Jump to content

Talk:Serie A

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peximus (talk | contribs) at 11:04, 20 July 2006 (→‎Trivia: Record for most straight wins). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Treviso and Bologna

Please don't remove Bologna and Treviso from the Serie A template,For financial reasons Torino and Messina can't enter the Serie A,and Bologna and Treviso are probably the replacers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.156.71.55 (talk • contribs) July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Trivia: Foreign players of the same nationality for one team in one match

The record for non-Italian players of the same nationality in one match is held by Internazionale. On January 18 2006, Cruz (one goal), Burdisso, J. Zanetti (captain), Verón, Cambiasso, Kily González and Samuel played as starters to complete 7 Argentine footballers for the team that defeated Treviso 0-1.

Reference: Diario Olé (Spanish)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Marianocecowski (talk • contribs) 19 January 2006 (UTC) Forgot to sign! Mariano(t/c) 08:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move Scandal Here

Anyone object? --Nissi Kim 04:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. What exactly are you asking?  SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Serie A scandal article is separate from the Serie A article. Look it up:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serie_A_scandal_of_2006

Have a problem now? And I ment joining the two articles. --Nissi Kim 21:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're making sense. You could add {{mergeto|Serie A}} and {{Mergefrom|Serie A scandal of 2006}} to the respective articles if you desire, but I feel that the articles should stay separate because the scandal article contains much more text than the Serie A article. As an alternative you could link the scandal article from this page, because otherwise people like me wouldn't realise it existed.
 SLUMGUM  yap  stalk  23:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can always get rid//edit some of the moot sentences in the scandal article. Yeah, I just realized this article is very weak, someone should fix this up a bit... --Nissi Kim 23:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That Serie Scandal article should stay completely sepperate. In a few years, this scandal may have no reference to Serie A as a whole and hence should really stay seperate. Niall123 18:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Season 2005-06 has its own article, I do not see why it should go here, not to speak about merging the two articles.--Panairjdde 23:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONGLY disagree. The scandal is likely to be remembered long after the rest of the season is forgotten, especially if one or more top teams get bounced to Serie B or lower. — Dale Arnett 17:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree the serie A article is basically more conceptual and explanatory, expaling how the thing works, and basically listing perfomrances, while this scandal is more of a historical event. Its like merging WWII into war, or world. It just wouldn't work. Philc TECI 14:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with merger. The scandal is about football clubs AC Milan, Fiorentina, Juventus, and Lazio being involved in match fixing. If these clubs are found guilty, they would be demoted to Serie B/C and perhaps will not be allowed to participate in international matches as punishment (ex. UEFA Champions League). Serie A article is about the league (rules, qualification, winners, etc), not the 4 individual clubs who happen to be in Serie A. So really, this is not a Serie A scandal, but a nitty gritty investigation on Italian professional football. Proposal: Move scandal article to 2006 Italian professional football scandal asap. It's more accurate. :) --Noypi380 12:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree with merger and proposal, it's not really more accurate as the only clubs that are accused of being involved in the scandal are in the Serie A, none from Serie B, therefore Serie A scandal is more specific than Italian professional football scandal and also more accurate. Yonatanh 00:39, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Disagree that scandal page should be moved here. Plus, now not only Serie A teams are involved, it has come out that Serie B teams are being investigated. The scope of the scandal is continually widening, and should not be solely merged with Serie A. --Drshabazz 14:53, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly Disagree I want to second the editors who noted that the scope of the investigation is widening and that the main Serie A article is (and should remain) concerned more with the abstractness of the league rather than a passing scandal. Vickser 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth does the text in the intro to this article not mention the scandal? I strongly believe (that whilst they are clearly separate articles) some mention of the scandal should be in the text of the article, rather than just a link at the bottom.--Gavinio 09:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems you are the only one think in this way. I agree you should be bold and "add information" missing, but is the information is there, and a discussion is ongoing, you should not take unilateral steps.--Panairjdde 10:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really a unilateral step? The info isn't there - quite simply, the article is missing something that is of key interest - maybe a header at the top or whatever saying - "for info on the scandal" etc. I'm not the most experienced wikipedian, so sorry if that was out of order - but from a random user's POV, upon finding the Serie A page, the most important issue at the moment (namely the aforementioned scandal) is nowhere near as obvious on that page as it could/should be, don't you agree?--Gavinio 15:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you are interested on news about Serie A, just go to Serie A 2005-06. This is not the first nor the most important "scandal". Furthermore, the trial is just begun, nothing is settled yet.--Panairjdde 15:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"This is not the first nor the most important "scandal"." Hehe, fair enough - speaks volumes about the state of Italian Football at the moment I suppose. Right, I'll leave it there then. I still believe that some mention of an important event that is ongoing should be made in a wider article, but I'm quite happy to give up on this here if you think no current event tags or any mention in the text are appropriate.--Gavinio 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champions 2004/05 and 2005/06

