Talk:English football league system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the English football league system article.
English football league system is a current good article nominee. If you have not contributed significantly to this article, feel free to evaluate it according to the good article criteria and then pass or fail the article as outlined on the candidates page.

Nomination date: 26 November 2006

A couple of points:

First, this NLS restructuring business is extremely confusing, but it is my understanding that the new promotion/relegation between Step 4 and 5 no longer maintains fixed links between certain leagues, and instead allocations will be determined by the NLS Committee. This could change if the number of Step 5 leagues is reduced to 12. I might well be wrong - can anyone confirm?

Second, there is a lot of duplication between this page and the National League System page - an issue that has been raised on that page before. I think the general hope would be that this page would be an introduction to the English league system as a whole, and point to the FA Premier League, The Football League, and the National League System for detailed information on the constituent parts. This page looks to me that it is adding detail which would be better added to the NLS page, especially concerning anything which is below the NPL/SL/IL level. - Madw 16:36, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Don't forget the NLS only goes down as far as level 11. Leagues at Level 12 and below are seperate. Tompw 15:36, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Map

How about a map of how the regional leagues overlap? Anyone know of the location of where one could be found? Once we get to the bottom of the conferance and into regionalism things get very confusing.

http://www.tonykempster.btinternet.co.uk/maps.htm shows levels 5-8 and http://www.tonykempster.btinternet.co.uk/step5.htm shows level 9.
See [1]... although the maps are copyright. 129.234.4.1 20:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you do it yourself. I know it is an anorak job, but if you use MapPoint and enter all the grounds league by league on a postcode basis, using the biggest scale to pinpoint locations exactly, and mark each with a map-pin, you will get a good idea. I reckon that it has not been done by the FA, as leagues overlap and stretch quite extensively, and rationalisation of the Pyramid ought to take this more into account that seemingly it has. My league, the United Counties League, stretches from Boston in the north-east more or less in two lines to Woodford (a village which used to be on the Great Central Railway near Daventry) to the south-west or Kempston further south. This is a two-hundred mile round trip, which surely is excessive for clubs at this level of football. Sweetalkinguy 20:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New clubs?

What leagues is a brand new club allowed to enter? --Dtcdthingy 11:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, they can apply to join any, but that doesn't mean they'll be accepted of course. The best recent examples with have are AFC Wimbledon, who were accepted to the Combined Counties Football League (then level 8) for the 2002-2003; AFC Telford United, who were accepted into the Northern Premier League First Division (level 8) for the 2004-2005 season and FC United of Manchester, who were accepted into the North West Counties Football League Division Two (level 10) for the 2005-2006 season. Of course, these are all high-profile clubs that had connections to older clubs and therefore better facilities (allowing them to meet, for example, the stadium requirements of such high leagues). I imagine most other smaller new clubs start a lot lower.

[edit] Proposed merge

I came to this page after looking at articles with merge tags on them. There is a merge tag on English football league structure (simplified) suggesting that it should be merged into this article. That other article's (I am going to call it the simple article from now on, because the names are too similar to each other otherwise) main content is a timeline in table form. I confess that I find this timeline table very confusing. Only after five minutes of staring at it did I realise that I needed to start on the right and move left. This may just be because I don't follow football, though.

Only one person has made edits for content to that article (the other edits are just wikification). That person edited Wikipedia for about three weeks in total and then lapsed, so I can't ask them whether they planned to do more.

My question is: is that table over on the "simple" article necessary here? Should it be merged to here? (Perhaps redrawn so that it start with history on the left.) Other than the table, there doesn't seem to be much content in the simple article. I am even quite tempted to take it to WP:AfD. The only question in my mind is whether that table should be salvaged to this article first. Hence I ask the regulars here. Thoughts?

Telsa (talk) 16:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Am I to take it that there are no regulars, or no thoughts? If no-one thinks that the table found on English football league structure (simplified) is any use here, I am going to send that article to AfD for discussion. Last chance if you want to salvage some table :) --Telsa (talk) 18:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
This has been dealt with... tghe articles have been merged. Tompw 21:31, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, lovely. Thanks! Telsa (talk) 15:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Level 10+

It's nice to see this article becoming so comprehensive (I originally created it way back as an anonymous user). The problem is, there are a lot of inaccuracies at Level 10 and below. For example, many divisions are called 'Division Two' when they are really called 'Second Division'. It's also worth checking if the leagues have 'Football' in their names or not. They are also missing sponsorship names and the number of clubs. The layout should also follow the same standard as Level 9. I think the problem stems from the fact that they were imported from National League System, which used to be 'owned' by a long-gone user who ran it as a sort of competition to this page with the aim of getting this one deleted, meaning that the NLS page was longer, but less accurate.

So does anyone feel up to sorting it out? Of course all of the division's pages will need moving to the correct titles too.

With all of the changes next season, though, there is an argument that it may not be worth it (though most of the hard work will fit into the new structure). - Green Tentacle 23:03, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

For the reasons you have pointed out I failed the GA nomination this article had going - it will almost certainly make GA level once these inaccuracies are removed. Can I suggest that whoever fixes it up uses inline referencing, perhaps linking to a relevant league website, for instance, that will have the currently correct name? That would make verifying the information in the article much easier than just using the three references given at the moment (it's hard to tell what claim comes from where!) TheGrappler 17:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] font sizes

I have changed levels 9 and 10 so the yare no longer in smaller font size. This way, you geta nice progression in font styles: levels 1 - 8 in bold, level 9 in normal with line breaks,level 10 in normal without line breaks, levels 10+ in "smaller". Tompw 20:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Following the addition of sponsers' names and line to levels 9 and 10, I made level 9 "non-small" in keeping with the above thinking. Tompw 23:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My preference would be for everything to be "non-small". General web accessibility guidelines would indicate that all web text should be set to "100%" (or more for headlines etc.), thus defaulting to the standard text size a user has set within their browser. - fchd 06:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibility of an expansion?

