Talk:2009 Meistriliiga

Paide mängib 2009 Paide Linnameeskonna nime all. Sixest (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Minu teada se pole veel kindel, nad küll esitasid Eesti Jalgpalli Liidule taotluse, et klubil lubataks mängida tippliigas Paide linnameeskonna nime all, aga mingit nimevaheust minu teada pole veel toimunud. GGib (talk) 10:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion of "Team of the Week"
Is the inclusion of the section "Team of the Week" really necessary? I'd say no because of the following reasons:


 * The data itself is an extensive collection of football statistics which are only of interest for a vanishing small number of people, a violation of WP:NOT.
 * A stand-alone article for this section was deleted upon AfD. The merger of the content into this article is not applicable as large lists of people are exempt from WP:NNC; WP:NLIST states that "the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)". The importance of such "Teams of the Week", however, is significantly inferior to the importance of the actual league season article.
 * The "award" itself is very minor in comparison to the monthly and yearly awards; in fact, even the English Premier League or similar "major" leagues, which name such a team after every week, have not included this in their season articles.
 * The size of the data (approx. 32 kB) is bigger than the actual article (approx. 25 kB), thus unnecessarily bloating the article.
 * Given that we are now past Week 33, the data is very poorly maintained.

What are other peoples' opinions on this subject? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 18:26, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. We don't even mention the team of the week for the Premier League, and in most cases not even the players' individual articles. WFCforLife (talk) 18:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete it as per arguments above. SonjiCeli (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that the info should be deleted. If it could be presented in a concise manner, then I would probably move for it to be kept, but when that info takes up more space than the rest of the article put together, I just don't see the point. – PeeJay 09:41, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say get rid. Is there even a source for this data? Bobatron83 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)