Talk:La Liga

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

Johan Cruyff[edit]

Johan Cruyff won the Ballon d'Or three times, in 1971, 1973 and 1974, and no two times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.27.87 (talk) 00:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Di Stefano goals[edit]

Alfredo Di Stefano made 227 La liga goals, 216 for Real Madrid and 11 for Espanyol. Someone constantly change the total for only 216 in the all-time top scorers.--Mijcofr (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tired[edit]

I have tired to improve this article as has been suggested. I changed the intro and added some history. I think there is still room for further improvements. Some of the info tables are too long and hard on the eyes. I think La Liga de Fútbol Profesional would be a more correct title. However there are some language fascists who object to using Spanish titles. I can't understand why when the article is connected to Spain. Djln--Djln 21:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1) Please WP:AGF, also, it is convention that forgein languages are not used on the english wikipedia, except for nouns, since they are not really expected, but you are welcome to use such a page structure on the spanish wikipedia. Should you want the article moving, it will need to be moved by an admin (cut and paste moves violate GFDL), and all double redirects corrected. Ian13ID:540053 22:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why Spanish and or/other language names cannot be used as titles, especially when they are in common usage by English speakers and particularly when they are better known by these names even to English speakers. There are already numerous articles with Spanish language titles. Why is there an objection to this one. English is my first language but I still think these titles are more accurate. This applies particularly to articles on sports, e.g Copa del Rey, Copa del Rey de Baloncesto, Copa Libertadores, but I'm sure its relevent in other areas as well.Djln--Djln 22:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but they are as I have already mentioned nouns. La Liga is okay, or Spanish football league - however using a spanish name in the english Wikipedia for articles where english is accurate (ie. not a noun) just makes the harder to find and scearch for. Ian13ID:540053 16:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeh i agree, la liga as the title is fine, everyone in english calls it that

Laudrup in 1990s[edit]

I've reinstated the Laudrup mention - there are numerous player mentions throughout the section (and article), then there's place for him too. After being voted 12th best Real Madrid player through 100 years, he certainly made an impact that year. Poulsen 23:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laudrup[edit]

Laudrup was never elected European Footballer of the Year. Removed name from sentence.Djln--Djln 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of football clubs in Spain[edit]

I have transferred table with current La Liga clubs to above article. I think it is better placed there rather on this page. Djln --Djln 20:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Season 06/07[edit]

Anybody know ehen the new season start --Jaysscholar 16:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup needed[edit]

The article is a mess at the moment, and needs cleaning up. The lists of players are completely unnecessary. Having a separate subsection for every paragraph disrupts any notion of flow. The list of winners should be broken out into a separate article like Swedish football champions. Oldelpaso 20:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is one of the top leagues in the world, I believe a list of past and present players is more then appropriate. A list had already developed in paragraph form and it was just becoming longer and longer, at least this way it does not look cluttered. How can you have an article about La Liga without including a list of players and past winners ? However I think an article about La Liga Clubs in Europe might be a good idea and improve the flow. Too many articles have no subheadings at all and this makes them unreadable. At least this way readers can find what they are looking for with ease. Djln--Djln 22:34, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Primera Liga"[edit]

The term Primera Liga is not used in Spain, it is known as Primera División (note the paralelism with lower leagues). IMHO (please, point me to any WP conventions/rules this might break) using the form Primera División instead and adding a note regarding the Primera Liga usage in other countries/languages. --OutlyergggyI completely agree. The opening paragraph is carelessly worded. The comparison is made between La Liga ie the entire Spanish Football League and the Italian Serie A and the English Premier League (sic)when in effect the comparison should either be between La Liga, the Italian Lega Nazionale Professionisti and the English Football League OR between the Spanish Primera Division, the Italian Serie A and the English Premier Division. Admittedly, this failing is common amongst so-called football journalists.212.72.24.106 06:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable former star players[edit]

