the minor details of each player because those details are basically irrelevant. Entry into the HOF is significant. 44 Interceptions and a several Pro Bowls are largely incidental. In NFL terms most achievements are largely ignored in any case (with many inductees not being players, or having statistically insignificant careers because they predate modern metrics).
 * With regards to this article correlating with the Pro Football page, WP:OTHERSTUFF is the relevant page. However, and more importantly at present, the Pro Football HOF has 50 years of history, and significant secondary coverage to support deviations from the FAQ. The Premier League HOF has almost no significant coverage at present, and if it even continues, or gains significant coverage is up in the air (per WP:CRYSTALBALL). Koncorde (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * This was quite blatantly a threat You have been warned. which coupled with your attitude in other comments came of rude. Also when I tried to make another change, which would have made the page more informed I was called a "d*ckhead" by another who was using an IP Adress who I had mistaken for yourself so my apologies, who I believe has retracted his/her statement, as I can't seem to find it in the source. Moving on, my changes are always putting the best interests of this Page at Heart. I have dedicated hours to working on this page and I believe your recent introduction has given me the impression you are controlling removing plenty of valid info and are only pursuing your vision. I have tried to negotiate compromises in the source and the talk page. You have continued to remove information that would continue to promote the credentials of the players in the Hall renouncing it as irrelevant cruft which is completely subjective. You have also removed valid information on the induction process and the introduction. You have also completely diminished the point of having a player table with achievements as "Hall of Fame Talents" have no significant achievements whatsoever, with your changes even though they have met the requirements of the Premier League Hall of Fame in the first place. I don't see any of your changes improving the quality of the page in the slightest other than taking away from it. But please clue me in (talk) 19:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Please quote the full context of my comments when making any accusation. At 21:43 I reverted your persistent edit warring starting my explanation with "3RR, you have been warned". A warning is a formal notice. This makes it clear to any other editor what action has been taken and why. The warning is the one I left on your talk page here at 21:47. For edit warring. I have provided links repeatedly to policy and procedure to make it clear what issues are at hand.
 * You may have the best intentions, but you are not conducting yourself with those intentions. Claiming to not want to edit war, and then edit warring for a further 24 hours (another 6 or so edits under both your named profile and IP address) all but meaning anybody engaging with you has to stretch the sense of "good faith" per WP:AGF interaction long past reasonableness.... and now this? Combined with your general tone on other peoples talk pages which have been filled with lots of words which do not gel with your actions. Claims that you have tried to negotiate compromises is, from what I have seen until todays use of the Talk Page here, completely untrue. You have instead INSISTED on your version. Reverted any other changes. And then insist other people do as you say, despite WP:BRD guidance to the contrary. Ultimately your behaviour is why I have request Administrator intervention.
 * As for other information:
 * The other information was unsourced
 * The other information was poor grammatically in places. Keshas changes are improvements.
 * Table information makes sense if it was a static one off award - this isn't. This is going to be an annual award eventually constituting hundreds of players. Including each and every single title etc is needless when the significance is not their relative performance compared to other players in the HOF - but that they are inducted at all. Per the section at the bottom of this page about the table, we need to think of this article format long term.
 * Further onto quality vs cruft; see List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees or English Football Hall of Fame as examples of how little is actually required to convey what needs to be known - because, per above, the issue is not how much we can cram into one list but instead how is best to present the information to show who has been inducted.
 * Collectively the other information had already been rejected from 2 or 3 other editors, who you attempted to steamroll. Your attempts to insert the changes back even after I told you there were issues with it (particularly WP:OR and Unsourced opinion) seemed to ignore the fundamentals of WP:RS. Koncorde (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that


 * First of all, you are keep claiming I am "edit warring" when I've made several statements such as I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored on the talk page. If I can avoid edit warring and come to a compromise I would much prefer that yet you have persisted to adjust my hard work with no benefit of informity to the page. When I have made a major adjustment to the page and had a disagreement with another editor I always state a Rationale for my decision backed by evidence from other sources and references. And tell me, what you are doing is any different? After several weeks of this page being run without any hostility or tension have invited constant adjustments to a page that was accurate and had little issue and have made "huge" adjustments that have not helped the page in any way. Your point about me using an IP Address to make a change has already been disputed. I made a change, I made a mistake and I reverted it immediately. Combined with your general tone on other peoples talk pages which have been filled with lots of words which do not gel with your actions. What are you referring to? I have tried to make compromises through the source pages, and until you showed up and made regular edits to this page, to institute your personal, subjective vision on what I and hundreds of other people have built, I hadn't had to negotiate with people on this page as everyone seemed pretty aligned. We always came to a compromise on their personal talk page or my own. As for yourself, you've just made "changes" and have tried to paint me as the Edit "Warrer" diminishing the quality of the page in nearly every way with very few times an explained rationale or justification.


