Talk:Premier League 2007-08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Association football Portal The article on Premier League 2007-08 is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents 1 Clean Sheet Table 2 Reading Kit 3 Liverpool Kits 4 Match Table 5 Form guide 6 Live Tv Rights 7 Fixture lists 8 Colors of the Result table 9 Sortable standings table 10 Is scheduled to end 11 League Table 12 Portsmouth Canterbury Kit 13 Fastest goal table 14 Top Scorer Table 15 Editing 16 Golden Boot 17 Serious Citations Needed 18 Archiving 19 Table question 20 Manager change table 21 Goal by Tomas Rosicky v Boro 22 Updating the League Table 23 Wigan Athletic Kit 24 Sorting the league table by goal difference 25 Competition berths clinched 26 Emmanuel Eboue 27 Intertoto Cup 28 UEFA Cup 29 Relegated/Relegation 30 Tottenham and UEFA Cup 31 Derby Relegated 32 Portsmouth & UEFA Cup 33 Pictures 34 sortable table 35 Manchester City 36 Average home attendances 37 Manchester United titles 38 Reference

[edit] Clean Sheet Table

Can Any one Add clean Sheet table for EPL. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.118.128.252 (talk) 09:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reading Kit

I can see that Umbro has been confirmed as Reading's sponsor next season but I can find no evidence for this on the net or on Reading's club site. Can we please see some confirmation. Ultrabeater 16:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears the info may justhave been entered in the wrong column Chaza93 20:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Rid of this chat please too. (Piyush90 19:38, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Liverpool Kits

Will officially be today (31 May) but on the adidas Liverpool site you can see on the preview that it's going to be a white shirt with a red outlining.

[edit] Match Table

Match Table Added for Next Season  ¢нαzα93  11:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Form guide

For when the season starts should we have a 6 game form guide, like the one on the official website.

Personally, I think that would be a bit difficult to maintain, and not very encyclopaedic. It's a no from me this time. - PeeJay 19:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry its a no from me, Simon? Chaza93 08:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Live Tv Rights

I've added the most comprehensive list I can manage. Htb50 16:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, but is it worthy of inclusion? Similar lists of international broadcasters have been removed from most TV Series, and I think it is of even less relevance here. - fchd 18:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose I should form the defence's case :) Well, I think it does simply because there is a precident - the La Liga 06/07 article. You could, though, argue that maybe we could have a seperate article linked in the main Premier League page, as is the case with F1 and the UEFA Champions League (which I set-up and which would greatly benefit from help from others).Htb50 14:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• I will create the page List of Premier League Broadcasters (2007-08) because the broadcasters are very likely to change over time Chaza1000 05:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• OK, but I guess it will probably be at AfD before long. - fchd 05:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• OK Chaza, that's a fair compromise :) Htb50 10:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fixture lists

As those of us who run supporter related sites know, it is illegal to post fixtures without a license from the FootballDataCo. I have removed the fixtures. Not because I agree with those SOBs, but because I don't want to see WP get sued. Jddphd 23:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Drive-by comment by curious recent-changes watcher: Are you sure? US law applies to Wikipedia, and I'm fairly confident this isn't true of US schedules for baseball, american football, etc. I'd be surprised if it applies to football fixtures published in the US. I'm not confident enough about it to revert, but something to think about and look into, maybe. --barneca (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm sure. I might be driving by, but I am also a committee member of the Manchester United Supporters Trust and a contributer to the fanzine Red News. I know from whence I speak. The schedules for US sports are not guarded nearly as zealously as the EPL fixtures. I'm not kidding. Jddphd 23:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Here - look at this too Jddphd 23:25, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

From the PA-SPORT.com site...

Jddphd 23:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just want to be clear about a couple of things:

1. I meant I was a drive-by commenter, not you. No snideness was intended.

1. I understand people in the UK and the EU are bound by this, and that your off-wiki site in (I assume) the UK is bound by this. I'm just wondering if Wikipedia is, since in a disclaimer somewhere it says Wikipedia is bound by the laws of the State of Florida. My (very limited) understanding of US copyright law is that, regardless of whether they were zealous or not, an American sports team couldn't copyright their upcoming schedule. If my interpretation is right, the US approach is that you can't copyright facts. So, I was just wondering aloud whether this would come in handy for you or not. In fact, one reason I think this, is a thread I stumbled across somewhere recently, and which I will try to find momentarily, where someone (with apparently Wikipedia community backing) was parsing a list of birds on a website that claimed to be copyrighted. If I can find that thread before I leave, I'll post it here.

1. Like I said, this is certainly not enough justification to add the fixtures back, and I could certainly be wrong. But if you're interested, it might be worth looking into in more detail. --barneca (talk) 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I was driving by too :-) No offence taken, none intended on my part either.

I'll try to have a look around to see what I can see. --Jddphd 00:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I've poked around on several copyright-related pages linked from WP:Copyright, and haven't found anything. It's an interesting enough question to me that I am in the process of composing a question on Wikipedia talk:Copyrights/Can I use...#Football fixtures. The link should be live in 5 to 10 minutes (still tidying it up), and we'll see if anyone with more experience than me chimes in. --barneca (talk) 00:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Good post. Let's see what gets reeled in. Jddphd 00:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Look - we had the Fixtures up by now for last season, and we encountered no problems so i dont see what all the fuss is about Chaza 93 17:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

That's because there were several people who kept stripping them out whenever they found them. Football DataCo are very hot on this. There is a definite claim of copyright, and for Wikipedia to ignore this on the basis that it doesn't work that way for US sport fixtures would be extreme folly. I don't agree with their interpretation of the copyright, or the way then enforce it, but it has been proven in court (albeit quite some time ago). - fchd 18:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, never knew that we english weren't even allowed to put football fixtures on the internet for other peoples benefits in an encyclopedia - it just doesn't make any sense to me! Chaza 93 08:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't have to make sense. That's just the way it is. - PeeJay 09:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

In which case, shouldn't there be a line saying fixtures will be included when allowed by copyright law?

