Jump to content

Talk:2012–13 Premier League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Cazorla asissts

[edit]

Santi Cazorla has 8 assists in the premier league, not reflected in the top assists table, someone please add this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.103.158 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Other players have more assist then shown. The statistics is from ESPN not offical sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.243.184.229 (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And this is the exact reason why we should not include assists; there is just no absolute definition of what an assist actually is. Some people even consider winning a penalty to be an assist! – PeeJay 12:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should we use the official website as a source for statistics instead? EPL Stats Jatinbhatt blap (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Location Of clubs

[edit]

As there is currently a consistent flipping between 'Manchester' and 'Trafford' I suggest a comment be added next to the name so that people don't continually change it. Similar comments could be added next to other sections for which a consensus has been reached that uninformed users continue to change. This could include

  • changing the map to England and Wales when Swansea are safe

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, SOMEONE PLEASE PROTECT THE VANDALISM ON THIS PAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.27.154.198 (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No comment should be added next to the name at all. Trafford is a borough in its own right just like Manchester, hence Old Trafford. Stevo1000 (talk) 01:19, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Content dispute

[edit]

Hi there. There seems to be a dispute between a few editors regarding the name of Newcastle United's stadium. Although there is one source which gives the name Sports Direct Arena, there has been no discussion on the talk page and no further sources have been provided by either side; thus, there is no consensus on this issue. I've fully protected the page for two days and urge those involved to come to a resolution by talking about it on this page. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that there was a discussion on the page for the current season '2011-12 Premier League' which agreed that the sponsored names would be used. The problem seems to be that there are a lot of Newcastle fans out there that do not like the change in the name and they keep changing the name where ever it appears (both here and the current season). A page from the Premier League was used previously as a reference before it was changed to the current one by myself. The current reference is from the official Newcastle site which names their stadium. I personally cannot think of a better reference than the club itself. Spudgfsh (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


not one person in the world refers to the ground as the sports direct arena. Its like having the page for 'Gay' meaning 'Happy' as that is what it actually means. The sports direct name is not used at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.6.127 (talk) 09:34, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My apologies to those discussing the name issue. I stuck my nose in and maybe made a mess of things. Mostly I got confused between 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.  :( Though I sagely suggested reading and commenting on the talk page, I didn't take advantage myself (I thought that I had...long day)... at any rate, I made a change to the 2011-2012 Premier League page (thinking it was 2012-2013) that I thought might be a compromise. If consensus is that the old name should not be used at all, so be it. My apologies for making a mess of things! I'll bow out now :) Wikipelli Talk 20:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


According to the Official Reading 2012 Calander Brian McDermott (Manager) is Irish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.176.117.3 (talk) 12:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mathematically Safe Teams

[edit]

Fulham are now Mathematically safe from relegation — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheElite1911 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC) Sunderland are too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.165.52.246 (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As are West Brom. These need adding to the page when it becomes unlocked later on today. Spudgfsh (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fulham are not safe. Either Reading or QPR could stay up by winning their last 4 games to reach 36 points (they can't both as they have to play each other). Above them, Wigan have 31 with 5 to go and Villa have 34 with 4 to go, so one could reach 46 and the other 43 as they too have to play each other. Therefore, the cut-off is currently 43 points, so West Brom in 8th on 45 points are now mathematically safe, but Swansea in 9th on 42 are not yet. Concentrate2 (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We know, this has all been discussed on next season's page about West Brom. But since they need to be obvious mathematically that no one can catch them in the bottom 3, they haven't been added in. We will if Wigan drop points or if West Brom win etc. But we know they're safe. ThisIsDanny (talk) 12:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
West Brom are mathematically 100% safe now: Villa could only catch them by beating Wigan, Wigan could only catch them by beating Villa. (If they draw, neither can catch West Brom.) West Brom are in the Premiership for 2013-14. Will edit the next season page to show this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Concentrate2 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
thinko'd it earlier, if Villa and Wigan draw against each other and win all their other remaining games, they'd have 44 points each, so that's the cut-off for relegation. West Brom have 45 points, so are still safe mathematically.Concentrate2 (talk) 12:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The first two comment are one year old. So comment on the Mathematically Safe Teams for this season is better on the next season page. Stigni (talk) 13:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Text about relegated teams...

