Jump to content

Talk:FC Barcelona/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 7

The Catalan flag was included again in the crest in 1949, not 1974

In the sentence "With the end of Franco's dictatorship in 1974 the club changed its official name back to Futbol Club Barcelona and reverted the crest to its original design, again including the Catalan flag.[18][19]" there is a mistake.

The Catalan flag, removed from the crest after the Civil War (the four red bars of the Catalan flag were diminished to only two), was included again in 1949, not in 1974, as it can be seen in the cited source number 18 (http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/club/historia/simbols/escut.html), where it reads: "On occasion of the club’s 50th anniversary in 1949, the four bars returned. The original letters were not recovered until late 1974, when the crest reverted to the original 1910 design. "

Francesc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.97.219.242 (talk) 09:43, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Kit Colours

This is the same kit edit on the '2010–11 FC Barcelona season' page, which is the colours of this seasons kit. all previous kits of FCB and other football kits have kept to the colours and style of the kit, another persons 'basic' edit alters the designs. To keep with consistency this should be kept, but I believe its right to have no sponsor, club crest or kit maker. Welcome your thoughts. XTomScottx (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

If you think that the colour is incorrect then change the base colour, rather than using a specific, non-transparent template which is less generally useful. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Please note that the file you re-introduced has now been changed at wikicommons, and now features the crest and manufacturers' logo. Because of this, I am going to return to the transparent image files I used. Please change the bas colours if they are incorrect. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 15:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering, what are the actual rules of football kits? as almost every team has the same templates rather than transparent files, only Barcelona, Real Madrid and Internazionale's have the club crest, with Inter even having the sponsors. I don't see why Barcelona should be different when every other team has the templates.XTomScottx (talk) 20:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
A good place to look to see what is acceptable is football club articles that have reached featured status - e.g. Everton F.C., Arsenal F.C. and Gillingham F.C. - as this is the closest to a gold standard that Wikipedia has. The images in the infobox are there to show the general colours that the team play in, not fine detail, badges, sponsors logos, etc. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 20:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
If you like FAs, consider giving this article a copy-edit so it can meet the requirements. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 20:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Spanish pronunciation again

Does any Spanish speaker really pronounce Fútbol Club Barcelona as [ˈfuðβol kluβ βarθeˈlona], i.e., more or less as though it were spelt Fúdbol Club Barcelona? I doubt so, and even more that this is considered correct. As far as I know, the normal pronunciation is [ˈfut̪βol kluβ βarθeˈlona] (or [fut̪βol ˈkluβ βarθeˈlona]); those who still find it hard to pronounce a syllable-final /t/ simply drop it: [ˈfuβol kluβ βarθeˈlona], [fuβol ˈkluβ βarθeˈlona]. Actually, these latter speakers are likely to drop the syllable-final /b/, too, so they say [ˈfuβol klu βarθeˈlona] or [fuβol ˈklu βarθeˈlona]. Splibubay (talk) 13:24, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Records Section Update

The records section should be updated to reflect that Barcelona now has the most number of Spanish Supercups (9) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.116.228.57 (talk) 16:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Some comments for FAC

  • ""El Cant del Barça"" is the "El" necessary? Our Wikipedia article doesn't seem to have it.
  • Ref 1 seems to be used in the lead to cite "with fourteen official major trophies, including ten UEFA competitions" but the four non-UEFA "official major" trophies aren't mentioned in that ref.
    • this sentence keeps creeping back in when I'm not watching it.
  • I'm not really sure what "UEFA continental football" means, do you really mean participation in UEFA football competitions?
  • "since the inception of the association in 1954." is this referenced?
    • Those two goes together. What I can tell is that there is a 2006 reference which states that claim, but it counts the Inter-cities fairs cup as well, so I have corrected it to reflect that. I don't believe it's very useful but someone keeps inserting it and I don't have a problem with it.
  • " Later they became the first football team ..." it's only then you link the particular edition of each tournament, not on the first mention (in the previous sentence).
    • Of course. re-worded.
  • Last para in lead has "the club" four times in three sentences.
    • reworded
  • "Campeonato de Cataluña" and "Copa del Rey" both overlinked in "Birth of..." section.
    • delinked
  • Is plural of Copa del Rey actually Copas del Rey?
    • I dont see it
      • No, I'm asking that where you have plural Copa del Rey, shouldn't it really be Copas del Rey? Like the plural of Grand Prix is Grands Prix sort-of-thing? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
        • It is in Spanish but this uses Copa del Reys. HoweverFIFA goes with the Spanish (I just found) so I'll go with the Spanish.
  • "five separate occasions between 1908 and 1925. In total he spent 25 years at the helm" so was he President at other times as well?
  • "For many fans, participating in the club" not sure fans "participating in the club" is a regular English way of talking.
  • Maybe consider linking manager to Manager (association football) to assist non-experts.
    • Done
  • "coincided with the club's transition to professional football, and in 1926 the directors of Barcelona publicly declared their operation a professional football club f" repetitive prose "club", "professional football" in one sentence).
    • Done
  • "who was inspired by the heroic performance " is that "heroic" a quote?
    • Qoutes
  • "the club now entered" not sure you need "now" here.
    • Removed
  • Is "Campionat de Catalunya" the same as "Campeonato de Cataluña"?
    • Same now.
  • "r was a defining moment in the history of FC Barcelona" I'm not convinced it's clear why?
  • "faced a number of restrictions" such as?
  • Las Cortes or Les Cortes? And avoid overlinking it.
  • Francoist and regime both link to Spanish State, no need for this.
    • Delinked.
  • "CF Barcelona " followed a para later by "FC Barcelona"
    • Reworded
  • "team through five different trophies " led them to?
    • to!
  • "Copa del Generalísimo" is overlinked in the Rivera... section.
  • Link Fairs Cup first time round.
    • Linked
  • And explain (or link) what you mean by "double" in this context.
    • Linked
  • " In 1961 they became the first club to beat Real Madrid in European Cup competition. They lost 3–2 to Benfica in the final" merge with a "but" or a "going on to lose...", and consider linking the appropriate year's competition.
    • Butted
  • "emergence of Josep Fusté and Carles Rexach" I think we need some context as to what makes this relevant.
  • "defeating Real Madrid 5–0 at the Bernabéu along the way" referenced?
    • added.
  • Ballon d'Or, not Ballon d'or.
    • yes.
  • Odd that headings don't meet in years, e.g. nothing between 1974 and 1978?
    • Meet now.
  • "The club's 1957 stadium, Camp Nou, was " it wasn't just their 1957 stadium was it? Perhaps that was when they moved there?
    • No, odd. re-worded.
  • stablization vs sympathiser (USEng vs BritEng) - be consistent.
    • britenged.
  • Romario is missing a diacritic.
    • á
  • Diego Maradona is overlinked and, on the second usage, you probably just need his surname.
    • Done
  • "for a then world" I think this needs hyphenation.
    • Hyphen (randomly) inserted.
  • "with stellar displays" is that your opinion?
    • Certainly not in my active vocabulary, scaled down.
  • "by German midfielder Bernd Schuster. The next season he took" I guess the he refers to Venables here, but it's no longer clear.
    • Venables
  • You link Basel but not Seville (locations of cup finals), be consistent one way or the other.
    • delinking
  • Don't overlink Schuster.
    • delinked
  • "Terry Venables was fired " no need to repeat his first name.
    • removed
  • You link some La Liga seasons but not others, any reason?
    • It's hard to have it your own way with this article. Removed all instances apart from sextuple lead part, where it is consistent with the other links.
  • Don't overlink Nunez.
    • delinked
  • Or Copa Del Rey.
    • delinked
  • You overlink Romario, but at least the second one has the diacritic missing from the first one.
    • delinked part 2
  • Cup Winners' Cup or UEFA Cup Winners' Cup? I would certainly expect to see UEFA the first time, not the second.
    • Yes. Done.
  • Maradona is linked three times in the Nunez section.
    • delinked
  • So is Nunez.
    • Delinked
  • van Gaal is overlinked here.
    • delinked

