Talk:2008–09 Premier League

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 April 2008. The result of the discussion was nomination withdrawn.

Football: England / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Confirmed Teams

A club's survival in the premiership is confirmed NOT by whether or not the club in 18th place can theoretically finish above above the first club, but by whether or not ALL but the bottom 2 clubs can finish above them. This is as of 5th April 2008 true of the following clubs:

Arsenal, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers, Chelsea, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester City, Manchester United, Portsmouth and West Ham United.

If you want to find out whether or not a club's survival is confirmed, download a spreadsheet that calculates league standings Funkyduncan (talk) 09:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, of course, but I'd thank you to look at all the evidence first - Man Utd and Arsenal, even when I editted the article before the last round, could not be caught by the teams in 19th and 20th, which meant the deciding factor over whether any team will for certain still be in the Premier League next season is, ignoring all the effects of the 19th and 20th placed teams, could all other teams finish above any one team in the league. In the case of Arsenal and Man Utd, it was, and still is (obviously) impossible for the 18th placed team to finish above either of them, for the reasons given. Thus, Arsenal and Man Utd are guaranteed 17th or higher, and thus, they are guaranteed to survive relegation this season, thus validating my decision to edit the article. Falastur2 (talk) 21:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think any teams can be guaranteed “safety”, even the three mentioned above. What happens if one of these teams gets a points deduction, or kicked out of the League for some breach of rules? Unlikely, but possible! Just a thought, glennb28 t/c 17:13, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could mention an assumption of no points deductions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyduncan (talk • contribs) 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically you're right, yes, but there's been cautious and there's going to far (no offence meant, of course). Yes, you're right that something might happen, but the chance is so small, and the situations where this kind of assertion helps Wikipedia are so numerous, that I can't help thinking it would be foolish to leave out everything that may be invalidated thus. If you follow that line, you can essentially dismiss all future events as uncertain, and to do this I believe would hinder Wikipedia and its goals rather than helping them. To all intents and purposes, these teams have qualified for Premier League football next year. I agree with Funkyduncan's idea, though. Falastur2 (talk) 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portsmouth are mathematically safe because although all the teams from Bolton Wanderers up to Aston Villa can finish above Portsmouth individually, they cannot all do it simultaneously Funkyduncan (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aston Villa's survival was confirmed when Newcastle drew with Birmingham City; a result that rendered it impossible for Bolton Wanderers, Birmingham City, Newcastle United, Reading and Sunderland to all simultaneously finish above Aston Villa. Funkyduncan (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester City's survival was confirmed when Bolton Wanderers lost 2-0 to Manchester United, rendering it impossible for the teams that as of 19th March 2008 occupy 11th to 18th spots, to simultaneously finish above Manchester City in the league Funkyduncan (talk) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it say Derby are guaranteed survival?83.104.60.60 (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost certainly graffiti, it's been changed back now. Falastur2 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Ham United's survival was confirmed when Bolton Wanderers lost 4-0 to Aston Villa, rendering it impossible for Bolton to catch up with West Ham Funkyduncan (talk) 19:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Tottenham Hotspur and Newcastle United are save when Birmingham City lost 1-5 to Aston-Villa on April, 20, so it is mathematically impossible for Birmingham City to catch up those teams.

Championship teams

As of 28th March 2008, 22 teams can theoretically be promoted from the championship. All except Scunthorpe United and Colchester United. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkyduncan (talk • contribs) 10:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leicester cannot as plymouth and ipswich still have to play each other, thus causeing them to get at least one point between them, and so they cannot be caught. MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No they don't, Plymouth's remaining fixtures are Coventry, Charlton, Sheff Wed, PNE, Blackpool and Wolves. Funkyduncan (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why is it not possible for Southampton to finish in the top 6 when Sheffield Wednesday can? - oahiyeel ^talk 09:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the number of games left to play. Southampton have five games left - a maximum of 15 points. Wolves are the only team in the top 6 they could catch with 15 points - Wolves are exactly 15 points above. Wolves also have to play both Ipswich and Plymouth, who are one and two points beneath them respectively. If Wolves get even a single point from those two games, then they become uncatchable by Soton. If Wolves get no points from those games, then it means both Ipswich and Plymouth score three points, overtaking Wolves and thus being uncatchable themselves, meaning Soton can't reach the top 6.

The Wednesday, on the other hand, have two extra games more than Soton - a maximum of 21 points left to win - and are only one point beneath them - that in the case of mathematical possibility makes them five points higher than Soton (six points for two theoretical wins, minus one point for being beneath Soton) which just about precludes them from any of these slightly-complicated "where will points have to be awarded" games that I just played with Wolves, Ipswich and Plymouth. Falastur2 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I understand now. Thanks for the clarification :) - oahiyeel ^talk 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews invitation

Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for the FA Premier League. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff (talk) 14:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixtures

THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS

Home \ Away	ARS	CHE	EVE	FUL	LIV	MCI	MUN	MID	NEW	SUN	TOT
Arsenal		a					PPD				a
Aston Villa
Blackburn Rovers
Bolton Wanderers
Chelsea	a			a
Everton					a
Fulham
Hull City									13/01
Liverpool			a				a
Manchester City							a
Manchester United					a	a
Middlesbrough									a
Newcastle United								a		a
Portsmouth
Stoke City
Sunderland									a
Tottenham Hotspur	a
West Brom
West Ham United
Wigan Athletic

Source: Barclays Premier League
Legend: Blue = home team win; Yellow = draw; Red = away team win.

