Talk:2010–11 I-League

Stadia

East Bengal and Mohun bagan have their respective soccer ground.

The Fixtures/Results

All the dates are wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.54.30.227 (talk) 20:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

General note

I have changed the layout of the article in order to reflect the standard for football league season articles. The following concerns, however, remain open and need to be fixed:

• The lead paragraph needs proper start and end dates, together with a source for these. The current date given (November 2010) is plain wrong.

• The "Positions by round" section is NOT a season article standard. It may only be included if all of the following requirements are met:

1. the season is regularly divided into "rounds", i.e. all teams are in action during a short, defined period
2. the table cites a reliable source, which gives data for all columns of the table
3. the section contains a note how postponed and rescheduled matches, if applicable, will be added to the table.

As of now, the section lacks a reliable source for the tables after each round. Please add one, otherwise the section will removed under terms of WP:OR.

If there are further questions regarding any changes made in particular or a good league season layout in general, please refer to the season article task force talk page or simply ask in here. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 00:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Other goalscorers

Why are the so called "Other goalscorers" constantly being reinserted? They are not only a violation of the binding policy WP:NOT#STATS, but also deemed as inappropriate by the manual of style for league season articles. The I-League is not the FIFA World Cup. While it is appropriate to list all WC goalscorers due to the elevated level of play, this has to be avoided in articles about domestic league seasons.

Further, I have yet to see a correct sourcing for the entire list. The given source, which currently includes matches until January 14, 2011, credits 127 goals; however, there have been 128 goals scored until this point. Soccerway yields similar results. Since WP:Verification is necessarily required for such lists, and there is not a single correct source for the whole list, "Other goalscorers" cannot be added. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 13:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

The particular website provided as source doesn't include an own goal hence the total is 127 and not 128. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.169.169.93 (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope... the own goal had been included into my calculation when I summed up the goals from said website. However, you may as well check it for yourself. Aside from that, the correctness of the list is only a minor point. The more severe issue is the apparent violation of a binding Wikipedia policy. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 15:33, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Positions by Round

Gents, there seems to be an argument growing here. Surely round 18 has been played now? Yes, of course some teams haven't played there games and some are now marching onto round 19 ahead of everyone else, but we can't just stop hte positions table until everyone catches up. Simply put, the round 18 table should be filled in now as round 18 has finished, games that weren't played have been moved to a later date, you know why because of Asian competition.

If you really want to wait until May for these round 18 games to be played, then, well frankly speaking, we might aswell delete the table now as it's uselss. In past seasons, we have carried on as normal, but no it's stopped. Look at Churchill, the are in 2nd place but continue to be told they are on 3rd because of what reason? Because one team below them is not playing, is that Churchill's fault? Druryfire (talk) 11:07, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

You may delete the position by round section, but before a particular round is finished, you cannot update the positions by that round of all the clubs. Whatever you have written above lacks any logical reasoning. Churchill have played 19 matches and are now in the 2nd position. It does not mean that they occupied the 2nd position at the end of round 18. Please refer to the basic tenets of Wikipedia before changing the table in future. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand what your saying, but look at this frm another point of vire. What will you do when EB play 18 games and win? They will be in 3rd place in the league, bit if you take the league table back so both EB and Churchill replicate round 18 then you will put EB 2nd and Churchill 3rd, even though once EB have finished round 18 they could well still be 3rd, is this not just kind of confusing? There seems no issue with every other page on wiki for this kind of thing, but only an issue with yourself, although quite frankly you have never added anything to the page in the opening 17 rounds, so it could be argued that you have had your eye off the ball for the opening 17 rounds unlike myself and ASH, unless you just using IP to hide yourself. It really is great to know that some users put in some hard work for someone to come out at a whim and just dictate whats going t ohappen with discussing first. Druryfire (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

As I said, you need a thorough course on the basic tenets of Wikipedia. Here are some useful links for you to start with assuming good faith, no personal attacks, verifiability, what wikipedia is not. Your argument that other articles have similar tables, is not valid as it cannot be a justification. Also, which articles are you referring to? The articles on 2010–11 Premier League & 2010–11 Football League Championship do not have any such tables.

Also, for your kind information, WP is not dictated by the whims & fancies of some editors like me, but is a community effort bound by a set of rules. And, one of the very first of those rules is that "no information is better than faulty information". Alas, even after 20,000 odd edits, you have not been able to grasp the very basic principles.

Having said so, I can only see two alternatives to the position by round table - either delete the entire table or wait till a particular round is finished. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 06:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Right, so delete the table it is then, otherwise we will be waiting all year. Thanks for pointing fingers at myself aswell for not grasping the very basic principles, I think you will find it wasn't myself who started amending the table and then re-editing, I took my observation here to help sort the issue out rather than just get into an edit war. Druryfire (talk) 09:17, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Jeez... if you want to include the table by all means necessary, just go by the basic Wikipedia principle of WP:V, and add a note how the table deals with postponed matches. No need to lead an edit war about this trivial piece of worthless data crap. (Yes, I'm not a big fan of these, and I'd like to see these tables vanish from all articles throughout Wikipedia for a variety of reasons.) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 11:19, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Look, I'd be quite happy to delete it. If it stays, then I guess it will only return year after year as part of the template. I thought i'd bring my observations here so that it can be discussed rather than just an edit war goign on. I'd propose to delete the whole section unless anyone has any objections - ASH647 possibly?. If no objections by the next round of games then I'll personally delete it. Druryfire (talk) 12:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Soccer-holic. As a matter of fact, "positions by round" table is not a standard feature of the "seasons" articles. And Druryfire, I did not point fingers at you. I only pointed out the policies because of your outbursts against me. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

As per the official site of the Governing Body of Football in India, the AIFF, "Round 15" is yet to be completed. Therefore, this section must go. Shovon (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Three days have passed since the page had been protected. During this time, no one has opposed the removal of position by round table. Also, as has been shown above, according to the official website of the governing body of football in India, AIFF, Round 15 is yet to be completed. Keeping all these in view, I am removing this table from the article. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 11:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2010–11 I-League. 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/20100504014823/http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mahindra-United-to-disband-team/H1-Article1-537699.aspx to http://www.hindustantimes.com/Mahindra-United-to-disband-team/H1-Article1-537699.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110203081227/http://www.goal.com/en-india/match/54263/churchill-vs-indian-arrows/lineup-stats to http://www.goal.com/en-india/match/54263/churchill-vs-indian-arrows/lineup-stats/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002201758/http://www.goal.com/en-india/match/57518/dempo-vs-air-india/report to http://www.goal.com/en-india/match/57518/dempo-vs-air-india/report/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111002201758/http://www.goal.com/en-india/match/57518/dempo-vs-air-india/report to http://www.goal.com/en-india/match/57518/dempo-vs-air-india/report/

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) 03:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)