I was just wondering whether it is possible to expand this table by including the names of the leagues in the 13 level and beyond for the English league system. This would then give the article a more complete feel to it. Just by having a summary of the 13th level leagues is not enough. If we include ALL possible leagues (in some cases, it stretches up to 20-25 levels!) in the table, then the reader would be able to visualize in his mind how big and comprehensive the football pyramid is in England. Any comments? --Siva1979Talk to me 02:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about this. If it could be done in a neat and tidy way then I don't see why not. However it could be added to the National League System page and have a see also link in the table from here. Robdurbar 08:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Also, are these leagues acutally part of the system officially? Robdurbar 08:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Alright, let me clear the confusion. Step 1 to Step 7 (or level 5 to 11) leagues are considered part of the National League System AND the English football league system. However, leagues below level 11 (or step 7) are NOT considered part of the National League System BUT they are still part of the English football league system. So level 12 and below leagues should be included in this article table BUT not the article table of the National League System. (please correct me if I am wrong about this) --Siva1979Talk to me 09:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
You are right... National League System goes only as far as level 11, though it might be argued to include levels 1-4. With regard to going even further down... there are two options. One is to list all the leagues, the other is to list all the divisions. In the former case, there are about 70 more leagues to include at level 13 and below - see my User page for a list. In the later case, there are 400-odd divisions at level 12 and below ([www.thePyarmid.info source]) :
  • Level 12: 48 divisions
  • Level 13: 53
  • Level 14: 63
  • Level 15: 67
  • Level 16: 61
  • Level 17: 50
  • Level 18: 32
  • Level 19: 20
  • Level 20: 10
  • Level 21: 7

It is worth bearing in mind that only a handful of the leagues at level 12 and below have articles, and most the articles for level 11 and below are stubs. My own view is that we shouldn't have seperate pages for each division below a certain level (say 12 and below). What do people think? Tompw 11:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is fair; it also reaches the stage where individual divisions are barely notable enought to have their own pages; such an expansion might encourage people to make entires on the leagues, however. I would wonder how we could show how 'deep' a league goes i.e. a league with its prem at level 15 and two more divisions down to leverl 17; how do we fit that in? Robdurbar 22:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
We could just add the words "(three divisions)" or similar after the league's name. Does anyone object to saying no league with its top division below level 12 should have seperate articles for each division? Tompw 11:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank You for your comprehensive information on the level 12 to level 21 leagues, Tompw! However, I feel that each of these leagues and divisions should have an article on its own. Wikipedia is about having comprehensive information on all sorts of topics. Agreed that these "future" articles would be mere stubs in the beginning but there is always room for expansion later on. Perhaps, the history of the respective divisions could be included once the necessary information had been found and I am aware that presently most of the level 11 leagues are just stubs which I had created. But this is by NO means the end of it. I am planning (with your help) to expand these divisions and ALSO create articles about the clubs in these leagues in the near future (once I am able to get the necessary information). That is why we have theWikipedia:WikiProject Non-league football. Of course, a massive work of research is needed but if we all work together, we would even be able to create a article to a good article status! Thus my own view is that we should have seperate pages for each division AND league for ALL possible levels! This would make contributing to Wikipedia a more interesting and enriching experience. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that every league and division should be listed on this page, as otherwise it isn't an accurate representation of the full system. And as Silva1979 says, there should be articles for the leagues and divisions where we have enough information to make one worthwhile. However, before all this is done, I would like to reiterate my point above that it is worth checking the official names of the leagues and divisions, as the current ones listed at the bottom cannot possibly be correct. None have the word 'Football' in them and all are called 'Division One', not the 'First Division'. Accuracy is the key, or a lot of work will be created later on. - Green Tentacle 16:12, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
If you look at the official websites, or in league handbooks, most leagues do have the word "Football" in their title. It's not something I was aware of until coming to Wikipedia, or something I adhere to when referring to leagues within my website, but I must admit it is accurate. Division naming/numbering is, from my experience, more flexible and in reality the terms "Division 2" and "Second Division" and the like are interchangable. I prefer to use "Division 2" type names myself. My view is that each division in a league does not need it's own article, just a sub-division of the main league article at any level, but I guess we're too far down the road for that now. fchd 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I reckon that below Football League level it ought to be one page per League rather than one per Division. It is more logical too. Why key in "Loamshire and Nossex Football League Division One" when you can key in "Loamshire and Nossex Football League" to get the same information with less scope for typos? The arguments over First Division, 2nd Division or Division 3 become redundant too. If it needs to be standardised, and somebody has to do the job, let's do it one League per page and also have a table for each Division which lists the clubs and the Cup competitions that each takes part in.

I do not think that a full list of clubs in each division in every league belongs on this page though. I think that FA requirements for grounds at each level ought to be on this page (perhaps it already is and I have missed it - if so, sorry). Probably there should be League regulations at each level too, with the individual League pages listing individual regulations which are different from the general.

Sweetalkinguy 15:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing league?

Is the Nottinghamshire Senior League part of the National League System? This website [2] states that it is. If so, we should include this in the table. Any official conformation about this? Moreover, this website [3] states that it is a level 13 league under the name of (Powerleague) Nottinghamshire Alliance. Anyone clear of this? --Siva1979Talk to me 09:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

See my answer on Talk:National League System. Tompw 19:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] End to pooling?

The article states near the end that "the promotion and relegation between divisions will become fixed again with no need for a committee to place clubs in different divisions." - where does this come from? This is the most sensible idea that the current round of re-structuring has come up with, and I've seen no suggestion that it might be abandoned? fchd 16:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good work on the table!