This is enough to be going on with, let me know when you need the rest of the review! The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello all, I'm trying to get FC Barcelona to be a featured topic, which means that FC Barcelona and all related articles must be of the best standard.

Status of articles:

  1. FC Barcelona - featured article
  2. List of FC Barcelona seasons - featured list
  3. List of FC Barcelona players - featured list
  4. List of FC Barcelona presidents - featured list
  5. FC Barcelona in Europe - featured list
  6. List of FC Barcelona records and statistics - featured list
  7. Joan Gamper Trophy - featured list
  8. List of FC Barcelona managers - Will perhaps be without stats.
  9. History of FC Barcelona - Good Article.
  10. Supporters of FC Barcelona - Good article.
  11. La Masia - Good article.
  12. Camp Nou - See the peer review on it and help out.

Last updated: Sandman888 (talk) 22:26, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

most successful team sentence (part 2)

Thanks for changing the records article rapidly, I was wrong, but I still think that the sentence reads poorly. The sentence should eliminate the reference to Real Madrid in entirety then, as Barca have won the most trophies overall, or add this caveat clearly in the text. Could I suggest the sentence "and is the most successful club in Spanish football in terms of overall trophies won," or add "- one ahead of Real Madrid - " to keep the reference to Real in.

Any thoughts? Mwmonk (talk) 20:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I like that sentence. If you feel like changing some more, please go ahead. I'm sorry I didn't reply to the section above, simply missed it. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:51, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The sentence without any reference to Real? I think that is best, but would understand either! Mwmonk (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

sorry, "and is the most successful club in Spanish football in terms of overall trophies won," seems to be the most concise. Sandman888 (talk) Latest FLC 20:55, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

All done! It is a great article overall! Thanks Mwmonk (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Football_records_in_Spain#Most_successful_clubs_overall_.281902_.E2.80.93_present.29, Barcelona is one (national) trophy behind Madrid. Barcelona is noted with a cummulative of 56 (as in this article) and Madrid with 57. While I don't know which statement is correct, this here or the table of Football records in Spain, the incorrect one should be corrected. Ben T/C 11:27, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think somone has miscounted here. from my basic research into the records of domestic and continental wins for both Barcelona and Real Madrid, I have counted as follows; 

                    Barcelona        Real Madrid

La Liga Titles 20 31 Copa Del Rey 25 17 Spanish Super Cup 9 8 League Cup 2 1

Giving a total of 56 57 Domestically, and

Champions League 3 9 'Uefa' Cup 0 2 Euro Super Cup 3 1 I-continental Cup 0 3 Club World Cup 4 0

Giving a total of 10 15 in Europe etc... grand total 66 72

... so correct me if im wrong here, but what possible grounds could you have for the above statement in the article that Barca are more successful, either domestically or otherwise? (before I get slated here, im neither a Barca or Real fan! :P) Just very misleading IMHO...?

Joe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.154.96.146 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


FC Barcelona is not the most successful club in Spain according to its own website:

http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/futbol/palmares/palmares.html

Here is Real Madrid's website to compare trophies:

http://www.realmadrid.com/cs/Satellite/en/First_Team/1193041481370/Palmares/Honours.htm

FC Barcelona have 56 domestic trophies to Real Madrid's 57. The sentence should be changed to reflect the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richievalenz (talk • contribs) 12:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Real Madrid has won more trophies than Barcelona, domestically and globally. Additionally it was designed best club of the world oh 20th century. Therefore it is wrong to state that FC Barcelona is the most succesful Spanish team and this should be corrected.

Capacity

Change the stadium capacity on the right-hand side to 99.354. The current amount in the Article is WRONG. Check the Camp Nou article for confirmation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.212.26.225 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok I will change it Adam4267 (talk) 23:55, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Figo (History section)

The piglet head episode did not happen on Figo's first return to Camp Nou. It happened in season 2002-03 (0-0), Figo's second match at Camp Nou in a R.Madrid shirt. His first visit was in season 2000-01 (2-0). Figo missed R.Madrid's visit to Camp Nou in 2001-02. I'm speaking from my memory, but it is easily verifiable. I can look for the newspaper article.Wislabe (talk) 21:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you do find the article. Thanks for your help! The Rambling Man (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

FAC comments part II

FC Barcelona Official Theme Song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5G82-nVZ54 Soccerfreeman (talk) 12:48, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

