Talk:EFL Cup

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neglect[edit]

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)[reply]

MOTM[edit]

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)[reply]

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

2005-06 campaign[edit]

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)[reply]

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. File:Yemen flag large.png CTOAGN (talk) 00:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Single table format[edit]

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[edit]

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)[reply]


League Cups in other countries[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perhaps make it Football League Cup, to make it analogous to Football League? Qwghlm 21:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
It's by no means totally clear, but I think it does say "Football League Cup" [1] Qwghlm 09:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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:

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Current campaign section[edit]

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)[reply]

Comparisons with the FA Cup[edit]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for those who don't know.
Aaron carass (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

Vandalism in Preliminary Round Section[edit]

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

[edit]

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)[reply]

MOST APPEARANCE ON FINAL[edit]

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)[reply]

history section[edit]

This could stand with some fleshing out, especially with dates. It mentions a couple of names involved with this early history, and I suspect that those of you in England and Wales these names have some meaning. But those of us elsewhere have no idea of when these guys lives. Kind of like us mentioning Pete Rosell in the history of the SuperBowl. About the fourth or fifth paragraph down we get some mention of the 50s and it appears that the first one occurred in the 1960s sometime, but we don't know exactly when the idea first occurred and how long it took from first concept to implementation.Wschart (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014-15 Campaign[edit]

Grr, what about MK Dons 4-0 victory over Man U? BarroMan 13:19, 07 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? – PeeJay 13:41, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rebranding for League Cup?[edit]

What name(s) will the Football League Cup take from 2016–17 season? English League Cup or English Football League Cup? Tell me your thoughts. Santiago Claudio (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have to wait and see. Qed237 (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The name has been changed to the EFL Cup - I have moved it twice but it has been reverted Kivo (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We use common name rather than official name. If you want it moved, start a discussion to get a consensus to move it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The precedent of the National League (English football) rebranding would suggest that the article should be moved. --LCrowter (talk) 21:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Milk Marketing Board[edit]

Can anybody confirm when the Sponsorship began? The page says 82/83 season, but the match programme for the 1982 final says "Football League Milk Cup Final" on its front page and Liverpool were presented both the Football League Cup trophy and the Milk Cup trophy after the 1982 Final v Tottenham.

This page, which is already used as a reference in this article, indeed states that the Milk Marketing Board sponsorship started with the 1981-82 season. – PeeJay 12:52, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 23 June 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Football League Cup → EFL Cup – The Football League was renamed at the end of the 2015–16 season as the "English Football League". As part of that rebranding, the league's subsidiary cup tournaments (the Football League Cup and the Football League Trophy) were also renamed as the "EFL Cup" and the "EFL Trophy" respectively. These names have been adopted by the media (see the BBC and the Guardian), and although the public may continue to refer to it as just the "League Cup", and some media will follow suit for familiarity purposes, that name on its own is ambiguous. "EFL Cup" is the only viable name now. – PeeJay 11:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 17:43, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - the new name of the tournament. GiantSnowman 17:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Using the un-requested change of the EFL Trophy is not evidence of support, it's evidence that some users go around the approved practice. As it stands I think this should be called the "English Football League Cup" if we want to be unambiguous, the "EFL Cup" is only a branding mechanism and likely to change (yes, I know, Crystal Ball and all that). Koncorde (talk) 18:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • But "English Football League Trophy" isn't the common name. You wouldn't say FA Cup should be moved to Football Association Cup, would you? – PeeJay 03:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, but I also wouldn't expect us to move the FA Cup to "EFA Cup" tomorrow if they decided to re-brand. You speak of this change being adopted by the media, but significant portions still use League Cup (and often refer to it as "rebranded" as EFL at the same time, but the headlines are predominately League Cup) whereas far fewer refer to the EFL Cup alone. Koncorde (talk) 05:54, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, some still refer to it as the League Cup, but they at least refer to it in conjunction with the new name. However, the fact remains that it's no longer simply called the "Football League Cup", since the organisation is no longer referred to as the Football League. – PeeJay 22:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It's the new name, as used by the organisation and media. Number 57 16:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's the tournaments new name. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Top Flight clause[edit]

Below is the clause: As a result of the negotiating tactics, UEFA provided the League Cup winner with a place in the European competitions providing the team was in the first division. Birmingham won the League Cup and got relegated in the same season (2010/11) so when was this clause removed? Mobile mundo (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, UEFA did not take over organisation of the UEFA Cup until 1971, therefore negotiating could not have been with UEFA for entry into what was the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup before 1971. - User: 86.8.190.197 00:06 23 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.150.121 (talk)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on EFL Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on EFL Cup. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 27 February 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: consensus not to move to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 07:05, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