  • Beckham shouldn't be on the list as he still plays in the league. Maybe instead Figo and Ronaldo should be there? Drogo 21:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Figo and Ronaldo are already mentioned in section for award winners. That is why this list is called Other Notable.... Djln --Djln 14:10, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rules[edit]

Rules of league need to be added, e.g. 3 points for a win, order determined by goals scored/ head to head record. Also disiplinary rules, 5 bookings = 1 game etc. I am not sure of these, so won't edit, but if anyone has a reliable source it would add to the page.

list of la liga transfers for season 2007 2008[edit]

i suggest that we should start working on this article for the new season

Giovanni dos Santos[edit]

Removed from the Notable Current Stars list, I have no idea how he can be regarded as one when he's yet to even make an appearance in La Liga.Mr Cool 17:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mr Cool on this point. Not only that, but Jonathan Dos Santos? He hasn't ever been near the Barcelona first team, so how can he be a notable player? Does anyone believe that I shouldn't now delete those players who have never played in the league? Isaiah 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Top scorer[edit]

Who is current top-scorer in history of La Liga? and, how many goals he score? G.nguyenquang 20:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's Telmo Zarraonaendia, although here in Spain he's just known as "Zarra". He played for Athletic Bilbao and scored 251 goals in 277 matches. He also scored a very famous goal against England at the 1950 World Cup, which qualified Spain for the final group stage and remains the best ever performance of Spain in a World Cup (4th place). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.136.232.49 (talk) 01:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Cruijff[edit]

Why isn't Johan Cruijff listed under Former Star Players. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.112.69.127 (talk) 23:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

La Liga → Primera División de España — This article is about the top division of Spanish football, the "Primera División", erroneously known as "La Liga" in the UK, at least. La Liga refers to the whole league. For example, The Football League covers the whole Football League, and a separate article exists for the Football League Championship. Following a move, La Liga should be an article on the Spanish League system as a whole. — Dancarney (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Erroneous or otherwise, La Liga is the common name for the Primera División. And according to WP:COMMONNAMES, that's what matters most. Your proposed title should redirect here though, as a correct if little-used alternative. Knepflerle (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* You might want to rephrase your sentence, perhaps? "... as THE correct if little-used alternative". I am all for moving the article to "Primera División", but unfortunately, the naming conventions force "La Liga" on us. IMHO, the current title shows the parochial world view of the English-speaking mindset. Ondundozonananandana (talk) 10:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments: Dancarney (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive Balance[edit]

Can anyone tell me how large the financial disparities are? I would like to know how large the payroll differences are between biggest clubs & the league's smallest clubs? Are we talking a 5-1 ratio, 10-1, 20-1, or something else? Kenallen (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging with Primera liga de España[edit]

As far as I can udnerstand both articles cover the same thing, so there should be only one version. I'm no expert on Spanish fotball though, so didn't want to just redirect that one here right away just in case I got it wrong. --Sherool (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move #2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was no consensus. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:56, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


