Talk:2008–09 Liga I

Infobox

I have expanded the existing infobox with placeholders in order to determine its final size. Has anybody problems with the display of other items of this article which have moved to another position?

By the way, the goals-per-match average can be automatically calculated and correctly rounded if you use the formula given. Just replace the correct numbers of goals (currently 524) and matches (currently 225) with the according values after each round. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Round by Round table

I propose that this table should be removed because of the following concerns:

• It is basically a data redundancy or in other words, it repeats given information, as the data is already displayed in the Results table
• The table eats up a whopping 20 kB of page size, which results in a longer loading time for slower computers (Violation of WP:SIZE). Broadband Internet access is still not available in huge parts of this planet.
• It is not needed any more, especially with the Standings-by-Round table in place

Any opinions on this proposal? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:07, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

This section may be add. at all of the domestic leagues. This Round by Round section it was created by me one year ago, I worked too much, and I think is useful. You must not delete this. No one request this removal. Thanks!TouLouse (talk) 11:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

While I respect your opinion and the amount of work you have done, the decision to remove content is not to be made by you or me, but by a consensus. Besides, Wikipedia policies like WP:SIZE and, for example, WP:OWN do not exist just out of pure joy, there is always a reason behind them.

On another note, the bright colors in said table cause accessibility problems for disabled readers, for example those who suffer from Color blindness or similar visual ailments. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

As for that RbR table with D, L and W (one with colors) - I had no problems with that table, although it really did cause problems when loading the page, especially when editing. However, since now exists other table, I would go with that one (one with positions after each round) since it gives more information and is more useful. Also, it uses less space, and we should save it as much as possible on this article.

Sorry TouLouse, but I can't think of a single reason why to keep this table you made now when we have another one. So please respect the opinion of a majority regarding this subject. SonjiCeli (talk) 13:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just suicide my section! Now it's all right! I hope Soccer-holic will be very happy! ROFL...TouLouse (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Clasament golgheteri

De ce tot editati clasamentul golgheterilor? Pe toate paginile campionatelor puternice este facut tabel. Chiar nu stiu cu ce va deranjeaza. O sa-l editez eu dupa fiecare etapa. Va rog sa-l lasati asa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.116.229 (talk) 09:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC) (Translation via Google Translator: Why all edit golgheterilor rank? On all pages championships is strong facut table. I really do not know what bothers you. We edit it after every stage. Please leave it that way.)

First of all - since this is English Wikipedia, please use English. As for your comment:

It is not true that every page uses the table format. Examples for the use of a simple list are e.g. Italy, Germany, Russia, Bulgaria, Poland or Turkey, just to name a few. The simple list is also much more easier to handle for inexperienced or casual editors than a rather complex table. Also, since this is rather simple information, WP:TABLE itself proposes that the use of a list is preferred over a table. The goals average is a nice bonus, though - but that does not mean it has to be included in a table at all means. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I did a little survey, and it seems to me that just as many pages use the list format, as the table format. I personally prefer the list format for the following reasons::

• It is much easier to manage the data.
• The simplicity of the information does not require such a complex data structure.
• This section is entitled "Top goalscorers", the word "Top" meaning players with the most goals. This is an individual contest among the players, so I can't see what importance could have facts, like for example 21 players have scored 3 goals, and etc...
• However I appreciate your attempt to do a goal-per-match average statistic, but since this is a statistical data it shoul be placed in the "Season statistics" section.
• I find the list more esthetic, but this is only an aditional subjective argument. --Riveststein 15:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I may inform both of you that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Please stop and settle your differences in here, or I will report your behavior to WP:ANI. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I know that this is an edit war, but I don' really understand why keeps he reverting the list into a table, since he was asked to leave it as a list till we reach a consens. I already presented my reasons for preferring a list instead of a table, but I don't really know wether the IPeditor person understood it, since it seems to me that he does not speak english.

Moreover it is pretty hard to edit even this simple list correctly, because the official page of LPF is not updated with the list of top goalscorers on a regular basis. So the last top goalscorer list published by them dates back to round 21, so I needed to update it based on match reports with the goals from the missing last 5 rounds.

The situation between the list and the table resembels pretty much a stalemate, because it seems that we aren't able to settle our differences. As a result I suggest that a third party (maybe you Soccer-holic) should decide how to edit this part of the article. --Riveststein 17:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I would be the right choice as a mediator because I think I'm too much involved myself in all this, so I would suggest to seek for help at the football project talk page. As for the source, I would suggest to either use a regularly updated third-party site like Soccerway or a reliable newspaper site. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 18:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Positions by round

Why only 18th appear with red/pink? And 17th, 16th and 15th will relegation.

This has to do with the fact that the used template was originally made for the Spanish league only, but has been converted to a more general use since. The color for the 18th place was probably forgotten to remove. I'll fix that in a minute. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 02:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Rules for classification

These are the rules for final standings:

1 points; 2 head-to-head points; 3 head-to-head goal difference; 4 head-to-head goals scored; 5 head-to-head away goals scored; 6 general goal difference; 7 more goals scored in championship;

86.121.115.140 (talk) 11:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Last edit

Excuse me for the last edit,I don't know what is with my browser. I am really sorry. {{flagicon|Romania}}ʞɳΩɯ ўθʉя ʀǒʟέ (talk) 19:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2008–09 Liga I. 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/20090502015220/http://www.liga1.ro/golgheter.php to http://www.liga1.ro/golgheter.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:15, 18 June 2017 (UTC)