Talk:2018–19 Premier League

Untitled

Call me a cynic, but what exactly is the point in creating this article so early?

There isn't any. Somebody just wanted to be "1st!!!!!!1!!!" to make the article. We don't know any clubs who will be in the league next season. At least with say the 2022 FIFA World Cup we know the country and even the venues more than a decade in advance. Harambe Walks (talk) 22:46, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Wagner (again)

As per last year, and multiple other articles, if David Wagner gets a flag, it it the US one, not the German one. WP:FOOTY consensus seems to be that a footballer's nationality is defined by the national team they play(ed) for. Spike 'em (talk) 12:28, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies, I reverted some changes that were fixing this issue. I just saw the change of country code and given the previous edit-warring, I blindly thought it needed to be reverted. Spike 'em (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Change in subheadings inside Teams section?

As the section is now, especially with such long writeups of the promotions and relegations now becoming common (259 words this year, 314 last year), the section leaves me carefully having to read deeper in to find the exact season year numbers [which can be work to quickly consider, especially given each season is of course two years] to determine if the sections on "Teams promoted to the Premier League" and "Teams relegated to the EFL Championship" are referring to changes from the previous season to the subject one, or to the results from the current one. (Obviously it's clear for this year's article, since the season hasn't ended yet, but it gets more challenging going back into past seasons). I feel like it puts a lot of onus onto readers to carefully analyze and read (or forces them to assume/note/be aware that articles often are in some loose chronological order). And I feel like we probably should be able to tweak the words in the two subheadings very slightly and alleviate much of the strain. I made a first try, with "Teams promoted in to Premier League" and "Teams relegated away to the EFL Championship". I felt like these small words helped signal to the mind slightly the idea it was a past action rather than a result. Even as I certainly wasn't 110% satisfied those were the perfect words. But found the attempt was quickly reverted by @PeeJay2K3:, with only response being that it wasn't correct. So I am hoping for some additional input/better ideas. Anyone else want to weigh in or offer alternatives? Or do you see it as unnecessary? Perhaps I just don't see the same clarity, being an American, as a native would automatically see? (though of course it is an article for an international audience!) If it proves most see it as useless meddling, I'll certainly move on. But hoping tiny tweaks can improve approachability for people without having major ramifications in increased text or awkward language. Help? Thanks JeopardyTempest (talk) 15:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The language you used simply doesn't make sense and would never be used in this context. – PeeJay 15:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I've drastically reduced the section; the specific details of how those teams ended up in the Premier League (or were relegated) isn't particularly relevant. – PeeJay 15:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Honestly, I like that a LOT better, thanks @PeeJay2K3:. Always figured that detailed description belonged more in the previous season and team pages. I wouldn't be against a few more words if they were carefully crafted, but overall, yours is short, simple, and takes the struggles I noted impeccable. I'll probably look to go back and edit previous seasons to match the style eventually. Thanks much for sticking with it, cheers. JeopardyTempest (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Should there be "Passes" section?

A relatively new user made it, but I do not see any significance for that, since the playmaker award is given for the one with most assists. In short, not going anywhere. What should be done? – Flix11 (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Unless a number of other sources start listing this stat as significant then I'd get rid of it. As per WP:NOTSTATS we don't need to add every single list of stats that is available about the PL:"articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context". Spike 'em (talk) 10:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Done. – PeeJay 11:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Positions by round

I added a position by round table (see below), but another user has removed it. Every other major football league has this table on their wikipedia page. Why would this not be something we'd want here?

Jopal22 (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Team ╲ Round	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38
Liverpool	1	2	1	1	2	1	2	3	2	2	3	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1
Tottenham Hotspur	8	5	2	5	6	5	4	5	5	5	4	4	3	5	3	3	3	3	2	3
Manchester City	5	1	5	4	3	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	3	2
Chelsea	2	3	3	2	1	3	3	2	3	3	2	3	4	3	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
Arsenal	15	17	9	9	7	6	5	4	4	4	5	5	5	4	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Manchester United	7	9	13	10	8	7	10	8	10	8	7	8	7	7	8	6	6	6	6	6	6
Leicester City	13	8	7	8	11	9	8	10	11	12	10	10	10	8	9	9	12	9	7	8	7
Watford	6	4	4	3	4	4	6	9	7	7	8	7	9	10	11	12	10	7	10	9	8
Wolverhampton Wanderers	10	14	14	11	9	10	9	7	9	10	11	11	11	12	12	10	7	10	11	7	9
West Ham United	20	19	20	20	16	17	14	15	14	13	13	13	14	13	13	11	9	12	9	11	10
Everton	9	7	8	7	10	12	11	11	8	9	9	9	6	6	6	7	8	11	8	10	11
Bournemouth	3	6	6	6	5	8	7	6	6	6	6	6	8	9	7	8	11	8	12	12	12
Brighton & Hove Albion	16	11	12	14	14	13	15	13	12	11	12	12	12	11	10	13	13	13	13	13	13
Crystal Palace	4	10	10	15	12	11	13	14	15	14	14	16	16	14	15	16	15	14	14	14	14
Newcastle United	14	12	16	18	19	18	18	19	20	19	17	14	13	15	14	15	14	15	15	15	15
Burnley	11	15	18	19	20	16	12	12	13	15	15	15	17	19	19	17	18	18	18	18	16
Cardiff City	17	16	15	16	17	20	19	20	17	17	19	18	19	16	16	14	16	17	17	16	17
Southampton	12	13	17	12	13	14	16	16	16	16	16	17	18	18	18	19	17	16	16	17	18
Fulham	18	18	11	13	15	15	17	17	18	18	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	19	19	19
Huddersfield Town	19	20	19	17	18	20	20	18	19	20	18	19	15	17	17	18	19	19	20	20	20

	Leader
	UEFA Champions League Group stage
	UEFA Europa League Group stage
	Relegation to EFL Championship

Source:

They shouldn't per WP:NOSTATS. Govvy (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I've wondered the same for a while. In my opinion it doesn't violate WP:NOSTATS as suggested by Govvy as it allows the reader to very quickly and easily see the general performance of each team across the season and can quickly identify and last minute relation escapes or demonstrate close title fights in a concise manner. Therefore I agree that it should be included. Formulaonewiki (talk) 09:48, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Formulaonewiki: A few people don't like the table and have expressed WP:NOSTATS before. Information needs to be simple and precise, this is over analysation and is not necessary for a wikipedia article. Govvy (talk) 09:57, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

@Govvy: Can you direct me to previous discussion? Would be interested in seeing reasons for and against. As I said, the table seems simple and precise to me and falls within the scope of what is appropriate for wikipedia. Formulaonewiki (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Either on WP:WikiProject Football or other articles, I know it's been discussed before, I think PeeJay2K3 might of removed this type of table from the article. Govvy (talk) 10:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try there. To me, it seems a contradiction that the 'position by round' section is included on each club's separate season page, yet is not included in the full Premier League season page. Formulaonewiki (talk) 10:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I obviously completely agree with Fornulaonewiki. Every other major top league has this table, as well as every foreign version of the Premier League wiki page. Jopal22 (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

There is huge amounts of data on individual club season articles that isn't on the PL season page, it may be appropriate on those, but I think will just add to clutter here. Spike 'em (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't know why the Premier League page isn't like the other pages. It confuses some of us Wikipedia readers and I feel that they should follow the same format to help other readers into full understanding the article. TB Chigz (talk) 09:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

It's already been explained to you, so you can't really claim to not know why that info isn't included here. Maybe a better idea would be to remove that info from those other pages so they all match this one. – PeeJay 10:07, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@TB Chigz: this is a talk page to discuss he article, not a proxy for showing article data. There does not seem to be a consensus to add the table, so I'm not sure why you keep updating it. Spike 'em (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I know. I just like updating it. It's a habit.TB Chigz (talk) 10:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe keep it in your own userspace then. When you update this page, people may see it on their watchlists and think something important was said, when in fact it's just you making changes that nobody else wants. – PeeJay 10:52, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Understood.TB Chigz (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone has just re-added the table and I reverted, happy to discuss here further. Spike 'em (talk) 22:23, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Think we need some consensus on WP:FOOTBALL for all article, as otherwise people will continue to look at other leagues, and then re add it here. Can be quite discouraging to new users if they add it, thinking they are helping and then get it removed. I will open a discussion on WP:FOOTBALL--Jopal22 (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Ole Gunnar Solskjær

