User talk:Davefelmer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Davefelmer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Balkans Cup[edit]

Can you improve also Balkans Cup seasons, there are not many games in one edition, just QF, SF and Final. Thanks.--Alexiulian25 (talk) 20:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Cup competitions[edit]

No, you're wrong on this one. The term 'cup competition' has a pretty specific meaning here, and that is to refer to knockout competitions like the FA Cup and the League Cup. The fact that the Community Shield doesn't fit this definition does not denigrate that competition in any way, it just serves to distinguish the FA Cup and League Cup as different in format to the league and the Community Shield. It's nothing to do with the physical silverware. – PeeJay 03:57, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your points but I just feel the phrasing unnecessarily devalues a competition. Perhaps remove "cup" so you distinguish it as a competition or refer to the others as "knockout competitions"? Davefelmer (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RE: Archie Thompson[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Davefelmer. You have new messages at Nath1991's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sporting page[edit]


I saw your edits on Sporting Clube de Portugal page. The way it was written may be biased (something I will rectify), but I must not agree with you when you say the article is only about the football team. Yes, I will not hide, its my club, but it says "its a multiple sports-club based in Portugal". And indeed, everything it says it's true, in Portugal, counting all sports, no club has won more than Sporting, and yes, Sporting have won European Cups on 22 occasions. I know things about my club, and I have edited the page in a neutral point of view as much as possible (check the rivalries and the history sections, as it shows the high and low points of the club). I will get more references, and if I do not put them until Monday you may reverse what it's written. Also, when I edit I usually describe any change as "Work in Progress", as such, the "History" part is going to have further information's about the club as a all, not only regarding the football team. The page was very incomplete before my edits, something I want to change. Regards! an— Preceding unsigned comment added by SportingCP1906 (talkcontribs) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey, the thing is though, the article may say that its a multi sports club, but thats only because you or someone else put it in. The article is solely about the football club, so unless you want to merge the articles of all the sports teams with the football club page, then you can't have that in because it doesnt have anything to do with any of those sports apart from football. It would be like adding stuff about the achievements of the Bayern handball team and basketball club to the Bayern football page intro, it makes no sense. Furthermore, the statement about the 14,000 titles sounds ridiculous. A throwaway line without any evidence on a biased website isnt reason enough to include it; for such big claims, you need good sources that go into details and are neutral. Looking through some of the sports clubs in SL and their trophies, it sounds absolutely absurd they could have 1,400 trophies let alone 14,000! I appreciate the work you've done on the page overall with historical detail etc, I am only interested in the intro where the questionable information is. So you can keep the rest. But there is no reason and no credible source to persist with the stuff at the top of the intro.Davefelmer (talk) 19:19, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


Hi there DAVE, from Portugal,

I assume in your summary in Gabriel Heinze you mean me and this (please see here Could not be farther from the true. The person I called an idiot vandal (exactly what they are, nothing less, nothing more) was not you, but the "user" that inserted (deliberately) a wrong wikilink in his Man United section. About you, I only wrote "Intro: reinstated", so I did not call you anything nor did I accuse you, OK?

I always thought that major honours would be all the major domestic cups and the leagues (domestic, Champions L and Europa L), I would not call the Football League Trophy a major trophy, is it? Whatever the case may be, I won't be bothered anymore nor will I bother any fellow user, it stays your way, was only trying to help as you, I imagine.

Attentively, apologies for the misunderstanding --Be Quiet AL (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi mate, thanks for clarifying. Its best not to think of any trophy as 'major' as there is no specific official depiction of any as such. thus we deal in national trophies. All the best, Davefelmer (talk) 07:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Nolito: in Spain it's like this, or Portugal. Even though I'm working in other articles as we speak, I'm browsing the web like crazy to send you a source, don't know how's your Spanish to read through it tough. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I getting fed up with browsing and I want to work in other articles. I am going to ask a reliable Spanish user because it's very possible you won't trust me just based on the statement above (I am not a RS), I'll tip you as soon as I get a reply. If you remove anything - even though I don't think anyone has ever removed that stuff in Nolito in YEARS) - whatever, I'll leave it be. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 01:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry about it that much. It's a minor issue and I am only trying to make the encyclopaedia as reliable and informative as possible. If we can't find a source on that matter, it is fine. I am more than happy to leave it as is. Davefelmer (talk) 03:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Very well mate, I've looked at the source and it's good. One thing though, can you please note it by the liga title win in his honours section? Thanks, Davefelmer (talk) 19:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I went with instead, pretty reliable per WP standards. --Be Quiet AL (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense as it's an English source so easier to understand. Good stuff! Davefelmer (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)


Most of Transfermarkt's content is user-generated. To quote the Transfermarkt login page: Whether player, manager, club, or match report – as a Transfermarkt user you can edit and complete almost all data yourself. Simply click the gear, fill in the form, and click submit. Furthermore, the site's terms of service explicitly say that Transfermarkt does not vouch for the accuracy of user submitted content. This means the site qualifies as self-published source and is not reliable. The matter has been discussed a number of times on the reliable sources noticeboard and decision has been consistently that Transfermarkt should be cited. Finally, the claim that it is frequently cited is simply false. If you look at this list, you'll see that despite the 3000+ links to Transfermarkt on the English Wikipedia, there are none the article namespace (apart from the ones on the article about Transfermarkt). Please do not reintroduce this unreliable source to Juliano Belletti. Sir Sputnik (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right. My apologies. Davefelmer (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Carlo Cudincini[edit]