La Liga → Spanish Primera División — Relisted. @harej 04:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"La Liga" is a misnomer. It should actually refer to the Liga de Fútbol Profesional, of which this league is part of. At the same time, the moniker "Primera División" can refer to a number of leagues around the world, and neither one holds a clear dominant use of the Primera División name (unlike the Serie A or the Premier League). So, as per a discussion and consensus at WikiProject Football, the format "demonym Primera División" has been chosen as the best naming format for all Primera Divisións. --Digirami (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose - We do not invent English usage, especially when the result is a little-used Spanish-English hybrid. This is a fundamental tenet of WP:NAME resulting from WP:V. Naming of these articles should not be based on the happenstance of the dominant language of the country involved, but on usage in English-language media - even if it is less uniform. The current name might be a slightly unusual anomaly in English usage, but it is the common usage. Knepflerle (talk) 15:48, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In all the above examples, Primera Division, with the accent, is the most widely accepted name for each league. The English demonym was the best way to disambiguate them without having to the use a disambiguation in parenthesis. Additionally, English media usage is inconsistent at best when it comes to the Spanish one. ESPN, for example, uses both La Liga and Spanish Primera Division to name this league. La Liga comes from the commercial name of the league, which goes against our naming conventions for football leagues. Digirami (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Primera Division, with the accent, is the most widely accepted name for each league" - you have no proof for this.
  • They are already named "Primera Division" (accented) in some way. This vote/discussion brings them to similar naming styles (one widely agreed upon, or at least not objected to, in the WikiProject). Digirami (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "La Liga comes from the commercial name of the league, which goes against our naming conventions for football leagues" - just wrong, no such convention exists. See Veikkausliiga and Gambrinus Liga, amongst others. Knepflerle (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know the reason for those two, but there we don't have articles with the title "Barclays Premier League", "Serie A TIM", "Liga BBVA", "Liga Sagres", or "Clydesdale Bank Premier League" for a reason. I'm sure other would open a discussion to find a non-commercial name for those other leagues.
  • I wonder what ESPN, by far one of the most notable and largest sporting media sources, calls this league in English and Spanish...? Even when a media outlet like that does show the "La Liga" name, it contains information that covers both the Primera and Segunda Divisions. Digirami (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I don't know the reason for those two..." - it doesn't matter. There is no convention or uniformity, despite you claiming incorrectly that there is. It would be useful for future reference if you could strike through this misleading and incorrect claim of yours, as it is incredibly tiring hearing it repeated over various pages without any actual base in fact whatsoever.
  • It matters because we try to keep the names constant. With the ever-changing nature of corporate sponsorship, using the non-commerical name provides a greater of stability for the name of the league. Digirami (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are merely your arguments, but they have not been accepted as consensus. There is no consensus and there is no uniformity. Knepflerle (talk) 11:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I wonder what ESPN, by far one of the most notable and largest sporting media sources, calls this league in Spanish" - completely and utterly irrelevant. It's got nothing to do with usage in English - one does not follow the other closely enough to draw any meaningful conclusion. Knepflerle (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrelevant? Is that why you cited ESPN below? Digirami (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read my comments carefully. I said it is irrelevant what ESPN calls the competition in Spanish, which you were trying to claim was relevant to English. Knepflerle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But I said English and Spanish, so don't misquote me either. Digirami (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quoted the bit that was irrelevant correctly. Knepflerle (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When you omit words from my original statement, that is misquoting. Digirami (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well I did accidentally miss out the ellipsis: so ok then "I wonder what ESPN, by far one of the most notable and largest sporting media sources, calls this league ... in Spanish" is irrelevant. Knepflerle (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving all the articles to the proposed names, including the Spanish Primera División, as all those leagues are commonly known as just Primera División. The Segunda División and Tercera División of Spain should also be moved to Spanish Segunda División and Spanish Tercera División. Primera División should be a disambiguation page. --Carioca (talk) 20:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "are commonly known as just Primera División." - prove it. This one certainly isn't. Knepflerle (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is true. Unless you need to distinguish one from another, or to denote which country it comes from, they are known as "Primera Division". An Argentine in Argentina is going to call his national league "Primera Division", but call it "Argentine Primera Division" to distinguish it from the Uruguayan or Spainish equivalent.
  • In much the same vein that you can't prove that when media outlets use "La Liga", they are actually refering to the entire league (1st and 2nd division). Digirami (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is true." - I didn't ask for you to repeat yourself, I asked for some proof. In the case of the Spanish league it isn't true, so you'll be hard pressed. Knepflerle (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I provided proof earlier via ESPN. I'll do that again, more: Yahoo! Sports, ESPN, SkySports (and these are media outlets cover a larger market and they actually matter in sports media; most of what you cited a very passive reporters of Spanish soccer and are therefore more likely to use an inaccurate name for the league). Digirami (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your comment doesn't make sense. I showed use of La Liga in all of your examples above - Sky Sports, Yahoo! and ESPN and others. But of course, they are "passive" if I quote them... Knepflerle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I say they are passive because they are not dedicated to sports enough, leading to the probability that they might might have it wrong... Which