 * The other information was unsourced (Not true. All my information was referenced with sources to other Wikipedia pages and references to the Premier League Hall of Fame offical website)


 * The other information was poor grammatically in places. Keshas changes are improvements. (This may have been the case at times)

Your point on the table I object to also.

The writers of this page managed to do this successfully with hundreds of players each with dozens of their achievements. This "validates their appearance in the Hall", it's significant to include the achievements that were "clarify their induction." This was my original framework for what in how I envisioned this page before you made your own changes. Limiting this or "meeting half way" is undermining to the players inducted especially players like Gerrard with no accomplishments because you removed the ones the "you alone" found insignificant. I've already stated my reasoning to fully remove the awards column as a result as I don't think it benefits the page with the awards that "you see fit."

And it was two editors yourself and ItsKesha. I never attempted to steamroll either of you. I clearly stated my intentions were positive and tried to reference the both of you to a talk page to negotiate terms we could agree in on and instead you made the changes you wanted to make and didn't consider the rest of the community who built this page. And the final point is another completely subjective statement. I have been thanked several times for my hours of work on this page and I understand you're a long time editor who has discovered a page emerging in popularity but your changes have taken away from this page and you haven't tried to discuss change, you have just made the change and blamed me for "edit warring" in the process when myself as well as many other people have spent hours making this page what it is and have been alerted to change that doesn't meet the criteria of what we are trying to make. JuneFith (talk) 23:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Saying the statement that you want to discuss changes, while reverting back to your changes, isn't discussing. Per WP:BRD. Read the policy. Making repeated reverts of content that 3 other editors have rejected is not working towards a compromise (per WP:CONSENSUS). It is you pushing your version ahead of anyone else's input. This is edit warring. This is edit warring. Lots of words and begging for compromise - but your conduct is of edit warring. Since then I count another 8 complete or partial reverts by this account, and another 2 or 3 by the IP address. This is edit warring: even as issues were raised on this talk page, and your own talk page, you continued to edit war.
 * Regarding IP addresses, this is you per WP:DUCK. If it isn't you, then just started editing on the same date and time to the same article and has made the same edits and reverts as you have over the last two days. This is not reverting a mistake. Nor is this one or this one either.
 * At this point please stop replying and actually look at how you are conducting yourself. I have explained about as thoroughly as I can and you are not going to get any more clarity over re-hashing your edits. Koncorde (talk) 23:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again I am being totally ignored and you are failing to respond to many of my points which is why I continue to respond. Although you very well may have thoroughly stated your viewpoint you've failed to respond to many of my points with further confirms your lack of co-operation here, trying to institute and enforce your own values alone on this page. JuneFifth 14:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * You are not being "totally ignored". I will repeat: stop replying, read the resources I have linked for you, and look at your behaviour. Your points have been either antithetical to wikipedia practice, ignorant of policy, or accusatory because you don't understand.
 * I am telling you that you need to understand wikipedia better before trying to argue your position because your current method is to repeat the same inconsequential nonsense that other editors have already rejected (not just myself) because they have accepted my edits and edit summaries. Koncorde (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Mexith8670 (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Hi ItsKesha, I've decided to use the talk page as my addition was retracted. The "Professional Footballers' Association Men's Players' Player of the Year" regarded as the highest prestige award in England is also the regulating body for the "Premier League Hall Of Fame" as the Professional Footballers' Association Men's Players' Player of the Year, is aligned with "Richard Masters" who is the president of the Hall. Also, Premier League Team of the Season appearances is extremely valid in seeing the consistency of these footballers. Look at the source for further details on the Hall of Fame and the PFA awards which are also paired with Hublot. One of many Sources:https://www.sportcollective.com/our-work/experience/sky-sports
 * PFA isn't associated with Premier League, nor Richard Masters. You can check this on their website. Their awards are distinct, and are technically applicable to any level of football. The PFA is the Players Union. You can see an example of this from news articles where they contact Masters about player health. PFA Awards being associated with Sky Sports (for monthly awards) clearly doesn't mesh with the Premier Leagues awards being associated with EA Sports. If you read the actual Press Release in the source you provided you would see it dates from 2015 and is therefore woefully out of date and is referring specifically to the "PFA Fans Player of the Month award". This appears to be currently promoted through Bristol Street Motors and as you can see has different winners to the Premier League Monthly award (Mahrez winning the PFA Monthly award, Iheanacho winning the Premier League award). Koncorde (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

What accolades should be listed for inductees?
Since there is a bit of controversy regarding this, I'm interested to see what people think we should include.

I don't think we should include FA Cup, EFL Cup or any other domestic competition wins, since the Hall of Fame site is quite clear on that in their FAQs:

"Only a player’s Premier League career is considered in their candidacy, not their performances in other competitions during the Premier League era."