I guess you don't know, but he was given an allocated medal for both those cups. He played the first 4 games for the 2005 league cup. Are you going to restore that or not? Govvy (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

source for this? Playing earlier rounds of cup competitions does not mean you automatically get a medal. Davefelmer (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

They have 21 medals to give out, I know that first league cup Cudincini got a medal, he also played all the games apart from final because of suspension, but he was given a medal. Check out the start of this video at just before the 3 minute mark. [1] also if you watch carefully, you will find him in this video wearing a medal. [2] Regards Govvy (talk) 11:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Timestamp 10:56 on the second vid. Govvy (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Revert on List of football clubs in England by competitive honours won[edit]

Hi there, I just reverted your edit to remove an honour from Liverpool, they won the 1906 Sheriff of London Charity Shield which was an FA ratified tournament and official precursor to the FA Community/Charity Shield. They qualified for the trophy as league champions that year.

I also reverted the opening text, I'm happy for it to be reworded but the assertion of 'four domestic trophies' just doesn't make sense as there is a list below of 6-8 trophies (depending on whether you count previous incarnations as being the same trophy). Happy to discuss further. Mountaincirque 09:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Although technically it did evolve into the Charity - and later Community - Shield, the Sheriff of London Shield is not a recognised competitive fixture in the same way the Charity Shield is. Nor by the FA nor by the clubs themselves. As shown by Liverpool's official site only listing 15 shields [1], and other frequently used reliable sources [2] doing the same. Our job is to deal in what the sources show, and they do not confer with its inclusion in the table.

I agree about your assertion with the phrasing of the intro. Davefelmer (talk) 23:29, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I have only just seen this response. The RSSSF link you post surely disagrees with your point as it explicitly lists the Sheriff trophy as the precursor to the Charity Shield? Again, as I noted elsewhere, the honours listed by Liverpool are of no consequence to this list of competitive honours which can be sourced from many different places and Liverpool's website manager's opinion on the matter doesn't affect history. I would like you to explain how the Sheriff trophy in 1907 was any less 'competitive' than the FA Charity Shield trophy in 1908? Corinthian F.C. in fact amended their constitution in order to compete in the trophy as they made a special exception to play competitively for charity matches. That closes the matter of 'not competitive' for me as there are multiple newspaper and published sources backing that up - all on the Sheriff of London Charity Shield page if you care to look. Just because a trophy was over 100 years ago doesn't make it any less competitive or notable, at the time it was one of the biggest fixtures of the year with tens of thousands of fans watching matches at Crystal Palace (the FA Cup final venue of the time). Please post for consensus on the talk page before you make any sweeping changes in future, I see that you have been blocked for edit warring in the past and this approach seems similar to what got you in trouble last time Mountaincirque 11:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, waste of time. The RSSF source lists the Sheriff trophy and then doesnt count it for clubs in their total hauls for all the incarnations of the Shield at the end of the article, where Liverpool have 15. thus, it disagrees with your assertion. furthermore, club sourcing from Liverpool shows they dont count or list it either. we deal with sources on here, not opinions and what you want to be the case. now stop adding unsourced information and removing sourced information. Davefelmer (talk) 22:10, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

This is the source for the Sheriff of London Charity Shield being a competitive match which Corinthian F.C. had to change their written constitution to play in, taken from the page I referred you too. I understand that you couldn't be expected to read the 344 page book but think it quite dismissive of you to say you have checked every reference: [3] It's on page 233 [3]
This is the match that Liverpool played, details from the same book [4], page 176. The result is also listed in [4], there is also an original newspaper report, noting that 25,000 people attended the match and that the FA President was on hand to give the trophy: [5].
If I add it with these cast iron, published and linked references will that be OK? Mountaincirque 10:25, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Reading the sources it still feels more like what I said it would be on the competitive honours talk page. The Liverpool source simply gives a match report, not saying whether it is competitive or not. Just because 25,000 people showed up doesnt mean it was a big tournament. Man Utd and Real Madrid had 108,000 show up to watch them play in 2014 but that doesnt mean the game was anything other than a friendly. The other source for Corinthians gives a bit more, but it says they had to change their rules to compete for "prizes of any description whatever". That can mean absolutely anything. You can contest a technical prize at the end of a friendly tournament, like with the ICC Cup that top Premier League teams do every summer. There has to be something more cast-iron than this. The best most clear cut sources we have are the individual clubs, and as you can see using three clubs that have won it that you have recently brought up (Villa, Arsenal, Liverpool), none of them recognise it as an honour, so to source additional awards to anything detailing their club honours is inaccurate. [5][6][7] Davefelmer (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, my take is that you cannot prove a negative. If the game was a friendly wouldn't one of the references note that? You could say exactly the same about the FA Charity Shield, can you show me a reference proving that the 1908 FA Charity Shield was not a friendly? No, because it is reported in exactly the same way as the SLCS from 1898-1907, through newspaper reports and books of the era. Corinthian F.C. played only friendly matches for their entire existence, they had to change their constitution to enter an actual competitive match for charity, if the match was a friendly they would not have needed to change their constitution. This is a Guardian article noting that Corinthian played in the SLCS "competition" as an exception from playing friendlies:
"The Corinthians, as they christened themselves, fought a rearguard action on amateurism's behalf. Violently opposed to pot-hunting - that is, winning competitions - they made an exception only for the Sheriff of London's Charity Shield."[6]
In my opinion this closes the case that it was a non-friendly tournament, there are at least three sources showing the same, which is impressive considering it is over 100 years ago. Mountaincirque 15:40, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

