Talk:Premier League/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Big Four Article Needed?

I feel the big four needs its own article or at the very least its own section not just a sub-section under criticism. The emergence needs a more thorough look as Manchester United in particular and also Arsenal's dominance has been there for a long time whereas the Chelsea and Liverpool element has only been about since 2005. other things that need adding Grandslam Sunday, dominance in europe, and its pros as well as its cons. its such an integral part of the league now it really does deserve more than the sub-section it currently occupies.--Gaiushallivar (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that what you are suggesting borders on original research; particularly the pros and cons bit. Everything needs to be verifiable here and I don't think there is enough academic literature written on the Big Four. We have enough people trying to change this article to the Big Three as Liverpool haven't won the League in quite a while. I don't think the Grandslam Sunday is notable enough for an article really, or even to include it in this article, though I am open to suggestions. I would float it past WP:FOOTY first or create an article in your own sandbox such as User:Gaiushallivar/Big Four sandbox, otherwise it might attract the deletionists. Woody (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I have definatly read richard scudamore say on more than one occasion that having four dominant teams means we consistently have four teams who challenge for the title, although again liverpool do flatter to decieve a bit there. also the otherr pro would be the dominance in europe shown by having all four CL teams in the top eight seeds the first ever league to have four in the quarter finals and two years in a row has had 3 teams in the semis including the 3rd semi between chelsea and liverpool in 4 years and a finalist four years in a row. The gulf between the premier league and football league has an article for the same reason this should its integral to the league nowadays. and grandslam sunday definatly deserves a mention if at list in the section on fixtures as they haven't come randomly out of the fixture generator two years in a row SKY have asked for it. also the fact that chelsea have two players( at least) in every position and the general bigger sizes of squads for the big foutr could also be included. thanks for responding quickly by the way--Gaiushallivar (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The troubel you will have is finding sources for that. You have just listed original research in describing what, in all likelihood, is the increasing gap between the top four. We need sources so that we can verify it. It is original research at this point which is expressly forbidden under sore Wikipedia policies. Woody (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the very valid comment that much of what you suggest, Gauishalliver, would be borderline if not fully original research, I think you'd struggle to actually find enough content to justify a whole seperate article. But if you could find a good four or five solid paragraphs - akin to near a whole screen of text - then I'd support the creation, as I think that any individual subject matter which can be encyclopædicly discussed over a decent amount of text deserves its own article. I doubt whether you could find enough to say without repeating yourself, but good luck if you want to try. Falastur2 (talk) 02:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying however i just feel if there is an article on the 'premiership-Football league gulf' the Big four deserved one. as it is talked about just as oftenm i'm sure i can find some articles for citation. if anybody else is willing to help i would appreciate it.--Gaiushallivar (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

here is a good source!!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/teams/n/newcastle_united/7384247.stm86.156.172.58 (talk) 22:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Archives?

Can we archive all but the currently open issues? -- Grant.Alpaugh 07:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Done Woody (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Teams which won European Cups

I think one of the best statistics to demonstrate the nice competition in the Premier is the high number of different teams that have won European Cups (Champions League, Cup Winner's Cup, UEFA, etc). Don't you think this stat should be included? --El Pantera (talk) 09:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

While several English teams have won a European trophy, only four have won European trophies since the Premier League formed. Oldelpaso (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Move to English Premier League

Shouldn't this article be moved to "Englsih Premier League" do to the fact that there are other leagues across Europe and elsewhere with the title of "Premier League"? The Russian Premier League has its respective nation in its title, aswell should the English Premier League. I do recognize the EPL as the most common use for the term Premier Leauge, but it still can be misleading. 206.45.156.96 (talk) 21:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Russian Premier League is actually called the "Russian Premier League", though, or more correctly, the Championship of Russia. If anything, according to Wikirules the article should be "FA Premier League", it's only known as the "English Premier League" outside of England. As to whether we should add the FA prefix or not...I'm undecided. Falastur2 (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that the English language version of Wikipedia is not only used by people living in England!! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is no longer the FA Premier League, they dropped the FA and also the English part of the name in favour of a consistent global brand...the Premier League. http://www.premierleague.com/staticFiles/22/65/0,,12306~91426,00.pdf

