Jump to content

Talk:2010–11 Premier League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2010-11 Premier League)

league table

[edit]

I have removed the league table from this page as it is just asking to be vandalised, as it already had been several times. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 16:01, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Big Four?

[edit]

Should this section be removed or changed? While it is notable that the region has four teams in the top flight for the first time in ages, Coventry fans may take offence at the term 'West Midlands Big Four'. They could claim that their 1 FA Cup win beats Birmingham's 1 League Cup win, making them a bigger club. Should wikipedia avoid phrases like 'big four/big five' etc unless they are commonly used... with relevant citations being provided? Alternatively, maybe something like 'the first time four of the West Midlands' six league clubs have been in the top flight since...." maybe? Villafancd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Villafancd (talk • contribs) 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly not a phrase the rest of the country really knows of or uses. I can't say I entirely agree with that section, but I don't feel strongly enough to take it down myself. Falastur2 Talk 01:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Manager Nationalities

[edit]

Owen Coyle, Mick McCarthy and Chris Hughton were all born in England or Scotland. But they managed to play football for Ireland due to their ancestry. In Coyle's case, he played 7 minutes or so for Ireland, and he only played for them over Scotland because he was never going to get picked for Scotland. I can't help but think that he is still Scottish. I'm not so sure about McCarthy and Hughton. Basically the question that must be asked is: does the country a footballer play for determine their nationality? If Coyle had never played an international football match, he would be seen as Scottish; but as he played a handful of minutes for Ireland he is deemed as Irish. I'm not sure if that's right --Half Price (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of this article, it probably does. According to FIFA rules, your nationality is determined (if you reach national level) by the team you choose to play for. If you are Scottish and make the choice of playing for Ireland, your FIFA nationality is set to Irish. Of course, this has no bearing on legal nationality, but then if we're being picky and using legal nationality, then we must merge down English, Scottish, Welsh and N. Irish into British nationality, which I suspect isn't as popular an idea. Falastur2 Talk 01:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes OK fair point. I just thought as they are managers and not players any more it ought to be legal nationality but as you show that would not be very popular! Half Price (talk) 08:56, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Home City information is incorrect

[edit]

Bolton, Wigan, Blackpool, Blackburn and West Bromwich are not cities and never have been, they are towns. It would probably be wiser to change the column so it is listed to where the district/area of the stadium is, in the case of Manchester United - Trafford, Greater Manchester or Blackburn - Blackburn, Lancashire (talk), 29 June 2010, 15:43 (UTC)

While the locations listed in the table should not necessarily be changed, the fact that some of these are towns and not cities can easily be recognized by changing the column heading simply to "Location" – which I just did. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PREMIER LEAGUE FOOTBALL FOR 10/11 SEASON

[edit]

The new football for the 2010/11 season is called Nike total 90 tracer and has rectangular paterns in varies parts around the football. The official is white and the rectangular patterns are blue with a thin neon green stripe down the middle of the pattern. Although the official ball is white the unofficial football can come in various colours like pink or black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.242.145 (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Umm... Be bold and do the changes yourself? :-) If you don't know how, here's a little help how to do it... Cheers, Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about adding "Positions by round"?

[edit]

Example It's very useful info to see how teams did. U've (talk) 10:42, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of issues with this table which speak against its inclusion. First of all, it is very hard to verify, as a source where the table of every matchday is provided will be needed. Then there is the question how to deal with postponed matches. A PbR table might be okay if all matches of a matchday are being competed during the couse of a (sometimes prolonged) weekend; however, since English football tends to regularly postpone matches to later dates than originally scheduled, mainly because of cup fixtures, the concept of a "round" is very difficult if not impossible to apply. A third issue is that these tables only represent bare numbers; as such, their meaning is rather trivial and only of statistical importance, leading to WP:NOT#STATS. Finally, if there is an important run of consecutive wins/losses that proved to be a decisive factor for the outcome of a championship/relegation decision, why not mention it in prose instead of slapping another table on the page? In fact, people are encouraged to write a summary of the season in a dedicated section. Any important streak would naturally fit in there as there would also be enough reliable sources for that. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The PbR chart is very useful in the La Liga page. I think it'd be great to have for EPL too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.183.250 (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Someone keeps editing Arsenal into first place by changing the outcome of the Arsenal Chelsea game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.183.250 (talk) 13:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Positions by round

[edit]

This article doesn't say anything about the positions by round. You should mention it to show how the teams did. In case if you can't find the info, here's a link - http://www.premierleague.com/page/LeagueTables/0,,12306~20100820,00.html - keep on hitting "next week" to get more info.