It is nice to see up to level 14 leagues being represented in the table. However, to have a complete picture of the system, I feel that we should include the level 15-21 leagues as well. A brief summary of the level 15 leagues is not enough. If ALL the leagues are included, then perhaps each of these leagues will have their own articles. We should make this table as comprehensive as possible. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:58, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Level 15-21 leagues added, but the links might need to be tweaked to match official names. Tompw 23:48, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Great job, Tompw! I really appreciate this! --Siva1979Talk to me 02:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
However, I feel that we should go all the way in making this table complete. For example, instead of just stating that the name of the league is shown at the level of its top division and leagues below this level (level 12) do not have separate articles for each division, we might as well create separate articles for these divisions. For example, in the 17 and 20 levels, there is no information on which division exist at that particular level. If a reader were to just briefly look at the table, his/her's first impression would be that no such leagues occur at that level. In the near future, I am planning to include these divisions as well to make the table TOTALLY complete. Our aim is to make this as thorough as possible, right? I am aware that this may seem a bit tedious but I do not mind doing this. Any supportive comments on this? --Siva1979Talk to me 07:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Totally agree. As I've said before, I think the offical name (with or without the word 'Football' etc.) and sponsorship names should be included for every division as laid out at Level 9. The number of clubs in each division would probably be pushing it, though (and, frankly, who cares?). - Green Tentacle 15:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
A possible compromise... for each league, mention in some way hoe many division it has. Either that, or give the league and division at each level, but only link to the league article the first time it appears. Tompw 13:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
There's really two issues here: whether to list all the divisions and whether to have articles about each division. I say that every level should list every division. As for whether each division should have its own article: I really don't mind either way. - Green Tentacle 16:19, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I totally AGREE with you. In fact I started doing this with the level 9 leagues a few months back. I am now focusing on doing this with the level 11 leagues. When this is completed, I will deal with the level 12 and below leagues. The table is by no means the end of it as I plan to add every division into the table in the future. The goal is to remove ALL the red-links from the table. Upon completing this, I plan to create articles for EVERY club belonging to the system. Currently, ALL level 1 to 6 clubs have their own articles (however most are just stubs). By doing this, I believe Wikipedia would have the most comprehensive set of information on ALL English clubs, leagues and divisions which are part of this system (this also applies to the other footballing nations as well). --Siva1979Talk to me 17:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Furness premier league

What's the source for this being at level 14? Tompw 12:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I made the presumption that, as a level below the West Lancashire League - which has its prem at level 11, 1st at level 12 and 2nd at level 13, its prem would be level 14. Robdurbar 12:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Do you have any credible reference for this? These football websites [4] and [5] does not provide any information on the existence of this league. I wonder if this league exist in England... --Siva1979Talk to me 02:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
There are numerous leagues not featured on either of those two sites, particularly in the North of England, e.g. Durham Alliance, Teeside League, Washington League, Preston & District League.... fchd 06:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Yeahm those sources - whilst very comprehensive - a far from complete. Indeed, its that lack of completion that has lead me to question whether there actually is an official pyramid system continuing below the level of the national league system? For references that show the league exists:

Robdurbar 09:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no dispute over the fact it exsists - the point is whether it is a feader league to the West Lancashire League. Tompw 11:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

This is one that I can't answer - and I probably should have bought it to the talk page first - but I'm not sure how the system works at this level and this is why I question whether the whole concept of this page is flawed. For example, what makes the West Lancashire League a feeder to the North West Counties? Is this a formal arrangement or just a general convention as the West Lancs is the primary league in a region that the NWC covers? If we're using that second definition, then the Furness Prem is a feeder league; if we the use the first definition then I don't know and it should be moved from the page as unverified. Robdurbar 11:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
It is unquestionably a feeder, the only question is whether it is a formally constituted feeder arrangement, or do clubs from the lower league have to apply for membership of the higher division? There are numerous grey areas like that spread throughout the system. If this page is to be "complete", it should indicate every adult league in England with their place in the structure. Informal indicative links have their place in a similar way to formal direct links. Tompw has done a fantastic job to get the page (and his site) to this stage - let's all build on it and make it a comprehensive diagram of the English football system. You've also got to be looking out for places where the levels leagues are assumed to be at will change depending on leagues forming additional divisions or contracting existing ones. I know of at least one case on the way this summer - the East Cornwall Premier League will be forming a second division (exact naming convention not yet known), so the Duchy League will slip down a level. On a non-related note, what is the "Wiltshire Intermediate League". Surely that was just a lower division of the Wiltshire League, and does not even exist anymore (Wiltshire League now consisting of Premier, Div 1 and Div 2? fchd 11:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
The requirement I used for my site was that I had to have an email from a league offical (chiarman or secretrary) from both the feeder league and the feedee league stating the exsistence of a link. Not sure how this test can be applied to Wikipedia, though. Oh, and thanks for Wilts League info - I shall check it out. (All information on my site gets verified at least once a year, dueing the summer). Tompw 16:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Tompw - I'm very impressed! And kudos on the website; I didn't mean to criticse but I just wanted to make sure that we wern't creating a false impression on this page! Robdurbar 23:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Me too! I am also very impressed and overwhelmed by all these new information. It shows that we still have a lot of work to do before the article is truly complete. On a side note, is there an official football book in the market which gives us information about the existence of ALL the leagues in the English football league system? --Siva1979Talk to me 02:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments :-). With regards to an "official" source... the best place to see if a league *exsists* is via [9]. However, it doesn't tell you about their Pyramid status. A useful book might be the non-League club directory (Amazon UK), though I've never read it. Tompw
I don't know of a such a book either. The Non-League Directory certainly won't fulfill your needs, they are only primarily interested to about Step 6. The best book for extended coverage would be the Cherry Red Non-League Newsdesk (www.nlnewsdesk.co.uk), but that doesn't attempt to show relationships and "levels" against leagues - but it does give the comings and goings for a large number of more featured leagues, plus some Welsh ones too. James Wright's book will show as many final tables as it is possible for him to collate, but again - won't be 100% complete - for instance of leagues starting with the letter A you have score grids/tables/club names/grounds for the top five levels of the Anglian Combination, then tables only for the rest of the Anglian Comb, the Aberystwyth & District (2 divs), Accrington & Dist (2), Aldershot & Dist (3), Altrincham & Dist Amateur (2), Amateur Combination (4), Andover & Dist (2), Arthurian League (6) and Aylesbury & Dist (3). It doesn't have the Furness League as mentioned above proving it not 100%, and James doesn't pretend it ever will be. - fchd 20:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the Furness Premier League is an example of a league that isn't part of the NLS but occasionally has teams elected to a league that is. Other examples might include the South Wirral League, which recently saw AFC Bebington Athletic promoted to the West Cheshire League. The book you mentioned, the Cherry Red Newsdesk Annual, has a lot of examples of this. It even happens sometimes that Sunday league teams join an NLS league, but if you put all those in the pyramid it would become somewhat unwieldy (I know, I tried it once). --Stevefarrell 12:25, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it does get complicated. I do think that it's important to remember that the network of non-league leagues has always been a massively chaotic thing and only now are we starting to see some sort of organization. It's easy to look at the formal promotion/relegation procedures from Steps 1-6 and now the formal Step 7 feeder leagues to the Step 5/6 leagues and want to apply that to everything in the pyramid, but it just doesn't work that way. There are ambiguities and inconsistencies; basically, clubs below Step 7 aren't bound by any official pyramid structure except in certain counties that have created a county pyramid (I think Cornwall, Devon, and Gloucestershire have pretty clear county pyramids, perhaps more do as well). A great example of this chaos is Beaumont Athletic. Last year they played at the second level of the Essex Business Houses League, a league that is not in the NLS and does not have any formal pro/rel arrangements as far as I know. Beaumont Athletic managed to get elected to the Essex Senior League at Step 5, while the 2nd placed club (M&B Club) in the top level of the EBHL moved up to the Essex Olympian League Division Three - three levels below the ESL! If you consider the EBHL to be a feeder to the EOL, Beaumont managed to jump M&B Club by three levels despite the fact that M&B Club was promoted and Beaumont finished midtable in the division below! --Balerion 20:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect information?

