Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/League season

Please create new discussions on the general WikiProject Football talk page. The discussions below are kept only for historical value.

Season changes
So when season changes are made should that be put in season changes or competition modus or should both sections appear in the article? --MicroX (talk) 07:34, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The MoS currently suggests that any competition modus changes should go into a separate paragraph at the beginning of the page. For bigger changes à la 2010–11 Prva HNL, this definitely is the best way to do so. However, if there is only a minor change like the number of participating teams or slightly different spot allocations for confederation competitions, I think this could also fit in well as a second lead paragraph. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think a section title "competition modus" and "competition changes" should not be used in the same article. Competition format is already described in the league article so there is no need to describe it here, unless the changes are to drastic to be effectively described via a changes section. In that case, a "competition modus" section and a "competition changes" section should become one in the same. This is what I do when dealing with the Ecuadorian league's constant format changes. But, describing the competition modus of the Premier League in every one of their season articles would be pointless. Digirami (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think I understand what you guys mean. Seeing as format changes frequently occur season-to-season in leagues outside of Europe, I have a general idea of how to work it out. Competition modus will have the basic format of the competition and any kind of minor/moderate change to certain rules will be seen in "Season changes"; changes that would fit in bullet points. --MicroX (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote a "Competition modus" section for a season that was already played. I want to know if the wording or the tense is out of place in any part of the paragraph.


 * The season was divided into two tournaments; Torneo Apertura from February to July and the Torneo Clausura from July to December. Both tournaments had the fourteen teams play a round-robin home-and-away round for a total of 26 matches in each tournament. The winner of the Torneo Apertura qualified to the 2009 Copa Libertadores group stage and was eligible to play in the season final if they finished above 8th place in the Torneo Clausura. The winner of the Torneo Clausura also qualified to the group stage and was eligible to play in the season final if they finished above 8th place in the Torneo Apertura. If the same team won both tournaments, that team is season champion. If one of the tournament winners fails to place above 8th place, the other tournament winner is season champion. If both teams fail to place above 8th place, the team placed higher on the aggregate table–the summation of the points earned in both tournaments–is season champion. The two teams that placed last on the aggregate table were relegated and the best placed team–excluding the two tournament winners–qualified to the first stage of the 2009 Copa Libertadores. The second and third best placed teams on the aggregate table qualified to the 2009 Copa Sudamericana.

Thanks for the help, MicroX (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fancruft at 2010–11 Premier League
I've initiated discussion on the issue of fancruft in the above article (and the series in general) at Wikipedia_talk:What_Wikipedia_is_not. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 01:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Proposed new section: summary
Can we add a section to the league season template for describing the most notable events of the season. IT could include mentioning decisive matches, primary factors as to why x-team won; notable player/manager arrivals (e.g. Jose Mourinho joined Real Madrid at the start of the 2010-11 La Liga). In editing the recent La Liga season, teh 2010-11 Premier League, and the2010-11 Serie A article, the only place to add such information is in the lede. Given that we have summary sections for individual matches describing how the match was won, I feel a summary section (ideally the first section after the lede) would be useful and appropriate.--Johnsemlak (talk) 11:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * To be honest, you are running into open doors with your proposal. Provided that such summaries are written in a well-balanced and neutral style, there is bascially nothing which could be said against them; to the contrary, the encyclopaedic value of these articles should actually improve by adding more prose. Regarding the position of this section, I somehow rather tend to include it between the teams overview and the league table, as it would provide something like a textual bridge between these sections, although being the first section after the lead would do as well, of course. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 11:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I find no objection with your proposal so long as it meets the criteria stated by Soccer-holic. I'll go ahead and write it in. Digirami (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Managerial changes
Sorry, for some reason I get blocked when I press "New section", so I just pressed "Edit". I suggest that we do not state the exact dates in the columns "Date of vacancy" and "Date of appointment" but just specify the months. The reason is that the exact date is hardly ever known for sure: if a source announces on a particular date that a manager is sacked or hired, it doesn't mean the dismissal took place on that very date. For example, the article 2011–12 Premier League states:

Managerial changes
The first source was indeed published on 1 June but it is never said there the news was received on 1 June. Furthermore, even if it was, the club and Houllier may have officially stopped cooperating and signed all the necessary papers several days before or after the news was brought to public notice. The same can be said about the other source. What do you think? The Other Saluton (talk) 05:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Your position sounds entirely reasonable to me. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorting of "Disciplinary record" section
2011–12 Oxford United F.C. season was sorted in descending order of red cards, then yellow cards then ascending alphabetically by surname. 2012–13 Oxford United F.C. season is so far sorted by ascending squad number. I prefer the former (so the "worst offenders" come first) but I'd be interested in other views and information on what other clubs' season pages do (in the meantime, I'll go take a look). Season pages vary a lot, but I can guess the reasons - the better-supported clubs will have sufficient editors to maintain stats on youth teams and the like. We at Oxford don't have that luxury :) Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Table
I want check something on this page How did you create the table  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anuayo0 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 11 June 2022 (UTC)