Talk:2010–11 Moldovan National Division

Football: Season Stub‑class Low‑importance

	Association football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Association football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FootballWikipedia:WikiProject FootballTemplate:WikiProject Footballfootball
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]