Yes, they changed it to the "Barclays Premier League". I think this is an issue that needs to be addressed.Ynwa113 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Barclays is the sponsor, not part of the competition name. It's not Wikipedia policy to include the sponsor in the competition's article name - otherwise we'd have to change FA Cup to eon FA Cup, Football League to nPower Football League, Football League Cup to Carling Cup (admittedly it is known as this but when the sponsorship next changes it will still invalidate the name)...not to mention FIFA World Cup would become the adidas Coca-Cola Emirates Honda Kia Sony Visa Budweiser Castrol Continental McDonalds MTN Mahindra Satyam Seara Yingli Solar World Cup...and that itself will probably be out of date through sponsor changes one way or another within six months... Falastur2 ^Talk 00:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Premier League Wikia

If anyone is interested in helping to build a wiki especially for the Premier League - visit this link // Finns 20:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Irish players not considered foreign

Why does this article state that only 11 players were from outside the uk and the ROI when the league started? Being irish is just as foreign as being french, so is this statistic really relevant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.254.70.190 (talk) 15:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that due to the RoI's close history with the UK (remember that second-generation Irish citizens were still eligible for British Commonwealth passports until very recently) laws on who counts as a foreigner in various applications for business include people from Eire as native British in terms of paperwork and visas. Therefore, since Irish footballers have no penalties in coming to the UK to play, they are often included with British citizens in statistics. I believe that UEFA laws on homegrown players allow Irish citizens to count as British too. Falastur2 (talk) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

UEFA rules on homegrown players relate to which clubs they have played for, not what nationality they are. Republic of Ireland should be considered foreign, so to answer the IP's question: No, the statistic is not relevant and doesn't make sense. - MTC (talk) 05:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Only four teams have won the league? wot about liverpool?

Could somebody change it coz i am not sure if there's another team missing

It's correct. Only four clubs have won the Premier League. Liverpool last won the title when it was the old First Division of The Football League. Peanut4 (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yup. It makes more sense when you remember that this season was the 16th Premier League season, and Man United have won 9 times during that period - this year could be ten. Falastur2 (talk) 22:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a list of who won when on this page? 70.88.213.74 (talk) 21:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this page works well enough for that - and it's linked quite visibly high up on this page, so it's not very hidden. But your idea has some merit. Falastur2 (talk) 21:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

English football champions is also linked on the page. Again I have some sympathy with your idea, but the list would eventually become unwieldy. Maybe some compromise could be reached. Peanut4 (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Football did not begin in 1992. A change of name to the league did not make it a new competition. Ridiculous to ignore titles won pre 92. Therefore I have corrected the page to having Liverpool as most successful club with 18 titles. I'm sure Manchester United would also prefer to indicate their total number of League titles, rather than just since the name change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.60.93.35 (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am very much in agreement that football did not begin in 1992. But this article is not about "football" in general, nor about the top-flight of English football in general, but specifically about the Premier League, which is a different competition and which began in 1992 and which Liverpool have yet to win. --Jameboy (talk) 19:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why anybody would add Liverpool. Its now nonsense, would someone please take them off! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.176.105.39 (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Trophy

I think it would be a great idea to include a picture of the Premiership Trophy as is the case in most other tournament articles. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.41.139 (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the reference to malachite as being an African semi-precious stone as I believe it to be misleading and lacking citation. Judging from the article on malachite it can be found in a number of locations outside Africa as well. I've looked on the net to see if I could find any reference as to where the malachite used in the trophy was sourced from but without success. Most sites say "the base is made of Malachite, a semi-precious stone found in Africa," without actually saying that the mineral used in the construction of the trophy came from Africa. If someone can provide a citation that definitively states the origin as Africa- or indeed any other location- then obviously that should be included in the article; however at the moment I think that describing malachite as an African semi-precious stone is misleading- malachite found in Israel, England or The Urals certainly isn't African- as is the implication that the mineral used in the construction of the trophy would therefore be African. IrishPete (talk) 19:44, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alan Shearer's total League goals

I've read the archived discussion on this issue, but I'm still confused. The Alan Shearer page on Wikipedia currently states 260 goals, and the breakdown by season indeed does add up to 260. In the archived Talk discussion on this issue, mention is made of the Premier League website being wrong, but looking at that website right now, it also has 260 for Shearer. So, can we agree that 260 is the correct number and make sure that all pages on Wikipedia have this number? The page I was looking at when I noticed the discrepancy was the Andy Cole page, but I didn't want to edit it without being sure.

Ros brodie (talk) 16:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why not English Premier League?

Why is the English Premier League page just called Premier League and not English Premier League , in the same way that the top football divisions in Europe are done.

Examples of the proper naming convention are the Scottish Premier League (SPL), the Irish Premier League & the Welsh Premier League. The consensus that just because it is known as the Premier League in England, that it shows proper use is wrong - the SPL is also called the Premier League in Scotland!!

Please can other users debate which is the official Wikipedia viewpoint on this topic & can the final result be posted onto my usertalk page, thanks - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't conflate Great Britain with Europe. I don't see Ligue 1 at French Ligue 1 or La Liga at Spanish La Liga, etc. The reason the Premier League is at Premier League is that the league has rebranded itself as simply the Premier League. The Scottish Premier League is called the Scottish Premier League by their own choice. We use the proper names for things as often as possible and there is no league in Britain, Europe, or the world that could be confused with the Premier League, precisely because they coined the term and everyone else copied them. The reason the SPL is called the Scottish Premier League is because they themselves didn't want to confuse themselves with the original. I really think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. -- Grant.Alpaugh 20:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The Scottish Premier League was formed in 1998 and the English only renamed itself from the Premiership to the Premier League in 2007 - Premier League#Sponsorship - so don't try to say that it is the original use of the name, in Scotland it is still known as the Premiership (or English Premiership/English Premier League)'! - Dreamweaverjack (talk) 22:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It was called the F.A. Premier League since 1992-93, all they did was drop the F.A. from the title, you dolt. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The SPL official website calls it Scottish Premier League and at the top says "Welcome to the Scottish Premier League". The Premier League official website calls it the Premier League. It's not about what came first. It's about the official title. Peanut4 (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have renamed the section. Please direct all discussion on this to WT:FOOTY. Thanks. Woody (talk) 20

53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Also the point will soon be moot anyway seeing as the ECB have reacted to the Indian Premier League by restructuring the Twenty20 Cup into a branded franchise and so far seem to have called it, inventively and in a way which won't confuse anyone, the English Premier League. So in the interests of not having English Premier League (Football) and English Premier League (Cricket) it'll probably best to leave this one here, under its proper name anyway. Also I know no-one in Scotland who refers to it as the Premier League, all my friends who follow it call it the SPL. (Would have put it in footy page but it's been archived. Tony2Times (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Premiership

A note on it formerly being the FA Premiership, and that the name 'Premiership' is still often used colloquially (particularly in Scotland to distinguish it from the SPL) in discussions (and some news reports) seems a good idea. i quote the bbc's section 'LATEST PREMIERSHIP HEADLINES', the Prem's own site tagline 'The Official Website of the Premier League with in-depth coverage of the Barclays Premiership', http://www.football365.com/news/premiership/0,17032,8668,00.html and many more with premiership into google as evidence. objections? Jw2034 (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The word "Premiership" may be a common colloquialism used to identify the Premier League, but other than as part of a sponsored name, the Premier League has never been officially known as the Premiership. – PeeJay 08:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Not officially, but it has been referred to and sponsored as the FA (Sponsor) Premiership from its inception up until last season, and is still often refered to as the Premiership now. Will keep 'Premiership' as a colloquialism in the articleJw2034 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

LOOK ABOVE

TROPHY PICTURE ANYONE FOR THE PEOPLE ABROAD WHO DON'T KNOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE? It's an incredibly beautiful trophy and it deserves a spot on this page as mentioned above previously. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.110.42 (talk) 18:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you got a free, public domain, or freely licensed image that is not copyrighted to hand? If so, upload it at commons and then insert it here please. Thanks. Woody (talk) 18:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Trophy_of_FA_Premier_League --Jameboy (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Image now added. --Jameboy (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Qualification for European competitions

I originally asked a similar question on the page for the current league season, but this seems a more appropriate place to ask.

This article, which is referenced at the end of the sentence "Cup runners-up will not qualify for Europe unless they do so through their league finish" says that while League Cup runners-up do not qualify, FA Cup runners-up do. This link implies that the FA 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 but not the CL? Can someone please clarify the situation?

Thanks Stu.W UK (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I Think the spot goes to the Runner-up if the winner has already qualified for the UEFA Cup through the league (i.e Finishing 5th or 6th) The C of E (talk) 11:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is the image File:Fulham on the attack.jpg in this section? The image is about a FA cup game. The domestic cup is mentioned in this section, but I think this image is out of place. --EdgeNavidad (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Although UEFA makes various statements about which clubs will qualify for their league, in reality (unless otherwise enshrined in regulation) decisions about which league/cup positions gain a Europa League are decided by the league sending the teams. Since it was widely annouced that Everton were guaranteed a Europa League place simply by dint of being in the FA Cup final, before it was mathematically certain in the league, runners up can qualify via the Cup alone. I have removed the comment and the link, as it leads to the 'Page not found' banner on the FA's website. It may be that this situation is similar to the Champion's League qualification by Liverpool in 2005 - there isn't a law yet, but one will be made in the future, although maybe not until it happens! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.192.116.120 (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Welsh Club

How come that Welsh Clubs are allowed to participate at the English football league system? (e.g. Cardiff City). How do they qualify? By winning their National League? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.10.100 (talk) 19:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Six Welsh clubs play in the English league system (Cardiff City, Swansea City, Wrexham, Newport County, Merthyr Tydfil and Colwyn Bay). These clubs have all played in the English leagues for several decades, and because of this, there has never been seen a need for them to be relocated to the Welsh leagues, despite them being Welsh clubs. – PeeJay 01:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Winners medals

How many appearences or how much time on the pitch does a player need to make, to be eligable for a winners medal? The C of E (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Ten appearances is the minimum, although those appearances can each be less than a minute long if that is the case. However, a club may apply for special dispensation for a player who they think has made a significant contribution to their season without having made ten appearances, as was the case with Tomasz Kuszczak in 2006-07 and 2007-08. – PeeJay 12:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Expanding The League Article?

Does anyone think that a section is required about the possibilities of the league being expanded. We've heard for a while that Celtic and Rangers could be added into the league, and maybe the league split into A and B. Should someone add this section? Gaming-Kid2.0 (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Top scorers - goals per game

I would suggest adding #Games and calculated "Goals per game" columns to the "Top scorers" table, somethig similar to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany_national_football_team#Top_goalscorers - What do you think? Thanks Kvsh5 (talk) 13:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Is the information available from a Reliable Source? If not, it is will surely be Original Research. To be honest, I don't really see the point of it. - fchd (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is original research. It's just math (X goals scored divided by Y games played = X/Y goals per game). On the other hand, I don't see the point of having this information either. howcheng {chat} 06:40, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Soccer team Nick names

can anyone tell me a name of a book .Which tells the origins of Football teams nicknames? Bernice —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bernice Hyman (talk • contribs) 19:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not really the right place to ask that sort of question. Next time, try the reference desk. In the meantime, this book should suit your needs. – PeeJay 21:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Golden boot winners

The link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premier_League#Top_scorers) to list of golen boot winners is wrong -- it takes you to a page listing clubs that have won the PL (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_football_champions#Premier_League_.281992.E2.80.93present.29).

I can't find the golden boot page when I search. Does one need to be created? Mr. Wood (talk) 17:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

English football champions has a column on the right listing the the top scorer for each season, which should give you the inforamation you need. A separate article would merely duplicate this information. Oldelpaso (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Big Four" table

Why does the "Big Four" summary table keep getting deleted? It summarises the league performance of the "Big Four" in a much more readable way than the existing text, which is why I added it in the first place. And I don't agree with the comment "...it is heavily weighting to the big four which does not represent a neutral point of view". That whole section of the article is about the concept of the "Big Four"; it is amply sourced and written in NPOV. 81.142.107.230 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the table in question
"Big Four" since the start of the Premier League Season ARS CHE LIV MAN 1992–93 10 11 6 1 1993–94 4 14 8 1 1994–95 12 11 4 2 1995–96 5 11 3 1 1996–97 3 6 4 1 1997–98 1 4 3 2 1998–99 2 3 7 1 1999–00 2 5 4 1 2000–01 2 6 3 1 2001–02 1 6 2 3 2002–03 2 4 5 1 2003–04 1 2 4 3 2004–05 2 1 5 3 2005–06 4 1 3 2 2006–07 4 2 3 1 2007–08 3 2 4 1 2008–09 4 3 2 1

I agree with the IP, I cannot understand why this table is considered innappropriate. I expected to see some huge coloured monstrosity, but this is nice and small and inobstrusive, yet still imparts information. It surely cannot be considered a violation of NPOV when it is supporting an entire section called "Big Four" dominance, certainly not when it doesn't even stretch beyond the end of that section! (See here for article version). I support its reinstatement. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I've restored it as nobody has objected for 18 days. MickMacNee (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"Influence on the global game"

This section claims to look at the global significance of the premier league and then cites only nigeria as an example - as it currently stands its something of an anomaly within the article as a section and certainly not fitting of a featured article - while there may well be a valid point to be made about the significance of the PL on a global scale it seems to me that the current section totally fails to justify its place, I think it should be removed?Ajbpearce (talk) 22:56, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

"Incidently, Liverpool have never won the Premier League in its current format"

Why on earth is the last sentence of the introduction ("Incidently [sic], Liverpool have never won the Premier League in its current format, and have not won any since 1990") in there at all? We might as well also include "Incidentally, Aston Villa have never won the Premier League in its current format, and have not won any since 1981" or "Incidentally, Leeds United have never won the Premier League in its current format, and have not won any since 1992."

I could go on, but you get my point. I'll remove the sentence in question. Noisms (talk) 09:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

'Watching it on Sky/SkyPlayer

It would be nice to add details on how you can watch it, like on Sky or SkyPlayer (you can get ESPN on Skyplayer I think ...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.76.199 (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

There is now a squad size cap

There's now a squad size cap but the article still claims that there is not one. Needs to be updated —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.14.137.149 (talk) 23:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. According to new Premier League rules, each team have to register a 25 man squad by september 1st which cannot be changed until January 1st, with the registration window closing again on January 31st and not reopening again until July 1st. Also, the rules state that of these 25 playes, 8 players must have been under contract with an English or Welsh club for at least 3 years before their 21st birthday. Players that are under the age of 21 when the registration window closes August 31st need not be registred. I could not find any reliable source for this, but it is pretty well known. Edit: here's a link from the official .co.uk-page: http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0,,12306~2094341,00.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.45.173.125 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Establishment section

Is it just me or is the Establishment section of the article a bit odd? The heading suggests it will be about the establishment of the league, but it also contains information about changes to the number of teams, and other events that came long after its establishment, such as a recent change in name. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Establishment isn't the best title, it comes after the Foundation section which describes the initial foundation and establishment of the league. Any suggestions for a better title? Something along the lines of ==Development== perhaps or ==Recent developments==. A more radical solution would be to simply remove the titles altogether and let if flow a bit more as one section. Woody (talk) 19:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think "Development" would be fine, but not everything in the current section would belong in that section. The sentence about the first goal, for instance, probably needs to move up a section. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

European Club Forum

The article mentions the European Club Forum. Apparently this has now been replaced by the European Club Association, so the article needs updating. Does anyone know if the European Club Association is any different other than in name to the European Club Forum, or can we just change the name? Cordless Larry (talk) 17:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The club forum was disbanded along with the G14 and they both became part of the European Club Association. Updated the article accordingly. Woody (talk) 16:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Great, many thanks. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Noting managers past Premier League clubs

