Talk:2008–09 Premier League

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

text: 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)

text: Almost certainly graffiti, it's been changed back now. Falastur2 (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confirmed Teams 

message: 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)
thread_title: Wikinews invitation

message: 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)
replies: text: 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. – PeeJay 14:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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" Ko 04:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The cut-off date is 1 July 2008. Any managerial changes that occurred before that date should not be listed. – PeeJay 07:30, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Managerial changes 

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

text: 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 — chandler — 11:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Hmm... I don't see any extra space used on the left... could you screen it? — chandler — 18:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: (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?... — chandler — 20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Image:Borked Map.JPG Here's my screenshot of the problem.  --  Grant.Alpaugh 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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) — chandler — 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: What do you guys think of this one? User:Chandler/Map locator, I think I got the right coordinates when I made , and used the teams stadiums location.  — chandler — 08:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just one word: GREAT!!! Hockey-holic (talk) 21:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

text: The reason for using long/lat is  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 — chandler — 16:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: What about this one?  — chandler — 20:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: It's the template  all the info should be in the doc — chandler — 09:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Could it be that you're using Internet Explorer, as the map seems fine in Firefox. – PeeJay 12:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Map

message: 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)
replies: text: Well if it's copyrighted here, I'm pretty sure it's copyrighted there as well. — chandler — 05:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Referees 

message: 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)
replies: text: Everything I've seen is the same as last season.  Where did you hear that?  --  Grant.Alpaugh 06:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Do not fear, it is just pre-season stuff, apologies. 90.208.116.48 (talk) 16:27, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. – PeeJay 16:34, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Surely we should use STO? seeing as the first 3 letters don't clash with any other club? // Finns 18:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, though I think the reason for STK, is you can, at least almost, get Stoke out of 'saying' Stk — chandler — 18:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that is also reasonable :) // Finns 18:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  3 letter code for Stoke 

message: 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. // Finns 13:49, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But looking   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 // Finns 20:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy over Jermaine Defoe's goal 

message: 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)
thread_title: Mini-kits in kits table

message: Why is the minus sign for a negative Goal Differential not simply -, but instead —?  --  Grant.Alpaugh 22:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be a −, rather than an —. – PeeJay 22:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  GD in table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discipline/Fair play

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Season review

message: 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)
thread_title:  Standings-by-Round table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Including the Season Year in the Table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Yeah, I agree. --  Grant.Alpaugh 06:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: But the thing is different leagues can do different things. And that was the UEFA Cup, they've changed stuff like that. chandler · 09:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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. – PeeJay 18:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  European qualification 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 chandler · 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

text: 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. chandler · 23:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Encyclopedic content of "Goal of the Month" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Most goals in one half 

message: 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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPL_2 -- by 210.211.129.115 (talk) 22:46, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Score table 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fine :)Aa4 (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top scorers 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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    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. chandler ··· 04:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. – PeeJay 06:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention that "other articles do it" is not a winning argument in Wikipedia...Falastur2 Talk 09:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "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. chandler ··· 09:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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. – PeeJay 09:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

text: 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? – PeeJay 09:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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" chandler ··· 09:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The reason for the box I reckon is the  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) chandler ··· 09:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in favour of removing all of the instances of  and replacing them with infoboxes where necessary. Let's get to it! – PeeJay 09:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: 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"?chandler ··· 09:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of title 

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 :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: 
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⚡ 07:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:2008–09 Premier League]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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. – PeeJay 15:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Fired is more of an Americanism. – PeeJay 17:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:28, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081213151958/http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1486706%2C00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1486706%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090405211746/http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1611995%2C00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1611995%2C00.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090511012616/http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1652893%2C00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1652893%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) 08:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified