Talk:England national football team manager

574:

that as an England boss" and then Sven showed up and went "............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... hmm?" and got a kicking. Dead men's shoes....

458: 2573:

make a decent argument against the move. Pretty much every list of managers of a club of reasonable size could have this amount of information, and yet I would bet that if they did have this much info, they would remain at their current titles. The fact of the matter is that the people who have held the England manager's post are the crux of the article, rather than the role itself, which is the exact reason why this article should remain where it is. –

4084:, I removed the images as I don't think they're essential to the table: readers will primarily be looking for statistical information in the table, and the article is already well served with images in the prose. There's a number of managers without images available, and some aren't ideal as portrait photos, such as the image for Keegan. I'd also note that the inclusion of images is not standard across football manager tables (indeed, only one other 21: 271: 250: 219: 54: 156: 75: 281: 382: 355: 392: 791: 761: 670: 631: 4051:

The article says, "There are also repeated comments that the length of the English season (the top flight plays 38 league matches) is unhelpful for preparing tired players for major tournaments ...." But the top domestic leagues in France, Spain, Italy, and Brazil also play 38-game seasons, and those

1738:

I see no reason why the inverse couldn't be true, in which case we'd have the article titled according to convention, and all the current links would still work. Everybody wins. I fear that the previoud discussion was not particularly fruitful because the change proposed was not a particularly good

1534:

I had to check the title of this article as I was sure it did not have the word "List" in it......and it doesn't. If something doesn't look like a list, doesn't walk like a list and doesn't talk like a list then it isn't a list. So suggest you give it a rest as you are the only one who seems confused

1195:

Yeah, I can see your point. I never used GAN much but I've been doing alot of mushroom articles and I find them harder to work up compared with the bird and dino ones so I've been using it as a staging point. They're generally pretty small though. But anyway, back on topic, take out the GAN step, but

1176:

Hey Cas, thanks for everything so far. I'm working through the PR. I'm very reticent to take it to GAN, the backlog there is usually astonishing and people are reticent to pick up an article of this size. I think once we're done with the PR, expanded the areas you've highlighted then I'm proposing

1143:

PS: Was musing on this today....I note that a stack of copyediting stuff has been left on the peer review so I'll sit that out... regarding comprehensiveness, there ain't no mention of dosh...salary/readies/etc. Any figures which can be added in or scandals/negotiations from the past. I'd expand the

573:

Definitely. Funnily enough when I was thinking of all the bollocks our managers have gone through, Taylor suffered the worst (imho) and the major swearing doc came up in a pub discussion the other night. Taylor blew a gasket and swore like a mentalist and everyone said "ooooh no, you can't be like

908:

Just adding my two cents regarding the national significance particularly compared to the Prime Minister. A few years ago a book was released called the "Second most important job in the country", i.e. the England manager's position is second only to the PM. I also remember from college that the PM

3160:

On both Roy Hodgson's personal page and the main England football team page, Hodgson's managerial record is 6-2-0, obviously the penalty shoot-out defeat to Italy at the Euro's has been counted as a draw. Is there an overall wikipedia policy on penalty shoot-outs? Perhaps either this page or those

3117:

I am sorry, but this dreadful article should NEVER have even been close to being an article of the day. It is steeped in Xenophobic clap trap such as 'Wembley, home fo football' - please, just because lots of English think their underperforming team and manager are great, because they take up many

2973:

I'm repeating what's already been said, but this is a fully fledged article, not a list, and does contain a large section about the role. I also oppose breaking out the list of managers into a separate "List of...". There have been far fewer England managers than presidents of the U.S., so leaving

2075:

Why do you have such a problem with a small change like this being made if people are willing to make it? The whole project doesn't have to work on the same thing at once, and people are free to fix things that they see are wrong. That's what makes WP work. Ever hear of divide and conquer? --

2572:

I really don't like the way this has been conducted. Someone starts off an inconsequential move request, it gets identified as inconsequential, and because of its inconsequential nature, the move is made purely because no one actually gave enough of a crap about the actual title of the article to