I'm sure you can manage, I gave you a link just import info from the site. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.140 (talk) 14:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

funny of you, don't you think?, and the position by round was talked b4 and decided not to have it in here, what about postponed matchs? - 217.132.2.186 (talk) 11:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goal of the Month

[edit]

I don't have any problem with the idea of a Goal of the Month award, but I can't see a source for it. The usual news stories only give the manager and player monthly awards, and the column head for GotM is red. So two questions for everyone: 1) Do we want to keep it at all? (If so, let's get a source up there, unless I'm just failing to see one); 2) Do we want to move it to be its own table? It seems to cramp the other columns as is. --BDD (talk) 17:32, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. It looks like there's already a page for that award, which simply hasn't been updated for this season. That seems an appropriate place to keep that honor. --BDD (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addition of Current Suspended players

[edit]

With most of the other main sports on here, they have a list of players who are suspended for the next few games,and the reasons why, I think it would a good addition as it allows fans to see lists that are not openly available unless you know where to look on the FA Website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.1.162 (talk) 17:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not up to us as Wikipedians to decide what other readers should find interesting. If the info about suspended players isn't readily available or reported in reliable sources, then we shouldn't add it here. – PeeJay 17:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with PeeJay. Aside from that, the statement that "most other main sports on here would have a list of suspended players" is a blatant lie – unless I have searched at the wrong places. <sarcasm>But however, it seems that WP:NOT#IINFO does not apply for this article anyway, so one senseless table more or less does no harm.</sarcasm>--Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 20:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with PeeJay and Soccer-holic, it has no place in this article. Tubby23 (talk) 05:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bolding and linking

[edit]

