Talk:2016–17 EFL Trophy

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

This article was nominated for deletion on 1 June 2016. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Premier League academies

Sixteen Premier League academies will enter the 2016-17 competition, making it a 64-team competition, with 16 groups of four. Culloty82 (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Name of Academy teams

How do we refer to the Academy teams in this page? Some editors have put in 'Everton B' or 'Everton Academy' etc, and others have removed them. My suggestion would be to keep the 'Academy' distinction in, but I'd be interested to see what others think? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:08, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably just refer to them by whatever name the club in question calls them. We (Everton) refer to them as our U21s. - Chrism would like to hear from you 13:42, 2 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Table Templates

How can we fix the tables to include the 2 points for a win on PKs?2601:18B:1:5BC0:6924:2564:F8B5:ECCE (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

leading paragraphs

Shouldn't the lead specify this is also the Football League Trophy??? The Leading few paragraphs are very short, surely they could be expanded on and for each season you should surely have a brief history of the competition? I consider these articles disappointing. Govvy (talk) 10:44, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Use the edit button... --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 11:04, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, It's nice to know there are rude editors like this around, I don't like people who reply with RTM style comments, so to start with don't bother starting a stupid argument in the first place and either be polite or do not type anything. Govvy (talk) 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Govvy: The comment from Super Nintendo Chalmers was more or less spot on. You come here and complain on lack of content, then why wont you add some? Qed237 (talk) 23:14, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't complain, I asked a question. That why I put question marks on the end of the sentences! :/ And you replied sometime after I had a go at an edit, you still changed it around putting back the citation to the middle of the sentence when it should be after the full stop at the end of the sentence. And it's not the first time being rebranded either, it's gone through different sponsorships and rebranding before. Govvy (talk) 11:10, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my apologies - I wasn't implying anything, though I see how it reads tersely - I should have phrased it more carefully. I was trying to say, yes, if you think it needs improving then add it. Also don't understand 'RTM'? --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

O fuck this article, I won't help then, such bad editing practices. Govvy (talk) 10:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]