Talk:2009–10 Premier League: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:15, 29 October 2009

Football: England / Season Start‑class Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	English football portal This article is supported by the English football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Results Grid

Bit of a moot point, but why are the links to the derbies in the Results grid shortened to an 'a'? Why not a 'D' for 'derby' for example?? - Ck786 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

good idea 92.9.131.93 (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you do change that though? 82.36.212.217 (talk) 07:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'a' stands for 'article available'. It is usually applied when their is a Wikipedia article about a notable rivalry. Most of them are derbies, true, but, just to name an example, how about El Clásico in Spain? Barcelona and Real Madrid are not even close in distance to call it a derby, yet the match-up is very distinctive and well-known around the world. Since the templates are currently applied for most of the recent football season articles (and not only for English ones), and given the fact above, the 'a' is more correct than a 'd' or any other letter and thus should not be changed. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 07:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teams Guaranteed to Compete

United aren't the only team guranteed to compete, as it's impossible for Liverpool and Chelsea to be overtaken by so many other teams with only 10 games to go. Remember the rest still have to play each other so points get dropped. The pro-United editing on wikipedia is a joke at times. -- 81.154.213.36 (talk) 17:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an Arsenal fan. -- Grant .Alpaugh 22:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then what do you compute so that you get the list of the already saved teams ? 82.240.207.81 (talk) 09:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If 17 teams can't finish ahead of you then you're safe. -- Grant .Alpaugh 17:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert in maths or anything so I don't know the formula for calculating who's safe and who's not. Obviously the 'if 17 teams can't finish above you' point is pretty much it, but considering a table is relevant to all teams results against each other, some will secure safety by virtue of the other teams taking points off one another. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.156.230.242 (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The formula is calculating the worst case scenario for each team. So that the team loses all of their matches left, while trying to get the most points for the teams below. Now Im not sure, but Wigan and West Ham might be sure because all the teams below them might not be able to get in front of them because they would be taking so many points off each other. But making those calculations with 8 rounds left and 20 teams, will take some time. chan dler · 13:22, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of Note: Blackburn are on 40 points. Imagine if they loose both remaining games. Pompey (38) wins at least 1, Sunderland (36) wins 2, Newcastle and Hull (34) wins 2 each and have a better goal difference.

Then Blackburn would go down. This is also applicable to Bolton (should Blackburn pick up points...)

Unless I'm mistaken, neither Bolton nor Blackburn are strictly safe yet...

Unlikely? Yes. Mathematically impossible? No. --Majushi 15:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.89.212.203 (talk) [reply]

How petty is this discussion? - Ck786 (talk) 21:46, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Managerial Changes

I would just like to point out that as Ricky Sbragia resigned in the 2008-09 season and Steve Bruce was appointed in the 2008-09 season (which officially ends on the 30th June (see last season's discussion about this exact thing)) that that appointment does not belong in this season's page and as such I think it should be moved to the 08-09 page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.39.246 (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Positions

Can we have the table that the other leagues have which show the position after each round, ive tried to do it but didnt know how to change it so that the right positions would be highlighted for europe? MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the Premier League's fixtures aren't organised into rounds like the Italian or Spanish leagues are (i.e. fixtures get rearranged and postponed all the time, which plays havoc with any potential round-by-round table), said round-by-round table would be extremely problematic to create. Furthermore, it would be completely unciteable. Also, when would you record the club's position? After the final whistle of their match that weekend, or after all of the matches that day/weekend/round have been played? – Pee Jay 22:54, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) A similar request was repeatedly declined for the 2008–09 article, see also its talk page. Unless proven otherweise, I doubt that the reasons for the declinement and/or the consensus on this have changed for this season. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other english leagues have them and they will have prosponements due to weather and cup matches!MotorSportMCMXC (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. Another problem with this kind of "templated" rbr standings, beside the things mentioned above, is that you basically have to create a different set of templates for every league, as the colors are implemented into the templates for the places. So, in a nutshell, this would lead to zillions of templates for just a simple table. Also, the source given in the Football League articles is invalid as you cannot access every matchday, just the latest one. The content therefore can (and I guess will) be removed under WP:OR and WP:RS. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Soccer-holic. The other English leagues definitely shouldn't have them for WP:RS issues and the issues I specified above. – Pee Jay 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The English leagues, particularly the PL, have fixtures which go all over the place. Remember that last year, Man United were 1 or 2 games behind the rest of the league for the last 3 months of the league, or thereabouts. This means you either have to plot their position with games to spare and thus the table is not indicative of where they actually are/were in comparison to the other teams - remember this table has no way to show if a team has games to hand - or you have to wait until they catch up, or at least play more. This means your table is permanently a week or two behind, which puts into question its relevance and usefulness. Falastur2 ^Talk 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Goal Scorers

Can we have only the top five goal scorers by removing the single goal scorers. It actually looks like clumsy. Chock (talk) 15:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue will eventually have solved itself in four weeks. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statistics

This section is always in danger of being used as a "fact junkyard" and therefore on constant edge of violating WP:NOT#IINFO. While I agree that some facts are worth preserving, such as "first/last goal of the season" or "fastest/latest goal in a match", the notability of "First penalty kick of the season" or anything cards-related or miscellaneous stuff is rather questionable. Hence we should agree on a definitive set of facts which can be applied to all league season articles, pending that these can be properly sourced, of course. I further suggest that this discussion should be led over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task force since this is not an Premier League-only issue (La Liga season articles, among others, also tend to have stuff like this). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree with that. Falastur2 ^Talk 03:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, it's interesting information to me, but otherwise incredibly trivial. Stuff like "first yellow card", "first red card", and "first penalty kick" are basically dependant on the fixtures list. "First goal of the season" is in all likelihood gonna come from the first match, which is determined almost randomly. I don't think there's much reason it should be mentioned in a section to itself. Ksy92003 (talk) 05:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more addition to this list. Do we need to list out the Most common result. I dont feel this has any significance. Avg goals per match sounds good. This one doesnt serve any performance. Chock (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, "most common result" is bogus. "Average goals per game", however, are directly generated in the infobox on the top of the page when the matches and total goals parameters are filled, so no need to put this into "Statistics" either.

I was just about to suggest the same thing. with regards to the "most common result". It's soccer! You're gonna have a lot of 1-0 games because of the nature of the low-scoring sport. And considering one match is independant of the other 379 each year, no need to compare them. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ksy92003. Unless all matches start at the same time, I can't see any merit in scoring the first goal of the season. --Aidannn (talk) 07:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So consensus seems to be that this section should not be included? Further, is this decision valid for any past and future article of the series? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Seems to me that the consensus is to get rid of meaningless stats and keep the useful ones. That said, it rather beggars a further debate on what is deemed "meaningless" however. Falastur2 ^Talk 12:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So propose a set of "meaningful stats", then. :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My personal proposal would be simply to remove all "first/last X of the season" stats as I can see value in the rest. I might also give an exception to "first hattrick" and "first red card" as these aren't every-day occurrences. I welcome proposals from other people however. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds like relatively a good idea to me - except that, as the list currently stands, of all the first/last stuff there, the only one that are everyday occurrences are the 'first goal of the season' and 'first yellow card'. IMO, what I would take out would be 1) first goal, 2) most goals in a half, 3) most goals in a half by one team, 4) most goals in a match by different players, 5) first yellow card, 6) latest card, 7) both of the stoppage time stuff - and don't put in stuff like 'last card' or 'last goal' when they come up. CyMoahk (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Links

on the results they should have links to see reports on each match. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanolympics010 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. Single domestic league season matches are not notable enough to warrant links to (BBC or any other) match reports. Besides, the links in the results tables point to Wikipedia articles on particular rivalries, for example the Merseyside derby and NOT to any kind of reports. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:52, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Goalscorers table

Am I just imagining things, or is the line between the three goal scorers and the two goal scorers thicker under the player name, club, and goals column? I'm using WinXP and IE if that helps anyone. I've looked at the code, and I can't seem to figure out what could be doing it. Anyone else notice this too? 69.135.191.49 (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed layout changes and discussion thereon

There is currently a discussion at the season article task force talk page about potential layout changes to this and related articles in order to establish a common layout for those. The changes include

a section rearrangement in order to reduce clutter throughout the article
the way how the goalscorer/assistant lists are displayed (WP:LIST or WP:TABLE)
minor changes to the infobox

The proposal can be found here and is open for comment at the respective section of the SATF talk page. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latest Card

Anyone know what time Mascherano was sent off against Manchester United for Liverpool? I think there is a chance this might be later than the Kaboul card. 94.2.191.78 (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tackle made 93:50, yellow card shown 93:57, red card shown 94:00 ([1]) BBC reports it as 90:00+4:06 Sent off cha ndl er 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So this would be later than the Kaboul card? 94.1.101.169 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
 Anyone know what time Mascherano was sent off against Manchester United for Liverpool? I think there is a chance this might be later than the Kaboul card. [[Special:Contributions/94.2.191.78|94.2.191.78]] ([[User talk:94.2.191.78|talk]]) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 :Tackle made 93:50, yellow card shown 93:57, red card shown 94:00 ([http://i.imgur.com/i5LEc.jpg]) BBC reports it as [http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/eng_prem/8316379.stm 90:00+4:06 Sent off] [[user:chandler|cha]][[user talk:chandler|ndl]][[Special:Contributions/Chandler|er]] 19:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
+::So this would be later than the Kaboul card? [[Special:Contributions/94.1.101.169|94.1.101.169]] ([[User talk:94.1.101.169|talk]]) 22:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)