The references wouldnt necessarily note a friendly as such. Take for example the BBC and their covering of Man United's 2014 ICC Champions Cup win. Obviously it was a friendly tournament, but they did not mention that in their reports and reading it, you'd think it was an actual competition. [8]. As for the Charity Shield, I wont bother looking for match reports of the 1908 Charity Shield since several easily accessible sources describe it as a competitive fixture directly [9] and as the first trophy of the season [10].

Reading the Guardian link though, I agree thats a reliable source that gives credibility to the case for the Sheriff of London Shield as a competitive tournament in the same vain as the Charity Shield. Although personally I still have my doubts due to all the clubs that have won it not recognising it in their official hauls, while they do the Charity Shield, I dont think its a big enough issue to argue over and won't object to its inclusion. In regards to the page for the list of competitive trophies for English clubs though, there's no way the Centenary tournament counts based on the evidence myself and the other editor outlined in the talk page discussion. Davefelmer (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm not 100% behind the centenary trophy either but lean slightly towards including it, it's an odd one, obviously as it will likely only be played every 100 years. It comes down to having concise criteria for inclusion on the page really. Mountaincirque 10:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It didnt have any qualifying criteria, did not even have full games and again isnt recognised by the clubs at hand. Realistically there is no way it can be on there. There is no basis at all. It was played (four games for the winners) over two days and the semi final and final were on the same day right after each other, with unlimited subs and 30 minute halfs! Davefelmer (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

You're getting confused between the Mercantile Credit Centenary Trophy, played with normal rules and the Football League Centenary Tournament, played the same season with the rules your describe, they were different tournaments. The 'Trophy' was based on league position in the previous year, was competitive and played by only elite sides. Mountaincirque 14:55, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes sorry I did appear to confuse them, but the same issues remain with it. The winning club, Arsenal, dont recognise it, the FA dont list it and I cannot seem to see a source confirming an official status. Do you have a source like the Corinthians one for it? Elite teams playing in it doesnt mean anything, look at the ICC tournament I mentioned earlier for example. Davefelmer (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


March 2017[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates, or other materials from Wikipedia without adequate explanation, as you did at Aston Villa F.C., you may be blocked from editing.

Please do not remove further information from Aston Villa F.C., List of Liverpool F.C. records and statistics, or other football-related page without reaching consensus on the appropriate talk pages. There is no reason why clubs should not list all their honours if there are verifiable sources for them (even if the club has decided not to list them on their honours webpage). In Aston Villa's case you removed the first ever honour they won, the 1879-80 Birmingham Senior Cup, which while seen as minor today was important at the time as there was no League Cup or even League trophy.
Mountaincirque 11:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

You are the one posting unsourced information that never reached consensus to be included in the first place. I sourced the honours section with the best available sourcing there was, it didnt include the stuff you added unsourced. wikipedia is about sources, not opinions on what you want to be a trophy. You didnt reach consenus to include any of the trophies, they arent sourced, so I suggest YOU stop with the disruptive editing. Davefelmer (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Tournament Honours[edit]

There is nothing wrong with minor tournament honours in players honours section, like what you did with Mohamed Salah, there is clear citation in the article that he won it while at Basel, if you continue to run your own agenda then you will only get yourself in trouble. So please don't remove them, Govvy (talk) 08:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

The Uhren Cup, as stated in its own description in the link, is a friendly tournament. Hence it is not an honour, whether you source it or not. Davefelmer (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Honours - Reply[edit]

In Portugal (and Spain, at least), players who play in earlier rounds of cups and one second in league get honour, and it's a logical as can be especially in cup tournaments: a guy plays in earlier rounds and scores eight goals, he misses the final due to injury/suspension/run-in with coach and he does not get honour.

Runner-up honours are honours (and in cases like the Summer Olympic Games or the FIFA World Cup even the third-place is one) as medals are awarded, period, but whatever i'm giving up on that, no consensus at WP:FOOTY in years (and counting!). Regarding Mr. Éric Abidal - again - I knew what i wrote in the past, if you notice intro reads "...played MAINLY for Lyon and Barcelona...", hence the "...18 titles combined" refer to those clubs, Olympiacos has nothing going on that sentence OK?

Attentively, enjoy your weekend --Quite A Character (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

It undisputably makes more sense for players who played games in earlier rounds be given medals even if they miss the final, but in England that doesn't happen. For the Spain and Portugal thing, could you provide a source for the play one second and you get the honour part? Would be nice to have that officially clear.

