Talk:Croatian Football League

Title
How about renaming the article to the direct translation of its Croatian name? "Prva HNL" or "1. HNL" are both simply short for Prva hrvatska nogometna liga, which literally means "Croatian First Football League". There is no evidence that the current name is more commonly used in English, and this would make the title in line with most similar articles which are poorly covered by English-speaking media. This would also entail following the same pattern for lower divisions like Druga HNL and Treća HNL, as well as moving all Category:Prva HNL seasons and Category:Druga HNL seasons articles. Any thoughts from contributors?  Timbouctou ( talk ) 16:28, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Nobody seems to mind, so I'll start moving related articles to their new titles shortly.  Timbouctou ( talk ) 18:48, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Map
The map currently only shows five of the clubs, but you can't find Istra, Lokomotiva, Zapresic, etc. on it. Can someo please update this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.12.126 (talk) 06:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

1.A & 1.B and all-time table
There were couple of seasons where there were TWO 1st leagues - A and B (like ). Problem is that only first from B league advanced to championship round, while more clubs from A league advanced to championship round. There was also relegation round for clubs in A league (promotion round for clubs in B league) - that means that the division wasn't geographical, political... And historically speaking it's obvious that stronger clubs were playing in A league. There are 2 problems:
 * 1) It seems that for some clubs B league was counted as "a season in top flight" and for some wasn't. If there is a reason why the distinction exists it should be noted in that section. If that is a mistake statistic of all clubs that played in B league should be checked.
 * 2) There is also a question whether or not 1.B league should be counted as 1st league. As I already said minor clubs played in B league and relegation/promotion from A/B was in place. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

PeeJay2K3 deletion of 19 04 2020 edit and improvements to all time table
I made a change to article Croatian First Football League, it's All time table section. I added column for club's town and column for "losing season". PeeJay2K3 removed it two times.

Firstly he didn't understand why not winning season instead of losing season (his personal opinion - couldn't see logic) - then I explained and reverted back. Explanation is because W-L draw seasons occur, and there are also draw games which complicates things. All such outcomes can be considered a positive season. So it's easier to count negative outcomes and it's more straightforward. He said that, that's my opinion. It's blatantly obvious that it's just easier that way and it's not a matter of my opinion. What will we have instead; win and draw season columns or maybe one win + draw season column? No need to complicate. Why need for that column? Well, it shows which teams have huge ups and downs and which are just average all the time (let's say comparing two teams with approx. the same number of points and no titles). It gives the table a little more context. If there can be columns for no. of times a team's been third or goal difference (which is unnecessary because we have goals for and goals against columns) I don't see why this one couldn't.

Next thing is that he deleted town column. That is a customary column (if you see that edit you'll see that you can't guess a team's town for majority of teams and there are quite a bit from the same town). I can't see how adding that column is imposing my own will or illogical.

Lastly, he said "you have yet to gather support for this change". Is this really what it has come down to? You can't improve anything without a poll? Before every edit I am required to post a poll?

So I guess, I open the poll.Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * You can improve things without a poll, for sure, but if someone disagrees with your change, you don't just get to reinstate it without starting a discussion, which is what you should have done after the first time I reverted you. In my opinion, we should not add a "Losing seasons" column because it is not a common statistic. The number of times a team finishes with more losses than wins is largely irrelevant, and focuses too much on the negative. We are not here to right great wrongs, so unless you can show me a source that specifically counts numbers of losing seasons, you shouldn't add it again. – PeeJay 15:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * So you can revert other people's improvement (ok, it is my opinion that that was improvement, but it wasn't vandalism and had merit as explained) with subjective reasons?? So some people are lower order? You can undo me, but I can't undo you even though I entered (and you didn't) objective explanation in the comment of the revert. This last comment was the first time you entered something resembeling objective argument with WP - after 2 deletions on your part and me starting a talk page. Is this how an editor/administrator or whatever you are should act? And you act like I am in the wrong and vandalize. "Best finish" in tables wasn't a common statistic until I started it and look how widespread it is. What about "focuses on negative"??? It's statistic. It's not  actively  disparaging anyone. Let's say we have "winning season" - so people, in your opinion, wouldn't get when reading that table, that in that case team with low number of those seasons sucked most of the seasons?? If we follow you reasoning "number of deaths" shouldn't be anywhere on wiki but it should be replaced by "number of survivors on x number of population" or "number of survivors on x number of infected population" because it doesn't sound negative nevermind it's roundabout and could cause misunderstandings and require calculation to get to the needed, important  number. Just as long as anyone isn't disturbed by negative sounding words. This is encyclopedia, at least it should be, not a class of comparative literature. I guess you're that type that likes to go roundabout way. It's not a matter of subjectivity, it's matter of practicality (with losing season) as explained above.
 * Also I see that you casually forgot that you also deleted "town" column. That is standard - here, it is misssing. So you say I was wrong to put even a standard column and you didn't vandalize it by deleting it??  Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 17:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * edit: we have the whole article dedicated to winless seasons. Losing season covers that seasons and more. And it's only a column in existing tables. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * edit2: cbs sports: fourth team ever to make NFL playoffs with losing record businessinsider What's The Big Deal About A Playoff Team With A Losing Record? nytimes NBA playoff, losing season, there is even a wiki article that states "Because of this, despite a losing record and a 4th place overall finish, the Royals, having won the AL West in the second half of the season, qualified for the postseason, becoming the only team in MLB history to do so with a losing record." (unfortunately it doesn't list a sorce) So losing record is not something that I pulled put of my ass it's sth that makes sense. It's already is used on wiki. If it is not allowed here it should be removed as a syntagm in all articles. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? You're making nonsense arguments, and your English isn't excellent either, which doesn't help matters. – PeeJay 13:07, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

coaches
It would be good to add coaches statistic. 95.178.227.84 (talk) 07:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)