![]() | A news item involving 2011–12 Premier League was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 May 2012. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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 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? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
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-holic I hear voices in my head... 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Sven Manguard Wha? 22:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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" [ [1]]
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chelsea won the UEFA Champions League 86.45.12.149 ( talk) 21:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/2380210When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | A news item involving 2011–12 Premier League was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 13 May 2012. | ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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 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? Sven Manguard Wha? 04:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
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-holic I hear voices in my head... 22:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
Sven Manguard Wha? 22:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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 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)
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" [ [1]]
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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.
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)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Chelsea won the UEFA Champions League 86.45.12.149 ( talk) 21:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:56, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.chelseafc.com/news-article/article/2380210When 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)