after a search has happened. RTE, for example, used "Primera Liga" to name this league. That's wrong. Which goes to show that there are stronger sources than other. ESPN, SkySports, Yahoo Sports are very reliable strong sources compared to, say, the NY Post (really?). And the three main sport sources use Primera Division (even in live broadcasts as ESPN did last night on Sportscenter). Digirami (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that "La Liga" is an very inaccurate name of this league. Article titles have to be precise. Since "La Liga" also refers to the LFP (much more accurately, too), having it for the title for just the Primera Division is wrong and goes against a basic tenet of the naming conventions. "Spanish Primera Division" is more precise and accurate, therefore it is a better title. Digirami (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's accurate enough for practically every publishing outlet in the English-speaking world to use, and accurate enough for the English-speaking world to understand them - so enough with the linguistic prescriptivism and foisting on English speakers your "improvements" when they have a perfectly good term already. La Liga is accurate and precise enough for most English users to use every day outside Wikipedia, and so it is good enough to use here. Knepflerle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every (unless you want to keep basically ignoring everyone else's sources). And if you search in any of your sources for "Spanish Primera Division" or "Spanish First Division", you will find articles supporting any one of those. Here are some for Primera Division: RTE, The Guardian, The Daily Mail. And then how some of your sources simply don't get it right, like by using Primera Liga: NY Post. The point or sources matter. The stronger sources (ESPN, SkySports, Yahoo! Sports) use Primera Division more than consistent, correctly, and more often than La Liga. In addition, since "La Liga" can also refer to the LFP, it is an ambiguous title and needs to be changed to something more on the spot. Spanish Primera Division is on the spot. Digirami (talk) 19:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "unless you want to keep basically ignoring everyone else's sources" - I've shown use of La Liga in every single news source you've quoted and in others, and you claim I'm ignoring sources? Bizarre.
  • Yes, because you act as if your sources are the definitive prove, ignoring the fact that I have proved that ESPN, SkySports, and Yahoo! Sports uses primarily use "Primera Division" and that the others are not consistent when it comes to using the appropriate name for the league. This brings to question the reliablity and/or strength of supporting sources. ESPN, Sky Sports, and Yahoo! Sports are far stronger sources than pretty much anything else, and as I said before, they use "Primera Division". Digirami (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "ESPN, Sky Sports, and Yahoo! Sports are far stronger sources than pretty much anything else, and as I said before, they use "Primera Division"" - and as you repeatedly forget to mention, they also use La Liga, as I demonstrated. Knepflerle (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, ignore the fact that I had said "Primary" in the previous sentence (that's a big keyword). Arguing that ESPN uses also "La Liga" is the same as arguing that since ESPN also uses "Premiership" and "English Premier League", the Premier League article be titled that. Nope. Digirami (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You showed no so such "primacy" - just that they Primera Division, a fact I never disputed. What I disputed was your reluctance to even acknowledge that the very same sources are also completely happy to use La Liga. Knepflerle (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, because if La Liga was the primary, that term would be at the top of every table. But it is not. Therefore, it is not their primary name for the league. Digirami (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is really stretching things - "this is written at the top of the table so it must be better thank anything in the article text!" Knepflerle (talk) 11:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But one word in a random article is enough, but not a league table (or other tables) people are going to check one a regular basis. Now that is really stretching it. Digirami (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "since "La Liga" can also refer to the LFP" - for the umpteenth time, are any of you ever going to find a source for that, or do you genuinely believe repeating this will make it true? There's ten sources showing this is not true in English, and none to back it up. Knepflerle (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you don't think that a lot of people might not mistake "La Liga" for the LFP, especially since the first word is "Liga"? Digirami (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the writers or expected audience of the ten sources above were expected to make this "mistake", no. You're assuming a possible mistake fluent readers of English don't make. Knepflerle (talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sky Sports uses Primera Division. The thing still is, La Liga is the equivalent of "The Football League", if we goo back 20 years, we could say "Leeds won the Football League" and "They play in the Football League", but it didn't only cover the first division chandler 09:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "La Liga is the equivalent of "The Football League"" - in English it is not, and the proof is above. In every example above it refers to the top division and only the top division. Please read them carefully. Knepflerle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But according to the regulations on the LFP website, La Liga is not only the top division. --MicroX (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English language usage of the phrase is neither dictated nor directed by the LFP website, as the sources show. Knepflerle (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "La Liga" isn't exactly English either. --MicroX (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""La Liga" isn't exactly English either" - nonsense. What language are the sources above written in if not English? La Liga is what English speakers writing in English call the league. English is as English speakers do. Knepflerle (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am an English speaker too, but just because I may introduce new words into the English language does not mean they are English.