Talk:2010–11 La Liga

Pichichi

Thetrophy pichichi is a trophy delivered by Marca, since Marca delivers it we have to put the goals that Marca says that it has every player. In this case, Christian takes 15 as that Marca says it and the trophy belongs to them. And Di Maria have 4 assist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.226.202.54 (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I created two lists for the goalscorers as there are differences by many users: some argue that Pichichi should show official determinations by LFP and others argue the Pichichi should be according to the newspaper Marca, which is the organizer of the award. The Solomonic solution is to avoid edit wars that may happen throughout the season as Cristiano Ronaldo will have officially one less goal that says the newspaper Marca. If someone disagrees and changes it, he could check out how there are problems of edit wars continuously. --Raul-Reus (talk) 21:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC+1)

I changed the article layout a little bit in order to get a better comprehension of both lists. However, I raise an issue associated with the list based on the data by LFP.

Does a link providing exactly the LFP list stated in the article exist? If it is the one given below the table, then it does not work for me (using Mozilla Firefox). However, given the huge chunk of hidden data I removed earlier (Sidenote: In all seriousness, why have 12kB of data when it is not displayed at all? The majority of users are NOT using a high-end computer but rather things such as mobile devices et al to access Wikipedia content, with all the downsides such devices have), I would assume that the data was compiled from the several team stats lists, which might actually be a case of WP:SYN. Please discuss this.

Final disclaimer: I am not preferring any of the two lists given, nor am I associated with any of the two parties involved in this content dispute. All I do is pointing to the relevant portions of the Wikipedia content guidelines. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 10:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Soccer-holic! I understand your arguments to delete hidden data, this data was controlled by me, it's not original research: these list is the hard work to input new players and adding goals when finalizes every match, consulting every match in the [official page]. This page is the only official to provide official information such as goalscorers, goalkeepers, cards, minutes played... match to match. These page, like LFP Squad stats goes wrong with Mozilla, so it's problem of RFEF and LFP, you can enter this pages in Internet Explorer and goes correctly. There are not a specially section in RFEF neither LFP for goalscorers lists, but in the url I imputed "LFP Squad stats" you can check out all goals of all players: selecting season 2010-11, Liga BBVA, and the correspondent team. Well, all hidden data had the aim to update rapidly this lists, but as you say it's not appropiate to stay at this page hidden, later I will put on my user page. Sorry, for this bad english and to write so disorganized. Another question: I'm the first to hate these silly disput about 14 or 15 goals of Cristiano, but yesterday I noted that block expires today and I found out these Solomonic solution to turn off future war edits, there are people in love with Cristiano, so it makes me laugh the insistence and interest to put one more goal to Cristiano. Now there are people who will dispute the one more goal in the info-box in "top goalscorer", this field must be about official goals. --Raul-Reus (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC+1)

Hat-tricks

Why not add a Hat-tricks section? Hatricks this season so far: 1. Ronaldo (4 goals) vs Racing (23 Oct) Ref: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/302095?cc=4716 2. Messi (3 goals) vs Almeria (20 Nov) Ref: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/302149 3. Ronaldo (3 goals) vs Athlectic Bilbao (20 Nov) Ref: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/301937 4. Ronaldo (3 goals) vs Villareal (9 Nov) Ref: http://soccernet.espn.go.com/report/_/id/301848 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.56.7.146 (talk) 12:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair play

Why Barcelona (36 yellows, 1 two-yellows, 1 red) has 50 points (RFEF) and Deportiva only 47 points (43 yellows, 1 two-yellows, 1 red)? And Racing 44, 1, 2 = 51 points? How are these points calculated? It seems Barcelona has 10 points too much? Kahkonen (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

The table is violating WP:SYN anyway, because it is not cited as a whole but rather a synthesis from different sources. Since it virtually has no impact on the league table (although being denoted as a tie-breaker), there is no value in keeping the "official" version as well. I would thus propose to remove it altogether. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 23:02, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Soccer-holic, these table was created by me and it has all details (breakdown) about how are calculated the points, the total points about details is the column "Total calculated", Official RFEF has no relation between breakdown because as I warned above, RFEF are not calculating rigorously. As you can seein RFEF publishment from 19th round Barcelona had 39 points and after a match between Racing where there's no cards neither incidents, the next official publishment from RFEF was 50 points! Another question is the requirement of acomplish that is not correct the original research, there can be exceptions like these acumulative points lists. These table is impossible to cite all research because is a accumulation of sanctions by comitees and for cite all we must put at least 21 items after every number. Not all contents can be cited. I have no fault that the RFEF is publishing rankings without any rigorous in their calculations and me and Qampunen have done an exhaustive and thorough from the start of the season and keeping in evidence of the professionalism of the RFEF's employee publisher of this classification. Although the table is difficult to understand, their breakdown is correct. The problem is how no evidence the problem of RFEF or display clearly than the RFEF points not correspond to the breakdown. 81.184.193.54 (talk) 1:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

As a defense that is not a type of not-original research, I must say that it is possibly this type: WP:SYN#Routine calculations 81.184.193.54 (talk) 2:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)