Talk:2011–12 Premier League

Norwich
Location of Norwich on the map is incorrect (17 Oct) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.128.200 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

QPR
QPR is numerically confirmed, however they might get bumped down if they have points stripped as a result of the current investigation. Is it worth noting this, or is this, by virtue of no one having any great cause to look at this page over the next three days, not something deserving of any real action?  S ven M anguard  Wha?  04:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Since there already is a statement in the "Teams" section, adding a reference for the investigation should be enough. Independent of that, the outcome of the investigation should be mentioned in both the 2010–11 Championship article and here, especially if the penalty has an impact on direct promotion and the playoffs. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The vardict was set to be only a fine, QPR secured thier 1st position and promotion.

Swansea City and its "nationality"
Before the whole "Ooooh, a non-English club qualified for the Premier League, we must mark this somehow by adding some graphic markers to this or that" thing runs out of hand – although Swansea City are based in Wales, they are nevertheless part of the English league system. As such, it should not be necessary to mention their location somewhere else than where it is appropriate, namely in prose; especially flag display of any kind should be avoided, as they would not represent Wales but England in the event they qualify for any European competition. Equally, it is not appropriate to add nineteen English and one Welsh flag, simply because of over-usage and unnecessary stress of "nationality", which is not permitted per WP:MOSFLAG.

So, can the above be deemed a general consensus or are these just my EUR 0.02? More opinions on the matter are explicity welcome. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree with you. I think any precedent is set in the Ligue 1, where a team from Monaco participates in the French league system but there is no Monegasque flag attached to the club's name. Digirami (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * More precisely, the precedent was set by UEFA three seasons ago when they agreed to let Cardiff City represent England if they won the FA Cup (which in the end they did not). The Monaco idea is a valid point but is irrelevant as the ruling is mostly down to the individual country to decide, and the FA's rules always said Welsh teams were not allowed to represent England in Europe. This rule largely went out of the window with the Cardiff case, though it is feasible they could resurrect it this coming season if for some reason they find the idea of Swansea taking a league placement Europa spot to be abhorrent (can't see it happening though). But still, the Monaco situation is somewhat irrelevant. I could cite counter-examples, such as that I do believe that FC Vaduz of Liechtenstein, but in the Swiss football pyramid and frequently (unsure if presently) in the Swiss top tier, are not allowed to represent Switzerland, but must instead compete in a Liechtenstein cup competition to attempt to gain their European spot. Falastur2  Talk 23:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Even so, are the flags necessary? I think prose is suffice, not the flags. Digirami (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Besides the WP:MOSFLAG issues, it adds nothing to the table. Mentioning it in prose is sufficient. Argyle 4 Life  talk  02:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There is also precedent in the Football League Championship 2010-2011 where the Welsh flag is nowhere to be seen. Not needed for the league table. NauruDude talk  02:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.183.17 (talk)

I may be asking a question that has already been answered but is there a consensus as to whether the map should include Wales? I've seen it flip between including and not including Wales Spudgfsh (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * SO MUCH MISINFORMATION! Cardiff City, Swansea City, Wrexham, Newport County, Colwyn Bay and Merthyr Tydfil all play in the English league system, but they are registered with the Football Association of Wales, not The Football Association. This means they are all Welsh clubs only participating in the English leagues by virtue of having done so since time immemorial. If any of those clubs was to qualify for a European competition by winning an English competition, they would require special dispensation to take part as a representative of England. – PeeJay 19:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Before getting your caps lock key all aflutter, you might want to know that Cardiff City and Swansea City are no longer registered with the FA of Wales. They're registered and governed by the English FA.  This was a change that happened ahead of the 2011-12 season.  Here's the Guardian on the matter: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/may/06/fa-faw-cardiff-swansea

Nationality of managers
Why have the flags of the nationalities of the managers been deleted? Surely if the managers' nationalities aren't necessary then neither are those of the captains? Also, I personally thought that it was a useful section, for example, much has been made in the media of the number of Scottish managers in the Premier League and this was easily reflected in those flags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.221.77 (talk) 17:11, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by NauruDude (talk • contribs) 17:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Because people were unable to reach an agreement on which nationality should be used, so someone took the initiative and just wiped it. Not a decision I agree with. Falastur2  Talk 23:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)


 * It's funny because there is a note that says "Note: Flags indicate national team as has been defined under FIFA eligibility rules. Players may hold more than one non-FIFA nationality." With flags placed next to the manager, it makes it seem that managers have FIFA-defined eligibility rules for them. Besides, there is no good reason to express the nationality of managers. There is a good reason for players. Digirami (talk) 06:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Owen Coyle
Did we ever come to a final consensus as to Coyle's nationality? He's a bit of a special case, having played for ROI's U21s (irrelevant) and 7 minutes for the senior team. But he was born and raised in Scotland and identifies as Scottish. Look, I'm an American and don't pretend to understand all this nuance, but I thought we had settled the issue. Here and in the past couple of seasons, his nationality is listed as Irish in the managers' table, but in at least one case within those same articles (managerial changes 09/10), it's Scottish. I thought consensus was to label him Scottish, and I would agree with that decision, but let's settle this either way.--BDD (talk) 01:35, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Section regarding delayed games
Should there be a section added to note that the Tottenham/Everton game was delayed due to safety concerns caused by the riot? -Gordeenko (talk) 08:13, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Since only one match was affected by the riots, I would tend to say no as there was only a minimal impact on the season itself, similar to a postponed match due to a cup tie or inclement weather. However, it might be appropriate to add a line or two to the Tottenham and Everton season articles, together with a link to 2011 London riots where all matches affected by the riots have been collected in a special section. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Stadium table and map overlapping
On my screen the map of club locations is partially covering up the stadium table. That should be fixed, as the whole article needs to be viewable to all people.

Please see what I'm talking about at http://i54.tinypic.com/dqja6r.png

 S ven M anguard  Wha?  22:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm just curious, but what is your display resolution – 800x600px as suggested by the image link? Also, do you have any kind of sidebars, like instant messengers or any browser sidebars? The image and the table should display properly for any resolutions wider than 900px WITHOUT activated sidebars of any kind.


 * Aside from that... I will give the map an overhaul AFTER a good night's sleep. The article needs clean up anyway... (Keywords: Ridiculously big list of teams in the infobox at "longest unbeaten streak" and WP:OVERLINK in the "Personnel and kits" section) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Overhaul done... unfortunately, I couldn't shrink the map more than 25 pixels due to readability, sorry... --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Positions by round revisited (yes, again!)
I'm not sure if a consensus was ever reached about this subject in previous seasons, but in my opinion, a positions by round table for this league isn't really viable.

The latest positions by round table addition (before I removed it) had a note explaining the situation about the Spurs v Everton game. However, which position in the table will apply when they finally play the match? The positions as they stand after the match? or the positions they would have been in, if the game had been played on the original date? Spurs have played 5 games, but technically their last match was round 6. Too complicated and hard to explain in a table, and that's only one single game rearranged. There will be numerous games rearranged or postponed during the season.

It's mainly for this reason that I still think a positions by round table should be kept off Premier League articles. Reddev87 (talk) 23:40, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with you.


 * There is a Positions by round in the 2011-12 La Liga, Bundesliga, Serie A, Super Lig (Turkey), Liga I (Romania), Belgian Pro League and probably a couple more. I don't know about you guys but I think some would call you NERDS haha. NauruDude (talk) 18:11, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In the Premier League, a lot of games will be postponed. This table will be confusing. Therefore, this table is not required.In other countries is irrelevant. No need to the same as in other countries.Strayed-vagrant (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In Iceland there were a lot of games postponed (my team KR was 2 rounds behind most teams for periods). Postponements are also common in Germany, Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NauruDude (talk • contribs) 22:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Then the table should be removed from those articles as well. I'm quite tempted to remove it from them myself right now. I might just do that tomorrow. Falastur2  Talk 22:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Why not call it "positions by game week" then? There could be a little annotation if a club didn't play a match or played two matches in one week. I would find it very interesting to see how each club's position has changed during a season. 82.128.189.216 (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

As this item has appeared again on the page can I make a suggestion when teams miss a game (for whatever reason) add a 1 with a comment at the bottom stating that a match was not played on that particular matchday. When the matches are caught up later on in the season a 2 could then be added stating that the game was caught up with during the time between matchdays. Clear, Concise, Correct and Unambiguous.--Spudgfsh (talk) 18:07, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Or, we could just remove it every time it appears... Falastur2  Talk 18:20, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that while it is not on the page people will keep trying to add it. If a solution can be found that is clear and uncomplicated then it would be a reasonable addition to the page that would be less of an issue.  I don't like the idea of removing something 'just because a solution cannot be found' when no solution or consensus has been sought. --Spudgfsh (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem is that that table is unrepresentative of what actually happens in real life. There's stats that I think are worth adding - I generally like statistical analysis - and then there's data-dumps like this that have to heavily lean on conjecture and hyperbole to justify their existence. Granted this season has been better than most, but when you have teams two or three games behind others, that table inflates the standing of teams and can even potentially show a team as having lead the league or been in the relegation zone despite from round 1 to 37 never having actually been there because they've always trailed/lead by 1 point and 1 game in hand, and then lost the league/reached safety in the last game of the season. This promotes misconception and plain outright falsehood and is the exact opposite of encyclopaedic knowledge. It's like the graphics some people like to make about the most common starting XI for a particular team - if a player can play CB and LB, and alternates between games, and his manager varies between two alternative players in each position as his replacement, you can end up with a surreal graphic showing one player occupying two places in the most common starting XI, and how is that encyclopaedic knowledge? OK, so that's not very likely but it's entirely believable that a team which rotates players frequently can have a most common starting XI who have never actually played a single actual game all together. Or what if two players have played an equal amount of games in a position between them? Or what if a manager switches between 4-4-2 and 4-3-3? You can't run this kind of pseudo-stats when it doesn't actually represent what has happened. Falastur2  Talk 18:42, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Appears to be based on a WP:RS and WP:V currently specifies verifiability, "not truth". Arguable case that it contravenes WP:SYNTH possibly, but the rest of the above argument appears to be based on not liking it. League tables are published with unequal matches played, how is this any different? Leaky  Caldron  18:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I never thought that I would do this, but I'm going to quote my arch-nemesis of arch-nemesi, No Original Research back at you here. Falastur2  Talk 18:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming that there are (good) reasons for not including a table of positions by round is there an alternative (that is clear, concise and unambiguous) that could be used instead? Something like positions at the end of each month of the season.  This would not be WP:OR as there are links to pages, it would also help people understand the old bottom at Christmas thing.--Spudgfsh (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * @Falastur2. It cannot be outright WP:NOR since it has a verifiable, reliable source. Also, WP:OR might permit the use of the single source and so probably removes WP:SYNTH from the argument. Leaky  Caldron  19:31, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why don't we just add a graph instead, like the one BBC Football have for the Premier League? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.88.244.21 (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its good and descriptive to have positions per round. I put the case that its important nad has to be put.. there is no logical reason to not put it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.213.244 (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can't see a reason not to put the "positions by round", you obviously can't read too well. The Premier League does not have rounds, since matches are often postponed and played on different days. Sometimes, matches from the same "round" can be played weeks apart and therefore a "positions by round" table would be misleading. – PeeJay 16:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You dont seem to understand anything very well. there are of course rounds in every league.. rain, thunder lightning ? who are you kidding...every league will have those,, doesnt mean others wont postpone. it happens in every league. and those things can postpone a few games but still the round holds. are you really putting such a naive reason, too illogical mate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.28.213.244 (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A 'nice' idea if everyone played the same 'round' on the same day - they don't. It has been created for the current season (without a citation as far as I can see) and already it is wrong as Chelsea are on 'round 3' and some clubs eg Liverpool are still on 'round one'. Impossible to maintain - delete.--Egghead06 (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The only and only reason chelsea have played one more right now is because of the supercup fixture next week, but then barcelona or inter also played a game earlier, because once a team wins a champions league, it will have an extra game to play so, a single match is moves ahead. from next week every team will have played 3 games each and thats a round. every league will have that once it wins champions league. such a simple logic! no league has every single game on the same day. do you know football? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.78.179.248 (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Let me make this very simple for you. Positions by round are not going in. End of story. Thanks. – PeeJay 00:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It all depends on what you consider 'a round'. Generally a round will consist of each team playing one game but that is not always the case. There will always be some teams that are behind the current round.  If it was entirely my decision (and I actually thought it was needed) I would say that the round would be over when you would consider the round over (after the monday game or the wednesday game for midweek matches). If you completely ignore the number of number games teams have played it gives you the position of the league when the round was played.


 * I actually don't think the PPR is needed (this is an encyclopaedia not a stats website) Spudgfsh (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect locations
I have raised issue with this section in the past. I remember the 'Location' column used to be 'City', despite the fact Bolton and Wigan (both well known towns!) were listed incorrectly as cities. Consequently I changed the column to 'Location'. However, factual inaccuracies are littered throughout the table. For instance, Manchester United are based in Trafford, one of the ten metropolitan boroughs of Greater Manchester, not 'Manchester' as it was previously stated. Bolton and Wigan would therefore be classed as 'Manchester' if this convention remained - which of course they are not! I have added the city/town/borough plus the county/metropolitan borough for greater classification which I felt was clearly lacking beforehand. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Forgive me if I'm being a bit stupid here but do we need to specify exactly where any of the clubs are located within the table? There is the map which has all of their exact locations and the data in the table seems superfluous (and a bit contentious).


 * On top of that a large proportion of clubs are easily located by their names. Arsenal and Everton being the two that are not as easily located in this seasons premier league and Port Vale and MK Dons being the only others that I could argue in the rest of the football league.  --Spudgfsh (talk) 17:40, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To my mind, if the team is based in a metropolitan borough (the Manchester teams, the London teams and Aston Villa) it should be the city with which they are associated. The smaller conurbations (Bolton, Norwich, Swansea) should remain the same. Quentin X (talk) 10:50, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Might be that some changes occur as some editors 'believe' Man Utd are not in Manchester and only City can call themselves a Manchester club. Maybe a bit of a rivalry thing going on here?--Egghead06 (talk) 10:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I just don't see the need for them to be there in the first place--Spudgfsh (talk) 12:56, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two simple reasons – the worldwide audience and the inability of quite a few devices to display images. A casual reader from a non-UK country does probably not immediately know where to find Arsenal, so the location is helpful here. The same goes for any readers which use text-only devices such as screenreaders.
 * As for the "correct locations" – there is a pretty simple way to determine what will be shown in the table if WP:COMMONSENSE seems not to be enough. Just take the respective data from the official Premier League yearbook, put it into the corresponding column, and tack the respective citation to the column header. But, as a said, only if the application of common sense does not suffice here. *sarcasm off* --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Point taken--Spudgfsh (talk)

In response to the comment in the change made by User:Stevo1000. Do not confuse someone saying that places are within 'Manchester' or within 'Greater Manchester'. If you use the Metropolitan Borough of 'Manchester' MCFC are within it but MUFC, WAFC and BWFC most certainly are not. Greater Manchester is a Ceremonial County within England and Manchester is a place within that county. It matters not whether you cannot tell the join between 'Manchester' and its surrounding Metropolitan Boroughs. If you say that MUFC, BWFC and WAFC are in 'Manchester' you are being wrong. If you say that BWFC and WAFC are within 'Greater Manchester' then it is like using Norfolk for Norwich City. While it is technically correct you might as well just say Europe.

When it comes to the London clubs you have a similar issue; Greater London is both a ceremonial county and an Administrative Division of England (Similar in status to East Anglia say). If you use City of London you are only referring to the Square Mile. The difference between London and Manchester is there is no borough of London (only the City of London) and any reference to London is not to a specific part of greater London but to all of it. When you are doing the same for Manchester you are not being clear as you could be referring to either.

Having spent some time to look at the detail of this I would suggest that using the boroughs that the stadia are in.--Spudgfsh (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I would recommend listing the London boroughs/metropolitan boroughs AND county that the stadia are in too. This would include changes to the clubs in London, West Midlands and Greater Manchester. All I am saying is that Old Trafford is not in Manchester, which is of course true. What's the point of having a location box with incorrect locations listed? Stevo1000 (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Although the London clubs are listed as being in London, Old Trafford should not be listed as Manchester. The reason that I am recommending this is in a cultural sense; "London" commonly refers to the Greater London metropolitan area when used in everyday conversation, "Manchester" does not. To illustrate this point, why then is the population of London regularly quoted as 7,825,200 in official figures, when the population of Manchester is quoted as 498,800, below cities such as Leeds when the like for like comparison to London would be 2.2 million! I argue that a like for like comparison between Manchester and London is therefore invalid owing the huge gulf in standards between the way the two cities are measured.

In addition, with names such as Arsenal, Chelsea, Tottenham, etc., there is a need to list these clubs as London clubs, so a foreign person can understand where these clubs are based. This is not the case with Manchester United. I believe that Wikipedia should offer clear-cut standards across the board. The truth is Manchester United play within the borough of Trafford, as Chadderton F.C. play within the borough of Oldham, but fairly close to the border of Manchester. Why does one club have special treatment as a result of perceived prestige and heritage and the other does not as a non league football club, and is cited as playing with Greater Manchester as opposed to within the city itself? A further example would be Droylsden F.C. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia must have a standard across the board, and cannot pick and choose just to suit the club within question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.249.191 (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm afraid there are some people on here who are a bit thick and seem to think they know it all. It's quite clear they don't know the geography of Greater Manchester. Under their logic, Bolton Wanderers, Oldham Athletic, Rochdale and Wigan Athletic would all be in Manchester - which of course is not true. While I'm at it, I'm off to change the location of the Empire State Building to New Jersey. I hope these dullards will wake up one day and realise that Old Trafford is not in Manchester as the name suggests. Stevo1000 (talk) 22:52, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Assists Table removed
Iv'e removed the Assists Table, there are three sources with all three diff amount of assists for player, such has Silva with 13, 12 and 11 assists, and so is Valencia assists and many more. Not supported by PremierLeague.com so we shouldn't iclude it. – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree. We do not need an Assists Table. ericxpenner (talk) 05:08, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * We absolutely do. Assists are a key part of modern football's statistics. They provide further insight to the players in the league as well as just being interesting to look at. Re: the different assists issue, we should just use the most trusted website (eg espn) and stick with it. Antisha (talk) 9 March 2012

Leader after each Gameweek
I think that a chart that illustrates what team is leading the standings after each gameweek should be included, similar to the Lap Leaders chart used in articles such as the 2011 Australian Grand Prix or the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix (both to the top right of your screen). Post what you think. Editadam 18:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Financial Budget
Is it an good idea to add the budgets of the clubs for this season in the Teams section? and to do that for all clubs in Europe in the future?

like this in the dutch version of Eredivisie 2011/2012, in the table Teams, header "Begroting" []

I think it would be very intersting for European matches to look up how "big" or "small" the opponent is, financial wise, as a Dutchman(clubs have very small budget in comparison to the major leages) its always fun to know if you beat a team with 4 times budget, but its quite hard to find the data so a list on wikipedia will be very handy. In The Netherlands its mandatory to publish your financial plan for upcoming season, dont know if its mandatory in every league in Europa, so collecting the data will be problematic.

P.S. If i want to do this for all the leagues where should i post this idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.84.206.224 (talk) 01:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For a general query about this topic, you should leave a message at WT:FOOTY. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Stadium names
Etihad Stadium and Sports Direct Arena. These are getting changed back and forward in this article on a daily basis (sometimes 3 times a day!) to include/remove the sponsor names. Any chance of consensus as to the correct version?--Egghead06 (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC) – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sponsored names - We should use the sponsered names, there are over 70 stadiums arround wikipedia which uses the sponsered names (American Football, Asso. Football, Basketball, Hockey, and so on), and so is Arsenal in this article, so no reason why ManCity and Newcastle would not do so aswell.

Assists Table Reference
Slightly contradicting myself as I earlier suggested using ESPN, but could we use the fantasy football statistics on the official premier league website to update the assists? ESPN seems quite inaccurate and I highly doubt anyone is going to have a better portrayal of the actual assists table then the representatives of the premier league themselves. Antisha (talk) 3 April 2012 —Preceding undated comment added 01:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC). – HonorTheKing (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you have it than better use it. Now that the PL also shows the assists in thier tweeter feed its easier to see.
 * I don't see why not. It meets WP:RS and WP:V. And I agree that assists is a pretty important statistic. We've also showed assists in previous league seasons. --BDD (talk) 16:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I looked for this source and was unsuccessful. Do you have to be a participant in the official fantasy league? --BDD (talk) 19:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the stats is that you have different definitions of when an assist is actually counted. Different people have different ideas and end up with different stats as a result.  They are a part of the fantasy footy fans idea of football but they have little relevance to the rest of football. --Spudgfsh (talk) 18:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

"Attention editor" message
I'm a bit confounded by the "Attention editor" warning that shows up with every edit of the article warning users against live updating. It doesn't appear to be a regular template. It appears, and perhaps originated, on the user page of Fabregas0414. This seems surprisingly un-transparent for Wikipedia. Can anyone point me to a formal expression of this policy? I can see where live editing can be extremely problematic in league tables, but in statistics, especially top scorers, it can (and has, in the past) work rather smoothly. I don't see anything in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER that would strictly forbid this. There's also not exactly a WP:V problem either. If I make a live update to include, say, Rooney's latest goal, I could include a ref link to a live feed of the game. That we don't bother with that sort of thing is more a readability or cluttering issue, IMO.

Anyway, apart from my difference of the opinion regarding the policy (if it is such), I don't like the condescension of the warning. It kind of assumes bad behavior on the part of users simply based on previous discussions. Why not just have similar warnings when someone goes to edit China? Surely the name dispute there is more contentious than live updating of sport statistics. --BDD (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Content dispute
Hi there. There seems to be a dispute between a few editors regarding the name of Newcastle United's stadium. There has not been a great deal of discussion on this page, so I don't think a consensus has been established. I would urge editors to use this time to discuss the issue and reach a consensus as soon as possible. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Premier League and Newcastle United now use the new stadium name of Sports Direct Arena, including a quote from the offical website, "The Sports Direct Arena, formerly known as St. James' Park...".


 * I was under the impression that there was a discussion on this page which agreed that the sponsored names would be used. The problem seems to be that there are a lot of Newcastle fans out there that do not like the change in the name and they keep changing the name where ever it appears (both here and the next season).
 * A reference to the Premier League website which called the stadium 'The Sports Direct Arena' was used previously as a reference before it was changed to the current one by myself. The current reference is from the official Newcastle site which names their stadium.  I personally cannot think of a better reference than the club itself. Spudgfsh (talk) 20:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I did notice that short discussion, but I'm not sure how inclusive it has been. It might be that the IPs involved are refuse to participate in the discussion; if that turns out to be the case, I think there would be a stronger case for longer-term semi-protection or blocking disruptive people. However, it would be good to at least attempt discussion with them first. Has anyone invited the IPs involved to take part in a discussion yet? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, someone from the WP:FOOTY police will be over here soon to set you all straight. I tried changing an infobox only on NUFC and have been hounded out of the article by a handful of editors claiming a consensus. Effectively what they have is a Groupthink and when challenged for the documented consensus I was talked down by the cabal. Leaky  Caldron  17:11, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the page List of Premier League stadiums the last six changes to the page has been an alternating between the two names for Newcastle's ground (SJP and SDA). The page for St James' Park is already semi-protected for which I assume is for this very problem.

Spudgfsh (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The biggest shame for a project like Wiki is that some adults cannot compromise on what, in the grand scheme of football documentation, is such a minor part. Fans who have known the ground for years by a certain name will continue to use that name. Mike Ashley and his directors, for reasons of sponsorship, have renamed the ground. Boths names exist in the eyes of one or the other party. In the eyes of many only one of the names is acceptable. If egos cannot accept that in the real world two names are used then this project will continue to spend an inordinate amount of time on reverting and name calling. By the way I don't believe I am a member of the WP:FOOTY police, more like a PCSO who would rather see more time spent of improvement on articles than over a stadium name!--Egghead06 (talk) 08:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. When change is repudiated and reverted as vandalism by experienced editors, including Admins., despite the weight of changes applied by both registered and unregistered users and the only brief discussion purporting to be a consensus discussion actually relates to a different topic and a very small group of editors maintain that line and refuse sensible compromise which would allow for both old and current names to be included in article infoboxes, it signifies an unhealthy lack of collaboration. Leaky  Caldron  10:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * If I may say so, I do believe that this is what the Arbitration Committee exists to solve. That way we have a binding resolution which can be enforced by the sysops. It's a little regrettable that it might have to come to this, but sometimes what is needed is not the wisdom of crowds, which can be undulating and prone to influence by those most willing to talk loudest, but the rigid certainty of a voice of authority. Has anyone thought of contacting them yet? Falastur2  Talk 13:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Has there actually been any resolution to this issue or has the couple of days protection just stopped the numbered users trying to change the stadium name until they realise now can again? Would there be a problem with changing the stadium name to use both (ie St James' Park aka Sports Direct Arena). If both names were to appear that way round would calm more NUFC fans. Spudgfsh (talk) 18:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You could try but I fear it won't last. It isn't only NUFC. The Footy crowd just don't accept the commercialisation of ground names, full stop. Leaky  Caldron  15:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems like a solution. Now all it needs is someone who really cares about resolution to get this rolling.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I cannot make the change since I have no relationship with the hard-bitten football followers at WP:FOOTY and it would be just reverted as vandalism. I think User:GiantSnowman suggested this during my dispute about the infobox on NUFC. However, due to the hostile nature of the dispute it was taken no further. I think he was concerned how it would appear to some of the other Footy contributors since he is a big mover and shaker over there. Sorry if this doesn't help. Leaky  Caldron  16:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is taking something to the Arbitration Committee something that can be 'reverted'? Don't think so.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a content dispute which is Ultra vires as far as Arbcom is concerned. Leaky  Caldron  17:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about my suggestion though it does raise the question of all the other stadia (old trafford known as 'The Theatre of Dreams', Etihad Stadium known as COMS, Eastlands). This article is not really the place to list all different stadium name variations and we could be inviting more problems than we fix.

BUT: If my suggestion can be considered a 'settled position' at least for now I will make the change and we can get Admins involved if we have any further trouble. Spudgfsh (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

– HonorTheKing (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It does not important if one like the old name and hate the new name, the fact that the PL and Newcastle renamed the stadium is what matters. For ten years Wigan ground was known as JJB Stadium for sponsership reasons and now its called DW Stadium, and Because the new name is what used in the Premier League notebook than we use it, it joins Reebok, Britannia, Sports Direct, Emirates, Etihad, Kingston Communications (KC), Walkers (now King Power) in the names the PL articles over the years used as the stadiums names.
 * Comment  My apologies to those discussing the name issue. I stuck my nose in and maybe made a mess of things. Mostly I got confused between 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.  :( Though I sagely suggested reading and commenting on the talk page, I didn't take advantage myself (I thought that I had...long day)... at any rate, I made a change to the 2011-2012 Premier League page (thinking it was 2012-2013) that I thought might be a compromise. If consensus is that the old name should not be used at all, so be it. My apologies for making a mess of things! I'll bow out now :)   Wikipelli  Talk   20:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Qualification to Europe
The table section should have some information regarding 3-6th place and qualification to CL or EL given results in CL and FA-cup finals. Steinarbe (talk) 23:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why we include the Cup-related qualifications anyway. This is an article about the league. There could be a bit of text explaining how the league-based European places were determined (ie Chelsea potentially winning the CL etc.), but, for example, highlighting Liverpool, despite being in mid-table, as qualifying for Europe is somewhat misleading to the casual reader, who could interpret that this was somehow as a result of league position. --AlasdairShaw (talk) 08:52, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's exactly why qualification berths earned from exterior competitions have a note attached. In any case, things should be much clearer after the conclusion on the FA Cup Final on Saturday. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 10:19, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Should be brought for discussion. However, do not including those information would cause the problem which happened last season, where Birmingham got a play-off round berth but not QR3 berth. In any cases before it has been decided, Birmingham should be regarded as QR3 qualifier. Also I have to bring this situation to this season now. Liverpool are the winners of League Cup, since Chelsea got an European competition berth, Liverpool would get a play-off spot if Birmingham's case considered. Should we wait for moments? Raymond "Giggs" Ko 20:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

''2. Chelsea have won the 2011-12 FA Cup and thus have qualified for the group stage of the 2012–13 UEFA Europa League. They may still qualify for the 2012–13 UEFA Champions League by winning the 2012 UEFA Champions League Final. In that case, Chelsea will qualify for the group stage of the 2012-13 UEFA Champions League, the third-placed team will qualify for the play-off round of the 2012-13 UEFA Champions League, and the fourth-placed team will enter the group stage of the 2012–13 UEFA Europa League.''
 * Chelsea winning the CL will not affect the third placed team directly qualifying for the Champions League group stage. The defending champions are given a separate slot. Teams finishing top 3 in the Premier League are guaranteed a place in the group stage. --Jairodz (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * If Chelsea end in 3rd or 4th in league table so the 5th enter to EL-GS, Liverpool (League Cup Winner) enter to EL-PO and the 6th enter to EL-3R, so Liverpool is (TQ) and not (Q) and Chelsea is not (TQ) in EL, because he can enter in CL --Stigni (talk) 12:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a fundamental difference between last season's EL qualification scenario and this season. In 2010–11, Manchester City played against Stoke City in the FA Cup Final and won. Since they also qualified for the Champions League, League Cup winners Birmingham City got promoted to the play-off round despite having finished lower than FA Cup runners-up Stoke. This is due to the rule that any cup runner-up not already qualified for an European competition gets the lowest available EL spot. Now, this season, Liverpool have won the League Cup and also played in the FA Cup Final against Chelsea. As they have lost the final, they would receive the lowest available spot, and that only if Chelsea qualify for the Champions League. However, since they already own that spot due to their League Cup victory, QR3 is the definite starting round for the Reds. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From EL page: "When the domestic cup winners (considered as the "highest-placed" qualifiers within the national association) also qualify for the Champions League, their Europa League place is vacated, and the remaining Europa League qualifiers are moved up one place, with the final place (with the earliest starting round) taken by the domestic cup runners-up, provided they do not already qualify for the Champions League or the Europa League. Otherwise, this place is taken by the highest-placed league finishers that have not yet qualified for the Europa League."
 * "remaining Europa League qualifiers are moved up one place" so the 5th PO->GS and League Winner QR3->PO. FA Cup RU go to QR3, but it is already qualify so 6th go to QR3. If Chelsea win the 2011-12 CL but not end 3rd or 4th, we have 4th EL GS, League Cup EL PO, 5th/6th EL QR3--Stigni (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That paragraph was written by me, and sorry that it was wrong with regards to this point (I will rewrite the paragraph). Basically, league cup winners and cup runners-up (if they do not yet qualify for Europe) always take the last qualification spot(s), with league cup winners having higher priority to the cup runners-up. So league cup winners should be excluded from the above "moving up" procedure. From the regulations, point 2.3, "In special circumstances, the winner of another official domestic competition may be entered for the UEFA Europa League instead of the lowest ranking top domestic league representative referred to in paragraphs 2.02(b) and 2.02(c), provided such a competition has been approved by UEFA before the start of the season in question (see Annex Ia)." This means the league cup winners are always "ranked" lower than all teams which qualify through league placement. Hope this clears it up. Chanheigeorge (talk) 16:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the link of the regulations but I still think about I explain before because it is not clear where it explain in the point 2.04. Because it only said in the case the Winner or both Winner and Runner-Up qualify for CL and not for EL. So for what I understand about the regulations we consider the League Winner like in a "5.5" position in the league table.--Stigni (talk) 17:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is very late at night, the regulations are not entirely clear, so all I can say is that what Mentoz86 says below is correct. In no circumstances will Liverpool enter the PO round next season, because they are always ranked "lower" than all teams which qualify through the league. You may also refer to the page of Bert Kassies (an expert in this matter), and he says that Liverpool must enter the Q3 round. Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Losing "main" cup finalist (in case of Chelsea qualifying for CL) are always ranked lowest (ref last year) and the league cup winners second lowest, with the teams qualifying from the league above these and the cup winner is ranked first. This means that Liverpool joins 3QR and the 6th place (if not Chelsea) earns the PO-spot. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The regulations said that the League Cup Winner enter "instead of the lowest ranking top ... in the paragraph 2.02(b)" so instead the 6th in the league. So in the 2.04 consider the case where the Cup Winner enter in CL, but if the League Cup Winner are consider better then the Cup Runner-Up, why are to consider it worse then 6th position that is consider worse then the Cup R-U?
 * For now I assume you are correct, but I will write a email to Bert Kassies for explanation.--Stigni (talk) 17:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Take the example of Lithuania in the 2011–12 UEFA Europa League (see 2011–12 UEFA Europa League and 2011–12 UEFA Europa League). The 1st-placed team also won the cup, so the EL places should have been: 2nd, 3rd, CR. But the 3rd-placed team could not get a UEFA license, and so was replaced by the 4th-placed team. And the revised distribution became: 2nd, 4th, CR. So the CR is not considered as the "3.5"-th team, it is considered as "lower" than any team that qualify through the league. Same for LC winner. Basically consider the CR and the LC winner as given "special dispensation" to enter the EL, so they always enter the lowest possible round. Chanheigeorge (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, when I said the LC is the "5.5"-th I don't consider that case... Think about that the 4th was called to replace the 3rd and so he take that spot, but here the 6th are called to replace the CRU because it is already qualified (LC) so it have to take that spot. Because this discussion is quite inconclusive I assume you are right although I have doubts.--Stigni (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've "considered" the case when LC winner and CR are the same team, whether it should be 6th > LC or LC > 6th (unfortunately all our discussions are going to be moot anyway given how Chelsea are playing right now). Ultimately after going through regulations and prior examples and other references, my conclusion is that UEFA's preference of teams qualifying for EL berths are: cup winner > league position > league cup winner > cup runner-up > fair play. And this applies no matter how berths have been vacated or how many teams have been refused entry by UEFA. Chanheigeorge (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We have to see the CL final, and if Chelsea defeat Bayern the UEFA have to say if Liverpool it is in the in the PO and the 5th in the QR3 or vice versa. We have to wait. --Stigni (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Will you include the best of the 20 seasons awards?
Hi there. I don't edit football articles. I just wondered if you were considering putting the 20th season celebratory awards on the article? The winners are here. I think the shortlists for each are on the site if you dig around a bit too. --bodnotbod (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Personally I think that they belong on the main premier league page as they don't relate to this particular season (apart from when they were awarded of course) Spudgfsh (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 May 2012
Chelsea won the UEFA Champions League 86.45.12.149 (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've nulled the help request since the page is no longer protected. If you can find and cite a Reliable Source (RS) for the information, please include it. Dru of Id (talk) 10:57, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

PFA Team of the Year
Does anyone else find it hard to read some of the players name on the graphic for the Team of the Year? My eyesight probably isn't the best, but it's difficult to make out the Man City players names, and Rooneys isn't too clear either. I don't know enough about coding to change the colours, but I don't think anything would be lost if all names were black or white. BulbaThor (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, they are all very hard to read. I don't even think the graphic is necessary, to be honest. Can't we just delete it? – PeeJay 22:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

QPR v Man City article?
Probably the single most sensational game in Premier League History, Liverpool v Arsenal (1989) has an article, why not this one?

One could make a case for Man United's 8-2 win over Arsenal as well — Preceding unsigned comment added by FootyStavros (talk • contribs) 05:19, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Because whether or not a game is "sensational" is not an objective criterion for determining its notability. There are plenty of Premier League games that could be described as "sensational" and only very few have specific articles. The result itself was not particularly significant – it was just another win that happened to come at the end of a title-winning season – and no records were set during the game, unlike the biggest win and the highest-scoring game in league history. However, if you can prove that the match will have long-lasting notability beyond one club's own personal lore (since notability is not temporary, then we could consider creating the article. – PeeJay 14:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on 2011–12 Premier League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307070548/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/clubs/profile.stadium.html/man-city to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/clubs/profile.stadium.html/man-city
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120110022234/http://www.premierleague.com:80/en-gb/news/news/ba-and-oneill-win-barclays-awards.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/ba-and-oneill-win-barclays-awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090303141801/http://www.premierleague.com:80/page/LeagueTables/0,,12306,00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/LeagueTables/0,,12306,00.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111127222419/http://www.premierleague.com:80/page/FixturesResults/0,,12306,00.html to http://www.premierleague.com/page/FixturesResults/0,,12306,00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011–12 Premier League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120512022936/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/best-season-award-goes-to-2011-12-campaign.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/best-season-award-goes-to-2011-12-campaign.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111204003035/http://www2.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2011-12.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2011-12.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/ba-and-oneill-win-barclays-awards.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bwfc.co.uk/page/General/0%2C%2C1004~2722507%2C00.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011–12 Premier League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/2380210
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120305022245/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/wenger-odemwingie-win-barclays-awards.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/wenger-odemwingie-win-barclays-awards.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120507014524/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/martinez-and-jelavic-earn-barclays-awards.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/martinez-and-jelavic-earn-barclays-awards.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)