Anyone know who will be awarded the tilte for the last two season after Juve had their revoked? Jimmmmmmmmm 20:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either no one will be awarded the title or they will be given to Inter Milan, the best placed team who were not involved in the scandel. When Torino were stripped of the title many years back that years title was then left vacent so the title could remain vacent for the past 2 seasons again if that was anything to go by. Although I am just speculating there. We'll have to wait and see. Chad XIII 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If Juventus don't win the appeal then the title will be vacant for those two seasons. 84.69.194.80 22:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First championship has been RETIRED, the latter is NOT ASSIGNED. both means that there won't be any winner. If Juventus will win the appeal on this matter, they will be re-assigned to Juve. --necronudist 11:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Juventus FC received both titles (they have bot cups in their see), so why the sentence used two different words to describe the same (according to you) punishment?
Also note, necronudist, that if you revert, you should notice that you left the article in an unconsistent state, with references to a deleted note and 18 title for AC Milan. (And in general, you should avoid being ridiculous by labelling as "pathetic" an edit of yours of "pathetic" quality.)--151.47.76.121 00:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, Juventus did win the titles even though they have had the titles stripped. This really should be made a lot clearer. As it stands there is just a big mysterious void.--Josquius 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mister 151.47.76.121, I'll go to hell for this. =_= however don't try to game the system with me, I'm out of this business, for my fortune. Josquius, so let's assign the famous retired scudetto to Torino. Torino did win that! And all that stuff about the corruption of Allemandi...well...it doesn't really matter...nah? --necronudist 12:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Champions League and UEFA Cup

I am suggesting the page should mention the Champions League and UEFA Cup spaces available to Serie A teams. Ignoring the scandal for a moment, I think the first two teams gain automatic entry to the Champions League, while teams 3 and 4 gain qualification to the 3rd qualifying round of Champions League. Teams 5 and 6 gain automatic entry to the UEFA Cup tournament. I believe the COPPA ITALIA winner gets a UEFA Cup spot too, however, I don't know what happens to that spot if the CUP winner and the CUP runner-up are already qualified for the Champions League (as is the case in 2006 if the penalties announced July 14 are upheld). What if the CUP winner is placed 5th or 6th? Juveboy 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Officially, entries for Champions League are:
  • 1- Inter
  • 2- Roma
  • 3- Chievo
  • 4- Palermo

And for UEFA Cup:

  • 5- Parma
  • 6- Livorno
  • 7- Empoli (or Milan)

Empoli, by now, can't take part to the competition. On Monday we will know if it will. Second judgment of the scandal (if it won't come over 25 july) can change something. 'til then, this is the situation. --necronudist 11:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inter champions?

Have Inter been given the titles for the 2005 and 2006 seasons or has an Inter fan just decided to invade? Chad XIII 17:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read below, you'll know the answer, it's a re-post. however: First championship has been RETIRED, the latter is NOT ASSIGNED. both means that there won't be any winner. --necronudist 18:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why one is "retired" & the other "not assigned"? Which is the difference?--LimWRtacCHsua 22:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A past title can only be retired, a title who's just been assigned is "not assigned". Like "oh all right guys, we were just kidding, you're on candid camera, give us back the title".
edit: it is assumed that a championship isn't finished 'til the begin of the next. Try to imagine if they retired the title in (e.g.) January. It would be "not assigned", not "retired". You can retire something you already assigned. Hope you'll understand. It's a bit complex, in my English :-) --necronudist 22:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the difference by your words, but I am not sure you are right. Once the team is officially recognized as champion (remember the ceremony in Bari, after the Reggina match, in which they received the cup?), the title can be only retired, not "not assigned". Any reference for your interpretation?--LimWRtacCHsua 23:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
=_= omg... my reference is English (Italian) grammar. And judge said the first is retired, the second not assigned. Do it like you want. --necronudist 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to know why having two different words if the effect is the same (according to your version).--151.47.115.171 21:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if 'retired' is the right word in english Juveboy 21:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"vacated" is usually the term used in American English.
=_= Mr. 151.47.115.171: A past title can only be retired (yeah vacated maybe is better) , a title who's just been assigned is "not assigned". like I wrote, look above... no, not the sky. And, I repeat, it's not MY version. --necronudist 11:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dare change the word 'retired' on the article - it may cause another stampede of edits are re-edits, but I do think 'vacated' sounds better. The World Cup trophy was 'retired' in 1970, but Juventus' scudetto was 'stripped', 'revoked' or 'vacated'. Juveboy 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia: Record for most straight wins

Roma is not the only team that reached this record.
Milan did the same on 1989-90 season, as it can be easily verified here: [1]
Milan won 11 matches in a row as follows:

17a GIORNATA 30 dic 1989 Bari - Milan                    0-1     Van Basten
18a GIORNATA 07 gen 1990 Milan - Cesena                  3-0     Donadoni, Tassotti, Van Basten rig.
19a GIORNATA 14 gen 1990 Lazio - Milan                   1-3     Amarildo (LA), Massaro, Fuser, Colombo (MI)
20a GIORNATA 17 gen 1990 Milan - Atalanta                3-1     Caniggia (AT), Van Basten 3 (MI)
21a GIORNATA 21 gen 1990 Udinese - Milan                 0-2     Van Basten 2
22a GIORNATA 28 gen 1990 Milan - Genoa                   1-0     Massaro
23a GIORNATA 04 feb 1990 Fiorentina - Milan*             2-3     Baggio rig., Kubik (FI), Massaro, Van Basten 2 rig. (MI) *played in Perugia
24a GIORNATA 11 feb 1990 Milan - Napoli                  3-0     Massaro, Maldini, Van Basten
25a GIORNATA 18 feb 1990 Milan - Cremonese               2-1     Massaro, Van Basten (MI)
26a GIORNATA 25 feb 1990 Roma - Milan                    0-4     Tempestilli aut., Van Basten 2, Massaro
27a GIORNATA 04 mar 1990 Milan - Ascoli                  2-1     Stroppa, Tassotti (MI)
Please don't remove the entry.

Peximus 11:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Serie_A&oldid=64831346"