Talk:National League (English football)

Comments

The Nationwide Conference is the highest level of non-league football (i.e. outside of the FA Premier League and the Football League) in the United Kingdom. -- sorry, make that "in England" :) The rest of us may take some issue if you leave it as "UK"! Admittedly the name of the current sponsors causes a bit of confusion.... Arwel 13:40, 29 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Yes.. of course — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mintguy (talk • contribs) 13:53, 29 August 2003‎ (UTC)

Legal name issue

Someone along the way deleted my reference to the Conference's unsponsored official/legal name being "Conference League".This may no longer be the case,but I'm pretty sure it has been the case at some point up until recently,and should be stuck in somwhere.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 April 2004 (UTC)

Conference North and South pages

The more I think about it, the harder it is for me to think of a reason for developing separate pages for Conference North and Conference South. What information would go on these pages that wouldn't be on the Football Conference page? I can see a reason to keep them as pointers to the main Football Conference page, but I can't see a reason to point to them from the Football Conference page. Does anyone have a vision for how a Conference North/South page should look and what info it should include - distinct from the Football Conference page - that would make it worthwhile developing? I'd be interested to know. I should perhaps say that my doubts on this matter don't just apply to the Conference, but to any of the Division pages of the various Leagues. Am I missing something, or just being realistic? - Madw 00:15, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should have a similar system to how The Football League and Division One, Two, Three is used. Why not have the main Football Conference page, then Conference National (or correct name), Conference North and Conference South? In time there will be more to write on the North and South pages. Also the main Football Conference page is beginning to look uncomfortably long.
SimonMayer 00:33, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

My question is more, what content would/should the Conference National/North/South pages have as they are developed? Would they have any unique content, or just repeat what was on the Football Conference page? And if they just repeat stuff, then what's the point? Taking the Division 1, 2, & 3 pages as an example, they include virtually no unique information - it is all on The Football League page - and the one or two things that are mentioned there could/should be in the League page too, or the Football records in England page. What's the point of those pages? I'm wondering if anyone has a vision for what these pages could become, or whether they should merely serve as pointers to their respective leagues. I'm having trouble thinking of a suitable rationale for them, and that's why I'm wondering if anyone else does. (And as for the length of the Football Conference page, it will decrease very soon when 2003-04 information is removed.) - Madw 10:21, May 28, 2004 (UTC)

I expect that as Conference North and Conference South develop a history,they will get more unique content that is most appropriate to specific articles about them.The same with all manner of divisions within leagues.Overview pages for the leagues,and more particular information on division pages.--L.E./12.144.5.2/le@put.com

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.144.5.2 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 29 May 2004‎ (UTC)

Past Winners

Why have the past winners been moved back here from Conference National? I know that what they won was called the Football Conference (except it wasn't, it had an million different names and we're still allowed to bundloe them together), but the Conference National is just a continuation of that. Lets be consistant here. We allow all the winners of the Football League to be listed on the First Division page even though it wasn't called the First Division until 1892.

A simple check and you would have noticed that they still are on the Conference National page. - Madw 15:17, Jun 2, 2004 (UTC)

I know that, but why are they on this page as well?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.193.160 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 3 June 2004‎ (UTC)

What's the problem with having the winners of the Football Conference listed on the Football Conference page? I don't understand the issue here... - Madw 14:04, Jun 3, 2004 (UTC)

How does the system work?

Something I'd like to know and what I think would be good on the article is a explanation of how having automatic promotions from lower leagues works with regards to north/south premier and the conferance. I know that its flexible who goes where but how is it decided when teams are moved, i.e. WI 2 south coast teams are promoted but 2 far north teams are relegated- do they move borderline teams about that finished mid table, force the northern teams to play in the southern league, etc...?--Josquius 20:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Correction to the number of teams that have won the Conference twice and been promoted to the Football League

In the 'History' section, the article says that only two teams (Kidderminster Harriers and Macclesfield Town) that have won the Conference twice have been promoted to the Football League. There are actually three, Maidstone United won the Conference twice and on the second occastion this led to promotion to the Football League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.115.208 (talk • contribs) 12:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BlueSquare Leagues.gif

Image:BlueSquare Leagues.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:31, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Professional League?

