Talk:2011–12 La Liga

	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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Spanish football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

Spain Low‑importance

	Spain portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.SpainWikipedia:WikiProject SpainTemplate:WikiProject SpainSpain articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Promoted teams edit

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Did Real Betis and Rayo Valecano confirm promotion yet?--88.170.207.94 (talk) 16:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

No, they didn't; please see also 2010–11 Segunda División. However, both teams will of course be added as soon as they are mathematically guaranteed of promotion. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:27, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Real Betis edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is it called Betis not Real Betis? I know that many teams have "Real" before their names such as Mallorca, Zarragoza and others but Betis is known by Real Betis, isn't it? --mo-- (^Talk | _#info | ) 10:45, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

In Spain is also known as Betis Akai Goth (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)Reply

Strike and delayed start to season edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Should a section be added regarding the player strike and the delayed opening of the season? -Gordeenko (talk) 08:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

If there is enough material which could be used to write a full prose paragraph or two, sure, go ahead. If included, the section should be titled "Season events" and be inserted between the "Teams" and "League table" sections, similar to the 2011–12 Liga I or 2011–12 Russian Premier League articles. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 08:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Positions by round edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The round 1 is going to be played when the 20, and this one between the 36th and 37th. For this section, are you going to respect the number of the rounds or would it be better to change the number rounds to make a table with chronological order?

Gonzaka (talk) 11:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Whatever the source attached to the table uses should be applied here, along with a written note. But that being said: You have just identified one of the main arguments why these tables should not be used in articles at all, as they are not capable of dealing with any postponements of matches whatsoever. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)Reply

Attendance edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The attendance is COMPLETELY wrong : for Barcelona - Villa Real the attendance was 75.000 and not 95.000 and even the average attendance of the Liga isn't 31.000 but 28.000 or 29.000 !!!!! 151.75.65.179 (talk) 18:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)Reply

Tiebreakers edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

How come Athletic Bilbao and Espanyol are seperated in the table by head to head whilst Betis and Villarreal for example are not, (Villarreal lead the h-t-h between those two, yet Betis are below them)? (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Positions by round edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Since the Clasico is not played yet, we should not put the positions by round basing on what "might" happen then. As of present., only 6 games are required for league leaders to clinch the title. We do not speculate the future and put the results influencing the games not related. If anyone disagrees, please point it out here and not reverting the article.HasperHunter (talk) 20:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC) Please explain any changes here.HasperHunter (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Brief La Liga explanation edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Greetings. I just want to briefly explain to you why the "positions by round" is as it is. I understand that non-Spanish editors find the rules slightly confusing as it is the only league that I know of that uses the "head-to-head" rule. First of all, the head-to-head rule is only used if both teams have played each other twice (There is no away goals rule here. If a team won 1-0 and then lost 2-1, we need to go to the goal difference for both teams. Mallorca and Real Sociedad have played each other twice but they both won their home match by 1 goal (1-0 and 2-1), therefore if these two teams have the same amount of points, we need to look at their overall goal-difference. Real Madrid and Barcelona are both 6 points away from each other. They have not played each other twice yet. If Real Madrid loses next week and Barcelona wins, Real Madrid would still be 1st by a 3 point difference. However, if Real Madrid loses the week after that too and Barcelona win again, they will draw as far as points is concerned. If this happens, we would need to go to their overall goal difference because both teams would not have played each other twice yet. If Barcelona's goal difference is higher than Real Madrid's goal difference, Barcelona could go in 1st position in two weeks. Therefore, we only know for sure that Real Madrid will be 1st next week and that Barcelona will be 2nd next week.

I just want editors to answer this question. Imagine that the following results happen in the next two weeks:

Real Madrid 0-2 Valencia
Zaragoza 0-4 Barcelona

Atl. Madrid 2-0 Real Madrid
Barcelona 3-0 Getafe

Who would go in first position in two weeks if these results occur? Exactly, Barcelona. Therefore we only know that Real Madrid will be first next week. I've been editing La Liga articles for 5 seasons now. Active editors will know :) If you have any doubts now or in the future, please do not hesitate in contacting me in my talk page. I hope this brief explanation helped all of you. Thank you and keep up the good work! ;) Qampunen (talk) 09:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Your predictions are as naive as one would come from a barcelona fan. I would say the reverse of these scores and say "barca players humiliated, they give guard of honor to madrid twice in 4 players"... these are too much of future speculations. wikipedia is not about future speculations. we judge on the present. and i already know how much you know. predicting 2 st losses for madrid and 2 st wins for barcelona proves that you are an avid barcelona fan, nothing else! HasperHunter (talk) 12:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

HasperHunter, don't get personal here. Aside from that, while it is highly unlikely that Real Madrid will lose their next two matches, it is not completely impossible either. As Wikipedia should not try to predict any scores, it can only be said that RM will stay in first place for at least one more week, not two; this is verified by using a combination of maths and the rules of the competition. I have thus reverted your edits.--Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 12:25, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok. I'll ask one last question. Is it 100% sure that Real Madrid is going to be in first position on two weeks time? It's not. Therefore we can not say that Real Madrid will be first in two weeks time. It does not mean that I'm a Barça fan. If you really want to know I'm an avid Málaga CF fan ;) Qampunen (talk) 13:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, I will ask you a question. Is it 100% sure that Real Madrid is not going to be in 1st position in two weeks time? Is it 100% sure Barca will win all games and Madrid will lose two? Your points are no more than you own point of view. You are speculating too much future.Please explain your points above where I started the talk. i will not respond here anymore.HasperHunter (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The only person who is speculating here is you. The only reason Real Madrid should not be put in first position in two weeks is that it is not 100% sure that this is going to happen. The only thing that is 100% sure is that they are going to be first next week. That's why we do it. There is no speculation here whatsoever :) Qampunen (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Bilbao Europa league edit

Latest comment: 12 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Bilbao has at least place in Europa League group stage as Copa del Rey finalist (as Barcelona is at least 2nd 100% surely). Should it be marked in league table? Kahkonen (talk) 08:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I was thinking in doing so too. However, I think that depending on whether Bilbao wins or not the Copa del Rey, they will play and early or a later round in the Europa League. Is this true? I know that the winner of the Copa del Rey will qualify to the group stage. However, if Athletic Bilbao loses the final, do they also qualify to the group stage? Qampunen (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

They can still finish in CL spot. for the question, if they win the Copa they will enter the GS, if they lose they will enter at least in the third round, if they win the Europa League this season they will enter the GS no matter what the Copa score was.
– HonorTheKing (talk) 09:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

You're right. I didn't event think they could still finish in the Champions League. That's another reason we should not put Ahtletic Bilbao as playing the Europa League just yet. Good job, HonorTheKing. I couldn't explain it better myself! :) Qampunen (talk) 09:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

How about: "Secured EL group stage" or something like that? Or footnote "Secured EL group stage, possibilities to CL group stage or CL play-off round"? Kahkonen (talk) 11:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

I have added a footnote to the table; feel free to change the wording if it is not appropriate enough. :-) --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. Very good. Kahkonen (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

7th placed team to qualify? edit

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I would want to know if the 7th placed team will be qualifed to Europa League if Atletico Madrid finish 5th or 6th. Schnapper (talk) 16:48, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

In short, no. See also 2012–13 UEFA Europa League#TH for details. --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 16:57, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

No, but if Athletic Bilbao wins Copa del Rey and finish 6th, then 7th team will qualify. See: 2012-13 UEFA Europa League#TH ("Title Holder: If Title Holder Atlético Madrid qualifies for...") and #Redistribution rules ("When the domestic cup winners also qualify for the Europa League..."). Kahkonen (talk) 16:59, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks. But if Athletic Bilbao finish 6th, won't the 7th placed team qualify even if they lose the cup (as Barcelona will play in the CL and the 6th place is a qualifying one)? Schnapper (talk) 19:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011–12 La Liga. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 22:12, 3 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

External links modified edit

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on 2011–12 La Liga. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 15:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Add topic