Talk:Serie A 2007-08
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The article on Serie A 2007-08 is supported by the WikiProject on Football, which is an attempt to improve the quality and coverage of Association football related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page; if you have any questions about the project or the article ratings below, please consult the FAQ. |
|---|---|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is supported by the Italy task force. |
Contents |
[edit] "Plusvalenze investigation"
Any word on whether or not this has actually been resolved? It's been six months since the news broke.-RomeW (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Managers
I like the new managers section. I think it should be kept and even updated once the 2007-2008 starts. Juveboy 17:32, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Schedule
anyone know when the schedule is released, the EPL schedule is out, but of course they start earlier. Also maybe we should make note that the top 4 teams go into champions, 3 into uefa.
[edit] Sortable table
I removed the sortable style of the standings table, per the Premier League discussion page. In a nutshell, the columns break when you sort by anything else aside from position in the league, and things become out of place. --Snojoe 15:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Top Goalscorers format
I reformatted the top goalscorers section into a table, which was then reverted by Angelo.romano. This seems to be the best way to format the information. Furthermore it is consistent with similar sections on many other pages, including Premier League 2007-08#Top scorers, Ligue 1 season 2007/2008#Top goalscorers, Fußball-Bundesliga 2007-08#Top scorers, and UEFA Champions League 2007-08#Top goalscorers. As such, I have reinstated the table. —Ed Cormany 18:39, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- Did you possibly read the comment I left? Have a reading at WP:TABLE, which says tables are inappropriate in "Very long lists, or very simple lists". These lists are definitely simple. In any case, there's no consensus in support of your layout variation. --Angelo 08:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this is not a "very simple list." The example given at WP:TABLE has just two columns and is much shorter; the scorers chart has three and is of a medium length. I made my original edit based on what I had seen on an overwhelming number of similar pages and WP:BOLD. Perhaps now that there is a conflict of opinion, I do not have consensus, but likewise you are the sole objector so far. I would like to see some other editors opinions. —Ed Cormany 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Someone else reverted your edits as well, so I am surely not the sole opponent. The example at WP:TABLE is actually an example, and not the definition of a "simple list". If you still read WP:TABLE, there is also a section about what kind of content is appropriate to be represented with a table, and it clearly says the following: "many times, a list is best left as a list." and "tables should not be used simply for layout." It isto be mentioned obviously that tables are more difficult to be maintained that lists, by the way. --Angelo 15:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that this is not a "very simple list." The example given at WP:TABLE has just two columns and is much shorter; the scorers chart has three and is of a medium length. I made my original edit based on what I had seen on an overwhelming number of similar pages and WP:BOLD. Perhaps now that there is a conflict of opinion, I do not have consensus, but likewise you are the sole objector so far. I would like to see some other editors opinions. —Ed Cormany 14:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Classification
Now it looks exactly like the English Premiership table. Who's idea was that? Was there a discussion? Juve2000 (talk) 18:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- No discussion at all. It was made by User:KyleRGiggs. I have no position on it, even if I think there should be some sort of coherence between all Serie A season articles (and none of them use the current system), so I am not gonna oppose a revert. --Angelo (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, since knowing that head-to-head would apply on the league, I made Head-To-Head section for the article. The Head-To-Head league table has been used at La Liga, which is not made by me. Also, the table is not only used on Premier League and La Liga, Liga I also use the new league table. Since there is a big success, I changed it into the new version. According to PeeJay, it is more easy to use rather than using the old version. And it cause less data-logging fault. Raymond Giggs 01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- There is no need to threaten those of us who don't like your new table and choose to revert it. I never accused you of vandalism, Mr. Giggs, when you just came in and radically changed it even though you have seldom, if ever, edited the table on a weekly basis, yet you expect the rest of us to go along with your bright idea. Juve2000 (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
- Well, since knowing that head-to-head would apply on the league, I made Head-To-Head section for the article. The Head-To-Head league table has been used at La Liga, which is not made by me. Also, the table is not only used on Premier League and La Liga, Liga I also use the new league table. Since there is a big success, I changed it into the new version. According to PeeJay, it is more easy to use rather than using the old version. And it cause less data-logging fault. Raymond Giggs 01:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] League Table
Is there a way we can replace with the Italian one? I feel like it looks better and it's easier to understand. Opinions? Udonknome (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
