Wikipedia

Talk:2009–10 A-League

(Redirected from Talk:A-League 2009–10)
Latest comment: 5 years ago by RMCD bot in topic Move discussion in progress
Learn more about this page

Second Melbourne Team

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The second Melbourne franchise (earlier added to this page as Melbourne Heart) is being considered for inclusion for the 2010/11 season, not 2009/10. Even then everything is completely unofficial at this stage - let's wait until the FFA announce it as a done deal first before adding it :) Source. Gialloneri (talk) 01:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)Reply

there is a section on this is the main a-league article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.47.120 (talk) 15:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Team map

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I have recently created three new templates with maps of teams in the A-League:

These templates are all included in their respective A-League season articles, yet Chuq (talk) has replaced this template map with a non-template that is used in the league's article itself.

I believe that the template maps are more suitable as they do not have the small team colour boxes that clutter up the map a little. They are also much easier to organise and don't clutter up the editing page with code (as they don't need to be changed).

I have reformatted the template map to fit as Chuq has reformatted this article, and welcome any opinions as to which map to use here. Thanks timsdad (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

The small team colour boxes "clutter up" the map? Rather than clutter, they show the location of each team - which I presume is the entire point of having the map there in the first place. -- Chuq (talk) 09:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
I just noticed you have also changed the map on the main A-League article. The previous map style has been used without disagreement on that article for a couple of years now. Instead of changing the map to your one and then suggesting that people discuss which is best, I suggest it would be preferable to leave the current map and get discussion before changing it. Talk:A-League would probably be the best place to do this as this page doesn't get much traffic. -- Chuq (talk) 09:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
There were also similar versions of the templates that were used in non-template form, without the colour boxes in the season articles (ie. 05-06, 06-07, 07-08) which were used without disagreement. I agree, it was wrong of me to change the map in the A-League article and you were right to revert it. But I still believe that the names themselves are enough to point out the location accurately enough, and do not need the colour boxes (many other labelled maps are made this way). timsdad (talk) 12:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)Reply
edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The image File:A-League logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)Reply


Jade North?

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

How come jade north and sasa ogenofski and other people that are leaving the a-league aren't on here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.252.114 (talk) 10:59, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Only players that are being transferred in the A-League are in the transfers table. --timsdad (talk) 11:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

could we put players leaving the a-league. or possibly another section or article on players leaving the a-league? because i think it's important that people know about the players that are leaving —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.237.84 (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Quite right, it is important. If you're willing to find some sources backing up all of the players leaving the A-League, I'd be happy to help you add them to this page. --timsdad (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Seperate article for transfers

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I know there was a seperate article: A-League Transfers for 2009-2010 season that is now a redirect to this main season article, but as the list continues to expand (and it will do so much more in the next 6-10 months) it's going to clutter up the article. Past A-League season articles have not included transfer tables, and when the entire fixture and standings table, etc. are in the article, it will be a lot easier to navigate if this seemingly unnecessary (once the season commences) table is out of the way. I propose moving the Transfers section to another article, such as the one mentioned above, and a link added in this article, at least until the season starts. --timsdad (talk) 08:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

As I deem it completely necessary, I have created the page at A-League transfers for 2009–10 season with correct capitalisation and the correct dash. --timsdad (talk) 08:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Season 2009-10 Pages for the A-League Teams

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

While it may seem a bit early for many of the teams, especially those competing in the 2008/09 Finals series, I would like to advocate, request even, that fans would like to contribute to the creation of 'Season 2009-10' pages for both the Central Coast Mariners and Newcastle Jets, as both teams have ACL matches just around the corner and so it seems very appropriate that these 2 teams have their pages for the forthcoming season up now, especially as so to include the ACL information. I request this rather than do it myself, as I do not know enough of what is happening with the teams nor what is involved, their fixtures, squads, surrounding context etc.. for the ACL matches. I presume other A-League fans, especially of those clubs, may know some more detail, especially the key details the pages will require. Xfiles82 (talk • contribs) 11:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Only five of the A-League teams have 2009-10 season articles at the present moment, another five still need them. It's really not all that hard to create them. The fixtures haven't been released yet by the A-League, so none of the five current articles has anything more than some team rosters and transfer tables. --timsdad (talk) 06:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply
In future, please use the 'New Section' or '+' button at the top of discussion pages to add a new section. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 06:28, 20 February 2009 (UTC)Reply

Players with identical surnames

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Lads as we have done in previous seasons, for goalscores/sendoffs continue to use initials for players with identical surnames (even if they aren't playing in the same game). It just makes it easier on readers. Oh and there's some wiki guideline about avoiding ambiguity as well.