Re this edit. [1]. Why is a simple accounting of the prior Premier League clubs managed by current Premier League managers deemed "unneccessary". MickMacNee (talk) 23:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Why is it relevant? (it also needs sources). We already have List of Premier League managers and the introduction of the table is: List of current managers, it doesn't say list of current managers and any clubs they may have previously managed. What relevance does it have to the Premier League as it stands today. If a reader wants further reading on those managers they would click on their link or go to the main list. I also don't like the flags, either they should go in a separate column where they are expanded to include the name, or they should go in my opinion. Woody (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Just out of interest, do you think people often waste their time adding unneccessary information to articles? That's the implication here. Do you think this brand of arrogant personal preference based reverting is a good thing, or a bad thing, for Wikipedia, overall? I'm frankly not interested in arguing whether it is or isn't relevant, or what editors who want to know it would or wouldn't like to see, or would or wouldn't likely do, it's all totally subjective bollocks frankly, and you aren't likely to change your mind I don't think whatever I might say, not the guy who wastes time researching and adding this sort of unnessessary garbage to articles. You obviously don't like it, and I suspect you would be the kind of editor to go to the wall over it to make sure your opinion wins out, whether that's better for the article or not, so I'm out. As ever, interested readers now have the link here, if they want to know. For the record, if they do want to know this information, it takes about an hour to collate it by clicking through each individual article, which are on average as brilliantly and easily referenced as the removed content. For someone with no knowledge of English football, I would say to them, just don't bother. Oh you don't like the flags too? Good for you. Add/remove, I really couldn't give a monkeys, people can just guess from the second names. Martinez is a good Spoanish name for example. Nope, nationality is not something that is ever of interest in football. Infact, sod it, I don't know why I even added the table originally, seeing as we have the gloriously simple and easy to read List of Premier League managers sub-article just a click away. Just delete the whole section. MickMacNee (talk) 23:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't mean to belittle your work or offer any sort of slight on you but thank you for the psychological profile of me. As to the whole section, I wouldn't disagree with you if you did remove it. Thinking about it, it didn't have it when it passed FA/FAR (which is not to say it should or shouldn't be there). The media coverage section needs pruning as well. I have my opinion, you have your opinion, what a shocking state of affairs that I have my own opinion. They made bold, revert, discuss for a reason, you were bold, I partially reverted now everyone with an interest in the page should offer their opinion. Woody (talk) 23:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between having an opinion that is possible to debate on a talk page, and one that is not. 'I don't like this so have removed it until you can convince me I do' is frankly not an opinion anyone can realisticaly debate, you either have to suck it up and accept your opinion shouldn't count, or vice versa. What you could have done is left it there, and simply asked for feedback. It's not like it was causing a size/format/layout/readability issue, it's presence wasn't so horrid that it caused you physical revulsion at the sight of it I'm sure. Simply reverting it after it had been there for about an hour, is likely not even going to be noticed, let alone produce a noticeable backlash here. People just don't bother to get involved for such things in my experience, I'd be amazed if anyone even comments. Wikipedia:Don't revert due to "no consensus" and Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary are good reading. MickMacNee (talk) 00:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I laid out my reasoning for it not being relevant, where is yours for inclusion? Is my position any different to yours? You seem to be a hell of lot more entrenched than I am. Woody (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Your reasoning was that it is irrelevant to the premier league, and that it can be found if you just spend an hour clicking 30 odd biographies, or spend the time to figure out the laughingly complex and inaccessible all managers ever list. That is not good reasoning, not for Wikipedia. Like I said, I have absolutely no doubt that there is not a single thing I could say to change your mind, where you would suddenly realise that it is relevant, so seriously, don't waste my time or yours by pretending it's going to happen. It's out, your happy, it's all good. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Attendances

Average attendances are currently discussed in the finance section. I suggest that a better place for this information would be its own section. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree & it would be good to see a % figure, not just numbers - if a club has an average attendance of 20K are they half full or do they have a smaller ground?Tattooed Librarian 16:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TattooedLibrarian (talk • contribs)

I've now split this off into its own section. Help with expanding it along the lines outlined in the comment above would be appreciated. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Owen Coyle nationality