Managerial changes

There's been a bit of a dispute over what belongs here. I'd just like to point out that the season starts on the 1st of July, and so the Chelsea job in my opinion does not belong in this article - it didn't happen in this season. Also, the Blackburn job has not been resolved yet but there's no certainty - in fact there's a high likelihood - that it will be filled before 1st July. Unless we reach the 1st July with that vacancy still unfilled, then it doesn't yet belong to this article. If anyone disagrees, especially in light of the edit war last night, I'd very much appreciate them speaking up and hearing their reasons for disagreeing, because I'm not really sure why those edits would be left in otherwise. Falastur2 (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Scolari doesn't actually take up the post of Chelsea manager until 1 July, so that one definitely does belong in this article. However, the Man City post has already been filled, so that one doesn't belong here and, like you said, the Blackburn one doesn't either. – Pee Jay 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the new Blackburn manager is appointed after 1 July, then we need to add that into this article. Hughes' appointment from Man City is actually post-season I think... Raymond "Giggs" K o 04:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not easier just to mention managerial changes since the close of play of the previous Premier League season? Mark hughes may now be City manager from before 1st July, but I still think he deserves a mention.--El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, I really do, but we had to set a point for splitting the different season articles (not just for managers, but transfers, etc.) and we came up with the July 1 deadline a few years ago on another article. It seems as though the FA or some other body considers July 1 to be the split between one season and the next, so we stuck with that. Unless there is significant reasoning to change the date, we'll just stick with this. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that actually adds to the article though, or more rather, it contributes to what the section is supposed to be about. If you take that stance, then it indicates that what you are doing is listing all the relevant information about managers' appointments as of this season. If that is your aim, then you're almost setting a precedent for adding anything about managers relevant to this season - we might as well add the appointment date of all managers all the way back to Alex Ferguson because they are "relevant" to this season, and that would be to change that mandate of what the "managerial changes" section is about. What the section is supposed to be about is charting the points during the 08-09 season in which managers were replaced, and the thing is that neither the sacking of SGE nor the appointment of Mark Hughes happened during this season. Falastur2 (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree with the statement that it adds nothing to the section, but mainly because I disagree with the 1 July start date for this season. If Man Utd sacked Alex Ferguson and replaced him at exactly 11:55pm 30 June, as far as I can see that's just as notable to the 2008-09 season as if he was sacked and replaced five minutes later. It's still a major change for the start of this season (when the first whistle is blown on 16 August 2008) compared to the end of last season (when the last whistle was blown on 11 May 2008). I appreciate that the July 1 changeover has been agreed, so it needs to be stuck to for as long as it's agreed between everyone, but I don't think that it's the right way to handle it. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 21:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to my previous comment, looking a bit deeper, the transfer window is open from 1 July (I think its a UEFA thing rather than just the FA), so I guess that's the main reason for that date to be the changeover point. If that is the official date, then fair enough. Guess I was wrong - apologies! El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 21:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to FIFA, all winter seasons (that is, seasons which run over winter instead of during summer months) begin on 1 July, and end on 30 June, although the month of June is regarded to be a close-season appended to the season before. I see your point, and to an extent I agree with it, but as Grant has said above, my issue is that if we allow small circumventions then we increasingly lose our ability to say that large circumventions of the rules shouldn't be allowed, and you find yourself in danger of being pushed back and back until the section loses its original identity. If you want to propose a change to the nature of this section, then feel free and the issue (and perhaps my opinions) will change, but under the present circumstances I find myself feeling that we should stick rigidly to the 1st of July cut-off. Hope that makes my position clearer. Falastur2 (talk) 23:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see all the managers that have changed since last season. It would be more useful and more encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesedwardsmith (talk • contribs) 06:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cut-off date is 1 July 2008. Any managerial changes that occurred before that date should not be listed. – Pee Jay 07:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map

Just had a quick look at the current Serie A and La Liga pages to see how they compared to this (they're nothing in comparison, I must say!), but one thing they do have is a map showing each club's location, something which this article doesn't. I was just wondering if it would be worth doing something like that? I think it would help to see where clubs are based; help to see why based on location there are rivalries, and see where newly promoted, and lesser known teams, are based in England. Would this add to the article in any way, or not? Pullshapes (talk) 17:47, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

didn't see the discussion on this above, sorry 'bout that. Pullshapes (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The current map put in by Chandler disrupts the dimensions of this article. I would advise to create a Location map template based on Image:BlankMap-EnglandSubdivisions.svg, and then put the coordinates on this template. I would further suggest to revert the article in the meantime. The map created by El Pollo Diablo was not good quality-wise, but better than nothing. Hockey-holic (talk) 11:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both are 400px wide, I dont know what you're complaining about... If you think it's too tall, edit the map down to a 300px size or similar — chan dler — 11:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I didn't express my concerns clearly enough. The problem is not the map itself but rather the blank space created by the used template (thumb?) on the left-hand side of the page. This space could be used for content. The map itself is a quality upgrade. :-) Hockey-holic (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I don't see any extra space used on the left... could you screen it? — chan dler — 18:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to not use the Thumb template, and make a template like this one which is at template:MLS Labelled Map -- Grant .Alpaugh 19:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**MLS Labelled Map**
Atlanta Charlotte Chicago Cincinnati Columbus D.C. Miami Montreal Nashville New England NYCFC NYRB Orlando Philadelphia Toronto Austin Colorado Dallas Houston Kansas City LA Galaxy LAFC Minnesota Portland Salt Lake San Diego (2025) San Jose Seattle St. Louis Vancouver

I'm making an alternative, you can see it here. It's a work in progress, but I intend to complete it in one go, so keep refreshing if you're that interested. I'm using the map seen on the SPL's main article as a base. But that's not my point though. My point is that it works quite well as you can see, but not very well. I'm having some considerable trouble making the text show up well. I almost feel that the best way to proceed would be to use Chandler's map image (which has the dots placed on but not the writing) and use my/the SPL article's code to place the text. As we saw earlier, text shows up far easier on that map (and it would save me half the work). Falastur2 (talk) 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)What are you talking about "not take up the whole top of the article". For me it doesn't change the article at all. It doesn't change until you get to under 1000 px wide, at which 1 word, the last one of the beginning is wraped. Image:Pl faultymaps.png That's how it looks for me, and as you can see, the only think that differ is that some rows are 1 px higher up... At lower resolutions the text would only be longer and therefor matter less?... — chan dler — 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Borked Map.JPG Here's my screenshot of the problem. -- Grant .Alpaugh 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the map, you can see it here, as linked before. And here you can see the alternate version, using Chandler's map as a base. Both are completed. I prefer the second, personally. Feel free to use either if you think they're worth it, but I'll leave it to debate for a while. Falastur2 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's better with the lighter colour (i changed from the pink, because the links can be hard to read on that colour) — chan dler — 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{Location map England}} (based on {{Location map United Kingdom}}) I haven't tried it out yet to see if it works... will repost — chan dler — 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you guys think of this one? User:Chandler/Map locator, I think I got the right coordinates when I made {{Location map England}}, and used the teams stadiums location. — chan dler — 08:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just one word: GREAT!!! Hockey-holic (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map really should be redone to not use Long/Lat and use the x/y axis so that labels can be moved to better space them out. Also, a template instead of a bunch of code would be nice. I'll work on this in the next few days. -- Grant .Alpaugh 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for using long/lat is {{location map}} which I guess is a pretty universal template. It also makes it alot easier to place the markers right as long/lat is something that can be referenced on most stadium articles. Usable for all former Premier League and Football League seasons — chan dler — 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your reasoning, but the point is that the tags with text are way too crowded as is, so being able to move the labels independently of the map bullets would be most helpful. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one? — chan dler — 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Locations of the Premier League 2008–09 teams

Just so I know for the future, how does one use the map of England as a base and add links onto it? Are you using a particular program to do it? Cheers --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 08:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the template {{location map}} all the info should be in the doc — chan dler — 09:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New issue with the map, all teams seem to have moved south within the map, by the same amount. This has pushed Portsmouth into the sea. Funkyduncan (talk) 10:39, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be that you're using Internet Explorer, as the map seems fine in Firefox. – Pee Jay 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an issue with all location map templates indeed. Someone had added code to the start and end templates which caused the markers to be displayed wrong. The changes have been reverted in the meantime, though. So, if anyone of you still experiences Portsmouth as a copy of Atlantis, please refresh your browser or clean your cache. :-) --Soccer-holic (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixtures

I asked over at WP:MCQ about whether or not the future fixtures for the season are copyright protected in Florida, given that they are facts (even their protection in the UK is debatable), and Florida copyright protects that. The question has raised one comment in support. If that's the case, then, I'm going to go ahead and put them back in. Comments? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions over fixture lists aside - except that to say that I think that whether the law over being able to copyright fixture lists is stupid or not, it is the law and we will just have permanent edit wars if we try to ignore it - I have to question whether we really want a fixture list section added anyway. The important thing to remember here is that this is an encyclopædia, not a TV guide etc. While I see the benefit of listing the results - as they are directly useful to the league table, and the league table is what the league is all about - I honestly don't think that showing the fixtures helps us in any way other than to tell us when our team is next playing - and that's not what Wikipedia is for. If people want to see a fixture list then I'm sure they're capable of finding a different site which can legally list them - and to be honest, I'm 99.99% sure that anyone who wanted a fixture list for the Premier League wouldn't come here to look for it anyway. There's nothing wrong with a quick link to, say, the Premier League's page on fixtures if anyone disagrees with that, too. And another thing is that from what I've seen of previous attempts, fixture lists in Wikipedia tend to use up an inordinate amount of space in the article, and generally look unsightly - and that's not to mention that the typing involved in the fixture list alone would probably exceed the recommended guidelines for maximum page size, and these articles tend to be hefty without them already. Thoughts? Falastur2 (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add dates for upcoming if and only if there could be confusion where to put a score for a game. An example for that is the current season of the Faroe Islands league, where teams play each other three times, but not with a fixed season structure as in England (see article for details). As for this article, it would be better to add a link to a schedule site or document in the Results section rather than putting a complete table with all the fixtures in a separate section (see also Fußball-Bundesliga 2008-09). Hockey-holic (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some fair enough points there (I'd be disappointed to see it gone as I spent all morning on it though!). I don't think that the copyrighting of the fixtures applies in this circumstance, as in Florida the underlying facts (that is, the dates of the games to be played) can be published under "fair use", and that is the law that applies. To republish exactly a Fixture Table given on the Premier League website would not count as that is their presentation of the underlying facts, and copyright can apply to that. Precedents and statutes under English law don't apply, because Wikipedia is Floridian. So I don't think there's a legal issue, the only thing is whether it belongs in the article on its own merit.

I think it is deserving of a place in the article, as it is fairly standard information enquired about concerning each Premier League season. There is a great deal of fuss made by the media when the fixtures are released, and often the next set of fixtures can be an important factor in tactics between teams (for instance, if Man Utd are challenging Chelsea at the top of the League and they have to play each other in the final games of the season). To have the information in one place where a date is easy to find is, I think, worthy of an encyclopedia.

When I first started to edit the table, I was hoping to find a way to combine the fixtures and results table into one, but this didn't work with the template used for the results, so I just made my own table (which is why it took so long). If people would like a fixture list but there are concerns over the length of the article, then providing some way of combining the fixture and results tables into one would be the best way forward, I think. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 13:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side note on usage of dates and other stuff in the templates: Just put <small>content</small> behind a line that should display other things like results. Make sure that the content is not too large, though. For an example or two see above in the according section. Hockey-holic (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they are to be included, it would be preferable to use the {{Fb r2 header}}, {{Fb r team}} etc, found on the original #Fixtures section — chan dler — 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that if we are going to debate law and the legal implications, then we've discussed this before, last year for example, and U.S. law protects, not overrides, UK copyright law on US soil, and FootballDataCo's priviledge extends to American sources, not just British. Hate to be the thorn in everyone's side, and I feel your pain for spending so long righting up the fixtures, but I'm a stickler for making sure the facts are right, and I felt I should point that out. Falastur2 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But surely, that can't be right - there are elements of both sets of copyright laws which do not fit with each other (this case in point), and Wikipedia doesn't have to satisfy every nation's law on copyright - just Florida. Or at least that's what I thought. Hmmm. Have you got any links for somewhere where the US laws state their protection for UK law? I tried to find the discussion on the fixtures in the archives, but couldn't find it. Have you got a link please? Cheers. Bloody Premier League. Bah. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been discussed heavily at WP:FOOTY, probably not here. This is the latest one I remember Fixtures — chan dler — 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is not that the Wiki servers are in Florida, it's that the information originates in the UK and Floridan copyright law does not extend to everything accessed in Florida, it applies to everything copyrighted in Florida. If US law said that it doesn't recognise the authority of British law then we could do as you say, Pollo, but it doesn't, else Americans would likely be plagiarising every British source they could get their hands on :)

And by the way, I checked fair use, and this doesn't really count as fair use. Fair use is about allowing reproduction of a source if it's for the greater good - for education and such. What we want to use this information for is more just for personal gain, and it's that which copyright law is there to protect against ;) Falastur2 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The dates for the fixtures should be removed ASAP. We don´t want Wikipedia getting sued just because someone dared to question the interpretation of worldwide copyright laws. – Pee Jay 18:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Hockey-holic (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough! Regardless of the legal situation, there's probably enough consensus anyway. Like I said, bah. I'm off to draw a willy on Richard Scudamore's head. --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 19:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Table

For you guys... if you want to add a schedule here or in a "Football in England in 2009" article. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

	July	August	September	October	November	December	January	February	March	April	May	June
1	tue.	fri.	mon.	Matchday 2	11	mon.	thu.	sun.	sun.	Ukraine	fri.	mon.
2	wed.	sat.	tue.	First round	sun.	tue.	fri.	mon.	mon.	thu.	35	tue.
3	thu.	sun.	wed.	fri.	mon.	Matchday 4	Round of 64	tue.	28	fri.	sun.	wed.
4	fri.	mon.	thu.	7	Matchday 4	Matchday 4	sun.	wed.	28	31	mon.	thu.
5	sat.	tue.	fri.	sun.	Matchday 4	fri.	mon.	thu.	thu.	sun.	Semi-finals	fri.
6	sun.	wed.	Andorra	mon.	Matchday 2	16	Semi-finals 1^st leg	fri.	fri.	mon.	Semi-finals	Kazakhstan
7	mon.	thu.	sun.	tue.	fri.	sun.	Semi-finals 1^st leg	25	Quarterfinals	Quarterfinals	Semi-finals	sun.
8	tue.	fri.	mon.	wed.	12	mon.	thu.	sun.	sun.	Quarterfinals	fri.	mon.
9	wed.	sat.	tue.	thu.	sun.	Matchday 6	fri.	mon.	mon.	Quarterfinals	36	tue.
10	thu.	Shield	Croatia	fri.	mon.	Matchday 6	21	tue.	Round of 16	fri.	sun.	Andorra
11	fri.	mon.	thu.	Kazakhstan	Round of 16	thu.	sun.	wed.	Round of 16	32	mon.	thu.
12	sat.	3^rd p. round	fri.	sun.	Round of 16	fri.	mon.	thu.	Round of 16	sun.	tue.	fri.
13	sun.	3^rd p. round	4	mon.	thu.	18	tue.	fri.	fri.	mon.	wed.	sat.
14	mon.	2^nd p. round	sun.	tue.	fri.	sun.	wed.	Round of 16	29	Quarterfinals	thu.	sun.
15	tue.	fri.	mon.	Belarus	14	mon.	thu.	sun.	sun.	Quarterfinals	fri.	mon.
16	wed.	1	Matchday 1	thu.	sun.	tue.	fri.	mon.	mon.	Quarterfinals	37	tue.
17	1^st p. round	sun.	Matchday 1	fri.	mon.	Matchday 5	22	tue.	tue.	fri.	sun.	wed.
18	fri.	mon.	First round	8	tue.	Matchday 5	sun.	Round of 32	Round of 16	33	mon.	thu.
19	Third round	tue.	fri.	sun.	Germany	fri.	mon.	Round of 32	Round of 16	Semi-finals	tue.	fri.
20	Third round	Czechia	5	mon.	thu.	18	Semi-finals 2^nd leg	fri.	fri.	mon.	Finale	sat.
21	mon.	thu.	sun.	Matchday 3	fri.	sun.	Semi-finals 2^nd leg	26	30	tue.	thu.	sun.
22	tue.	fri.	mon.	Matchday 3	15	mon.	thu.	sun.	sun.	33	fri.	mon.
23	wed.	2	Third round	Matchday 1	sun.	tue.	fri.	mon.	mon.	thu.	sat.	tue.
24	thu.	sun.	Third round	fri.	mon.	wed.	Round of 32	Round of 16	tue.	fri.	38	wed.
25	fri.	mon.	thu.	9	Matchday 5	thu.	sun.	Round of 16	wed.	34	mon.	thu.
26	Third round	3^rd p. round	fri.	sun.	Matchday 5	19	mon.	Round of 32	thu.	sun.	tue.	fri.
27	Third round	3^rd p. round	6	mon.	Matchday 3	sat.	23	fri.	fri.	mon.	Finale	sat.
28	mon.	2^nd p. round	sun.	10	fri.	20	23	27	sat.	Semi-finals	thu.	sun.
29	tue.	fri.	mon.	10	16	mon.	thu.		sun.	Semi-finals	fri.	mon.
30	wed.	3	Matchday 2	thu.	sun.	tue.	fri.		mon.	Semi-finals	Finale	tue.
31	1^st p. round	sun.		fri.		wed.	24		tue.		sun.
	July	August	September	October	November	December	January	February	March	April	May	June

sun.	Day without any match	sun.	International fixtures break	Andorra	England's international fixture
Ukraine	Home match	Kazakhstan	Away match	Finale	Neutral venue
1	Premier League matchday	Round of 64	FA Cup	Round of 16	League Cup (possible dates)
Matchday 1	UEFA Champions League	First round	UEFA Cup	Third round	Intertoto Cup
sat.	Gold Cup 2009 (juin)	sat.	FIFA Confederations cup 2009

fr:Modèle:Calendrier English Premier League 2008-2009 If there's a copyright on this schedule, don't forget you can still watch it in French here : fr:Championnat d'Angleterre de football 2008-2009...

Well if it's copyrighted here, I'm pretty sure it's copyrighted there as well. — chan dler — 05:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikimedia Foundation seems to be unclear about copyrights. French and German WP limit fair use, but if I want to see how looks an album cover I cannot see on fr.wikipedia.org, I just have to go on the english version of the same article. I've read more or less precisely that there's a copyright on this kind of schedule, but not sure... 82.240.207.81 (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referees

I believe he is basic to complete this one article with information about the referees who arbitrate in the Premier.--Herculano (talk) 23:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't fully understand what you mean, but if you can find a list of referees and provide references for it, by all means add it in or link it here on the talk page so we can decide if it's really notable enough to put in the article Pullshapes (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He said he thinks it's quite standard to provide information about the referees at Premier League level. I suspect this means a repeat of the tables you see on some websites listing no. of matches arbitrated, yellow and red cards awarded, penalties awarded, and a figure for number (of each) per game. Falastur2 (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers

Can anyone confirm if the numbers are being put back to the old font, but the letters kept the same this season? 90.208.116.48 (talk) 06:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everything I've seen is the same as last season. Where did you hear that? -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not fear, it is just pre-season stuff, apologies. 90.208.116.48 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm not wrong, I saw Liverpool using the old Premier League numbers in their match against Villarreal the other day. But I'm sure that's just for pre-season and they'll revert to the new Premier League numbers when the league season starts. – Pee Jay 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 letter code for Stoke

Surely we should use STO? seeing as the first 3 letters don't clash with any other club? // Fi nns 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, though I think the reason for STK, is you can, at least almost, get Stoke out of 'saying' Stk — chan dler — 18:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that is also reasonable :) // Fi nns 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy over Jermaine Defoe's goal

Not sure who the dubious goals committee will give this one to, because looking at the replays, the linesman didn't flag until Crouch nodded it in. // Fi nns 13:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Match of the Day, the dubious goals committee will not be involved because had Crouch not nodded it in, play would have gone on as the linesman (incorrectly) didn't flag for Defoe's goal. Therefore, while the ball crossed the line after Defoe shot, it was not given and so it is Crouch's goal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.31.63 (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But looking [1] [2] in both of these, it is noted as a Defoe goal, so we need to keep him on the top scorers list, unless the dubious goals committee change that // Fi nns 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.31.63 (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mini-kits in kits table

I was having a think as to whether or not there's a better way of describing the kits in the table in the article. Obviously, the best way is to show the kits as pictures themselves, but the kits in the football kit template are rather large and would make the table far too big. How about making the kits smaller and then including them. I had a go at it for the 2007 Man Utd kit, just to see if I could:

and I think it works fairly well (size can obviously be increased or decreased as desired). Is this worth following up and making a mini-kit template? El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 11:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GD in table

Why is the minus sign for a negative Goal Differential not simply -, but instead —? -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be a −, rather than an —. – Pee Jay 22:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discipline/Fair play

Is it worth adding a table which tracks the disciplinary record of the clubs - number of red and yellow cards, along with some of the details on the Fair Play table (although I'm not sure if it's against copyright to reproduce that)? Could also feature information on longer player bans if they crop up. El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 09:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it's against copyright. The problem with copying a fairplay league table is that the Premier League aren't very good at updating the FP league table on their website, and as a substantial amount of the FP points awarded are down to the personal opinions of several officials appointed to watch matches, it's impossible to simulate the table in the way that we can update the actual league table based on who won 3 points and who drew for 1 pt. Another problem is that England, while (somehow) usually at the top end of the European FP league, only tend to get a UEFA Cup slot from it once every few years, so about 80% of all seasons, a fair play table would be irrelevant. Falastur2 ^Talk 15:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Season review

I have made a start on a running season review on the Premier League page. At the moment it only has information for Arsenal, Liverpool, Manchester United, Chelsea, Tottenham and Hull City so could people add early season information for other clubs. Thanks. 03md (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed it because it is original research and had POV terms like "disappointment" and "thrilling". Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standings-by-Round table

Please refrain from adding a Standings-by-Round table. As per discussion on WikiProject Football, it was consensus not to have such a table for English leagues, simply because there is no such concept in English football. Further, those tables are violating WP:NOT#STATS. Hockey-holic (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Including the Season Year in the Table

I was just thinking of ways to save space, and I noticed that we include the season in the European place blurbs, but don't do so for the relegation places, and was just thinking that if it is understood that we're talking about next season for relegation, couldn't we drop the league year for the European places as well (from what is displayed, not from the link entirely)? Just a thought. -- Grant .Alpaugh 00:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no complaints, except to say that it seems like a very mild space save - it'd save about 10 characters a page. Falastur2 ^Talk 02:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so then why is the Season Year not included for the relegation places? I realize this is a very minor issue, but it seems inconsistent. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case I was unclear, the space I was referring to was the width of the table, which matters quite a bit for lower resolution readers, not the number of characters used in creating the article. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

European qualification

Can someone please cite an article explaining what happens to the FA Cup Europa League qualification slot if the Cup is won by a club that has already qualified for Europe? My understanding is that the losing finalists would receive the place, unless they have also qualified in which case the place goes to the highest placed Premiership team. This seems to be supported by this(admittedly old) article from the FA.

This link also implies that the cup runners-up would gain a place when it says "The losing finalist for the domestic cup competition will still be entitled to be entered for the UEFA Europa League should the domestic cup winners qualify for the UEFA Champions League". However, it does seem to raise a further question- what happens if the cup is won by someone who has already qualified for the Europa League not the CL? This all may become relevant in the (admittedly unlikely) event that Everton face Arsenal or Hull in the final.

Any ideas? Thanks Stu.W UK (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that everyone seems to be missing the point that a team can win the cup and qualify for the Europa League through the league. I would add that I remember a lot of hubub at the time of the official announcement of the change of format from UEFA Cup to Europa League about how cup runners-up were no longer guaranteed a route into Europe. At this point, the only way we're going to be able to test that theory looks to be if Hull City somehow makes it to the final. It appears Manchester United will almost certainly qualify for the Champions League, meaning Arsenal and Everton will likely both qualify for the Europa League via league place (the Carling Cup runner-up was never given a route into Europe) as they will probably finish at least sixth. -- Grant .Alpaugh 03:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that the likelihood for this season is that all teams will qualify via the league, but it would be useful to have confirmation for future seasons if anyone can find it. I've asked the same question on the Premier League talk page. Stu.W UK (talk) 05:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. -- Grant .Alpaugh 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the cup winner finishes in a Europa League spot in the league, they will be considered to have qualified through the cup, and the losing finalist spot will not be used. This is true for all main domestic cups.
A recent example of this is the Russian entrants in the 2008–09 UEFA Cup. CSKA Moskva beat Amkar in the cup final and also finished 3rd in the league, with the top 2 qualifying for the Champions League. CSKA Moskva were entered into the UEFA Cup as cup winners and Amkar did not get a losing finalist spot. MTC (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the thing is different leagues can do different things. And that was the UEFA Cup, they've changed stuff like that. cha ndl er · 09:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a UEFA rule, the same for all leagues/cups. You are right, it could have changed for the Europa League, but I think that’s unlikely. MTC (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding of European qualification is that most of Europe will have the a cup winner and three other teams in the Europa league, while England and France will give one of those three places to the League cup winner. This is also how its described in the wiki article on the Europa league. Would this not mean the table as it stands is inaccurate?

paulwmk (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The three spots given to almost every nation include the national cup winner. It is not the case that three places are issued via the league rank of a team. The only exception of this rule is when both finalists of a cup final make it to Europe via their league placement. --Soccer-holic (talk) 23:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've misunderstood what i'm saying so i'll make it clearer. I believe only the 5th and 6th placed teams qualify for Europe. In most other countries the 7th placed team would also qualify, however the premier leage have chosen to allow the winner of the second cup competition, ie the League Cup to take this place. I believe France have also decided to do this. As is the case with all other countries, a place will be awarded to the winner of the main cup competition (the FA Cup). This is how its been described on the uefa website, in the europa cup section, and you may have noticed the media only highlighting teams up to sixth on league tables. this is my understanding but if anyone can point me to anything suggesting differently??? paulwmk (talk) 16:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mess up the situation with the original announcement please. Lokomotiv Astana, the team preceded by Almaty, the losing finalists of Kazakhstan Cup, got a first qualifying spot in the EL 2009-10. It happens after the modification of the competition which allows the losing finalists of the domestic cup competition into the EL. So the wording should be "both finalists" instead of "winners". Raymond Giggs 03:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, if the losing finalist failed to finish in fifth place, they will be assigned to the last place of the qualification grid, making the League Cup winners qualified for play-off round. Raymond Giggs 03:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall that the FA have already announced that the League Cup runners up will continue to not qualify - that place continues to revert to league placing if the League Cup winner is already a Euro qualifier. Falastur2 ^Talk 12:22, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After verifying, the qualification of the losing finalists is confirmed to take part in Europa League when the winners qualified for Champions League. But they will be assigned to third qualifying round if they failed to finish sixth or higher. However, I can't verify for the League Cup winners would qualify or not. Raymond Giggs 05:56, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what the situation would be for Champions League qualification if Arsenal finish fourth and win the Champions League? I assume they'll still have to qualify for the tournament next year?paulwmk (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.170.200 (talk) [reply]

No, UEFA decided back in 2005 that the Champions League winners would get an automatic place in the group stage regardless of their domestic league position. It would just mean that England would (technically) have only three teams qualifying for the CL via the league. – Pee Jay 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic content of "Goal of the Month"

Is this really necessary, it is not given by the Premier League, but by an independent party. So surely this should be on its own article (which it is.) Teynham Dragon (talk) 22:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, is it the BBC's goal of the month? In that case it should not be in the same table/section as the official 'Barclay Premier League' awards chan dler · 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But then, if we were to have the BBC, then it shouldn't really be in the article at all, because then surely we would be being biased? Teynham Dragon (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's voted by viewers isnt it? I don't see even how it would be biased if it was the BBC themself. If the BBC goal of the month competition is seen as a notable thing in the UK it can surely be shown. chan dler · 23:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most goals in one half

Correct me if I am wrong, but am I correct in saying that Aston Villa 4-2 Man City also had six goals in the second half? Teynham Dragon (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Europa League qualificaton

The following table show how the teams qualify for Europa League.

Rank	Normal situation	FA Cup winners qualify for CL	FA Cup winners qualify for EL finishing 5th in league	League Cup winners qualify for CL	League Cup winners qualify for EL finishing 5th in league	Same team winning both cups but fail to qualify for CL	Same team winning both cups qualify for CL	Both FA Cup finalists qualify for CL	Both FA Cup finalists and League Cup winners qualify for CL
5	EL2	EL2	N/A	EL2	EL2	EL2	EL2	EL1	EL1
6	Empty	Empty	EL2	EL3	EL3	EL3	EL3	EL2	EL2
7	Empty	Empty	Empty	Empty	Empty	Empty	Empty	Empty	EL3
FA Cup winners	CW	N/A	CW	CW	CW	CW	N/A	N/A	N/A
FA Cup losing finalists	Empty	LC	Empty	Empty	Empty	Empty	LC	N/A	N/A
League Cup winners	EL3	EL3	EL3	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	EL3	N/A

Key
CW	Cup winners (Automatically assigned as EL1)
LC	Losing cup finalists
EL1	First spot of Europa League (Play-off round)
EL2	Second spot of Europa League (Play-off round)
EL3	Third spot of Europa League (Third qualifying round)

Also, the LC spot will be shifted when they finish 5th in Premier League. Raymond Giggs 11:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err... Could you please add some explanation what the abbreviations stand for so that other people are able to think over the issue as well? :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added. Cheers. Raymond Giggs 12:10, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The table is incorrect and incomplete. The Champions League isn't the only way to qualify for Europe. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stop nit-picking. The information that is there is all correct, so your first assertion is incorrect. The problem is that there are many permutations as to the qualfication scenarios, not all of which will fit into the width of this page. – Pee Jay 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not nit-picking so much as asking why the hell we're even discussing this, or why we need to make a table to show all the possible qualification scenarios. We don't need that to discuss the real issue which is whether cup runners-up have a route into Europe, and whether there is a distinction between the cup winner qualifying for the Champions League and qualifying for a Europa League spot with regard to whether cup runners-up can qualify. This issue has not been addressed. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So for clarification, the issue is if the team that finishes 5th in the Premier League also wins the FA Cup and the League Cup, does the 7th place team in the Premier League go to the Europa League or does the cup-runner up. The issue remains unanswered because all the relevant info from UEFA has said that cup runners-up have a route into Europe if the winner qualifies for the Champions League. This remains a possible scenario, however, and hasn't been answered. We don't need a chart to answer that. -- Grant .Alpaugh 16:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rule is simple: For the FA Cup, the winner gets a Europa League (EL) play-off round berth. If via any other method they receive a higher European slot (i.e. the Champions League) then their place reverts to the FA Cup runner up. If that team also receives a higher place via a different method, the FA Cup slot becomes a league placement qualification. For the League Cup, the winner receives a EL 3rd Qual round slot for winning. If the winner receives a better European berth by any other methods (i.e. CL entry or 5th in the league or as part of the FA Cup quals) then their League Cup place does not go to the League Cup runner up. It goes straight to league finish.

Whether a cup winner qualifies for the CL or the Europa League by league placement or whatever is irrelevant. What matters is this - European placement is ranked by what round you enter (CL first then EL). If by ANY means you get a better slot than your cup win grants you, you take the higher slot and defer the cup slot as above. Really, I think the only way to make this clearer would be to answer individual scenarios, which would be very time consuming. Falastur2 ^Talk 17:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you didn't answer the issue. What if they recieve two equal berths. The FA Cup winner and the fifth-placed Premier League team get berths to the same round. What if the FA Cup winner finishes fifth. Does the next best unqualified team get in, or does the cup runner-up? UEFA is crystal clear that if the FA Cup winner qualifes for the Champions League then the cup runner-up gets into Europe, but what if they qualify for the Europa League? -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the latter happens, the next best league team gets the spot. It's as simple as that. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 17:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn it! I can't imagine that you would ask that question and accusing my table is absolutely wrong. I have already put all situation. The situation is exactly similar to the previous version of UEFA Cup, and I already put this situation into the table: When FA Cup winners finish fifth, runners-up would not qualify for Europa League via cup route.
Also, I hate to revert the correct grammar again and again. The term "FA Cup" should follow by "winners" or "runners-up", "winner" and "runner-up" are absolutely grammatically wrong. Raymond Giggs 11:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the grammar, you are both right, BUT since this is an article about a British league, I would suggest to use the "winners" form. See also American and British English differences and WP:ENGVAR. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the documentation showing the qualification scenario I asked about would be resolved the way you said? When the Europa League was announced, one of the key things that was emphasized was the fact that cup runners-up would no longer have a route into Europe, especially after Queen of the South qualified for the UEFA Cup last year (and Cardiff City almost did as well). Then they said that if the winner qualified for the Champions League, then the runner-up would qualify. Why does whether the team that wins the FA Cup finishes 4th or 5th determine whether the berth in the Europa League goes to the 7th place team or the FA Cup runner-up? That doesn't make sense. -- Grant .Alpaugh 12:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about Cardiff City. Portsmouth did not get a UEFA Cup berth via league, so Cardiff City did not get the losing cup finalists berth. The last statement by UEFA is exactly same to the format of UEFA Cup. When cup winners qualified for Champions League, runners-up replaced them. Raymond Giggs 13:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Indent moved back for readability purposes) Before you continue battling over hypothetical assumptions, just stick to the facts:

The "basic configuration" is Premier League 5th to Playoff round, FA Cup winners to Playoff round, League Cup winners to QR3.
The four teams left in the FA Cup are ManU (1st), Chelsea (3rd), Arsenal (4th) and Everton (6th). Because of the draw, we have only four possible pairings for the final ([1]MU v CHE, [2]MU v ASL, [3]EVE v CHE, [4]EVE v ASL).
Manchester United have won the League Cup.

Since none of the FA Cup semifinalists have mathematically secured a top-5 placement yet (and this will definitely not happen before the FA Cup semifinals have been played), the basic configuration is still intact. Hence it is too early to tell if the sixth and seventh place qualify for Europe and if so, for which round. So please try to remain calm for another ten days until the cup finalists are known. By then, possible scenarios can be sorted out much easier than they can be now. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking general questions about qualifcation. The way I understood the UEFA Cup system, if the team that won both cups finished 5th, then the runner-up qualified (unless they were also in Europe) and then the 6th place team qualified. The Europa League was announced by saying that runners-up no longer had a berth into Europe (because Queen of the South qualified and Cardiff City almost qualified from the second division of their respective nations). Then that position was clarified by saying that if the winner qualified for the Champions League, the runner-up would qualify for the Europa League, but my question still remains what happens if the cup winner finishes 5th? Where do you get your information proving your answer? -- Grant .Alpaugh 14:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question hold until La Liga or Serie A could provide the answer. Raymond Giggs 02:17, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 08-09 UEFA Cup Regulations seem to indicate that the cup-winner's spot only goes to the runner-up if the cup winner qualifies for the Champions League. The statement on the 09-10 format is consistent with this. No other method for the cup runner-up to earn a spot they would not have gotten via league placement is stated in either place. The cup-winner's spot is the highest spot for any nation in the Europa League (this isn't obvious in England's case since they get another spot at the same level, but looking at other nations - Scotland, for instance, which gets only one spot in the playoff round - makes it clear), so I'm pretty sure a cup winner who finishes in the highest league spot short of the Champions League is given the cup-winner spot, not the league spot, and the two league spots are filled by the 6th and 7th place teams. Not likely to matter this year, unless Everton loses the final and falls apart in the last six Premier League matches (Man U and Chelsea have already clinched top-seven finishes, and Arsenal needs just one point or a single draw or loss by Fulham or West Ham to guarantee 7th or better). PiGuy314 (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So basically, the cup winner always uses the cup winner berth, unless they qualify for the Champions League, in which case they don't need the berth and it goes to the cup runner-up. This is because the only reason they would forfeit it would be to take a better berth, and there is no better berth in the Europa League available to a club than the one available via the cup. Have I got it? -- Grant .Alpaugh 21:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. By the way, thanks to PiGuy314 for his works as a "translator" on your actual problem. I guess there were quite some people who didn't get your question in the first place, including me. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Score table

Can someone web slice the score table. As for how to do this, please take a look at the following link (under 6. Teams and Standings) where the score table is web sliced. You will need IE8 to test out the web slice functionality. Sorry about the crude comment. http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/IPL_2 -- by 210.211.129.115 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top scorers

There is a discrepancy on the goals scored by Robinho and Darren Bent at least. For example, BBC, soccerbase.com and football365.com showed 12 from Robinho and 11 from Bent, while both the official site and the goal.com cut one from each player. I don't get the source of difference. Anyone could tell?Aa4 (talk) 03:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robinho has definitely scored 12. At a guess - the official site and goal.com haven't updated for this weekend? I know for a fact that the Premier League website can be appallingly out of date. Falastur2 ^Talk 03:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine :)Aa4 (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of title

Now given the situation is:

Manchester United clinched their 11th Premier League title.
Manchester United win their 18th English top-flight title.

Now I'd like you to think. Did Premier League have any direct connection other than promotion-relegation relationship with The Football League since 1992? Please compare (not refer) to the European Cup (UEFA Champions League) before discussing. Raymond Giggs 12:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's highly misleading to say that man utd didn't win their 18th title, this was how all other premier league articles (which had the box) showed it just yesterday before edits of HonorTheKing (talk · contribs) [3][4][5] etc. And I don't see why there would be any difference from the European Cup/Champions League, Italian Football Championship/Serie A, Division 1/Ligue 1, Division 1/Eredivisie, Division I/Elitserien or numerous leagues that have renamed various times (Danish Superliga, Norwegian Premier League), or how the second and lower tiers of Swedish football has been handled in later years, see Superettan, Division 1, Division 2, Division 3. chan dler ··· 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But United didn't win their 18th Premier League title. They may have won 18 English football league (note that I did not say "Football League") titles, but the Premier League isn't just a renamed version of the Football League First Division; it's an entirely separate competition, with the only connection being that both division are at the top of the English football league system. – Pee Jay 06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention that "other articles do it" is not a winning argument in Wikipedia...Falastur2 ^Talk 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"entirely separate competition" much similar to how most other leagues were changed (and what changed? the rules and teams and format follow the same as the year before). But no other league separate the titles just because the name changed. And that argument isn't we do it in "other articles" but rather, no other league does it. chan dler ··· 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the situation is with other countries, but if a new league was created, as opposed to the old league being renamed, then the count should restart from when the new league was created. – Pee Jay 09:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I don't actually think that little box under the league table is even necessary. The table shows pretty clearly which team has won the league, and the infobox adds the info about the number of titles that each team has won, so why do we even have that box under the table? – Pee Jay 09:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to add, it doesn't say in the little box "11th Premier League title" but rather "11th title" which without "Premier League" to the regular reader will probably indicate the 11th overall title. That is also the standard of all other leagues Serie A 2002-03 (25th Serie A title, 27th title) Serie A 2008–09 (15th Serie A title, 17th title). As I read it it doesn't indicate the 11th PL title but rather 11th title, so what about linking "18th title" chan dler ··· 09:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for the box I reckon is the {{winners}} which is located all over, for example World Cup articles. But sure I would be for removing them all on all season articles which has a infobox (that indicates this information, as I guess they have been added before infoboxes in seasons were the standard) chan dler ··· 09:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of removing all of the instances of {{winners}} and replacing them with infoboxes where necessary. Let's get to it! – Pee Jay 09:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There, I've done the Premier League-era. The infoboxes can be filled in better later... but I'm a bit unsure how the overall title should be written as. "English title" might be a bit unexplained.. Perhaps should be changed to "English league title"?chan dler ··· 09:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revival of "Standings-by-Round"

User:Ief has re-inserted a full Standings-by-Round table. Such a thing was rejected earlier this year upon the reason that there is no concept of rounds in English football. Is this still a community consensus or have minds changed in the meantime?

In any case, the official website of the EPL has decided to feature those tables (see here, here and here for examples). Any matches played in mid-week, unless they comprise a full matchday, are added to the standings of the following week.

Note that this is not a vow for "include" or "not include" since I am still uncertain to remove the SbR or not as well. Take the input rather as a starting point for another discussion. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a go at me for going against WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I don't like it. Can't we just delete on sight? – Pee Jay 10:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct is to say I don't like it too, but it does have some encyclopedic value- there's no other way to see at-a-glance for instance that Hull had a great start and tailed off dramatically, or that spurs did the opposite. What I definitely wouldn't like is for it to be on until the end of the season. Also, having gold silver bronze is rubbish- why not have either the colours from the table or no colour? Stu.W UK (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I can't stand the thing either. But since my reasons aren't up to Wikipedian standards (i.e. I just think it's an eyesore) I won't press my case. But if I had my way I'd delete on sight ;) Falastur2 ^Talk 21:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the colors - those are really difficult to implement as almost every league has another allocation system. So you need to code either a parameter holding the color for every number or make a different set of templates for every possible allocation. Coding a conventional wikitable is not an option as well as it would become very difficult to overview the code as the season goes on. Or do you want to revert 1758 times just because some IP f***ed up that table once again?

As for the table itself - that makes us four people who do not like it. Is this broad enough to be a consensus? ;-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed said table in a rush of boldness. However, the article is still around a whopping 80,000 bytes. o.O We should consider dropping further unnecessary information, if possible (can you say WP:NOT#STATS?) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, but I think that's an unfair reflection on this article's content. Compare, for example, with the article Henry VIII of England. That article rates at 62kb - still over Wikipedia's requested limit but more respectable and a very good summation, if by no means complete - Wikipedia is an ongoing project, after all. Now examine the size of the articles. Henry's page is about 1/3 longer than this, and includes substantially more actual information. Why the disparity? Simply put, the number of tables in this article. That little graphic of the location of the teams, in the Stadia section (which I think deserves a more prominent place in the article, but that is another thing) - 5kb. The results table? A whopping 22kb, that's a whole half of the recommended allowance in one go, and that table is by all rights tiny. I don't think we should sacrifice the information we have here because these tables are consuming so much space, and yet I am not sure how much smaller those tables can get. Already a lot of the inner functions have been devolved to template pages, and there are conceivable ways of cutting down the space further but each reduction requires greater coding skill. I think if you really want to save space on the article we should investigate requesting one of the Wiki's top coders create a space-saving way of creating it. Or heck, it's not ideal but we could do what such articles as the European Championship and World Cup quals do, and have the actual table calculated in a whole separate template, with this article only basically mirroring that template, kind of like an infobox. If you don't understand what I mean, try editing UEFA Euro 2008 qualifying#Group A and compare it's complete lack of table information with the way all of the coding for the table and results grid has already been done outside of that article, right here. Of course, while this cuts down on the kb size of this article, it just creates a whole separate article for the servers to handle, of exactly the same size...but it's a possibility, and one that is already in use. Falastur2 ^Talk 02:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in 2008–09 Premier League

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2008–09 Premier League's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "blstats":

From Premier League: "Barclays Premier League Statistics". premierleague.com. FA Premier League. Retrieved 21 February 2010.
From 2009–10 Premier League: "Barclays Premier League Statistics". premierleague.com. Premier League. Retrieved 26 October 2009.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

There is a dispute regarding the terminology used to describe when a manager does not volunterily leave a club. Input in to finding a neutral descrition of this process is needed to prevent firstly an edit war and secondly to improve the tone and quality of the article.--Lucy-marie (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sacked" is a perfectly usable word. Any term we use is going to have some sort of negative connotation, so since we commonly use "sacked" in the UK, we should use that. – Pee Jay 15:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well what about "Fired" that is in just as much widespread use as "Sacked" if not in wider use since its popularisation through a BBC reality TV show. The actual act of removing the manager is by terminating the contract. Stating "Contract Terminated" is the most accurate description of what is actually happening without getting into colloquialisms and "slang" words which are now in common usage.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fired is more of an Americanism. – Pee Jay 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Granted but it is also in just as widespread usage in the UK as other similar teminology such as Sacked or Dismissed or Ousted etc.--Lucy-marie (talk) 22:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion, should it continue, ought to be at WP:FOOTBALL as it affects more than just the 2008/09 Premier League article. And since Princeton University/the OED/Merriam Webster agree that "sacked" is appropriate, then I don't see why Wikipedia shouldn't. But of course, that's just my opinion. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an academic debate over meanings of words or an academic exercise over the interpretation of dictionary definitions. This is a discussion over the use of terminology that best describes the process of removing a manager from their job, while trying to retain as neutral a POV as possible.--Lucy-marie (talk) 13:01, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's "sacking". But as I suggested, if you wish this discussion to be of value, I'd centralise it, rather than just solve it for this specific season article, and get more input from other editors. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008–09 Premier League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.givemefootball.com/pfa-awards/steven-gerrard-is-the-fans-favourite
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.whoateallthepies.tv/2009/06/what_the_200809.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324065949/http://www.premierleague.com:80/page/Results to http://www.premierleague.com/page/Results

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2008–09 Premier League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]