This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
We seem to be having a bit of an edit war to introduce Charity Shield etc when we are already ignoring entry criteria by including irrelevant achievements such as PFA awards, FA Cups etc. I am not sure what this article is intending to do, but we seem to be very much blurring the lines between the criteria used for a player and what we have listed for... reasons? Koncorde ( talk) 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to make this page as informed as possible and I'm using the same references which are used on the Premier League Website using the titles and significant individual achievements that are encompassed on that page. You have removed other valid information for no reason at all and have limited this pages informity. In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that
The Premier League Hall of Fame celebrates players who have made significant on-pitch contributions to the Premier League only.and that is it.
Koncorde Okay, lots of them points are valid but I still struggle to see why you have removed hours of writing from myself explaining the Hall Of Fame and what the description of it is. Other professional sports Hall of fame Wikipedia pages fail to have a complete correlation to the HOF FAQ such as the Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame or the NFL Hall of Fame. Regardless glad you have taken the reigns following my hours of work on this page even if it means hurting the pages informality provided it meets the FAQ, that is ultimately what helps the page. Personally, I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence. I won't make any more adjustments to this Page. Glad you could use areas of my Framework to turn this vibrant, informative page into your product. ( talk) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence.. I have no idea what on earth are you on about. I am an editor, not a moderator, and at no point have there been any threats, or rudeness. I have explained everything as succinctly as I can. Koncorde ( talk) 22:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
You have been warned.which coupled with your attitude in other comments came of rude. Also when I tried to make another change, which would have made the page more informed I was called a "d*ckhead" by another who was using an IP Adress who I had mistaken for yourself so my apologies, who I believe has retracted his/her statement, as I can't seem to find it in the source. Moving on, my changes are always putting the best interests of this Page at Heart. I have dedicated hours to working on this page and I believe your recent introduction has given me the impression you are controlling removing plenty of valid info and are only pursuing your vision. I have tried to negotiate compromises in the source and the talk page. You have continued to remove information that would continue to promote the credentials of the players in the Hall renouncing it as
irrelevant cruftwhich is completely subjective. You have also removed valid information on the induction process and the introduction. You have also completely diminished the point of having a player table with achievements as "Hall of Fame Talents" have no significant achievements whatsoever, with your changes even though they have met the requirements of the Premier League Hall of Fame in the first place. I don't see any of your changes improving the quality of the page in the slightest other than taking away from it. But please clue me in ( talk) 19:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
"3RR, you have been warned". A warning is a formal notice. This makes it clear to any other editor what action has been taken and why. The warning is the one I left on your talk page here at 21:47. For edit warring. I have provided links repeatedly to policy and procedure to make it clear what issues are at hand.
tried to negotiate compromisesis, from what I have seen until todays use of the Talk Page here, completely untrue. You have instead INSISTED on your version. Reverted any other changes. And then insist other people do as you say, despite WP:BRD guidance to the contrary. Ultimately your behaviour is why I have request Administrator intervention.
In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that
I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored on the talk page. If I can avoid edit warring and come to a compromise I would much prefer thatyet you have persisted to adjust my hard work with no benefit of informity to the page. When I have made a major adjustment to the page and had a disagreement with another editor I always state a Rationale for my decision backed by evidence from other sources and references. And tell me, what you are doing is any different? After several weeks of this page being run without any hostility or tension have invited constant adjustments to a page that was accurate and had little issue and have made "huge" adjustments that have not helped the page in any way. Your point about me using an IP Address to make a change has already been disputed. I made a change, I made a mistake and I reverted it immediately.
Combined with your general tone on other peoples talk pages which have been filled with lots of words which do not gel with your actions.What are you referring to? I have tried to make compromises through the source pages, and until you showed up and made regular edits to this page, to institute your personal, subjective vision on what I and hundreds of other people have built, I hadn't had to negotiate with people on this page as everyone seemed pretty aligned. We always came to a compromise on their personal talk page or my own. As for yourself, you've just made "changes" and have tried to paint me as the Edit "Warrer" diminishing the quality of the page in nearly every way with very few times an explained rationale or justification.