Ok about the Eric Abidal thing, I just wrote 19 counting the title at Olympiacos.

Hope you are having a good weekend as well. Davefelmer (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Paulo Sousa: if you take the time to read the sources attached to the seasonal wikilinks of the competitions you removed, you will see several sources (Portuguese as him) stating he DID PLAY, inclusively as starter. Honours reinstated.

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 12:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I fact checked based on the source linked across the honours section, it did not include either the portuguese cup or super cup under his honours despite including the rest. Davefelmer (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I was just going to write you now, i only saw the "...could you provide a source for the play one second and you get the honour part?" bit this morning. Like the time you asked me regarding Nolito some years ago, i remember reading it years ago that it happened in Portugal and Spain, BEFORE the internet and its marvels, but now sadly cannot find anything. I could counter-argue that you do not have any source proving a player has to appear in THE FINAL to get a medal, so how about we embrace WP:BOLD and teamwork and:

1 - you do not remove honours if a player has appeared/scored in previous rounds; 2 - i'll gladly help you (in fact i have been performing said action in various articles) remove accolade if a player is not even on bench in a Supercup game or has not played one second during a competition, I agree he has no business having X/Y honour even when his club lists it in their profile. Agree?

Have a nice week --Quite A Character (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, that seems fair. Have a good week as well. Davefelmer (talk) 22:11, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted back Fernando Llorente's runner-up places. Why? A few weeks ago there was a debate on wiki football in regards to removing runner up places as honours which was what the consensus favoured. In any case, its not like he hasnt won a lot to include runner ups! Davefelmer (talk) 00:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • I only saw this message of yours now, apologies for tardy reply and for said removal. OK, i had not heard of that, if more people voted in favour of removing them than the opposite i'll abide by. However, as you did in Llorente, there is no need to remove as a ref OK, we can leave it alongside the ones you added (in great teamwork, i improved the display of your sources, vacuumed the whole place down :)).

Cheers! Ah, and one more thing, still with Mr. Llorente as example: so, the runner-up stuff in club is not allowed, but the runner-up stuff in international competitions is allowed (and sometimes the THIRD PLACES)?! Mind-boggling... --Quite A Character (talk) 18:27, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Please, do reply as i am rather curious: are the runner-up (and the third) places still acceptable in international competitions? --Quite A Character (talk) 16:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)


The debate that was had on wikiproject football had to do with club honours. Thus, I am not 100% certain whether the same should be applied to international honours, hence I do not touch those. Perhaps going to the project and getting confirmation that the same should be applied to INT teams can be done. Davefelmer (talk) 20:09, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

As I can recall, a consensus was reached a while back that I saw on the wiki football page (it is in the archives somewhere but I forgot the exact date). Anyway, a month ago an editor lost it and went at me in the project page over the runner up thing, and the consensus formed yet again in favor of removing runner ups (and friendlies, but thats a different matter). This can be seen here [1]. This is where the consensus I was speaking of came from.

Best, Davefelmer (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Attentively --Quite A Character (talk) 13:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

As the editor who replied suggested, there is no fixed standard. I was trying to make it clearer what he won versus what he didnt win. It isnt such a big deal and there isnt really any consensus to go by there, so if you reverted it, I wont change it back or anything. Davefelmer (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


Just a heads-up - the first source you added in this edit is one of those print-on-demand books that simply "scrapes" content from Wikipedia, and therefore it is 100% unacceptable as a source. Essentially by using it we would be using an earlier version of the article to source the current version of the article...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, will not do so again. Davefelmer (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

No worries :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I've added another source to support the 1990 FA Cup win which Eurosport inexplicably omit..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Raúl Albiol[edit]

My summary was a bit over the top (no profanities, no insults, but still) when reverting you and for that i apologize. It's just that we have to be extra careful when removing stuff, lest we incur in an error.

Here's this sub-link from reliable (Spanish website), showing Mr. Albiol did play in that edition of the UEFA Cup (please see here Continue the good work, sorry for any inconvenience --Quite A Character (talk) 00:06, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's probably more my fault. I looked at his statistics section and saw he hadnt played in the cup that season (the other European sections were filled out so I didnt feel I had reason to doubt it) and then checked the final squad for the tournament. When he wasnt in either, I removed the honour. I should have double checked with official sources.

