Talk:2007–08 Premier League

message: Can Any one Add clean Sheet table for EPL. Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.252 (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Sheet Table

message: I can see that Umbro has been confirmed as Reading's sponsor next season but I can find no evidence for this on the net or on Reading's club site. Can we please see some confirmation. Ultrabeater 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reading Kit

message: Match Table Added for Next Season  ¢нαzα93  11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Match Table 

message: For when the season starts should we have a 6 game form guide, like the one on the official website.
:Personally, I think that would be a bit difficult to maintain, and not very encyclopaedic. It's a no from me this time. - PeeJay 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry its a no from me, Simon? Chaza93 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Form guide 

message: I've added the most comprehensive list I can manage. Htb50 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Live Tv Rights 

message: Answer to User:El-Nin09's question: The black squares, what I believe you mean the gray squares that are place in the row/column intersection of the same team, use the color code CCCCCC. I think this is a good color because is not to dark to take the attention from the score squares. The blue code is DFE7FF and the red code is FFDFDF. I hope I understood your question and this answer it. Regards.--ClaudioMB 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the "new" table really an improvement on the old one? I'm suprised you have made such a major change without discussing it at Talk first (unless I'm missing something, in which case I apologise) . - fchd 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't discuss it before change. Maybe I should have done that. Anyway, the improvement is not much for readers, since, visually, the difference is minimal, but for editors, it's a great improvement because it is much easier to add new scores.--ClaudioMB 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I think that El-Nin09 actually meant the squares for future games which have not yet been played, not the squares blanked out because teams can't play themselves. The new table, while (I say this from experience) being much easier to edit quickly, doesn't load correctly in Internet Explorer (and possibly other browsers, I've only tested FF and IE7). The squares which don't have their own background preset - i.e. match squares with no results in (yet) are set to black for some reason, by IE. I'm not sure why it does that, but it does - I caught onto this fact when I looked up the table on IE7 at work earlier, and have subsequently tested it on my own IE7 at home. It does look a little ugly, I have to say, but I guess it's not awful - at least when results come in, the black squares are slowly replaced with correctly-coloured ones. Falastur2 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Calm down, man. It's not the end of the world. Internet Explorer has many flaws, and this is evidently a consequence of one of them. Just don't get in a stress about it. - PeeJay 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: OK, sorry for losing it a bit, can we not compromise and just use the Color codes to colorize the current table El-Nin09 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think colouring the table is necessary. It's easy to see whether the match resulted in a home win, an away win or a draw, just by comparing the numbers of goals scored by each team. The table is fine as it is now, and, provided consensus agrees, we should leave it that way. - PeeJay 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize, totally my fault. I didn't test the table in IE, I use Fire Fox. The for future matches were set like this "bgcolor#" what result white in FF and black in IE. Now, it's fixed. I'll place the "new" table back, then we can see what editors think about it. About the blue and red, it just makes much easier for readers see how a team is playing at home and away. But this could be change. The important about this table is the editing, not the layout. If wanted, it could look exactly like the "old" one. --ClaudioMB 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is just conjecture, but looking forwards to the end of the season, this new style results table is going to end up looking like a poorly-made quilt with all those different colours all over the place. The only thing this table has going for it is that it is easier to input the results this way. - PeeJay 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I have to say, now it is fixed, i would go with this table, it looks better and the Columns are equal widthsEl-Nin09 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The blue and red could be change any time. I'll improve the templates documentation, so, if necessary, anyone could easy change it in the future. Regards. --ClaudioMB 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Colors of the Result table

