Jump to content

Talk:2014–15 Premier League

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

Source not correctly showing qualified teams

[edit]

First of all, sorry for edit warring. I just think that basic reasoning should fall under WP:CALC, as it has been done in previous years. I don't think it's too complex to see that it's impossible for Crystal Palace, West Brom and West Ham to all reach Manchester United, since West Ham will play both of the others. Just ask me to clarify if it's still nor clear. Cheers. 81.230.184.49 (talk) 16:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In previous years it has been done with either agreement with the talk page or specific sources on the matter. If you can provide your argument here it can be considered.=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:42, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There has been many discussions in the past about what is WP:ROUTINE and falls under WP:CALC The thing is that, often, it is complicated with "If team A beats team B and team C beats team D or team A draws team B and....", that is boolean algebra and not routine calculations. This is why the source has been used otherwise a bunch of editors have added teams with their own calculations (often wrong). Now I believe you are righht, but we cant just add teams without source or good explanation on the talkpage for above mentioned reason. So, as Spudgfsh says, If you can provide your argument here (or find a soure) we can consider it. QED237 (talk) 17:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All right then. Fulham and Cardiff can not reach 51 points, so for Manchester United not to qualify, all other teams in the league need to reach 51. The only way for Crystal Palace to do this is to win all their 8 games, including one against West Ham. The same is true for West Brom, they need to win all their 8 games, including one against West Ham. But West Ham only has 6 games left besides the ones against Crystal Palace and West Brom. This means they can only reach 31 + 3*6 = 49 points if they lose these games. So West Ham can not reach 51 unless they take points against West Brom or Crystal Palace. Therefore, at least 3 teams will have fewer points than Manchester United; Fulham, Cardiff and at least one of West Brom, Crystal Palace and West Ham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.230.184.49 (talk) 17:50, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having had time to look at it properly the following argument applies. Fulham and Cardiff cannot reach 51 points. Norwich can reach 53 and West Brom can reach 52 but they play each other on 5/4/2014. if Norwich win, West Brom can only reach 49 points. If West Brom win Norwich can only reach 50 points. If it is a draw west brom can only reach 50 points. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. That's another combination of teams that can't reach 51, and there are probably even more. Your combination makes it easy to see that Manchester United are safe. 81.230.184.49 (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Southampton are qualified, since the maximums of Fulham and Cardiff are below Southampton's points (48) and the maximums of Sunderland and West Brom are 49 and 50 respectively. Since Sunderland and West Brom will meet, there is no way for both of them to reach 48. If that game is a draw, Sunderland will have 47 points, otherwise the loser of that game will have below 48. 81.230.184.49 (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable reasoning for Southampton. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Newcastle

[edit]

Newcastle can only be included when there is one of the following

  1. A source that states that they are safe (but not one that could be considered opinion)
  2. A source where a simple calculation (see above) can be made to logically argue their safety

neither has appeared yet. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 19:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a simple enough calculation to show that Norwich could mathematically still be relegated to the Championship for 2014-15 even if they won all their remaining games and ended 2013-14 on 47 points. Concentrate2 (talk) 15:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Newcastle would be confirmed on Saturday either if they get a point at Stoke, or if Sunderland draw or lose at home to Everton. Concentrate2 (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sunderland (maximum 46 points) still have to play swansea (maximum 48). a swansea win means sunderland have a maximum of 43. A sunderland win means swansea have a maximum of 45. a draw means sunderland have a maximum of 44. there is no way that both teams can now pass newcastle. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 21:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds right to me, lets add Newcastle. QED237 (talk) 21:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stoke

[edit]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Swansea's loss today means that Stoke can be added. The reasoning: The only way Stoke can be relegated is if Sunderland make up the 18 point difference by winning all 6 of their remaining games. Their final game is against Swansea, who, in order to relegate Stoke, would need to make up the 10 point gap by getting at least a draw against Sunderland. These two outcomes are not simultaneously possible, so Stoke is safe. 99.250.32.162 (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct. Stoke will have Fulham, Cardiff and at least one of Sunderland and Swansea behind them so they are safe.81.230.184.49 (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

someone needs to correct stoke on the table.Japhes5005 (talk) 16:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Xania got there just before this message. Thanks, Matty.007 16:22, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Early?

[edit]

Is this article not a bit to early? Should we not wait until it actually has information different to last season (except Leicester)? Thanks, Matty.007 08:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No earlier than in previous seasons. It still only lists teams that are genuinely confirmed as qualified as playing in the competition for next season. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 17:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the info. Are articles such as 2014–15 Manchester City F.C. season fair game to make as well? Thanks, Matty.007 15:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would wait with them until season has ended and transfers start about mid may, but I know some club pages has been started in other leagues with people being concerned about WP:TOOSOON on them. QED237 (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
imo it depends on whether there is anything significant that can only be said on that article. I would say Luton and wolves promotion would count but little else=> Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 16:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I created the 2014-15 City article, and I did it for several specific reasons:
1 - because a number of other team articles had already appeared (at the time in question, my article was the fourth new club season article for England, and you'll notice that I created the categories such as Category:Dutch football clubs 2014–15 season, Category:Greek football clubs 2014–15 season and Category:Austrian football clubs 2014–15 season (can't link for obvious reasons) long before I did so, because articles already existed for them
2 - because there was information to report: unlike these articles I never make new pages when there are not details such as friendlies to report. There were. You'll also hopefully notice that I consciously left out any information referring to competitons to which City have not yet qualified for 100% certain
3 - because it's been well established in previous years that April is when the new season articles tend to get created. It's the point at which information goes from being WP:CRYSTAL to being WP:VERIFY, and heck it's even the time at which fans, blogs and journalists start to talk about the new season. I would never create a new article like this one in the August before, or December, or even February/March
Anyway, continue with your debate. Falastur2 Talk 17:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with you that there is information present in the City one, there is also some in the Arsenal one, though a good sight less. I thought when I saw City's article that it was very thorough. Thanks, Matty.007 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swansea

[edit]

Swansea are safe. They have 39 points.
Maximum points =
17th - Norwich City - 38 points max.
18th - Fulham - 37 points max.
19th - Cardiff City - 39 points max.
20th - Sunderland - 41 points max.
But because Cardiff and Sunderland still need to play each other (27 April) There is no way that they can both overtake Swansea. And then obviously neither can Norwich or Fulham. ThisIsDanny (talk) 00:30, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The BBC on their live text commentary even said the same, saying (and I quote) "FULL-TIME- Swansea 4-1 Aston Villa Swansea are safe for another season. Cue the celebrations." Falastur2 Talk 01:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
add it in then => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 09:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was added yesterday but then someone removed it, so I thought I'd take it to the talk page. ThisIsDanny (talk) 12:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I reverted yesterday because there was nothing to support it. When one editor adds the info on talkpage with source I would say it is correct to add it on the article as lone as the source has been provided (or show source in edit summary). If it is own calculations as above someone should verify it first. Therefore after User:Falastur2 added his comment it could be added to the article. QED237 (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2014

[edit]

81.97.52.150 (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want changed? Falastur2 Talk 20:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not done for now: We cannot accept empty requests. Please clearly describe the changes you want made in your edit request in a "please change X to Y" form, so we know exactly what you would like to change. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel and Kits section

[edit]

I've updated the kits/sponsors columns of the personnel and Kits section (where I can). Most of them now have references for the season in question but not all. I've also removed all of the ones whose deals expired this season or whose source didn't contain explicit reference to the deal applying to this season. If someone could check them for me I'd be grateful. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm tempted to remove all of the captains from the list until there is a better source. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Captainns should definately removed, I have done it in the past and I will do it again. I believe many coaches dont even know captain for next season yet. QED237 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of this is c&p from the season just finished. All we do "know" is the dates the season is supposed to start and the teams in it. Everything else, managers, ground capacity, captains etc. is based on the situation at the end of 2013-14 season. Oh so many thing will change. Just ask Pepe Mel!--Egghead06 (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and until we know it should not be incuded. QED237 (talk) 19:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could someone take a look at the situation for Man United. An editor approached me on my talk saying it should be chevrolet instead of AON and reading the source for AON is making me a bit confused. The article is about AON being everywhere on traning ground and on the trainingkits of players/manager but it also says under the picture that AON will be replaced by Chevrolet in 2014/15 season and the same towards the end of article. Should it be Chevrolet? QED237 (talk) 19:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chevvy--Egghead06 (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
changed. I knew I'd missed one. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 20:01, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5th place Europe qualification placement?

[edit]

The League Table does not include 5th place gaining qualification into the Europa Cup. No longer are the FA cup runner ups given a place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohunter999 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The agreed position is that until the winners of the FA and League cups are confirmed then the fifth/sixth place qualification does not get included. => Spudgfsh (Text Me!) 18:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The rules have changed though starting 2015-2016 in the European competitions. 5th place in the premier league is guaranteed a spot in the Europa Cup, irrespective of who wins the FA and League cup. 6th and 7th happen if cup winners have already got a qualification. So surely 5th should have a qualification on the League Table? The 2015-2015 Europa Cup page even has England 5th team as a Europa qualifier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinohunter999 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

5th place has always been guaranteed a place in the Europa League. Nothing has changed in that respect. The point is that the round they enter at is not known until the FA Cup has been won. For that reason, we do not highlight the 5th place until quite late on. Falastur2 Talk 23:53, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 August 2014

[edit]

Request for adjustment on the "Top scorers" table. The "rank" for Steven Naismith and Nathan Dyer should be 2 (instead of 3), as only Diego Costa has more goals than them. Thank you. 83.85.17.179 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done - 97rob (talk) 21:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

spurs vs liv

[edit]

It seems a bit complicated for me to add myself, but someone needs to add tottenham vs liverpool in the "biggest away win" section. As both that and everton vs chelsea match have a win margin of 3 goals.0danmaster0 (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Player Assist Table?

[edit]

Articles for other leagues include tables with players having most assists, however this article does not. I see that articles for previous seasons of Premier League do not have it as well. Does it need changing? In my mind, yes. How do others think? Skorpionas (talk) 18:55, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The statistics are way too less for a league that is one of the best in the world. Learncontribute (talk) 09:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Learncontribute: Could you name any other stats that is relevent? Wikipedia is not a collection of stats it is an encyclopedia. About the assists, sources and definitions vary very much and there is consensus not to use it. For example sometimes the player that falls and gets penalty counts as assist and sometimes it does not. QED237 (talk) 15:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Qed237:I am fairly new to Wikipedia (mind you, editing, not reading). So, I would appreciate if you can redirect me to the consensus you are talking about. Regarding your point that assists vary, yes they do, but there is a definite criteria for premier league. Here is how it is defined by Opta (the official media data partner of Premier league), "The final pass or pass-cum-shot leading to the recipient of the ball scoring a goal. Finally, as Skorpionas pointed out, they are included in the wiki pages of other leagues such as La Liga. So, either there is a problem with those (which I believe there is none) or the argument we have here is valid. Learncontribute (talk) 17:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Learncontribute: See the answers two sections down (we should probably keep discussion in one thread). QED237 (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Font

[edit]

What font is the results table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.70.10 (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously someone help me

No special font is used, it is regular text. QED237 (talk) 15:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Southampton kit

[edit]

The table suggests that the Southampton kit is made by the club, but the source does not corroborate this. All the source states is that the deal with Adidas was being terminated and news would be coming in the next few months. That was May. Surely there is an updated source for this? 124.187.32.166 (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Adding more Statistics of Premier League Teams & Players

[edit]

At the moment, only a handful statistics are there which is not fitting of one of the largest leagues in the world. I propose adding the statistic of highest assists for individual players, and following statistics for teams: 1) Top Scorers for individual teams, 2)Top Assist Makers for individual teams. I hope people can propose other statistics as well, which I believe is a very important part of sports. Learncontribute (talk) 02:48, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I propose is that the section "Season statistics" be split into three sub-sections, namely "Player statistics", "Team Statistics" and "Tournament statistics", and the corresponding statistics be added in each section. Let me know what everyone else thinks. Learncontribute (talk) 09:55, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a list of stats only and articles should mostly contain of text and not stats-tables. I see no reasone for any of the stats you are interested in. The top scorers for individual teams can be seen at the team articles and as per consensus we dont list assists as definition of what assist is varies. We should be more concerned about adding more informative text to the article instead of stats-tables. QED237 (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion which decided not to include assists is here.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:30, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can also read talkpage of previous seasons such as Talk:2013–14 Premier League#Decisions that apply to this page from previous seasons pages and just because it exists on other pages does not mean it should be here or there per WP:WHATABOUTX. QED237 (talk) 00:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was not aware of that. Learncontribute (talk) 03:29, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2014

[edit]

manegrial changes Newcastle out alan parddew in no one 82.1.143.203 (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Exactly what changes to you want to be made and do you have a reliable source? QED237 (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 December 2014

[edit]

Someone has taken away longest winning streak, longest losing streak, longest undefeated streak, and longest winless streak. 189.234.38.61 (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question: And what do you want to be done? The content was removed due to lack of reliable source. The source used did not list all those stats and if several teams shared streak, they only showed one team. If there is a reliable source it can be re-added. QED237 (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stadia capacities

[edit]

Am I missing it, or is there no reference cited for the capacities of the various stadia? Seems the numbers have just been copied from last year?Bertcocaine (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Bertcocaine: Yes, you are right. I updated the table with a source for this season. QED237 (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sugunda Division

Please changeit so it no longer says relegation to segunda division and replace with relegation to championship.

This is in the area of weekly positions.

Segunda Division

[edit]

Please change the segunda division to championship, this is in the area of weekly positions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.123.101 (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Assists

[edit]

Any chance we can have assists as well as goals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.123.101 (talk) 22:58, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, not according to consensus at WT:FOOTY and earlier consednsus at Premier League article. There are no clear definition of assist. What someone say is assist, someone else says no assist. QED237 (talk) 23:12, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For more information read the other discussions at this talkpage. QED237 (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Include match date as part of the Result table?

[edit]

Would the Results table be more useful if it were to include the date a match took place as metadata (something that maybe live as the "title" attribute of a score element)?

Chrsmrrtt (talk) 20:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My two responses to this would be that, A - adding dates to the table would clog it up and make it very hard to read and B - this information is available on the individual club articles. You could even make an argument that competition season articles should try to avoid giving away too much information in order to encourage users to seek said information on more specialised pages. Falastur2 Talk 22:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Falastur2. You're right to be concerned about clogging up the table. I was trying to suggest that the match date would be visible as a popup on hovering the cursor over the score. Anyway, just an idea. Chrsmrrtt (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

League table

[edit]

Why is there no key to what the columns are? What do W, D, and L mean? 96.51.16.28 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just hold your mouse pointer above the letters and you will see explanation. Also it is very common letters used all around the world so no need to explain further. QED237 (talk) 21:43, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
W is Wins, D is Draws and L is Losses. QED237 (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Far more common "around the world" would be Won, Lost, Tied. Perhaps a note under the table advising the reader about the ability to hover would be in order - I completely missed this on my first look at the page.96.51.16.28 (talk) 22:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Most common by far is Won, Draw, Lost. Only america has the other way. QED237 (talk) 23:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europa League Qualified

[edit]

[1] Europa League Extra Spot (for financial Fair Play). Will it be written Lzq2001 (talk) 13:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked at Template talk:2014–15 Premier League table if this should be added to the league table. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, England has been given an extra spot and it will be added to the League table when we know what team will get that spot. We can not add it to the table when we dont know on what team to put it. I guess it could be added in the text somewhere also. Where do you think we should put it? QED237 (talk) 13:51, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The extra "berth goes to the highest-placed team in the Fair Play table of that country's top league that has not already qualified for Europe." Liverpool and Tottenham are not guaranteed Europa league spots, but 5th and 6th positions are highlighted for Europa league berths. The 7th position should accordingly be highlighted for consistency. We do not need to wait to know what team will get the spot; we don't to know the teams for spots 1-6 in the table before highlighting them for Champions/Europa spots. We only need to wait to put those (C), (Q), (T) and (X) tags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomas t tan (talk • contribs) 00:10, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't agree with highlighting 7th place. That's just inaccurate. At least the 5th and 6th place qualifications will actually go to whoever is in 5th and 6th respectively, but the Fair Play qualification will go to whoever tops the FP table, and right now that's going to be Liverpool - who are already in a qualification position and therefore currently ineligible - and then West Ham next. Just highlighting 7th gives the complete wrong impression. If anything, West Ham should be highlighted, as if the league were to end tomorrow, it would be they who got the spot. Falastur2 Talk 00:33, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Falastur2 are completely right. The CL spots are for team1-4 (4th will qualify) and 5th and 6th will go to EL. The fair play spot however will NOT go to seventh placed team, it will be given out according to fair play table so it would be very wrong to put it on seveth-placed team. QED237 (talk) 12:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it should be highlighted, but there ought to be a note below the table to that effect. As far as highlighting West Ham as the likeliest candidate, how certain is it that they'll be next? Would a bunch of bookings in their final games matter? (As to that, does anyone have a link to the current table?) Ravenswing 12:20, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It should be highlighted when it is certain, which it is not (not even close). I will see if a note can be added (new table format using a module so might need some fixing). The current fair play table can be seen at official premier league website http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/matchday/fair-play.html QED237 (talk) 16:58, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: West Ham has not been confirmed and has been removed. Or do you have an official source for your claim? Qed237 (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean, it "has not been confirmed?" Isn't the league's own Fair Play Table on its own website (which you yourself linked) a reliable source? Ravenswing 22:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ravenswing: When I looked a few minutes ago it was after 34 matches played and said "updated 5 May" at the bottom. Do you have a source saying they are qualified after all 38 matches? Qed237 (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The FA has to go through all numbers first and update everything and will come with an official announcement when it is all calculated. Qed237 (talk) 22:30, 24 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014–15 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) 04:17, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on 2014–15 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) 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why position by round is already not introduced?

[edit]

as higher Metufit (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've talked about this a million times, and the conclusion is always that the league schedule is too convoluted with postponements and television commitments for a "positions by round" table to make any sense. – PeeJay 00:17, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014–15_Premier_League&oldid=1196678675"