All the best, Davefelmer (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Bale's Super Cup[edit]

I know this is confusing, but the discussion about this can be found here: Talk:Cristiano_Ronaldo#UEFA_Super_Cup_2016. Of course, needless for me to say, you are welcome to open up this discussion again on Bale's page if you want. — Anakimilambaste   06:02, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be centered around Ronaldo, not Bale. And in any case, no consensus to include the super cup appears here. In fact, it appears to go the other way, and you yourself acknowledge PeeJay's side, who argues for it not to be included for a player not in the squad. On top of this, the general consensus both here and with professional clubs is that players who have not played or been in the squad for a super cup final do not get a medal. Some sites like Soccerway that arent as well informed and simply chuck any team honour won during a player's time as a trophy for him does not overrule that. Davefelmer (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at the first half of the discussion, you'll find that it actually concludes with Bale's honour. Because a) he was in the squad, and b) this (not third-party, I know, but WP:COMMON). And before re-reverting (like you did) you should seek clarity on the issue by re-opening for discussion, because it's a content dispute, not vandalism. — Anakimilambaste   01:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
This might also be useful for you to understand that I'm not crazy. — Anakimilambaste   01:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Don't worry I never thought you were crazy lol I was looking at it through the general wiki consensus for these matters but in light of the evidence you presented I think it is fair to attribute him a medal. Davefelmer (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Quadruple or quintuple?[edit]

Hello, I wanted to ask whether the entry in the five titles list is correct for Fenerbahçe in the following article: List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season. I've placed Fener myself there, though I'm not sure about the Balkans Cup. Despite being the 1966-67 season, the final play-off match was played in 1968, thus rendering it as one of five cups won by Fener in 1967-68. The same goes for the Spor Toto Cup. According to the Turkish wiki article it was the 1966-67 season. What's the situation here? According to the official website of Fenerbahçe, all 5 cups were won in 1967-68.

I think it's a quintuple, as the club de-facto won five trophies in that season (1967-68), though I want to hear other opinions about it. Regards Akocsg (talk) 00:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

PS: There's another thing I need to know. Two cases where I'm not sure whether it actually is a quadruple or not. This is quite confusing, as the text in the aforementioned article made me unsure.

1: Fenerbahçe won the Turkish League in 1973–74, and besides that the Chancellor Cup, Turkish Super Cup and TSYD Cup were also won by Fener in 1973.

2: Turkish League and Turkish Cup in 1982–83 alongside the TSYD Cup and Fleet Cup in 1982.

Are these two cases quadruples? Akocsg (talk) 06:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The first I would definitely include as a quadruple (Turkish league, cup, super cup, and Balkans Cup). The spor toto is another of those small regional competitions of dubious status that we discussed before, so unless you find outside sources supporting the claim, the club site should not be used as the sole source due to bias. There is also a lack of consistency with implementing it as other clubs dont include such regionals in their counts (which if you included I am sure there would be a few more entries).

The two examples you listed below should not be included for the same reasons (Chancellor Cup, Fleet Cup and TSYD are of questionable stature in comparison with national honours). They are both doubles though (Turkish Cup and Super Cup and then Turkish league and cup). Davefelmer (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer. What you said about the TSYD Cup and Spor Toto Cup isn't correct though. The Spor Toto Cup isn't even regional, an Ankara team won it once (PTT). And being regional wouldn't change anything anyway, if you look into the lists you can see honours like the City Cup (Northern Ireland) for Northern Irish club Linfield (seven titles list) or the Carling Black Label Cup won by Orlando Pirates, which is only played between 2 teams. They only have to be top level competitions, which the honours mentioned above are.

Actually the reason for my questions was concerning the temporal status of the honours won, not their status/standing in general. Maybe I didn't make this clear enough. I asked about the cases above because I was not sure if they all were won in what is considered "one season". The six trophies won by Barcelona in 2009 for instance are not included, you can look that up in the "six titles" list. I hope it's clear now what I mean. Akocsg (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If they were not played in the same period of what normally consistutes one season in that country, then I wouldnt include it. But looking through this article, the whole thing appears to be a mess. No sources, friendlies and stuff listed as honours contributing to trophy trebles and such. Page needs to be put under review. Davefelmer (talk) 22:52, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Mediation page[edit]

Hi there, I wanted to ask you where that mediation page concerning football articles was. The one where we argued about the honors listed in the derby articles. I can't find it. Regards Akocsg (talk) 22:19, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, I've found it. Akocsg (talk) 17:58, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry mate, I didn't see this until now! You still need anything? Davefelmer (talk) 07:21, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

No it's alright, I've found the page. On another subject: you remember the Chancellor Cup and the Atatürk Cup and what we discussed about them, I guess. They were not included in the lists because they were supposed to be invitational, friendly tournaments etc. But that's not quite true, which I myself found out recently. The Atatürk Cup for example was de-facto a Super Cup in 2000 and a special cup tournament in 1998. Both official titles of the Turkish Football Federation. Same goes for the Chancellor Cup, its status changed two times. Now this is important: in the first five editions (only) it was a kind of unique early Super Cup, played between the winners of the former Turkish championships (Milli Küme and Turkish Football Championship).

See here: [7] (from 1943 until 1950) It's listed there by the rsssf. The Atatürk Cup is at the bottom. (Chancellor Cup is called Prime Minister's Cup there btw.) I have improved the article about the Chancellor Cup, now it should be more clear and informative.

