Talk:Football League Cup

Neglect

This article looks a little neglected. I would suggest the entire gray infobox in the past winners section is duplicate information and rather inelegant as well. JoelCFC25 18:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

MOTM

Does anyone have any information on the man of the match award? I think it is named after a former FA Secretary, and I know the recipient gets a trophy for it, but does anyone know any more? Mcauburn 11:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's the Alan Hardacre Trophy. --  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a source confirming it (with spelling Alan Hardaker Trophy), and advising that it was first presented at the 1995 final. Hassocks5489 20:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

2005-06 campaign

I added a section on the current campaign. I think that was a glaring omission, and seems endemic of Football articles outside of the "big" ones (World Cup, UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup, FA Premier League, etc.) Tdslappy 22:01, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Current campaign info was put in to conform with major articles as mentioned above. Please use the discussion page as a tool if you wish to change the standard in football articles. If current campaign mentions are not to be included, then FA Premier League 2005-06 and FA Cup 2005-06 and similar would have to be deleoted. Those users should be included in this discussion as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tdslappy (talk • contribs) .

Not necessarily. This stuff could go in a League Cup 2005-06 article, similar to the ones you mentioned. It looks a bit out of place in this article though. Don't see why the current campaign deserves more space here than the past ones have. 24px CTOAGN (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Single table format

I've put back the single table from the older version for a number of reasons:

1. The nested table version was ugly, with ragged bottoms to the top set of tables, and in particular a big gap under the 2000s table.
2. Nested tables are have a more complicated structure, so they are harder for people to come in and edit, which is not the wiki way.
3. We may want to add more columns to the table later, which is easier if the structure is simple adn there is horizontal space to grow in to.
4. There's no logical reason to keep the decades separate. It is a continuous list of individual seasons.
5. It has duplicate links in it. That would be annoying in a block of text, but tables are different. If I want to know something about the League Cup winners of 1964/65, I want to be able to look at 1964/65 and click on the link, without having to scan back up until I find the link for Chelsea at 1997/98.

I've also changed "champions" to "winners" throughout. Only league winners are "champions". "Past Winners of the League Cup" is consistent with the FA Cup article (though I admit little else is).

--rbrwr

Em...I just thought that the single table was too long to scroll through and that the nested tables would look better. But nevermind :-)

-- whkoh Thurs, 3 Apr 2003 9:18 UTC

True, that is a disadvantage of a long table. But I still think that the long table is a better solution overall. --rbrwr

Naming issue

I've created Category:League Cup. Now that this category exists, it would be good if we can decide on a standardised naming system for its contents. Articles in Category:FA Cup Finals follow the FA Cup Final XXXX format, similar to the FA Cup season articles in Category:FA Cup.

League Cups are always better known as their sponsorship name (Rumbelows Cup, Worthington Cup, etc.) so I would personally recommend that naming convention, as with Carling Cup 2006-07. As for the year, which could go before or after the cup name, I don't have a preference on either, as long as they're all the same format.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  20:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

League Cups in other countries

Other countries have league cups as well. Maybe we should create a disambiguation page (also given the fact that the official name of the League Cup appears to be Football League Cup)? I would define a league cup as a cup competition which is more restricted than the big domestic cup, usually the latter is open to a large number of clubs, while the former is often open only to clubs of the highest league. Examples include the DFB Ligapokal, the Scottish League Cup and the Football_League_of_Ireland_Cup. There should be more, in fact in any country where it is possible to win a domestic treble. Crix 02:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. "League Cup" doesn't even signify the sport. I don't know if other sports have a league cup, but if they do, I think a name change would def. be in order.  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  03:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I added a template, feel free to expand it, so far I have: England, Germany, Hong Kong, Ireland, Scotland. Template:National football (soccer) league cups. I think we really need a page that tries to define "league cups" in general, akin to Super Cup, which defines super cups in general. Crix 17:32, 2 July 2006 (UTC) I added some more countries, in fact all I could find on List of football (soccer) competitions. There were some more mentioned there, without pages: The Danish Tele2 LigaCup, the Greece League cup, the Welsh League Cup, the Chinese Super League Cup (it's unclear if this is a super cup or a league cup, and it is defunct anyway). So it seems that there are a number of league cups around the world, even though less than "cups proper". I don't know, maybe we could develop a taxnomy such as "open cup, super cup and league cup"? Crix 18:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps make it Football League Cup, to make it analogous to Football League? Qwghlm 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That would link it directly to England and to football. And if it's the correct name, it is perfect. I'm not sure what's exactly written on the trophy.  Slumgum T. C.   00:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It's by no means totally clear, but I think it does say "Football League Cup" [1] Qwghlm 09:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That's what it looks like to me, too. I'd support a move to "Football League Cup" as a way to differentiate it from other cups. - Pal 12:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't support moving the "League Cup" redirect unless it is shown that there are other equally renowned competitions that are known simply as the "League Cup". Also note the thousands of links that use that redirect page, and the work that would need to be done to change things. aLii 12:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest moving, you know football is not only played in England. While in other countries these secondary cup competitions usually do not enjoy as much prestige as the primary one (the German Ligapokal comes to mind), there nevertheless is a number of league cups in other countries as well. Just have a look at the template at the bottom of the page, which I modeled after the one used for cup competitions and to which I added all secondary cup competitions I could find information about. Another possibility would be to create a disambiguation page, something like League cup competitions in other countries. Crix 10:29, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the most obvious point to make before the League Cup (now redirect) page is pointed away from the Football League Cup article is that there's a good few thousand links to correct if you want to do it. This is also a good argument for the English League Cup to occupy the "League Cup" page, with a link to a disambiguation page (League Cup (disambiguation)) at the top of the article. This would be my preference. See Alan Smith as a good footballing example of this.