I believe that the West Sussex Football League is in the incorrect section of the table. It is a level 12 league, therefore it should NOT be in the level 11 section of the table. This also applies to the National League System table. Do you think I should change it? --Siva1979Talk to me 16:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the F.A. (F.A. Pyramid page), it IS a Step 7 league, but it is true that it feeds in to another Step 7 league, namely the Sussex County League Division Three. All the Sussex Step 7 leagues are in the same boat. - fchd 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
However, according to this it is a level 12 league. Could it be possible that the website had made a minor mistake? Tompw's statement makes more sense to me. But we really need credible references just to make sure about this. Some of the other leagues in level 11 have also got the same kind of problem. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
It's just an anomaly in the system. There will be loads of them - don't worry too much over it. How much more a credible reference than the F.A. itself do you need? It may be a level 12 league in practice, but officially it is at Step 7. - fchd 17:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
The FA having an anomaly in their system? Well, that is something new! If it is a level 11 league and a club gets "promoted" officially, this means that it still stays at step 7! Anyway, do you think it is a good idea to add this piece of anomaly in the article (and the other affected ones) itself. In that way, readers or football researchers would not be too confused over this. I feel that this will be more clearer in the 2006-07 season. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Started individual divisions

I have started including the individual divisions situated at level 12 for some of the leagues in the table. The goal is to eventually include ALL divisions of the English football league system in the table. This is to make the table more comprehensive and detailed. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:36, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relegation and promotion between divisions

I spent some time trying to find out how many teams each year are promoted, relegated and play off in each league at each level up as far as the National Conference. Presumably relegation from a national or regional league to a more local league means that more can go up than come back down in some leagues. If fewer get relegated than are promoted, are the numbers made up by additional promotions? Any chance of an explanation about the number that move each season and how? JMcC 11:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Below level 10, promotion/relegation between leagues (as opposed to divisions) is by no means fixed. That is, you do not have teams moving into and/or out of a given league each season. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, clubs eligible for promotion may not have grounds that meet the requuirements of the higher league, and may not have the time or money or inclination to bring their grounds up to the required standard. Secondly, a club may not "want" to be promoted, as promotion typically results in playing in a league with larger geographical coverage, which leads to higher travel costs that the club feels it can afford. With regard to numbers promoted/relegated... In general, when a league has multiple feeder leagues, promotion is only intitally offered to the champions of the feeder leagues. If a league champion doesn't meet ground grading requirements, or has no wish to be promoted, then the league runner-up is often offered the promtion place instead. (However, it is unusual for clubs finishing below 2nd place to be offered a promotion spot). I hope that answers your questions. Tompw 19:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] National League System

There is now an article with the above heading. It looks as though somebody has taken the time and trouble to write this lot all out again under a different heading. This needs to be taken in hand, with only one article. I mean no disrespect to the contributors who have done the donkey work to get all the data together and presentable, but if the club anorak from a number of clubs each re-invents the wheel and does it all over again with a different title, there will be lots of articles all essentially the same, but with minor discrepancies, when what we need is just one article, contributed to and agreed by everybody, and completely correct. Any volunteers for the job out there?  :-) ;-)P-)

Guy 14:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it's worth pointing out that the two articles have existed side-by-side for over 2 years......I'm not saying there isn't some duplication, but there's probably a place for both articles in some form. — sjorford++ 18:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is the need? All it would take is one paragraph in this article to discuss that the national league system is run by the FA etc. Infact, we could call the paragraph 'National League system' and link to your history of the NLS article as a 'see main'. --Robdurbar 10:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I’ve proposed that the two pages be merged and so I’ll put a clear section for discussion below here: --Robdurbar 13:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I would NOT be in favour of a merger because the two articles are slightly different in context and content. Technically speaking, the National League System does not include the FA Premier league, the Football League and the level 12 and below leagues. The English football league system, however, includes ALL leagues within the context of the English football pyramid. Thus, the subject content is different between these two articles. They should remain separately from each other. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that; but the idea is not that the content is equivalent, but that the content of the National League system could be included within the content of this page; which it could be. We could create a 'administration of the english football league system' section, noting that level 1 is administered by the FA Premier Leauge, 2-4 by the Football League, 5-11 by the FA under the National League System title and 12 and below by either county FAs or local leagues. At the moment, having a national league system page replicates the data for levels 5-11 over two pages --Robdurbar 08:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