Hi, the scoring and discipline sections are very messy. Wikilinking becomes dysfunctional when just about the whole text is blue, and MoS says not to bold items, with rare exceptions. I've unbolded a few sections, and I believe Ohconfucius is going to highlight only players' names (not team names, already linked above), in these sections. This should produce a much better linking system for our readers. Any objections, please let us know. Tony (talk) 06:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say I disagree. I'm not sure why wikilinking becomes dysfunctional with what I'll admit is a lot of links, and without the bolded text (and the extra wikilinks) that statistics section to me now looks like a wall of text and eminently undesirable in the article, whereas before it was a considerable benefit. Without the bold I feel there's now no points of reference for scanning that section. In addition, I'm not really sure how removing all but the very first initial links to club pages produces "a much better linking system" since, from my own experience as much as anything, it makes finding the links to a page you spontaneously want to click and read the article for many many times harder. Anyone reading this article without a knowledge of the cntl+f search function on browsers (and I know many of these people even around the stereotypical "digital age" generation users of my age do not know this ability) will find looking for the correct link far harder and noticeably tedious, to the point of giving up looking because they can't find where the page was first linked. I would accept an answer that too many links adds excessive server load (though I am not sure that is the case) and you will notice that I have not reverted your changes, but I do object to them. What is more, I would cite that I would argue WP:BOLD trumps the manual of style in 90% of cases, and since this page (and its predecessors) has been carefully crafted, honed and refined by regular WikiProject Football users over the course of several seasons now, I think it is fine as it was. Falastur2 Talk 09:58, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, my initial reaction to that section is that it's fancruft, and I so tagged it. There is simply so much trivia inundating the article that I was seriously close to removing it. I'm most surprised at what you say about the predecessors in the series – the evolution of this series of articles is, IMHO, negative. This is immediately apparent when comparing this to 1998–99 FA Premier League. Now that I have seen how the series was written before, it strengthens my opinion in that sense. I would disagree that 'spontaneous clicking on links' is the name of the game. I suspect that the reason bolding was put in to start with as a palliative to the drastic and apparently gratuitous linking practices adopted (how else would one add emphasis when everything is already blue??). Now, with the article stripped of a very large number of the repeated links, the points of reference once provided by the bolding are intact. Oh, how I would love for a mechanism to show exactly which links and with what frequency they are clicked on, to prove just how wrong you are! I guess I'll have to just keep dreaming... ;-) --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 10:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The effect for readers was dreadful before. This is why the MoS says not to bold indiscriminately (in fact, not to bold at all except in titles and once in the lead for the name of the article). The wikilinks were losing all credibility when readers couldn't tell that they were such, and where the boundaries lay between them. Why repeat-link team names? It just swamps the links to the players, who haven't by then appeared as links. Tony (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the changes are an improvement. It's easier to read now. As for the ease of linking, I think a short scroll up to the Results section gives you all the team links so it's not like you have to hunt through the whole article or use the search shortcut. TomorrowsDream (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the whole statistics section, top goalscorers and assistants aside, is one single huge mess. So... how about simply removing these pseudo-important facts? Besides of them being a violation of WP:NOT#STATS, the majority of them is pretty arbitrarily chosen.
While there always will be a small number of "stattos" (any by the way, I count myself as one as well) interested in such data, it is not important to most of the casual readers. Things as "first goal of the season" can of course be mentioned in prose if necessary, as part of a general season overview, but there is absolutely no need for dedicating several subsections to what essentially is a list of WP:FANCRUFT.
It would be nice to form a Wikipedia-wide consensus at the MoS for league seasons discussion page in order to determine how many stats should be included into such articles and to settle the issue once and for all.--Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 13:12, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've initiated discussion on the fancruft at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Fancruft_at_2010.E2.80.9311_Premier_League. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:52, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a few babies are being thrown out here. Tamping down on the bolding was a smart move, and there's certainly an argument for limiting links to the first mention in the article, but this isn't a page you just start reading from the top down. Many people are just going to jump to one section or two to keep themselves updated. I don't think you can argue that making them find that first link makes for a better wiki experience. Surely we can find some middle ground between links everywhere and links nowhere.
And while I can agree some of the listed statistics could be considered "cruft," the monthly awards clearly don't fall in that category. They're issued by Barclays, announced on the official website, and they give you an idea of trends throughout the season.
It may well be this one case, but something was actually added here that's of dubious value. The Fair Play table is so minor; I think we had a better approach before, where we named the clubs at the top and bottom and had the convenient link for those desiring more detail. --BDD (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's get more specific, then. The sections which should definitely be removed are "Scoring" (5.4), "Discipline" (5.5), "Clean sheets" (5.6) and "Miscellaneous" (5.7), because these are open to arbitrarily chosen facts and figures to no end.
"Hat-tricks" (5.3) is negotiable, because a hat-trick is not something a player achieves every match. The recently added "Referees" (6) section is negotiable as well, because there would be no matches at this level if there were no referees. However, both sections might only be interesting to a small part of the readers.
Regarding the fair play table - this so-so idea has clearly been borrowed from 2010–11 La Liga, which had it included at the very beginning of the season because "it is used as a tie-breaker". It should not be included in either article, because it has almost zero effect on the outcome of the season. If an English team is awarded an UEFA Europa League berth via the fair play competition, put a footnote below the league table. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:55, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
BDD, readability and avoiding the ultimate dilution of links via swamping is more important than providing a blue carpet for some reader who might arrive by section-link. If they really aren't interested enough to scroll up for team links, they'll have to type the team into the search box. I doubt that it would ever get to that. In any case, clicking on any player will get you to an article that prominently links to the team. This "repeat-links" argument has been put a number of times and rejected by the community. Tony (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I may have removed "Monthly awards" a bit too quickly, but the list had only three entries and did not look serious (no explanation for nor sourcing about the award). When I was talking about fancruft and indiscriminate information, I was also referring to "Scoring" (5.4), "Discipline" (5.5), "Clean sheets" (5.6) and "Miscellaneous" (5.7). --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:24, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Were we referring to the same table? I've restored the monthly awards, which have references for each month as well as column-head links to Premier League Manager of the Month and Premier League Player of the Month. If these awards are fancruft, those articles would need AfD listing. Regarding these other issues... fair play table: I agree with Soccer-holic that its inclusion is counterproductive to our goals of trimming the article, so I'm going to be bold and revert that to the short description that notes the two clubs at the top and bottom of the table. I'd certainly be open to removing even that much. repeating links: My mind isn't changed, but I'll agree to the consensus on this one. other fancruft: Can we come up with some sort of organized way to review the value of these statistics and neatly determine what we do and don't want to keep? --20:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I have been quite bold, and removed a lot of statistics that were clearly in violation of WP:SYN. The sources used for these stats were merely matchday reports that did not explicitly state a fact of "highest/fastest of the season" etc. Things like 'most goals scored in one half' and 'most yellow and red cards in one game'. I also removed the 'Referees' section as I feel it is unnecessary, and is completely against the goal to trim the article. There are possibly some stats that I have overlooked, but I did remove quite a lot. Reddev87 (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, everyone. I'll remove the over detailed tag in a day or two if there are no objections. --BDD (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just had another check through all the stats, and I did indeed miss some stats that were either original research, or that could easily be determined by looking in the article itself. For example "Most goals scored by same player" - unnecessary; that information could easily be determined by viewing the hat-tricks table. From what I can see now, all stats in the article are backed up by explicit sources, the way it should have been from the start. Reddev87 (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean Sheets

[edit]

Why no keeper's name mentioned on clean sheet records? After all, EPL now has the Golden Glove Award alongside Top Scorer Award. -- Yandri (talk) 03:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like the thought, but there's a slight hitch. For West Brom, Man City, and Chelsea, the club clean sheets belong to one keeper, in Carson, Hart, and Cech, respectively. Not a problem. But Sunderland's 11 clean sheets are split between Gordon and Mignolet. Given the current discussion on the level of detail involved in this article, I don't think we want to split the current club clean sheet count into one for clubs and one for individual keepers. Let's choose one. I'm indifferent--you could argue that a clean sheet is a team effort, but that's also true of most goals. --BDD (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
True. I realized the issue about details. However, an award is an Award. In the end of the season, it will still be awarded to one of the goalkeepers. If it's not to be mentioned here in a wiki article, then where? Cech and Hart would want at least the same amount of recognition received by Berbatov or Tevez. -- Yandri (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is an award just as equal as the Golden Boot. In fact it is a goalkeeper award, so more emphasis should be placed on the individual not the club, just like top scorers. It would however, depend in which format it was added in. A standings table like top goals scorers and assists? Or just a mention in the Clean Sheets section? I would be against the former, but I wouldn't have a problem with the latter as it is an official award issued by Barclays, but only if a reliable source which was constantly updated could be found that explicitly states the fact. Reddev87 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, is there an official source that tracks this? I had to cross-reference the club's games played against appearances of their keepers to figure that out. (I actually didn't bother to look at individual games for Gordon and Mignolet, but they've split Sunderland's matches about 50/50--if one of them had gotten 11 clean sheets, the other wouldn't play!) Or would we feel comfortable just tracking it on our own? The clubs' current season pages seem like acceptable references in and of themselves, though a central location would still help. For now, we know Cech and Hart are on 11 each, but is anyone close behind them with 10 or 9? I don't know offhand. If the next closest keeper has around, say, 6, maybe we just continue to keep an eye on those two. Regardless, it sounds like we have something like consensus to track individual, rather than club, clean sheets.--BDD (talk) 17:29, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I just recalled we have the Barclays Golden Glove page, but every reference there is to a season-end award. The Premier League site keeps track of club clean sheets, but I still haven't been able to find one for individuals.--BDD (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find a source for it either, but yes Hart and Cech are tied with 11, not sure about the keepers below them. The information would need to be in a single source, instead of keeping track manually. Another problem I can see with this - which I'll admit doesn't happen very often, but what happens if a goalkeeper is subbed during a match, and the team goes on to keep a clean sheet? Which keeper gets the clean sheet? I'm sure Barclays/FA have a policy for this, maybe they both get one, or maybe the goalkeeper who played longer gets it, or maybe neither of them get it because they didn't complete a whole match. That would be another issue that would need resolved. Reddev87 (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Torres/Andy Caroll

[edit]

Just a question, on the scorers list, can these not be listed as playing just for Liverpool and Newcastle as they are yet to score for their respective new clubs? 94.13.94.44 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically no, their new clubs shouldn't be mentioned, as all of their goals have been for their previous club, and after all, it is a goal scoring table. However, changing it to only include the club they have scored for will just result in an edit war. For that reason, I think it should stay as it is. Reddev87 (talk) 23:39, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons template or general league template

[edit]

Template:Premier League is in use at the end of the season article, however, I see that in previous season articles (2008–09 Premier League) Template:Premier League seasons is in use. Shouldn't we be consistent? --MicroX (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seemed to really care even after I made the switch. --MicroX (talk) 04:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stadia and locations section as an image gallery?

[edit]

It is not a particularly good idea to display the "Stadia and locations" section as an image gallery. The accessibility of information (team, location, stadium name, capacity) is significantly obstructed because the images drown out everything else; the current table format is much more clearer. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree, the images overwhelm everything else. Reddev87 (talk) 23:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham City may still qualify for UCL mathematically

[edit]

Don't give the (Q) mark to Birmingham City too quickly. As of February 27 2011, they can still qualify for Champions League mathematically despite its extremely slim chance. Ckhandy (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As of 20 April, Hotspur had 54 points in 32 games, Birmingham had 38 in 33 games. Even Birmingham won 5 straight round, they had 15 + 38 = 53 points. 210.6.121.21 (talk) 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You're replying to a two month-old point which isn't really relevant anymore. Falastur2 Talk 00:19, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke City

[edit]

Stoke City still depends on the FA Cup final. If they won, they certainly qualified. But if they lose and Manchester City slipped to 6th, then Stoke City qualified for nothing. Matthew_hk tc 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Positions by round...again

[edit]

Despite editing the article to include the PbR table, the edit has been quickly reversed due to the issue being raised here in the past which I was unaware of. However personally, I see nothing wrong with it and agree with a few other users who are for including it. For me, it is a very interesting, easy to view piece of data that makes it easy to see just how the season has panned out and which teams have come back from the dead, or who, ultimately, fell out of title contention, much better than words ever could do. For example, it is interesting to see, week by week, how Chelsea's season fell apart, but how it slowly rebuilt itself. I read of the issue of postponed matches. I understand this, however perhaps the section could be renamed 'Positions by week', as the source I used takes into account mid-week games. I don't see a problem in doing this and, in effect, would clarity the table. In addition, this table exists on the La Liga article which would surely have had the same issues that have been raised here. So why does it remain to be on the page? To sum up, I think the table is an excellent way of showing the season's history which would be a great addition to the page. I hope whoever responds to this will take what I had said into account and will not immediately brush to one side. I believe I have a case here. TurboGUY (talk) 23:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment about the same table being on the La Liga article, I'll point out that La Liga actually runs the league very carefully so that at virtually no point in a season do you have teams on different numbers of games played. Certainly it never descends into the total hodge-potch mish-mash of different numbers of games played that always happens for about 75% of every Premier League season. Thus, the table works there.
Personally I'm undecided on the issue though, so don't count this as a vote against. Falastur2 Talk 01:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least that is cleared up. However simply re-naming the section 'Positions by Week', will a small note about postponed matches would surely be acceptable. I'd like to here other users' thought's on the matter. TurboGUY (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm one against it due to "missing" matches. Since of December, every round both Man City and Spurs had between 1 to 2 missing matches, while West Ham United always had between 1 and 2 over the teams arround her (2 above Birmingham).
If we do something like that, we should do instead a Form Guide to all 20 teams with thier 38 matches.
Like (Team X || W W W D L L D ------).
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, naming the section 'Positions by Week' and pointing out that some matches had been postponed in certain weeks due to Cup matches or other reasons would surely solve this problem. TurboGUY (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PFA Team of the Year

[edit]

I've edit this twice to remove the colours and increased the font size . The current interation is hard to read does anyone else have a preference ?Gnevin (talk) 18:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For me it looks fine, and the colors and size are there like past seasons (per team color), we can't have it too big (don't forget its a pitch look)
  – HonorTheKing (talk) 18:55, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious goals

[edit]

Just to clarify something - a goal "confirmed as" belonging to a player, does not add an extra goal. This goal was already awarded as his during the game, it was just dubious, and has just been confirmed to still be his. The wording they use for the decisions is sometimes open to interpretation I'll admit.

Berbatov and Tevez are the only 2 players on the current list of top scorers whos totals have changed because of the latest Dubious goals committee decisions.Reddev87 (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

[edit]

The introduction says "eighteen" where it should say "eighteenth" when referring to the Manchester United-Liverpool championships tie.

Fair Play and Europe

[edit]

http://www.premierleague.com/page/FairPlayTable/0,,12306,00.html Fulham leds Blackpool 16 points in round 35 but there is no proof that Blackpool overcame Fulham in round 38. (In the last 3 rounds Fulham collected cards, thus Fulham only collected 20 points in "Red & Yellow Cards section"; Blackpool collected 5 YC in 3 games, collected 25 in that section, other sections may varies: Positive Play, Respect Towards Opponent/Referee & Behaviour of Officials. Fulham not yet qualified either. Lastly both clubs had UEFA license? Matthew_hk tc 21:47, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010–11 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) 00:49, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on 2010–11 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) 04:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010–11_Premier_League&oldid=1196582974"