Talk:2015–16 Premier League

League Standings

The league is sorted by (1) points, if tied, then (2) goal difference, if tied, then (3) goals scored. If still tied, then the position is shared, like golf (unless it is the end of the season and the teams in question are vying for the title, for a place in Europe or relegation survival, then there'll be a playoff). So, early in the season, there will be a lot of tied positions, the tied teams should not be sorted alphabetically. Rather, they should share the position. I cannot edit the table. Anyone can help? Thanks! 170.38.99.35 (talk) 02:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Watford

Watford should not be added to the new season just yet, as both Bournemouth and Middlesbrough have two games left and can leapfrog Watford in they both win their next two games and Watford lose their final game. 86.41.103.184 (talk) 16:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is reported in media they are promoted. M'boro has only one match left. QED237 (talk) 16:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

You may want to read the BBC Sport article that says Watford clinched promotion to the Premier League after they beat Brighton and other results went their way. [1] QED237 (talk) 16:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The question now if they be included on the national map or the London map due to proximity. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

West Ham

West Ham are safe now with 44 points, because the bottom 2 cannot catch them and it's impossible for both 3rd bottom Sunderland and 4th bottom Leicester to overtake West Ham because the play each other. i.e. if Sunderland were to reach 45 points it would be by beating Leicester who could then only have a maximum of 43. It's certain that one of these 2 teams finishes below West Ham along with QPR and Burnley.Concentrate2 (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

AFC Bournemouth or Bournemouth

There has been editing back and forth about what is right so I think we should find consensus. We listed them only as Bournemouth last season in Championship and we usually omit AFC, FC and such lettering making Arsenal F.C. to Arsenal, Hull City A.F.C. is piped to Hull City and so on. But Bournemouth is different? Should we use AFC or not? QED237 (talk) 17:07, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I oppose AFC in this case. There's no other Bournemouth club neither in the present nor in the past to confuse both, unlike the case of Wimbledon F.C. or AFC Wimbledon. The Replicator (talk) 21:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I reckon it should be AFC Bournemouth. I hear them referred by "AFC Bournemouth" a lot more frequently than just "Bournemouth". - J man708 (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I oppose AFC. If we add AFC, then we would have to be consistent and add FC or AFC to every team in every league. Also, as Qed237 said, they were listed as Bournemouth in last season's Championship. Barinade2151 (talk) 19:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bournemouth is different, yes. AFC Bournemouth is their correct name, and has been for over 40 years. It's the reason why they're alphabetically first in the FA Cup draw, ahead of Arsenal and Aston Villa in the third round, for example. There is also a Bournemouth FC, who play in the Wessex League, and there have been instances where supporters and reporters have travelled there in error in the past. Their club crest shows AFC Bournemouth; their website is afcb.co.uk. In short, they can be listed as Bournemouth, but it would be incorrect to do so.Cardboard Captain (talk) 11:01, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The FA Cup draw is the important factor here, as it shows the FA considers "AFC" part of their name. Ditto the fact of the existence of Bournemouth FC. AFC's website is afcb.co.uk, their official Twitter account is AFCBournemouth (etc), and they use that name for themselves (so we should follow, really.) The BBC's home page for them is [www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/teams/afc-bournemouth]. Some news agencies use the "AFC" part, some don't (mostly to save space, I suspect). The confusion is easily seen here where the headline uses "Bournemouth", and the subheading adds the "AFC". Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Food for thought - "FC's" aren't always deleted everywhere possible on Wiki, because some usage is warranted. Sydney FC is a big one that is never referred to as just "Sydney", as is shown here. If the FA refers to them as AFC, they themselves self reference to AFC, then surely that is what we should call them. Ditto clubs like AS Monaco, AC Milan and AEK Athens. - J man708 (talk) 13:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I see there are some different opinions here. Regarding Monaco, there was a discussion ansd champions league article and now they are only Monaco and not AS Monaco (I am in favour of as). I suggest we wait and see what the official table at the Premier League says when it is updated, if they use AFC, we can do that to. Qed237 (talk) 11:41, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Another one is AC Milan. I get that Inter are shown as Internazionale, but having AC as just Milan is so ambiguously vague. We've also got clubs like Odense Boldklub who are listed as simply OB, even though this current shambolic system should theoretically have them called simply Odense. Perhaps we should address this once and for all on Wiki:ProjectMayhem... I mean, Football? - J man708 (talk) 02:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

AFC Wimbledon, AFC Fylde, AFC Telford United, AFC Totton and AFC Rushden and Diamonds are just some of the teams listed here on Wikipedia in their correct alphabetical order in their respective leagues (AFC Wimbledon are second behind Accrington Stanley). Ironic, then, that the first and biggest club in this country to use the 'AFC' prefix is incorrectly listed as 'Bournemouth'. Cardboard Captain (talk) 11:45, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the first article I've seen on the Premier League's site, and as you can see it refers to AFC Bournemouth throughout. Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay now many sites has fixed their info for the 2015/16 season and this without AFC. Look at premierleague.com fixtures and premierleague.com league table or why not bbc sport table (bbc used as source for many matchreports). Qed237 (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason they're not listed as AFC Bournemouth in the league tables is that these stats are supplied to the Premier League and the BBC by Opta, who incorrectly list the club as Bournemouth. Confirmed to me by the Premier League: Opta control the feeds for the some of the stats and information on our website. As they refer to AFC Bournemouth as Bournemouth this means it is displayed on our website as such. Where we have control over the content we will be displaying the clubs name as AFC Bournemouth. This can be seen on the header of any page on the Premier League website, where all the club crests are displayed and AFC Bournemouth is listed first. Or seen in any news about them: 2015/16 Fixture List or AFC Bournemouth sign Tyrone Mings. Opta are at fault and organisations which rely on their stats compound their error. Soccerway to their credit display the club correctly 2015/16 Premier League, as do Goal.com 2015/16 Premier League Cardboard Captain (talk) 21:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

100. The percentage that Opta shits me. #Annoying. - J man708 (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Amusing blunder today from the BBC on the club's fixture list AFC Bournemouth fixtures: They show Bournemouth playing AFC Portchester (note: that's *AFC* Portchester) in the FA Cup Qualifying Round on 15th August. Ironic thing is...they're right; Bournemouth *do* play AFC Portchester (note: *AFC* Portchester) on that day. That's the Wessex Premier League side, though (perhaps they get their facts from Wikipedia). *AFC* Bournemouth, however, currently enter the competition at the 3rd Round stage, where they will of course be ball number 1, as they're alphabetically the first side in the draw 2014/15 FA Cup 3rd Round Draw numbersCardboard Captain (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I surrender, the more I look they are actually called AFC Bournemouth. Qed237 (talk) 19:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2015

Bournemouth should be top of the table as their official name is AFC Bournemouth which makes them alphabetically higher than Arsenal. Spunkyator (talk) 16:05, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done All the other teams don't have FC or AFC in their name in this table, or any other pages. Throughout Wikipedia they are referred to as Bournemouth. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:08, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Fixture announcment date

You might want to put that the fixtures are announced on Wednesday 17 June - I just came here looking for this information. Source: http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/premier-league-2015-16-fixtures-announced-9361987 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.232.190 (talk) 22:44, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Stadium capacities

I found [2] which claims to list stadium capacities for 2015-16 season. However, the capacities listed seem to be identical to last season, so I don't think it's accurate. Users shouldn't be adding stadium capacities without reliable sources that actually exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:46, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Southampton Bournemouth a Derby?

Not sure if it is an Actual Derby or not and if it should be included in the article or not, though I have found some Sources claiming it is and called the "New Forest Derby" such as here but even then there is no Reference to prove it exists --Jamiecross1 (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I dont think it should be included and apperently it does not have its own article. Qed237 (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If it doesn't have his own article, then it shouldn't be added. Also, living in Bournemouth I know this isn't really a thing- Bournemouth call Southampton their main rivals, but Southampton care about a million times more about Portsmouth than Bournemouth. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

MOS:FLAGS header

Can someone point me to the discussion that took place for the page header warning of flags and which section of MOS:FLAGS is being broken by some of the edits that are being reverted, justification for which is that there is a page header. Why is MOS:SPORTFLAGS being ignored and who deicided that the format of this article should be different to previous seasons? Paul  Bradbury 21:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's not being ignored. Per MOS:FLAG; "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country, government, or nationality – such as military units, government officials, or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.". None of that is relevant to what nationality each manager is. Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
• I have to admit, the page looks much duller without the flags. They really added some livelihood to an article which typically doesn't include any images. Was there a discussion about this somewhere? The flags remain in previous season articles—if there was truly consensus to deprecate their use, we might as well go back and remove those too. --BDD (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Black Kite: Sorry for the delayed response. but two points

• Your edit summary doesn't mention managers it says using flags with people in tables is against MOS:FLAGS It is not and there is not such mention in the guidlines.
• Go look at MOS:SPORTFLAGS part of MOS:FLAGS here is a direct quote Flags should generally illustrate the highest level the sportsperson is associated with. For example, if a sportsperson has represented a nation or has declared for a nation, then the national flag as determined by the sport governing body should be used (these can differ from countries' political national flags). If a sportsperson has not competed at the international level, then the eligibility rules of the international sport governing body (such as IRB, FIFA, IAAF, etc.) should be used. If these rules allow a player to represent two or more nations, then a reliable source should be used to show who the sportsperson has chosen to represent. If you'd like to discuss it and change consensus feel free to bring it up at WT:MOSICON which is the appropriate forum. Paul  Bradbury 22:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

• As stated at WT:FOOTY, I think the flags are helpful here - removing them is simply removing information from the article. The nationality of managers is an oft-discussed issue and pertinent topic. Number 57 22:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

disturbing page changes

Absolutely atrocious decision by the Wiki bureaucrats to get rid of the flags for top goalscorers. For years, the inclusion of the flag icons has been a welcome addition as it identifies the nationality of the league's top goalscorers, and contrary to the drivel above, such information is valuable, and pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself- it differentiates between the different identities of the footballers. Generally, the trend is towards more, not less information. The exclusion of the position by round table, a mainstay of the La Liga and Bundesliga pages, further adds to this exclusionary, erroneous trends that puts the value and legitimacy of this page at risk. Ditto for the exclusion of the assists table for last year's page. Enough with the elitism-millions of people check this page daily for information on the football teams and league that they love. Why punish them and omit valuable, useful, and relevant information such as top goalscorer nationalities, top assisters, and league position by round tables? The arbitrary whims by a couple of grey-faced suits on what is relevant information and what is not should not be applied universally to the detriment of all. Have you no shame, editors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.92.77.124 (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Query

Why in the table do the managers sort by country but team captains sort by surname? 77.130.197.6 (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why was my edit to correct this, reverted by User:NextGenSam619, with no explanation? The equivalent table on 2014–15 Premier League sorts both columns by surname of the manager/captain. 77.130.197.19 (talk) 12:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

Discipline

   As of matches played on 2 November 2015.

Player

   Most yellow cards: 6
             Alexander Tettey (Norwich City)

   Most red cards: 1
       25 players

Club

   Most yellow cards: 26
       Tottenham Hotspur

   Most red cards: 4
       West Ham United

WIKICHIPPO (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done do you have a source? I will look at it shortly. Qed237 (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Position by round

Why does this league never have a position by round table (all other big leagues have it)? LICA98 (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a consensus that no rounds exists in England as many matches gets moved around due to cup matches (when it is FA Cup, the PL matches is moved) and also bad wheater. Qed237 (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2015

Muhammad.hossny (talk) 03:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

@Muhammad.hossny: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. /wia🎄/tlk 04:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Error in league table

There's an error in the league table - Bournemouth have lost 10 games, not 1.[3]

Fixing this will also correct their number of games played, from 13 to 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.151.46.138 (talk) 16:15, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed I've fixed the template for the league table, it should update on this article soon. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

mutual consent

Why is Mourinhos' sacking being sourced to chelsea official statement (the least reliable source possible)? If we did that almost no manager would ever be sacked, it's universally understood that such statements are nonsense. He should be listed as sacked, as per the ACTUAL source http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/34670192 and every other sacked manager listed. 80.42.16.147 (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)