--MicroX (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But when most media outlets use the term, as shown above, it's a little different. Knepflerle (talk) 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well sometimes the media use short, pretty words for their stuff, like La Liga which technically isn't the name of the Primera División of the LFP. --MicroX (talk) 00:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We use the names of things that our readers are likely to come across in references and the media, be they "short and pretty" or otherwise. That is the thrust of WP:NAME and its preference for common names. The proposed Spanish-English hybrid is not a name our readers are likely to have seen anywhere in the past, or are likely to find anywhere else in their future research. Knepflerle (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to WP:NAME, it should be Recognizable (La Liga), Easy to Find (La Liga), Precise (Primera Division), Concise (could be either), and Consistent (Primera Division). I propose Primera División of Spain. --MicroX (talk) 03:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All should be moved including Spain's. --MicroX (talk) 03:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a rationale, and this is not a vote. Knepflerle (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course it is a vote. How else is are we, or perhaps an admin, supposed to know if someone supports or opposes this. Digirami (talk) 23:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This voting is a formality for the consensus already reached in the Wiki:Project's talk page. Digirami (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY again - you still haven't got it yet. Votes don't matter, arguments and evidence do. Also take a look at WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY - we don't go through votes to "formalise" consensus. It doesn't matter if WT:FOOTY claim La Liga means something in English it does not, and it doesn't matter how many people come from WT:FOOTY and vote that it means something in English it does not - the evidence clearly shows you're wrong, and it's the truth which matters. Knepflerle (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "La Liga" isn't exactly English either. The Spanish top-flight football league is officially the Primera División, and that is the truth. It is erroneously called La Liga by some but Primera División is its official name.--MicroX (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""La Liga" isn't exactly English either" - nonsense. What language are the sources above written in if not English? La Liga is what English speakers writing in English call the league. English is as English speakers do.
  • "It is erroneously called La Liga" - that is merely your opinion, but we are not here for linguistic prescriptivism. We record what English speakers use, and they use La Liga, not the cross-language hybrid suggested in the move request. Knepflerle (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's painfully obvious that the top division in Spain is called Primera División. Not only does it mean "First Division" but just go look at articles like es:Primera División de España or es:Ligas de fútbol de España (or just look at the logo). Try stop using sources who obviously aren't aware of the situation. Another reason to have it on it's rightful name (instead of the wrong name that's come into usage): Should ALL other leagues be moved to "[Country] league", "[Country] football league" or "[Country] first division of football". Just taking the Eredivisie as example. You can probably find multiple sources calling it "the Dutch first division" or "the Dutch league", doesn't mean it's name we should use. chandler 17:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Try stop using sources who obviously aren't aware of the situation." - I quoted UEFA, Sky Sports and ESPN - they don't know what the situation is? Hilarious. Knepflerle (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I notice that you're still citing Spanish wikipedia articles as sources for English usage(!), and asking us to take their word over evidence of actual English language usage. That just shows how wide of the mark you are. Knepflerle (talk) 20:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're playing on your team alone, the Spanish use is pretty obviously the correct usage. Usage in UEFA multiple times FIFA, Sky Sports, ESPN (clearly distinguishing Primera and Segunda in the league tables). The Spanish wiki is very good seeing as its from the language the league is native in, and again. Do you want all UEFA leagues who obviously aren't on "English common usage" names, seeing as they don't lie on "Russian First division" or "Austrian league"? "La Liga" comes from "La Liga Nacional de Fútbol Profesional", which includes both the Primera and the Segunda. This is blatantly obvious chandler 22:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The English language sources I provide tell you how the term is used in English. The Spanish wikipedia links you provide tell you how the term is used in Spanish. That is blatantly obvious. Knepflerle (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He just provided English sources to support how they are used in English. How do you not see that? Digirami (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and he also provided Spanish wikipedia sources which are irrelevant to English-language usage. Your constant misreading of my comments is incredibly tiring, Digirami. Knepflerle (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your constant selective misrepresentation of other's statements is decreasing your ability to make credible (counter)arguments. Chandler provided excellent English sources in support of Primera Division. But then you say "The English language sources I provide tell you how the term is used in English", which shows that you either ignored his sources, or insinuated that his English sources do not provide proof that the term "Primera Division" in is English usage. Digirami (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are relevant to knowing what the actual name of the league is (File:Liga BBVA.png). You can't wiggle out of this fact and I don't see you requesting moves for all other leagues who lie on their correct names, seeing as they aren't the most common in English usages. chandler 09:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't tell you what the league is commonly called in English though, which is the issue at hand - especially when it can be explicitly demonstrated that English use of the term (for the top division) is not the same as that given in the Spanish wikipedia. Official names in one language don't necessarily become common use in another, and it certainly hasn't in this case - so appealing to official use in a second language is secondary to checking what English speakers call it every day.
  • As for other articles - one thing at a time! I have limited editing, an excessive amount of which I have squandered on this discussion already. Knepflerle (talk) 09:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing you have been able to prove is that "La Liga" is used in English, but not the common usage. Digirami (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "shows that you either ignored his sources, or insinuated that his English sources do not provide proof" utter rubbish that will convince nobody. The comment about my English sources says something about my English sources, the comment about chandler's Spanish sources says something about his Spanish sources. Drawing anything further is your own personal misinterpretation, as anyone reading this discussion will see. You'll get nowhere commenting on what you (incorrectly) think I mean, rather than on what I actually say. Knepflerle (talk) 11:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no misinterpretation. You completely ignored his English sources by comparing your English sources with his Spanish sources as if chandler never provided valid English sources (which he did). That, or he bested you with his English sources and you have no counterpoint to that (or most of mine for that matter), so you choose to ignore it. Digirami (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Maybe we can rename the article to its official name Primera División and La Liga redirects to Primera División instead of the LFP. --MicroX (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't the official name be "Primera Division de la Liga Nacional de Futbol Profesional"? Digirami (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment - Another problem because of the incorrect usage of the name of this league is that every season article for the Primera now has La Liga in the title. I highly doubt this league was referred, or even remotely named, "La Liga" in 1929. But it's there, wrong for the whole world to see. Digirami (talk) 10:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we look through the edit history of the this article we can see it started out as the article for the whole Spanish football league system [11], but seems to have gone away and only focused on the first division of the LFP. chandler 11:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The change took place in late(?) 2006 according to the history. Digirami (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final comment - Moving it to Primera División of Spain.--MicroX (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bad idea. While you had no opposition, you also had no support (which would have been very useful for this league). Digirami (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So if Knepflerle doesn't approve, it stays as La Liga? --MicroX (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not necessarily - but it's the arguments and evidence which matter. Once you've stripped out the arguments based on prescriptivism (rather than recording actual usage), arguments based on the ambiguity of the term in the Spanish language use of the term (which demonstrably isn't true of the English-language usage of the term), and a small amount of complete bunkum that does not deserve the title of "argument" we're left with the following: use Primera División alone (which is seen in English, but is far too ambiguous), use Spanish Primera División or Primera División of Spain (unambiguous but rarely-used hybrids barely ever seen in English), or use La Liga (a recognisable term with verified widespread use in English).
  • The best alternative in the style of the second options is Primera División (Spain) - i.e. with the country-name as a proper Wikipedia-style disambiguator. Using a proper disambiguator makes it clear this is not a part of the normal English-language name for the subject of the article, but is used here for convenience. But en.wp very rarely picks a title which needs disambiguation when there is a commonly-used one which doesn't - and it's hard to see the pressing need to do so here. Knepflerle (talk) 14:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone favor the approach (with the (Country)) with the Latin American Primera Divisions?--MicroX (talk) 01:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Footy talk page, someone brought up that in the guidelines, disambiguating using parenthesis should be discourage when possible (I think it was point #3 of WP:NCDAB, but the wording of that point is odd). I believe that is why we choose Spanish Primera Division over Primera Division (Spain). I also think the parenthesis option will look a bit odd when it comes to the season articles.
  • If we can find a way to dismbiguate without parenthesis, I'm for it. Digirami (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"disambiguating using parenthesis should be discourage when possible (I think it was point #3 of WP:NCDAB, but the wording of that point is odd)" - that's a clear misreading and misunderstanding of that point.
All WP:NCDAB is saying is that when a disambiguating word is used in parentheses, then it should not be an adjective. It does not say that parenthetical disambiguation should be avoided - this is quite obvious from points 1 and 2. There would be nothing wrong with using the country's name (a proper noun) as a disambiguator.
However, point 1 says "When there is another term... that is equally clear and unambiguous, that should be used.", and I still contend that La Liga meets that requirement. Knepflerle (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that people have been arguing that La Liga is an ambiguous term since it can refer to the whole league (1ra and 2da divisiones). Spanish Primera Division is a clear, precise, and unambiguous. Digirami (talk) 01:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It might be ambiguous in Spanish, but it's not in English. I have pointed this out numerous times, and is demonstrated by the links I gave. This is a non-argument. Knepflerle (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you think about it, all you have found is that no prove exists on the internet.
Anyways, Spanish Primera Division is still a more precise and accurate title and is closer to the title we are trying to disambiguate it from: Primera Division. Digirami (talk) 03:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I showed that the extrapolation from Spanish to English was wrong. In every instance, the term in English referred to the top division alone. Saying this is either ambiguous or inconclusive is wrong. Knepflerle (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm for of Country format because it won't look odd in the season articles. Best way to disambiguate without parenthesis as it will fit in prose. Unless we mimic the national football team articles, Mexico Primera Division. --MicroX (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point designing a name "to fit in with prose" when it's a name practically no-one uses in English. Either use a common English term which fits into prose, like La Liga, or use link piping. Knepflerle (talk) 09:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring to the Latin American Primera Divisions seeing as your arguments for keeping La Liga are fair enough. --MicroX (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy with La Liga staying here, and the Latin American leagues going to Primera División (country) titles. Knepflerle (talk) 02:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But no one speaks that way in English. "de Country" is common in Spanish, but its direct translation in English is not. In English, we rarely, if ever, say "Serie A of Italy", "Premier League of England", or "Bundesliga of Germany", but rather "Italian Serie A", or "English Premier League", or "German Bundesliga". The most common way of disambiguating in speech and text in cases like this is using a denomic (spelling) adjective. Digirami (talk) 08:43, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mobile devices[edit]

