Talk:Premier League Golden Glove

About the image on front

I am hearing a lot of criticism about wikipedia these days from peoples. At first, i thought that all their claims were wrong but now i am wondering if they were right. Just look at this page, it itself shows that things have got a little biased here these days. Golden glove record is a joint-record of Petr Čech and Joe Hart but only Joe hart has the photo just like if he owns it. Thats horrible, isn't it? Either you place or upload a combined image of both petr and joe or just go ahead and put the picture of Chris smalling. This is horrendously biased. Please don't take it otherwise im a bit upset cuz of something else. But please look at the matter. Placing the photo of hart is in no way justice. TAG ME IF YOU WANT TO REPLY.HardSunBadMoon (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay. That's cool. Both players are in the article. The statement beneath highlights it is shared. It is irrelevant of whether the first image is of one, both, or neither. There is no injustice here, no indication of 'bias' (many articles lead with a single example). Also, whoever you are talking to clearly needs to create their own article and begin contributing to Wikipedia. Koncorde (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Original research

I realize the article may not be the place for such a list (maybe it would be), but is there a list somewhere of the goalies who would have won the award in the time period between the founding of the Premier League and when the award was actually founded? --164.58.74.2 (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

• 1993 - Bobby Mimms - 19
• 1994 - David Seaman - 20
• 1995 - Peter Schmeichel - 20
• 1996 - Peter Schemeichel - 18
• 1997 - Nigel Martyn - 19
• 1998 - Peter Schemeichel - 16
• 1999 - David Seaman - 19
• 2000 - Ed De Goey - 16
• 2001 - Fabien Barthez, Paul Jones, Sander Westerveld - 14
• 2002 - Nigel Martyn - 18
• 2003 - Brad Friedel - 15
• 2004 - Edwin Van der Sar - 15

Could put them in a bottom some where, maybe not in a table format but with just a two column format with a brief sentance? Xenomorph1984 (talk) 23:04, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It constitutes original research. You haven't provided any sources as to the accuracy of the info added or its significance. Not to mention that this list covers award winners only (not goalkeepers with the most clean sheets, otherwise Reina would also be listed as the 2010 co-leader with 17). I'm trying to take this list to featured list status and this will certainly not cut at FLC. If you want to make a separate list, be my guest. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Assuming those issues are addressed first, there is scope for this. It's valid information that gives context to the award. It would have to be separate from the table of award winners, taking up a paragraph/section before or after. 82.33.139.144 (talk) 10:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Order of natonality and team

There is a bit of a disagreement (after an unnecceray comment) so I bring it to talk.

The main discussion is that I say we should order by name when they have equal amount of wins and the other editor says chronologically. The other editor provided a single featured list [[]] ordered chronologically claim since that is featured all others should be chronological. I responded with other featured lists (sorry did not check all was featured in edit summary) showing that there can be alphabetically order and featured lists like:

1. Premier League Player of the Month
2. Premier League Manager of the Month
3. Premier League Manager of the Season

Okay I realize there is an error in Manager of the month were Portugal is ahead of England (both on 2) But everywhere else it is alphabetically even in that article For example Newcastle is ahead of Tottenham when Newcastle won 2012 and Tottenham 2010. QED237 (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for reinforcing my side of the argument for chronological sorting. Premier League Manager of the Season was passed in 2012. The FL I cited – Premier League Golden Boot – was passed just last month. The other two you cited are from 2009. A lot has changed in FL since then. In fact, if I were to take them to FLRC, they'd fail due to WP:ACCESS, among many other problems. This proves that the format in newer FLs trump old ones. End of debate (or, shall I say without the slightest hint of irony, "QED"). —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No it is not end of discussion. I fail to see how a featured articvle can trump other featured articles and I will investigate and make my case stronger until there is no question I am right. QED237 (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"I will investigate and make my case stronger until there is no question I am right" – oooh, I'm so scared. And what kind of attitude is "there is no question I am right"? We're all here to make WP better – it's not a matter of whose right and whose not. What you said sounds very WP:POINTy to me … —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

COULD YOU PLEASE STOP NOW. Words like "ohh, I'm so scared" are not very polite and your edit summaries not as well. All you do is to say "I have 13 featured articles" and blablabla thinking you are better then averyone else with minor insults like the one I just provided. It seems like you think you are better than everyone else saying other edits are "amateurish" and so on. Please stop being rude and attack people, your attidtude is why I am reacting. That is all I ask. LEAVE ME ALONE. QED237 (talk) 22:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In an edit summary for a few days ago you say "ridiculous" for example. QED237 (talk) 22:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply calling a spade a spade. I'm not like you – I don't give false information and call it fact. And BTW, your digging up my past edit summaries would constitute WP:WIKIHOUNDING. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you made yourself clear, now go attack the editor adding twitter on this article if you feel like going after people tonight. There are twitter links on the article as we speak. I all want is for you to tone down your attitude a bit. QED237 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Could we please leave the article as it was before the content dispute and find some sort of consensus first. Before the dispute started Arsenal was ahead of Manchester United and the nationality was chronologically ordered. From what I can see we have both provided other articles to support "our" order and there is definately no consensus here on this talkpage or anywhere else what order to use. QED237 (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

WT:FOOTY notified. - Since User:GiantSnowman suggested going to WT:FOOTY for input and help do decide this dispute I have opened discussion at WT:FOOTY#Order in featured lists such as Premier League Golden Glove. Lets see if we can find any consensus. I suggest we let the project/community decide since both me and Bloom6132 have provided our arguments already and failed to reach an agreement/consensus. QED237 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

What do the summary tables actually add?

Ok, forgive me from being a bit thick here but what does the summary by team and by nationality actually add to the article that cannot be clearly understood by looking at the table of winners? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:08, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

That is actually very true, they dont add much to the article at all. On other articles I added above with many winners they might be interesting as we in the prose mention how many wins the "big four" has and so on, but in this article not so much information in that section. QED237 (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Basically, it tells the reader which teams/countries have the most players who've won the award. It saves them from having to physically count in case they wanted to know. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

And that can't be done from the existing table? Are we now having to count for our readers now as well? => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:00, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that whilst it is a fairly small list at the moment, as it grows each year then it is going to become harder for readers to take that information. - 97rob (talk) 12:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

The summary tables are fine. The initial ordering is neither here nor there, an argument can be made either way. It's certainly nothing to get highly strung about, the only thing I'd suggest is that whatever's decided, consistency is applied across all such tables. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Premier League Golden Glove. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006113019/http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/reina-nets-goalkeeping-award to http://www.liverpoolfc.com/news/latest-news/reina-nets-goalkeeping-award
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~1313130%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~2051839%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/page/Headlines/0%2C%2C12306~2363905%2C00.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:49, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150711124522/http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2008-2009/table to http://www.statto.com/football/stats/england/premier-league/2008-2009/table

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:12, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140218230401/http://m.nbcsports.com/content/premier-league-preview-top-5-goalkeepers-watch to http://m.nbcsports.com/content/premier-league-preview-top-5-goalkeepers-watch

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)