--Squilibob (talk) 07:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks for putting this together. It'll come in really handy. --timsdad (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I see what I missed, my mistake. ~ RedsUnited (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Templates

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

All of the existing templates do work. If they appear not to work it's probably because those of us who helped make them didn't do a good job on the documentation pages. For example, the attendance template appears not to work if not totally filled in but editors from the first few seasons knew to put 0.1 in for games played so there was no divide by zero. --Squilibob (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Just on that topic... Didn't the league table used to be centred in the page? I mean, before today, even? I've gone back through the history of various templates and I can't see where anything was changed. Being the template expert, I'm sure you'll be able to find out... If it's not too much trouble. --timsdad (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
You just broke it didn't you? The following line of wikicode passes the parameter sent from the Aleague articles to the worker template and if the article doesn't supply one, gives the style a default of text-align:center
style={{{style|text-align:center;}}}
So if someone made a perth glory 2009-10 article and forgot to style the table, it would default to text-align:center, however people have the option of using it any way they like (ie putting this within another table and would not like it centered). On the A-league season articles we override it with margin:auto for formatting reasons if I remember it correctly.
You seem to have done this on both the templates to get the mouseover effects working, so I'll let you fix that one. --Squilibob (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
That was my original impression, that my edit did that. But when I undid it and previewed it, it didn't centre. But it doesn't anyway... As you can see I haven't quite grasped the concept of templating yet. --timsdad (talk) 09:08, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
You changed two templates though, so previewing wouldn't work. You had to fix both templates. Anyway I rolled back the other template and put some of the mouseover stuff on it and it does indeed work. You might want to change it cosmedically the way you want it while keeping things like formatting and autosort functioning. --Squilibob (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I added the widths again, I didn't actually add those in myself; they were already there. I also removed the sorting as it's not necessary to sort the standings. I think it's all working still, so that should do for now. --timsdad (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I had to laugh, I just fixed the goal difference sorting after it was broken for 2 years. I do remember that some time ago we all were using font:size:85% for titles of templates so that the widths wouldn't be so wide when you use sortable tables, but it seems that this template was forgotten. Did you remove the sorting because it was making the columns unnecessarily wide? --Squilibob (talk) 09:46, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
My main reason for removing the sorting was it was making the title row too thick (top to bottom), but also just because there is absolutely no reason for anyone to want to sort it. --timsdad (talk) 09:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Transfers article

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The separate article for this season's transfers (the discussion for the creation of which can be seen above) is probably very innacurate as I can think of numerous players who have undergone a transfer that are not in the list. I'd done a considerable amount of work cleaning up the references for that article, and it would be a shame to see it go, but it's occurred to me that maybe it should be nominated for deletion. It barely even passes for notability. Opinions are welcome. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I've done what I can for Adelaide United's transfers, I'm not sure if Youth Team promotion to First Team should be included or not, since technically they haven't really been 'transferred'. ~ RedsUnited (talk) 09:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
No, I definitely think Youth Team promotions should be left out... I'll make that clear in the intro. I still, however, feel that there are many other transfers that we've left out. We'd never really know if we'd gotten them all, or if we'd forgotten any. --timsdad (talk) 09:17, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Attendance

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Didn't we order attendance by highest to lowest average attendance? I'm not fussed to do it either way, but previously we did. --Squilibob (talk) 08:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's what I was thinking when I first wrote the comment. But it just makes it a bit harder if we do it by average, as we'll have to preview it so we can find the average before we know the order. --timsdad (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Table of teams

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Wasn't the table (including shirts) removed in an earlier edit due to its large size cluttering up the wiki page? ~ RedsUnited (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I was about to bring this up on this talk page. A while back, in this edit, Squilibob replaced the simple table with his set of boxes that can currently be seen on the page. However, Chuq recently removed them in this edit, with an edit summary: "replace completely broken table with neater, cleaner layout as used in other articles" (which I completely agree with). Frankie goh Has since replaced them in this edit, stating "replace the simple table with a more detailed version".
I feel the old table should be reinstated, as this one, despite the more information it provides, is a bit over the top, IMO. --timsdad (talk) 09:24, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Chuq's edit actually fits in with the article more so than the most recent edit. ~ RedsUnited (talk) 09:33, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Well, it appears that three of us are in favour of the older, simpler box and two others prefer the new one. We might have to wait for them to voice their opinions on this before we go removing it. I'll encourage them to voice their opinions here. --timsdad (talk) 09:37, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Let's see, I prefer the new one because it has more details and makes the top of the page more colourful! Also it provides more info at the top at one go. And suppose if there is any change of coach in mid-season, it can also be state there. Furthermore, the A-League's page is very unlike other league's page, so I think we need not follow other league's page.Frankie goh (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
There was supposed to be a table with the changes for the 2009-10 season above this, but it has been removed at some stage. The table doesn't seem to be "completely broken" since it works fine, tested on every browser. Oh well, just move it to a section on A-League#Clubs. --Squilibob (talk) 02:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
The transfers for the season were moved to a seperate article (see an above section) but that's irrelevant. Moving it to A-League#Clubs is a good idea, to replace the current table there. We can replace the simpler table for season articles and link to the section in the A-League article for more information. As a matter of fact, I'm going to do that right now. --timsdad (talk) 06:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Speaking of the transfers section, I think I'm going to move it to after the Clubs section, as it seems a bit odd at its current pole position above all the other sections. Feel free to revert if there's a valid reason for keeping it at the top. ~ RedsUnited (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Leading goalscorers

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Are the '0' scores in each round really necessary? We didn't have them in the previous two seasons... - RedsUnited (talk) 12:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Agreed with that, the empty cell is looking much better. Also, it seems that one-goal scorers have to be removed because the table is becoming too massve. About ten top scorers are more than enough I suppose, and though at the moment there are only five players who scored more than once, five-row table is far better than 21. —WiJG? 12:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
How about a collapse-able table? That way we can keep all the scorers there, but reduce the size that it takes up on the page. - RedsUnited (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Hm, it's a good suggestion, but I don't think I really like the idea... Last year we just hid all of the players that had scored less than 5 goals. Obviously we can't do that at the moment, but as the season progresses, we'll start to get more players scoring more times. I suggest that for now, we leave it as players that have scored two or more goals, and then later we change it to three or more, then four or more, and so on. I'd say five would be the limit though. --timsdad (talk) 03:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Now it seems that the table grows again and soon we should cut it for 'more than two' scorers. The table itself is now of 12 rows and I suggest it shouldn't grow up more than 15. There are only five players with 3 or more goals, the same number of rows table had when I cut off one-scorers. Just explaining myself in advance not to be considered as a vandal :) —WiJG? 20:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

I'm just going to be bold and cut off all less than three goal scorers. Five is enough for now. I also feel that the table should not be updated until after each match, or whenever possible, not during a match. This can be misleading as the curent as of line still reads the same as the match before. May I also add a reminder to anyone reading this, when updating the goalscorers, please don't forget to update hidden players (i.e. the players that have scored less than the number of goals being displayed at the time) and remember to add new scorers to the bottom. This way, if these scorers are to continue scoring, goals from previous matches won't be forgotten. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 02:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Timsdad's triple-reversion

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In this edit, I didn't want to explain my reversions in a short edit summary, so I led you here. The reasons for my triple-reversion is as follows:

  • Attendance change for WP v AU round 5 match: The summary has the only figure we can use at the moment (7,523) as the report does not give an attendance. Original changes were by 118.92.179.223, but reason was given by 118.92.163.98 (appears to be the same person editing under a changing IP address) - claims that 7,975 what was announced at the match.
  • Venue changes by 124.188.56.114 reflect what the season draw released by the FFA before the season started. However, one can visit the A-League fixtures and see that the venues for SFC's round 6 match and PG's round 15 match will be held at the SFS and ME Bank Stadium respectively. It may have changed again, butt I think the current A-League fixtures are more likely to be accurate.
  • WijG?, in good faith, changed Paul Kohler's second caution red card to a direct red, as suggested by the summary. However, you can take my word for it that Kohler did receive a yellow card a few minutes before his second yellow. The match report also states: "Paul Kohler was sent off after consecutive yellows cards".

I'm terribly sorry to give such long-winded reasons, but I hope I've explained everything to your satisfaction. Any problems, just reply here. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 02:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

There is another mention of the crowd at the WEL v ADE match being 7,578 at Sportal's match report. So much for accurate and consistent attendance reporting for these games. ~ RedsUnited (talk) 05:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just watched the highlight on youtube and seen a two-yellow expulsion. Your data is now proven, to hell with summaries :) —WiJG? 06:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I was at the Fury vs Roar game, it was definitely two yellows for Kohler. --Squilibob (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Attendance ordering

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

My edit summary stated that I prefer it sorted "by highest". Sorry for the mistake, I meant by total attendance. I realise now it's not the best way to order it, as some teams have played twice as many as others and an average is a more accurate representation of the crowds they draw. However, to update the attendances and order them by average in one edit requires a preview to see the averages, unless one wishes to chuck the values in a calculator. Having said all this, I now prefer the ordering by average. What a pointless discussion. --timsdad (talk) 08:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

We use addition in the total attendance column anyway, which also required pressing preview to see! --Squilibob (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Disputed goals

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm not sure how we go about referencing this, but on Match Day Saturday 19 September 2009 Andy Harper mentioned that Jess van der brink's goal in the 53rd minute in the previous round was ruled be the disputed goals committee to be an own goal and not credited to Jess. The Match report on the A-league site has yet to be updated. --Squilibob (talk) 11:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Finals series bracket

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago14 comments4 people in discussion

I know it's a bit early, but I've begun working on a template for the new finals series layout. I've been using Template:6Team2ElimB and Chuq's Template:PagePlayoffBracket-2LegQF to give me a guide, as there's no way I can create one from scratch. It's been a while, and I haven't got very far. You can find my attempts so far at User:Timsdad/Sandbox/A-League finals bracket. The new layout can be found on the season draw and the rules summary. It would be a great help if anyone can help me out a little with the template. It's obviously not urgent as we haven't even reached round eight of the regular season... Thanks, timsdad (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

This one looks promising for me. Gonna try to rework it. —WiJG? 12:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
That looks ideal, good spotting. I was thinking that game A (between teams 1 and 2) would be in line with games B and C because they are held on the same weekend. I'm not sure if it has to be or not, but the template can always be changed around to support this. --timsdad (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've copied the template to a subpage of mine and changed the names (EPO1, QSF, etc.) to what is set out in the rules PDF I linked above (A, B, C, etc.). I've also renamed the "details" parameter to "date" to match other bracket templates we've used in the past. --timsdad (talk) 12:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Casted some template magic—check out two last versions. I personally prefer the very last one with the "A" pair placed in between the knockouts and the semifinals. —WiJG? 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Brilliant. Thanks a lot for helping out, or should I say, basically doing all the work. I won't bother continuing with the other template I started work on. What are our thoughts on the red and green lines used in the rugby template? Should we keep them or change them to plain black lines to match previously used templates. --timsdad (talk) 07:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Good job. I think it looks good as it is currently. We've changed a few of our templates this season for the better and there's no reason to make the lines all black. Any reader can easily work out what everything means. Hopefully everything will be sweet if there's penalty shootouts as we'll need to include that information. We'll also have to be weary of some of the rules like the premiers choosing whether to host the first or second leg of their final and if 5th and 6th win in the first week then 5th will host the next week's match - easily done with a footnote. --Squilibob (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)Reply
Just checked—the penalty shootouts look OK and there is enough space for the longest team names either. What now has to be dome is to make this template more user-friendly because I've needed some time just to figure out where to write the results and it is kinda confusing. —WiJG? 19:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Great work. I've moved the template to Template:A-League finals bracket and created documentation. On the talk page you'll find how we can actually use the template in articles (I think it's pretty user friendly). I changed the team name function so that we only have to put the team's two or three letter initials in the template instead of {{ALeague ---}}. The only problem with this is the winning team's name cannot be bolded. I also had a bit of trouble lining up the date for match A2 so that the colons were in line, rather than the first letter. --timsdad (talk) 03:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
About the bold names: we may solve it the way I've done it for JFL teams by creating separate templates for bold, italics and bold italics names like {{Gainare}}, {{Gainare b}} and {{Gainare bi}}. The A-League has only 10 teams so it won't be a huge work to do. —WiJG? 14:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
That's a brilliant idea. I've created a subcategory to organise the shortcut templates and I'm going to set about creating [[Template:A-League TEAM b]] for each team (I don't think we need seperate templates for italics at this point). --timsdad (talk) 22:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've run into a bit of a problem... I tested the bolding and the Central Coast Mariners text, when bolded only, runs onto the next line. I tried fixing it without success, I get confused. --timsdad (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
+5 pixels to the width of team block solves that. Also tested it with NQF name which is almost as long as CCM and everything fits into a single line. —WiJG? 08:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Finals bracket is too misleading. You should thoroughly explain how the A-League playoff system works, along with the bracket —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.2.70.20 (talk) 23:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)Reply