message: I'm curious as to why the standings table is sortable. It is really an unnecessary function, and when things are sorted everything is thrown into disarray when it comes to place for Europe/relegation status (the table becomes broken, for lack of a better word). It may be easier to update the standings at the end of each game, but I can't see there being a need for it being sortable.  --Snojoe 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I really wish User:ClaudioMB would discuss things here before making drastic changes like that. - PeeJay 18:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some people could find unnecessary, others, like myself, useful. I don't like to impose my taste to others, in this case, who doesn't like to sort, just don't use it. Anyway, since the table was not sortable before and nobody else, but me, want sortable, leave not sortable. I'll change the template to sortable be an option, so other article could use it. About the change, the code is drastically different, but the table's look is pretty much as before. Because the content, not the code, is the goal of Wikipedia, I didn't feel a discussion should be necessary. However, next time I'll open a discussion before do it. Regards. --ClaudioMB 07:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think having a sortable table would be very handy. Its handy to see who has scored the most goals, conceded the most et cetera. Is there no way this could be reimplimented? Codu (t)⁄(c) •  13:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The way to make the table sortable is adding the sort parameter in the first template, like this: . --ClaudioMB 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sortable standings table 

message: OK we do not do branding on this page can Coca Cola please be removed El-Nin09 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Like I have said before, I really wish User:ClaudioMB had consulted the discussion page before making such a wholesale change to the structure of the article. - PeeJay 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Qualification for the Inter-Toto Cup is awarded to the highest-placed team that applied for the tournament. There has been no indication that Portsmouth applied for entry to the Inter-Toto, so the colouration is applied to the next highest team who did apply: Aston Villa. – PeeJay 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: League Table

message: Just want to confirm one thing - it appears Deportivo la Coruna also have a Canterbury kit. Are we confident in saying the Portsmouth kit was first - if we are, can it be cited? 121.208.196.161 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Portsmouth Canterbury Kit 

message: I found it is very ridicious to put the goals scored outside 1 minute. Why don't we make the list into the top 10 fastest goals? Raymond Giggs 06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I'm inclined to agree. There is an entry for the fastest goal of the season in the Season statistics section, so I don't see why we need to have a separate table for just two more fast goals. – PeeJay 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest goal table 

message: I think we should included all goal scoreres for the whole season and then at the end cut it back to the top ten as i feel it will be easier to update as all the scorers will be on there, and having it as we do we could miss a player out when he reaches the top ten, what do you think? MotorSportMCMXC  08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, if people can be sure to keep it up-to-date. We did have all the scorers before someone, unilaterally, decided those with only one goal had to go!--Egghead06 08:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pointless, because then imagine how long the list would get, i propose limiting it to the one on here El-Nin09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.134.133 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think about 10 or 12 would be the right size for such a list, with all those tied for the last included place obviously included. - fchd 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's why I changed it in the first place, except I lacked the eloquence to explain it then. - PeeJay 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would advise that you do NOT do this until we are further in the season, otherwise the list will be stupendously huge at the moment! El-Nin09 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So we came to consensus to shorten this list to the top 10-12 did we? Must have missed it!!!!--Egghead06 07:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  thats why we got rid of the players who only scored 1 goal and as all the other seasons show the top 10 is the amount needed MotorSportMCMXC 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. What's the point in having a really long list of every player who scored a goal this season? - PeeJay 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that it is in work in progress. As pointed out, above, to have all names makes it easier to increment totals. At the END of the season reverting it to 10-12 would be the time to do it. Also there are ways of having scrollable tables of data within a fixed data box (ie the box stays the same size, the data scrolls within it, so not making a long list)--Egghead06 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please, please,please no to scrollable tables. These are an accessibility nightmare. As I said earlier in the thread, 10-12 names seems about right. If you add many more, the table loses it's impact. Keep "Works In Progress" to user pages and personal websites. This is an encyclopaedia after all. - fchd 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Several Premier League clubs have articles detailing their individual seasons, and these should include the information you are looking for. It is not necessary to put it in this article, as the top scorer for each club does not necessarily have a profound effect on the league season. – PeeJay 09:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Scorer Table 

message: Is there anyway we can make the article so only users can edit it as it is really annoying with people messing up the table? MotorSportMCMXC 15:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the policy: Wikipedia:Protection_policy.--ClaudioMB 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You cant do it just for that reason! El-Nin09 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Editing 

