Talk:2010–11 Moldovan National Division

Round 1 Standings

Rules for classification: 1st points; 2rd head-to-head points; 3rd head-to-head goal difference; 4th goal difference; 5th goals scored; 6th number of wins; 7th Fair play competition.

We have two teams that won with the same result (3-0). So, the results for first 6 rules are equal. The 7th rule means the discplinary record, ie the number of yellow cards received.

According to the Match reports where are specified the players that received yellow cards, we see that Zimbru Chişinău has 5 yellow cards and Sheriff Tiraspol has none.

So we can easily order the 2 teams.

--Andrei Anghelov (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That was not the meaning of the original research banner which was removed from atop the "Round-by-Round" section. A round-by-round table requires a source for the tables of each and every round PLUS exact criteria how postponed matches (e.g. Team X v. Team Y is postponed from Round 3 to a date between Rounds 15 and 16) are included. Since the FMF website will only provide the usual "current standings" type of table, the RbR table in the article would consist WP:OR after Round 2; thus the banner on top of the section (which will be re-added as soon as I have finished these lines).

By the way, what is the point of RbR tables anyway? A reason often mentioned is "That way we will be able to track down every team's way through the season". Well, if a team's run through the standings is particular important for the outcome of any important decision (championship, spots in European competitions, relegation), mention it in prose. It is strongly encouraged that every article has a written summary of the season in order to fulfil encyclopaedic needs. If the particular run was really important, it will get coverage (in other words, can be verified) anyway. Just slapping statistic table after statistic table in articles instead is a) violating WP:NOT#STATS and b) just bad encyclopaedic style. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 09:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that the new source I put below the RbR table (divizianationala.com) is sufficient for verified display of this kind of information, and is practically equal to kicker.de, so I will remove the WP:OR banner. Of course, feel free to restore it and discuss the matter here if you think otherwise. SonjiCeli (talk) 23:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Official source

The Tournament is organized by FMF (The MOldovan Football Federation) which official site is [1]. The site [2] is a personal website about the tournament, unofficial. --Andrei Anghelov (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The second site may be unofficial, but at least it is a better source for the RbR as the official FMF site. That being said, if the guys and gals from the unofficial site are not able to get their tie breakers in order, I guess kicker is the way to go here, at least for now. If someone with knowledge of the Romanian tongue wants to ping the people who run the second site about their errors, do it and wait for them to fix their stuff.

*sigh* These kind of debates are exactly why only important streaks should be included, and only in prose. A lot less details to complain about. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:05, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How should we order the teams in the RbR table then? fmf.md official rules say that during the season teams are ordered only by the number of points (and to use the remaining tiebreakers only in the final standings), divizianationala.com uses points and goal difference, while kicker.de uses points, goal difference and goals scored.

Also, as I understood, the problem with divizianationala.com is not that it has mistakes, but that it's not official website. SonjiCeli (talk) 17:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2010–11 Moldovan National Division. 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/20101123173921/http://fmf.md/docs/regul/regul2010-2011.pdf to http://www.fmf.md/docs/regul/regul2010-2011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702181318/http://fmf.md/champion_ro.htm to http://www.fmf.md/champion_ro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702181318/http://fmf.md/champion_ro.htm to http://www.fmf.md/champion_ro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702181318/http://fmf.md/champion_ro.htm to http://www.fmf.md/champion_ro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080702181318/http://fmf.md/champion_ro.htm to http://www.fmf.md/champion_ro.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 03:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)