Show/hide on rounds

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

A good idea but if you do it this way you can't edit each round separately. If I press 'e' on the template, I am redirected not to the round info but to the template page. So that's why I reverted your edit. —WiJG? 15:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I really see no point in hiding the rounds... This only comes in particularly useful in season articles, when one just wants to browse the scores and occasionally see some details. I refer to the slightly different usage in the Brisbane Roar season 2009–10 article. --timsdad (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Attendance Template

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The attendance template appears to have been changed recently, and the calculation for average attendance is all wrong. I would fix it up myself if I knew how... Tomwijgers (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks a bunch for pointing this out... I can't believe I didn't notice myself! I'll do the best I can to try and fix it, but if I can't I'll have to revert everything to the old version. Again, thanks. --timsdad (talk) 06:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
That may have been a bit confusing if you didn't know I was the one who changed the template. I wanted to make it so that when editing the template, the whole {{ALeague (CLUB)}} template did not have to be there, just the (CLUB) part, as is the case with Template:A-LeagueDiscipline. That part's all well and good, and isn't affecting the calculations. However, I also thought that the {{#expr: code surely didn't need to be in the editing part either, and I thought I had it under control as the template's documentation works fine. Now that you've pointed it out, I've since discovered that the template documentation has a total figure in the Total column, rather than each attendance added up, as we have in the season articles to make it easier for ourselves when updating them. I'm attempting to fix this now, and if I can't, the code which takes up room in the template will have to stay. --timsdad (talk) 07:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I've put the {{#expr: codes back in, and the attendances are functioning as normal. However, I would still like to figure out how to fix it so they're not needed, and I'm not really a template-whiz, so any help would be appreciated. I just can't understand how the {{#expr: codes will not work in the template but will work when used on this page, if that makes any sense. --timsdad (talk) 07:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Ah, then it must be an operator precedence problem. It is calculating the average as 18000 + 17000 /2, which will be 18000 + (17000/2), where you actually want (18000 + 17000)/2. --Tomwijgers (talk) 07:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
I eliminated that as a possibility with a trial. Melbourne Victory's attendances so far have been:
18885+18603+15168+17644+19587
If we trial the operator precedence problem, it would become:
18885+18603+15168+17644+(19587 / 2), which becomes:
18885+18603+15168+17644+9794, which equals:
80094
If one edits the section and removes the {{#expr: code at the start and the }} at the end of Melbourne's total attendance equation and then previews it, the template displays the average as 74,217, which is not 80,094. Could there be another explanation? --timsdad (talk) 07:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
Whoops, it is an operator precedence problem. I divided the last attedance by 2 instead of 5. Okay then, I'll see if I can do anything about it. Thanks, timsdad (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply
All fixed! All it needed was parentheses around {{{T#Total|0}}}. Thanks again for pointing out the problem. --timsdad (talk) 08:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)Reply

CCM vs Gold Coast attendance

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The HAL scoreboard lists both 7394 and 7943 as the crowd for the CCM vs GCU R7 match. I was at the game, they announced the higher figure at the ground. Dibo T | C 09:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Phoenix v Jets Attendance (R10)

edit
Latest comment: 15 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Fox Sports telecast stated 4,100. The report and summary don't say anything. Wikipedia initally stated 4,100, but is now 4,115 with no explanation. Tomwijgers (talk) 22:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

I can confirm that Fox Sports stated the attendance for that match as 4,100 as my edit following the announcement reflects this. It was then changed by an IP a while later without explanation. I remember this but must have overlooked it. As we have no other sources and the IP's edit was unexplained, I have changed the attendance back to 4,100. Thanks for mentioning this. --timsdad (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

League table or ladder

edit
Latest comment: 14 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Again, I'm going to revive this topic and strongly offer to use normal fb templates which are more flexible and MUCH easier to update. The two options for A-League table I have now are:

1

edit

The use of full {{fb cl header}} template, because A-League teams do qualify to playoffs and to AFC Champions League. The previous season table will appear this way:

Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts Qualification or relegation
1 M Victory (C, O) 21 12 2 7 39 27 +12 38 Qualification for 2010 AFC Champions League Group stage[a]
2 A United (A) 21 11 5 5 31 19 +12 38
3 Q Roar (A) 21 10 6 5 36 25 +11 36 Qualification for Finals series
4 CC Mariners (A) 21 7 7 7 35 32 +3 28
5 Sydney FC 21 7 5 9 33 32 +1 26
6 W Phoenix 21 7 5 9 23 31 −8 26
7 P Glory 21 6 4 11 31 44 −13 22
8 NU Jets 21 4 6 11 21 39 −18 18
Updated to match(es) played on January 25, 2009. Source: A-League
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(A) Advance to a further round; (C) Champions; (O) Play-off winners
Notes:
  1. ^ Adelaide United qualifies to 2010 AFC Champions League as A-League runner-up because Melbourne Victory has won both Premiership and Championship finals series.

2

edit

OR, if you're still against the word 'relegation' in the last column, we might have it this way using fb cl-non header template:

Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts  
1 M Victory (C, O) 21 12 2 7 39 27 +12 38 Qualification for 2010 AFC Champions League Group stage[a]
2 A United (A) 21 11 5 5 31 19 +12 38
3 Q Roar (A) 21 10 6 5 36 25 +11 36 Qualification for Finals series
4 CC Mariners (A) 21 7 7 7 35 32 +3 28
5 Sydney FC 21 7 5 9 33 32 +1 26
6 W Phoenix 21 7 5 9 23 31 −8 26
7 P Glory 21 6 4 11 31 44 −13 22
8 NU Jets 21 4 6 11 21 39 −18 18
Updated to match(es) played on January 25, 2009. Source: A-League
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
(A) Advance to a further round; (C) Champions; (O) Play-off winners
Notes:
  1. ^ Adelaide United qualifies to 2010 AFC Champions League as A-League runner-up because Melbourne Victory has won both Premiership and Championship finals series.

Opinions

edit

Please continue here. —WiJG? 11:34, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Although I don't feel strongly in favour of one over the other, I agree that this template would be much easier to update (although I have gotten quite used to our current ones). I can't say I'm a fan of the right column... Is it really needed? Not that we could remove it anyway unless we wanted to create entirely new templates which would defeat the purpose of switching in the first place. --timsdad (talk) 14:48, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
You mean to leave it just like this:
Pos Team Pld W D L GF GA GD Pts
1 M Victory 21 12 2 7 39 27 +12 38
2 A United 21 11 5 5 31 19 +12 38
3 Q Roar 21 10 6 5 36 25 +11 36
4 CC Mariners 21 7 7 7 35 32 +3 28
5 Sydney FC 21 7 5 9 33 32 +1 26
6 W Phoenix 21 7 5 9 23 31 −8 26
7 P Glory 21 6 4 11 31 44 −13 22
8 NU Jets 21 4 6 11 21 39 −18 18
Updated to match(es) played on January 25, 2009. Source: A-League
Rules for classification: 1) points; 2) goal difference; 3) number of goals scored.
No need to create something entirely new here :) —WiJG? 15:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wow that is handy! I'm also thinking that this template suits the European and South American system and that having the bold letter in brackets next to the teams isn't really necessary. Especially as we display a finals series bracket with the ladder. --timsdad (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
These bold letters may be handy to show, i.e., teams which have secured play-off berth. Not a big deal anyway. —WiJG? 08:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
If the finals series bracket is displayed with the table, there should be no need for the bold letters because of the bracket's very easy-to-understand information. --timsdad (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
And what about color highlighting, let's say, for the play-off zone? —WiJG? 14:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, I prefer that to the bolding but I don't really mind either way. It looks like there's a lot of functionality that comes with switching to this format. Would we still use the template we do now (e.g. Template:A-League 2009-10 Position Ladder) but just replace the content with this? Or do we put this on the main page. I think the first option is better, but can we somehow make the team row highlighting work with this? --timsdad (talk) 14:38, 7 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
I have changed the existing A-League ladder template (Template:A-League 2010-11 Position Ladder) so that it supports highlighting whilest using the easier to update rows like the fb templates. Also, I've used the yellow colour above for the highlighting but you may want to consider using a different colour since Gold Coast, Central Coast and Wellington all use yellow for the highlight rows feature. Change that at {{ALeague highlight colour}}.
Yeah it was a pain to update the old style. It had a lot of failsafes though, but the editors always keep the information accurate so it isn't needed--Squilibob (talk) 08:22, 30 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2013–14 A-League which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)Reply

edit
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on 2009–10 A-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:

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) 16:17, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Move discussion in progress

edit
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2018–19 A-League which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:20, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2009–10_A-League&oldid=1196555252"