I have been using a mobile device to access this page and I noticed that I couldn't scroll down the year by year section on the mobile device. I am sure several people access this site through mobile devices and it would be inconvenient for them not to be able to read information they are looking for. I have removed it. --MicroX (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kindly adjust top goalscorer[edit]

Unfortunately i dont have the time at this moment, but when looking at the all time topscorers, Telmo Zarra is missing. The man with the most league goals, who has a trophy named after him, has been omitted from the list... Could anyone adjust this? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.144.111 (talk) 10:58, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reformat table[edit]

Hi All, I have reformatted the table to fit to standard page width, to do this I have,1. removed the column Best as I do not see it serving any purpose, 2. expanded the tool tips to be a little more specific and 3. shortened the column notations. I have saved this on my User:The Original Filfi/sandbox3 for your perusal and hopefully approval.
kind regards
The Original Filfi (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Transfers[edit]

I'm sure Bale's transfer price has been discussed to death already. Whatever the actual price was, the current reference does not support what this article says. Specifically, this page claims that, ""The most expensive transfer in the world was Gareth Bale who was bought by Real Madrid C.F. in 2013 for £85.3 million (€ 103.4 million / $140 million) from Tottenham Hotspur F.C." The reference is this one: http://www.fifa.com/world-match-centre/news/newsid/219/598/0/index.html. But, that page says very clearly that Cristiano Ronaldo's transfer tag is higher than Bale's. --JonCatalán(Talk) 16:46, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bold edit to "All time top scorers" section[edit]

