Talk:2010–11 La Liga

A news item involving 2010–11 La Liga was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 12 May 2011.

Wikipedia

Football: Spain / Season Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Spanish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pichichi

Thetrophy pichichi is a trophy delivered by Marca, since Marca delivers it we have to put the goals that Marca says that it has every player. In this case, Christian takes 15 as that Marca says it and the trophy belongs to them. And Di Maria have 4 assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.226.202.54 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I created two lists for the goalscorers as there are differences by many users: some argue that Pichichi should show official determinations by LFP and others argue the Pichichi should be according to the newspaper Marca, which is the organizer of the award. The Solomonic solution is to avoid edit wars that may happen throughout the season as Cristiano Ronaldo will have officially one less goal that says the newspaper Marca. If someone disagrees and changes it, he could check out how there are problems of edit wars continuously. --Raul-Reus (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC+1)

I changed the article layout a little bit in order to get a better comprehension of both lists. However, I raise an issue associated with the list based on the data by LFP.

Does a link providing exactly the LFP list stated in the article exist? If it is the one given below the table, then it does not work for me (using Mozilla Firefox). However, given the huge chunk of hidden data I removed earlier (Sidenote: In all seriousness, why have 12kB of data when it is not displayed at all? The majority of users are NOT using a high-end computer but rather things such as mobile devices et al to access Wikipedia content, with all the downsides such devices have), I would assume that the data was compiled from the several team stats lists, which might actually be a case of WP:SYN. Please discuss this.

Final disclaimer: I am not preferring any of the two lists given, nor am I associated with any of the two parties involved in this content dispute. All I do is pointing to the relevant portions of the Wikipedia content guidelines. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soccer-holic! I understand your arguments to delete hidden data, this data was controlled by me, it's not original research: these list is the hard work to input new players and adding goals when finalizes every match, consulting every match in the [official page]. This page is the only official to provide official information such as goalscorers, goalkeepers, cards, minutes played... match to match. These page, like LFP Squad stats goes wrong with Mozilla, so it's problem of RFEF and LFP, you can enter this pages in Internet Explorer and goes correctly. There are not a specially section in RFEF neither LFP for goalscorers lists, but in the url I imputed "LFP Squad stats" you can check out all goals of all players: selecting season 2010-11, Liga BBVA, and the correspondent team. Well, all hidden data had the aim to update rapidly this lists, but as you say it's not appropiate to stay at this page hidden, later I will put on my user page. Sorry, for this bad english and to write so disorganized. Another question: I'm the first to hate these silly disput about 14 or 15 goals of Cristiano, but yesterday I noted that block expires today and I found out these Solomonic solution to turn off future war edits, there are people in love with Cristiano, so it makes me laugh the insistence and interest to put one more goal to Cristiano. Now there are people who will dispute the one more goal in the info-box in "top goalscorer", this field must be about official goals. --Raul-Reus (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC+1)

Just curious: When did Cronaldo scored that "extra" goal? And why it is not Cronaldo's goal by FIFA rules? Kahkonen (talk) 23:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See here Sidenote: If anybody is able to source this accordingly, please re-insert it into the article. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hat-tricks

Why not add a Hat-tricks section? Hatricks this season so far: 1. Ronaldo (4 goals) vs Racing (23 Oct) Ref: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/302095?cc=4716 2. Messi (3 goals) vs Almeria (20 Nov) Ref: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/302149 3. Ronaldo (3 goals) vs Athlectic Bilbao (20 Nov) Ref: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/301937 4. Ronaldo (3 goals) vs Villareal (9 Nov) Ref: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/301848 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.146 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you to the person who added the hat-tricks section!

Fair play

Why Barcelona (36 yellows, 1 two-yellows, 1 red) has 50 points (RFEF) and Deportiva only 47 points (43 yellows, 1 two-yellows, 1 red)? And Racing 44, 1, 2 = 51 points? How are these points calculated? It seems Barcelona has 10 points too much? Kahkonen (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The table is violating WP:SYN anyway, because it is not cited as a whole but rather a synthesis from different sources. Since it virtually has no impact on the league table (although being denoted as a tie-breaker), there is no value in keeping the "official" version as well. I would thus propose to remove it altogether. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Soccer-holic, these table was created by me and it has all details (breakdown) about how are calculated the points, the total points about details is the column "Total calculated", Official RFEF has no relation between breakdown because as I warned above, RFEF are not calculating rigorously. As you can seein RFEF publishment from 19th round Barcelona had 39 points and after a match between Racing where there's no cards neither incidents, the next official publishment from RFEF was 50 points! Another question is the requirement of acomplish that is not correct the original research, there can be exceptions like these acumulative points lists. These table is impossible to cite all research because is a accumulation of sanctions by comitees and for cite all we must put at least 21 items after every number. Not all contents can be cited. I have no fault that the RFEF is publishing rankings without any rigorous in their calculations and me and Qampunen have done an exhaustive and thorough from the start of the season and keeping in evidence of the professionalism of the RFEF's employee publisher of this classification. Although the table is difficult to understand, their breakdown is correct. The problem is how no evidence the problem of RFEF or display clearly than the RFEF points not correspond to the breakdown. 81.184.193.54 (talk) 1:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As a defense that is not a type of not-original research, I must say that it is possibly this type: WP:SYN#Routine calculations 81.184.193.54 (talk) 2:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

You are disqualifying the table by your own comments. When you say that the "table is impossible to cite [as a whole]" and that "[n]ot all contents can be cited", it is usually a pretty good indicator that the level of verification required for this table is not sufficient. Since the table gets its data from multiple sources, which also need to be evaluated themselves before even being usable for any points calculations, we cannot assume any triviality which would merit the assumption of "routine calculations" (WP:CALC predominantly aims at the conversion of measurements, e.g. cm in inch, anyway). Said approach is also the very definition of WP:SYN. So, to cut a long story short – if the table as is cannot be verified by a single source, no matter if it is right or wrong, it constitutes original research and has to go. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:34, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sources to get all cards and penalties are very clear specified, without acrimony: you're obsessed to control original research. I can make an article with all details and citations round by round, but it would be a hard and unnecessary work, because the main problem is that the correctly calculated points differs in some cases too much to the official, this is the problem to be corrected. 81.184.193.54 (talk) 21:37, 31 January 2011 (CET)

The problem are not the sources themselves. The problem is putting them together in the current form since your table, as is, can be found nowhere on the web but here. How about the following quote:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

That's the very first sentence of WP:V. In other words – the official RFEF ranking might be full of errors, but it can be easily verified; if a Fair Play table should be published in here, then the incorrect official one, as schizophrenic as it sounds.

On something completely different – and I think that question has not been answered yet: Why should the FP table be included at all? Has it any value to the article? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you know, the table has its value since is an important ranking from the competition, published every week in the oficial site of the organising body, and is a table that as you know very well is specified in the rules for tie-break when there are teams that are drawned by points, also head-to-head, also total difference goals and also total goals scored. The problem is the importance that the organiser gives to the ranking: making full of errors (if you have a full following you'll see hard errors) and no sorting as the ranking when are tied at all previous rules. If when the last round it would be drawn at all (as I described above) 2 teams or more, it will be a serious problem to the Spanish football, when media discovers that this table is not rigorously made, notably if it can decide a position at Europe at least, or a relegation. Finally, the champion of the ranking has an award at an event in July at Ciudad del Fútbol in Las Rozas (RFEF headquarters) and this table also serves for enter to the Europa League via Fair-play when Spain would be elected with an entry: the best qualified in ranking (not qualified to Europe via Copa del Rey or La Liga classification), it will enter to the Europe League. Sorry sincerely for my very bad English, I can make it so well but I have no time, sorry. 81.184.193.54 (talk) 00:53, 3 February 2011 (CET)

Honestly... there are far too many ifs involved. The fair play ranking will only be applied to break ties when six other criteria have failed to do so. The chance for that to happen is near zero. Similar things can be said about the Europa League spot. So, there is no need to have the table on grounds of something that has not happened yet and probably never will; add it when needed, not earlier. And even if one of these scenarios should eventually and miraculously happen anyway – it will be the official rankings from RFEF that will be applied, NOT anything calculated and published in here. If you want to complain about errors in the official rankings, do it directly at RFEF instead of utilizing Wikipedia for that. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 01:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem in having a Fair Play table in the article if it is a potential tie-breaking criteria. However, the table should be taken from sources. If I'm reading the above and the table article correctly, an official table is published by RFEF but it is regarded as inaccurate/out of date, and thus that is why the table also has a calculated points column? I would suggest sticking with the original table source, and if there are obvious errors with it a comment can be added, although ideally any warning comments added would themselves come from what other sources are saying. Regards. Eldumpo (talk) 10:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose two solutions: adapt the table to official ranking by RFEF with rigged data (cards/other penalties invented for adapt to official) as RFEF does it, or only putting a table with points as I put in previous La Liga seasons (98-99 to 08-09). I have a control of the correct ranking in an Excel and this it's enough for me. --81.184.193.54 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2011 (CET)

I could also live with Eldumpos solution. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 21:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aranzubia's goal

Hi everybody, I see the mention about Aranzubia's goal (being the first time in all La Liga history that a goalkeeper scores in open play) has been deleted. Isn't it a relevant fact? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.52.162.4 (talk) 01:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This fact surely is worthy to be included. It should fit well into a written summary (i.e. prose) of the season which includes all relevant results (in terms of championship, European spots, relegation) and further notable events. In fact, these summaries are explicitly encouraged by WP:FSATF. However, please keep in mind that these must be held in a neutral tone and adequately sourced; in order to avoid excessive recentism, I would further recommend that the summary should not be written until after the last matchday.

If the information should be on the page before that, why not add a separate lead paragraph? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 02:15, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules

the location of Hercules... NW Spain, Corunya, or nearby, is not included on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.79.201 (talk) 01:16, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably due to the fact that the team is based in Alicante, a few hundred kilometres south of Valencia... take a close look at the map again...;-) hth, Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:10, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2010–11 La Liga. 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) 22:53, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious last match

What is the current status of Zaragoza's 2–1 win over Levante on the final day of the season? Mobile mundo (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2010–11 La Liga. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/es/1330006265557/noticia/ComunicadoOficial/Comunicado_oficial%3A_Jose_Mourinho%2C_nuevo_entrenador_del_Real_Madrid.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.marca.com/2010/09/18/futbol/1adivision/1284847182.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100516022320/http://www.rfef.es/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/Juego%20Limpio/ to http://www.rfef.es/FCKeditor/UserFiles/File/Juego%20Limpio/

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) 21:46, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010–11 La Liga. 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) 03:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]