- I don't really like the Italian version, and personally I feel the current one is quite easily understandable by the average English-speaking reader. --Angelo (talk) 08:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- The Italian table actually conveys less information at a glance than does the English one. The one on the page currently is also more consistent with similar standings tables elsewhere on the .en Wikipedia (although we did decide to nix the EPL-style table a few weeks back, but it didn't really offend me either). —Ed Cormany (talk) 12:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the topic of the table though, shouldn't the bottom portion of the table where it reads "Relegated to Serie B" link to Serie B 2008-09 (or just Serie B in general) and not Serie A 2008-09? I was going to fix it, but realized it was in the template itself, not the parameters, and didn't want to tamper with it just in case I broke it. --Snojoe (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- Fixed it. The offending link was in Template:Fb competition 2008-09 Serie B. I can't believe that some editors have just suddenly come down with a "this is the way it is and is going to be, no discussion" attitude in adopting this new table format. The tangle of template dependencies is maddening, almost entirely opaque, and does not encourage easy editing--not the Wikipedia way, as far as i'm concerned. —Ed Cormany (talk) 17:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
- On the topic of the table though, shouldn't the bottom portion of the table where it reads "Relegated to Serie B" link to Serie B 2008-09 (or just Serie B in general) and not Serie A 2008-09? I was going to fix it, but realized it was in the template itself, not the parameters, and didn't want to tamper with it just in case I broke it. --Snojoe (talk) 06:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] More about European qualification
This one should be removed after the competition is finished. Those words has been removed after the league finished in the articles about the league in England, Germany, Spain, France, etc. Those words are used to mention the situations when the league does not finish but not had finished. Raymond Giggs 09:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- The fact they were removed from other articles does not mean it is the right thing to do. Personally I don't think so, these kind of information make the league table more readable and understandable to people who does not know much about the subject. --Angelo (talk) 10:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think adding those words could make the table better. However, it would be worse when excess information are included. If you want an explanation, okay, com'on:
- The 7th-placed team qualifies for the UEFA Cup due to both of the Coppa Italia finalists, Roma and Internazionale, finishing 6th or higher - well, did we included those information in current UEFA Cup article? Does Inter and Roma affect the total number of UEFA Cup tickets? It would decrease the readability if we put that into the article. Select the most suitable one instead of putting all informations in a pot.
- The highest-placed team who does not finish in an automatic UEFA Cup spot will be awarded with a place in the Intertoto Cup - who said? It is wrong! Please refer to Scottish Premier League, La Liga or the Premier League table at March or April. The Intertoto Cup does not go to the highest-placed team. It goes to the highest-placed team which applied for the UEFA Intertoto Cup team! However, people still don't know which team applied for the Intertoto Cup, so it must be removed. Raymond Giggs 10:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh by the way, after looking the history of this article, I found that there is no anybody but you undid my important major edits, seems like you using your criteria as the consensus. If you want to reach consensus, why don't you ask other people if they agree with your idea? Raymond Giggs 10:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- User:Ed Cormany actually reverted a very similar edit just a week ago, so I am not the only one around thinking this way. My idea is the status quo, whereas your idea is a major change which has only you as a supporter around here, and I think you know for good that potentially controversial changes should always be discussed before being applied. This is merely Wikiquette. --Angelo (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the information should remain. Remember, we are writing an encyclopedia article. This is supposed to be in some way a lasting record of what happened this season, not a sports service that stops when the season ends. However, I agree that the information about the Intertoto cup is not necessary if the highest possible team (Napoli) secures their European license. Otherwise, a note explaining why a lower team qualified is appropriate. I also just reworded the sentence about Cagliari's point penalty; it had been bothering me for a while. —Ed Cormany (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- You know how Giggs is. Once he decides on a major edit he'll insist on making that change until the rest of us get tired of reverting. Look at what happened with the League table. We have now accepted his league table even though I still don't like it and would welcome someone reverting back to the original style.Juve2000 (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think the information should remain. Remember, we are writing an encyclopedia article. This is supposed to be in some way a lasting record of what happened this season, not a sports service that stops when the season ends. However, I agree that the information about the Intertoto cup is not necessary if the highest possible team (Napoli) secures their European license. Otherwise, a note explaining why a lower team qualified is appropriate. I also just reworded the sentence about Cagliari's point penalty; it had been bothering me for a while. —Ed Cormany (talk) 14:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- User:Ed Cormany actually reverted a very similar edit just a week ago, so I am not the only one around thinking this way. My idea is the status quo, whereas your idea is a major change which has only you as a supporter around here, and I think you know for good that potentially controversial changes should always be discussed before being applied. This is merely Wikiquette. --Angelo (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Oh by the way, after looking the history of this article, I found that there is no anybody but you undid my important major edits, seems like you using your criteria as the consensus. If you want to reach consensus, why don't you ask other people if they agree with your idea? Raymond Giggs 10:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, I don't think adding those words could make the table better. However, it would be worse when excess information are included. If you want an explanation, okay, com'on:
