Talk:Primera División de México Clausura 2009

Requested move
Why is the page title not similar to previous seasons (e.g. Primera División de México Apertura 2008, Primera División de México Clausura 2008, Primera División de México Apertura 2007)? I propose that rather having Primera División de México Clausura 2009 serve as a redirect to Primera División Profesional Clausura 2009 it should be the other way around for the sake of consistency. Any objections? If so, why? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 16:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The name of the league officially is Primera División Profesional and it is easier to edit in this format. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.106.204.246 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Tells the reader which country the league is from. –  Blu  e  Red  – 09:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

if they want to know which contry its from then read the firsta sentence of the page it says it is a mexican football tournament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaka12o (talk • contribs) 16:40, 2 January 2009

Format
Why is the information in this article displayed differently than previous season? I'm specifically talking about the results table, which seems to be taking the example of MLS, when it really should be using a results table like in the previous tournament.

Additionally, the overall organization of the article needs to be fixed/improved. Digirami (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed you did a very good job formatting the previous season's article, some user messed up this season's article.  Black  'n  Red   02:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I had to fix the previous tournament (for easier understanding between the both, Clausura 2009 and Apertura 2008 are the same season, but different tournaments). Here are several issues I have found with the Mexican leagues article, some of which are easier to solve than others (I'll start with the easier, but it's all tied together in some form):
 * Basic structure of the article. The way I structured the Apertura 2008 article is an improvement compared to the previous version and the structure of this article.
 * Tables. The articles should use the Football templates, which were made to make articles easier to understand and easy to change. Plus they take up less KB space and are better looking.
 * Stage names. If anyone had bothered reading the rules, one can see the official names for the stages. They are: Fase de Calificacion and Fase Final. No where is the last phase call a Liguilla or the first phase called the Group Stage.
 * The first stage. The first stage is not a group stage, but a league stage. So a league table takes precedent. Even the rules acknowledge that, placing more emphasis on a league table and tie-breaking within that table. The groups are only needed to know which are the first six teams to advance to the next phase, but the other two teams, plus South American qualification, is determined by the general table. Plus, by placing emphasis on the groups' standing, it is made to seem that this is a proper Group Stage (like those found in international tournaments); it is not.
 * Three articles per tournament. The Final Phase and the Final are not notable enough to have their own articles... so why do they have their own articles?
 * Two articles per season. This is almost a seperate issue altogether, but they really should be one article per season, not two. Apertura and Clausura should be merged into one article. Plus there is information that applies to the season as a whole, so its a bit odd to find that information in one article.


 * Well I will work to improve this season to set a good precedent for future ones. I hope I can get some help/support. Digirami (talk) 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The Liguilla article and final article should be redirected to the main tournament article.  Black  'n  Red   05:45, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go for it. I'm working on the results table. Digirami (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the article should have a better map of the teams' locations like the La Liga 2008–09 article or other europe tournament articles. I created a map late last year but i didn't know how to locate the cities very well.  Black  'n  Red   06:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The map like that is different from what I know. I use something like the one found in Premier League 2008-09, which requires coordinates. You can use Google Earth to find that out. Digirami (talk) 06:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone can show me how to edit that exactly, I'll be more than happy to edit that. Hazerduz (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC-5)


 * On the stage names, I was looking through the FEMEXFUT site and could not find a direct translation to "Liguilla" thus why it has been named Liguilla on the engilsh version of this article. The reason the Liguilla has its own article is because the champions and the champions league qualification comes out of the Liguilla not from the regular season. The regular season only give teams the opportunity to qualify to the Liguilla and give spots in the South American tournaments. The Liguilla in the end has the same importance as the MLS Cup Playoffs since the champions are derived from that phase of the tournament.Hazerduz (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC-6)


 * The stage names I put in are a direct translation from the season rules (found here), which has them called Fase de Clasificacion & Fase Final (Fase Final equates to the Liguilla). Liguilla, if I'm not mistaken, has no direct translation. But if it did, it would be little league. But even in English, it is still called Liguilla. I know MLS has their playoffs in a separate article, but I think that is due to that fact MLS is handled separately from other football leagues because it is an American league and the American leagues (regardless of sport) seem to have their own way of doing things (take a look at how the articles are named, for example). The question I have for this league is if it should follow the conventional football league standard (one tournament, one article), or the MLS way. I have sorta tried to consult others through the WikiFootball talk page, but have so far receive no response. Digirami (talk) 22:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I saw the site and looked through the rules, but did not see an english translation provided by them. If I remember correctly, Liguilla is the equivalent of Super Bowl worldwide it is Super Bowl not translated to each language though in Spanish they unofficially say Super Tazón. So I still believe Final Phase is not the term that should be used, it should stay to Liguilla. On the topic of it having its own article, yes it is different on how other football leagues are run. It has the same layout as MLS when it comes to the competative side. They are planning on changing it something more standard to FIFAs settings but, nothing has been confirmed. Hazerduz (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC-6)


 * Unfortunately, there is no English translation provided by FeMexFut, probably cause they don't really need to provide one. But, "Fase Final" is pretty easy to translate from Spanish to English: Final Phase.
 * But I can tell you that Liguilla is not the equivalent of "Super Bowl" worldwide, but rather "mini-league". For one, Super Bowl is one game, but here in this league what you call the "Liguilla" is a playoff round. I'm very positive that Liguiila means mini-league because Ecuador and Uruguay also use a Liguilla for certain aspects of their seasons (in Ecuador, the Liguilla Final is the double round-robin stage between six qualified teams to determine the season champs; in Uruguay, the Liguilla Pre-Libertadores has the same format, but is used to see who qualifies to CONMEBOL's international tournaments). A Liguilla is named so because it is a normal league (Liga), but smaller. I will admit that Liguiila is used sorta as a nickname for the last round, but it should primarily be addressed and labeled by it's official name: Fase Final, or Final Phase. Digirami (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * (reindent) Does anyone mind getting rid of the "Overall position by fixture" table? It seems pretty pointless to me. But if a majority want to keep it... Digirami (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I say keep for the fact that they use the general table to place teams into Copa Sudamericana, Superliga, Copa Libertadores, etc... Hazerduz (talk) 11:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC-6)


 * In response to a couple of things; 3 articles per season seems appropraite to me as there was enough differenc in the style and content of the three for example the apertura 2008 article. Merging the seasons to make apertura and clausura into one article seems very wrong. First, there is a seperate champion crowned in each season which makes them distinct from the other, the mexican season is not like other central american seasons where the apertura and clausura winners meet in a home and away to determine th overall winner. Regarding the Liguilla, if there isn't a literal translation then Liguila should be used considering it is the conventional word used in English. Just my 2 cents, I'll never edit the article but thought I'd share.NeilCanada (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well another option for a season wide article would be to make a simple version with stuff that concerns the season as a whole. The Apertura and Clausura articles get mildly stripped down to the information concerning those tournaments. And in the season wide article, you will find club information, the list of basic information on the tournaments (winners, intl qualifiers, the top-scorer), season rules, and the relegation table. Digirami (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

There are 102 games played over a 3 season period, not 101
Why do you count the last 101 games played in the relegation table? Each season has 34 games. 34 x 3=102. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.163.142.80 (talk) 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you guys add a section that shows the general table for the whole 2008-2009 season (all 34 games)?
This is necessary because the combined Superleader will qualify for the following CONCACAF CL if there is any double-qualification. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.131.112.176 (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)