EFL Cup → Football League Cup – the name "EFL Cup" existed for only one season, until the name was changed again, (Football) League Cup ist still the common name, so according to WP:UCRN the page should be moved back Norschweden (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - Unless someone can provide sources that "Football League Cup" is still the common name, I have to oppose this. I know it's colloquially still the "League Cup", but that's now short for "English Football League Cup" or "EFL Cup", not just "Football League Cup". – PeeJay 15:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. How on earth did this article end up at such a dreadful title? Nobody calls it the "EFL Cup", except perhaps viewers in other countries, where they have to clarify everything as "English". It's always either the sponsor name du jour (which we have valid reasons for avoiding), or the "League Cup". I think there may also be a case for this being the primary topic, it certainly dwarfs page views when compared with the Scottish version and the current broad concept article:[2]  — Amakuru (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erm, I think you'll find they do (see here). – PeeJay 15:47, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • And just to avoid claims of The Independent being the exception that proves the rule, there's also the London Evening Standard and the BBC. – PeeJay 15:49, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      Well OK, so one or two use that term (and the BBC still have "League Cup" as their main header, so they're obviously conflicted).. But still, why not just use the common name for the competition, instead of switching it every time there's a rebranding? For exactly the same reason as we don't move the article every time there's a change of sponsor, we shouldn't change it every time it is rebranded. And just to be cleary, plenty of sources still call it the League Cup, which has been the common name since the tournament was inaugurated.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - "the name "EFL Cup" existed for only one season, until the name was changed again" isn't true, for starters. And, as noted above, although it is colloquially known as the "League Cup", that's simply short for "English Football League Cup" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No evidence provided to demonstrate that the competition is commonly referred to as the "League Cup", even though the nomination proposes it be moved to "Football League Cup".... Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 16:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not the correct name, not the common name. GiantSnowman 16:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "League Cup" probably is the common name, but then that would be ambiguous with the league cups in other countries. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Current name is the name of the competition. Number 57 10:03, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (but would prefer simply "League Cup" if practical) It gets complicated as the media in general is a bit confused - at the time of writing [www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/league-cup] (note the URL) uses League Cup, EFL Cup and Carabao Cup in different articles. Some of it will be the difference between formal-speak (the kind that refers to The Emirates FA Cup when the WP:COMMONNAME is overwhelmingly the FA Cup) versus less formal scenarios, but here's the League Cup in Eurosport, Sky, the Telegraph, Express, Daily Star, the Metro, the Mail, MEN and Man City. Note in particular that even when they mention EFL or Carabao in the text, it's League Cup in the headline, the bit that's aimed at the average Joe. Perhaps more relevant are the examples from Arsenal and the Guardian - when writing about the competition in a historical context, it's always the League Cup. And I think that's a relevant consideration, it may be the Carabao Cup in day-to-day news, but the League Cup is the name that endures through the decades. Is an encyclopedia about the news or a historical record? Le Deluge (talk) 04:03, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The competition is called the EFL Cup because it is the cup competition run by the English Football League (EFL). There is no reason to think that the EFL is ever going to change its name back to The Football League, so although the EFL Cup is colloquially referred to as "the League Cup", that's because it's a name that is recognisable due to the name "EFL Cup" only having been adopted 18 months ago. The only viable alternative title to move this article to is League Cup, but as Jmorrison230582 pointed out above, that name is ambiguous and can't be used. The fact is, it's not called the "Football League Cup" any more, and none of the sources you've provided suggest even remotely that it is. – PeeJay 18:52, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Efl Club[edit]

Efl cup is note better than UEFA Championds League 117.205.82.242 (talk) 09:17, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who said it was? – PeeJay 12:00, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023-24 EFL Cup redirection[edit]

whenever I click on 2023-24 EFL Cup, it redirects to EFL Cup (main page) even though it's been confirmed who's in the 1st round Katherine Northey (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trophy trivia repetition[edit]

"the lead is supposed to summarise the entire article".

However, it is not supposed to carry every detail, otherwise the remainder of the article becomes superfluous. On the other hand some detail is worthy of repetition, maybe even necessary.

At Line 24, the introduction contains this rather long sentence; "Winners not only receive the EFL Cup, of which there have been three designs, the current one also being the original but also qualify for European football: from 1966–67 until 1971–72 the winners received a place in the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, from 1972–1973 until the 2019–20 season in the UEFA Europa League (formerly the UEFA Cup) and starting with the 2020–21 season in the UEFA Europa Conference League." (pauses for breath!)

Further on in the article there is a sub-section titled Trophy

"The winners receive the EFL Cup, of which there have been three designs – the current one also being the original, a three-handled Georgian-style urn with a separate plinth (added later)". It goes on to mention the makers (Mappin & Webb), that it weighs 2.976 kg. And then it gives the precise detail and reasons behind the three designs, and the return to the original design. It's all there, again, three times over to be sure.

So why does this particular background trivia (three designs...) also qualify for inclusion in the lead-summary?

At the risk of scoring an own-goal; in the Wikipedia article about the FA Cup, there is a similar conundrum (two designs, five actual cups...) and yet somehow that introduction is far more readable, and less like wading through treacle.

And when we come to the Wikipedia article about the FIFA World Cup there is even more history involving two designs, two thefts, and a dog called 'Pickles'. Yet strangely, that article completely avoids cluttering up the lead/introduction with any of that trivia, leaving it all to be mentioned further down in a sub-section titled (wait for it) Trophy.

I attempted a minor edit to the introduction for 'The EFL Cup', but my edit was undone. I have no intention of starting an editing war, so this is just an invitation to discuss the matter. Who knows, someone might persuade me to go the other way and add yet more words to the introduction so that it includes the weight, value, and the makers of the trophy, 'Mappin & Webb'. Then we can delete the 'Trophy' sub-section completely.

BTW - is The EFL Trophy a trophy, a cup, or an urn? WendlingCrusader (talk) 18:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:EFL_Cup&oldid=1214559745"