  • By the same token, the content of The Football League could also be included within this page since it is an entity within the Efls. If anything, the National League System page should be expanded with a more detailed history section, so I don't see any need for a merge. - Pal 13:42, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Level 11

I split up the level 11 leagues into three ciolumns again, and added a note to explain that this plsit bears not realtion to the geograhpic split above. I think this and the obvious alphabetical order should make things clear enough. Tompw 12:42, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total Teams

I couldn't find any mention in the article about the totla number fo football teams in the system. Or at least an order of magnitude. Obviously there are more than 100 teams, but are there closer to 1000 teams or 10000 teams? --AMorris (talk)●(contribs) 09:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

There are about 500 divisions in the system (source). Taking 15-20 clubs per division means there around 7,500 - 10,000 clubs. Tompw 01:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Counties

The UCL Premier Division is given here as 20 clubs. However, the UCL web page here: http://www.football.mitoo.co.uk/ShowNews.cfm?LeagueCode=UCL2005&SeasonName=2005-2006%20Season&LeagueName=Eagle%20Bitter%20United%20Counties%20League gives 21 clubs, and states that one more, Sleaford Town, are unable to take part in the Premier Division for ground reasons. It will undoubtedly be something of a pain in the bum having an odd number of clubs, as it guarantees one club a blank Saturday each week, and there will be cries of "foul" if any one club has more blank home Saturdays than any other. Guy 23:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, having an odd number of clubs in a division is not an uncommon occurance in the footballing world. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error?

According to this website, the Aldershot Senior League sits at level 13 of the football pyramid. But the article states that it is at level 15 of the pyramid. Can anyone be able to clear this confusion? --Siva1979Talk to me 04:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It shoudl be level 12... see here. The first link is somewhat out of date, as can be seen if you compare the "last updated" date at the bottom of each page. The Aldershot League feeds into the lowest of the three divisions of the Wessex League. Hope this clears things up Tompw 20:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part of football pyramid?

Is the Leicestershire Combination part of the league system? According to this webpage, it is stated that this league is a reserve league for the Leicestershire Senior League. Thus, any clubs playing in this league has ABSOLUTELY no chance of climbing up the football pyramid. The reason is clear; all the clubs which are part of this league are the reserve sides! Any useful comments would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 20:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not 100% accurate to state that teams from this league have no chance of promotion. If their club's first team was promoted up from the Leics Senior League to the Midland Alliance, the reserve team could then presumably move up to the Leics Senior League....I guess..... ChrisTheDude 08:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Eh, I think we should remove it from the pyramid. There are other reserve-only leagues: FA Premier Reserve League, Football Combination and numerous non-league ones like the Suburban Football League. I think a good rule of thumb is if a league does not contain any first teams, it's not really part of the pyramid. --Balerion 13:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Existence of league?

Does anyone have any confirmation of the existence of the Bradford League? There seems to be no information whatsoever on this league in the internet. According to the article, it sits at level 14 of the football pyramid. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:53, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental errors in the table!

Just to let you guys know that there are quite a few errors in the English football tables regarding the levels of some of the leagues. As far as I am aware, this website has an up-to-date information regarding this issue. I am now in the process of correcting this and please feel free to do the same if anyone of you guys have the time. However, I would not be concentrating exclusively in this, as I have other pages within Wikipedia to edit as well. Thus this would take time as well.

On a personal note, I wish to state that I have completed phase one of my project in having articles of all the top divisions of the respective leagues within the football pyramid (This is a personal vision). Although almost all of these articles which I have created a just mere stubs, rudimentary in content, it is my intention to improve them further in the future. Phase Two of this personal project is to have all the divisions within the football pyramid to have articles on them, thus removing ALL red-links. This would take a couple of months to complete as well. Phase Three would involve having articles on these clubs within the football pyramid. This would take a few years to complete. Phase Four would be to strive to improve these articles to at least Good article status. The ultimate personal aim is to have most of these articles (if not all) reach Featured article status. (I am aware that this is nearly impossible to achieve as well!). This would indeed take me a couple of years to acheive and only if I have the necessary information on these subjects. However, I would not be doing this in a sequentional manner. For example, I may spent some time to elevate a particular article to Good article status or even to Featured article status neglecting Phase Two or Three temporarily. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Please don't take Tom's website as gospel. Changes happen each year, and he's in the process of re-checking and changing some of the data. For instance, he still has the Herts Co Senior League Premier Div at Level 12, when it's really a Level 11/Step 7 league. I've just changed back that on the main article, and upped the Division One link, but don't have time to fiddle about with the all the Hertfordshire leagues and divisions below that to move them all up a level. While your work on setting up the league articles has been admirable, I think the individual division articles and those on clubs below Level 10/Step 6 will all qualify as non-notable (see Wiki Project Football) and fail AFD. - fchd 19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of that too. But I am optimistic that the notability criteria for football articles would be less stringent in the near future. Also, notablility criteria is not a fixed or absolute rule. In fact, the main reason why I joined Wikipedia seven months ago (and still a very active contributor to the project) is because of football. If all the football articles (all of them are about non-league football) which I have created here fails AfD, I have to admit that I would be greatly disillusioned about this. On a side note, do you have more reliable sources dealing with the football pyramid? --Siva1979Talk to me 20:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Nope, don't take my site as gospel. It is but one man's effort, created using the best evidence available to me. The main source is emails from league officials, and I spent some time earlier this summer emailing every league I could... although some (Herts Co. included) haven't replied. (I intend to email them again soon). The reason why I created the site was the lack of information on the web - it's only recently the FA have had anything on the Pyramid on their site. As far as I'm aware, my site is the only with info below Level 11. (The Herts Co. was originally down in my books as a Spartan feeder, hence it is shown as feeding into the Spartan 2nd Division. The Herts Co. and Spartan 2nd should be co-feeders to the Spartan 1st. As for the errors the creator of this section mention... I created the table below level 12 back in April, using the info I had available to me. However, my site has changed since then, hence the difference. When I have finished verifying my site, I will come back to here and make any required corrections. Tompw 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Tompw 23:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is my problem with this page. I think its aim is very noble but that many of our claims are based on out of date/vaguely sourced info. Don't get me wrong, I think that Tom's page is good but I feel slightly uncomfotrable with a system in which Tom does some research, puts it on his website, then he or Siva uses the website as justification for its inclusion here. I don't think that there are bad intentions here - its just that we get a patchy result that borders contrevening WP:OR and might not be doing what it aims.