Your point on the table I object to also.
The writers of this page managed to do this successfully with hundreds of players each with dozens of their achievements. This "validates their appearance in the Hall", it's significant to include the achievements that were "clarify their induction." This was my original framework for what in how I envisioned this page before you made your own changes. Limiting this or "meeting half way" is undermining to the players inducted especially players like Gerrard with no accomplishments because you removed the ones the "you alone" found insignificant. I've already stated my reasoning to fully remove the awards column as a result as I don't think it benefits the page with the awards that "you see fit."
And it was two editors yourself and ItsKesha. I never attempted to steamroll either of you. I clearly stated my intentions were positive and tried to reference the both of you to a talk page to negotiate terms we could agree in on and instead you made the changes you wanted to make and didn't consider the rest of the community who built this page. And the final point is another completely subjective statement. I have been thanked several times for my hours of work on this page and I understand you're a long time editor who has discovered a page emerging in popularity but your changes have taken away from this page and you haven't tried to discuss change, you have just made the change and blamed me for "edit warring" in the process when myself as well as many other people have spent hours making this page what it is and have been alerted to change that doesn't meet the criteria of what we are trying to make. JuneFith ( talk) 23:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Mexith8670 ( talk) 15:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Hi ItsKesha, I've decided to use the talk page as my addition was retracted. The "Professional Footballers' Association Men's Players' Player of the Year" regarded as the highest prestige award in England is also the regulating body for the "Premier League Hall Of Fame" as the Professional Footballers' Association Men's Players' Player of the Year, is aligned with "Richard Masters" who is the president of the Hall. Also, Premier League Team of the Season appearances is extremely valid in seeing the consistency of these footballers. Look at the source for further details on the Hall of Fame and the PFA awards which are also paired with Hublot. One of many Sources: https://www.sportcollective.com/our-work/experience/sky-sports
Since there is a bit of controversy regarding this, I'm interested to see what people think we should include.
I don't think we should include FA Cup, EFL Cup or any other domestic competition wins, since the Hall of Fame site is quite clear on that in their FAQs:
"Only a player’s Premier League career is considered in their candidacy, not their performances in other competitions during the Premier League era."
The Hall of Fame profiles for inductees list titles won, Golden Boots (presumably they would list Golden Gloves for goalkeeper inductees given that can lead to eligibility if a player hasn't made 250 or more Premier League appearances), "Season Awards" (for example Thierry Henry's two Player of the Season awards) and "Monthly Awards" (for example Cantona's Player of the Month award). The Player of the Season award is the Premier League Player of the Season award, evidenced by Lampard's profile listing that he has won one. Lampard won that award and not the PFA Players' Player of the Year award.
I'm 50/50 on it. One the one hand that's a uniform way to do it - if it's on the HoF profile, we list it. However there might be major awards not listed on the profile that are relevant. Would love to know people's opinions. Wxmdrgn ( talk) 22:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
If we are looking to include goals, then I suggest we add other inclusionary criteria to the table. This both saves space in the "achievements" column and helps condense the table down. I'm not even sure the "clubs" is strictly required, and is liable to become very dense if someone such as Andy Cole is inducted (7 Prem teams) or Les Ferdinand (6) etc.
Year | Name | Pos. | Years | Clubs | Apps. | Goals | Assists | Player of Month | Player of Season | Golden Boot | Golden Glove | Other Achievements | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2021 | Alan Shearer | FW | 1992–2006 | Blackburn Rovers, Newcastle United | 441 | 260 | 64 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | Premier League all-time leading goalscorer | [1] |
Thoughts? Koncorde ( talk) 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
To bring this back up again, Andy Cole indeed inducted and so we have our messy 7 club list for one player. Not sure who is active on this page to contribute? Koncorde ( talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
We seem to be having a bit of an edit war to introduce Charity Shield etc when we are already ignoring entry criteria by including irrelevant achievements such as PFA awards, FA Cups etc. I am not sure what this article is intending to do, but we seem to be very much blurring the lines between the criteria used for a player and what we have listed for... reasons? Koncorde ( talk) 20:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I am trying to make this page as informed as possible and I'm using the same references which are used on the Premier League Website using the titles and significant individual achievements that are encompassed on that page. You have removed other valid information for no reason at all and have limited this pages informity. In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that
The Premier League Hall of Fame celebrates players who have made significant on-pitch contributions to the Premier League only.and that is it.