[edit]

Is it necessary or relevant to have a paragraph about wolves being relegated, surely it belongs in the 2011-12 season page not here? If there were a section similar to the one in the 2012–13 Football League Championship which lists all of the changes (including any changes in the rules) it would be better than the current paragraph which doesn't feel like it fits. --Spudgfsh (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, the paragraph about relegated teams (or team movement in general) is indeed a standard paragraph; see also the MoS for league seasons. Similar paragraphs may also be found in various European top league articles. The reason behind having prose for team changes instead of just having a list is simply to avoid that season articles consist of just a lead and a whole bunch of tables. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overcrowding on the map

[edit]

Given there is now 6 London teams following the promotion of West Ham the map is getting very overcrowded. Is it time to add a separate map for London similar to that used in 2011–12_Football_Conference#Conference_South? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spudgfsh (talk • contribs) 16:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The standard procedure for such a case is to have a marker for the city (without a link), optionally a little larger than the usual size, and a list of the city's teams in one corner of the map. See 2011–12 Liga I or 2011–12 Russian Premier League for examples. By the way, that Football Conference South example should be treated in exactly the same way. There also was some related discussion about the maps in the Football League articles over at WT:FOOTY which yielded the same result; the discussion may be found there in the archives. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:16, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, the labels may be moved around via hidden markers; see for 2011–12 Fußball-Bundesliga for an example. However, this may get a little tricky for the 2012–13 map. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:22, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Position per round

[edit]

How about adding a "Position per round" table after the League table like some of the other league's pages e.g. 2011–12_La_Liga? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcokie (talk • contribs) 10:12, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:2011–12 Premier League#Positions by round revisited (yes, again!) for a similar discussion. The outcome of it was to not have such a table because of various reasons. The arguments for or against an inclusion should not have changed between seasons. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think its good and descriptive to have positions per round.99.28.213.244 (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think it's a good idea to have positions per round as it allows people to see how the teams have progressed or regressed during the season and I believe it should be added from this season. Why is it that the La Liga page has it but the Premier League does not?--DMVillan (talk) 13:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have read the discussion that Soccer-holic had posted? Because I think you don't. Stigni (talk) 12:11, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Rodgers

[edit]

At the moment, Liverpool and Swansea are currently negotiating compensation. He isn't officially a Liverpool manager. Until either Liverpool or Swansea confirm this, please leave LFC manager as Vacant and Swansea manager as Brendan Rodgers. Even the statement by the Swansea chairmen said they are negotiating compensation and that is the latest official statement regarding this. Mr tim111 (talk) 10:46, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The same for Paul Lambert (Norwich & Villa)--Spudgfsh (talk) 17:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Teams tied on points/goals/goal difference

[edit]

I notice the table currently shows teams listed strictly as unique places 1–20, even though there's no reason that, say, Fulham would be ahead of Swansea or vice versa under the stated tiebreakers. There also doesn't seem to have been any discussion about it here or in comments, although there has been some back and forth between listing teams with unique numbers and listing some teams as tied. Is there any way we could sort this out? 2602:306:CEA0:6300:21C:26FF:FE94:75DC (talk) 03:09, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rule 24 from section B of the 2011-12 premier league handbook states "Subject to Rule B.31, if any 2 or more Clubs have scored the same number of points, have the same goal difference and have scored the same number of goals in League Matches in that Season they shall be deemed to occupy the same position in the table."
On a slightly less relevant note, rule 31 of section B states "If at the end of the Season either the League Champions or the Clubs to be relegated or the question of qualification for other competitions cannot be determined because 2 or more Clubs are equal on points, goal difference and goals scored, the Clubs concerned shall play off one or more deciding League Matches on neutral grounds, the format, timing and venue of which shall be determined by the Board."
Those rules being taken into account they should be classed as being in the same position
Spudgfsh (talk) 17:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Goals and assists

[edit]

Goals: Walcott and Edin Dzeko(11th and 12th in the list)has been removed from the top scorers list. Its normally only the top 10 that are listed and did not find any reason to add 11th and 12th places. Deepak (talk) 22 May 2013

