User talk:Soccer-holic/League season article

A word beforehand: If you think that something is missing in the proposal, feel free to add it. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

General comments

I think that this unification of the European soccer articles is a wonderful idea if it can be pulled off right. Obviously, some leagues are going to have much more information then others, but that's just the way these things work. However, there is also some standardization issues to be resolved outside of these articles. For example, there are many different formats seen in the European domestic cup competitions. I think we also need to agree on a standardized format to those articles as well as the league articles. However, I think this is a very good start to this standardization process. Rougue1987 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I also agree on a more or less standardized format for domestic cup articles, although this would be not as easy to achieve as for the leagues since nearly every cup competition uses a different format. But this is another story. The domestic cups will definitely be the next step in the standardization process. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Amount of prose in league articles

Should a section giving a short written overview over the season be included once a season has finished? The benefits would be: a) more space where infoboxes and maps can be placed without clashing with each other, b) a nicer general look of the articles because a pure "lead-and-tables/lists" style would be avoided, c) the "Teams in Europe"-sections appearing in a list form in some (mainly Eastern European) articles would, converted to prose, nicely fit in this section as well. If you need an example how a season overview section would look like, take a short glimpse at Fußball-Bundesliga 1966–67. Any thoughts? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that the Overview section should not be obligatory, but instead if one editor wants to write that section, it's up to him. However, that section is definitely something that would improve the article quality. I also see one other benefit, mainly in leagues 14+ (that have one results table). Sometimes the final standings don't reflect what was really going on there. For example, in the article you put as an example it says that after one third of the season 1860 Munich was in 17th place and they ended up being runners-up. You can't see it from the results or final standings table, and it's something noteworthy. SonjiCeli (talk) 10:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Leagues with different formats.

This is definitely long over due. So first off, thanks!

Second, I feel that I have to remind you that not every league uses a league format for their season. So, in addition to this, there has to be some guidelines to adapt what you worked on to leagues that use a multi-stage format and those that have the Apertura/Clausura system. It shouldn't be that hard, but it just needs to be established. Talking from experience, there is essentially two ways to approach Apertura/Clausura league that crown two champions a year: 1) everything in one article, something like this Argentina has; or 2) (this especially applies when league articles get too big and should only apply when there are two champions per year) put the league season info in three articles. The first and main one would be cover the league season in review and would have the principal information that would apply to the entire season like team info, relegation table (if there is one), etc. In addition, it would list the basic info on the two tournaments, such as the winner and international qualifiers. There other two articles would cover the tournaments. Currently, there are no examples of this, but the Mexican league is the most likely candidate for it.

In respect to leagues that have multistage formats or to leagues that use the Apertura/Clausura system but only crown one champion a year, just keep everything in one article, like Ecuador and Uruguay. I really don't see the need to break off the different stages into another article.

That's all my input for now. Digirami (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments on everything regarding introducing sections

It seems like the section "Team changes to <preceding season>" can be subsection of "Overview" since the "Overview" section already will have info regarding the teams. It can even serve as an introduction to the "Overview" section

And how does section titled "Format changes" sound? It might not be necessary to European leagues, but should be mentioned and stated with a guideline to use only when it is applicable. Digirami (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments on everything regarding league tables, their colors and standings-by-round

I can see where this unified color scheme would be useful indeed, maybe we should make a standard template which explains the colors, as they did for formula 1 here (It is added as a key for instance here). Also, in the standings by round we should create unified templates there also, as for instance the color scheme for the Spainish league (here) is completely different from the standard one here and the colours should probably be linked to the ones chosen before... --Pelotas^talk 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Thats a great idea in my opinion and I will be glad to help, and about the "standing by round" section that will be good unless a round game will be prosponed to a later date which will make the section wrong and will need us to remove it from the article.
0-- HonorTheKing (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That's why the SbR section should only be added with criteria how postponed games are handled by the given source.

kicker.de, for example, inserts any postponed games after a regular round of matches. In other words, if a match from, let's say, Round 20 is postponed to a date between rounds 28 and 29, the standings from rounds 20 to 27 will not include the postponed match, but the standings from round 28 will. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that in the case of a postponed match, the round-by-round standings would go on as if there were no postponment, as you saw in the Belgian First Division 2008-09 article. However, if you end up having a year like Wales had in 2008-09, the round-by-round table would be rendered absolutely useless and probably more than a little misleading. Rougue1987 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I like your version of the league article. I suggest it should be clarified using of colors in the league table in the following case (which is this season in Czech rep.) - league champion goes to third qualification round of CHL (for champions) and the team finishing in second place goes also to third qual. round of CHL (for non-champions). Technically it is the same round so the same color should probably be used. It is indeed a question of whether to distinguish between qual. rounds for champions and non-champions.--Quelhar (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Quelhar: It's Soccer-holic's article, not my. And I was the one who changed the color between champions and runners-up in Czech liga because I think champions' and non-champions' path should be separated. Otherwise people would think that Slavia and Sparta would go to the very same round (e.g. potentially playing against the same clubs, what is not the case). SonjiCeli (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should be separated because the road to the group of CHL is much more easier for the champion. On the other hand it looks a little bit weird now, as different colors and the same text is used. So maybe there should be more specific information written in the "qualification" column.--Quelhar (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there used to be more specific information in that column - until User:KyleRGiggs thought that dividing QR3 and the playoff round in sub-branches would not be useful because it "wouldn't be done by UEFA itself". While this works for leagues which rank above the likes of the Gambrinus liga, it clearly is not the optimum for those leagues with two QR3 spots. Greece and Belgium are currently the other two leagues affected by this problem (although Belgium will be spared for this year, thanks to ManU and Barca). On the other hand, I can understand his point of view as well. It is perhaps the best to leave a note in the table footer which explains the different hues in those cases. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 22:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

While we're discussing colors - the Scottish Premier League will hand out four spots to the Europa League this year, thanks to the UEFA Fair Play initiative, with all spots being in different rounds. Any proposals for the color codes in this case? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with same colors as now, while the fourth one would be some between current medium and dark one. That way it wouldn't be too dark/light, and it seems to me that the difference is much more visible between dark and medium than between light and medium. It would be useful to determine the color now, although this year Falkirk will maybe/probably/most likely be relegated and will thereby use pink (relegation color; custom row to be built).

In that case, there would probably be a footnote added to the bottom of the table saying, "Despite Falkirk's being relegated, they will compete in Europa League 2009-10 via being cup finalists with the cup winner qualifying for Champions League." This happened now and again in older English Premier League articles, I believe. Rougue1987 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

@ Soccer-holic: It seems that four colors aren't just a theory as I thought (I completely forgot about the Fair-play). SonjiCeli (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm probably a lone voice, but I think there are too many colours, league tables are starting to look like Christmas trees. I see no point in having different colours for different rounds of the Europa League. There is text and a hyperlink indicating the round anyway. I know I'll be in the minority, but I'd like to see one colour for the champions, one more for Champions League qualification and one more for Europa League qualification at most (in fact, one colour for champions / actual promoted teams and one colour for relegated teams should suffice). Look at the Swiss Super League 2008–09 table, there are 6 coloured rows, and only 4 non-coloured ones. It's a bit over the top in my humble opinion. I put up samples here. Simpler is sometimes better. TheMightyPeanut (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)TheMightyPeanut

Yes, the articles are starting to look a little wacky with all the qualification colors, but with UEFA offering so many spots for European competitions, there's really not much else we can do about it. The Dutch league article for 2008-09 is a perfect example of how convoluted these articles can get. Also, the color system proposed by Soccer-holic has the advantage of providing a large amount of instant information which the less-colorful systems lack. Rougue1987 (talk) 03:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comments on everything regarding results tables, statistics and bottom sections

One more thing which comes to my mind regarding statistics: again I will put as example czech league but it is a problem of a lot "less popular" leagues. In our country there is complete lack of statistics. The best you can hope for is a top scorers table. Even with "total attendance" and therefore "average attendence per match" there are at this point different numbers in different sources (differing at a few tens in average att. per match) and there is (IMHO) simply no source which can be looked at as "official". You cannot hope for a "top assistent" table at all, unless you watch every goal and look for the players which assist on goals (if any) - so no source here again. The same problem is with other interesting statistics like goal scored at the earliest point of the match, latest point of the match and so on. You can find these goals if you look for them among all matches with goals scored in (for example) 1st minute and minute 90+, but there is no official source of this. I fully understand the encyclopedic nature of wikipedia but it is a little pity that these interesting facts would be omitted just because noone official in Czech Rep. cares about them (which is also unfortunately one of many reasons why czech football is going down :o/).--Quelhar (talk) 08:17, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The lack of statistics in general is not that much of a problem. Outside of the goalscorers section, everything else is considered a bonus. For example, I cannot think of any German source which lists stuff like "Fastest goal in a match" in a reliable way. The time-related items are hard to source anyway, so I'd rather prefer to include them only if multiple independent sources confirm the exact second. Besides that – WP:NOT#STATS should be applied as well, otherwise the article gets cluttered beyond all sanity (see Liga I 2008-09 for an example). --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:16, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Another feature - in my opinion useful - is to denote dates of next matches in the results table as was done for example several times by Rougue1987 in czech league (sorry, I don't know how to link to the old revision but you can see it for example in the 29 March version of Gambrinus liga 2008-09). I suggest that this might be also included in all next league seasons.--Quelhar (talk) 11:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

That is one good feature, but in my opinion it only works for one next round. Personally, I would not want that every results table turns into this year's Irish tables what is IMHO useless.

However, although I'd like that for one round only, it takes time to deal with that, especially if three (or less) users have to update 40+ leagues in one day. They barely have time for updating only, without searching for the next round fixtures and writing them down. The only solution would be putting them in the midweek when most leagues aren't played.

Another problem is that several leagues do not have round system (or have it, but with a lot of postponed matches), like this year's Welsh of Finnish leagues. Anyway, I support the idea, but it needs that "final touch" to be completely useful. SonjiCeli (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I would go even further then Sonji here and leave out any dates. Those have to be inserted "manually", so it would take too much effort to be effective. Aside from that, the results tables would lose much of their readability when every cell is filled. However, it's a different story with notes like "postponed" (PPD or P–P) or "suspended" (SUSP or S–S). Those should be in the table, along with a footnote citing the cause of the postponement/suspension. An expansion of fb r (r=ppd, r=susp) would do the trick here. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write it clearly, so I'm sorry - I meant of course only the next round matches, not many rounds further. That wouldn't work anyway because in many leagues the dates change according to television and so on. However I see that this would be a complication reagrding the manual inserting. Maybe this could be up to people who update the article. If they have time to put there the dates of next round, then why not..?--Quelhar (talk) 12:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)