The Hall of Fame profiles for inductees list titles won, Golden Boots (presumably they would list Golden Gloves for goalkeeper inductees given that can lead to eligibility if a player hasn't made 250 or more Premier League appearances), "Season Awards" (for example Thierry Henry's two Player of the Season awards) and "Monthly Awards" (for example Cantona's Player of the Month award). The Player of the Season award is the Premier League Player of the Season award, evidenced by Lampard's profile listing that he has won one. Lampard won that award and not the PFA Players' Player of the Year award.

I'm 50/50 on it. One the one hand that's a uniform way to do it - if it's on the HoF profile, we list it. However there might be major awards not listed on the profile that are relevant. Would love to know people's opinions. Wxmdrgn (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need to list any. Not all players nominated or eligible will have won the PL, or any other "major" award. For example, one of the nominees was Les Ferdinand with no such accolades. Another was Matt Le Tissier with just a few Player of the Months. A clean table of inductees, a link to the PL website profile is probably as much as required and likely within a few years it will need splitting off into its own List of Premier League Hall of Fame inductees. Koncorde (talk) 23:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There are clear criteria for induction, if a player complies I think it should be mentioned. Wikipedia isn't here to to mirror the Premier League's HOF profiles, information can be expanded on to make it clearer to the reader which criteria they have met. I've removed FA Cups and League Cups from the table as they are clearly irrelevant. ItsKesha (talk) 12:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not on about not mentioning the player, I am on about there is no significant need to list everything about the player the Premier league has on their little page about them. Koncorde (talk) 15:45, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In my opinion I would remove the Achievements from the player list section from the list and maybe include them elsewhere like a List of Premier League Hall of Fame inductees as Koncorde suggested. Unlike the Pro Football Hall of Fame and The Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame, Football in England doesn’t have one award regulator making this a controversial and convoluted topic. Obviously there is the PFA Player of the Year Award (which is perceived by many as the most significant) and the FWA Writers Player of the Year but as their is no outright widely, regarded regulator I feel its inclusion on this list is unnecessary and will diminish future inductees. I also think that players such as Steven Gerrard who is on that list, one of the best players to play in the league who has an amazing Premier League legacy is unfairly tarnished with not having won a League title, and  now with your removal of other personal rewards and domestic trophies such as the FA Cup or any other compeitions that Premier League clubs take part within, aswell as his PFA Player of the Year winning season being removed from his list of achievements I think his resume on the page doesn’t reflect his worthy entry into the Hall in a positive light. This will no doubt be the case for other players like Matt Le Tissier, Les Ferdinand etc. and other future ballots. Personally I would either revert the changes as before including more awards or remove the awards and major honours section entirely. And apologies for the changes before I made a mistake and I tried to revert them using another I.P. Junefith (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There will be a lot of players that wont have a lot of "achievements", which is why "achievements" isn't really ideal for such lists. It inevitably leads to (as you say) players like Steven Gerrard being under represented. And if not Gerrard it would just be someone else. Adding more awards is a no-go. Just for accessibility and readability reasons per MOS:ACCESS and MOS:DTAB we should be avoiding multiple line breaks among a variety of other issues. Koncorde (talk) 21:25, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding more rewards has been successful on the List of members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame a similar format to what we originally envisioned on this page and is far more informing and articulate than what we have currently with our limited amount of achievements. I personally believe including domestic competitions such as the FA Cup is valid, however, I totally understand ItsKeshas verdict. I think these trophies do validate their induction and all Premier League clubs are involved in these domestic competitions however I understand your viewpoint I would maybe reconsider. For example, I think players such as Jamie Vardy winning an FA Cup for Leicester further validates his induction to the Hall as a Premier League icon, but once again I understand your removal. The Premier League Website also states that another reason for induction is a player has been denoted "To any of the Premier League Team of the Decade or 20-Year Anniversary teams." this should be included and further promotes the induction of players like Steven Gerrard as he was included. (I'm asking here purely because I can't find it anywhere on the internet but isn't the PFA the award regulator for this award? I believe this to be the case as they are aligned with Sky and are the highest regarded award regulators in the country so I would consider making this change. If so Team of the Year appearances should be reverted back to the page as I feel this further shows the consistency of these players and could be executed neatly like the previously mentioned List of members of the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. Junefith (talk) 14:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a Premier League award sanctioned by the Premier League alone based, in their words, on Premier League achievements alone. The Naismith list is a mess of text, but that is their problem. Koncorde (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed table format
If we are looking to include goals, then I suggest we add other inclusionary criteria to the table. This both saves space in the "achievements" column and helps condense the table down. I'm not even sure the "clubs" is strictly required, and is liable to become very dense if someone such as Andy Cole is inducted (7 Prem teams) or Les Ferdinand (6) etc.

Thoughts? Koncorde (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, it would require moving the images, but they are a bit crufty at the moment anyway and liable (again) to get very packed very quickly with the usual edit warring. Koncorde (talk) 16:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

To bring this back up again, Andy Cole indeed inducted and so we have our messy 7 club list for one player. Not sure who is active on this page to contribute? Koncorde (talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)