Koncorde Okay, lots of them points are valid but I still struggle to see why you have removed hours of writing from myself explaining the Hall Of Fame and what the description of it is. Other professional sports Hall of fame Wikipedia pages fail to have a complete correlation to the HOF FAQ such as the Naismith Memorial Hall of Fame or the NFL Hall of Fame. Regardless glad you have taken the reigns following my hours of work on this page even if it means hurting the pages informality provided it meets the FAQ, that is ultimately what helps the page. Personally, I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence. I won't make any more adjustments to this Page. Glad you could use areas of my Framework to turn this vibrant, informative page into your product. ( talk) 21:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I felt proceeding to threaten me and being rude was uncalled for and was unprofessional especially from a moderator with your influence.. I have no idea what on earth are you on about. I am an editor, not a moderator, and at no point have there been any threats, or rudeness. I have explained everything as succinctly as I can. Koncorde ( talk) 22:23, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
You have been warned.which coupled with your attitude in other comments came of rude. Also when I tried to make another change, which would have made the page more informed I was called a "d*ckhead" by another who was using an IP Adress who I had mistaken for yourself so my apologies, who I believe has retracted his/her statement, as I can't seem to find it in the source. Moving on, my changes are always putting the best interests of this Page at Heart. I have dedicated hours to working on this page and I believe your recent introduction has given me the impression you are controlling removing plenty of valid info and are only pursuing your vision. I have tried to negotiate compromises in the source and the talk page. You have continued to remove information that would continue to promote the credentials of the players in the Hall renouncing it as
irrelevant cruftwhich is completely subjective. You have also removed valid information on the induction process and the introduction. You have also completely diminished the point of having a player table with achievements as "Hall of Fame Talents" have no significant achievements whatsoever, with your changes even though they have met the requirements of the Premier League Hall of Fame in the first place. I don't see any of your changes improving the quality of the page in the slightest other than taking away from it. But please clue me in ( talk) 19:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
"3RR, you have been warned". A warning is a formal notice. This makes it clear to any other editor what action has been taken and why. The warning is the one I left on your talk page here at 21:47. For edit warring. I have provided links repeatedly to policy and procedure to make it clear what issues are at hand.
tried to negotiate compromisesis, from what I have seen until todays use of the Talk Page here, completely untrue. You have instead INSISTED on your version. Reverted any other changes. And then insist other people do as you say, despite WP:BRD guidance to the contrary. Ultimately your behaviour is why I have request Administrator intervention.
In regards to edit warring I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored. If I can avoid edit warring and come to compromise I would much prefer that
I have tried to discuss changes and have been reluctantly ignored on the talk page. If I can avoid edit warring and come to a compromise I would much prefer thatyet you have persisted to adjust my hard work with no benefit of informity to the page. When I have made a major adjustment to the page and had a disagreement with another editor I always state a Rationale for my decision backed by evidence from other sources and references. And tell me, what you are doing is any different? After several weeks of this page being run without any hostility or tension have invited constant adjustments to a page that was accurate and had little issue and have made "huge" adjustments that have not helped the page in any way. Your point about me using an IP Address to make a change has already been disputed. I made a change, I made a mistake and I reverted it immediately.
Combined with your general tone on other peoples talk pages which have been filled with lots of words which do not gel with your actions.What are you referring to? I have tried to make compromises through the source pages, and until you showed up and made regular edits to this page, to institute your personal, subjective vision on what I and hundreds of other people have built, I hadn't had to negotiate with people on this page as everyone seemed pretty aligned. We always came to a compromise on their personal talk page or my own. As for yourself, you've just made "changes" and have tried to paint me as the Edit "Warrer" diminishing the quality of the page in nearly every way with very few times an explained rationale or justification.