So the way I see it they should be included in the derby article and also in the list of official titles in the article Football records in Turkey. What do you think? Kind regards Akocsg (talk) 19:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

And could you also comment here? In the section "early Turkish championships". That would be nice. Akocsg (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
The RSSF source listing the chancellor cup doesnt show or mean anything. It is just a list of games. It may have been a super cup for a few years but for the vast majority of its history it has been a game between runners up, which can't be seen as competitive honours in line with the rest. The Ataturk Cup does appear to have been official in its final two years but for the first two it was invitational, with no qualification criteria and no consistency to when it was played. I guess with the RSSF source you could add the last two Ataturk Cups, but not the first two. It is very strange, and very uncommon, to see that in Turkey a competition could have two different statuses throughout its history. Its as if one day they decided to make a random celebration game an official championship (with the Ataturk Cup)! Davefelmer (talk) 05:41, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I commented below on that thread as well. Davefelmer (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with the Chancellor Cup. Though I would add the first five editions, since they were competitive and a de facto Super Cup. Thanks for your help. Akocsg (talk) 23:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Darron Gibson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nations Cup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Italian League, Cup and Supercup Honours[edit]

Hello. I recently reverted an edit of yours on Pirlo's page (and I also changed some information on Toldo's page as well), and I just wanted to inform you that unlike many other domstic football leagues/systems, in Italian football, winners medals are awarded to every team and staff member of the winning club, even those who did not play a single match, or those who did not feature in the squad for a final. I know this is not the case in the Premier League, so it might seem strange, but as you will see in the award ceremonies for the Scudetto and the Coppa Italia on youtube each year, every squad member is given a winners medal. (In this article on a Milan sister site related to La Gazzetta dello Sport – Italy's main sports newspaper/website – it also says that for the 2016 Supercoppa Italiana 30 medals are assigned to the winning squad and staff members (25 being the limit of players an Italian team can have). Thanks. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 22:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: Roberto Pereyra[edit]

Regarding my revert of your edit on Roberto Pereyra's page (and how in Italy, unlike in England or other leagues, all squad members are awarded winner's medals regardless of whether they have appeared in that competition throughout the season), in this youtube clip of the 2016 Coppa Italia medal awarding ceremony, you can see Pereyra (shirt number 37) receiving a winner's medal around the 3:40 mark. On this Juve fan site, I also found an article with an image of Dybala and Pereyra with the Coppa Italia trophy wearing their winner's medals. Best, Messirulez (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

FA Cup medals regulation changes[edit]

Hello, again; I'm not sure if this information is of any use to you, and I'm not sure how long ago this regulation change has been introduced, but on the FA Cup official website, it says in the rules, which are contained in a downloadable PDF at the bottom of the page under the subheading "Key information", that now for this season, rather than 30 medals which were previously distributed among players, staff, and officials of both clubs in the FA Cup Final, "...The Association shall present 40 medals to playing staff and officials of both Clubs in the Final." From an internet search, I was able to find a downloadable PDF which contained the regulations for last season's edition of the FA Cup, which stated that in last year's final, 40 medals – rather than 30 – were also awarded to both teams; I wasn't able to find any information for how many medals were awarded for the FA Cup finals between 2014 and 2016, but I found out that apparently in the 2013 FA Cup final – according to the official rules and regulations –, only 30 medals were awarded to both clubs. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 02:08, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Official source[edit]

Regarding my revert of your edit on Gianluca Pessotto's page, for your information, and for future reference, here is an example of an official source from the Lega Serie A which clearly states the number of medals awarded to the squad members of both teams for the 2008 Supercoppa Italiana, even those not included in the 18-man matchday squad, and this has been the case for as long as I can remember. I therefore ask that you please refrain from removing Italian league, Cup and Supercup honours from players' pages in future, unless you have reliable sources which explicitly state otherwise; for example if a player was not yet transferred to a club at that time that they had played in a Supercup match and won the title, then I would completely understand why the honour should be removed. Finally, I would like to reiterate that in Italy, the regulations are different to those in the Football League and players are not required to make a minimum number of appearances in order to receive a winners' medal. Thank you. Best regards, Messirulez (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you are awarded a certain number of medals as a club is one thing, it is entirely another to just assume a player recieved one because a club got lots of medals. Those could go to coaching staff, manager, club officials, etc without going to reserves, even taking into account your point that unlike most countries, in Italy they do not limit medals to those that participate in games and finals in tournaments. The onus though is to find proof that a player categorically got a medal, we should not and cannot just assume people did because the club gets lots of medals. Davefelmer (talk) 08:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Careful with removing "fan made awards"[edit]

Cascadia Cup is recognized by the league. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Even if the league takes note of it, it still doesnt classify as an honour. A bust given to the team for winning a derby game, which includes friendly games in its count, does not constitute a professional club trophy. Davefelmer (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

The WP:BURDEN is on you to show that it's not considered an honour. All three teams consider it one and the league recognizes it. The correct place for the discussion is the team's article, not here. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:40, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually the onus would be on you to prove it, as the statements you have given me themselves have no proof. Furthermore, it is consistent with the other similar sections of football club articles that these types of games are not included. As the article for the game itself says, it was created by supporters with the supporters groups themselves at times deciding which games to count for the trophy. This in no way constitutes a professional honour. Furthermore, as Portland dont have an honour page, here is a frequently used source's honours list for the club. As you can see, the game is excluded. All the sources that you listed show is that the game took place, it does not prove it is an honour, which this source shows it is not. Davefelmer (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

So by public, a discussion either on the Timber's page, the Cascadia Cup page or on the talk on WP:FOOTY. Other editors will likely not come here to see your comments. I'm tired of reverting you and Footy seems to agree with you so keep it off the article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Davefelmer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cenk Tosun, Spor Toto Cup[edit]

Hello Mr Felmer,

You are right that the English Wikipedia states that the Spor Toto Cup was abolished in the 1970s, however this article itself is wrong. I have found an article on the Turkish Wikipedia about the 2011-12 season which confirms Tosun scored twice in the final as Gaziantepspor won it. [8] I have also found a reliable third party reference from beIN Sports [9] which includes a video of the match. I fully understand why you removed the Spor Toto Cup from Tosun's honours and I have put a hidden note so that other users don't in good faith try to remove it.

Harambe Walks (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Thanks for letting me know. Looking at your sources, it is clear that I didnt know an extra addition of the competition did take place. However, it appears to have been a form of consolation tournament for the 9th-18th placed teams in the Turkish league. Looking at those entry requirements, do you still think we should list it as an official honour? Again, thanks for showing me and there is no doubt that it took place, but I am just wondering about its relative merits.

All the best, Davefelmer (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

We would have to ask an expert in Turkish football about that because I had never heard of this cup before reading the page. My assumption? To me it resembles the EFL Trophy, a competition that is handicapped to give smaller teams a chance to win (Turkish football is almost completely dominated by three teams). In that case, it's still notable, just like winning the EFL Trophy or the Championship or any other second division. All the best Harambe Walks (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

OK, I agree with that and I agree with your assessment of the tournament. I have made a note of its status next to the link on the page, perhaps that is a fair compromise. Best, Davefelmer (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I am glad we reached a peaceful compromise. Far too often I have seen on this website that people do not discuss for common ground or the other person's view on the matter. I'm glad we could do this. Harambe Walks (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Lancashire Senior Cup[edit]

Hello. You might want to read the history of Southport FC's history in the Lancashire Senior Cup, first page and second page. It includes details of rule changes relating to the strength of teams required throughout the competition's history, which are considerably more complicated than can be explained in an unsourced note. You'll see that fielding below-strength sides wasn't permitted until 1903/04, but at various points thereafter that rule was revoked and full-strength teams were again required, either for Third Division teams and below or for all entrants.

If you change the note again – I'd advise against it, personally, on the basis it's generally correct as it stands, and anything more specific would require more detail than is entirely appropriate in an overview – please make sure you cite your source(s) and that your wording is backed up by those sources. Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:42, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Miranda (footballer)[edit]

We don't use transfermarkt as citation as it was community generated, thus it is not a WP:reliable source. 12:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

You're right, my bad! Davefelmer (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Swedish football champions vs league titles[edit]

Hi! Judging by your edits to several different articles on Swedish football clubs, it seems you are not fully understanding the difference. There is an important distinction in between the two, in the fact that the league winners have not always become Swedish champions (and the other way around). First during the period from 1896 to 1925 when the Swedish champions were decided through a cup competition (even though there were national league seasons played intermittently starting in 1910). Then from 1926 to 1929–1930, when no Swedish champion title was awarded even though full national league play started in 1924–1925. And finally from 1982 to 1992 when the league was followed by either a playoff or a championship league playoff that decided the Swedish champions.

Thus even though for example Malmö FF have 23 league titles, they've only been handed the Swedish championship trophy 20 times. On the other hand you have Örgryte IS who have 12 Swedish championship titles, but only 2 league titles. Because of this (which differs from most other countries) the league titles are not usually what is mainly counted, and that is also why the championship is differentiated from the league in e.g. the honours section or in the lead text of Swedish club articles. – Elisson • T • C • 21:05, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

So the league title is effectively meaningless then, as the title of 'Swedish Champion' is what actually counts. So then, why are the league title wins even listed? Wouldnt it make more sense to just remove them? Malmo's official site for instance does not even list their league titles, instead listing their swedish championship wins and cup triumphs, as shown ( Davefelmer (talk) 14:43, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Meaningless in what way? As meaningless as the Presidents' Trophy in NHL? Why would it make sense to remove information that is relevant? Becaus they are relevant honours, even if they during some years were not the ultimate title. The official football association site lists the league champions on the same page as the Swedish champions. The MFF site you linked an archived version of, as well as the current version, lists the league titles won when MFF did not win the Swedish championship, under "Allsvenska seriesegrare (i de fall det inte också innebar mästerskap)".
I would urge you to at least be a little more humble when it comes to things like these that you don't seem to have full knowledge of, and let things be like they are unless clearly erroneous, which is not the case here. Both Malmö FF and IFK Göteborg are also featured articles, so it's not like the articles have never been reviewed. – Elisson • T • C • 20:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry I somehow missed your reply, so apologies for a slightly delayed response. Where does the first site exclusively list both the swedish championship wins and league title wins? Because I only see the numbers for the Swedish Championship wins. The Malmo site does list the ones where it was decided in a post season play off, but it most definitely doesnt list 23 extra titles. It only lists the play off wins, swedish championship wins, swedish cup and supercups. And this is the club itself, as official a source as they come. Surely they are the most clear authority on what their team has actually won. Davefelmer (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

edit: the first site also appears to include the play off winners, but the numbers bracketed indicating clubs' numerical success overall is those and the swedish championship wins, not the league titles. thus, with all the available evidence, it is pretty clear that the play off wins should be included but not general league titles. Davefelmer (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

edit 2: Goteburg themselves dont list league titles on their own official website either, only Championship wins amongst their honours. link: Davefelmer (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you do not seem to understand that winning Allsvenskan also meant winning the Swedish championship during most years. Malmö lists the extra years they won the league but not the championship, as the championship list already includes the years they also won the league (which the extra league list clearly states). Since you don't seem to understand Swedish, why are you trying to interpret a Swedish page and use it as an argument against a native Swedish speaker, when you interpret it wrongly?
Your other argument is just to incomprehensible to understand. I've shown clear evidence that league titles are commonly listed. Just because they may not be as important does not mean any info on them should be excluded. I again urge you to realise that you are in deep water here, discussing things you know very little to nothing about. – Elisson • T • C • 19:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Mate I dont know what you're on about as the club websites all have english versions and the site you additionally showed me is easily translated. In any case, even if it werent, it is visibly clear that the bracketed wins for each team on the swedish football website clearly ONLY show the Swedish Championships won ( including when it was won in a play off following the end of the regular league season but NOT including the regular title wins. This is consistent across all the club sources, where the Swedish Championship wins and play off wins are listed but NOT the regular league titles. Its in black and white in the sources for Malmo and Goteborg, the two most decorated teams, as I provided. It also makes sense from a logic standpoint because the league title often hasnt decided who was Swedish Champion, and when it did and the league winner was made Swedish Champion, that honour was being recieved anyways, so the consistent measure of actual success is the Swedish Champion crown, unless you are suggesting you get TWO different honours for winning 1 trophy. Wikipedia also quite simply is a source based encyclopedia, we deal with the facts as they are presented in sources, not our opinions and personal research. And when the clubs and official websites say something that contradicts your opinion, regardless of you being a native, we go with the sources. However, if you think such a basic point and argument is "incomprehensible", I would be happy to go and present the evidence to the wikiproject football page, and let the consensus there decide. Davefelmer (talk) 16:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Please do, since you obviously are completely oblivious to both the sources you present as evidence for your point (but are the opposite), and me pointing out that fact. I would be very happy to take it to the WP:WPF as more voices might just be the way to convince you that you're actually wrong. – Elisson • T • C • 21:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Re: Man Utd trophy tally[edit]

It's just not necessary. If you leave it out, that sentence can remain the same until another team overtakes United as the most successful. Specifying the number means you have to change it every time they win another trophy, and all for the sake of a number that - out of context - is pretty meaningless. How is the general reader supposed to know whether 66 trophies is a big number? As I say, the specific number is irrelevant, especially since it's impossible to compare it with numbers of trophies won by clubs in other countries. – PeeJay 08:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

How is it impossible to compare with other clubs in other countries and their numbers? The data is all out there, along with sources that do just that like the one listed at the top of the honours section. I think the general reader would know 66 is a huge number as all but maybe 20 clubs have far fewer numbers, and the vast majority have very little at all, so most readers at least by comparing to their own clubs would understand. And in any case, there doesnt need to be direct context to other clubs in my opinion, it is just additional info which can never hurt, and why would it be such a big deal to update the trophy number by 1 every time we win something? It wouldnt take much effort, and its not like we'd need to do it every two weeks where someone would miss it and it would look out of date. I could monitor it if anything. Davefelmer (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of honours/trophies and inappropriate removals[edit]

Hello. Please stop deleting honours and trophies such as the General Harrington Cup in the 'Other' section and stop moving the Prime Minister's Cup (which was an official, top-level competitive super cup) there. It isn't a friendly tournament, not in the slightest. I think I've made that evident by providing reliable sources before. Regards Akocsg (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello. Apologies for the confusion, I never said nor thought the Prime Minister Cup was a friendly. As per our prior discussions, it was established that as a unique cup between runner up sides, it was to be put in the 'other'section. I did not intend to remove it. The friendly I referred to was the TYSD Cup, which is literally listed as a friendly as well as in the relevant source on its page. Davefelmer (talk) 05:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi. No, we did not establish such a thing. The first editions, which make the Prime Minister's Cup unique are the years it was played as a special super cup between the two national champions, making it one of the first football super cups in Europe and in the world. It is a national cup, so it belongs there, and not into the other section. The one you simply removed without reason and edit summary was the General Harrington Cup. I reinstated it. Please don't delete it again. Regards, Akocsg (talk) 18:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Apologies as I didnt see this. The Prime Minister Cup was a super cup from 1944-1950, but then became a match between the second division and amateur champions, which definitely takes it out of the specified criteria. It was then developed into a match between the league and cup RUNNER UPS, thus not even being a match between two winners. Thus, while I think its fair to include its run as a super cup from 1944-50, the rest of the editions dont have anywhere near the qualification criteria to remain as anything other than an 'other'. Davefelmer (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2018 (UTC)