  • "to the Camp Nou Figo he was given" no need for Figo here, and would recommend a comma after Nou.
    • Done
  • "The next three years ..." by this point I've lost track of what year we're talking about.
    • re-worded
  • "Louis van Gaal served a second" no need to repeat his first name.
    • removed
  • "home grown " would suggest hyphenating this.
    • done
  • "A pre-season US tour and open feud " what "open feud"? This needs explanation.
    • elaborated
  • "Barça " v "Barca" be consistent.
    • Barça
  • "over Frank Rijkaard's duties" no need to repeat Frank.
    • removed
  • "for the 25th time and setting a new record" maybe just "for a record-breaking 25th time."?
    • okay. done
  • "Three days later a Real Madrid defeat " perhaps "A defeat by Real Madrid three days later..."?
    • okay
  • "beating the defending champions" odd to talk about defending champions before you say what it was they were defending.
    • reworded
  • "their La Liga" strictly isn't it just "the La Liga"? Same for the Supercup?
    • okay sure.
  • I think pope should be Pope.
    • Yes.
  • Don't think you need to relink La Liga in the Clasico section.
    • delinked
  • "From the start the..." start of what? La Liga?
    • national competitions
  • Catalan people is overlinked.
    • delinked
  • "Més que un club" in lead, "Més que un Club" in this section.
    • club
  • Is Montalbán's claim referenced anywhere?
    • it is now.
  • "well-off " just a personal thing I guess, but this is a little too colloquial for me.
    • affluent?
  • Falangists linked here, but I'm sure you used it earlier without linking it.
    • moved link
  • No need to relink Copa del Rey.
    • delinked
  • "achieved a shock 2–1 win" is this "shock" your opinion or is it independently referenced?
    • nope, was clubs claim. removed.
  • "and Liga" -> "and La Liga"?
    • added La
  • "These records could be broken " a bit WP:CRYSTAL - maybe stick the to facts and say that Xavi, a current player, is second in those records.
    • removed. got it from the Chelsea FA
  • Cesár Rodriguez, and Messi are overlinked.
    • delinked
  • Really no need to link sextuple, Camp Nou or Copa del Rey again here.
    • delinked
  • St George's Cross and Catalan flag both overlinked.
    • delinked
  • "claimed it was the idea of Arthur Witty" neater to say "of his father" rather than quickly repeat Arthur Witty.
    • okay.
  • "FC Barcelona Foundation" or just "Barcelona Foundation"?
    • FC
  • Who is Anthony King?
    • an author
  • Why is Present in italics and small font?
    • removed fmt
  • "played on the " should that be "in the"?
    • yes
  • "Two back-to-back La Liga" Don't need "Two" here, back-to-back and the years speak for themselves.
    • done
  • "Other Facilities" - >"Other facilities"
    • certainly
  • " * Spanish Cup: [106]" remove space before ref, check other lines like this below.
    • checked
  • " * Intercontinental Cup:" is not referenced.
    • added
  • "As of 31 August 2010.[114] [115]" remove space between refs.
    • done
  • I think you need to explain 3rd/4th captain as I'm certainly unaware of this concept in other clubs.
    • I don't know what to do here. Two editors are constantly warring whether it should be like this or all be vice-captains.
  • Consistent capitalisation of C/coach needed.
    • cs
  • "of social area" vs "of Sports Area" be consistent with capitalisation.
    • done
  • Don't think you need "List of UEFA club competition winners" in the See also since you use it in the article.
    • nope. gone.
  • Nor do I particularly think "European football records" is directly relevant.
    • gone
  • Ref 4 - I guess you mean March?
    • yes
  • What makes eufo.de reliable?
    • deleted
  • Ref 33 should have a page number.
    • done
  • Ref 40 - The Independent is a work, not a publisher.
  • Ref 54, USA Today is a work.
    • both done

Will do rest of references later. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I think page ranges should be consistently presented, e.g. you have pp. 111–112 (ref 12) vs pp. 201–2 (ref 59)
  • Ref 71 has a period while ref 69 doesn't...
  • Refs 71 & 76 are the same
  • Ref 85 has an ISO date.
  • So does 86.
  • Ref 103 has a spare period.
  • You link UEFA in the refs but not FIFA.
  • Ref 116 is not English, and is "summer number changes" a correct translation of "Bojan lluirà el '9' i Jeffren l11'"? It also is missing a publication date.

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

    • All done. I believe ref 103 now 102 is correctly formatted with an extra period. One for J and one to mark the end of the name. It's the same when a publisher name, per se, ends with a period.Sandman888 (talk) 18:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Can someone include the Copa Eva Duarte trophy? It is missing and it is a official trophy. More precise, the forerunner for the Spanish Super-Cup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Turk33 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

History of motto

If at all possible, can someone add a small history of the phrase "Mes que un club" somewhere in the article? I have seen this youtube video where I believe, via my poor attempts at translation of comments in catalan and castellano, it is purported that Cruyff was the first to use the phrase, or it caught on after he uttered it in this interview? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMDlB_YiX-I It would definitely add another layer of context.74.96.21.46 (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from 183.83.123.39, 19 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

A defeat by Real Madrid three days later ensured that Barcelona were La Liga champions for the 2008–09 season.

Should be replaced with

Defeating Real Madrid three days later ensured that Barcelona were La Liga champions for the 2008–09 season.

183.83.123.39 (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Checking up on it, it was a defeat for Real Madrid from Villareal, not Barcelona, so I changed it appropriately. Trebor (talk) 19:30, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Simonkloeve, 5 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the paragraph Records please change: "Migueli presently holds the team records for number of total games played (548) and La Liga appearances (391)" To "Xavi presently holds the team records for number of total games played as of January 5. 2011" Simonkloeve (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2011 (UTC) Not done: Since that's not what the source says, I'm unclear why the change should be made. And since the source is the official records for FC Barcelona, it seems like that should be the most reliable place for the info. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:06, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Supercups

I don't get why it says, "Barcelona holds the record for most Copa del Rey titles (25) and a joint record with Real Madrid for the most Spanish Supercups with 8 titles." in the Records section. Doesn't Barca hold a record 9 Supercups?

125.239.232.109 (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Attention:

Would some of the regular editors add the Copa Eva Duarte in the domestic honours section as it was the predecessor of the Supercopa de España and is a official trophy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierHernandez101 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request - Support

As per a report by Sport+Markt in 2010, Barcelona is now the most popular club in Spain with significantly higher supporters (57.8 million) than Real Madrid (31.3 million). Also, in Spain, Madrid has 36% support as compared to Barcelona who enjoys 29% support.

Request you to please include these changes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.162.86.164 (talk) 07:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 2.90.224.238, 9 April 2011

please change this line in the introduction ( FC Barcelona is the most successful club in Spanish football in terms of overall trophies ) to ( FC Barcelona is the second most successful club in Spanish football in terms of overall trophies after Real Madrid )

because Real Madrid has more trophies than Barcelona domestically ( 57 > 56 ) and globally ( 72 > 67 )

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Football_records_in_Spain#Most_successful_clubs_overall_.28official_titles.2C_1902_.E2.80.93_present.29

2.90.224.238 (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

from what i can see the request is correct. Monkeymanman (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheaters

This football team is cheating in the competitions. I propose to create a new category for this kind of football teams. --157.88.65.94 (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

What, like Category:Association football teams who cheat? I think that could end up being Wikipedia's most populous category. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Camp Nou capacity

The first source says that the capacity is 99.354. The 92nd says that it's 98,772. The 102nd says that it's 98,787...I would stick with the first one, as it's official FC Barcelona information..--79.115.178.148 (talk) 13:47, 24 April 2011 (UTC) BRAAAAAAAAAAAP!!!! united gnna dome em ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.235.248 (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Wrong information pertaining to the to goal scorer

The top goal scorer of Barcelona is not césar Rodriguez. It is paulino alcántara, who scored 357 goals compared to rodriguez's 235 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki?search=Paulino+Alcantara+ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.120.247.6 (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

New kits

There will be new home and road kits for next season. I'm not particularly good with the kit template so someone else will have to make the changes. --Kevin W./Talk•CFB uniforms/Talk 20:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment

the players list has Iker Cassilas named as the captain and Goalkeeper. this is a mistake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.62.3.113 (talk) 2011-05-25T12:02:22

Yes the goalkeeper is victor valdes and not iker casillas!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.51.67 (talk) 2011-05-26T08:09:27

2010—11 season

It lacks the paragraph for the current season, so I label it as update-needed. TGilmour (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

ATTENTION:

Would some of the regular editors add the Copa Eva Duarte in the domestic honours section as it was the predecessor to the Supercopa de España and is a official trophy?

They have included that trophy on the English speaking Wikipedia article about Real Madrid. The editors need to do the same with FC Barcelonas!

The trophy was included in the article until recently where it disappeared? Why?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 10:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from FcukBsuh, 5 July 2011

You have the wrong Barca B manager listed...Enrique is at Roma, Eusebio Sacristán is the new manager of Barca B

FcukBsuh (talk) 07:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avenue X at Cicero (talk) 16:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Eva Duarte Cup

Eva Duarte Cup inst an official competition--Sporting1905 (talk) 12:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not just a football club

Reading this article, one gets the impression that this is a football team only. But the club includes a number of sports; mostly team sports, but also individual non-ball sports like figure skating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.14.10.204 (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the article needs some attention and made more like the FC Bayern Munich article, in form at least. Since the football club is the most prominent member at Barca as well, the majority of the article should be about the senior men's side, but mention should be made of other sports and other sides or "departments" as that other article mentions. Can anyone take this on? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree fully with Walter Görlitz. FC Barcelona are more than just a football club but a sports club - one of the most successful in the world if not the most. Some of the regular editors should take a closer look at the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the writer completely forgot about the most famous part of barca. Im ofcourse talking about the acting department called FC Uefalona. FC Uefalona has produced lots of succesful actors like Sergio Busquets, Pedro Rodriguez, Dani Alves and many more, you should really mention that in the article since its the only part of barca what has ever won anything — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.80.221 (talk) 11:59, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.113.45.95, 12 August 2011

as of 12 august, cesc fabregas is not a member of fc barcelona, please remove him from the fc barcelona page as he is still a member of arsenal fc 70.113.45.95 (talk) 23:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jcgoble3 (talk) 00:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
The IP user is correct, see the latest news about the transfer (BBC Sport here) and the piece states that the transfer hasn't gone through yet. As the article stands he is (correctly) omitted from the Barcelona squad. doomgaze (talk) 01:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. In that case: Already done [1] jcgoble3 (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 70.113.45.95, 14 August 2011

again, please remove cesc fabregas from this article's current squad list--fans of fc barcelona are anxious to report his impending signing, but as of now he is still an arsenal fc player--the source to check would be the barca website's squad list: http://www.fcbarcelona.com/web/english/futbol/temporada_11-12/plantilla/plantilla.html --as i can't edit the article myself, i hope those users who keep editing the article to reflect a falsehood might lose their editing priveleges...otherwise, what's the point of wikipedia's edit-protection scheme? thanks 70.113.45.95 (talk) 14:18, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Already done by Doomgaze (talk · contribs) [2] jcgoble3 (talk) 16:34, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.8.52.64, 14 August 2011

the change in current squad adding the transfer of cesc fabregas

82.8.52.64 (talk) 22:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. His transfer has not gone through and he is not yet an official Barcelona player, look at the squad list on their official website here. doomgaze (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.8.52.64, 14 August 2011

please edit squad and place cesc fabregas as he has now signed

yes but a deal has been agreed he is a barca player

82.8.52.64 (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done. If you read the latest BBC News story about the transfer here, you will see that they have agreed "in principle" and he is "set to" join. Fabregas also still has to agree personal terms and have his medical etc. doomgaze (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 82.8.52.64, 14 August 2011

yes but a deal has been agreed so he is technically a barca player

82.8.52.64 (talk) 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

 Not done, see the above two posts. doomgaze (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Copa Eva Duarte, Copa de la Liga, Inter-Cities Fairs Cup

For clarification, and to homogenize the criteria surrounding the number of domestic, international and overall titles of Spanish clubs, and in particular of F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid, I would like to point out the following:

1) The Copa Eva Duarte WAS a official competition, as it was organized by the Royal Spanish Football Federation, a member of UEFA (see the Cup's page for references), preceding the current Spanish Super Cup (see the Cup's page for references)

2) The Copa de la Liga WAS also a official competition, as it was also organized, even if briefly, by the Royal Spanish Football Federation, again, a member of UEFA, as an alternative to the more established Copa del Rey (see the Cup's page for references)

3) The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup WAS NOT a official competition, even if it preceded the UEFA Cup and Europa League tournaments, as it was not organized by UEFA, but by private individuals and organizations to promote trade fairs in Europe (see the Cup's page for references)

The above-mentioned are the correct criteria for official tournaments, and they were used (by someone else uknown to me) to update the Football records in Spain wikipedia page. I have used them myself to update both the F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid pages, also including recently awarded trophies.

Also, even if I have used it as reference, since it does claim something which is correct (the overall current equality in domestic and international titles of F.C. Barcelona and Real Madrid), note that Diario Marca's article at http://www.marca.com/2011/08/17/futbol/equipos/barcelona/1313608792.html is nonetheless incorrect in their reasoning to reach that conclusion, since they consider the Inter-Cities Fair Cup as official, and the Copa Eva Duarte as unofficial, therefore mistaking the number of domestic and international titles for each club, even if the aggregate is correct.

MarkamBey (talk) 10:35, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Inter-Cities Fairs Cup

Although UEFA do not recognize the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup currently, they agree that it was the forerunner for the current Europa League.

So here is the dillema; Should we include the trophy on the main page but clearly state that it is not recognized by UEFA as I did in my edit, or should we make a seperate category in the honours section called "major unofficial trophies" and include it there along with the Latin Cup (forerunner for the European Cup/Champions League as other Wikipedia pages have done concerning football clubs?

In the introduction of FC Barcelona the editors have mentioned the trophy as well in other categories on the main page so in my opinion we should include it on the main page as well in the honours section, although clearly state that it is not recognized by UEFA as I have already mentioned.

Apart from that FIFA do recognize it partly as they have mentioned the trophy on their offical pages of football clubs who have won it, as does the official webpage of FC Barcelona. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

In principle I would go with your edit, and mention it stating that it is not officially recognized by UEFA, even if it is mentioned as the predecessor to the UEFA Cup in both UEFA and FIFA documents. That said, if you have time I think it would be even better to go with your suggestion of creating a separate category in the honours section for "major unofficial trophies". I will change the introduction now myself to make it all clearer and consistent with the updated overall trophies page. Thanks for your your help!

MarkamBey (talk) 13:21, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is an OFFICIAL COMPETITION

Inter-Cities Fairs cup IS AN OFFICIAL COMPETITION, but isnt UEFA COMPETITION because it wanst associated to UEFA (1955-1971) and this institution only provides statistical about tournaments organized by it.

For example UEFA not recognize FIFA Club World Cup but it if does with Intercontinental Cup (UEFA+CONMEBOL competition).

NOT TO CONFUSE OFFICIAL COMPETITIONS WITH UEFA COMPETITIONS.

DIARIO MARCA (18 Agoust, three days ago): http://www.marca.com/2011/08/17/futbol/equipos/barcelona/1313608792.html

FCB: 73 official tittles.--Sporting1905 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sporting1905,

Please clarify, what is your definition of official? In our view, this is a tricky issue, and we are trying to abide by objective criteria when classifying competitions into official and unofficial. So far, unless you have a better proposal, the only clear-cut way to classify competitions is whether they are recognized by RFEF if they are domestic, by UEFA if they are European, and by FIFA if they are International. This leaves some gray areas, such as the Latin Cup, but solves most of the problem.

As for the MARCA reference, to be honest, I also used it as a reference, until I realized that they are most likely wrong. I mean, they count the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup as official, even if it was not organized by RFEF or UEFA, but they do not count the Copa Eva Duarte, which from 1947 to 1953 was organized by the RFEF. They do not cite their primary sources or criteria, so I cannot say it for sure, but again, my take is that they are wrong.

MarkamBey (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What is or what is not official does not matter. In my original version I listed every trophy that FCB listed themselves, on their website, and I believe this is the only correct way of doing it. Fair's cup was not organised by UEFA, that does not matter, it was a very, very important trophy for the club. Please, if a trophy is mentioned in the history section it should logically be included in the trophy section. Sandman888 (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Copa Eva Duarte trophy

"Copa Eva Duarte era la competición oficial futbolística española, organizada por la Real Federación Española de Fútbol, que enfrentaba al campeón de la Liga española de fútbol y al campeón de la Copa del Generalísimo en los años 1947 y 1953. La Copa Eva Duarte fue, por tanto, la competición oficial precursora de la actualmente denominada Supercopa de España."

It clearly states that it was organized by RFEF so it was/is a offical trophy. Read the Spanish Wikipedia page about the subject and notice the references used, which clearly states that it was/is a official trophy founded and organized by the RFEF.

The reason why the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is NOT included in the main page under the honours section is that the trophy is not recognized by UEFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

¿UEFA? For example, Latin Cup is unofficial competition? it was organized by spanish, italien and portuguais federations....

Copa Eva Duarte is unofficial competition, yo can search in RFEF website or in other PRIMARY SOURCES (not spanish wikipedia)--Sporting1905 (talk) 19:48, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Sporting 1905,

If we take the definition of official domestic Spanish competition as one organized and recognized by the RFEF, then the Copa Eva Duarte IS official competition as of 1947-1953. If you want references, see the Spanish wikipedia article as Suitcivil133 suggests (you are right that itself is only a secondary source, but it does contain primary sources for the above-mentioned statement, such as references 2-4).

As for the Latin Cup, it is a grayer area. It would not fall under the above criteria since it is not a purely domestic competition, nor under European or International, because it was not recognized by UEFA or FIFA, even if it was by the RFEF and their Portuguese and Italian counterparts. I myself don't have a clear opinion on this, but if I had to take a decision, I would keep Latin Cup in the "unofficial" or at least "other" trophies section, since it is not domestic nor purely European or international. However, I stand to be corrected.

MarkamBey (talk) 02:10, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PS The correct number of Copa Eva Duarte for F.C. Barcelona is 3, the fourth title was won when it was still not an official competition (I would advice to include that fourth title on the unofficial trophies section, see the Copa Eva Duarte article in English and Spanish for more information).

MarkamBey (talk) 02:21, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Dicussion on whether to include the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup in the honours section in the main page or not

I have come to the conclusion that we should include both. Copa Eva Duarte IS a offical trophy as it was organized and founded by the RFEF. The Inter-Cities Fairs Cup, although not being recognized by UEFA, is considered as the forerunner for the current Europa League cup. I have also just noticed that the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is acknowledged by UEFA, as witnessed by their website which lists the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup winners.

So my take on all this is to include it, but clearly state with a footnote or separate section (as in the introduction of the club in the main page and which I did) that it is regarded as the forerunner of the current Europa League but not recognized by the UEFA as it was not organized or founded by UEFA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Suitcivil133,

As I previously mentioned, I think that your solution is an objective solution to the problem, and I will try to modify the honours section accordingly if you don't do it first.

MarkamBey (talk) 02:14, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

PD Unknown editors of the international competitions page support your view, see https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_confederation_and_inter-confederation_club_competition_winners

MarkamBey (talk) 02:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again, the ICFC shuldn't be included as the competition is not recognized by anyone and is considered unofficial by UEFA. This link by UEFA clearly states that the Intercities Fair Cup is not affiliated to UEFA whatsover. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 20:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Its often a bone of contention as to whether the UEFA Cup and Fairs Cup should or shouldn't be regarded as the same competition. But to suggest that the Fairs Cup is not an honour at all is a significant step further than this. Sure, it wasn't organised by UEFA at the time, but the Fairs Cup was the second most important European competition then in existence. The way the article currently stands a distinction is made between it and the UEFA Cup, and this seems a reasonable compromise. Oldelpaso (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Oldelpaso,

While I agree with your point that being unofficial (in the eyes of UEFA) doesn't make the Fairs Cup necessarily less valuable, the fact that it was not recognized/organized by them presents us with the problem of having to subjectively decide which competitions are important/valuable and which are not, one by one, if we do include the Fairs Cup. This is, we could make an exception and include the Fairs Cup, but then why not the Latin Cup? Why not other non-UEFA, non-RFEF, non-FIFA competitions, which might be important/valuable, at least in the eyes of some? In my view, stated many times already, sticking to official competitions, defined as RFEF, UEFA, or FIFA organized solves this problem and provides the most objective way to deal with this dilemma, in compliance with Wikipedia regulations (see, for example, https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/List_of_confederation_and_inter-confederation_club_competition_winners , which uses this same "official" criteria). MarkamBey (talk) 15:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have further elaborated reference 5 on the article to make it clear that even if not an official trophy the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup is considered by FIFA as a major title, as seen on FC Barcelona's profile at FIFA.com (http://www.fifa.com/classicfootball/clubs/club=44217/).

MarkamBey (talk) 16:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

PS Given all of the above I would include the Fairs Cups in the honours section, however not in the "official" European titles section, but in a new "Other Major Honours" section.

MarkamBey (talk) 16:57, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the FC Barcelona article

I would just say thank you again for clarifying the history of the Copa Eva Duarte trophy. Although I speak Spanish I had not noticed that the Copa Eva Duarte first became a offical competition recognized and founded by the RFEF in 1947 where it also became a annual competition. So you are completely right to state that FC Barcelona's 1945 trophy is unoffical, primary sources support your view on that as well as the Spanish version of the Copa Eva Duarte Wikipedia page as well as FC Barcelona's Spanish Wikipedia page.

Sorry for my English btw, and I unfortunately don't have much time today to make the editions you put forward, although I have corrected the honours section on the main page regarding the Copa Eva Duarte trophy. But If you are not able to do it today I could easily correct the English version of the Copa Eva Duarte Wikipedia page (make it similar to the Spanish one) tomorrow and find a solution to the Inter-Cities Fairs Cup dilemma. (see the earlier discussion on this)

Que tengas un buen día! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good, thanks for your note! :)

MarkamBey (talk) 11:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

¿RFEF recongnizes Eva Duarte Cup? Ok, ¿OFFICIAL SOURCES PLEASE? RFEF SOURCES.... not other websites sources.--Sporting1905 (talk) 22:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

See the references used (PRIMARY SOURCES) in the Spanish/Catalan Wikipedia page concerning Copa Eva Duarte and the references used in the English Wikipedia article. It CLEARLY states that is was a offical trophy FOUNDED and ORGANIZED by the RFEF. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Spanish/Catalan Wikipedia arent PRIMARY SOURCES; primary sources are RFEF, LFP, UEFA and FIFA, if you said that eva duarte cup is an official competition, you must provide primary imformation.--Sporting1905 (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Sporting1905, Thanks for standing for an objective point of view, but please read our comments in full and realize that we are not providing other wikipedia articles as sources, but instead REFERRING YOU TO PRIMARY SOURCES ALREADY LISTED IN THOSE ARTICLES. Anyway, here are the primary sources provided in the Spanish wikipedia articles about the Copa Eva Duarte and the Spanish Supercopa predecessors:

http://hemeroteca.lavanguardia.com/preview/1949/10/12/pagina-14/32823386/pdf.html - In Spanish only, but if you use Google translate you will see that this October 13th, 1949 newspaper article announces the F.C. Barcelona vs Valencia "Copa Eva Duarte" match which would take place later on that same date (1st paragraph), then describes how the RFEF has organized the cup, to be played by the league and cup winners every year, and the terms under which a team can keep the cup (2nd paragraph), and then mentions that Real Madrid won the first edition of the cup as "Copa Eva Duarte" and organized by the RFEF in 1947, and that Barcelona won the second edition in 1948 (3rd paragraph).

The above is a primary reference and should be enough proof, but similar information can be found at http://hemeroteca.elmundodeportivo.es/preview/1951/11/01/pagina-3/1342536/pdf.html or http://hemeroteca.elmundodeportivo.es/preview/1951/10/31/pagina-1/629776/pdf.html, for example.

I hope that this ends the discussion. MarkamBey (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Answer to Sporting1905

How difficult is it to read the previous discussion in this article or in the Spanish football records article? As I told you there are a lot of PRIMARY sources/references used in the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia article AS WELL as this current article!

En 1947 se volvió a disputar, ya de manera oficial, bajo los auspicios de la RFEF[2] [3] [4] (visit the Spanish Wikipedia page about the Copa Eva Duarte) aunque con el nombre de Copa Eva Duarte de Perón , ya que el trofeo fue donado por la esposa del entonces presidente de la República Argentina. El Trofeo era directamente entregado a la RFEF. La competición se disputaría, bajo esa denominación, durante siete años consecutivos hasta el final de la temporada 1952-1953, a causa del fallecimiento, en 1952, de Eva Duarte de Perón. El Real Madrid fue el primer equipo en ganar esta competición,[5] siendo el FC Barcelona el último, ganando este hasta tres de las siete ediciones que se disputaron en total.

Also see MarkamBey's edit in the Real Madrid article where he wrote this:

"1) The Copa Eva Duarte WAS a official competition, as it was organized by the Royal Spanish Football Federation, a member of UEFA (see the Cup's page for references), preceding the current Spanish Super Cup (see the Cup's page for references)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, as already mentioned above in http://hemeroteca.lavanguardia.com/preview/1949/10/12/pagina-14/32823386/pdf.html - a 1949 newspaper article can be read, which announces the F.C. Barcelona vs Valencia "Copa Eva Duarte" match which would take place later on that same date (1st paragraph), then describes how the RFEF has organized the cup, to be played by the league and cup winners every year, and the terms under which a team can keep the cup (2nd paragraph), and then mentions that Real Madrid won the first edition of the cup as "Copa Eva Duarte" and organized by the RFEF in 1947, and that Barcelona won the second edition in 1948 (3rd paragraph). MarkamBey (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 109.175.241.71, 31 August 2011

Barcelona is not the most successful club in Spain. Madrid has won far more La Ligas than Barcelona so I wonder why you have written that its the most successful club in spain. Glory hunter. Barcelona are far inferior to Madrid in terms of trophies. Get over it.

109.175.241.71 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the edit request template, as you are not requesting an edit. Please don't use the template as a tool to attract attention to your discussion. Thanks, — Bility (talk) 00:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 26xbing, 6 September 2011


26xbing (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits which have caused the current state of the article (semi-protected)

I have noticed that the FC Barcelona page has been semi-protected for a week as a consequence of a edit war between me and the user, Marcospace. I fully agree with the decision but I think it is clear for all to see that he is wrong as he is deleting correct information without reason whatsoever.

I have included the duration of the loans and the full names of the clubs who have loaned the players in the "out of loan" section of the main page.

For some reason Marcospace have repeatedly deleted my edits and only written the name of the clubs (one wihtout it's full name, VfL Wolfsburg) and removed the duration of the loans, which I find completely unnecessary and somehow strange as this is (take a look at other Wikipedia articles concerning football clubs) and was the usual procedure in the FC Barcelona article before our "edit war".

I also wrote several times (as can be seen when looking at my edits and the comments that follow with them) why he keep deleting my edits but without any response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just as clarification (I do not wish to get involved in the dispute), the article is full-protected, not semi-protected. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Logan, 11 September 2011

Please remove the {{pp-semi-blp|small=yes}} template from the top of the article, as it is causing it to show up in Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates.

Logan Talk Contributions 01:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done Skier Dude (talk) 05:12, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Possible photo for usage on article

Turkish Airlines Boeing 737-800 logojet advertising its sponsorship of FC Barcelona.

I have noticed that a lot of articles on top teams have sections on the marketability of the brand, and am placing this photo here for consideration for insertion into the article if such a section should be added to the article, or whether editors decide to add it to the current article. Will leave it up for editors to decide. --Russavia Let's dialogue 10:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Small point

What the article calls a "crest" is actually a coat of arms, though it can variously be called a shield or escutcheon as well. Not very germane to the subject, but a technical inaccuracy that should nonetheless be corrected. 50.82.206.136 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Successful?

Can I aks you why you are removing information that is correct? What is there exactly to discuss regarding the trophies? There was a consensus before until you decided to interfere. This has been discussed for weeks until we found a primary source (in a Spanish newspaper) and there after came into a agreement. This agreement (that both FC Barcelona and Real Madrid have 74 official overall trophies) is backed up by both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia page about both clubs.

What is there to discuss? It is like discussing how many La Liga titles each club has won or Champions League titles which would be pointless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 16:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

I've told you at least three times, take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Most successful Spanish club". You're just peacocking and it's not to be done. Period. Simple. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Peacocking? You are the one who is changing correct information without any reason or backing whatsoever. You are also still not able to explain why you disagree (in fact it is impossible, since it is very clear for all to see how many trophies a club has won).

And yes, I have already written there but I do not expect any change. That is why I am writing here which I am allowed to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You should really read the welcome message on your talk page. It talks about the basics, one if which is sign your comments. The bot keeps reminding you. Since you can't understand that thing I doubt you'll understand this either, but I'll give it a try.
WP:PEACOCK. Read it and you should understand and the discussion is over. Don't (read or understand) and you may carry on this discussion on your own. I will not be replying here only at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Most successful Spanish club". --Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:02, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Comment the bottom line is verifiability here. If you can find multiple reliable sources that agree that Barca is "the most successful" club then you can perhaps add a statement saying "they have been called the 'most successful club' ...". Otherwise "success" is utterly, purely and 100% subjective. And as such it should not be used in the article. Stick to bare facts. Stick to cup and league wins. And after all that, stop edit warring about it or I'll lock down the article. Cheers. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not you want to reply or not is not my problem since you are not the only user here to judge what should be discussed or not. Apart from that the signature does not work for me for some reason. But this should not have any say regarding the understanding of my message.

Well my point is that both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia pages (both languages that I speek) use the same exact formulation that was used before on the English version of FC Barcelonas Wikipedia page. When it says most successful it only refers to the number of overall trophies which also was very clear from the previous sentence. I don't see any bias in such a statement. It is precise and correct. It would be a completely different matter if I and others had (BTW I am not the one who wrote the sentence I defend now) written that FC Barcelona was the most successful club in the world. The previous sentence makes it very clear that it only refers to number of titles won in Spain and Europe. How can that not be a fact?

Here was the original sentence which was reached after a consensus among the most active editor's and which had stood for months.

"FC Barcelona is the joint most successful club in Spanish football in terms of domestic and overall trophies,[125] having won 21 La Liga, 25 Copa del Rey, 10 Supercopa de España, 3 Copa Eva Duarte[5] and 2 Copa de la Liga trophies, as well as being the record holder for the latter four competitions."

How can that be labled biased or factually wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suitcivil133 (talk • contribs) 19:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

  1. Sign your comments.
  2. Take it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#"Most successful Spanish club".
  3. In short, it's peacocking. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mascherano: defender

Is it time to change Mascherano's two-letter code to "DF" rather than "MF" in the squad section? None of his thirteen appearances this season have been in midfield, and Guardiola describes him as "the best centre back we have at the moment" (here). While he may have made his name as a midfielder, to list him as a Barcelona midfielder is basically inaccurate. Thoughts? --AlasdairShaw (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Isaac Cuenca

2011– Barcelona 3 (1) can not you see? (User talk:agelshan) 21 november

No I can't. Is he on the club's senior roster? That's what I was looking at. Feel free to add him back in. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:21, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 November 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} The section on el Clasico refers to the European Champions league semi final of 2002 as being the most recent European encounter.

However the most recent European encounter was the semi final of 2011, which Barça won 3-1 on aggregate. The games were 2 of 4 matches played between the teams over the space of less than a month - once in La Liga, once in the Copa Del Rey final and 2 in the Champions League.

Ubedac (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".  Chzz  ►  07:04, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Francisco Franco financed the Camp Nou

Can someone please help me on this, so far ive see that he has financed the Camp Nou in a video but I cant seem to find any official website links to this. Thanks. RealCowboys (talk) 08:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

No he did not finance Camp Nou, the stadium was paid for by bank loans which indebted the club, after several years under heavy debt Franco signed a document that allowed FC Barcelona to sell their land on which the old stadium had stood to pay of the debt. Franco did not give a single penny to the club. In fact you can argue for that he and his facist administration in Barcelona city hall by refusing to allow the club to sell their land and thereby destroying the competitive balance insted helped Real Madrid which coinsidently found themself without any competition, hence the ridiculous one team la liga of the 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.60.11.22 (talk) 01:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Reference for this information would be ideal otherwise it's just misleading. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Clarification

As seen by the recent edits I would like to get an clarification in terms of whether FC Barcelona in fact has been the only European Club who has played continental football every season since 1955 or not?

That claim was listed on the Wikipedia page for months, if not years but without a reference until RealCowboys made a claim of it being not correct (That FC Barcelona was not the only club to do so). I personally don't know which claim is wrong or not but it would be good if we could get an clarification on this matter. But since the user RealCowboys already has an history of writing claims without any references I would like to get an reliable clarification--Suitcivil133 (talk) 16:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Find a reference of the former to restore it. Ideally, find a reference of the latter too. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I was not the one who initially made the claim nor was I the one who claimed the otherwise. If anyone should find a link it should be the person behind the claim and the person (RealCowboys) who claimed otherwise. I personally have not found information about this matter although I only made a quick search. That is also the reason why I bought this matter up for discussion.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Correction

According to both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia page FC Barcelona are in fact the only team in Europe who has played continental football every season since 1955.

Unfortunately there is no direct claim but there must be something truth about this matter since both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia claim it.

"El Fútbol Club Barcelona ostenta el récord de ser el único equipo de fútbol europeo que ha participado de forma ininterrumpida en las competiciones continentales desde su creación en 1955."

"El Barça és l'únic equip d'Europa que ha disputat sempre, des del 1955, alguna de les quatre competicions europees, l'únic club de la Lliga espanyola que ha aconseguit guanyar les tres competicions més importants el mateix any (Copa, Lliga i Lliga de Campions) la temporada 2008-2009, i el primer i únic equip de la història que ha assolit en un mateix any (2009) els 6 títols més importants (tres internacionals i tres estatals). L'equip de futbol ha guanyat 76 títols oficials, cosa que el converteix en l'equip amb més títols de l'estat espanyol.[7]"

So yet again, RealCowboys, provide us with a prove that your claim is the correct one or is yet again one of your untrue claims without any references we are witness to?--Suitcivil133 (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an accurate source so there is no truth at all in the article. If you find a link to a reliable source in any language, then that can be included. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Did you actually read what I wrote? I never said it was truth. What I said was that it is rather strange for me that both the Spanish and Catalan Wikipedia page say the same. I am still waitin for the reply of RealCowboys to provide his proof of it not being truth.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Skimmed it, yes. The fact that every other Wikipedia and a few fan sites repeat the same thing doesn't make it at all reliable. If you have a WP:RS that backs this claim you would have a case. The burden of proof that something is not a fact is not on any editor. The burden of proof that something is a fact is on all editors. Anything that does not have a reference can be challenged and in extreme cases removed immediately. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I agree completely. What I am trying to say is that it was RealCowboys who deleted the claim because he said that it was untrue. So it it his role to prove why that is since he is the one who said it. As I mentioned intially it should obviously be delelted if proven wrong but I would like to know whether it is true or not and since he was the one who claimed that it was not, it is logical to conclude that he must have a source that confirms his view. I will try and find a link in English but I guess it will be dificult if even truth.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You have it completely backward. Anyone can remove anything for any reason without providing a reference. It can be restored though. What should have happened is that a citation needed should have been added and then we could have deleted the questionable content in a few months if no reference was found. Although I find the comment to be suspect and so didn't oppose its removal. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Completely backward? In what regard? If you make an statement in real life you are supposed to back that statement up with some proof especially if you determine the opposite opinion as false. I did not object to it being deleted. Read my initial posts. What I asked for was a simple clarification not who is right or wrong. But it does annoy me when people delete statements without providing proof of it being wrong. That's what I would have done and what I thought was common sense when editing anything here but I guess not. But let's leave if for now none of us two seems to know which claim is truth so I will leave it for others to short out if possible.--Suitcivil133 (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Completely backward in the way described above. There is no need to back-up a claim when removing material. Period. One may simply removal material and indicate that it's suspicious. However, the correct process should be to mark it with a citation needed tag and then remove it after some time has passed. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
Walter Görlitz is entirely correct. As Wikipedia works on verifiability it is perfectly acceptable for unreferenced material to be removed. There is no requirement for falsehood to be proven. If something is verifiable it can stay, if not then it is perfectly legitimate for it to be removed, true or not. Ilikeeatingwaffles (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

FC Barcelona realy has played every year of european competion since 1955 but it is a bit of a stupid claim to do. For example the first time the inter cities fairs cup was contested the cup lasted for three years. So the club played only a few games per year between 1955 to 1958. And then there are other teams that have played almost all seasons, Real Madrid missing one season, Glasgow Rangers missing two seasons and Porto and Benfica missing three seasons. So although it is true, one can argue fore leaving it out of the text. A source would be FIFA since UEFA don't recognize ICFC in their european records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.196.91 (talk) 19:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

^ Could you find the source that confirm that they have indeed played in European club competitions every season since 1955? Because then it should definetely be included. It is worth noticing, as the user Suitcivil133 have pointed out, that both the Catalan and Spanish Wikipedia page also confirm this. But so far I have not found and source in English.--Drivehonour1 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FC_Barcelona/Archive_3&oldid=1080106455"