2036:

Where, exactly? Because the only thing I've seen is one valid opposition to the move and you telling them to come here, which they've neglected to do. The only other comment was a long winded comment about how we should do other things first, which has been adequately argued against IMHO by the

2529:" is not productive. The WikiProject should not serve as a reason to naysay the improvement of articles, no matter how small those improvements might be. I fear the only reason for Rambling's repeated moaning is that he is claiming ownership of the article, as he created it. Regardless, there 2450:

Look at the dozens of articles similar to those provided above about government positions and the like. Of course these articles contain information about the people who have held and shaped the position, but these articles are primarily about the role, so they should be named as such. --

2434:

The feeling to me is that if you have "National Team Manager" then you're discussing the role and maybe the history of the role. "National Team Managers" suggests you're discussing the actual men to have been in charge. The article currently crosses both boundaries

529:

Kind of makes sense to me to deal with the smaller bits and pieces first, then the history, then the stats. However, it also makes sense to go into the detail of media reaction after having done the history. Both ways have logic - I'd prefer the former. Consensus?

2060:

Well, allow me to rephrase, there's no consensus to a move there. And as for them neglecting to come over here, I only reminded them this debate was being conducted an hour ago. People do have better things to do than worry about an "s" you know...

1705:

Well see the discussion above. It's been talked over and consensus was to not try to fix something that wasn't broken. It's such a minor point, in my opinion, if you wish to spend time on it then by all means start another discussion.

1677:

article includes information about the men who have held that office, and there are a million other similar examples, but the article is mainly about the position itself, and should be titled appropriately. This is different from the

141: 35: 2916:

I thought this was well and truly put to bed during the FA procedure. This isn't a list, it contains a list, but also contains an awful lot more information about the role, etc. In no way should this page be moved to "List of ...".

956:

Pilloried from his appointment onwards, Steve McLaren received media criticism throughout his tenure... ...As failure to qualify for Euro 2008 looked increasingly likely, the headlines became more visceral, with football magazine

2650:

This is a Featured Article. Merging in that much material about a related but not 100% relevant topic would be highly detrimental, even if it was good quality (which it isn't currently) and would lead to a strong case for FARC.

2721:

Then your first move should be an AfD on that article. I disagree that it's not notable. I think it's notable, encyclopedic, "useful" and we both agree it's verifiable. I'll be arguing strongly for keep+improve on the AfD.

1836:, which is an article mainly about the position itself, though it does of course include information about the men who have held the office. There are numerous other examples. The main argument against the move is that " 2811:. Furthermore, this article is not about the role of England manager, but about the people who filled that role, so although the actual list portion of the article is very small, it is still a list of England managers. – 122: 103: 2589:

Disagree, and consensus at the moment is against you. Unless consensus develops not to move, I see no reason not to move. The article is mainly about the position, and WP prefers singular titles for articles. --

593:

Unless the description is direct from a ref, I'm not sure about calling the attacks on Taylor a "watershed", Robson got vicious treatment after Euro 88 and around the time of the "PSV OFF BUNGLER BOBBY" headlines.

909:

gets the most column inches in the nationals followed shortly by the England manager. I haven't got a clue how to word it in, but I think it adds some quantative substance to the "national significance" section.

4131: 4121: 3430: 4116: 2709:

But my point is that it isn't notable on its own. I'm not denying that it's verifiable, but the position of England assistant manager is no more notable than any other assistant manager job. –

3848: 3302: 2869:

sense. The article is not just about people who held the position; indeed "role" is the very first section. That this is a Featured Article and not a Featured List tells its own story.

467: 365: 4166: 472: 1947:

Yeah, I think on reflection the s could go. It's true that when I originally created the article it was intended to be a list, but it kind of went out of control and became an FA.

2117:

Never said there wasn't, but this is another prime example of kilobytes of discussion on something utterly trivial. Man hours have been used up here instead of improving articles.