There seems to be an edit war going on regarding Owen Coyle's nationality, with one editor insisting that he is Scottish and others that he is Irish. Perhaps this can be discussed here rather than via edit summaries. For what it's worth, I can see the merit in arguments for both sides. That he played for Ireland doesn't mean he's an Irish citizen, which is what nationality implies, and one might argue that the nation he represented as a player isn't relevant now that he's a manager. So the question is, does the FIFA definition of a player's nationality also apply to managers? On the other hand, it's clearly not possible to be a Scottish citizen, so if we don't go by the FIFA designation then all Scottish, English, Welsh and Northern Irish managers need to be classified as British. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Coyle was once a player. He played for Ireland. He's Irish. – PeeJay 12:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I'm not sure that having played for Ireland makes him Irish. He appears to consider himself to be Scottish: "Scotland has always been known for churning out decent coaches but I don’t really know why and I don’t know whether being Scottish has helped me". Cordless Larry (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

On a related note, the line before the managers table states "Players and managers may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality". Do the FIFA eligibility rules actually apply to managers? Cordless Larry (talk) 13:17, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems that a solution has been found! Cordless Larry (talk) 15:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Got distracted when I was going to post here. This little issue has been around since the managers template was introduced: one way to avoid any issue is to simply remove the flags completely. The List of Premier League managers has the nationality and far more information than this summary list could ever provide. So, easier to just remove it than constantly argue about it. Woody (talk) 15:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it's a good solution. Cordless Larry (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

For the purposes of that list of managers, Coyle is Scottish. The flags were national flags, not national football team flags. And Scotland is a nation. This is all completely and utterly verifiable and defensible, as above. Suggesting otherwise is infact likely to be a BLP violation. The edit war is ridiculous, but the solution ever worse. And again as above, if the other list is so brilliant and comprehensible, just remove the whole section here. But it isn't, and this would clearly be a detrimemntal change. But going backwards content wise seems to be the curse of this article, it definitely has no right being an FA right now. I would have got involved myself as I saw it unfold, but I learned a long time ago to never even bother engaging with PeeJay2K3, he is an extreme edit warrior, and nothing like this is ever going to go smoothly while his conduct is consistently ignored by admins. MickMacNee (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I would take umbrage with the article "going backwards content wise." What are your particular worries or is it just the managers list? In regards to the FA comment, there is an active FAR, feel free to elucidate there in relation to the FA criteria.

As I said in the section above I didn't think the flagicons were adequate, why not the whole nationality, it needs to be explained at least once? As it is, you didn't add a definition so someone else added their own, one that has been discussed and dissected to death by FOOTY (If you have a spare hour or two, feast your eyes on this discussion or this one which led to the whole FIFA nationality line on all squad templates.) Woody (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of it, which is why I used {{flagicon}} and not {{fb}}. If it makes a difference, we can use {{flagcountry}} The FIFA nationality debate was idiotic, and driven by the usual Irish-British disputes rather than football article improvement goals. It never should have gone on for so long, or come up with such an awkward solution, which still makes no sense to the average reader. My main issue with this FAR is the focus on minutia like ref quality, while large chunks of dissimilar text is lumped into the same section for reasons of, well, I don't know why tbh. The Home Grown Rule for example has nothing to do with foreign players. The information on historical signing rules has completely dissapeared it seems. The monthly awards have nothing to do with the Trohpy. I'm sure there's more issues like that too in all the recent restructuring. But it probably could never be an FA with PeeJay2K3 around, it would forever be undergoing one edit war or another. I'm still waiting for his explanation as to why this article uses 1992-93 together with 1999-2000 in the long tables, as if readers were total retards. MickMacNee (talk) 16:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you on the nationality debate in terms of its solution. In terms of the FAR, I've also wanted deeper reviews than stylistic issues: if you have your opinions, please bring them forward on the FAR page. I have moved the trophy section out of "Awards" and up to the top of the article and "10 seasons" has its own section now.