No, because they won't ever be allowed by copyright law, unless law changes to prevent people from claiming anything as their intellectual property. - PeeJay 19:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Colors of the Result table

Answer to User:El-Nin09's question: The black squares, what I believe you mean the gray squares that are place in the row/column intersection of the same team, use the color code CCCCCC. I think this is a good color because is not to dark to take the attention from the score squares. The blue code is DFE7FF and the red code is FFDFDF. I hope I understood your question and this answer it. Regards.--ClaudioMB 16:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Is the "new" table really an improvement on the old one? I'm suprised you have made such a major change without discussing it at Talk first (unless I'm missing something, in which case I apologise) . - fchd 16:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't discuss it before change. Maybe I should have done that. Anyway, the improvement is not much for readers, since, visually, the difference is minimal, but for editors, it's a great improvement because it is much easier to add new scores.--ClaudioMB 16:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think that El-Nin09 actually meant the squares for future games which have not yet been played, not the squares blanked out because teams can't play themselves. The new table, while (I say this from experience) being much easier to edit quickly, doesn't load correctly in Internet Explorer (and possibly other browsers, I've only tested FF and IE7). The squares which don't have their own background preset - i.e. match squares with no results in (yet) are set to black for some reason, by IE. I'm not sure why it does that, but it does - I caught onto this fact when I looked up the table on IE7 at work earlier, and have subsequently tested it on my own IE7 at home. It does look a little ugly, I have to say, but I guess it's not awful - at least when results come in, the black squares are slowly replaced with correctly-coloured ones. Falastur2 18:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

But, in all previous seasons they are not black, and we have never had consensus to change the table, and i would be willing to accept the colored result squares, as long as you are able to use HTML and WIKI coding to make the black "future fixture" squares white again. El-Nin09 18:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, man. It's not the end of the world. Internet Explorer has many flaws, and this is evidently a consequence of one of them. Just don't get in a stress about it. - PeeJay 19:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for losing it a bit, can we not compromise and just use the Color codes to colorize the current table El-Nin09 19:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think colouring the table is necessary. It's easy to see whether the match resulted in a home win, an away win or a draw, just by comparing the numbers of goals scored by each team. The table is fine as it is now, and, provided consensus agrees, we should leave it that way. - PeeJay 19:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize, totally my fault. I didn't test the table in IE, I use Fire Fox. The for future matches were set like this "bgcolor#" what result white in FF and black in IE. Now, it's fixed. I'll place the "new" table back, then we can see what editors think about it. About the blue and red, it just makes much easier for readers see how a team is playing at home and away. But this could be change. The important about this table is the editing, not the layout. If wanted, it could look exactly like the "old" one. --ClaudioMB 20:05, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This is just conjecture, but looking forwards to the end of the season, this new style results table is going to end up looking like a poorly-made quilt with all those different colours all over the place. The only thing this table has going for it is that it is easier to input the results this way. - PeeJay 20:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to say, now it is fixed, i would go with this table, it looks better and the Columns are equal widthsEl-Nin09 20:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The blue and red could be change any time. I'll improve the templates documentation, so, if necessary, anyone could easy change it in the future. Regards. --ClaudioMB 20:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sortable standings table

I'm curious as to why the standings table is sortable. It is really an unnecessary function, and when things are sorted everything is thrown into disarray when it comes to place for Europe/relegation status (the table becomes broken, for lack of a better word). It may be easier to update the standings at the end of each game, but I can't see there being a need for it being sortable. --Snojoe 18:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I really wish User:ClaudioMB would discuss things here before making drastic changes like that. - PeeJay 18:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people could find unnecessary, others, like myself, useful. I don't like to impose my taste to others, in this case, who doesn't like to sort, just don't use it. Anyway, since the table was not sortable before and nobody else, but me, want sortable, leave not sortable. I'll change the template to sortable be an option, so other article could use it. About the change, the code is drastically different, but the table's look is pretty much as before. Because the content, not the code, is the goal of Wikipedia, I didn't feel a discussion should be necessary. However, next time I'll open a discussion before do it. Regards. --ClaudioMB 07:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually think having a sortable table would be very handy. Its handy to see who has scored the most goals, conceded the most et cetera. Is there no way this could be reimplimented? Codu ^(t)⁄_(c) •  13:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The way to make the table sortable is adding the sort parameter in the first template, like this: {{Fb_cl_header |sort=y }}. --ClaudioMB 21:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is scheduled to end

I changed it because in 1989 an earthquake changed the schedule of the baseball championship and delayed the games several days. Therefore, even if we think the season will end, it may not end at that date. Another example was the premature end of the 1994 baseball season. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Radio Guy (talk • contribs) 03:22, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

[edit] League Table

OK we do not do branding on this page can Coca Cola please be removed El-Nin09 18:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Like I have said before, I really wish User:ClaudioMB had consulted the discussion page before making such a wholesale change to the structure of the article. - PeeJay 18:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. Before changes to the premier league season's page by new or unregistered users was taken away (why btw?), I added the purple intertoto qualification colour to the 6th place standing because I read somewhere that that's what happens (don't understand coding so copy pasted from another league's page). Now I can't fix it like I normally would and it looks stupid being out of place.

Long story short please fix the ugly table. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryn2587 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Qualification for the Inter-Toto Cup is awarded to the highest-placed team that applied for the tournament. There has been no indication that Portsmouth applied for entry to the Inter-Toto, so the colouration is applied to the next highest team who did apply: Aston Villa. – PeeJay 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portsmouth Canterbury Kit

Just want to confirm one thing - it appears Deportivo la Coruna also have a Canterbury kit. Are we confident in saying the Portsmouth kit was first - if we are, can it be cited? 121.208.196.161 13:42, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fastest goal table

I found it is very ridicious to put the goals scored outside 1 minute. Why don't we make the list into the top 10 fastest goals? Raymond Giggs 06:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you. That goals less than a minute is complete poppycock. I think that ridiculous thing should be removed. Crazywax (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm inclined to agree. There is an entry for the fastest goal of the season in the Season statistics section, so I don't see why we need to have a separate table for just two more fast goals. – PeeJay 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Top Scorer Table

I think we should included all goal scoreres for the whole season and then at the end cut it back to the top ten as i feel it will be easier to update as all the scorers will be on there, and having it as we do we could miss a player out when he reaches the top ten, what do you think? MotorSportMCMXC 08:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree, if people can be sure to keep it up-to-date. We did have all the scorers before someone, unilaterally, decided those with only one goal had to go!--Egghead06 08:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That is pointless, because then imagine how long the list would get, i propose limiting it to the one on here El-Nin09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.159.134.133 (talk) 19:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think about 10 or 12 would be the right size for such a list, with all those tied for the last included place obviously included. - fchd 19:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I changed it in the first place, except I lacked the eloquence to explain it then. - PeeJay 19:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would advise that you do NOT do this until we are further in the season, otherwise the list will be stupendously huge at the moment! El-Nin09 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So we came to consensus to shorten this list to the top 10-12 did we? Must have missed it!!!!--Egghead06 07:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

thats why we got rid of the players who only scored 1 goal and as all the other seasons show the top 10 is the amount needed MotorSportMCMXC 15:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. What's the point in having a really long list of every player who scored a goal this season? - PeeJay 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The point is that it is in work in progress. As pointed out, above, to have all names makes it easier to increment totals. At the END of the season reverting it to 10-12 would be the time to do it. Also there are ways of having scrollable tables of data within a fixed data box (ie the box stays the same size, the data scrolls within it, so not making a long list)--Egghead06 16:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please, please,please no to scrollable tables. These are an accessibility nightmare. As I said earlier in the thread, 10-12 names seems about right. If you add many more, the table loses it's impact. Keep "Works In Progress" to user pages and personal websites. This is an encyclopaedia after all. - fchd 17:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

Is there anyway we can make the article so only users can edit it as it is really annoying with people messing up the table? MotorSportMCMXC 15:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the policy: Wikipedia:Protection_policy.--ClaudioMB 15:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You cant do it just for that reason! El-Nin09 19:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golden Boot

Are the Golden Boot standings going to include assists? Most countries use assists to sort players with the same goal total. Currently last name is being used. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.190.13 (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

England isn't "most countries" though, is it? The Premier League ranks players with the same number of goals equally, so sorting by alphabetical order seems a logical way to organise the table. - PeeJay 16:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't they share it like Owen did a few years back? (Piyush90 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Yes, but the goalscorers have to be sorted in a table somehow, and since no record of assists is kept, alphabetical order is the best way to do it for players who are level on goals scored. - PeeJay 21:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Citations Needed

I have placed several Citation needed tags on the article, because it just says things at the moment that may not be true, please find some sources, or i will remove the uncited stuff in 1 week, so next Tuesday (2nd Oct) El-Nin09 18:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Done - PeeJay 20:04, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - now you may think i am being really picky, and some of this is just General Knowledge, but i have placed some more tags on the article. El-Nin09 12:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Also done. And perhaps it was picky, but I guess it was needed. Some of that info wasn't easy for me to track down for the placing of citations. Falastur2 16:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, ill be less picky on this article (easy, they are all done, hehe!)El-Nin09 17:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Pickiness is good when it benefits Wiki. Falastur2 23:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

OK well in that case i found some more lol El-Nin09 18:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Which have now been cited. - PeeJay 18:10, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

Piyush90, please remember that archiving is not about keeping material up-to-date. Talk pages are not articles - when the information in them is out of date, we don't remove the text, it remains there as a record of the discussions that have taken place. Though the first few points here are not relevant to the article anymore, they are evidence of user activity, can be referenced in debates in future on how to proceed, and exist to prove that such discussion has already taken place. The point of archiving, on the other hand, is to abbreviate pages which may pose problems in loading for users with slow internet connections. While approaching that point, this talk page does not yet really have enough information to be worth archiving. If your concern is with being able to see the latest talking points instantly, then I would point out that that is not what archiving is for, and that you can do this easiest by using the "end" button on your keyboard to instantly view the bottom of the page, or by using the menu to select the query that you are interested in. Please see WP:ARCHIVE on Wikipedia's policy on Archiving. Falastur2 21:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "Isn't Fulham Safe" bit because it had nothing to do with this season as is therefore not needed. Furthermore, Talk pages are needed mostly for making the actual article better and more accurate - not just for talking. It has to lead somewhere. Plus it would get crammed with a million posts if we didn't clean up very old posts regulary.(90.201.204.209 20:08, 22 October 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] Table question

The German Bundesliga table traditionally notes the previous year's league winner, cup winner, relegated teams, etc (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu%C3%9Fball-Bundesliga_2007/08). Why isn't this done for the Premiereship? 69.231.199.194 19:03, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it's not relevant to this year's table? - fchd 19:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Manager change table

I'd like to propose managerial changes being presented in the form of a table as follows, but didn't want to just wade in and go ahead and make the edit unless other editors thought it was a good idea.

Team	Outgoing manager	Manner of departure	Date of vacancy	Replaced by	Date of appointment
Manchester City	Stuart Pearce	Sacked	14 May 2007[1]	Sven-Göran Eriksson	6 July 2007[2]
Chelsea	José Mourinho	Mutual consent	20 September 2007[3]	Avram Grant	20 September 2007[3]
Bolton Wanderers	Sammy Lee	Mutual consent	17 October 2007[4]	Gary Megson	25 October 2007[5]
Tottenham Hotspur	Martin Jol	Sacked	25 October 2007[6]	Juande Ramos	27 October 2007[7]
Wigan Athletic	Chris Hutchings	Sacked	5 November 2007[8]	Frank Barlow (caretaker)	5 November 2007[8]

89.242.73.181 11:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Maybe the reason for leaving (sacked, mutual consent etc) could be in a column of its own? Plus the refs need to be in there somewhere--Egghead06 11:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the reason for vacancy should be in a separate column. References should be attached to the dates of vacancy/appointment. - PeeJay 13:17, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it worth having a column for caretaker-managers? Probably not, but I thought I'd put the idea forward anyway. Falastur2 13:25, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the example to include the above suggestions. 78.148.8.132 19:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As have I, to reflect my suggestion properly. - PeeJay 20:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Added flagicon's as I think it is a good idea so if if there are more Non-British managers to English? Everlast¹⁹¹⁰ 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Modified flagicons to use the three-letter abbreviations for each country. I don't know why it bugs me so much, but whenever I see a flagicon that uses the country's full name, I have this compulsion to change it to use the TLA :-$ . - PeeJay 20:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the Man City change really need to be included? It seems to me that this change should be considered part of last year's season, as Pierce was sacked as a result of last year's performance and its not like Man City started this season without a manager and Sven appeared after they had already played competitive games. If this is the case then Paul Jewell leaving Wigan and Sam Allardyce joining Newcastle should be included. Unless someone can justify the addition I think we should delete it. Grant.alpaugh 17:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Technically, Stuart Pearce left last season, and Sven joined this season, so we can't properly categorise the change as happening in any one season. Make of that what you will. Falastur2 19:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Rather than saying that the change happened in neither season, we should say that it happened over the course of both seasons. I suggest that it be reinstated to the table. - PeeJay 19:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How exactly can you say that Sven joined this season. He was hired before Man City played any competitive games in what anyone would consider the "2007-08" season. In addition many bookmakers were taking bets on who would be the first manager to be sacked in the Prem and they paid out to the (jokingly here) three people who bet Jose Mourinho. Mourinho was the first change of the season by everyone's definition, thus he should be the first one listed on the table. Again, if you're going to consider Sven as being hired in this season then you have to consider Big Sam as being hired during this season as well. Grant.alpaugh 20:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Myself, I consider one season to end and the next one to begin at 00:00 on 1 July, i.e. when the transfer window opens. Allardyce was appointed as Newcastle manager in June 2007, and so by my definition he was appointed in the 2006-07 season, while Eriksson was appointed as Citeh manager in July 2007, so he joined in 2007-08. - PeeJay 20:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You could change it to "Manager change after last season" So you get everything after last season, and before this one, so you have all changes before this season starts. Chandlertalk 20:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Bit verbose, don't you think? - PeeJay 21:15, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

PeeJay is correct. According to FA rules, the season starts on 1 July, and runs for exactly one year. When teams are playing doesn't affect this, there is no "between-seasons interval". Falastur2 21:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite this? We're always being told in non-league circles that 1st June-1st July" is a closed season, and no matches can take place other than FIFA/UEFA organised events (e.g. Inter-Toto Cup etc.) in England. - fchd 21:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Really? I wasn't aware of that rule. However, for ease of organisation in these articles, I would still say that anything that happened before 1 July 2007 belongs in the FA Premier League 2006-07 article, and anything after that date goes in Premier League 2007-08.

Unindented to make for easier reading. - Found the rule - see - FA Rules 07-08. - fchd 22:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's a new one on me. Good find, Richard. Nevertheless, though, it doesn't solve the problem of whether Pearce's departure and Eriksson's appointment occurred in the 2006-07 season, the 2007-08 season, neither or both. That said, since the "close-season" is from 1 June to 1 July, and Eriksson was appointed in early July, it would make sense to say that it occurred in the 2007-08 season, if anything.- PeeJay 22:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Pearce was sacked in the middle of May, so I guess it does come under both seasons.- PeeJay 22:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Good call, I too didn't realise the close-season existed. My bad. Still, as PeeJay says, the problem remains. Personally, I have to say that I think it's for the better to add the transfer anyway, rather than claim it belongs to neither season. I don't suppose there is any room in the table for a "(2006-07 season)" addendum or comment? i.e. in the date of vacancy section. It's not as if we're starved for room for expanding the table by just a few characters (although I confess I haven't viewed the table in smaller screen resolution than 1280x1024). Falastur2 23:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Obviously this isn't a live or die issue, but I'd settle for a small note (maybe in subscript size text) that says under the table Mourinho's departure is generally considered the first of the season. I mean even the very beginning of the article mentions it. Thoughts? Grant.alpaugh 07:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would make sense, as people may not realise that Pearce's departure technically took place last season. - PeeJay 07:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goal by Tomas Rosicky v Boro

This source, [1] shows that Rosicky's goal was actually timed at 95 mins. Also, seeing as the BBC just state the goal as 90, no matter how late it was scored, just a point. F9T 21:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Im going to change it F9T 05:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

That ref no longer works and others show 90+4 - I've changed it back--Egghead06 (talk) 07:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Updating the League Table

I know that the League Table has an update date just underneath the table, but it's in footnote font, which virtually no casual reader will catch. It should be made abundantly clear to the average reader that the table is only current as of a certain date. Also, it should be pointed out in the "competition or relegation" column that the teams in colors have NOT been promoted or relegated, only that they are currently in those slots. Otherwise, the average reader will think that, for instance, the bottom three clubs in color have already been relegated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.89.187.178 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The common reader is by definition not uncommonly stupid. Most of the time the teams have completed different numbers of games, which unless you're a total nonce would make you realize the season is still going on. I think its pretty clear as of right now, but then again I could be wrong. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention that it is standard practice, at least in the UK, to demarcate football league tables with the promotion and relegation spots, including the European places as shown on our table here. If you watch a football program such as Match of the Day or read the sports section of a newspaper, whether they're describing a non-League league or the Premiership itself, the table's promotion/relegation places will be denoted with anything from a dotted line seperating the different "sections" (promotion/relegation/mid-table), to the kind of colours that we have in this article, no matter what stage of the season. It's standard procedure to do this, and I think that if we remove the colours, all we stand to do is confuse those people who view this article and don't know how many teams in a league stand to get relegated/qualify for Europe. After all, when you look at a league table, if you aren't looking at it to find an individual team, isn't the first thing you do to check the table to see who stands to be in a different league/playing in Europe next season? Falastur2 (talk) 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wigan Athletic Kit

Away kit is stated to be white with blue and black trim and third kit black - officially the "black" is "flint" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.28.176 (talk) 09:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sorting the league table by goal difference

When you do so, it makes a wrong listing. Can someone try to fix this? Lindberg47 (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I see what you mean by this, I'm no good with Wikitables but I'll see whats possible. // F9T 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, due to the way that the code works, I'm pretty sure this couldn't be fixed without fundamentally rewriting the entire table code. Falastur2 (talk) 01:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've improved the code, but seems to have a bug in the sortable table when there are negative values (sometimes, the software sort it as text, not as value). For ascendent, it works properly most of the times, but for descendent, it works just when the first line before clicking to sort it is already the first line after sorting. For the classification at this moment, try this: sort GD ascendent, then sort position ascendent (team with the most GD first), then sort GD descendent. So, I don't see a fast fix for this problem. If this is annoying, GD column could be unsortable. --ClaudioMB (talk) 05:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Competition berths clinched

Would it be appropriate to make Tottenham's UEFA Cup berth indicated by a darker shade of yellow to indicate that they have clinched that birth by winning the Carling Cup? Also, pretty soon Derby County is going to be mathematically relegated. Would it be appropriate to darken their shade of red to indicate that they have already clinched that berth in the Championship next year? Grant.alpaugh (talk) 06:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No, please indicate it in the prose rather than further obfuscating the table. - fchd (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

We could do both. Grant.alpaugh (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuel Eboue

Help me please, How many yellow card has Emanuel Eboue (Arsenal) got in this season, involve all of the fixtures???—Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.71.143.105 (talk) 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe he has two from the Premier League, though I would point out that this isn't the best place to ask. You'd be better asking on the Arsenal article page, or even better, finding a Wikipedian who is connected with Arsenal (i.e. makes regular edits to their pages, and asking them. Also, if you add comments such as these, please do not fill the bottom of the talk page with numerous timestamps. Thanks. Falastur2 (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Intertoto Cup

Does anyone have any clue who has actually applied for the Intertoto? I know of Everton and Man City, and I read that seven clubs have applied, but I don't know the other five. Until then, it may be a little hard to accurately place the Intertoto thingy on the league table - I see it's been moved to Aston Villa in 7th, but I'm not sure at all whether that's justified... Falastur2 (talk) 16:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] UEFA Cup

The 6th-placed team will only qualified if Tottenham finished fifth OR Portsmouth finished fifth (and as FA Cup winner with Cardiff City as the losing finalists)

The 7th-placed team will only qualified if both Tottenham and Portsmouth finished sixth or above and Portsmouth as FA Cup winner with Cardiff City as the losing finalists. Matthew_hk tc 19:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think condition (b) of european qualification can now be removed. Although Portsmouth can overtake Everton for 5th place and Tottenham can finish 6th, these events cannot happen together as Tottenham cannot overtake Everton following this weekends results. This means 7th place will not get a UEFA cup place in any circumstances. Geordie 11:00, 9 April 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.129.249.111 (talk)

7th place could get a UEFA Cup slot from the Fair Play table...but that's already covered by another of the conditions, so I guess you're right. Falastur2 (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That, and the spot allotted to the team that comes top of the Fair Play table isn't dependent on league position. Anyway, I've removed condition B, and reworded a few other things. – PeeJay 17:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relegated/Relegation

Shouldn't the table say relegation to Championship, rather than relegated which makes it sound like it has already happened. Currently even Derby County can still escape the drop.

I guess Relegation is better than Relegated. Another option would be to leave just the Championship link.--ClaudioMB (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The templates would have to be edited to say relegation. {{Fb cl qr}}. --CWY2190^TC 19:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Modified to Relegation. But I still asking if should say Relegation or leave just the Championship link. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tottenham and UEFA Cup

Since Tottenham classified for UEFA Cup because Carling Cup, I don't think that should be specified here in the Premier League table. --ClaudioMB (talk) 19:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it be there? England gets three spots. Spurs have one of them, FA Cup winner has one, and 5th place has one. It needs to be listed. --CWY2190^TC 19:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is about Premier League 2007-08. Tottenham got the UEFA Cup spot in the Football League Cup 2007-08. That should be mention there and in the 2007-08 in English football.--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Your logic is sound, but I believe that it is appropriate for Spurs' qualification for the UEFA Cup to be listed in the table as it makes it apparent that Spurs are now precluded from qualification to the Inter-Toto Cup. – PeeJay 20:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If the only reason to list Tottenham's qualification for the UEFA Cup is because the Inter-Toto Cup, there is a much better solution. If you read the (c) item on "More about European qualification:" you will see that only "Everton, Aston Villa, Blackburn Rovers and Manchester City are the applicants for the Intertoto Cup". That exclude Tottenham. If that is not enough, we could just add another sentence explain that Tottenham is not candidate to Intertoto Cup because they already classified to UEFA Cup because they won the League Cup. --ClaudioMB (talk) 16:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Now you're just being difficult. Pretty much every website indicates which clubs have qualified for Europe in the league table, so why should Wikipedia be any different. Not to mention that all previous seasons before this one have done so too. – PeeJay 16:58, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't like when someone calls someone else difficult. It sounds like a bossy person who doesn't like someone else disagreeing with him. So, focusing in the issue. I don't think complying with other websites is a policy here in Wikipedia. The goal here is to write the best article possible. That information could be confusing for readers not familiar with football. Also, if the articles from previous seasons make that mistake, they should be fixed, instead this one continue doing so. --ClaudioMB (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Convention and consensus is what matters. This provides the most information without any significant chance of "confusing people." As I have said on this page before, the average reader is by definition not of below-average intelligence. The note at the bottom of the table clearly states that Spurs won the Carling Cup and that is how they qualified for the UEFA Cup. I agree with PeeJay that you are just being difficult Claudio. Making the best article possible is the goal on Wikipedia, and blindly pushing your vision for the article with no respect for consensus or precident is disruptive and counter to the goals of Wikipedia. There's a reason why there is a long history of putting European places in the tables, both here and elsewhere, and I assure you it is not because it is confusing.-- Grant.Alpaugh 20:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear User:Grant.Alpaugh, I'm expressing my opinion, as anyone else here. That's all. Everyone has his/her own opinion about how an article should or not to be, and try to make it happens. I don't see anything wrong about that. That doesn't makes anyone more or less difficult. I hope you understand that. So, please, let's focus in the discussion itself. Regards. --ClaudioMB (talk) 21:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming good faith, but after reading some of the discussion here I have seen you being rather obstructive and difficult in the past, and was merely trying to point that out to you. My point is that your complaint/proposal has little to no merit, as my previous comment illustrates. I also think that some of this is getting lost in translation. I think your efforts might be better served on a project with which you have a better grasp of the language. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen and/or ladies, please, this isn't helping at all; we risk turning this debate into simple mud-slinging. Could we just ignore preconcieved conceptions and assume good faith and get back to the matter at hand? Thanks.

Anyway, to contribute my penny's worth, I have to agree with those who believe that the European qualification is worth adding to the table, for several reasons. Primarily, I know that the FA is the body which decides who they nominate for European football the next season, but in just about every European country the rule is that the primary Cup winner (in England's case, the FA Cup) and those x number of teams finishing below the Champions League spots (all league-position decided, obviously) are awarded EUFA Cup positions. England thus is a special case, since it awards two Cup winners UEFA Cup slots. If we are to assume that this article is going to be read by either non-English/British people unfamiliar with the Premier League/FA's dealings in this regard, or by those people in this country who still don't know the qualification rules but want to know who qualified for Europe, then I believe that we have to assume that they will come to this article first. Thus, this article becomes our primary and optimal place to enlighten them. Secondly, we need bear in mind that, as people have mentioned before, I believe, our goal here is not to make the article look a certain way but to make it as informative and useful as we can. That means that if we deem it worthy of inclusion, we can and (supposing we do agree so) we should ignore the idea that that information doesn't technically belong within the league table. I can't see any reason why the inclusion of this info should make the table look any worse than it otherwise would, and we do after all have a superscript number to indicate that there is relevant information about the UEFA Cup slot Spurs have won. What's more, surely in making the best article that we can, we should be aiming to prevent people from having to trawl through numerous articles to find scraps of information where we could summarise it all in one place - in this case, listing all the European qualifiers here, in this article. Personally, I can't see any reason not to list this information in the table. Falastur2 (talk) 01:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Derby Relegated

There has to be a way to indicate on the table that Derby has been relegated as it is impossible for them to finish higher than 18th. I suggest a darker shade of red or something. -- Grant.Alpaugh 06:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Usually it was a bold (R) next to the team, but now that there's a template it very difficult to put this in. A few people have made several edits without success. I've tried myself (using preview) but haven't managed to work it out. If someone could add this it would put it in line with the format for previous seasons. Thanks Feudonym (talk) 08:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

And here we have yet another reason why User:ClaudioMB's campaign to templatify everything is a bad idea. – PeeJay 12:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to discuss here with you about the advantages and disadvantages of templates, because we already discuss it before. If someone else would like to discuss it, I could explain the advantages. Now, focusing in the problem. This is the first season these templates are been used, so, time to time something new comes up. If a (R) and a (C) (for champion) are enough to solve the problem, that could be included in the template. --ClaudioMB (talk) 16:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Can't we have a standard table back, please? - fchd (talk) 20:28, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Second. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I see the advantages with being able to tell that Derby are relegated, but I disagree with its inclusion in the table here. It is simply not the way that tables are presented in everyday usage (think Match of the Day/other programs, think newspaper and website table updates). Also, it should be easily calculable to just about anybody, and I think the inclusion of anything different into the table would not be an improvement - a bold (R) is just unsightly and, dare I say it, crude, whereas changing the colour of the table would give the false impression that there are two parts to the relegation zone to anyone not familiar with the table, a la the "automatic relegation" and "playoff for relegation" sections that other leagues employ. Also, as someone who much experience altering both this template-based table and the other wiki-coded tables on other articles, the thought of changing back to a standard table fills me with dread. For such a meagre thing, and something which won't even have relevance at the end of the season, when there will be no need to indicate who mathematically can and who cannot still survive, we'd be increasing the workload/time spent to edit the table every time by I'd say around three to five times. It's fine for editting just one match in, but for a whole round of matches, personally it changes editting tables like this from a quick job to a hassle. If people insist on marking the table with something, is there no merit in just adding a comment down the bottom underneath the table? If we put it in normal-sized font and put it above the notes on European qualification, people would spot it, I'm fairly sure... Falastur2 (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the easiest compromise is a bold (R) is just fine. It's what every other table does and it's really not all that crude. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

The template has been modified to accept an parameter "relegated=y" that will place a (R) after the team's name and an parameter "champion=y" to place a (C). But, after make the changes I saw a TV show placing the R in the position column, instead the position number, and I think that looks better. So, it should show after the team's name or in the position column? Also, I believe that after the end of the season, those letters should be removed.--ClaudioMB (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Portsmouth & UEFA Cup

As Cardiff City ineligible, if Cardiff City won, will the UEFA Cup ticket transfer to Portsmouth? Matthew_hk tc 02:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Still not confirmed yet. Despite The FA insisted that they will never nominate Cardiff City, Michel Platini, the president of UEFA, made a statement widely interpreted as supporting Cardiff City's position. So the place could not be confirmed yet. If Platini did not support Cardiff City, Portsmouth is now certain getting a UEFA Cup ticket. However, Platini supported. i.e. Cardiff City may get a UEFA Cup ticket by UEFA's special case. (Highly k. kwong style LOL) Raymond Giggs 02:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

UEFA have stated that they will probably give Cardiff a wildcard - now it may be me not understanding terminology, but wouldn't a wildcard entry be added to the existing entries instead of replacing one? i.e. wouldn't Portsmouth get their place as the FA's FA Cup entry, and Cardiff also qualify as a UEFA-sponsored last-minute addition? Or would they replace Pompey after all.

That said, I'm all for marking Pompey as qualified on the table until the rules are changed in Cardiff's favour anyway... Falastur2 (talk) 18:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

They'll more than likely pull a Liverpool where they add Cardiff and the 3rd team from Uzbekistan or wherever and away they go into the tournament at one of the preliminary levels. -- Grant.Alpaugh 01:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Adding pictures to this article will improve it. I suggest add pictures in 3 sections: Top scorers, Monthly awards and Stadia (like it was done here). For Top scorers, a picture of the top score player. For Monthly awards, a picture of managers and players with 2 or more awards. For stadia, a picture of the leader's stadium.--ClaudioMB (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. Any pictures added to this article would most likely be decorative and add nothing to the content of the article. If you want pretty pictures of the things mentioned in the article, look at the articles about those things. – PeeJay 20:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, pictures should be of the subject of the article. Keep pictures of Cristiano Ronaldo to his article etc. - fchd (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, decorative pictures are not a problem, as long they are about the subject. Wikipedia articles are full of them. Pictures break the boring text-only look of an article. Pictures (or images) are so good for an article, that Wikipedia:Featured articles must have it (see Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, item 3).--ClaudioMB (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The featured article criteria also state that any images or media must be appropriate to the article. As I see it, there are very few free images that relate directly to this article. – PeeJay 21:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So, are you saying that pictures of the Top scorer, monthly awards managers and players and Stadia are not related to this article!? And, of course any picture used must be a free picture. --ClaudioMB (talk) 21:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Those images would not be directly related to the article. A picture of the trophy presentation would probably be appropriate, or a map of where each team is located in England, but not pictures of individuals. – PeeJay 21:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that this article needs pictures to "break up boring text". As it is this article is not a long passage of prose - not a large body of text designed to be read in full. Instead, it's more of a list of interesting information, which I strongly suspect will only be read in part by readers in the future. What's more, the tables already break up the text into "manageable chunks", and several of them are already designed for aesthetic value. I think the article is fine as it is. Falastur2 (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I Agree completely. Especially given the pictures being suggested would be so many as to be purely decorative. Adding pictures of all the top scorers, award winners, and stadia would be ridiculous. Isn't that why we have the links to the appropriate articles? If I want to see a picture of Ronaldo or the JJB or Sven I can just click the link and away I go! -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As anyone can read in my initial proposal, only few pictures would be added.--ClaudioMB (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You just don't know when to quit, do you? You're wrong, get over it. – PeeJay 00:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration, PeeJay, but please could we keep things civil?

I think we can reasonably assume this discussion is over, however. Falastur2 (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No to pictures thanks. Once you let them in it will be like a personal picture show, everyone adding photos of their ground, favourite player, manager etc.Let's just stick to raw facts!--Egghead06 (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The thing for me is that anything we'd put a picture of has a picture at the top of the article it links to. Want a picture? Click the freaking link! -- Grant.Alpaugh 11:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] sortable table

Can we make the sortable table so that the sort box is moved to the side of the column label so that the table doesn't look so stupid. As it stands now the box is under the label and the top of the table is really thick and looks stupid. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't even know why the table has to be sortable. Sortability wreaks havoc on any rowspans involved, and there are few reasons why the table would need to be sorted by a different column. – PeeJay 00:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, so can we change it? Also I remember reading that sortability freaks some browsers out and know for a fact that it makes the table a bitch to edit. -- Grant.Alpaugh 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I'm no fan of sortable league tables. As I recall, the code has a simple "|sortable=y" line or similar, we can just "deactivate" the sorting buttons there. Falastur2 (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester City

Why are Man City listed in the UEFA Cup teams? I know they had a chance through Fair Play, but isn't there a draw to be made later for those places, and surely the red card against Boro would go against them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.115.227 (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Because, before this weekend, Manchester City were the highest placed team in the Premier League's Fair Play table (link here) that had not already qualified for European competition. As you can see, that table has not been updated since 5 May 2008, so it may still come to pass that Everton or Fulham, or even West Ham, pass City in the table. Until then, as far as we know, Manchester City will be England's Fair Play representatives in the UEFA Cup first qualifying round. – PeeJay 23:27, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Everton's place in the UEFA Cup as 5th-place finishers is guaranteed now, thus they are removed from the running for the fair play league. It's essentially up to City and Fulham. Falastur2 (talk) 23:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

But the way it is shown in the table at the moment makes it look like they have already secured the spot, and it won't be fully decided until next week. - fchd (talk) 06:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC) Sorry - strike that, I see it has already been changed. - fchd (talk) 06:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Average home attendances

I would question the reliability of the reference used to cite Manchester United's average attendance for this season. It says that the average is 75,642, but Manchester United's official stats website (http://www.stretfordend.co.uk/) says that the average is 75,691. Personally, I'd be more inclined to believe the club's own statisticians than a third party, particularly as my own calculations gave an average of 75,690. – PeeJay 08:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Tony Kempster's site calculates it as 75691 as well. - fchd (talk) 08:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll change the reference to use Tony Kempster's site then. – PeeJay 08:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Manchester United titles

I do not believe that this article's infobox should be making reference to Manchester United having won 17 top-flight titles. By all means mention it as a trivia item, but this article is about the Premier League, a competition that Manchester United have only won 10 times. The Premier League was set up as an entirely separate entity from the Football League, so to include the two sets of records together is a factual inaccuracy. – PeeJay 21:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. The Premier League is a completely different title to the Football League. - fchd (talk) 05:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree too. Yeah they have won 17 top-flight titles, but they haven't win 17 Premier League titles! The infobox indicates Premier League, not English top-flight. Raymond Giggs 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggs for Temporary (talk • contribs)

Agree with this too - and to me, the above would appear to be a consensus, no? I'll sort it out now. // Finns 18:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nothings getting anyone anywhere and its getting a little stupid now, even though I was doing it too - I have simply removed it until the dispute is resolved. // Finns 19:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This article is not just about the Premier League. It is also about the top-flight (or is it top flight?) of English football. There is nothing untoward about putting both on there, with a break for clarity, and "17th top flight English league title" under "10th Premier League title." What is misleading or inappropriate about that. I agree that on one line it is too long, but broken into two lines like the European qualifications and whatnot, I don't see how this can't be included in the infobox. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I honestly believe that the infobox is a bit too crowded at the minute. Even on my laptop screen, which is 1280px wide, the infobox currently takes up over one-third of the width of the article, so I dread to think what it's like for people who are still using a screen resolution of 1024x768! I think that "10th title" is enough info for this infobox, and any further info can be expanded upon in the main body of the text. Surely this is a fair compromise? – PeeJay 19:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, if its crowded, just leave it out, for sure. // Finns 19:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Adding one more row won't break the infobox, and the width is not even an issue because the Man City Fair Play entry is longer. There is simply no reason this shouldn't be included in the infobox. -- Grant.Alpaugh 19:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean apart from the other ones that I've already suggested? – PeeJay 20:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It should be there - the Premier league is considered the continuation of top level (Level 1, see English football league system) football by the FA; it effectively surplants the old First Division. t is continually refered to in the media as United's 17th title, see:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/12/2241385.htm
http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/2008/05/12/in-pictures-the-story-of-manchester-united-s-17th-title-89520-20415643/
http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/05/09/sports/OUKSP-UK-SOCCER-ENGLAND-FAPL.php
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080511/sp_soccer_nm/soccer_england_fapl_dc
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=141490

EVEN..the FIFA website calls it the 17th:http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/clubfootball/news/newsid=765249.html
.. and more if you stick the words into a search engine. It being the 17th title in total is also considered to be true by fans; especially since it places United only one behind Liverpool's 18 - see Football records in England and List of football clubs in England by major honours won for other examples where 17 titles is used. The correct term should be 10th Premier League Title, 17th at Level 1 in England or some variation thereof. Jw2034 (talk) 20:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for providing us with references for a fact that not one of us was disputing. However, all but one of those links completely ignores the fact that the Premier League and the Football League are completely separate competitions. In my opinion, the fact that the Premier League is the top level of English football is completely incidental. This article is about a season of the Premier League, a competition that Manchester United have won 10 times. No more, no less. Any allusion in the infobox to other league title wins, whether at level 1 or level 24 of the English league system, is not appropriate. – PeeJay 21:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ok, so in your 'opinion' it should be changed...any citations to back it up? you wish to go against FIFA, most of the media describing it as the 17th title and the fans of the club? english football did not start in 1992-93 - the Premier League is considered a continuation of the top level of English football - it is not merely 'incidental'. the terms 'Premier League' or whatever it's called and 'Level 1' are indistinguishable in the eyes of the FA, UEFA, FIFA and everyone else. if you want to remove any references to a 17th title, your arguement would require the editing of all other wikipedia articles pertaining to a difference between prem and old first division; start at Football records in England and List of football clubs in England by major honours won and go though the hundreds from there! further, it cant simply be omitted 'because it doesnt fit on someone's laptop(!)' - it's a widely recognised fact, so it should remainJw2034 (talk) 21:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just said that I don't think it should be removed from the article completely, just the infobox. Please try reading all the words next time, not just the ones you like. – PeeJay 21:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The way I had it last was in no way confusing, unclear, or too long. There is no reason that this shouldn't be in the infobox. -- Grant.Alpaugh 21:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the infobox. It should remain in both infobox and article; not just one or the other because your screen doesnt look pretty enough. Btw, while you're editing all the football records along the same arguement, you might want to change Liverpool's entry to '4 European Cups and 1 UEFA Champions League' - then try convincing your average 'we won it 5 times' koppite to support your edit!Jw2034 (talk)

Why would I change Liverpool's record to "4 European Cups and 1 UEFA Champions League"? The UEFA Champions League and the European Cup are the same competition. – PeeJay 21:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they are as 'distinct' as the old first division and the premier league - that's the point. I think you need to go away and read up a little more on football (before 1992) before you start editing articles; I'd advise your school library. For 'a fervent supporter of Manchester United F.C.', you're somewhat hesitant to celebrate and acknowledge all 17 (glorious) titles - perhaps you should add to Prawn sandwich brigade first Jw2034 (talk) 22:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They are not distinct at all. The Champions League continues the history and traditions of the European Cup, even using the same trophy. The Premier League, however, was established as a splinter group from the Football League. Unlike the European Cup to Champions League transition, which was a mere rebranding of an existing competition, the Premier League was (and still is) a separate organisation. By the way, I would thank you not to question my knowledge of football history, as it could be construed as a personal attack. – PeeJay 22:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

While I understand that they are legally seperate, to pretend they don't share the same legacy is simply foolish. The differences between the two are technical one, and anyone who can't see that is missing the forrest for the trees, I'm afraid. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Please try to remain civil, Grant. Using words like "foolish" could be viewed as quite derogatory. Anyway, of course they share the same "legacy", but the two competitions' histories diverged in 1992. Simply put, the competition that West Bromwich Albion F.C. won this season is the same competition that Leeds United A.F.C. won back in 1992, only its status has changed due to the advent of the Premier League. – PeeJay 22:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was attacking your action (i.e. not recognizing the fact that the Premier League and the old First Division are the same thing in all but technicality), not you. Also, don't tell me what "might be viewed as derogatory." Either you were offended by what I said or you weren't. I agree the above comments by Jw were uncalled for, and the tone was a little harsh, but the fact remains, not treating the two competitions as the same is foolish. -- Grant.Alpaugh 22:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As per relating this issue to European Cups, the two scenarios are not alike. In the case of the Champions League, the difference between Champ. League and Euro. Cup is that the name of the competition was changed. Nothing more, nothing less. Same administrators, same status, same governing rules. The difference between First Division and Premier League is that the first Premier League setup was formed when 22 teams actually resigned from the Football League and formed their own competition. They did this because they disagreed with Football League revenue sharing etc, and wanted to be able to run the league themselves. Different competition, different administrators, different rules. The FA then endorsed it and included it in the English league pyramid. I suspect that if the FA had not endorsed it but had declared it outside of their control (assuming the Premier League had continued to thrive anyway) then we would not be having this discussion, but of course, FA endorsal was a foregone conclusion pretty much from the start. Falastur2 (talk) 22:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

regardless of brand, name or organisation, the premier league took the place and continues as the top tier of english football from the old first division in the eyes of the FA - who didnt only endose it, they set it up at Lancaster Gate - , UEFA, FIFA, the fans, the media and on Wikipedia. I suggest if you have issue with this you should start editing the hundreds of articles that use this fundamental premise or take it up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Football. (oh dear, 'the competition that West Bromwich Albion F.C. won this season is the same competition that Leeds United A.F.C. won back in 1992'...where do I start...)Jw2034 (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, please do start. I would love to see how much deeper you can dig yourself into this hole. Go ahead, prove me wrong. You have seven minutes to truly make my day. – PeeJay 22:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He is right about this, though, PeeJay. Regardless of technicality, everyone acknowledges that the titles from before 92-93 are tantamount to the ones after, and to suggest they are not is less than honest or rational, or both. -- Grant.Alpaugh 23:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the heaven sake, I don't know why you are arguing on this boring topic. It makes me curious. To stop this argument, putting two information in the infobox is the best method to solve this problem - One is the 10th Premier League title, another is the 17th English top-flight title. I don't think it is worthy to be discussed. (Hey! My surname is not "Giggs", please!) Raymond Giggs 07:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggs for Temporary (talk • contribs)

Here's my 2p worth....I think this article is about the Premier League and info in it should be about the Premier League. I don't have the time to engage in a deep discussion over this but if things like '17th top-level title' are to be included, that makes it out of step with many of the articles on previous Premier League seasons which do not show the winners total number of top level flight wins.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If this argument is still going, then I think it needs resolving, and soon. I suggest that we either vote on the issue, or take it to the arbitration committee/WikiProject Football page. It'd be pointless us just continuing to wage guerrilla warfare via edits otherwise; it's not constructive and it's not getting anywhere. Falastur2 (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree to Falastur2. Raymond "Giggs" Ko 11:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Giggs for Temporary (talk • contribs)

[edit] Reference

Shouldn't we reference the part that says Derby won a game? :D (Thought we could do with some humour) // Finns 19:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)