Your point on the table I object to also.
The writers of this page managed to do this successfully with hundreds of players each with dozens of their achievements. This "validates their appearance in the Hall", it's significant to include the achievements that were "clarify their induction." This was my original framework for what in how I envisioned this page before you made your own changes. Limiting this or "meeting half way" is undermining to the players inducted especially players like Gerrard with no accomplishments because you removed the ones the "you alone" found insignificant. I've already stated my reasoning to fully remove the awards column as a result as I don't think it benefits the page with the awards that "you see fit."
And it was two editors yourself and ItsKesha. I never attempted to steamroll either of you. I clearly stated my intentions were positive and tried to reference the both of you to a talk page to negotiate terms we could agree in on and instead you made the changes you wanted to make and didn't consider the rest of the community who built this page. And the final point is another completely subjective statement. I have been thanked several times for my hours of work on this page and I understand you're a long time editor who has discovered a page emerging in popularity but your changes have taken away from this page and you haven't tried to discuss change, you have just made the change and blamed me for "edit warring" in the process when myself as well as many other people have spent hours making this page what it is and have been alerted to change that doesn't meet the criteria of what we are trying to make. JuneFith ( talk) 23:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Mexith8670 ( talk) 15:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC) Hi ItsKesha, I've decided to use the talk page as my addition was retracted. The "Professional Footballers' Association Men's Players' Player of the Year" regarded as the highest prestige award in England is also the regulating body for the "Premier League Hall Of Fame" as the Professional Footballers' Association Men's Players' Player of the Year, is aligned with "Richard Masters" who is the president of the Hall. Also, Premier League Team of the Season appearances is extremely valid in seeing the consistency of these footballers. Look at the source for further details on the Hall of Fame and the PFA awards which are also paired with Hublot. One of many Sources: https://www.sportcollective.com/our-work/experience/sky-sports
Since there is a bit of controversy regarding this, I'm interested to see what people think we should include.
I don't think we should include FA Cup, EFL Cup or any other domestic competition wins, since the Hall of Fame site is quite clear on that in their FAQs:
"Only a player’s Premier League career is considered in their candidacy, not their performances in other competitions during the Premier League era."
The Hall of Fame profiles for inductees list titles won, Golden Boots (presumably they would list Golden Gloves for goalkeeper inductees given that can lead to eligibility if a player hasn't made 250 or more Premier League appearances), "Season Awards" (for example Thierry Henry's two Player of the Season awards) and "Monthly Awards" (for example Cantona's Player of the Month award). The Player of the Season award is the Premier League Player of the Season award, evidenced by Lampard's profile listing that he has won one. Lampard won that award and not the PFA Players' Player of the Year award.
I'm 50/50 on it. One the one hand that's a uniform way to do it - if it's on the HoF profile, we list it. However there might be major awards not listed on the profile that are relevant. Would love to know people's opinions. Wxmdrgn ( talk) 22:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
If we are looking to include goals, then I suggest we add other inclusionary criteria to the table. This both saves space in the "achievements" column and helps condense the table down. I'm not even sure the "clubs" is strictly required, and is liable to become very dense if someone such as Andy Cole is inducted (7 Prem teams) or Les Ferdinand (6) etc.
Year | Name | Pos. | Years | Clubs | Apps. | Goals | Assists | Player of Month | Player of Season | Golden Boot | Golden Glove | Other Achievements | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2021 | Alan Shearer | FW | 1992–2006 | Blackburn Rovers, Newcastle United | 441 | 260 | 64 | 4 | 1 | 3 | 0 | Premier League all-time leading goalscorer | [1] |
Thoughts? Koncorde ( talk) 16:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
To bring this back up again, Andy Cole indeed inducted and so we have our messy 7 club list for one player. Not sure who is active on this page to contribute? Koncorde ( talk) 15:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
References