Talk:Premier League/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Owen Coyle

The flag icon for Owen Coyle should be Ireland. Although he is obviously Scottish, the fact that he played for Ireland is enough to make his "nationality" Irish for the purposes of Wikipedia football pages (check out other similar examples if you don't believe me, eg Bruce Rioch, Ryan Giggs, Stuart McCall, John Aldridge, etc). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.205.136 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because he played for Ireland once doesn't make him an Irish manager. As discussed before, we have reliable sources in which he describes himself as Scottish. I will therefore revert this edit. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree he is a Scot, is Di Matteo not Swiss? McCarthy is English? I'm unsure of what classifies a manager, just because he only played 1 game for Ireland is that less significant than 57 games? I presume the reverting is more to do with Celtic/Rangers Irish/British than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xenomorph1984 (talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

No it appears to be nationalism, people trying to 'claim' players and managers, I am a Celtic fan and I think he should be Irish. He should have an Irish flag because it is Wikipedia policy that a player (or manager) has their FIFA-defined nationality listed as their flag, wether he has played 1 or 100 games, and irrespective of what the person themselves claims. Adam4267 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not trying to "claim" anyone. There are reliable sources describing him as Scottish (see here). Where does Wikipedia policy state that a manager should be described according to which country they previously played for? Cordless Larry (talk) 12:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is for people to have their FIFA defined nationality not their born country, unless their are no caps, you say you are not tyring to claim anyone but you havn't said Mick Mcarthy should be English or that Di Matteo should be Swiss. Adam4267 (talk) 20:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Again, I ask where is that policy written down? McCarthy and Di Matteo's nationalities can be supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources have Coyle as Scottish. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if this policy is actually written down but it does apply for players so why wouldn't it for managers, the source you provided describes him as scottish and irish, because he is Irish in footballing terms. Isn't he? also where can the other two's nationalities be supported. Their has to be consistency in flags otherwise people would be confused as wether it was a birth flag or national representaion flag, currently the flags are supposed to be FIFA eligibility flags so people know that it is the country that person represents at football not necessarily either of the previous two. Adam4267 (talk) 20:41, 7 February 2011 (UTC) note: discussion opened here

That's what I was driving at - there may be a policy for players but I don't see why a manager's nationality should be defined according to FIFA rules that are designed for players, not managers. A Google search returns plenty of results to support McCarthy and Di Matteo's nationalities, whereas there are more results suggesting Coyle is Scottish than Irish. Note that he has also described himself as Scottish here. I welcome wider discussion of the manager nationality issue though. One way to resolve this might be to remove the flags altogether, although I remember that that was tried before and they were reinstated. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, the source I provided before doesn't describe him as Irish. It says he is a "Scot" and a former "Republic of Ireland international". That's not quite the same as saying he's Irish. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

In the football world on WIKIPEDIA a players national flag is that of the country they represented , Jean Tigana , Edgar Davids , why should it be different for managers? And to draw point on the same table Mic McCarthy HAS an IRISH flag !!! Burnley or Paisley doesnt matter once you pledge allegence in football then it becomes your nation . Also that fact that to play for Ireland Coyle had to apply for a citizenship of Ireland , as it is not part of the UK he needed an Irish passport to play not a British one so in doing this gave up , in the footballing sense a claim to be British or Scottish .

I had this short discussion 6 months ago. In those days I was a WikiYouth and so didn't counter Falastur2 back, but I still stand by what I said then. —Half Price 23:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

@CordlessLarry; it is written down at Wikipedia:MOSFLAG#Use_of_flags_for_sportspeople (not policy, but guideline).--ClubOranje^T 10:59, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but it's not clear to me that that is meant to apply to managers. Note also that it states: "If the use of flags in a list, table or infobox makes it unclear, ambiguous or controversial, it is better to remove the flags even if that makes the list, table or infobox inconsistent with others of the same type where no problems have arisen". Cordless Larry (talk) 11:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality." In Owen Coyles case thats Irish . McCarthy has an Irish flag why not Coyle , same criteria met . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.197.59 (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

9titles?????

Since Blackburn Rovers lifted the trophy in 1994–95, only three clubs have won the Premier League title – Manchester United (nine of the club's eleven titles), pretty sure that is totally incorrect —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.108.210 (talk) 17:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

It is correct, they won 9 after Blackburn and 2 before, see Here ("Big Four" dominance).
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

plus 8 others. should be made a clearer distinction that it is premier league era only —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.73.108.210 (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

This is an article on the Premier League, I don't see how much clearer that we could be. The whole article talks about the Premier League and all statistics only refer to the Premier League. I don't see how that could be misinterpreted to be honest. Woody (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Only problem is that all articles are linking to Premier League with it's intend to represent the top tier of English Football and it's history, not just the history from it made some changes... All other top leagues in other association are following that example and many of them have also made huge changes in format. Why Premier League should differ from that norm puzzles me. Engolfer (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Liverpool manager

The Liverpool manager needs to be changed to Kenny Dalglish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommurphy86 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

It is been done by someone. 217.132.161.225 (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Atj00001, 9 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Players in the Premier League compete for the Premier League Golden Boot, awarded to the top scorer at the end of each season, as well as for Golden Boot awards for the first person to score 10, 20 or 30 goals in a season. They can also compete for the informal competitions of Goal of the Month and Goal of the Season. Former Blackburn Rovers and Newcastle United striker Alan Shearer holds the record for most Premier League goals with 260. Shearer finished among the top ten goal scorers in 10 out of his 14 seasons in the Premier League and won the top scorer title three times. During the 1995–96 season he became the first player to score 100 Premier League goals. Since then, 18 other players have reached the 100-goal mark.

Atj00001 (talk) 18:59, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, done, though I changed the link to fit the new name for your article as complies with WikiProject Football naming standards. I'm going to go through your new article next and give it a clean-up for style, if you don't mind? Falastur2 ^Talk 00:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Stoke City Club and Manager issues

In the Clubs Section, Stoke are listed as One of the original 12 football teams, but also as Never been relegated from the Premier League - is that correct? --Ire2500 (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, they were one of the original 12 Football League clubs. That is a separate entity than the Premier League. They were promoted to the Premier League from the football League in 2008 and have played in the Premier League for the 3 seasons since. Before that, they hadn't been in the top tier of English football for 21 years. Woody (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

|ans=

Stoke manager Mark Hughes has not yet been added to the Manager- Club- Appointment date yet, Please can someone upload it because I tried and everything messed up so hve undone it or if you can tell me the layout I need to do it so it displays on the Wikipedia site please inform me so I can do it, either way it needs to be done. (W-E (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC))

Putting to much into the UEFA Coefficients

Article says:

"It is ranked first in the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA) coefficients of leagues based on performances in European competitions over the last five years, ahead of Spain's La Liga and Germany's Bundesliga."

First of all, this sentence gives an impression that the UEFA Coefficients are some sort of official rank of the leagues themselves from UEFA. However I fail to find any place were UEFA have referred to the UEFA Coefficients as something resembling an official ranking of the entire leagues. Instead the coefficients purpose ought to be regarded more as a tool of fairly distributing seedings and how many teams and at what stages each country are allowed to compete with in upcoming European Tournaments based on that country's recent performance. Notice how UEFA constantly uses "Country Ranking" and not "League Ranking" probably to stress that the coefficients are a measurement of how well a country (possibly including teams from lower divisions due to cups) have performed and not how they would rank a league as a whole. Also worth noticing that the coefficients does not whatsoever take into account to which extent the various leagues are even or very uneven, which you would think would be very important had the coefficients been meant to be an official rankings of leagues.

Secondly, technically the coefficient numbers for the ongoing season are only preliminaries and until the European Season (Champions League and Europa League) are completed in May, they should not be regarded as current rankings of leagues performances in European Cups as the preliminary 2011-ranking only includes 4 completed seasons and one on-going. Consequently, it should say "ahead of Spain's La Liga and Italian Serie A."

To summarize, I am not really disputing whether the English Premier League currently probably is the best European Football League, but I find it somewhat misleading to present the UEFA Coefficients as something that can easily be interpreted as an official ranking for leagues. I think the fact that England is having the highest current Coefficient (use the 2010 numbers, the 2011 are not official until the European Cups are completed) is indeed interesting and worth mentioning in the article, but maybe not in a context that may suggest it's an official ranking when it's not. It should probably be mentioned in a section about Premier Leagues performances in European Cups where it is interesting to know that England currently has the highest coefficient based on their performance in the seasons 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 77.105.200.121 (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Enigmo

Managers table

is their a way that we can make the manager table show the actual order of appointment rather than a random assortment of managers appointed in the same year. Adam4267 (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

An obvious solution would be to replace the appointment years with full dates. That would be more informative too. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

The West Brom manager needs to be updated now Roy Hodgson has been appointed manager (41.242.177.87 (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2011 (UTC))

 Done
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Logo lion

The lion in the logotype bears strong resemblance of the Medici lions. Anyone who can confirm that the Medici lions were the source of inspiration? Thanks, /Urbourbo (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It's an interesting point but unless we can find a source, I don't think that the lions article should say "The logotype of the Premier League bears strong resemblance". Cordless Larry (talk) 02:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Reasonable. Now moved to the article's talk page. /Urbourbo (talk) 20:19, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 174.116.224.15, 21 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The table of current Premier League teams has Aston Villa being in the top division for the last 100 years. In fact, they were relegated in 1987 and were then promoted in 1988. That means they have only been in the top flight for 23 years.

Thank you

174.116.224.15 (talk) 16:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Not done: This isn't 100 consecutive years in the top flight, just the total number of seasons. Barret (talk) 16:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, hence the "First season of current spell in top division" column, which confirms that Villa were last promoted in 1988. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sponsors = advertising = against Wikipedia policy

"23:30, March 31, 2011 MickMacNee (talk | contribs | block) (96,336 bytes) (Undid revision 421645031 by Grant65 (talk) I think you'll find common practice is to document sponsor names)"

No, it isn't Mick. In fact, I used to cite the absence of sponsors in this article, along with Major League Baseball (which still doesn't mention them) as examples when justifying my removal of sponsors from sports articles.

I think the reasons why organisations like Wikipedia or the BBC ignore sponsors names are well-known. Sponsorship is a form of advertising. It isn't just that they haven't paid to advertise here; no-one can advertise here. I suggest you have a careful read of WP:ARTSPAM and WP:SOAP in particular.

Grant | Talk 01:48, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit. Mentioning the fact that the Premier League is sponsored by Barclays Bank is imperative, especially considering that the competition is very commonly known as the Barclays Premier League. I agree that we shouldn't refer to the sponsorship on a regular basis, but to completely ignore the sponsorship would be lunacy. – PeeJay 04:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The BBC ignore sponsor names now? Since when did they do that? I just did a google search on the BBC domain for the term "Barclays Premier League" and got 12,800 results. TWELVE THOUSAND. Not to mention the name "Barclays" is clearly in evidence in the following places: the table on the right on the main Premier League page, the full table, on the list of club fixtures, on the predictor, on the results bar on the right, and down in the "Live text and stats" section down the bottom.

What's more, your reference to WP:ARTSPAM suggests that you are the one who needs to re-read it. Let me list some examples:

Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website.

Kindly show me the sales-orientated language and external links to Barclays and their products.

However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities.

An absolutely vital truth you seem to have forgotten.

Elements of articles about products or services with brand names can also be combined under a common topic or category to facilitate unbiased and collaborative information by including information about the competition and about different alternatives.

Even ARTSPAM says to keep the article and the references as long as it is NPOV. Your citation of WP:SOAP is even more comical, since SOAP is about soapboxing, and this article is about as far away from broadcasting an opinion as you can get. SOAP even states:

Advertising. All information about companies and products are written in an objective and unbiased style.

So again, your cited WikiPolicy clearly states you should keep the references to Barclays in this article. Finally, I'll point out that Wikipedia clearly establishes that "I've cited this article before for doing this" is NOT a valid reason to resist change, so that you used to reference this article as a reason for refusing to add sponsorships to other articles is not just a dubious justification for removing references now, it's actually against conduct for all those articles you cited your own precedent on...I rest my case, m'lud. Falastur2 ^Talk 05:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Essentially, what Falastur2 said. There is nothing in the spirit or letter of those guidelines that states that the simple listing of a sponsor constitutes advertising. Those guidelines even state that neutral, objective wording is perfectly allowed. I don't see where it states the simple listing of a company constitutes advertising. Do we have to delete every article on a company, brand, website? No, of course not. They are simple, neutral listings of facts surrounding the company, much as it is here. If we referred to the league as the "Barclays Premier League" throughout the article then perhaps I could understand your argument, but as it is I can't. Woody (talk) 12:28, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not even following the MBL comparison. If you look at their website, it doesn't even appear they even use title sponsorship, so what relevance has it to this article? MickMacNee (talk) 13:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

To borrow from Shakespeare: you blokes seem to protest too much.

Mick: errm, well it's simple – we are writing WP, not the MBL website so, the comparison is the MBL article...or National Football League, 2011 Cricket World Cup, Wimbledon Championships, Fußball-Bundesliga...or hundreds of other WP sports articles on WP that do not mention sponsors, even though the events all have them (as becomes obvious when you see them on TV). Why do think that is?

Woody: the "company" here is the EPL not the bank. Does the article on Barclays mention their stationery supplier?

Falastur: Clearly the BBC's standards's have fallen a long way. And now ours as well. You quoted this: "including information about the competition and about different alternatives". So we can look forward to your section here on Lloyds and rival bids for the EPL sponsorship etc? "Comical" enough for you?

Jay, "bullshit" is in the eye of the beholder. And what I see here is regurgitated bank marketing bullshit. Also known as "advertising". Do you say "Barclays Premier League" when talking about it to your mates or family? Thought not. Because very few give a rat's arse who sponsors the EPL....unless they work for Barclays.

I could also have cited WP:UNDUE, since all Barclays have done to get mentioned is hand over some cash...as opposed to anything intrinsically related to the sport.

Grant | Talk 16:51, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Grant. I will happily add a section on bidding for sponsorship if I can find the information. I think that the talk about how much companies pay to sponsor this competition, and how much others are willing to bid, is just as interesting as the amount the PL makes from selling media rights and how much it gives in prize money, and I am not joking on that issue.

To highlight my point however, I would like to point you to this list of the teams at the top level of world road cycling - i.e. the Tour de France, Lance Armstrong, and all of that. Should we remove the sponsor names from the teams, plus all references to sponsors in the cycling articles (for instance, all references to "Astana" on article Lance Armstrong? They are sponsors, and do nothing except "hand over some cash" to get their names there. The thing is, those teams have no other names and reform every time they find a new sponsor (teams in road cycling only derive serious money from commercial sponsorships), yet the sponsor does nothing more than bankroll the team. This is no different from the "Barclays Premier League" except that the PL makes far more money and has a standard name ("Premier League") which the sponsor's name is added to. There's no difference otherwise. The simple thing to me is - sponsorship exists, and part of the deal sponsors make their partners sign is the exclusive right to have the competition named after them. Technically, calling it "Premier League" is incorrect - Barclays paid hundreds of millions of pounds for it to legally be called "Barclays Premier League" and NOT "Premier League". The shorter form only exists by common convention, in the same way that there is no country called "America", yet everyone calls the USA that. However, I agree with the sentiment that we shouldn't put the sponsor in the article title. I merely think the sponsorships are important enough to deserve, even demand, referencing in this article.

Quickly, to finish, I checked out WP:UNDUE, and just like WP:ARTSPAM and WP:SOAP I found it to be nothing at all to do with the argument you are advocating. Undue says that in the course of articles on debated concepts, all sides should be represented according to their importance. The Premier League is hardly an issue to compare with the given example on UNDUE (i.e., "Earth" and the "Flat Earth" concept) but even if it were, the tiny, tiny section sponsorships currently has is certainly it's DUE size, if not smaller. Perhaps we should expand it? Falastur2 ^Talk 17:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you've simply misunderstood the difference between a title sponsor and basic advertisers/partners. Not the MLB, or any of the other articles you subsequently mentioned, have a title sponsor, not in the sense that Barclays is here, so it made no sense to me for you to be holding them up as some kind of justification for your changes here. Certainly in my experience, it's standard practice to mention current and past title sponsors on all Wikipedia sports articles. MickMacNee (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about what I say to my friends and family, it's about how the media refers to the Premier League. Gary Lineker consistently refers to the "Barclays Premier League" on Match of the Day, and the name is also used in overseas media too. You keep talking about how referring to the league's sponsor indicates a lack of "standards", which is clearly your own personal opinion; do try to keep your arguments within the confines of Wikipedia guidelines and policies from now on, yeah? – PeeJay 16:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Current champions not Manchester United

In the box at the right of the page it states that Manchester United are the current (2010-11) champions. This is incorrect, they are not yet technically champions as there is a mathematical chance that Chelsea can still win the league. Therefore Chelsea should be listed as current champions having won the 2009-10 league. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.149.205 (talk) 17:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. Woody (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Grooves17, 11 May 2011

The Qualification for European competitions section is wrong. In the first paragraph the content should be changed to:

The team placed fifth in the Premier League automatically qualifies for the UEFA Europa League. The winners of the FA Cup and the Carling Cup also qualify. If the winners of either of the Cups gains European qualification through their league place, the runner-up of that Cup will then qualify for the Europa League. If both the Cup winner and the runner-up are already qualified through their league positions, the sixth place team will qualify (and seventh if this ocurs in both Cups). Additionally, any qualified team does not have the required UEFA license, the sixth place (and seventh if necessary) team will qualify.

A further place in the UEFA Europa League is also available via the UEFA Fair Play competition. If the England has one of the three highest Fair Play rankings in Europe, the highest ranked team in the Premier League Fair Play standings which has not already qualified for Europe will automatically qualify for the UEFA Europa League first qualifying round.[24]

I work for the Premier League, this is correct.

Grooves17 (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

You work for the Premier League? In what capacity? What's your name so we can check? Unfortunately, your word that you work for the Premier League is not exactly a reliable source in this matter. If you can provide an official document that states that this is the way European qualification works in the Premier League, that would be helpful. – PeeJay 13:47, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Stickee (talk) 12:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Grooves, you are incorrect. If Arsenal had won the League Cup, Birmingham would not still qualify. The FA Cup trades its spot to the runner-up, but the League Cup trades its spot to the 6th place in the league (7th if the FA Cup runner-up also qualifies for Europe already). Falastur2 ^Talk 17:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Most Championships

In the La Liga, Seria A and Champions League wiki-pages, there are currently a note in the top right menu telling who has secured the championship most times. But it is missing in the Premier League pages. Before i correct what I consider a mistake, i would just open the discussion here. Is there a reason for this?

Currently Liverpool and Manchester United er tied in having secured the trophies 18 times. This might change in a couple of hours.

Edit request from 124.122.146.109, 15 May 2011

| most successful club = Manchester United
(12 titles) }} 124.122.146.109 (talk) 08:38, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Iv'e fixed that, even b4 I saw this request.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Wales into Countries

In case eiter Swansea or Cardiff promote to the next season, should we add Wales in the countries area in the infobox (and mention it have one team and its a guest), same as Ligue 1 of France does with Monaco. What are the rest of you think?.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion it shouldn't be added until and unless there is a Welsh team playing in the Premier League. (and I think I have removed it from the infobox in the past). If Cardiff win tonight however, then by all means, go ahead as there will be a Welsh team in the PL next season. Woody (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, unless someone else will give his opinion, if Swansea win the final playoff against Reading on 30 May 2011, we will add Wales.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Swansea just won the playoff finals, they're now a Welsh team in the premier league, please change the countries to add Wales and all things which read England to England and Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.84.74.196 (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

It's still an English league. It just now also operates in Wales (see Ligue 1 before Monaco's relegation). --Pretty Green (talk) 16:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with this precedent. A Welsh team being in the league means it is now an English and Welsh league since the premiership is different. Each team has 1 share in the premiership, as such it is no longe exclusively English, but English AND Welsh. It's now the English and Welsh Premiership. The titles should be changed as such. --TGKTGears —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC).

It's still the 'English Premier Peague' nothing has changed in that regard. Swansea are not a Welsh club. They are an English club who are based in Wales. Adam4267 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Swansea are a Welsh club. Calling them English is stupid. They're a South West Wales football club who play in the Premiership. I can see there's a lot of cymrophobes here who dislike Wales and will fight any Welsh person to keep their league as English as possible. That's pathetic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TGKTGears (talk • contribs) 16:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm Scottish and don't have predetermined feelings towards Welsh people. So there is no need to bring personal insults into this discussion. Secondly, Swansea are part of the English football system. If they played in Europe they would represent England and their governing body is the FA, therefore they are an English club but they are based in Wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam4267 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that's wrong. Swansea's governing body is the Football Association of Wales. If any disciplinary issues involving Swansea City, they are referred back to the FAW, not the FA. That means that if Swansea qualified for Europe via the league next season, they wouldn't be allowed to play. It was a similar situation with Cardiff City being in the 2008 FA Cup Final; if they had won, they would only have been allowed to compete in the UEFA Cup by invitation from Michel Platini. – PeeJay 22:13, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone should add the flags as it used to be before when only England was displayed and as it is still the case for the Football League. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.154.191 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

They really aren't needed per our Manual of Style. What information do the flags convey that the text doesn't? They are entirely unneccessary in my opinion (hence why I removed them). Woody (talk) 20:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Its now the BPL - the British Premier League, please find any reference on the Premier League's website where it calls itself the English Premier League. It never has been the English Premier League, it has always been the Premier League with the sponsors name tagged to the front i.e. Carling, Barclays etc. I propose changing the opening line to British Premier League.

Uh...what? Aside from that your suggestion that it's now the "British Premier League" is highly offensive to Welsh, Irish and Scots who don't want to be considered subsumed into England, you're totally off. The website does not reference "English Premier League" because that term is only used outside of England, it's nothing to do with Swansea's making the PL universal. In fact, most English fans consider the term "English Premier League" to be a horrible, ugly term which does disservice to the real reason why the PL is not called the EPL - because we got there first. There was no Premier League before the English version - other Premier Leagues around the world were renamed thus to buy into the English phenomenon, and for the same reason you will never see the Spanish, Italians, Germans etc use the term "Premier League" because it would be an Anglicisation, and they are quite happy arguing that their leagues are superior to England's and don't need to borrow any ideas from us. The winner takes it all, so they say, and there is no reason why the first country to coin the term "Premier League" should be forced to rename their league to accommodate all the copy-cat Premier League names from around the world.

Your challenge for anyone to find the term "English Premier League" on the PL official website could be easily matched by a challenge to find the term "British Premier League". It is NOT the British Premier League, and unless Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland fold their national leagues into the English pyramid, it never will be. Falastur2 ^Talk 23:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

OMG what a stupid reply...... And you completely miss the point that the article uses the term 'English competition' its clearly a British competition now

Highly offensive my arse it is.

Name a English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish team that wouldn't give their front teeth to be in the Premiership.

As for you stupid, idiotic` comment about a referent to the British Premiership. Try Google, British Premier League matches, 227,000,000 results against just 89,500,000 results for English Premier League. That's almost three times as many. Just wait until the new season starts, I guarantee you will hear it referred to by the commentators.

As for being subsumed into England......just shows how thick you must be........calling it the English Premier League infers this more than British Premier League. Go look up a definition of British.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigthomas1 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 1 June 2011

Comment on the content, NOT the contributors please, keep it civil. In terms of your actual argument, you are basing it on national identity and nationalistic arguments which is missing the point. This is an English League organised by the English Football Association, hence why Swansea cannot be allocated one of the English European places even if they come 5th place. As a quirk of the British league system, the English football league has some Welsh clubs and vice versa. If you want to fall into a debate about the British Premier League, go onto the terraces at Ibrox and say the Premier League is a British league. Woody (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It is the Pemier League . It is administered by the FA (thats the English one) , but does not label itself either English or British . Welsh teams play in the English league pyrimad . English Teams play in the Welsh and Scottish system . This is nothing new or exclusive to leagues mentioned , for example Liechtenstien haas no league stucture and ALL there teams play in the Swiss system . Also Swansea WOULD be entitled to a place in European Competition , by gaining admission to the PL the are overseen the the FA , the Welsh teams outside the PL are , because of an agreement , still overseen by the FAW . It is one of the conditions for entry into the PL (but not the league). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.197.59 (talk) 01:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposal to change section to "Top Four" not "Big Four"

Never has been referred to as "Big Four", or I've never heard something along the lines of so-called "Big" clubs. Maybe outside England, but a "Big Four" has never existed. It is referred to as "Top Four" to denote the fact the top 4 places are for Champions League football and that the dominance of these "Top Four" clubs means little chance for other clubs to have the lucrative opportunity of Champions League football. Ironically, the vast majority of references in the "Big Four" section actually refer to it as the "Top Four", yet it called the "Big Four" for some bizarre reason. Stevo1000 (talk) 21:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comments may be fair now, but before Spurs cracked the CL places last season, Big Four was the term used, and it was used EVERYWHERE. For instance, do a search for the term "Big Four" just on the BBC football page and you get 156 separate examples of its use. Replace the link with newspaper websites and you will rack up thousands of times that term has been used officially. Then there are all the forums, blogs and other independent websites. Do a search for "Big Four" football" and you get 3.2 million different pages. As I say, the term isn't used so much since Liverpool failed to retain their top four status, thus throwing questions on the use of the term, but nonetheless the Big Four exists. Falastur2 ^Talk 22:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To say it has never been referred to as the "Big Four" is frankly wrong and in my mind undermines anything else you may have to say. It was always about the "big four" squeezing out everyone else. As Falastur2 says though, in recent times it has taken a back seat given the decline of Liverpool and the rise of City. The article as it stands has a good weighting in my opinion, it underlines the historic dominance of the Big Four and notes that in the last couple of seasons the stranglehold has loosened. Woody (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

To the OP.....Completely wrong, the Big Four and the Top Four are completely different. The Big Four was coined after Abramovich bought the title for Chelsea after investing a couple of hundred million pounds in under a year. Manchester United because of their dominance of title wins; Arsenal because of their successful team of the late nineties and early 00's; and Liverpool as a hangover from their success in the pre-Premier League era.

Chelsea joined after Abramovich proved that money can buy you titles.

Arguable, Liverpool have now dropped out of the big four because of the lack of titles in over 20 years. Many commentators now refer simply to the Big 2 of Manchester United and Chelsea due to Arsenal complete lack of success in the last 6 seasons.

The Top 4 refers to top 4 spots due to their entry to the Champions League. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigthomas1 (talk • contribs) 22:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Appearances - David James

The table has David James down for 573 Premier League appearances, however his own page states this to be 572. I would presume his personal page to be correct. It would appear that the extra appearance is being counted from an appearance in the 2008/09 Community Shield which shouldn't count toward PL appearances. If no objections then I will amend accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craigthomas1 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Have you got a source, BBC or soccerbase or other reliable source we can compare it to? Woody (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The PL all seasons list him with 573 (alongside others), personal page in PL list him with 571, and some sources list him with 572.

I say lets use offical count with 573.

See All seasons - Apps
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 06:48, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Qualification for Europe

it has been said a number of times that had Cardiff won the FA Cup a number of years ago they would not have qualified for the (then) UEFA cup as they were a Welsh team, and UEFA would have had to make a special invite.

With Swansea now in the league does this mean we should amend the start of the European Qualification section which reads "As of the 2009–10 season qualification for the UEFA Champions League changes, the top four teams in the Premier League qualify for the UEFA Champions League, with the top three teams directly entering the group stage".

We would need to find a reliable source that could be cited regarding qualification of non-English clubs for UEFA via this route. EntropyJim (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unknown what would have actually happened if Cardiff have won. Certainly, Derry City have competed in Europe representing Ireland despite being from Northern Ireland, so there is a precedent for this. I don't think there is any good reason to disbelieve that current practice would later if Swansea qualified for Europe: in all likelihood, UEFA/FA/FAW will come up with a decision as and when this problem arises. At most, perhaps a footnote would be appropriate. --Pretty Green (talk) 10:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Clubs: Position 2010-11 ordering

Hi, footy fans. I notice that when I order the "Position in 2010–11" column in the Clubs section the clubs show up in this order (there is a three digit hidden number associated with each club):

Chelsea 2nd Manchester United 1st Arsenal 4th Tottenham Hotspur 5th Manchester City 3rd Aston Villa 9th ...

Should we at least have a footnote that explains why the order is 2,1,4,5,3,9,... instead of 1,2,3,4,5,...? Facts707 (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

No footnote needed, it was an error. The hidden sorting codes weren't updated from last seasons which is why they a bit skewed. All should work as intended now. Thanks for noticing! Regards, Woody (talk) 16:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Undetailed finances

I feel the Finances section is incomplete as long as it fails to answer the basic question, "How's revenue distributed among the clubs?". -Ignacio Agulló — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.79.159 (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Which revenue are you talking about? The revenue's of the league itself, ie the television income is described in the media coverage section: "(The money is divided into three parts:[45] half is divided equally between the clubs; one quarter is awarded on a merit basis based on final league position, the top club getting twenty times as much as the bottom club, and equal steps all the way down the table; the final quarter is paid out as facilities fees for games that are shown on television, with the top clubs generally receiving the largest shares of this. The income from overseas rights is divided equally between the twenty clubs.)" If you are talking about the revenues of the individual clubs, then this article isn't really the place to discuss that, that would be the individual club articles. Does that help? Woody (talk) 19:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Total games

In the beggining of the article it is said that a total of 760 games are played, but that number is incorrect. If you have 38 weeks of footbal, 20 teams each week, means 10 games per week --> Total 380 games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.201.212 (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done, Not sure why it said 760.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Football records split; new article

Hello all - at Talk:Football records in England#Split I've suggested farming off the section Football records in England#FA Premier League – Since 1992–93 season into a new article called Premier League records and statistics. I think the current article gives undue prominence to post-1992 football. I'd then intend on merging this with All-time FA Premier League table, and effectively creating a new 'master article' which would summarise and link out to all the articles in the 'records and statistics' section of the Premier League template. I wouldn't intend to make any/many changes to this article, though it might require a few link changes - generally, though, I wouldn't mess with a Featured Article! Just wanted to check that there are no objections - I think this will improve the articles and aid navigation though. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained colour code

In the table upper right of the section "Big Four" dominance some of the squares have coloured backgrounds. The colour code is unexplained; it seems clear to me that  gold  is for finishing in first place; but what does the  light blue  mean? This seems to be a violation of MOS:COLOR. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It means finishing outside the top four spots.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 25 October 2011

First paragraph incorrectly states that a total of 380 games take place over a season where in reality the correct figure is 760. 20 teams play 38 matches each not 10 teams!

2.219.150.189 (talk) 15:08, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Not done: see #Total games above. They do play 38 games each, but they play against each other. So, Arsenal play Aston Villa twice; and Aston Villa play Arsenal twice, but this is a total of two matches, not four. If you consider only home matches, each team plays 19 each - and 19x20=380. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:54, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 29 October 2011

Please change in the 'Manager' section the nationalities of two managers Mick McCarthy from Irish to English Owen Coyle from Irish to Scottish For evidence see each manager's own page

92.25.206.221 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason for that is that they played internationaly for those teams. see archive in last season PL article and in this archives. per FIFA rules. both managers played and represented Republic of Ireland as players and therefor thier country is shown as those.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 21 November 2011

ryan giggs 580 app — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.185.119 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 3 December 2011

Martin O'Neill is the Sunderland manager not Eric Black.

86.0.149.53 (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. CTJF83 20:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request 10/12/11

Says the most recently appointed manager is Andre Villas-Boas, this needs to be changed to Martin O'Neill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.221.6.170 (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 Done --ClubOranje^T 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Newcastle no longer at top of league

Mention of the 'Big Four' should point out that Newcastle have now dropped out of the top six and maybe that the league seems to be shaping up this way again - perhaps a mention of the new term 'Big Six'188.221.57.167 (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the mention of teams that were in top four while the season is only started, We keep it Big Four as it what the name is used widely in Britan and the World, right now we keep ManCity and Spurs out of it until they finished in top four or atleast top six for more than three stright seasons.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 00:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Request 8/1/12

As of 1/8/2012 Paul Scholes is once again playing professional football. Coming out of retirement to play in the FA Cup for Manchester United against Manchester City. I think SAF intends to use him in the Premier League as well therefore his name should be italicized and if he appears in the Premier league bolder. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.237.8.153 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Big 4 section

This section states: "the first time a team has broken into the top three since Chelsea did so in the 2003–04 season." But the table shows Chelsea as having placed 3rd in 98/99 season. Presumably the text needs correction? kritikos99 (talk) 09:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes thats an error should be fixed.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:06, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I have added a sentence or two to this section. I thought it would be useful to add the team who have finished in the top four on the most occasions, but are not part of this "Big Four". I think that team is Newcastle (correct me if I'm wrong). It also leads into the next paragraph nicely as we have the (then) Newcastle manager, Kevin Keegan, criticising the dominance of the top four. The article also suggests that the "Big Four" have completely dominated the top four since 1996-1997 (if it wasn't for the table at the side, I'm sure many will be left with this impression) and it's not true. It's only been near-complete dominance since 2003-2004. As mentioned, if I'm wrong, and another team have finished in the top four more often than Newcastle, then feel free to correct/remove. I forgot to add an edit summary, apologies. hedpeguyuk (talk) 10:08, 07 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 4 February 2012

Change Thierry Henry's goal total from 174 to 175.

130.88.84.110 (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, your request didn't include a reference from a reliable source for verification. If you have one, please re-edit this section, replace the word 'yes' up above with ' no ', and resubmit. Consider clicking 'Show preview' (next to 'Save page', below), to ensure that your request looks the way you want it to. There is no need to put it in <ref></ref> tags. Thanks. Dru of Id (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Wayne Rooney scored 2 penalties in Manchester United's game against Chelsea yesterday. Please change his goal total from 130 to 132. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Npm2310 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Iv'e updated the top 10 scorer and app makers.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.143.173 (talk) 21:50, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request: Qualification for European competitions

Normally I'd make such an edit myself, but I'm having some difficulty conjuring up a decent (i.e. legible) phrase so here goes: in the Qualification for European competitions section, it currently says:

Two Europa League places are reserved for the winner of each of the domestic cup competitions; if the winner of either competition qualifies for the Champions League or Europa League based on league position, then that place will go to the runner-up, and if the runner-up is also already qualified, then that place will go to the next-best placed finisher in the Premier League.

As far as I know, the bold part is (partially) inaccurate: it is correct in case of the F.A. Cup, but not in case of the League Cup. If the League Cup winners qualify for the Champions League through their Premier League position, the correspondig Europa League ticket goes straight to the next-highest-finishing Premier League side and not to the League Cup runners-up. -- Skysmurf  (Talk) 17:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorted, complete with reference from Premier League. Hope the wording's ok. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Premier League fixed ?

Patrick Vieira, a respected footballer, recently spoke out about decisions going for the big clubs. Also recently, the head of FIFA announced that match-fixing was widespread in football. Some big clubs, in Italy and Turkey, have been brought to book. But what about the PL? Is it happening in this league too? For example, in their most recent three matches, Manchester United have been awarded two penalties (neither of which were penalties according to commentators) and, in the other game, the opposition had a perfectly good goal ruled out. The BBC, it appears, have also had a special contract with ManU - granting them extra publicity. This and much more besides, smells rather bad. (I should add, I'm not a football fan and I have no axe to grind here). In short, the question is, with what Vieira and Blatter have said, and what - for the neutral - appears a strange run of decisions in favour of Man U, does this article need a sub-section on the issue of the PL being 'fixed' or not? OldSquiffyBat (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• In fact the question could be widened; is English football per se fixed? In the FA Cup semi-final between Chelsea and Tottenham, Chelsea have just been awarded a goal - even though the ball did not cross the line. And, by odd coincidence, they were awarded a goal last season when the ball did not cross the line. On that occassion, they were also playing Tottenham. Interestingly, Chelsea have been regular fixture in the FA Cup final in recent years, Tottenham have not been there for 20 years. And Chelsea keep getting home draws... Maybe all of this and more is just coincidence. Or maybe the match fixing, mentioned above, reaches the very top of the English game? OldSquiffyBat (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

This is preposterous, IMO. The only evidence to suggest that the Premier League is fixed is entirely circumstantial. This is not the place for wild conspiracy theories. – PeeJay 21:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Far from being preposterous, I suspect the opposite is true - that a certain amount of 'fixing' (such as, for instance, career-minded referees tending to favour the home team, or whatever other team they rightly or wrongly think is likely to benefit their career) is virtually unavoidale in all sports, human nature being what it is, and the only question is the nature and extent of 'fixing' in any given sport at any given time. But, rightly or wrongly, the rules of Wikipedia probably make it difficult or impossible to put any of this in Wikipedia. One might even argue that this is at least partly because Wikipedia has inherited a set of rules at least partly designed or evolved over centuries to avoid Encyclopedias getting into too much trouble with powerful vested interests, which arguably means that Encyclopedias are also to some extent 'fixed', like much else in life, and again this is arguably unavoidable, human nature being what it is. It is arguable that our widespread tendency to dismiss such notions as 'preposterous' and 'wild conspiracy theories' is itself to some extent part of the same 'fix' - that our culture and/or our genes have evolved down the centuries or millenia to make us say (and wholly or partly believe) the sort of things that will, at least over the long run, tend to avoid getting us into trouble with powerful vested interests - but of course if I'm in any way right, then that should lead me to expect that many may be inclined to dismiss everything I've just written as preposterous and a wild conspiracy theory :) Of course this means that OldSquiffyBat may well be right about football being fixed, but PeeJay may also be right about Wikipedia being the wrong place to try to say so. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

promoted teams staying promoted - it happened again

In the section about the widening gap between premier league and the lower league, it talked about how there was only 1 season (2001-02) where none of the promoted teams got relegated, but this season, the three teams, Swansea, Norwich city and qpr, that were promoted at the beginning of the season weren't relegated at the end of the season. Can we get a reflection of that in the article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jr637 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Football and Association Football

User:PeeJay2K3 doesn't understand the difference between Football and Association Football.

The first sentence of this article describes "The Premier League is an English professional league for association football clubs. " It's correct with no problem. In the 2010–11 season the average Premier League match attendance was 35,363, the second highest of any professional association football league behind the German Bundesliga. It is also correct.But, if he rewrites "association football" to "football", this sentence cheats viewers because National Football League and Australian Football League have more average attendance. Sincerelywikis (talk) 19:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The article uses the term "football" on its own several times before the instance you describe, so why don't you go ahead and change all those too? This is a ridiculous change, since the type of football we're talking about in this article is quite clearly established by the time we get to the sentence you're talking about. – PeeJay 22:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Who did ridiculous change is PeeJay2K3. As football, Premier League is 4th in average. As Association football, Premier League is 2nd. The editors of Bundesliga had understood this basic information.(Now PeeJay2K3 rewrote bundesliga page into false, too. The other sentence of football and this ranking of "football" has total different meaning in correctness. Don't ridiculous change anymore. Sincerelywikis (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are driving at, but this article is obviously about association football. The term "association football" only needs to be used once in the article to establish context, and thereafter can be simply referred to as "football". And by the way, don't comment on other editors, comment on contributions. – PeeJay 00:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Stop your "ridiculous change" what you did. As a viewer, EPL is 4th in average attendance. It can't be 2nd. You cannot understand this easiest theme. That's disaster in wikipedia. By the way, I quit for a while from this page until you grow up and learn the common sense.Sincerelywikis (talk) 00:54, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Look, you clearly don't have a strong enough grasp of the English language to understand what I'm trying to tell you, so I think it's for the best that you stop trying to change this page. – PeeJay 00:57, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Because you ruin this page with cheating viewers. Premier League is 4th in "football" league. It's not even 2nd or 3rd.　I hope wikipedia get rid of bad users.Sincerelywikis (talk) 01:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Someone thinks "football" as "association football" but someone doesn't in wikipedia. EPL is 4th in "football" but 2nd in "association football". He's clearly wrong but I don't care anymore and just hope someone close this talk.Sincerelywikis (talk) 20:29, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

1) 'Football' (pronounced 'footbowl') is a French noun meaning 'soccer', in much the same way that 'futbol' is a Spanish noun meaning 'soccer'.

2) To most native speakers of English, 'football' means one (and only one) of several games in which a ball is played mainly with one's hands (usually American Football, though in a few places it means Australian Rules Football, or Gaelic Football, or whatever). Variants of this family of games have been played in England (and called 'football') at least since medieval times.

3) All native speakers of English know there is a game in which a ball is played mainly with one's feet, and most of them call that game 'soccer', and all native speakers of English understand what is meant when one says 'soccer'. Its governing body, FIFA now tells us it was first reported as being played in China about 2000 years ago (though common sense suggests it was probably independantly invented several times in several places starting in prehistoric times). Its rules were codified in 19th century England. No native speaker of English would refer to that game as 'association football' in normal conversation. The expression 'association football' seems to exist primarily so that British people (a fairly small minority among native speakers of English, though admittedly not quite as small as my own Irish minority) can avoid using 'soccer' to refer to the game which they call 'football', and perhaps secondarily to avoid saying 'soccer' when translating the French expression 'Football Association' as in 'Federation Internationale de Football Association', the full title of the sport's governing body FIFA (incidentally, the French never use 'Football Association' in normal conversation either). Arguably this means that 'association football' exists primarily because in this instance most British people refuse to speak English (alternatively English no longer exists, and there are now two languages, British and Yankish, though it would be impossible to get agreement on whether this is the case, and on what the two languages should be called if it is the case; yet another view would be that English is an archaic dialect of Yankish, or that British English is an archaic dialect of English, and so on). Star Trek's Dr Spock would probably say that the logical solution would be to replace the word 'football' in this article with the word 'soccer' (as would happen if this article was being written primarily for an American audience), as this would be unambiguous and understood by all. But homo sapiens is not a species renowned for logic, so Dr Spock's solution would probably just produce an endless edit war, as Britons understandably rushed to defend the language and game they gave the world from alien cultural imperialism ('no half-Vulcan is going to tell me how to speak my native language'). And so on.

4) Conclusion: as the problem does not appear to have any simple solution, the best one might hope for is that editors might become aware that this is the situation, and try to treat each other with courtesy whenever problems inevitably arise. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Deletion of "Big Four Dominance"

On the grounds of being out of date,surely it's time for this article to be deleted?DColt (talk) 20:32, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. There's no way to know for sure that there has been an actual shift in power. Regardless, for a period in the last decade, the Big Four was a legitimate phenomenon. – PeeJay 21:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Man City winning the league last year and because of their immense financial power coupled with the fact Liverpool haven't finished in "The Top Four" since 2008-09 adds weight to the fact that "The Big Four" phrase is merely a name created by the media to hype up their coverage of the game.Also Liverpool have never won the league yet the other so called "Big Four" have so how can their inclusion be justified. With regards to you stating that Big Four was a legitimate phenomenon,I won't disagree with you.The media have flogged it to death.Perhaps it could possibly be referred to in the past tense and a new section created to reflect Man City's recent breakthrough.DColt (talk) 10:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think the section needs to remain, since it's part of the history of the Premier League. I've added the words '(prior to 2009-10)' to the title as a quick fix to help the casual reader see at a glance that the section is somewhat out-of-date. But I'll leave it to others to put in the long and probably controversial slog of a more complete re-write. I note that Rugby Union's rather similar article on the Heineken Cup, which deals with roughly the same period of time, breaks it down into sections with titles like 'Period of English Dominance (from year-to year)' which might be relevant here. But such an approach would probably require taking the section out of 'Criticism' and into something like 'History' (or 'Past criticism' of 'History of criticism' or whatever), and it would also then require finding a start date for the period that can be properly justified, and doing the same for previous and subsequent periods, which would all arguably be a matter of personal opinion and thus arguably inappropriate for Wikipeia.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I think the section can remain, but it is undoubtedly very bloated and overstated. It currently consists of three large paragraphs when it might as well consist of only one. We've now got a second paragraph saying "Well now it might actually be a top 2" and then a third paragraph stating "Actually Man City have won it so maybe it's a big 6". Not very solid information.

I've amended the section to replace the simply untenable claim of Big Four dominance since 1996-97, with a carefully reasoned statement of their dominance from 2003-04 to 2008-09. I agree that the section remains bloated and unsatisfactory, but fixing that would need a long and difficult and probably controversial and still unsatisfactory re-write of the entire section, and I'm not foolhardy enough to try. Tlhslobus (talk) 02:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Trophies

There are at least 2 trophies. Is one a dummy trophy? What is it made of? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.212.215.174 (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

There is only one actual trophy in existence. Any others that exist in the possession of the Premier League are replicas for the purpose of presenting to a team that wins the league unexpectedly on the last day of the season. There would have been one at the Stadium of Light for the last game of last season. Others that you may have seen, such as the one on Match of the Day, are scaled-down replicas. – PeeJay 09:47, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

The Premier League's website has a page called "Is there more than one Premier League trophy?" ([1]) This simply states "As the title race can be very close right up until the final day of the season, we have a replica trophy." and no more. A Manchester Evening News article about the preparations for the final day of last season gives a little detail ([2]), telling us the "proper" trophy stays in the care of the current champion club, and the "replica" is used for promotional purposes. The title holders have to return the trophy 3 weeks before the last round of fixtures (p92 of the Premier League handbook). The Premier League are quite coy about giving details, probably because the commercial value of having the trophy displayed somewhere is higher if people think there is only one in existence. Barclays, the current sponsor, are currently running a "Premier League UK Trophy Tour", and probably wouldn't be too pleased if everyone knew that trophy is a replica. I have only seen the "genuine" trophy up close, but I am fairly certain that the two are identical, except for one thing. If you look at File:Nasri_&_Aguero_with_trophy.JPG, the words "Premier League" are engraved on the front. The picture on the Barclays website promoting the tour shows a trophy with "Barclays Premier League" on it [3]. So while the trophy is being advertised as being in Billericay next Friday ([4]), and Ashton-under-Lyne on Saturday ([5]), there won't be a mad dash between Essex and Greater Manchester, as the one in Essex is a replica. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:57, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I think the PL trophy has "Premier League" engraved on one side and "Barclays Premier League" on the other. I could be wrong though. – PeeJay 17:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Having just taken a magnifying glass to some photos, you are right. File:Kolo with trophy cropped.JPG is "Premier League", as are a couple of others I didn't upload. With different people holding it each time I figured a 1 in 8 chance was a safe conclusion. But "Barclays" is just visible on a photo of Kolo taken with his back to the camera as he goes to the other side of the bus. I suppose the trophy must get replaced or at least significantly reworked each time the sponsor changes. Oldelpaso (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Premier League players statistics

Does anybody know what happened with Premier League statistics page ("Barclays Premier League Statistics". Premier League. Retrieved 8 April 2012.). It was the main source for lists of Premier League players with most appearances and Top scorers in this article and also for List of Premier League players. Now this link is unavailable. Are there any other reliable sources of information on this topic (I mean cumulated stats for all Premier League seasons and players)? Thanks. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 15:03, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Answer? Have you tried http://www.eplindex.com/premierleaguestats AnEyeSpy (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)