I disagree with you on Foreign players though. The home-grown rule and foreign players are related: they both refer to the regulations surrounding foreign players. The Home-grown rule is directly linked to foreign players. I have renamed the section to Squad and transfer regulations now to be more encompassing. The "past regulations" that you refer to seems to be the para that simply said the Premier League had to follow British employment law. That seemed self-evident. The recent restructuring was intended to cut out the crap that had accumulated and merge related mini-sections. When I read through the article now, the sections are all relevant to each other and the article flows. Woody (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The flags are back and Coyle is down as Irish. Once again, I don't think that we should be using FIFA nationality rules, which apply to players, to classify managers. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Worldwide TV Viewship figures mythology.

It would be nice if the Premiership and this Wikipedia article got some relevant knowledge of viewing figures, China in particular. I lived in China for the last decade and have never met anyone who has ever watched a game, in fact most people I have talked to have never heard of the Premiership. As the article http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/clubs-furious-as-league-fails-to-turn-on-chinese-fans-781388.html shows, the level of viewership in China is essentially nil. I know the Premiership likes to boast about itself but if the viewing figures were as suggested in the link in the main article page then why does the Premiership get very little money from these broadcast rights. The reality is that the Premiership likes to brag about mythical figures when in reality the product doesn't sell well in China. My experience is that by far the dominant foreign leage in China is the NBA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.10 (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Your comment suggests you are unfamiliar with the story of what's happened with the Premier League in China over the last couple of years. The PL thought they had spotted a perfect chance to raise a whole ton of cash in the Chinese market, where previously they had dominated and literally pulled millions of viewers where games were being shown on a free-to-view channel. They signed a deal with a new subscription channel thinking the fans would rush to sign up - I think the TV channel is run by a European who had masterminded the idea originally. The actual result was that Chinese fans, with no actual allegiance to English football over other leagues, deserted the Premier League en masse to watch Serie A and La Liga, which remain free to watch. That TV channel only got something like 10,000 subscribers initially from millions of fans originally, and massively tarnished the reputation of English football in China - indeed, when it first happened some were speculating that the Chinese market could be lost to English teams for years to come, now that the Chinese fans are picking their favourite teams from Spain and Italy instead.

This situation is a recent phenomenon, and no-one knows if it will prove to be permanent - certainly it will be until the PL breaks their agreement with the subscription channel, which will probably go out of business soon anyway. This situation at any rate is not one which is representative of the PL's viewing figures in other Asian countries, where by and large it enjoys the dominance over La Liga and Serie A that it formerly had in China. Falastur2 ^Talk 02:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I only left China for the UK a few weeks ago after living/working there for a decade. NO one was watching La Liga or Serie A either. European football, despite fanciful projections here, is not exactly a mainstream product in China. As I said in my earlier comment, people I lived and worked with have never even heard of the Premiership or Serie A/La Liga either. And I didn't live in rural China where you might expect that. I remember a couple of years ago where Sky Sports were claiming a billion people were watching a Man Utd. - Arsenal league game. The Independent newspaper investigated this and found the actual number was 7 million of which 4 million was in the UK, 1 million in N. America, 1 million in Europe and the remaining million or so scattered in teh rest of the world. If the Premiership really could draw in 100 - 360 million in China alone (as the idiotic link on the main page said was "likely", note the word usage) then it would dwarf any Chinese native programming and would be by far the most watched TV product in the world. This of course is nonsense. The only foreign sports leagues that has a real following in China is the National Basketball Association and though dwindling in popularity Formula 1. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.150.177.10 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what the current status of the Premier League is in China, but the source for the 100-360 million claim is seven years old. That alone probably means that we should try to find a more up-to-date figure. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added an additional sentence about the low viewing figures on subscription TV. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

English football league??

The article states that it is an English league for English clubs. This isn't true. Sure, at this moment in time there are no Welsh teams in the league, but I'm pretty sure that won't be the case next season. It's most likely that Cardiff City and possibly even Swansea City will be playing in the Premier League next season. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.124.221.20 (talk) 13:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Managers table

Does anybody else think the managers table here is unnecessary? This article gives an overview of the Premier League, so there is no strong reason to name every competing manager. For example: is there value in listing every current Premier League stadium or club owner? Also, note that the table is uncited, and largely redundant to the one in this article (although if you think that that table isn't as accessible, we could just add this table in that article under a new section, "Current managers in the Premier League").—indopug (talk) 17:03, 21 November 2010 (UTC)