Whats preferred? Interim or Caretaker manager? Govvy (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Sources say "caretaker". Did this really need a talk page discussion? – PeeJay 17:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I am only asking, because some editors keep changing back and forth between them. cheers, Govvy (talk) 18:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems to be 92.237.9.174 edit warring against everyone else, but as PJ says, sources used say caretaker so it is incumbent on anyone changing to provide alternate sources to support their position. Spike 'em (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Teams Section

Hi, guys. I feel as though the summary on the teams section is too brief, so I'm kindly requesting that we can add some more detail onto it, but not too much. Just enough to make the section more interesting. Here's an example:

This season, twenty teams competed in the Premier League - the top 17 teams from the previous season, as well as the three promoted teams from the EFL Championship.

Team changes

Promoted teams
The three teams promoted to the Premier League from the 2017-18 EFL Championship are Wolverhampton Wanderers, Cardiff City and Fulham. They were promoted as champions, runner-ups and play-off winners respectively. Wolverhampton Wanderers returned to the Premier League after a six year absence while both Cardiff City and Fulham returned after a four year absence.

Relegated teams
The three teams relegated from the Premier League to the 2018-19 EFL Championship are Swansea City, Stoke City and West Bromwich Albion after finishing in the bottom three, ending their top flight spells of seven, ten and eight years respectively. This was also the first relegation of Swansea City and Stoke City from the Premier League.

If you feel like this could be a good change for the article, then I can quickly add on to it and I can do the same on the previous Premier League articles as well. TB Chigz (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't feel this would be a good change. You haven't really added that much and the formatting change isn't particularly aesthetically pleasing, IMO. – PeeJay 09:47, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be a continuation of the discussion above? Anyway, the details of relegation belong in last season's article, not this one. Spike 'em (talk) 11:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

I like the way the equivalent french page sets out the teams, i.e. instead of alphabetically it is ordered by last seasons finishing positions. By doing this it is easy to highlight which teams are playing in Europe, and which were promoted. https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Championnat_d%27Angleterre_de_football_2018-2019 --Jopal22 (talk) 11:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

League Table footer

Hi, there's a footer below the league table talking about how the two Carabao Cup finalists (Chelsea and Man City) are in the top 4 of the table but Chelsea is no longer in that position. I don't quite know how to remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifty boy (talk • contribs) 21:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Total attendance figures

@Flix11: : isn't manually maintaining the total attendance figures WP:OR / in breach of WP:V? Spike 'em (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

You keep warning other users not to add unsourced material, so why do you do it? Spike 'em (talk) 14:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Top scorers

Top 10 seems to be standard, the PL list goes further than the list was including before (sorry, I missed the citation in the table itself).Spike 'em (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Formatting a top ten list should be equal to a ten and not a nine, if set at equal nine you should roll over to 11. Govvy (talk) 19:42, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Nonsense, equal 9th includes 10th. The top keepers list goes to equal 9th, even though the first page of PL list goes up to equal 18th. Spike 'em (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

See 2015–16 Premier League: all the lists stop at a number less than 10 (but include at least 10 on the list itself). Spike 'em (talk) 19:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

heh, guess people don't conform to mathematical rules anymore. Also I was trying to match more to the citation. Govvy (talk) 19:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

how is clear 11th place top-10? The PL pages go up to 20th place. Their Main stats page only shows 10 players (even if there is a tie like for assists) and the individual pages show 20 on 1st page, and don't not show all players who tie for the last position shown on that page. For example Assists shows 4 of the 11 players who tie for 17th place. Spike 'em (talk) 20:00, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Clean sheets

Seeing as the PL site is so slow in updating the clean sheets list (it is at least 9 days out of date), a couple of other sources, dunno how they relate to each other or how reliable they are:

• Fox Sport
• sports keeda (Hard stop at 10th)
• Transfermarkt (uses games played as secondary ranking?)

Both Fox and TM give Guaita 8 clean sheets though 7 is listed on the table. I think they both (or whichever is the primary source of data) count a game (against Watford) where he was substituted at half-time without conceding as a clean sheet even though the Crystal Palace let in 2 in the second half. The figures on the PL site don't include this as a clean sheet for him. Spike 'em (talk) 11:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

A clean sheet is "a game in which the opposing team is prevented from scoring". Palace didn't keep a clean sheet in that game so Guaita can't be credited. If they had kept a clean I don't think either goalkeeper should be credited, as the concept only makes sense in the context of a whole game.   Jts1882 | talk  11:37, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree on the clean sheet point. I've found an even better source: the premier league's own fantasy site is up to date. Comparing this to the 3 above, there is a dispute about Leno. The PL has him and Cech on 6 & 1 respectively (on both versions). Arsenal have 8 clean sheets, though one is shared between the 2, so as per the above, I'm removing Leno. Spike 'em (talk) 12:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what rules the PL site uses for the main stats classification, but for fantasy purposes A clean sheet is awarded for not conceding a goal whilst on the pitch and playing at least 60 minutes (excluding injury time). If a player has been substituted when a goal is conceded this will not affect any clean sheet bonus. The distinction between 60 and 90 minutes does not affect any of the goalkeepers being discussed. Spike 'em (talk) 12:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if it is at all related, but I emailed the PL website earlier in the week and their Clean sheet page is now updated. I'd leave comment in the article until the weekend and see if they keep it up to date. Spike 'em (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Comment I would not think that keeping a clean sheet for 45 minutes would get Mr. Guiata an additional one even if Palace kept a clean sheet through Hennessey v Watford. It is certainly correct to keep the tally at 7 not 8 on the Clean Sheets table leaders. The sources given will be correct if updated correctly. Iggy (Swan) 12:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Europa League qualification position

If Manchester City win the FA Cup, and thus the accompanying European slot, doesn't it pass down to seventh place - might be worth a footnote in the current table? Culloty82 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

If Man City win, 6th place qualifies for the group phase, and 7th qualifies for the Europa League second qualifying round Jopal22 (talk) 17:57, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Arsenal FC not qualified to next UCL?

If the UCL UEFA qualification regulations limit the participants to 5 per country in the UCL and the 4 finalists of the European cups belong to the top 5 of the 2018-19 EPL, Arsenal FC (5th in the EPL) must appear in the classified the table for the next UCL, because if it loses 2018-19 UEL final, would occupy the 3rd place of the team of EPL classified because the other two places will be occupied by the champions of European cups, which also belong to the EPL.

No it won't. Arsenal will only qualify for Champions League if they win Europa League themselves. Spike 'em (talk) 17:34, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I think what you say to me would have to happen (Arsenal FC would only qualify for the next UCL if it is consecrated UEL champion) if the English opponent of Arsenal FC in the final would not be in the EPL top 4 (ranked for the next UCL), something that does not happen and that benefits the Arsenal FC, who still lose the UEL final classifies the UCL. Maybe there is a point that I do not understand about the regulation and I would like you to tell me. regards.

Arsenal can only qualify for the UCL if they win the UEL. It wouldn't make sense to let them qualify if they finish outside the Premier League top 4 and lose the UEL final. These are the scenarios:

• Chelsea wins UEL: Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea and Tottenham qualify for UCL; Arsenal, Man. United and Wolves qualify for UEL.
• Arsenal wins UEL: Manchester City, Liverpool, Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal qualify for UCL; Man. United and Wolves qualify for UEL.

It's not particularly difficult to grasp. – PeeJay 06:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I already understood perfectly the new rules of the UCL: the champions of the UCL who already qualify for the next UCL through their local league, give their place to the best champion team classified in the previous phase of the UCL (in this case, the Czech league champion has already qualified for the next UCL), and the UEL champions who already qualify for the next UCL give their place to the best non-champion team ranked in the previous UCL phase (in this case, if Chelsea FC wins the UEL, which will occupy that place will be the third team of Ligue 1 of France). What I did not understand was which team in the UEFA ranking was given that limited place, and that is why I took the trouble to read the regulations of the competition. Thanx friend.