4171: 3738: 3431:

http://web.archive.org/web/20121021174540/http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/why-eriksson-staying-in-charge-is-englands-nightmare-scenario-554921.html

2849: 1889: 4029: 2637:

be merged into this article as the position of England assistant manager is not, in itself, notable, but it would be notable as a subsection of the England manager's page. –

60: 3602: 4161: 4085: 3434: 4141: 327: 4052:

countries have won 6 of the last 7 World Cups. Granted, not all players play in their own domestic leagues. But, for example, when France won the World Cup in 2018,

3282: 2892: 2800: 1976: 1840:." I really don't think there's any reason other than that, and I don't think it is a particularly burdensome task to move the article, so we should move it. —-- 3880: 3876: 3862: 3770: 3766: 3752: 3660: 3656: 3642: 3482: 3478: 3464: 3342: 3338: 3324: 3849:

https://web.archive.org/web/20100601051158/http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2006/06/06/35736/employee-relations-how-to-deal-with-world-cup-fever.html

3303:

https://web.archive.org/20100824064421/http://www.independent.co.uk:80/news/uk/politics/party-faces-rough-ride-from-former-sun-editor-mackenzie-611661.html

2488:

Dude, you're wasting just as much time. You bitch more than anyone I've ever seen. There is consensus to move so if you want to end this then move. --

2312:

It just about makes sense, but might be the least consequential debate I have ever come accross on Knowledge, so it deserves no more than a weak opinion.

1682:

issue because the Wimbledon issue was that the article was titled in a patently untrue way. Sticking to convention is what is most important, IMHO. --

886:

Interestingly the FA website categorise the Rous Cup fixtures as friendlies. Not sure about Le Tournoi. Their stats are included in the overall table.

4136: 3262: 4088:

includes them), that they were not included when the list was promoted to FL status, and that they were added without discussion in June 2019. Thanks,

4156: 3957: 1479:

It's not really. It cover the concept and role of the team's management not every individual one, there own articles will cover that. It even starts "

448: 438: 3306: 1506:

Buc, this really doesn't need this many people and this much effort to make you realise you're trying to fix something that isn't broken, does it?

337: 173: 3852: 3272: 2896: 2233: 1825: 188: 961:

describing the newspaper coverage of his final month as "relentless and remorseless". Both tabloids and broadsheets publishing critical pieces,

4176: 3832: 3739:

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627154842/http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk:80/sport/football/football-match-reports/england-0-costa-rica-0-3756990

3722: 3586: 3402: 3204: 2888: 2796: 1829: 1721: 1520:

I disagree. I think it is broken. My first thought when I saw the list was,"that's a list" but no it is an article so the tile is misleading.

1228: 1170: 1137: 1073: 4126: 3242: 3232: 545:

I'm kind of all up for (a) talk about the role (b) its significance (c) its history (d) its controversies and (e) all the A1 tables I make.

4111: 4030:

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/apr/06/gareth-southgate-takes-30-per-cent-pay-cut-fa-100m-plus-losses-england-manager-coronavirus

2131:

I don't know about you or anyone else but I've not spent more than a few mins reading and putting comments here or even thinking about it.

3252: 1383:

Nothing wrong with the name. The article is about the England national football team managers. "It does exactly what it says on the tin."

2675:

The assistant managers article gets deleted as a non-notable topic, which would be a shame as there's actually some useful info in there.

4151: 3603:

https://web.archive.org/web/20130428055537/http://www.ipswich.gov.uk:80/site/scripts/documents_info.php?documentID=885&pageNumber=19

3099: 3047:

But as has been said above it's not a list of managers, it's about the role of manager. So it should be singular for the same reason as

2597: 2546: 2495: 2458: 2413: 2364: 2291: 2209: 2202:

No. That page exists to direct people here, where the move is contested. If you look there is very little debate going on there. --

2152: 2083: 2044: 1912: 1847: 1746: 1689: 1638: 1463:

It's plural because the article is about all the England managers, not just one. I really can't see any problem with the article title.