I could propose that all the levels below 11 are moved to a subpage of this talk? If, at any stage, we can verify that a level is 'complete', then it could be added to the main article. At the moment I feel that we might be giving a misleading pciture. Robdurbar 14:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Surely such verification coudl ocnflict with WP:OR though? Tompw 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leagues of unknown status

I thought I would create a running list of Saturday leagues that we know exist, but don't know where to place in the pyramid. --Balerion 17:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This is getting unwieldy, especially because I have a bunch to add, so I am going to sort them by region, i.e. probable Step 5 that it ultimately leads to.

[edit] Status has been determined

If those leagues aren't to be included, then the Leeds Red Triangle Football League and Yorkshire Old Boys League should be removed from the table, as they feed into those two leagues.... - ChrisTheDude 08:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the WRL and WYL should be included. The Surrey County Intermediate League (West), currently listed, is another example of a level 11 league that does not have Step 7 status. Long-term the FA may be looking to merge the WRL and WYL, which is why neither currently have Step 7 status at the moment. But I think we should list them at level 11. As I said before, they do send clubs to higher levels. --Balerion 13:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to be bold and add them in - there are a number of other examples of leagues which do appear in the table which don't actually have a formal promotion agreement but send teams up to a specific league occasionally. Talking to someone on the Bristol Downs League's message board it appears that that league has only sent two teams up in about the last ten years, and one of them hadn't even won the league, they just applied to a higher league because they thought they were good enough for it. And we have the Downs League listed as being in the pyramid.... - ChrisTheDude 19:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Far North

  • Carlisle & District League - probably doesn't exist "Northbank joined the Westmorland League in 2003 following the demise of the Carlisle & District League." [16]
  • Crook & District League - possibly a Sunday league
  • Cumberland County League - no website, but it's mentioned frequently in local newspapers online
  • Durham Alliance Football League [17] - Coxhoe Athletic have joined the Wearside League from here
  • Eskvale & Cleveland League - Sunday?
  • Northallerton & District League - Sunday?
  • Stokesley & District League [18]
  • Teesdale League - Sunday?
  • Wensleydale League [19]
- no idea where any of these Wensleydale, Stokesley and Teesside would fit....ChrisTheDude 12:08, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Wensleydale, Stokesley and Teesside would all undoubtedly fit under the larger umbrella of the Northern League and below that, possibly the Wearside League. I suspect the first two feed the Teesside, although I have nothing to back that up. --Balerion 01:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Just checked and Hartlepool FC moved from the Teeside League to the Wearside League in 2004.... ChrisTheDude 00:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Another data point, Richmond Mavericks of the Teeside League have an 'A' team in the Wensleydale League. Note that unlike the south, in the north an 'A' team often means 2nd team rather than 3rd. --Balerion 01:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Talbot Insurance Westmorland Football League [20]
  • Willington & District League - Sunday?

[edit] North West

  • Birkenhead & Wirral Leage [21] - Cammell Laird F.C. played here once upon a time, not sure if this is the same Sat. league
  • Blackburn & District Combination
  • Chorley & District Alliance [22]
  • East Lancashire League [23]
  • Lancashire & Cheshire League Official site
  • Preston & District League [24]
  • South Wirral League [25] - West Cheshire feeder?
  • Southport & District League (may or may not be a Saturday league)
I found this on this team's site: "We joined the league (the I Zingari League) this season (2002-3) after successfully navigating the Southport and District League - acheiving promotion but opting for the more challenging Liverpool set-up." This would suggest that the Southport League is indeed a Saturday league ChrisTheDude 09:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Stockport Football League [26] - has a Sunday league counterpart, but it seems like there is also a Saturday league
  • Warrington & District League - both appear on the "affiliated leagues" link on this page: [27]
  • Wigan & District League [28]
  • I Zingari Combination [29] - still seems to be going this season even though some sources say it merged with the Liverpool Combination to form the new Liverpool Premier League - not listed on thepyramid.info
    • The I Zingari Combination is still going, it was the I Zingari LEAGUE that merged with the Liverpool County Combination. The Combination was mainly for reserve sides - three of the four "first teams" in the Combination have transferred to the new league - Leyfields, Liobians and SacreCouer FP. Mexoc are still in the IZ Combination. I haven't checked properly if any of the other IZ Combination teams are now "first teams" - it looks like Chatsworth may be. I assume the IZ League and the IZ Combination were linked in some way, if not indeed two parts of the same whole. - fchd 18:33, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] North East

  • Gainsborough & District Saturday League [30]
  • Lincolnshire Football League [31] - southerly teams may opt for United Counties League (such Sleaford Town F.C.)
  • Matlock & District Saturday Football League [32]
  • Selby District League [33]

[edit] Midlands

  • Coventry Alliance Football League [34]
  • Coventry District and Warks League
  • Herefordshire Football League [35]
  • Kidderminster Saturday League [36]
  • Midland Amateur Alliance [37]
  • Notts Amateur Alliance [38]
  • Stratford Alliance
  • Telford Combination [39] - might promote to the Shropshire County League ChrisTheDude 08:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • West Midlands Christian League
  • Wolverhampton & District Combination
  • Worcester & District League [40]

[edit] South Midlands (UCL + SSML)

  • Aylesbury & District League [41]
  • Grantham & District Saturday League
  • Luton District & South Beds Football League [42]
  • North & Mid Herts Football League [43] - seems to be a recent merger of the Mid Herts and North Herts Leagues - both on Mitoo through 05/06, then North & Mid appears in 06/07
  • Northants Alliance
  • South Beds Saturday League [44]
  • West Herts League [45]
  • Wycombe & District Football League [46]

[edit] East Anglia

  • Great Yarmouth & District Football League [47]
  • Halstead & District League
  • Lowestoft & District League [48]
  • North West Norfolk League [49]

[edit] Essex, Middlesex, Herts

  • Bishops Stortford, Stansted & District League [50]
  • London Commercial League [51] and Hounslow and District League [52] - thepyramid.info has both of these at level 15 feeding into the Middx County League - can anyone confirm?
    • I've had a quick look through the tables for the London Commercial League since 1999 and the Hounslow League since 2001 and neither league seems to have sent anybody up to a higher league in all that time, so do they qualify to be in the pyramid? Or are they new feeder leagues to the Middx League with effect from this season.....? ChrisTheDude 07:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] South East

  • Ashford & District Saturday Football League [53]
  • Bromley & District League [54] - has some KCL reserve sides, also has a reserve side of a South London Football Alliance Div 2 club...however that club also has an 'A' side in the SLFA Div 4
  • Canterbury & District League [55]
  • Dartford & District League
  • Deal & District League
  • Gravesend Football League [56] - has several KCL reserve sides
  • Kingston & District Football League [57]
  • Redhill & District Saturday Football League [58]
  • Maidstone & District League
  • Rochester & District League [59]
  • Sevenoaks & District League
  • South London Football Alliance [60] - some Kent County League clubs have reserve sides in this league even though the KCL has a few reserve divisions
  • Thanet & District Football League
  • Tonbridge & District League
  • West End (London) AFA [61]
  • Wimbledon & District League [62]

[edit] Wessex

[edit] Hellenic League area

  • Salisbury and District League [63]

[edit] South West

  • Kingsley League (no official website) Would feed into the lower divisions of either the North Devon Football League or the Duchy League, but with no official link to either. - fchd 17:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Swindon & District League [64]
  • Trowbridge & District League [65]

[edit] Birmingham AFA

I have had an e-mail from the secretary of this league who states:

"Unfortunately no, we are not part of the pyramid. We are a "stand alone" League or Association run by the member clubs. Our clubs can independently if they wish (and some have) apply if they think they are good enough to join the Comb or West Mids League etc but there is not set "right" even if they win our Premier."

So does that make them a "theoretical" level 13 (or thereabouts) league.....?

(He does go on to note that they were formed in 1908 and are one of the longest running amateur leagues in the UK, so they might be worth an article anyway if I get some spare time....) ChrisTheDude 07:32, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Midland Football Combination extends a level further than the West Mids, so it would be a theoretical level 13 or 14, depending on which league. Sadly I think these theoretical ties are the norm for most leagues below step 7, with the exception of a few counties who have formed fairly ship-shape county pyramids. The Midlands region is a bit untidy at the moment - the Leics Senior League is Step 7, but effectively level 10. So does that make its feeders (Leics City League, Leicester & Dist, North Leics, Leics Comb) level 12 or level 13? We probably won't have a definitive answer until the FA finishes their reorganization of Step 7, which won't happen until they reorganize Step 5/6, which won't happen until they finish working on Step 4. Yikes. --Balerion 07:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
They should get us in, we'd sort it out for them! :-) ChrisTheDude 07:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Perry Street League

(cross-posted from the article's own talk page) What league does this league feed into and what evidence is there that it sits at level 14? It's nowhere to be found on thepyramid.info..... ChrisTheDude 12:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

According to an email sent to me on November 3, 2005 by Bob Brunt, secretary of said league: "1. The League does not promote into the Somerset County League 2. There are no feed between any leagues in to the Perry Street League". So, the league isn't at level 14 0- it's a standalone league. Presumabnly the level 14 was based on an old information. Tompw 14:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Cheers for the update, Tom, I figured if anyone knew it would be you :-) I'll take it off the table on the article then, and add it to the list above of "non-pyramid" leagues ChrisTheDude 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transfer of discussion

From User talk:Jooler

Please feel free to discuss about the recent revert of the article. A consensus about this is required here and your comments about this matter would be greatly appreciated before doing a revert here.

Firstly I would like to thank you for your contributions to the English football league system article. Your explantion on why you reverted my edits to this article is noted. And I wish to thank you for the concise edit summary you gave there. But I have to disagree with your reasoning (for the time being at least). Please allow me to give a humble explanation:

On a personal basis, I too would like to create articles about these divisions. In fact, I am one of the major contributors to non-league football and their respective leagues. But sad to say, most of the leagues in level 12 and below which I had created were changed into redirect pages. Moreover, some of the non-league clubs in level 12 and below which I have created were deleted to my dismay. A consensus was held and now, it seems that any club in level 11 and below of the football pyramid are deemed non-notable. This is very discouraging for me but I HAVE to respect the consensus on this matter. Similarly, the individual divisions I created were mercilessly transferred into redirect pages. I had no choice but to respect this decision. Please read the comments about this here and here. Also please read WP:CORP as well and its talk pages.

However, I am confident that this will change in the near future and the notability guidelines for English football clubs WILL be lowered. But for the time being at least, the red-linked divisions would be deleted even if you were to attempt to create them. Trust me, I personally experienced this!

In conclusion, if you disagree with my comments regarding this matter, I would like to suggest that we resume our discussion in the talk page. I do not intend to be involed in an edit war here, so I will be reverting back tthe edits of this article to my edits soon. If you have any objections over this, I strongly suggest that we refer this to the above-mentioned talk page, in the full view of other users.

Hope that you would understand the position I am in about this matter. These article will be created, but not too soon because of the recent consensus about this. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:20, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with what Tompw said in the section above - focusing on improving the club articles from Steps 1-6 should be a priority before we can really have a strong case for keeping smaller clubs. A whole bunch were up for deletion this past week and a group of us managed to save almost all of them, but any sub-Step 6 club articles are going to be under consistent attack. Right now clubs relegated from Step 6 will probably be nominated for deletion at some point. If we improve these articles to be more than a stub, they will be less vulnerable - see Blunsdon United F.C. for a case of how a fleshed-out article survived. As for individual league articles, I really don't see how they are necessary. What can possibly go in an individual division article that can't go in the overall league articles? Member lists, past champions lists, and all that can go in the main article - many of which need material anyway. I just don't think there's any need to make individual division articles. --Balerion 03:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Well good point. So should I remove those red-links on the individual divisions to make this article more presentable? User Jooler seems to disagree with me on this point and he reverted my edits. --Siva1979Talk to me 13:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Only when the divisional article content has been merged and the re-directs to the main league articles set up. - fchd 15:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Done! I have removed all red-links in the table. I did this by creating redirect pages in the respective division leagues. This table now looks more presentable. The next step is to remove the blue links from the affected divisions to achieve greater consistency in Manual of style. --Siva1979Talk to me 17:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I completed this task and the table now looks perfect! Now it is time to verify the status of some of the leagues in the table. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huddersfield

The article on the Huddersfield and District Works and Combination League states that it's at level 19. based on the Huddersfield and District Association Football League having five divisions at levels 14-18, however this season the higher league only has four divisions, so does that mean the lower league should be move up to level 18......? = ChrisTheDude 08:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion of the table

OK, I've now added all divisions for all the leagues currently listed in the table with the exception of these four: Bradford League | North Gloucestershire League | Barnsley League | Sheffield Sports and Athletic League - I can't find any verification of the number of divisions each of these leagues has........... - ChrisTheDude 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leicestershire Leagues

Aren't the local Leicestershire Leagues one level too high at the moment? For instance, the Leicester City League and the North Leicestershire League should feed in to the Leicestershire Senior League Division One, not exist at the same level as that Division? - fchd 20:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This might have come about because thepyramid.info lists the Senior League at levels 10/11, whereas the FA consider the top division to be at level 11 (the old "step 7 league feeding into a step 5 league" issue......) ChrisTheDude 06:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Exactly right. This has happened because the LSL is a level 11 league in that it's a Step 7 league, but is effectively a level 10 league. Ideally restructuring will take care of this, but for now it's an inconsistency in the pyramid. I would move all the feeders down a level, because with the Essex Olympian League (effectively level 10) and many of the Sussex Step 7 leagues (effectively level 12), we have been pretty firm about listing Step 7 leagues as level 11, so we should probably continue to do so in this case. --Balerion 12:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this highlights the fact that "level" is not just "step" minus four. I've always taken level to be (number of promotions required to reach the Premiership) minus one. Hence why step 7 isn't always level 11. I do wish the FA would make things consistent... Tompw

[edit] Failed GA

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is well written.
    a (prose): b (structure): c (MoS): d (jargon):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (inline citations): c (reliable): d (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):

[edit] Comments

  1. 1b - Structure: The lead is too short (it should sum up the article, for example, how many leagues are there?). You also may want to hide the table of leagues (i.e. have a show/hide button) because the table does seem to cut the article in half. For "Changes made for the 2006-2007 season" section, have there been previous major changes, and if so, what were they?
  2. 2b - Inline citations: There are none. WP:GA requires this, so a number of inline citations/references must be present in the article.
  3. 2c - Reliable sources: I'm convinced there must be a book on English football (which will mention the league system). Currently the only references are the official site and two non-peer-reviewd sites. Try to complement the article with a wider vareity of sources, including book ones.

Apart from that, it's a good piece of work. Keep it up! CloudNine 20:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Replies...

  1. Fair comment about the lead. I don't think the table of leagues should be hidden - it is the main point of the article. I moved the section of the 06-07 changes to History of the National League System, where it's probably more apropriate.
  2. Inline citations... the article provided references which enable the data contained therein to be verified. They have been changed as to footnotes. Also, I think saying "only" with regard to the FA site is rather strange... it's the governing body!
  3. No, there is no book on this one. Really and truely there isn't. I wish there was. (Maybe I shoudl write one...) Tompw 11:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Better organization of League pages.

I'm new to this community (don't even have an account) but if you look up specific leagues you'll see theres no standardization of the articles. I'm not experienced enough with English Leagues or with the editing process to do this, but I propose the following. Standardize the "splash" (don't know the real name of it), you know the thing on the upper right of the article with the leagues logo and info. I imagine it should have the date est., current champions, as well as links to the promotion and relegation leagues above and below. Also a good idea would be to add that pyrimid diagram at the bottom of this post to the article with the league in question being highlighted. That way a user could see at a glance where it is in the hierarchy and what leagues his team my be promoted/relegated to. 68.90.189.160 21:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

When you say "add that pyramid diagram" to each league's article, which diagram are you referring to? Surely not the colossal diagram on the English football league system page, which is bigger than any league's actual article? ChrisTheDude 21:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually there's already Template:English football league system cells which is normally used at the bottom of an article and shows the leagues above and below the league in question. I've also now created Template:Infobox football league which could be used at the top of an article. I reckon between the two templates that would cover everything - what do you think......? ChrisTheDude 09:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/n/g/Talk%7EEnglish_football_league_system_5428.html"