It seems there are definitely some discrepancies here, particularly in the assists table. The official Premier League site is very different to the ESPN source used, but surely the former should be favoured as the official source? The ESPN one is WAY off. Andre666 (talk) 12:09, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is how you define an assist. the different sources have different definitions. Spudgfsh (talk) 12:17, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But surely the official Premier League statistics are what we should be going by? Andre666 (talk) 13:20, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion has always been that because the definition of an assist is so subjective there will always be a dispute between different sources. Players don't get an 'assist bonus' like they generally get a 'goal bonus' so no-one cares that much whether they are credited with an assist or not.
I wouldn't have an assist table on the page at all because there is no definitive definition of what one is. The official stats are no better or worse than any other, they are just different. Spudgfsh (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think an assist table is useful, but the official source should be used as that is where it counts. I thought an assist was just the last kick before the goal? Andre666 (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Last kick? Last prod? Last faint brushing of the boot? Where do you draw the line? Where does anyone? Some people say that winning a penalty counts as an assist! Assists should not be listed here. Cheers. – PeeJay 00:09, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What muppet did put Shittu as 3rd best goal scorer on the list and (wishful) thinking Torres with 26 goals???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.106.227 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its still wrong...Didnt know that Suarez and van Persie swapt their passports... Someone is tacking the micky here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.241.106.227 (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with you PeeJay2K3, very subjective to define an assist and since the article should represent a worldwide view, we should stick to what's agreed on – namely goals and cards. C679 12:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, its a lame reason to move away from keeping assists on the page because few people could not make up their minds. I hope it comes up at end of season at least. I hated it when assists where removed from some players' club stats because apparently some people were not sure!! This keeps happening every year, not sure if it is a good enough reason to remove the table altogether. Sometimes all you need is some faith.Deepak (talk) 4:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It's not that there is no consensus on here as to what is considered an assist. There is no definitive definition as to what an assist actually is. This is because it is not in the rules of football and is therefore whatever you want it to be. I could decide to watch every match and keep stats on the number of times a player passes the ball to the player making the assist. It would be 'a football related stat' but also completely valueless. It would have the same issue as the assist and would have no true definition. until there is a definition of what an assist is within the rules of football (not going to happen) there should not be a table of assists on this pageSpudgfsh (talk)

Wigan-Europa League

[edit]

Wigan as they are in the FA Cup final will qualify for the Europa League as they will win it going to the EL Group stage or as runners up, going to the 3rd Qualifying round, with Swansea in the playoff round and the 5th placed time in the EL Group Stage. Please edit it to allow people to see that Wigan have qualified for the EL, round uncertain.OJDriscoll (talk) 17:02, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ManCity can still mathematically finish 5th so therefore Wigan have not qualfied for Europe as of yet.
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 17:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rules are unclear as to what happens when the fifth places premier league team wins the FA Cup. According to the premier league the runners up only qualify when the winners are in the champions league. Spudgfsh (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A club always takes the spot into the later round, so they take the FA Cup spot in the group stage. The next best team in the prem not already qualified in a later round or the champions league , in otherwords 6th, will take the Europa League spot to the playoff round. Anyway, although Man City can finish 5th, the chances are slim. A bit more help - if the FA Cup winner qualifies for the Champions League by a top 4 finish (although 4th doesnt gurantee you a place) or winning the CL the Runners Up go to the EL 3rd Qualifying round, the League Cup winner to the EL Playoff round and the 5th placed team to the EL Group Stage.OJDriscoll (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Everton drop any points or if Manchester City get any points then Manchester City will be guaranteed a place in Europe. Then Wigan will be in the EL, correct? and which round will they start off in? Or do Manchester City have to finish in either specifically CL or EL? This is a little confusing. ThisIsDanny (talk) 21:50, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The chances may be slim, but to edit the article before it is confirmed would be speculation, something Wikipedia is not about. The article will be edited if and when it is 100% confirmed. They are not guaranteed a place yet. It's pretty simple really (not), the cup runners-up only get the place if the cup winners qualify for the CL not the EL, so if Man City finish 4th or higher and win the cup, Wigan will take the EL place as the lowest qualifier from England, meaning the other qualifiers are moved up one place. That would mean 5th-place is worth a group stage berth, Swansea City move up to the play-off round, and Wigan enter the 3rd Qualifying round. If Wigan win the cup, they will qualify for the group stage, and all the other qualifiers stay where they are. So, put simply, if Man City finish 4th or higher, Wigan are guaranteed a place in the competition, whether they win the cup or not. If Man City finish below 4th, Wigan will need to win the cup to qualify, otherwise the berth will go to the 6th-placed club. Reddev87 (talk) 00:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reddev87, and I said that Swansea qualify to play-off round if City qualify for CL and win the Cup, or if they end 6th and City end 5th and win the Cup; otherwise they qualify for QR3. So until the FA cup final Swansea and the 5th-placed must to have TQ and not Q. Stigni (talk) 07:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I understood most of it, just wasn't sure whether City had to finish in the CL or the EL for Wigan to automatically qualify. ThisIsDanny (talk) 08:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Man City is guaranteed a place in a European competition by virtue of their position on the table, Wigan is thus guaranteed a spot in the Europa League. As they are currently in 18th place, a pink box should be used, and I suppose a very small font to note they are currently slated to be relegated and playing in the Europa League. If I knew how to do this, I would do it myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.60.33 (talk) 16:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't right. Read the conversation. Man City need to finish 4th or above for Wigan to be guaranteed a spot in the EL. Spurs in 5th can still catch Man City. ThisIsDanny (talk) 17:54, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Man City are assured of a top 4 finish, Wigan have qualified for the Europa League - Group Stage if they win the FA Cup; 3rd qualifying round if they lose the final. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.244.214.122 (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Wigan get relegated...

[edit]

Here is a table for if Wigan get relegated, as they're in the Europa League. You will have to change it depending on whether they win or lose the FA Cup final though. You can use this as a template. 

===League table===
{{Fb cl header |qr-width=320}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=1 |t=[[Manchester United F.C.|Manchester United]]      |w=27|d=4 |l=5 |gf=79|ga=37|bc=#D0F0C0|champion=yes|qualified=yes}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=3|competition=[[2013–14 UEFA Champions League#Group stage|2013–14 UEFA Champions League group stage]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=2 |t=[[Manchester City F.C.|Manchester City]]           |w=22|d=9 |l=5 |gf=62|ga=31|bc=#D0F0C0|qualified=y}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=3 |t=[[Chelsea F.C.|Chelsea]]                           |w=20|d=8 |l=7 |gf=69|ga=35|bc=#D0F0C0}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=4 |t=[[Arsenal F.C.|Arsenal]]                           |w=19|d=10|l=7 |gf=67|ga=36|bc=#E8FFD8}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=1|competition=[[2013–14 UEFA Champions League#Play-off round|2013–14 UEFA Champions League play-off round]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=5 |t=[[Tottenham Hotspur F.C.|Tottenham Hotspur]]       |w=19|d=8 |l=8 |gf=61|ga=43|bc=#97DEFF}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=1|competition=[[2013–14 UEFA Europa League#Play-off round|2013–14 UEFA Europa League play-off round]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=6 |t=[[Everton F.C.|Everton]]                           |w=15|d=15|l=6 |gf=52|ga=38}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=3|competition=}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=7 |t=[[Liverpool F.C.|Liverpool]]                       |w=14|d=13|l=9 |gf=67|ga=42}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=8 |t=[[West Bromwich Albion F.C.|West Bromwich Albion]] |w=14|d=6 |l=16|gf=48|ga=48}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=9 |t=[[Swansea City A.F.C.|Swansea City]]               |w=11|d=13|l=12|gf=46|ga=46|bc=#BBEBFF |tournamentqualified=yes}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=1|competition=[[2013–14 UEFA Europa League#Third Qualifying round|2013–14 UEFA Europa League Third Qualifying round]]|nt=1}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=10|t=[[West Ham United F.C.|West Ham United]]           |w=11|d=10|l=15|gf=41|ga=49}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=8|competition=}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=11|t=[[Stoke City F.C.|Stoke City]]                     |w=9 |d=14|l=13|gf=32|ga=42}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=12|t=[[Fulham F.C.|Fulham]]                             |w=10|d=10|l=16|gf=46|ga=57}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=13|t=[[Aston Villa F.C.|Aston Villa]]                   |w=10|d=10|l=16|gf=44|ga=65}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=14|t=[[Southampton F.C.|Southampton]]                   |w=9 |d=12|l=15|gf=47|ga=58}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=15|t=[[Sunderland A.F.C.|Sunderland]]                   |w=9 |d=11|l=16|gf=40|ga=52}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=16|t=[[Norwich City F.C.|Norwich City]]                 |w=8 |d=14|l=14|gf=34|ga=56}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=17|t=[[Newcastle United F.C.|Newcastle United]]         |w=10|d=8 |l=18|gf=43|ga=66}}
|-bgcolor="FFCCCC"
|rowspan="2"|18
|rowspan="2" align="left"|[[Wigan Athletic F.C.|Wigan Athletic]]
|rowspan="2"|36
|rowspan="2"|9
|rowspan="2"|8
|rowspan="2"|19
|rowspan="2"|44
|rowspan="2"|67
|rowspan="2"|–23
|rowspan="2"|'''35'''
|rowspan="1" style="text-align:center;font-size:92.5%;" bgcolor=97DEFF|[[2013–14 UEFA Europa League]] <sup>2</sup>
|-
|rowspan="1" style="text-align:center;font-size:92.5%;" bgcolor=FFCCCC|Relegation to the [[2013–14 Football League Championship]]
{{Fb cl2 team |p=19|t=[[Reading F.C.|Reading]]                           |w=6 |d=10|l=20|gf=41|ga=67|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl3 qr |rows=2 |competition=[[2013–14 Football League Championship]]}}
{{Fb cl2 team |p=20|t=[[Queens Park Rangers F.C.|Queens Park Rangers]]   |w=4 |d=13|l=19|gf=29|ga=57|bc=#FFCCCC|relegated=yes}}
{{Fb cl footer|u=7 May 2013|s=[http://www.premierleague.com/page/LeagueTables/0,,12306,00.html Barclays Premier League]|nt=<sup>1</sup>Swansea won the [[2012–13 Football League Cup]] and thus qualified for the [[2013–14 UEFA Europa League#Third qualifying round|third qualifying round of the 2013–14 UEFA Europa League]]<br> 
<sup>2</sup>As Manchester City are guaranteed a top 4 finish, Wigan have qualified for the Europa League for reaching the FA Cup final. If Wigan win, they'll progress to the Europa League Group Stage, but if they lose they'll automatically progress to the 3rd qualifying round.
|date=May 2013}}

Managerial changes

[edit]

So, what's the meaning of "Date of vacancy" in this table? The earlier edits by 92.10.45.149 have put the "Date of vacancy" for the Man U manager's job as 8 May 2013, but the job isn't really vacant yet as he remains in the job until after the season finishes, so (at least) 19 May 2013. Unless this table represents dates of announcements rather than the dates people are in the job between? Concentrate2 (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. The date of vacancy should be the date that the position actually becomes vacant, not the date they announce their departure. – PeeJay 12:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Qualified/Tournament Qualified Edit War

[edit]

A few points to remember

  1. Chelsea can still be caught and passed by both Arsenal and Spurs and so haven't technically qualified for the champions league
  2. Arsenal can still be caught and passed by Spurs and so haven't technically qualified for the champions league
  3. Spurs, while guaranteed a place in the europa league, can still qualify for the champions league so haven't technically qualified for the europa league (as they wouldn't play in both)
  4. Given that they are SEPARATE TOURNAMENTS you cannot be qualified until you are guaranteed to be in that tournament.Spudgfsh (talk) 16:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When Swansea won the League Cup, Swansea was at the same position as Tottenham now. Swansea qualified to EL but could still qualify for CL (at that time), yet TQ was added. Now, Tottenham has qualified to EL but could still qualify for CL, which is the same case as Swansea last time. 24.212.195.135 (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Then before it must have been wrong, but it's right as it is now. ThisIsDanny (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on 2012–13 Premier League. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012–13 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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2012–13 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).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012–13_Premier_League&oldid=1196631148"