414: 4146: 3435:

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/news-and-comment/why-eriksson-staying-in-charge-is-englands-nightmare-scenario-554921.html

3162: 3125: 3094:

Hoddle's much-criticised diary portraying his version of events at the World Cup was subsequently published, drawing further criticism

2974:

the list of England managers where it is doesn't give it undue weight. I can't think of a good reason for creating a separate list. --

2634: 1739:

one, and the advocate of that change didn't do a very good job articulating his point. I think I could do better and I will do. --

1256:

Yeah, I did, but for any number of reasons, it was possible this had been overlooked along the way. After all, I did! Glad it's OK. --

303: 3858:

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

3748:

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

3742: 3548: 3025:

I see the article was renamed before from plural to singular which is technically bad English. It really should be reverted back to

2678:

The assistant managers article remains as it is, which I don't believe is viable, as the topic is not notable in and of itself, IMO.

2280:, but the inclusion of the list at the end of the article surely doesn't make the article the article just a list of managers with " 3972: 2804: 3283:

https://web.archive.org/20080223232720/http://www.fifa.com:80/worldcup/archive/edition=76/preliminaries/preliminary=69/index.html

2403: 3118:

tabloid pages and other media output, does not mean there is any substantial need for a Knowledge article of such a low quality.

1832:— The title of this article does not follow the standard format of singular titles for articles about a position. For instance 3056: 3606: 3559: 3052: 3004: 2934:

the two chaps above me have put it well. But perhaps it'd be a good and helpful idea to create a redirect from List of...? --

2884: 1833: 1674: 1247: 1207: 1166: 1133: 1109: 1069: 405: 360: 183: 2535:

and we should carry that move out quickly, thus ending the discussion that is purportedly causing all this obstruction to "

1584:

Ok if you not willing to change the title can someone at least explain to me why it titled "England national football team

969:

Thanks. I'm gonna bung that in, finished or half-finished. It can all be mixed in with the rest of the material. Cheers. --

3286: 1580:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

294: 255: 3923: 3813: 3703: 2853: 1967: 1893: 230: 3082:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2774:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2622:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

2145:

Agreed. Regardless, the requisite time has gone by to make the move and I'm going to go about getting that done. --

1802:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

1655:

a) No reason, I'll remove, b) it's about the position, the people who have occupied it, their track records and more.

3263:

https://web.archive.org/20080126144606/http://hotlist.uk.msn.com:80/sport/contenders-to-be-England's-next-manager.aspx

2672:

The assistant managers article gets merged here at the risk of this article being demoted from FA to A, GA, or even B.

397: 30: 4053: 3999: 3567: 3185: 2695:

I disagree - why should the other article be deleted? It's notable and verifiable. What problem are you solving? --

2683:

Out of those three options, I would go for #1 every time, even if it meant this article having to be reassessed. –

2479: 2385: 2232:- This article is still, in essence, a list. It just has a rather long section of prose accompanying the list. See 2122: 2066: 2019: 1952: 1938: 1767: 1729: 1711: 1660: 1511: 1497: 1416: 1374: 1306: 1182: 891: 861: 802: 686: 642: 579: 550: 514: 3307:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/party-faces-rough-ride-from-former-sun-editor-mackenzie-611661.html

2185: 2014:

there's an ongoing debate in parallel at WP:FOOTBALL whose consensus is drawing towards an oppose to this move.

1397:

Why is it pleural then? It sounds like a list. The titles I suggested wouldn't change what the article is about.

701: 3879:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3853:

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2006/06/06/35736/employee-relations-how-to-deal-with-world-cup-fever.html

3769:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3659:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3481:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3341:

to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the

3273:

https://web.archive.org/20071227134715/http://www.wba.premiumtv.co.uk:80/page/Superstars/0,,10366~668765,00.html

3266: 2474:

Zz more hours being wasted. Come on guys, let's do something else. Someone toss a coin, this isn't worth it.