message: Are the Golden Boot standings going to include assists?  Most countries use assists to sort players with the same goal total.  Currently last name is being used.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.190.13 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: England isn't "most countries" though, is it? The Premier League ranks players with the same number of goals equally, so sorting by alphabetical order seems a logical way to organise the table. - PeeJay 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't they share it like Owen did a few years back? (Piyush90 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but the goalscorers have to be sorted in a table somehow, and since no record of assists is kept, alphabetical order is the best way to do it for players who are level on goals scored. - PeeJay 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Golden Boot

message: I have placed several Citation needed tags on the article, because it just says things at the moment that may not be true, please find some sources, or i will remove the uncited stuff in 1 week, so next Tuesday (2nd Oct) El-Nin09 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done - PeeJay 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - now you may think i am being really picky, and some of this is just General Knowledge, but i have placed some more tags on the article. El-Nin09 12:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also done. And perhaps it was picky, but I guess it was needed. Some of that info wasn't easy for me to track down for the placing of citations. Falastur2 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, ill be less picky on this article (easy, they are all done, hehe!)El-Nin09 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry about it. Pickiness is good when it benefits Wiki. Falastur2 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Which have now been cited. - PeeJay 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious Citations Needed

message: Piyush90, please remember that archiving is not about keeping material up-to-date. Talk pages are not articles - when the information in them is out of date, we don't remove the text, it remains there as a record of the discussions that have taken place. Though the first few points here are not relevant to the article anymore, they are evidence of user activity, can be referenced in debates in future on how to proceed, and exist to prove that such discussion has already taken place. The point of archiving, on the other hand, is to abbreviate pages which may pose problems in loading for users with slow internet connections. While approaching that point, this talk page does not yet really have enough information to be worth archiving. If your concern is with being able to see the latest talking points instantly, then I would point out that that is not what archiving is for, and that you can do this easiest by using the "end" button on your keyboard to instantly view the bottom of the page, or by using the menu to select the query that you are interested in. Please see WP:ARCHIVE on Wikipedia's policy on Archiving. Falastur2 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the "Isn't Fulham Safe" bit because it had nothing to do with this season as is therefore not needed. Furthermore, Talk pages are needed mostly for making the actual article better and more accurate - not just for talking. It has to lead somewhere. Plus it would get crammed with a million posts if we didn't clean up very old posts regulary.(90.201.204.209 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archiving 

message: The German Bundesliga table traditionally notes the previous year's league winner, cup winner, relegated teams, etc (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu%C3%9Fball-Bundesliga_2007/08).  Why isn't this done for the Premiereship? 69.231.199.194 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's not relevant to this year's table? - fchd 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table question 

message: This source,  shows that Rosicky's goal was actually timed at 95 mins. Also, seeing as the BBC just state the goal as 90, no matter how late it was scored, just a point. F9T 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Im going to change it F9T 05:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That ref no longer works and others show 90+4 - I've changed it back--Egghead06 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goal by Tomas Rosicky v Boro 

message: I know that the League Table has an update date just underneath the table, but it's in footnote font, which virtually no casual reader will catch. It should be made abundantly clear to the average reader that the table is only current as of a certain date. Also, it should be pointed out in the "competition or relegation" column that the teams in colors have NOT been promoted or relegated, only that they are currently in those slots. Otherwise, the average reader will think that, for instance, the bottom three clubs in color have already been relegated.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.187.178 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  The common reader is by definition not uncommonly stupid.  Most of the time the teams have completed different numbers of games, which unless you're a total nonce would make you realize the season is still going on.  I think its pretty clear as of right now, but then again I could be wrong.  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that it is standard practice, at least in the UK, to demarcate football league tables with the promotion and relegation spots, including the European places as shown on our table here. If you watch a football program such as Match of the Day or read the sports section of a newspaper, whether they're describing a non-League league or the Premiership itself, the table's promotion/relegation places will be denoted with anything from a dotted line seperating the different "sections" (promotion/relegation/mid-table), to the kind of colours that we have in this article, no matter what stage of the season. It's standard procedure to do this, and I think that if we remove the colours, all we stand to do is confuse those people who view this article and don't know how many teams in a league stand to get relegated/qualify for Europe. After all, when you look at a league table, if you aren't looking at it to find an individual team, isn't the first thing you do to check the table to see who stands to be in a different league/playing in Europe next season? Falastur2 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating the League Table 

message: Away kit is stated to be white with blue and black trim and third kit black - officially the "black" is "flint"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.28.176 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wigan Athletic Kit 

message: When you do so, it makes a wrong listing. Can someone try to fix this? Lindberg47 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean by this, I'm no good with Wikitables but I'll see whats possible. // F9T 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, due to the way that the code works, I'm pretty sure this couldn't be fixed without fundamentally rewriting the entire table code. Falastur2 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've improved the code, but seems to have a bug in the sortable table when there are negative values (sometimes, the software sort it as text, not as value). For ascendent, it works properly most of the times, but for descendent, it works just when the first line before clicking to sort it is already the first line after sorting. For the classification at this moment, try this: sort GD ascendent, then sort position ascendent (team with the most GD first), then sort GD descendent. So, I don't see a fast fix for this problem. If this is annoying, GD column could be unsortable. --ClaudioMB (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorting the league table by goal difference 

message: Would it be appropriate to make Tottenham's UEFA Cup berth indicated by a darker shade of yellow to indicate that they have clinched that birth by winning the Carling Cup?  Also, pretty soon Derby County is going to be mathematically relegated.  Would it be appropriate to darken their shade of red to indicate that they have already clinched that berth in the Championship next year?  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, please indicate it in the prose rather than further obfuscating the table. - fchd (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We could do both.  Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Competition berths clinched 

message: Help me please, How many yellow card has Emanuel Eboue (Arsenal) got in this season, involve all of the fixtures???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.71.143.105 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe he has two from the Premier League, though I would point out that this isn't the best place to ask. You'd be better asking on the Arsenal article page, or even better, finding a Wikipedian who is connected with Arsenal (i.e. makes regular edits to their pages, and asking them. Also, if you add comments such as these, please do not fill the bottom of the talk page with numerous timestamps. Thanks. Falastur2 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Emmanuel Eboue 

message: Does anyone have any clue who has actually applied for the Intertoto? I know of Everton and Man City, and I read that seven clubs have applied, but I don't know the other five. Until then, it may be a little hard to accurately place the Intertoto thingy on the league table - I see it's been moved to Aston Villa in 7th, but I'm not sure at all whether that's justified... Falastur2 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intertoto Cup 

message: The 6th-placed team will only qualified if Tottenham finished fifth OR Portsmouth finished fifth (and as FA Cup winner with Cardiff City as the losing finalists)
The 7th-placed team will only qualified if both Tottenham and Portsmouth finished sixth or above and Portsmouth as FA Cup winner with Cardiff City as the losing finalists. Matthew_hk tc 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 7th place could get a UEFA Cup slot from the Fair Play table...but that's already covered by another of the conditions, so I guess you're right. Falastur2 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That, and the spot allotted to the team that comes top of the Fair Play table isn't dependent on league position. Anyway, I've removed condition B, and reworded a few other things. – PeeJay 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: UEFA Cup

message: Shouldn't the table say relegation to Championship, rather than relegated which makes it sound like it has already happened. Currently even Derby County can still escape the drop.
:I guess Relegation is better than Relegated. Another option would be to leave just the Championship link.--ClaudioMB (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The templates would have to be edited to say relegation.  . --CWY2190TC 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Modified to Relegation. But I still asking if should say Relegation or leave just the Championship link. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Relegated/Relegation

message: There has to be a way to indicate on the table that Derby has been relegated as it is impossible for them to finish higher than 18th.  I suggest a darker shade of red or something.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually it was a bold (R) next to the team, but now that there's a template it very difficult to put this in. A few people have made several edits without success. I've tried myself (using preview) but haven't managed to work it out. If someone could add this it would put it in line with the format for previous seasons. Thanks Feudonym (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: And here we have yet another reason why User:ClaudioMB's campaign to templatify everything is a bad idea. – PeeJay 12:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to discuss here with you about the advantages and disadvantages of templates, because we already discuss it before. If someone else would like to discuss it, I could explain the advantages. Now, focusing in the problem. This is the first season these templates are been used, so, time to time something new comes up. If a (R) and a (C) (for champion) are enough to solve the problem, that could be included in the template. --ClaudioMB (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. Can't we have a standard table back, please? - fchd (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Second.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Personally, I see the advantages with being able to tell that Derby are relegated, but I disagree with its inclusion in the table here. It is simply not the way that tables are presented in everyday usage (think Match of the Day/other programs, think newspaper and website table updates). Also, it should be easily calculable to just about anybody, and I think the inclusion of anything different into the table would not be an improvement - a bold (R) is just unsightly and, dare I say it, crude, whereas changing the colour of the table would give the false impression that there are two parts to the relegation zone to anyone not familiar with the table, a la the "automatic relegation" and "playoff for relegation" sections that other leagues employ. Also, as someone who much experience altering both this template-based table and the other wiki-coded tables on other articles, the thought of changing back to a standard table fills me with dread. For such a meagre thing, and something which won't even have relevance at the end of the season, when there will be no need to indicate who mathematically can and who cannot still survive, we'd be increasing the workload/time spent to edit the table every time by I'd say around three to five times. It's fine for editting just one match in, but for a whole round of matches, personally it changes editting tables like this from a quick job to a hassle. If people insist on marking the table with something, is there no merit in just adding a comment down the bottom underneath the table? If we put it in normal-sized font and put it above the notes on European qualification, people would spot it, I'm fairly sure... Falastur2 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the easiest compromise is a bold (R) is just fine.  It's what every other table does and it's really not all that crude.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The template has been modified to accept an parameter "relegated=y" that will place a (R) after the team's name and an parameter "champion=y" to place a (C). But, after make the changes I saw a TV show placing the R in the position column, instead the position number, and I think that looks better. So, it should show after the team's name or in the position column? Also, I believe that after the end of the season, those letters should be removed.--ClaudioMB (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Derby Relegated 

message: Can we make the sortable table so that the sort box is moved to the side of the column label so that the table doesn't look so stupid.  As it stands now the box is under the label and the top of the table is really thick and looks stupid.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To be honest, I don't even know why the table has to be sortable. Sortability wreaks havoc on any rowspans involved, and there are few reasons why the table would need to be sorted by a different column. – PeeJay 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, so can we change it?  Also I remember reading that sortability freaks some browsers out and know for a fact that it makes the table a bitch to edit.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, I'm no fan of sortable league tables. As I recall, the code has a simple "|sortable=y" line or similar, we can just "deactivate" the sorting buttons there. Falastur2 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  sortable table 

message: Why are Man City listed in the UEFA Cup teams? I know they had a chance through Fair Play, but isn't there a draw to be made later for those places, and surely the red card against Boro would go against them.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.115.227 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Because, before this weekend, Manchester City were the highest placed team in the Premier League's Fair Play table (link here) that had not already qualified for European competition. As you can see, that table has not been updated since 5 May 2008, so it may still come to pass that Everton or Fulham, or even West Ham, pass City in the table. Until then, as far as we know, Manchester City will be England's Fair Play representatives in the UEFA Cup first qualifying round. – PeeJay 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everton's place in the UEFA Cup as 5th-place finishers is guaranteed now, thus they are removed from the running for the fair play league. It's essentially up to City and Fulham. Falastur2 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But the way it is shown in the table at the moment makes it look like they have already secured the spot, and it won't be fully decided until next week. - fchd (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester City 

message: I would question the reliability of the reference used to cite Manchester United's average attendance for this season. It says that the average is 75,642, but Manchester United's official stats website (http://www.stretfordend.co.uk/) says that the average is 75,691. Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe the club's own statisticians than a third party, particularly as my own calculations gave an average of 75,690. – PeeJay 08:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tony Kempster's site calculates it as 75691 as well. - fchd (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change the reference to use Tony Kempster's site then. – PeeJay 08:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Average home attendances 

message: I do not believe that this article's infobox should be making reference to Manchester United having won 17 top-flight titles. By all means mention it as a trivia item, but this article is about the Premier League, a competition that Manchester United have only won 10 times. The Premier League was set up as an entirely separate entity from the Football League, so to include the two sets of records together is a factual inaccuracy. – PeeJay 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Completely agree. The Premier League is a completely different title to the Football League. - fchd (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree too. Yeah they have won 17 top-flight titles, but they haven't win 17 Premier League titles! The infobox indicates Premier League, not English top-flight. Raymond Giggs 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Agree with this too - and to me, the above would appear to be a consensus, no? I'll sort it out now. // Finns 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothings getting anyone anywhere and its getting a little stupid now, even though I was doing it too - I have simply removed it until the dispute is resolved. // Finns 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I honestly believe that the infobox is a bit too crowded at the minute. Even on my laptop screen, which is 1280px wide, the infobox currently takes up over one-third of the width of the article, so I dread to think what it's like for people who are still using a screen resolution of 1024x768! I think that "10th title" is enough info for this infobox, and any further info can be expanded upon in the main body of the text. Surely this is a fair compromise? – PeeJay 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, if its crowded, just leave it out, for sure. // Finns 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Adding one more row won't break the infobox, and the width is not even an issue because the Man City Fair Play entry is longer.  There is simply no reason this shouldn't be included in the infobox.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean apart from the other ones that I've already suggested? – PeeJay 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Yes, thank you for providing us with references for a fact that not one of us was disputing. However, all but one of those links completely ignores the fact that the Premier League and the Football League are completely separate competitions. In my opinion, the fact that the Premier League is the top level of English football is completely incidental. This article is about a season of the Premier League, a competition that Manchester United have won 10 times. No more, no less. Any allusion in the infobox to other league title wins, whether at level 1 or level 24 of the English league system, is not appropriate. – PeeJay 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: I've just said that I don't think it should be removed from the article completely, just the infobox. Please try reading all the words next time, not just the ones you like. – PeeJay 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I had it last was in no way confusing, unclear, or too long.  There is no reason that this shouldn't be in the infobox.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Why would I change Liverpool's record to "4 European Cups and 1 UEFA Champions League"? The UEFA Champions League and the European Cup are the same competition. – PeeJay 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: They are not distinct at all. The Champions League continues the history and traditions of the European Cup, even using the same trophy. The Premier League, however, was established as a splinter group from the Football League. Unlike the European Cup to Champions League transition, which was a mere rebranding of an existing competition, the Premier League was (and still is) a separate organisation. By the way, I would thank you not to question my knowledge of football history, as it could be construed as a personal attack. – PeeJay 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While I understand that they are legally seperate, to pretend they don't share the same legacy is simply foolish.  The differences between the two are technical one, and anyone who can't see that is missing the forrest for the trees, I'm afraid.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please try to remain civil, Grant. Using words like "foolish" could be viewed as quite derogatory. Anyway, of course they share the same "legacy", but the two competitions' histories diverged in 1992. Simply put, the competition that West Bromwich Albion F.C. won this season is the same competition that Leeds United A.F.C. won back in 1992, only its status has changed due to the advent of the Premier League. – PeeJay 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I was attacking your action (i.e. not recognizing the fact that the Premier League and the old First Division are the same thing in all but technicality), not you.  Also, don't tell me what "might be viewed as derogatory."  Either you were offended by what I said or you weren't.  I agree the above comments by Jw were uncalled for, and the tone was a little harsh, but the fact remains, not treating the two competitions as the same is foolish.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 22:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: As per relating this issue to European Cups, the two scenarios are not alike. In the case of the Champions League, the difference between Champ. League and Euro. Cup is that the name of the competition was changed. Nothing more, nothing less. Same administrators, same status, same governing rules. The difference between First Division and Premier League is that the first Premier League setup was formed when 22 teams actually resigned from the Football League and formed their own competition. They did this because they disagreed with Football League revenue sharing etc, and wanted to be able to run the league themselves. Different competition, different administrators, different rules. The FA then endorsed it and included it in the English league pyramid. I suspect that if the FA had not endorsed it but had declared it outside of their control (assuming the Premier League had continued to thrive anyway) then we would not be having this discussion, but of course, FA endorsal was a foregone conclusion pretty much from the start. Falastur2 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh, please do start. I would love to see how much deeper you can dig yourself into this hole. Go ahead, prove me wrong. You have seven minutes to truly make my day. – PeeJay 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: He is right about this, though, PeeJay.  Regardless of technicality, everyone acknowledges that the titles from before 92-93 are tantamount to the ones after, and to suggest they are not is less than honest or rational, or both.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For the heaven sake, I don't know why you are arguing on this boring topic. It makes me curious. To stop this argument, putting two information in the infobox is the best method to solve this problem - One is the 10th Premier League title, another is the 17th English top-flight title. I don't think it is worthy to be discussed. (Hey! My surname is not "Giggs", please!) Raymond Giggs 07:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's my 2p worth....I think this article is about the Premier League and info in it should be about the Premier League. I don't have the time to engage in a deep discussion over this but if things like '17th top-level title' are to be included, that makes it out of step with many of the articles on previous Premier League seasons which do not show the winners total number of top level flight wins.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If this argument is still going, then I think it needs resolving, and soon. I suggest that we either vote on the issue, or take it to the arbitration committee/WikiProject Football page. It'd be pointless us just continuing to wage guerrilla warfare via edits otherwise; it's not constructive and it's not getting anywhere. Falastur2 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally agree to Falastur2. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manchester United titles 

message: Shouldn't we reference the part that says Derby won a game? :D (Thought we could do with some humour) // Finns 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference 

message: I think the talk page now is pretty long and heavy and need some attention, i have the proposal of archiving the talk page, i am open for comments on this. Kalivd (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Archiving of the talk page

message: Would Avrams sacking make him the highest placed manager in PL history to be sacked? 
Something to add to the records if its true  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.143.79.252 (talk) 13:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Avram Grant Highest Ever Placed Sacked Manager? 

message: 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 :2007–08 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: 
From 2009–10 Premier League: 
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⚡ 01:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:2007–08 Premier League]] 

message: During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
* http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/f/fulham/7163374.stm
** In History of Fulham F.C. on 2011-03-29 14:16:11, Error: [Errno 10053] An established connection was aborted by the software in your host machine
** In 2007–08 Premier League on 2011-06-16 02:03:29, Socket Error: 'An existing connection was forcibly closed by the remote host'
--JeffGBot (talk) 02:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dead link 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on 2007–08 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.premierleague.com/page/MatchReports/0%2C%2C12306~38399%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1116247%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1212757%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1236232%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918085431/http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1313130%2C00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1313130%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101230130252/http://www.premierleague.com/page/Statistics/0%2C%2C12306%2C00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/Statistics/0%2C%2C12306%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.chelseafc.com/page/NewsHomePage/0%2C%2C10268~1031634%2C00.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mfc.premiumtv.co.uk/page/News/ClubNewsDetail/0%2C%2C1~1076167%2C00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:22, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified