Talk:2008–09 Serie A

77 Serie A Seasons

Although 2008-09 will be considered the 77th Serie A season, there are 79 Serie A seasons listed on the template. I think the 1944 season should be moved up to the Italian Football Championships seasons section or omitted completely, but which is the second extra season that we are counting? Juve2000 (talk) 22:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I am thinking it might be 1945-46. If it is, I think it should be moved too. That way we have 77 seasons listed which matches the official number of Serie A seasons played (counting 2008-09). I'm not going to touch the template as I would probably destroy it.Juve2000 (talk) 23:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews invitation

Wikinews needs people to write news and match reports for Serie A. To sign-up, please go here. Please let me know if and when you sign-up here. Kingjeff (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandalisation

Maybe the Table leaders by matchday section is senseless,but vandalisation? I didn't want to vandalise,if I get blamed for vandalisation,then someone may block me for something which isn't my intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.68.138.135 (talk) 19:21, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The summary was "vandalism + senseless WP:TRIVIA content", and it's about two different edits; the first one being this (the vandalism one), and the second one being yours (the WP:TRIVIA content). I hope I've been clarified your doubts. --Angelo (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes,thank you,maybe I'm overreacting a bit,but: phew,what a relief. User: 81.68.138.135 22:26, 14 September 2008

Positions by round

I am impressed by the new chart created by Lordoffireanddeath26. Before someone arbitrarily deletes it because it hasn't been thouroughly discussed or for some other reason, could you please state your objections here. Juve2000 (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is a discussion over this issue at the project page as well. It can be found here. More input would be welcome, as there currently is no concensus reached, if I'm correct.

Those RbR tables have two major issues: 1) Can they be properly sourced? 2) Do they violate WP:NOT#Stats? My opinion: 1) No and 2) Yes. Details can be found on the discussion page linked above. Cheers, Hockey-holic (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

To your questions I would have to answer 1) Yes and 2) Probably. If nothing else, previous revisions of this very article contain exactly the information that is in the chart. If the current league table is sourced, then so is all of this data. That doesn't mean I'm in favor of its inclusion, since I think it does clutter things up a bit. If consensus is made to keep it though, might I suggest replacing the gold/silver/bronze colors with ones that match the regular league table? That might help integrate it into the article. —Ed Cormany (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem with the colors is that every country has a different pattern of spots for European competition and relegation. There are two ways to deal with that: Either hard-code the complete table, which will definitely make it hard to maintain it or change the existing template. You might want to choose the second alternative, but such a change is actually more difficult to perform than it sounds as dozens of parameters would have to be introduced in order to deal with the colors.
Anyway, I agree that such a table will clutter up things. Furthermore, has anybody seen such tables in publications of any kind as of now? If the answer is different from "no", I would be surprised. Hockey-holic (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

use of head to head tiebreaker

i'm well aware that head to head results are the first tiebreaker in the league standings, but i think we should make sure that we are applying that tiebreaker the same way that the Lega Calcio does. i believe that in the past h2h has only been used after the teams in question have played both games against each other. as i write this, the standings on the official league site [1] are inconsistent, showing Inter above Juve (h2h applying) but Cagliari ahead of Catania (h2h not applying). i think it's best to check the official standings tomorrow after the 19th matchday is complete, and proceed from there. —Ed Cormany (talk) 22:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think H2H is usually ignored when completing the wikipedia standings and editors fall back to using the goal difference and then goals scored as tie-breakers, only because its easier when changing the standings on a weekly basis. I have noticed that even when the classifications are final, H2H is not necessarily applied, especially when ordering teams that are in the middle of the standings. I went back and re-ordered Serie B 2006-07 a few months ago and applied the H2H rules in the final classification more than a year after the season was over. I agree with you that we should have set rules as to when H2H should be applied, and we should also go back and apply them to all italian soccer standings since the H2H rule was implemented.

As for today's controversy, Juventus should have been listed first if we applied the "ignore H2H until the end" rule I mentioned above, but since a few Inter fans got all upset over their team not being first for a mere 24 hours, all of a sudden H2H became the holy grail again.

I noticed the additional column added to the right to note the current H2H results. I am one of those people who is not happy with conversion of all the classifications to this new Fb template thing. The setting up is complex and I believe fewer and fewer people are involved in the editing of the pages. I realize that data such as games played, points earned and goal difference is now automatically calculated. The addition of that extra colum will just drive more editors away in my opinion. Juve2000 (talk) 23:34, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

After checking a couple of Italian newspaper sites, I discovered that neither of them uses hth. As a consequence, the column has been removed by me. My theory regarding the erroneous display on the Lega Calcio homepage is that they order clubs with equal points after their number of games as the second tie-breaker. In other words, if club X and club Y are equal on points, but X has more games played than Y, Y will be placed before X. --Soccer-holic (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe we should check various other sources other than lega-calcio.it and apply one of them as the official one because it is somewhat strange. As an example I put Torino and Chievo positions. They (and Wikipedia, probably according to it) put Torino in front of Chievo (they are equal on points). However, Chievo has better goal difference than Torino and they played the same amount of matches. If we apply head-to-head tiebreaker their match ended with a draw what makes the positions being set according to the goal differences (which aren't), since the head-to-head away goals scored aren't applied. Anyway, this whole thing is very unusual and needs to be analyzed better because it will be important at the end of the season, especially if the champions league or europa league teams would be in question. SonjiCeli (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

All Italian media (including newspapers like La Gazzetta dello Sport and Corriere dello Sport) usually ignore h2h's until the end of the season, and personally I support this view. --Angelo (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that we won't be using h2h for a tiebreaker, Chievo and Torino need to be switched according to Goal Differential, as Chievo has a better GD. (The other two ties, Napoli/Roma and Fiorentina/Palermo are ranked appropriately regardless if we were counting the h2h records). I will be editing the table momentarily to reflect Chievo/Torino. I feel if the remainder of them are ranked as such, this position conflict (regardless of what other sources may reflect) should be resolved just like the others are. --Snojoe (talk) 21:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)