4060: 2037:

several people who have supported this move here already. Even you have withdrawn your opposition above. --

218: 20: 3612: 3296: 3292: 3103: 2808: 4093: 3914: 3840: 3804: 3730: 3694: 3594: 3177: 3140:

The comment is referenced and is clearly there to explain why the job is so important in English culture. --

2602: 2551: 2500: 2463: 2418: 2369: 2296: 2214: 2157: 2088: 2049: 1917: 1852: 1751: 1694: 1643: 1346: 2329:

I don't think this is an issue of great contention. It makes sense and is in line with Knowledge standards.

1933:

the example given does not list every person that held that position. This article does. Hence the name.

1449:

The current name is fine. There's so much to do in this Project, why spend time fixing what ain't broke? --

3836: 3243:

https://web.archive.org/20101017071951/http://www.fifa.com:80/classicfootball/coaches/coach=44549/bio.html

3233:

https://web.archive.org/20071219003433/http://afp.google.com:80/article/ALeqM5jvUNJmnmIUYWijd2kwLXyYM0G0rQ

3166: 3129: 4009: 3276: 53: 4075: 3995: 3898:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3886: 3788:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3776: 3678:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3666: 3563: 3544: 3520: 3500:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3488: 3380: 3360:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3348: 3181: 2475: 2399: 2381: 2118: 2062: 2015: 1948: 1934: 1763: 1725: 1707: 1656: 1507: 1493: 1412: 1370: 1302: 1178: 1054:

Righty-ho then, there needs to be something in the lead right up at the 2nd sentence about what the mgr

1006: 887: 857: 798: 682: 638: 575: 546: 510: 236: 166: 40: 4097: 4063: 4040: 4021: 4003: 3984: 3961: 3928: 3839:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3818: 3729:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3708: 3593:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 3571: 3553: 3528: 3388: 3253:

https://web.archive.org/20080124163121/http://www.fifa.com:80/worldcup/archive/edition=26/overview.html

3189: 3170: 3149: 3133: 3107: 3068: 3038: 3014: 2983: 2963: 2943: 2926: 2906: 2878: 2818: 2791: 2751: 2731: 2716: 2704: 2690: 2664: 2644: 2608: 2580: 2557: 2520: 2506: 2483: 2469: 2444: 2424: 2389: 2375: 2338: 2321: 2302: 2263: 2243: 2220: 2197: 2163: 2140: 2126: 2112: 2094: 2070: 2055: 2023: 2006: 1989: 1956: 1942: 1923: 1858: 1820: 1771: 1757: 1733: 1715: 1700: 1664: 1649: 1601: 1558: 1544: 1529: 1515: 1501: 1472: 1458: 1434: 1420: 1406: 1392: 1378: 1364: 1350: 1335: 1310: 1265: 1251: 1211: 1186: 978: 953: 933: 918: 895: 881: 865: 851: 836: 806: 776: 741: 727: 713: 690: 662: 646: 623: 603: 583: 568: 554: 539: 518: 503: 2830:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

1870:

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with

3633: 3455: 3121: 2883:

In that case, perhaps I've gone about this the wrong way. Maybe what should be done is to follow the

1425:

It doesn't need the word list in it to sound like a list. It sounds like a list because it's plural.

410: 4057: 3246: 3236: 3011: 2903: 2874: 2815: 2787: 2748: 2713: 2687: 2641: 2577: 2317: 2240: 949: 847: 737: 709: 599: 564: 155: 74: 413:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

302:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4089: 4036: 4017: 3990:

The observation isn't unreasonable, but I think we'd all like to see a more reliable source than

3980: 3939: 3743:

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-match-reports/england-0-costa-rica-0-3756990

2592: 2541: 2490: 2453: 2440: 2408: 2359: 2286: 2204: 2147: 2078: 2039: 1907: 1842: 1741: 1684: 1633: 1342: 1241: 1219:

Sorry, only just seen this. Lots of changes made since these comments... all OK now, Casliber? --

1201: 1160: 1127: 1103: 1063: 3883: