Talk:2008–09 Serie A

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

77 Serie A Seasons

Although 2008-09 will be considered the 77th Serie A season, there are 79 Serie A seasons listed on the template. I think the 1944 season should be moved up to the Italian Football Championships seasons section or omitted completely, but which is the second extra season that we are counting? Juve2000 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking it might be 1945-46. If it is, I think it should be moved too. That way we have 77 seasons listed which matches the official number of Serie A seasons played (counting 2008-09). I'm not going to touch the template as I would probably destroy it.Juve2000 (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews invitation

Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for Serie A. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Vandalisation

Maybe the Table leaders by matchday section is senseless,but vandalisation? I didn't want to vandalise,if I get blamed for vandalisation,then someone may block me for something which isn't my intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.138.135 (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The summary was "vandalism + senseless
WP:TRIVIA content). I hope I've been clarified your doubts. --Angelo (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes,thank you,maybe I'm overreacting a bit,but: phew,what a relief. User: 81.68.138.135 22:26, 14 September 2008

Positions by round

I am impressed by the new chart created by Lordoffireanddeath26. Before someone arbitrarily deletes it because it hasn't been thouroughly discussed or for some other reason, could you please state your objections here. Juve2000 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion over this issue at
the project page as well. It can be found here
. More input would be welcome, as there currently is no concensus reached, if I'm correct.
Those RbR tables have two major issues: 1) Can they be properly sourced? 2) Do they violate
talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
To your questions I would have to answer 1) Yes and 2) Probably. If nothing else, previous revisions of this very article contain exactly the information that is in the chart. If the current league table is sourced, then so is all of this data. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of its inclusion, since I think it does clutter things up a bit. If consensus is made to keep it though, might I suggest replacing the gold/silver/bronze colors with ones that match the regular league table? That might help integrate it into the article. —Ed Cormany (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem with the colors is that every country has a different pattern of spots for European competition and relegation. There are two ways to deal with that: Either hard-code the complete table, which will definitely make it hard to maintain it or change the existing template. You might want to choose the second alternative, but such a change is actually more difficult to perform than it sounds as dozens of parameters would have to be introduced in order to deal with the colors.
Anyway, I agree that such a table will clutter up things. Furthermore, has anybody seen such tables in publications of any kind as of now? If the answer is different from "no", I would be surprised.
talk) 09:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

use of head to head tiebreaker

i'm well aware that head to head results are the first tiebreaker in the league standings, but i think we should make sure that we are applying that tiebreaker the same way that the Lega Calcio does. i believe that in the past h2h has only been used after the teams in question have played both games against each other. as i write this, the standings on the official league site [1] are inconsistent, showing Inter above Juve (h2h applying) but Cagliari ahead of Catania (h2h not applying). i think it's best to check the official standings tomorrow after the 19th matchday is complete, and proceed from there. —Ed Cormany (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think H2H is usually ignored when completing the wikipedia standings and editors fall back to using the goal difference and then goals scored as tie-breakers, only because its easier when changing the standings on a weekly basis. I have noticed that even when the classifications are final, H2H is not necessarily applied, especially when ordering teams that are in the middle of the standings. I went back and re-ordered
Serie B 2006-07
a few months ago and applied the H2H rules in the final classification more than a year after the season was over. I agree with you that we should have set rules as to when H2H should be applied, and we should also go back and apply them to all italian soccer standings since the H2H rule was implemented.
As for today's controversy, Juventus should have been listed first if we applied the "ignore H2H until the end" rule I mentioned above, but since a few Inter fans got all upset over their team not being first for a mere 24 hours, all of a sudden H2H became the holy grail again.
I noticed the additional column added to the right to note the current H2H results. I am one of those people who is not happy with conversion of all the classifications to this new Fb template thing. The setting up is complex and I believe fewer and fewer people are involved in the editing of the pages. I realize that data such as games played, points earned and goal difference is now automatically calculated. The addition of that extra colum will just drive more editors away in my opinion. Juve2000 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After checking a couple of Italian newspaper sites, I discovered that neither of them uses hth. As a consequence, the column has been removed by me. My theory regarding the erroneous display on the Lega Calcio homepage is that they order clubs with equal points after their number of games as the second tie-breaker. In other words, if club X and club Y are equal on points, but X has more games played than Y, Y will be placed before X. --Soccer-holic (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe we should check various other sources other than lega-calcio.it and apply one of them as the official one because it is somewhat strange. As an example I put Torino and Chievo positions. They (and Wikipedia, probably according to it) put Torino in front of Chievo (they are equal on points). However, Chievo has better goal difference than Torino and they played the same amount of matches. If we apply head-to-head tiebreaker their match ended with a draw what makes the positions being set according to the goal differences (which aren't), since the head-to-head away goals scored aren't applied. Anyway, this whole thing is very unusual and needs to be analyzed better because it will be important at the end of the season, especially if the champions league or europa league teams would be in question. SonjiCeli (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All Italian media (including newspapers like La Gazzetta dello Sport and Corriere dello Sport) usually ignore h2h's until the end of the season, and personally I support this view. --Angelo (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that we won't be using h2h for a tiebreaker, Chievo and Torino need to be switched according to Goal Differential, as Chievo has a better GD. (The other two ties, Napoli/Roma and Fiorentina/Palermo are ranked appropriately regardless if we were counting the h2h records). I will be editing the table momentarily to reflect Chievo/Torino. I feel if the remainder of them are ranked as such, this position conflict (regardless of what other sources may reflect) should be resolved just like the others are. --Snojoe (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we should follow the precedent of the Italian media, only applying h2h at the end of the season. Nevertheless, it should remain listed under the tiebreaking criteria, since technically it will still be in effect, regardless of whether we (and all of Italy) choose to ignore it for the time being. —Ed Cormany (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if we list it under the table, I would put both a visible statement under the tie-breaker criteria in the bottom AND a hidden comment at the top of the table that hth is applied after 38 games only. Otherwise you have tons of "intelligent persons" applying it although it shouldn't. --Soccer-holic (talk) 14:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can do it the way
La Liga 2008–09 does it. They too ignore H2H during the season, and in their rules of classification at the bottom of the table, they ignore H2H completely. Juve2000 (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Now that Juve2000 mentioned
La Liga 2008–09
, they have already started to put h2h column and rank teams according to that tiebreaker, but only if the teams played both games in the season. It seems that people here agree to apply h2h at the end of the season, but why don't we start that now, of course only if the teams played both games. I suggest that because of the confusion that could be caused by not applying it, especially if the top of the table would be in question. For example, Inter and Juventus are after xy round tied on points and played both games; Inter has better overall goal difference, but Juventus is better in h2h points and goal diff. Now there will be editors that will put Juventus in front of Inter, and some will do the opposite.
To avoid that situation I believe we should put both h2h tiebreaker (under the table) and h2h column, but with a very noticeable not-hidden line (my suggestion right under the League table header) about h2h being used only after both games between the teams in question have been played. SonjiCeli (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Top Goalscorers - Table vs List

I'd like to voice my opinion for a second on the current status of the page's Top Goalscorers section. The section is unnecessarily long, which is why I edited it and condensed it down into a table format with fewer players listed. In doing that, I managed to trim almost 1 KB off the page's file size, which I know doesn't matter much, but it shows how much data was freed up in terms of page information. I also don't believe that we absolutely need to have a 10~ goals range (15 goals down to 6 goals), especially when most of the lower totals (6 and 7 goals scored) have numerous entries. I understand previous seasons' pages have used the list, but I think the table also provides a cleaner look to the page. I'd like to keep that on there, or at least insert a cut off point somewhere that we'd end the list at. --Snojoe (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tables should be used considerably, as what suggested by Wikipedia guidelines such as
WP:WTUT (especially when it says "Often a list is best left as a list") - we are talking about simple information, and tables should not be used simply as a layout improvement attempt. And, more importantly, tables are much harder to maintain and update than lists. Then, I don't understand the reason for reducing players: scoring 6 or 7 goals in the mid-season is a clear indication of players who will likely make the double-digit for the end-of-season, and that particular group of players includes accomplished strikers such as Totti, Mutu and Cassano. The 10-goal rule is to be taken into consideration only for the end of season, but not before. In the end, I definitely favour the current list-based layout, that is also being used anywhere else in the Serie A season articles. --Angelo (talk) 11:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
While I agree that the top goalscorers should be displayed as a list because of the simplicity of the information to be displayed, I disagree on the number of scorers to be displayed. There are currently 23 scorers listed, which might be a little too many. A good cut-off point is usually somewhere between 10 to 15 scorers, independent of any scorer names or the number of goals scored. However, since none of you might give in on his opinion, what about displaying the information in two columns? The section would be condensed in space without losing any of the current information in this way. --Soccer-holic (talk) 12:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know we've been back and forth on the this issue in the past. For now I'm content with the list. (However, if any other piece of information were added to each entry, I would have to support a table, like is used for the
top scorers in UCL.) The only thing that puzzles me about the current format is why the team names are listed both in parentheses and italics. One bit of formatting or the other should suffice to differentiate them from the player names. —Ed Cormany (talk) 18:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

Both Soccer-holic's and Ed's opinions are valid critics where to take from. If all people agrees about putting a limit to the number of players or to split up the list into two columns, I have no problem in accepting and even supporting it (same for the way lists are formatted right now, just make a proposal and let's try to find an agreement). My main concern is actually to avoid using tables for these contents, just for all the reasons I already explained in my previous comment. --Angelo (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorentina qualified for CL

Fiorentina is guaranteed a Champions League spot; Genoa cannot pass them due to head-to-head record. Only thing that can change is Fiorentina beating Milan by two or more goals on the Sunday which would then result in Fiorentina securing a group stage spot and forcing Milan to play-in. Apstockholm (talk) 02:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scenarios

Why is it that on every Champs League/World Cup/Premiership article includes scenarios in the last week, but some people keep deleting my edits and saying we need to discuss in the talk page. By Sunday the discussion will have been moot, and the scenarios will have lost all meaning. I don't see why this article should be different from the other major competitions. Nlsanand (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINTing on this, as such edits have been reverted three times by three different users, so there is surely no consensus on including this (and if it was, now it is no longer present). --Angelo (talk) 07:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
By Sunday the discussion will have been moot -- doesn't this alone seem like a good reason not to pour too much effort into these edits? I think the primary consideration should be the value to readers of the article in relation to the amount of editing required. For example, if there were two teams likely to finish tied for first place on points, it would probably be good to explain this scenario and what tiebreakers would take effect, since the only other place this is mentioned is in very small font under the standings table, and even then the reader would have to look up individual matches in the results table. In comparison, a race for which level of Champions League two teams will enter is much less significant, and is probably better left out. —Ed Cormany (talk) 14:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nationality flag for the managial change table

The nationality should be included in the table to show where the head coaches come from i.e. to show who he is. Raymond Giggs 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the nationality of the head coaches should be included as they are not representing the Serie A. Also, in the topscorer table, the nationality of the scorers has been stated. Why head coaches flags have to be removed? Raymond Giggs 18:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also,
this one maybe better. Raymond Giggs 18:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner:Online 19:07, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner:Online 21:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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
}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner:Online 13:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

nobots
|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. 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
}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.—

Talk to my owner:Online 11:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2008–09 Serie A. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:52, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on 2008–09 Serie A. 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.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008–09_Serie_A&oldid=1196537559"