Every country has an "FA Cup", but I don't see you all calling for that page to be moved. Only a few countries have a "League Cup", of which the most high profile, by far, is the English cup. In my view this is political correctness at its worst.

So, my proposal is:

• Move Football League Cup back to League Cup.
• For correctness keep the opening sentence of: The Football League Cup, commonly known as the League Cup
• Make Football League Cup a redirect page to League Cup.
• Create a League Cup (disambiguation) page, and link to it from the top of the League Cup article like:

This article is about the English League Cup. For others, see League Cup (disambiguation).

This:

1. Solves the problem of thousands of articles that are (currently) incorrectly linked
2. Uses the most well known League Cup as the main article
3. Gives a simple and obvious link to other League Cups (currently not available)

Any comments? aLii 12:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Why not bring this back to League Cup. When you say League Cup, it's the second-rate English football tournament, when you say World Series, its the MLB Finals series. --Howard the Duck 13:22, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Because the official name is the "Football League Cup" and that differentiates it from other league cups. I say keep it the way it is for clarity's sake. - Pal 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

But it's not always the official name that counts, or else, it'll be Britney Jean Spears, not Britney Spears. Wikipedia uses the most popular name, and in this case, "League Cup" is the most popular. And you don't call the World Series "Baseball World Series," either. --Howard the Duck 05:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The naming problem of the articles League Cup and Football League Cup seemed to be solved by someone. At this moment, League Cup is a disambiguation page and Football League Cup is about the English cup. However, I found out that the naming of the category had not reflected the change yet. Therefore, I renamed the Category:League Cup to Category:Football League Cup (I moved all the stuff inside to the new one, of course.). Moreover, I created Category:National football (soccer) league cups and put the league cups around the world (including Carling Cup and other league cups in the Template:National football (soccer) league cups) in it. In short, the articles and categories naming convention are now consistent. -- INTELer 11:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Current campaign section

This section is redundant to the current season's article. It shouldn't really be included in this article anyway. I'm gonna be bold and remove it.  sʟυмɢυм • т • c  00:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparisons with the FA Cup

Who the hell marked up as needing a citation the comment about the League cup being less prestigious than the FA cup? Whilst it may well be hard to find citable evidence to prove it, anyone who knows anything about football knows this is the case.

The FA Cup is the oldest cup competition in the world, not just England, it was in years gone by the FA Cup Final was the ONLY football match in the season to be televised in this country. It was and still is viewed around the world in numerous countries by millions of people - is anyone seriously going to try and claim that the same rich history and tradition can be applied to the League cup? One only needs to look at the reserve sides full of non first team regulars that are put into the competition by all of the big clubs to see this is the case. It is one of the main domestic trophies in England, but to suggest it's anything but a sideshow when compared to the FA cup is incredibly naive, stupid, or possibly both.

I know that wikipedia has strict guidelines, but I challenge anyone to find any football fan who is not aware of the fact that the profile of the League Cup is completely and utterly dwarfed by that of the FA Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.53.149 (talk) 14:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for those who don't know.

Aaron carass (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I hope I am not misclarifying Aaron carass here (if that is even a word). I suspect that no-one doubts that the FA cup is more prestigious - this is not really what the request for citation is for. However, some people might dispute the claim (eg the organisers/sponsers of the league cup) thus it would be useful to have a citation. Thehalfone (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

We don't write confrontational things like "Who the hell..." on wikipedia. We assume that people meant well. Wikipedia is writen by and for everyone in the world, not just football fans, so Aaron is certainly right. Not only is it not obvious to all six billion people in the world, but it is not the wiki way to make a comparison without reference, qualification etc. Now, if you think it is so obvious, someone reputable must have said so... Please find us a ref.

IceDragon64 (talk) 11:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

To be fair though I understand the frustration, if things that are plainly obvious need citations, why not place citation needed alongside any statement no matter how obvious. Like the trouble about verifying this is that a lot of sources would be off mach build up on air as oppose to writen, a blog for example based on English soccer wouldn't explin that as it ould be obvious to the readers. I remember a player interview on Football focus, of a guy who was very pleased that he had won the Carling cup, (I think it was Drogba not 100 percent), and Henry explained to him that the FA cup was the big one —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.88.116 (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism in Preliminary Round Section

if you see it, it is self-explanatory. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.163.29.1 (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Updated Carling Cup Logo

There's a new Carling Cup logo for the 09-10 season which has replaced the logo on this page. The logo is in use on www.football-league.co.uk/page/CarlingCup and www.carlingcup.com 80.238.0.145 (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

MOST APPEARANCE ON FINAL

Please Add Ryan Giggs in the MOST APPEARANCE ON A FINAL:5 (1992, 1994, 2003, 2006, 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aznluvchrist (talk • contribs) 19:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)