A while ago I created an article on conference player Jack Midson. This was deleted on the grounds that the conf is not a fully professional league. There is no doubt that the conference this season is not fully professional. However, in recent seasons all the teams in it have been professional. Surely then, for those seasons, the conf was, to the letter of the law, a professional league. It is my belief that some serious consideration should be given to the notability guidelines regarding conference players. This is, i can assure everyone not just because my artice was deleted but an issue I think needs some discussion. I await the usual backlash. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ferdinand4321 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

why is/was this particular player notable? There must be many hundreds of professional players/ex-players in the Conference, I don't image anyone is going to write up all of them. As a rule of thumb I would suggest that a player needs to have been (a) professional (b) have done something notable at club level, e.g. most appearances/goals Chrismorey (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the above simply isn't true. The Conference has never been fully-professional. Number 57 23:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Redirect

I created a redirect from The Football Conference to Football Conference. This is similar for the redirect from The Premier League to Premier League. phreakydancin (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Fair use rationale added 09:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC) by  glennb28  t/c 

Sponsors

The Conference has had a number of sponsors in its history, including to my recollection GM Vauxhall and Blue Square. Could someone knowledgeable please cover this, otherwise it gives the misleading impression that Skrill has always sponsored it? I suggest a new section Chrismorey (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 2 June 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved to National League (English football). Jenks24 (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Football Conference → National League (association football) – The league is to be renamed the National League due to a re-branding – Source. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support - to match change in name. GiantSnowman 17:36, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support the current location should be replaced by the disambiguation page; the generic topic of a conference in football is extremely likely. -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
  • "National League (English football)" is a better title. The current title should still be converted to a dab page or a concept page (My IP has rotated) -- 70.51.203.69 (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Would National League (England) or perhaps best National League (English football) perhaps be more appropriate. There are several football leagues listed at National league already (and as quite a generic name, scope for conflict with future league names). While association football can work it also not very natural. National League (England) is concise though we do have the former name of the cricket Pro40 - I think perhaps therefore that National League (English football) is more natural, while also having the advantage of being distinct. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Change after confirming name change. Make sure article has the reason and citation for said change. Jrcrin001 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I agree a move is necessary and that National League is the correct terminology, but as the fifth teir league in England, I'm not sure it should be called National League (association football), which to my mind indicates that is the only one called that. Would prefer to see it moved to England National League to be in line with other similarly named competitions such as Bhutan National League, Korea National League, Myanmar National League although I appreciate there is no hard and fast rule, so National League (English football) would be equally acceptable to me. Fenix down (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - just to note that I would be equally happy with National League (English football) if association football is deemed too ambiguous. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 12:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 01:09, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support National League (English football) As Super Nintendo Chalmers and Fenix quite rightly point out, the proposed title is rather ambiguous given the number of other National Leagues in football. Number 57 08:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support National League (English football) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Isthmian League

The History section gives the impression that promotion from the Isthmian League did not begin until 2004. In fact it began in 1985, when Wycombe Wanderers were promoted and Yeovil Town were relegated. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Attendance figures

Currently the See also section's entire content is:

"List of attendance figures at domestic professional sports leagues — the National League's attendance in a worldwide context".

However, the linked article does not contain the relevant statistics (its 'lowest' English Association Football entry being EFL League Two), nor are they given anywhere in this article. If anyone can add them in either article it would be welcome, but if not this section needs to be revised.

One source for some of the figures for 2017–18 is here, but I'm not sure if this is a Reliable source, or if the additional calculations required to give all the data used in the "List . . ." would be classed as Original research. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.221.81.75 (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Darlington

Hello! I noticed the lack of Darlington in the “Former EFL Clubs” section of the article, and want to add them, but I’m wondering- do Darlington count as the same club that competed in the EFL, or are they more suited to the “Phoenix Clubs” section? The distinction between the old and new Darlington isn’t all that clear, as a matter of fact the Wikipedia page on the club appears to list them as the same beast. Just wondering where they might be best suited to. 2A00:23C5:D083:DC01:71A6:B9FB:EEC2:A9FC (talk) 11:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Promotion & relegation: lack of clarity

The section about the promotion and relegation structure is a disgrace, written as if meant for people who already know well that subject. Exactly who gets promoted and who gets relegated needs to be stated at the beginning, absolutely clearly, and in as few words as possible. -The Gnome (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)