Talk:2014 Indonesia Super League

Too much detail / uncited
There was way too much detail at the article,much of it uncited. WT:FOOTY has had various discussions about removing position by round sections. If you have reliable sources for some of these sections please add them ASAP. Eldumpo (talk) 12:27, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * If uncited was your reason to remove several section, we can provide it for you. Several of details that you remove was done by me, and it's just a modified version from other countries league's article; for example:

From my point of view, every league's article had it's differences; it is wrong to have a detailed article? Maybe, if it's not updated regularly. But in this article, that is not the case; i can assure you the information in this article is updated daily, fellow contributor Iha9c is very active in this article. 27christian11 (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * the result per week section is a model from Australia's A-League article, which put into table got from La Liga in Spanish Wikipedia, there's report section in the table to show the reference.
 * For the Positions by round section is found in many other countries league's article, you can find in: A-League, Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A article; reference is not very relevant because it is updated daily, but if it's mandatory, here it is.
 * The topscorer section is just a modified version from A-League, you can find the reference on the league's official article


 * Maybe... but WP:ABOUT and WP:NOT - there is nothing about turning wp en into a scoreboard. satusuro 15:26, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * So the A-League article can do it, but the 2014 Indonesia Super League can't? Have you seen the A-League page? it is just the same thing, there is a detail from EVERY SINGLE MATCH, if you meant about scoreboard. 27christian11 (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I've read the about and what not; but what i've put it is not something new, it's just a very similar model i've put from other league's article in this VERY SAME ENGLISH WIKIPEDIA. 27christian11 (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Be careful with upper case - its WP:SHOUTING and can be easily misinterpreted.


 * My apology for the upper case; i wasn't meant to shout, but only to emphasize the point of my words. 27christian11 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah well, the example you just gave is an excellent example where footbal articles go far too far - overlinked, and really over-done - its a good exmaple. good catch! satusuro 15:49, 8 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you, you finally got my point. I have seen the effort done by Eldumpo and SatuSuro in WP Football and Australian Wikipedians' notice board respectively, questioning the excessive details and article's references. In the meantime i will put back the "Positions by round" section in this page (this time with a reference), because based on my research, almost all other leagues's article have this section, some reference that correspond with the detail, some a reference only a standing table, and some even don't have a reference. Here is some example:

With corresponding reference: France Ligue 1, Ukraine Premier League Reference only league's table: Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, Netherlands Eredivisie No reference at all: A-League Portugal Primeira Liga, Romania Liga I, Belgian Pro League (invalid link), Bulgarian's League And the list goes on. I will hold on to the match per week and other section, depends on further discussion. And if i add other details i'll make sure it have a reference, Thank you. 27christian11 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * These facts need to be fully cited in reliable sources, not synthesised. The France and Ukraine tables do not appear to be directly cited, and if any of these by round tables are not directly cited (i.e. the actual by round table is at the source) then the tables are all liable to be deleted. Eldumpo (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

New proposal
So, it's been about 2 days this is discussion is frozen, and time is just going to continue on and on. I also acknowledge that conversation in WP Football and Australian notice board doesn't exactly have an agreed pov. I just want to ask Eldumpo if it's ok if i reinstate several sections that you cut down (this time with references, of course)? (time is just gonna fly and a lot more work will be done to make up the missed details) especially the result per week part, because in my view, i don' think that having this section is overly detailed, it's just showing the reader a timeline of how that season went (maybe reliving it?), I know this is English Wikipedia, but other version of Wikipedia include this in their article, ex. Spanish/La Liga & Italian/Serie A, If you wan't to see a real overly detailed article, try this Eredivisie page in Dutch, you'll be suprised. This might be a crazy idea, but English Wikipedia could adapt this one by one (starting here), as a user said from Australian noticeboard, even they're not a fan, they also want to see result with a date and who scored, not just looking a table full of numbers. Same with the goalscorers, not just a number of goals, perhaps a wee bit more info please. For us contributors of the article, we don't mind a bit more work, in fact we're happy to do it, cause with the infos, it'll be easier to cut down incorrect infos. Please consider my idea, perhaps give an exception similar to what A-League had. Thank you very much, Cheers! 27christian11 (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The absolute minimum is that all facts should be cited in the form they are presented, and not by synthesis. Then there is the matter of whether sourced facts are encyclopedic. Just because facts/stats are out there doesn't mean they have to be included in the article. Your willingness to constantly update the article doesn't mean it's OK for all this detail to be included. I believe you should focus on the most important parts of the article and not fight to keep every last item. I'm going to delete the uncited clean sheets section, that was re-added. Eldumpo (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I think that the "position by round" needs much improvement if it wants to be kept. Indeed, there is citation, albeit barely sufficient i.e. one has to track every single match to generate the table. But it's okay, people can do that given enough time and patience. However, the most important thing is that first, Indonesia Super League schedules tend to be very uneven. According to this season's schedule (accessed 11 February 2014), by 16 February 2014, Persib Bandung will have played five matches, whilst Persija Jakarta will only have played two matches, for instance. There is no clear concept of a "matchday" in ISL, since, as we can see in the schedule, there are scheduled matches nearly every day when the competition does not take a break for continental competitions, general elections, mid-season and Ramadan breaks, or international fixtures. Second, both groups in the first round, namely Western and Eastern, have only 11 teams each, an odd number. As a consequence of this, there can be no situation where each team have played an odd number of matches. If we define a "position at round n" as "the position after each team has played n matches", for example, this will cause problems when determining each team's positions at odd rounds (i.e. rounds 1, 3, 5, and so on). Therefore, a clear definition of what constitutes a "round" is needed, otherwise I am afraid that we may have to delete the section. Nmprasetya (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, and a compelling argument for removing the section. If 'one has to track every single match' then that becomes OR and a clear sign that the information is not collated by reliable sources, no doubt in part due to the uneven schedule, although many more prominent leagues with clear schedules do not have this info tracked either. Eldumpo (talk) 13:35, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

After reading the responses here, i, too, have no more intentions/interest to keep resisting my arguments, i have a lot more things to waste my time on than keep defending and replying to a certain user who isn't exactly sure about the acceptable boundaries of how football leagues article should be. First of all, the reason i spend my time doing all of that section was because it was visible on other articles, so i thought it would be ok if i emulate it here; but i guess not, but by what grounds? i don't mind if all of that stuff taken off, but through a layer of acceptable standards shown to me; but not here, i still can't see what is truly right or wrong things to do in Wikipedia football article, cause in some article it is very "wordful" yet in other article it's a taboo things to do. I just don't understand. to the so-called Wiki Football administator here, like a certain user said to me, could you please maybe next time to create on official standards/acceptable boundaries/rules in the football project's page, so when you want to resolve an issue you could just tell the rules of what to include and not, instead of silent blatant edits, that could end up in an edit war, it just seems like a move done by headless chicken, and specifically not to waste any other's time. Thank you very much and good day, cheers! 27christian11 (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Attendance table
First of all, this is not a rant post. Eldumpo was right in deleting the attendance table since the citation was very rough, at best. However, we can still improve the attendance table because in the fixtures and results, there is match report to every single match of the season, which include attendances. My idea is to have a table similar to the attendance table of the Eredivisie page in Dutch, which tells us the attendance of every match, then adding them and averaging them. My question is, does that mean we will have to cite every single number that will be in the table (it is certainly doable, but we will have 200+ citations just for the attendance section)? If not, then what is the bottom line? Thank you very much. Nmprasetya (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * We should only be including an attendance section if a reliable source is already summarising the information, otherwise it is OR if you go through the individual attendances and work out the figures. For example see this ESPN source for La Liga attendances. Eldumpo (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay then, I'll keep my Excel sheets to myself until someone more reliable than me did the same job and published it. Nmprasetya (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on 2014 Indonesia Super 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/20120521104614/http://www.rsssf.com:80/tablesi/indochamp.html to http://www.rsssf.com/tablesi/indochamp.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2014 Indonesia Super 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rsssf.com/tablesi/indochamp.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120418185247/http://www.petrokimia-gresik.com/ to http://www.petrokimia-gresik.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)