Hello,

I just made a bold edit to the All time top scorers section. The inclusion of two additional players in a list clearly marked as "top 20" was not just illogical, but also set a bad precedent. I have removed the two players added to the end of that list, for the sake of making inclusions non-arbitrary.

Cheers, Soni (talk) (Previously TheOriginalSoni) 15:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All time rank[edit]

IN the all time ranking table Espanyol should be painted yellow not green, as its best result is fourth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.242.143.129 (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 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) 01:36, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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) 21:19, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with points system rule[edit]

I think I have found a difference between article La_Liga and 2017–18_La_Liga regarding the points rule. It seems like the equal points rules don't match in these articles. I believe the statment "c) head-to-head goals scored" is not correct. Where is the rule "4) Goal difference" (I also believe this is stated in the "Articulo 201.3.C"). Hope I got it right... my spanish is not really top notch...

Any comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.254.184.93 (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:07, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Losing Seasons[edit]

I think it would be great to add "Losing Season" column. That would be number of seasons in which a club had more loses than wins (so 10-10-10 for example would not be a losing season; because of draw seasons it's better to have losing seasons than winning seasons). That would show how consistent a club is. There are clubs that have peeks and lows and there a clubs that are average. So maybe they have 0 titles and equal number of wins but differ in consistency. Setenzatsu.2 (talk) 20:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction[edit]

"From the 1990s onward, Barcelona have dominated La Liga" I disagree with this line. Between 1999 and 2005 Barca went 5 years with no titles at all and in recent seasons Barca, Real and Athletico have all been pretty close.2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:1124:8F0A:D9DE:8DE5 (talk) 22:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European qualification[edit]

European qualification need to be updated. There is no mention of the qualification to Europa Conference League . Also the section should mention what happens if the team that won the cup is already qualified to a European competition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medelalami (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

La Liga is 7th richest leauge in their world.[edit]

Indian Premier League (IPL) of India is number two rich league. The last paragraph's last line should mention IPL. Ref-[12] Rock Stone Gold Castle (talk) 14:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

26 or 27 for Barca[edit]

The article says in different places that Barcelaona have 27 and 26 Primeras. It can't be both can, it? I believe it is 26 from other sources. Could it be clarified. Maybe I have missed something obvious. 148.252.129.19 (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"LaLiga" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect LaLiga has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 5 § LaLiga until a consensus is reached. DatGuyTalkContribs 08:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:La_Liga&oldid=1213480119"