Talk:2006–07 Serie A

	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 Italian football task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the season article task force.

"The 2006/2007 Serie A Season, while originally scheduled to start around the end of August 2006 is essentially in limbo due to the 2006 Calciopoli Scandal."

Can anyone explain why the season is "in limbo"? The final sentences are due before the end of the month... 84.229.199.150 09:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The uncertainty at the moment is due to the pending appeals - all 4 penalised clubs have said they will appeal their relegation/points penalty. However, I think it's highly likely that the season will begin as scheduled, regardless of appeals - and probably the appeals will be quashed before the season starts. Wantok 08:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The new serie a season will start at September 10. http://www.channel4.com/sport/football_italia/aug1m.html

Results[edit]

I've done up a 20x20 team table for the 06/07 results. I'll try to fill it every week after the games are completed but I'm guessing I can call on the service of other wikipedians if I'm not around etc ?

If I have enough time, I'll try to get around doing the 05/06 results in a similar table. Not promising anything at the moment though.

Niall123 20:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly results[edit]

Just wondering but who is in favour for listing every single match of the season with goalscorers, attendances and the lot.

It's presently being done for both the Premiership and La Liga.

Niall123 17:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly in favour. This is reference information that belongs on Wikipedia IMHO. -- Wantok 02:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm after copying the template for match results being used for the Premier League. Its easy to use and I did a little demonstration for it on the September Results page. I'm also after making up a small new template for it. Niall123 11:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just an aditional idea. As it is setup, at the end of each weeks games, the results table will have the weeks games imputed. Added to this, the monthly detailed results will also be written down, with details including goal scorers, cards etc. I think the best thing to do here, is to link each scoreline on the results table to the relevant weeks results in the detailed results section. This would mean you could look for a game in the results table, find the game, click on the scoreline and move straight to the additional info in the detailed stuff Niall123 21:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just another small addition. I've opened a new page for the number of goals scored by each individual scorer. I've also linked this to the classification table, where by clicking on the teams goal scored figure, you get taken directly to who scored the goals. Niall123 12:52, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two Suggestions[edit]

One - Moving the Standings higher up the page since I think it's the most important part of Serie A 2006-07 page

Two - Having a page dedicated to whole 2006-07 serie A season so we can quickly see who is playing who in upcoming weeks, maybe something like the Serie B calendar that I copied from the Italian wikipedia. It wouldn't replace the month by month pages which are great for details of all the games played.

By the way, I made some minor changes to the Serie A standings, making the columns more uniform etc. but I defer to those who work on this page much more than I do in case they like the previous format better. I love the way the italian football pages in general have improved. Juveboy 01:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree one your first point and moved the standings higher up the page. I see what you're saying on you're second point. If we did it, I just know a number of people will complain that the same data is being presented twice. I've done a little fix on this by giving a dirent link to the next weeks fixtures under the detailed results heading. BTW. Nice work on the table. Does look a lot better now. Niall123 19:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Club Payrolls[edit]

I heard Chelsea F.C. has a club payroll of $USD 200 million. Does anyone know the payroll of the clubs in Serie A this year?138.87.213.23 00:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure. I would imagine that Inter would match that or even be higher considering the squad of players they have. Milan would be next and I would imagine that they would be a bit below Chelsea. Niall123 00:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Condition of League -- Thoughts?[edit]

Hi all. Reuters reports that Serie A is struggling for several reasons. I thought about adding a line mentioning that, and linking to the article: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/soccer/01/23/bc.soccer.study/index.html. Thoughts? Best. --MarkA12 22:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the 104th Serie A league[edit]

This article claims "It is the 104th Serie A league ever held" which is wrong. As clearly explained in the main article about Serie A, the unified nationwide championship bearing the officlal "Serie A" name was started in the 1929-30 season, and thus there have been much less than 104 Serie A leagues (2006-07 should be the 75th, though this should be verified taking into account interruptions during WWII) though you can say there have been 104 Italian championships overall; but the 2 concepts ("Serie A" vs. "Italian championship") are well distinct. 79.0.177.158 (talk) 21:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Table result mistake?[edit]

Table result has many errors inside, the table itself is not even a symmetric one.Anyone can correct that? Cengao 19:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is the table NOT symmetric? Why don't you fix the score errors if there are any? 76.64.12.243 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More table errors[edit]

It reads Inter has one loss, even Inter has yet to lose this season i'm not entirely sure but I'm almost positive it was a win, if anyone else knows different change it whenever u want, thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.26.210.173 (talk) 00:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

They lost at home to Roma. Do you actually think that the many rabid Inter fans would allow that error to exist? :)))) 76.64.12.243 12:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated it. The one version you can find was originally taken from Gazzetta dello Sport website, and processed using regular expressions techniques, everything automatized, with no human intervention. These data should be consistent with the Gazzetta's ones, and therefore correct. --Angelo 02:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Standings[edit]

I still think the final standings/classification should be one of the first things you see on the Serie A page. It should not be buried under mounds of articles and that 2005/2006 team chart like it is here. Juveboy 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top goascorers[edit]

Someone put Kaka as having scored 18 goals this season, this is true but he scored a COMBINED 18 goals from champions league and serie a, i removed his name...i think kaka only scored about 7 goals this season for serie a

Fair use rationale for Image:Serie a 2006-07.gif[edit]

Image:Serie a 2006-07.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2006–07 Serie A. 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) 19:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]