Talk:List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season

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


Galatasaray[edit]

@Tvx1: The first source, in Turkish, called the TSYD the first title of the sesason, so it couldn't belong to the 1998-99 season since in that time they already won both the 1998-99 Super Lig and 1998-99 Turkish Cup, and since the TSYD happened on 1999's second half at a time that they still didn't win a title that season yet, it's safe to say that the TSYD is a season-starter, not a season-ender. ABC paulista (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We need more information from reliable sources here. This source from our article on the cup claims it hasn't been played at all in 1999. That's clearly conflicting. And what sort of cup is/was this even. We've always request that only official competitions organized by the national associations or leagues or international associations are considered. For instance the UEFA Champions League the Coupe de la Ligue or even the FA Community Shield. Non-official or friendly tournaments, like the Audi Cup, are disregarded however. And as far as I can see, this cup was nothing but a friendly tournament between three Istanbul clubs.Tvx1 12:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tvx is right. The TSYD Cup was an unofficial friendly tournament. It can't be regarded in this article. If the quadruple of Galatasaray consists of the three official titles and the TSYD Cup, then it's not a quadruple but a treble. Akocsg (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of association football teams to have won four or more trophies in one season. 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) 15:48, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fenerbahçe[edit]

I added the quintuple of Fenerbahçe myself, since I was not sure whether the Spor Toto Cup was an official title or not. Now I know that it was unofficial, and it took place in the 1966–67 season anyway, and not in 1967–68. Thus Fenerbahçe won a quadruple in the 1967–68 season, not a quintuple. Akocsg (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akocsg: But what about their 1982-83 quadruple? ABC paulista (talk) 15:17, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: That included the TSYD Cup and Fleet Cup, unofficial friendly tournaments. Akocsg (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Akocsg: So why didn't you remove Galatasaray's 1999–2000 too? Also, it doesn't seems taht the Balkans Cup was a official tournament too. ABC paulista (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: Because they won the UEFA Super Cup in 2000. I don't know if that counts for the 1999–2000 season or not. Concerning the Balkans Cup, I think it was official. Just because it's not an UEFA competition that doesn't mean that it's not official. Akocsg (talk) 15:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Akocsg: No, supercups are season-starters, not season-enders, and the 1999-2000 quadruple line doesn't include their UEFA Super Cup (Super Lig, Turkish Cup, UEFA Cup and TSYD Cup). Also, if the Balkans Cup was official, what was their governing body? Which confederetaion hold it? I could find none, hence it seems me that it was unofficial. ABC paulista (talk) 15:30, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: That may be, but I really don't understand the logic behind that. It was played and won in 2000, so why isn't it part of 1999–2000 then? And it was there before, someone deleted it from the line. The Balkans Cup had clear qualification criteria in the official top-level leagues of the countries. It was not invitational. For the draw of the play-off final in 1968 between Fenerbahçe and AEK, the FIFA president made the coin toss. But I don't know who organised it. I can't find much information either. But I don't think that it should be deleted, as it seems like a serious competition (in that era). Akocsg (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Akocsg: No, remember that european seasons start from the middle of one year and end on the middle of the next, and UEFA and some national confederations declared in some instances that supercups are the first competitions of the season, so the UEFA Super Cup was part of the 2000-01 season. About the Balkans Cup, it simply doesn't matter how well organized or criterious they were, there were other well made competitions, even with the participation of some confederations member or even FIFA members, that are considered friendly (Latin Cup, Copa Rio, Mitropa Cup, Fairs Cup and South American Championship of Champions, for example). So it's very simple: If it was official, it stays here, but if it was not, it is removed. ABC paulista (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: If it's part of the 2000–01 season, then it's not a quadruple. About the Balkans Cup, a reliable source should be provided which proves that it was official (or not). Because I personally don't know. Akocsg (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Akocsg: So I feel it would be better if we remove both instances for the time being. ABC paulista (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: No I don't agree. Do you have a source that shows the Balkans Cup was unofficial? Akocsg (talk) 16:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Akocsg: Since this list is about national/continental seasons and unofficial tournaments usually don't count in confederation's season, it's their officiality and belonging to a confederational season that should be proven, not otherwise. ABC paulista (talk) 16:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: See RSSSF as source for the Balkans Cup. And since the clubs qualified per their final positions in their official top-level leagues, the Balkans Cup belongs to confederational seasons. For instance: 1966–67 1.Lig and qualification per standing. Akocsg (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Akocsg: First of all, I don't trust RSSSF at all (They have too many erros and blips to be considered a fully reliable source), and for their Balkans Cup section they don't cite any organizing body. And like I said earlier, the qualification method does not automatically qualifies a competition as a offical or not (assuming as such is strecthy and probably constitutes as WP:OR), all the unoffical cups that I cited earlier had similar qualification processes and prestige, but none had and have official status, because it is the holding and recognition of said tournament by a confederation that makes it official, not how it was organized. That same article that you cited also includes the Fairs Cup in the standing, which also was a friendly unofficial competition.ABC paulista (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: RSSSF is considered a serious and reliable source, so personal opinions don't matter here. And I think you are confusing two different things with each other. The Latin Cup you mentioned and the Balkans Cup are not recognized and counted as official by UEFA for example, simply because it was not held by them. But that doesn't mean that it was unofficial. Another organizing body held it. I'm almost sure that it was organised by a union of the Balkan countries' football associations, just like the Balkans Cup in volleyball for example. There it is organised by a confederation of those Balkan countries (BVA), and the winner officially enters the CEV Challenge Cup, a continental title organised by CEV (European Volleyball Association). It must be the same for the Balkans Cup in football. I also saw that the Latin Cup was created by FIFA and then, just like in the BVA Cup example, organised by a "committee composed of members from the competing federations", which makes it official. Akocsg (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Akocsg: No, you are confusing big time here. It is true that FIFA helped in the creation of Latin Cup, but at the same time the holding, regulation and organisation was made by a unofficial committee made by some national confederation's members because at that time FIFA's constitution forbid continental confederations and FIFA itself to organize club competitions. And the same case was seen in Copa Rio, which was created by FIFA and was indeed organised by a offical confederation (Brazilian CBF) but still is considerated unofficial, or in South American Championship of Champions which was created by CONMEBOL but its organization was put in charge of chilean's Colo-Colo's president, being considered unofficial too. Also, BVA is a offical confederation affiliated to CEV and FIVB and is under their adminstration and regulation. The thing is: Can you prove that Balkans Cup was and is a official torunamet? If you can't, then mantaing it here is plain WP:OR. Being "almost sure" about some speculative confederation about a comeptition with debatable officiality does not help us here, the only thing that matters is if some official confederation recognies the competition as a offical one, nothing more, nothing less, nothing else matters. ABC paulista (talk) 17:50, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria[edit]

I've removed the statement that only examples including winning the top national league are included in the article. This was never discussed or agreed, and is inconsistent with the whole concept of the article. Omitting Real Madrid this year, or Barcelona in 2012 is absurd. If editors want to restrict the article to, say, only teams in their top division, that would be a possibility, but would need to be agreed here first. --hippo43 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was a convention aopted many years ago, since it's very common to have such occurences in lower divisions, since many countries have plenty of cups for those lower division's teams, and adding those would fill the article with examples that receive little to no attention of media and/or society, and would make the subject much less notable and noteworthy than it is nowadays, what could make the list fail WP:NOTABILITY. ABC paulista (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "convention" was never àdiscussed or agreed, despite your assertions in earlier sections of this talk page, and it doesn't fit the scope of the article at all. Excluding teams in lower divisions is one thing, and I might support it, but it is not the same argument as excluding teams in the top division who did not win the league. Excluding teams who have won the Champions League is ridiculous, and makes the encyclopedia an absolute joke. There is no way this article meets notability if Real Madrid and Barça are left out. --hippo43 (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are only seeing from an european view, but in other continents, like Asia, Africa and South America, it's pretty commom to lower-division teams to win a continental tournament, so that might be problematic too. I might agree with you, but we need to form a new citeria that excludes lower division teams while promoting what you are looking for. So, lets just refrain from further changing the artcle until this problem is properly addressed. ABC paulista (talk) 21:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, have you ever heard of implicite consenus? You might want to learn more about it. ABC paulista (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." You've repeatedly claimed that consensus exists for this criteria when numerous editors have explicitly disagreed (i.e. "voiced disagreement" was evident). You have been acting like you own the article. Please stop. --hippo43 (talk) 21:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the editors then seem to want to include one biased excepton to the vigent criteria and no one expreesed explicit disagreemet with the criteria at all until you, and no one was willing to discuss the matter until now. You and the other ones were all BOLD to change the previous consensus, but I REVERTED them because I disagreed on the new one and on the way it was applied, so DISCUSSION was the only option left, but they all started to re-revert (a disencouraged action because of Edit Wars) and no one started a discussion on the matter, showing that the criteria was not the problem at all.
So let's focus on the real matter: How can we improve the criteria? ABC paulista (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria are self-evident. Four trophies in one season, and obviously consistent with Wikipedia policies, that these appear in reliable sources (not just club websites etc). If you want to impose some restriction on this criteria, then get consensus for it first. The one that you have been defending so aggressively does not have consensus, so please let it go.
implicite consenus is a kind of consensus, whenever you like it or not, and since this criteria has been here since 2013 without much problems until now, its clear that this one was a implicite consensus.
Just the criteria of four trophies in one season will not work, because there are tons of examples of such happening on lower divisions (mainly on Asia and Africa), and adding such would make the article fail WP:NOTABILITY and WP:WEIGHT, thus NOT being consistent with Wikipedia policies. There was the same problem on the treble page, and beacause of that similar criterias had to be adopted there. And that was the reason that this criteria was adopted here in 2013, even before I started editing in this list. ABC paulista (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment above is dishonest - several editors have begun discussions, here and at your talk page, but you asserted that this restriction had consensus, and had been discussed, which it hadn't. At User_talk:Vibhavpawar99 you wrote "It's the consensus reached trough discussions on that list's talk page that only quadruples, quintuples and sextuples that contais the top-tier league title should be added there." That is simply not true. --hippo43 (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard about being civil? Accusing someone without assuming good faith is very severe and goes against Wikipedia's guidelines. Where are these discussions here? Only discussions located here count, so where are they? Also, I showed you some instances that this topic has been cited here, and on talk pages, what has been cited was automatically discussed somehow, so your accusations are not true.
So please, let's be civil, be polite and focus on what really matters here and now. These accusatios will lead us nowhere. ABC paulista (talk) 02:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again I quote from Wikipedia:Silence and consensus: ""Consensus can be presumed to exist until voiced disagreement becomes evident (typically through reverting or editing)." Here are 19 examples of editors making that disagreement evident through editing: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] [18][19]

19 examples. 19. Almost all reverted by you. --hippo43 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19 reverts in 5 years is not that much honestly, and most of them reamined silent after the first revert (constituting on consensus through silence). And for the ones who continued to show their disagreement through Edit war, I invited them to stop their disruptive behaviour and start a discussion on the talk page (like in these cases), since per WP:BRD the burden and responsability to start a discussion in these cases are on the ones who had their bold edits reverted (you and the other editors) and not on the one who reverted them (me), and also that the article must be kept in its original form (pre-bold edits forms) until the discussion is over and a agreement is reached (guideline that you unsubtly ignored with your edits with the discussion still ongoing). Because of those and their unwillingness to discuss, it's safe to assume that almost all of these reversions were not because of the criteria at all, but they seemed to want to add a particular exception to the criteria, which does not constitute as a explict disagreement to the vigent consensus. ABC paulista (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are examples of editors disagreeing with the criteria on this talk page: 1, 2 And on your own talk page: 3 So now will you accept that there has never been consensus for this exclusion, which was added to the article without being discussed? --hippo43 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, since all reamined silent after I argued against their resoning, and been that way for quite some time. Textbook consensus through silence. You seem to be assuming that consensus can only be achieved though discussions, which is a pretty significant mistake since per WP:CONSENSUS and WP:SILENCE, every single edit that is kept without further changing of disagreement is a kind of consensus, even if it was disputed before. An info that is disputed cease to be consensus, but if its kept after the disputes stop it becomes consensus again. Nothing ceases to be consensual forever. ABC paulista (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for good faith, I assume editors are acting in good faith until I see that they are not. Here are three examples of you apparently not acting in good faith: In this edit summary [20] you wrote "The eligibility was already discussed and agreed multiple times on the talk page." This was not true. In this edit summary [21] you wrote "No, it cannot be bypassed. Top tier league campion-only eligibility is consensus thoughout several discussions, so you cannot change it without discussing it (again...) on the talk page." This was also not true. At User_talk:Vibhavpawar99 you wrote "It doesn't matter. It's the consensus reached trough discussions on that list's talk page that only quadruples, quintuples and sextuples that contais the top-tier league title should be added there." This was also obviously not true. --hippo43 (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already showed you instances when this matter was cited and/or discussed, but if want to keep ignoring and/or dismiss them, that's your choice only and I won't keep addressing it beacause it is not productive. Everything that is stated in talk pages can be considered as something discussed, even if it was not the main point of the topic, even if received little-to-no attention and even if it was a mere insignificant citation to the main subject. Everything can be considered duscussed is can be located here. Cited = discussed, no exceptions.
Also, WP:PERSONAL, WP:POLITE and WP:NOTFORUM for you. Talk pages are not the place for accusing someone, regardless of them being rightful or not. Accusations are useless and are just a waste of time, space and energy with no gain for the discussion itself and does not help on improving an article, it might even harm it. And of course, goes severely against wikipedia's guidelines. ABC paulista (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I like the solution that you came up because it settle our disagreements without imparing too much both sides: Now you can add those cases that were notable for you (I also know some more instances taht can be added here now) while at the same time keeping non-notable, lower-division instances out of it. I am willing to accept this new criteria and reach a compromise. ABC paulista (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please, stop[edit]

@2.127.83.209: Could you pelase stop adding unsourced info here? It goes against Wikipedia's guidelines, especially Verifiability. ABC paulista (talk) 16:33, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ABC paulista: It's literally all sourced. every link takes you to that competition's page and shows the Manchester United as winner. Their seasons results are sourced exactly the same way as Barcelona 15/16 and Real Madrid 17/18. Every competition counts as eaither national, League or FIFA organized and officialy recognized. All were part of the 2008/09 season. All competiton's are regarded the equal of if not greater than other competions listed and Manchester United were competing at the top level or thier nation's football pyramid. There is no reason I can think of why this quadruple should not be listed here. 2.127.83.209 (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2019 (talk)
@2.127.83.209: Per Wikipedia's guidelines, none of its pages can be used as sources, all sources must come from external, secondary and reliable content. All of Barcelona and Real Madrid quadruples have external sources listed, and Manchester United one must have too. No exceptions, it's the rules. ABC paulista (talk) 21:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: So www.worldfootball.net doesn't count as a external source? Well then i suggest you delete Real Madrid 17/18 and Barcelona 15/16 quads then. If you're not going to be consistent, stop editing the page. 2.127.83.209 (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2019 (talk)
@2.127.83.209: Just citing the link the way you did is undesired. The source is valid, but at least try to cite it properly. ABC paulista (talk) 00:36, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: Instead of deleting the page why didn't you edit the link or add sources that meet your criteria? It is more important that the page be accurate, yes? 2.127.83.209 (talk) 09:11, 19 April 2019 (talk)
@2.127.83.209: WP:QUALITY and WP:MOS are as important as accuracy and verifiability, so if some info can't be added without respecting the Book of Styles' guidelines, so it should be kept out until a proper way is found. I could edit myself and make the proper citing, but I'm not on a computer right now, just accessing through mobile devices. I'll return accessing through a computer in some hours, so if you want I can do it later, of course without erasing the tables' header like you've been doing. ABC paulista (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ABC paulista: Yes that would be good if you could do that. Thank you. 2.127.83.209 (talk) 23:11, 19 April 2019 (talk)

Definition[edit]

The way some quadruples, pentupels, or sextuples are being defined right now doesn't make a lot of sense. Generally a sextuple would be winning a European treble (domestic league, domestic cup and Champions League) in one season and then winning the domestic super cup, European super cup and FIFA Club World Cup the season after. This is, obviously, because you qualify for the latter cups by winning the ones in the previous season. Clubs like Barcelona in 2009 and Bayern in 2020 are generally seen as to have won the 'sextuple'. RJP98 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This list is not only about the european football, but about clubs' football worldwide, and they currently present a minority of examples here. The criteria that is being used here follows what the majority of the sources state, it's not like that one or two outliers like the ones you presented could cause a major change on this. ABC paulista (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_association_football_teams_to_have_won_four_or_more_trophies_in_one_season&oldid=1200226759"